Lindsey Graham: McCain Economics Are A Third Bush Term

6:29 pm EST June 8th, 2008 | News | 11 Comments

I find it astonishing that John McCain thinks that we should just follow along with President Bush’s economic policies. But I guess when you’re the candidate of same-old same-old you shouldn’t expect much.

In this clip, McCain surrogate/advisor Lindsey Graham explains to us that McCain’s policies will be an “extension and enhancement” of Bush.

McCain is so out of touch he thinks we should cut taxes for megacorps like ExxonMobil while gas just crossed the $4/gal threshold.

As John McCain said: That’s not change we can believe in… my friends.

Topic: , ,

Related Posts

«
»

11 Responses to “Lindsey Graham: McCain Economics Are A Third Bush Term”

  1. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    June 8, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    McCain’s camp is also trying to argue that Obama’s more like Bush than McCain. Hopefully the American people are not that stupid.

  2. christie says:
    June 9, 2008 at 8:10 am

    The end consumer pays the taxes of any business.

    By the way, I thought speaker Pelosi had a plan to keep gasoline from getting to $4/gallon. At least that’s what she PROMISED when the Democrats took over congress 2 years ago.

  3. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    June 9, 2008 at 8:20 am

    christie: “The end consumer pays the taxes of any business.”

    So who should we tax if not corporation that are making billions in profits?

    christie: “By the way, I thought speaker Pelosi had a plan to keep gasoline from getting to $4/gallon. At least that’s what she PROMISED when the Democrats took over congress 2 years ago.”

    Two points…

    1.) It’s been less than 18 month.
    2.) The Republicans have enough people in the legislative branch, not to mention the White House, to kill anything the Democrats try to do.

    And as a bonus…

    3.) Trying to blame the Democrats is not going to work. These problems existed well before 2006 and the voters are not as stupid as you hope they are.

  4. Enlightened Liberal says:
    June 9, 2008 at 10:12 am

    “The end consumer pays the taxes of any business.”

    It’s a hack argument cooked up by Right-wing think tanks. You really should be smarter than to pass that canard to people that have brains.

    Any economics student could tell you that this statement is wrong. Sometimes the business absorbs the whole tax to stay competitive. This is true of a product with elastic demand. Sometimes the business passes on the full tax, in the case of something with infinite elasticity. Everything else the business absorbs some, the consumer assumes some. Even oil, because at some point the price of gas changes behavior and there is less demand. Since lowered profits in oil don’t affect the ability to deliver product, big oil will likely absorb a great deal of the tax.

  5. Enlightened Liberal says:
    June 9, 2008 at 10:28 am

    Should read, something with complete inelastic demand than the tax is passed on in full.

  6. christie says:
    June 9, 2008 at 11:10 am

    Enlightened,

    I pass on all of the costs (plus a mark-up) of my product to my customers. However, I do agree that there is a cost at which consumers may curb their purchaes of my product. When they do, my profit margin will be reduced. If my profit is reduced enough, I will shut my doors. I imagine Exxon/Mobil would do the same. We’re not in business to give away free stuff.

  7. Scott Erb says:
    June 9, 2008 at 11:25 am

    I think we need a reality check when it comes to the economy. The oil crisis is rippling through the economy in a way I think people haven’t yet truly appreciated. This is big. States are already making massive cuts thanks to unfunded mandates from the Feds and slower growth. Businesses won’t invest as much if taxes are too high, consumers will have less to spend. Universal health care, more investments in education, and taking care of poverty are all worthwhile goals. But to do that we have to ditch our pretension to a kind of empire, we can’t afford this unless we make massive cuts in military spending (not defense spending — we should spend enough to defend our borders). I don’t think America is ready for that. I’m impressed with Obama’s goals, but worry that the Democrats aren’t really thinking about how we’ll pay for everything. Thank Reagan for starting the borrow and spend craze in the 80s.

  8. Enlightened Liberal says:
    June 9, 2008 at 11:48 am

    Christie, you have a choice when there are increased expenses. You can eat the expenses in order to maintain (or increase) your competitive edge or you can pass them on and risk losing the business to a more efficient provider.

    In the end, it really doesn’t matter since your understanding of how tax policy affects the economy is highly flawed.

    I don’t anticipate Exxon/Mobil having any problems if their profits (i.e., revenue minus taxes) are taxed more. In the end, more taxation for Exxon means less taxation for individuals giving them more income to spend on Exxon’s products.

  9. christie says:
    June 9, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    “These problems existed well before 2006 and the voters are not as stupid as you hope they are.”

    Yep, and what party stymied every attempt to develop domestic energy resources…ding ding ding…the democrats.

  10. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    June 9, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    christie: “I pass on all of the costs (plus a mark-up) of my product to my customers. However, I do agree that there is a cost at which consumers may curb their purchaes of my product. When they do, my profit margin will be reduced. If my profit is reduced enough, I will shut my doors. I imagine Exxon/Mobil would do the same. We’re not in business to give away free stuff.”

    Exxon/Mobil is making record profits and getting billions in free money from the government. So try again.

    christie: “Yep, and what party stymied every attempt to develop domestic energy resources…ding ding ding…the democrats.”

    Got any real evidence to back that up, or are you a liar?

  11. christie says:
    June 10, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Here’s a little something for you Strowbridge:

    Chuck Schumer said, “Arabia holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term.” Therefore arms sales to that kingdom should be blocked unless it “increases its oil production by one million barrels per day,” which would cause the price of gasoline to fall “50 cents a gallon almost immediately.”

    One million barrels is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today’s senators — including Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain — have voted to keep ANWR’s estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.

    Liar…heh.