Trip Down Memory Lane: John McCain & the Bush Tax Cuts
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Archived | bipartisanship | bush tax cuts | gang of 14 | McCain | mccain-edwards | mccain-feingold | mccain-kennedy — Comments (72) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Over the past few days, many McCain supporters have regaled us with their own unique remembrances of John McCain's opposition to President Bush's tax cuts from the campaign in 2000 and afterwards, after Bush was inaugurated. According to them, McCain never used the Democrats' Tax Cuts for the Rich™ class warfare rhetoric to justify his opposition and instead opposed them because there were no attendant spending cuts to go with it.
However, Human Events has done us a favor in compiling some of John McCain's "Straight Talk" on the issue, both as a candidate for President and as a Senator on the floor of the Senate when he voted against them with that paragon of Republican stalwartness; Lincoln Chafee.
"I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big — it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans — and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need ... Governor Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks ...
I’m not giving tax cuts for the rich."
— Discussion with media, reported in 'Bush, McCain Snip Over Tax Cut Plans,' Los Angeles Times, and 'GOP Rivals Bicker on Taxes,' Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2000.
"Mr. President, the principle that guides my judgment of a tax reconciliation bill is tax relief for those who need it the most—lower- and middle-income working families. I am in favor of a tax cut, but a responsible one that provides significant tax relief for lower- and middle-income families. And I commend Sen. Grassley for moving in that direction. But I am concerned that debt will overwhelm many American households. That is why tax relief should be targeted to middle-income Americans. The more fortunate among us have less concern about debt. It is the parents struggling to make ends meet who are most in need of tax relief.
I had expressed hope that when the reconciliation bill was reported out of the Senate Finance Committee, the tax cuts outlined would provide more tax relief to working, middle-income Americans. However, I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers."
— Senate floor statement during debate over President Bush’s tax relief package, May 21, 2001.
"I am concerned that repeal of the estate tax would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country ... "
— Senate floor statement opposing HR 8, a bill to permanently eliminate the death tax, June 11, 2002.
Now, I remember the brouhaha over the tax cuts in 2001. I remember a heavily maverickitis-afflicted John McCain standing four-square against them and basking in the glow of Democratic media adulation for standing up against the tax-cutting "Far Right."
Let's not deny it - over the next six to seven years, McCain went on to deliberately stick his finger in the eye of the GOP base several times; from the Gang of 14 (which, contrary to McCainiac assertions did absolutely nothing to help Roberts or Alito get confirmed and offers no guarantees that the Democrats would hesitate in pulling the trigger on the nuclear option if a President Hillary Clinton were to nominate a Ginsburg clone to the court) to the McCain-Lieberman Global Warming bill that would have hamstrung the American economy.
As one McCain supporter after another tries to convince us, McCain's super-heroic abilities in the art of compromise and conciliation with Democrats, and regular courting of the Press Corps' approval, is supposed to be a plus, not a minus ... supposedly because "bipartisanship" attracts "moderates" and Independents.
To a certain extent this is true. I've noticed that most self-described "moderates" and Independents seem to love the concept of "bipartisanship" to the point where the content of policy (good or bad) is immaterial in so far as some threshold number of Democrats and Republicans support it. Naturally, McCain gets a lot support from this contingent of voters. Personally, like most Conservatives, I could not possibly care less whether a bad bill is the most "bipartisan" bill in the history of "bipartisanship", it's still a bad bill.
But now, we are told that we should look at McCain's votes against the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, McCain-Edwards (Patients' Bill of Rights), McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, the Gang of 14 (and its implicit support of the notion that a Republican President should only nominate Democrat pre-approved Judicial nominees) as positive examples of the type of "bipartisan" "moderate" entrancing legislation we can expect to be advocated for by a McCain White House.
Well ... color me unimpressed. A compromise suggests that Republicans got something of what they wanted while the Democrats also got something of what they wanted. This is not the case with any compromise that McCain has been a part of. The Democrats get 90% of what they're aiming for, Republicans get 0-5%, and John McCain gets a torrent of laudatory editorials and invites to the Sunday morning talk shows to have himself showered with accolades for his "bipartisanship" and "courage" against "the forces of intolerance."
Granted, John McCain's biography is nothing short of awe-inspiring, and his years in the Senate have served to provide him with the most national security and foreign policy experience of all the candidates, and I'm very inclined to believe that he would do nothing less than an admirable job on that front.
But on every other issue, we're going to choke on his unalloyed devotion to "bipartisanship" and the strange need he continues to exhibit for validation/absolution from newspaper editors. Tax cuts are out - Democrats would not approve and McCain would be too "bipartisan" to push. More restrictions on free speech and business (e.g. "Big" Pharma) are in. Illegal immigrants would only need to get here (easy enough), scrounge up $2000 (I have a bridge to sell you if you think Ted Kennedy would let it go any higher than that) and viola! they're now legal with the right to remain within the United States.
Personally, I think the chances that McCain would nominate Conservatives to the Supreme Court given his instinctual urge to compromise with Democrats (and seek applause from liberal newspaper pundits) is below that of the far more socially liberal Rudy. And, unlike Bush, who at least listened when the base rose up against the Miers nomination, McCain is more likely to read the approving words of a New York Times editorial and go on full-speed ahead.
The question one needs to ask when it comes to McCain is this; is he so far and away superior to every other candidate on national security and defense issues that we are willing to see more of policies like McCain-Feingold, chump-change Amnesty, Kyoto-lite restrictions on American businesses, Souter-like Supreme Court appointments, etc. from a Republican President in exchange?
become less conservative over time. No President has ever become more conservative while in office.
Thus, if you are frustrated with Bush, voting McCain seems like masochistic.
Other than his famous 'compassionate conservative' comment, I challenge you to find anything Bush said in 2000 or before where he adopted Democratic talking points (as McCain has with global warming) or in general tried to pass himself off as 'bipartisan' like John McCain has.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Uniter, not a divider
Change the tone of Washington
Worked with Democrats in Austin to get things done
Besides immigration, compassionate conservativism was indistinguishable from conservatism (or so we hoped).
He was supposed to veto McCain-Feingold based on Bush's 5 requirements. Instead he passed it.
He was supposed to use free market principles to implement the drug benefit plan. Besides a limited HSA portion, not much conservative policy there.
He was supposed to use free market principles in education reform. Did this bill have any conservative aspects?
He was supposed to use free market principles in education reform. Did this bill have any conservative aspects?
Yes it did. It had provisions for vouchers which were promptly stripped by Kennedy and Bush didn't bat an eye.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Thank you for providing the evidence that McCain isn't being honest about his past position on tax cuts. The lack of simultaneous spending cuts was not his reason for opposing the tax cuts. McCain clearly sided with the Democrats. Either McCain doesn't understand supply-side economics or he doesn't believe in supply-side economics.
"I voted against the Republican tax cut plan, which is an irresponsible tax cut that will further undermine the nation's struggling economy at the expense of middle-class American families."
Tax cuts undermining the economy? What? I remember the Democrats using this line, and it didn't make any more sense when McCain parrots it. He wants to renew those "economy undermining" tax cuts, why, exactly?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you don't believe me, or Senator McCain, maybe you can believe one of the guys who actually designed these tax cuts - Greg Mankiw, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers of the Bush Administration:
«
Lesson No 3: How tax relief is financed is crucial for its economic impact.
Like all of us, the government eventually has to pay its bills. In technical terms, the government faces an intertemporal budget constraint that ties the present value of government spending to the present value of tax revenue. This means that when taxes are cut, other offsetting adjustments are required to make the numbers add up.
(...)
The results are strikingly different. Instead of increasing by 0.7% in the long run, GNP now falls by 0.9%. Tax relief is good for growth, but only if the tax reductions are financed by spending restraint.
»
Read it here:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/07/growth-effects-of-tax-policy.html
You can also read this report from the Treasury Department:
«The analysis reveals that the long-run effects of these policies depend crucially on whether they are financed by lower spending or higher taxes in the future and are sensitive to assumptions on underlying parameters.»
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisrepor...
... to the Bush tax cuts was not based on any sort of concern for a lack of spending cuts but for reasons that are best described as class warfare.
It's Economics 101.
More balanced cuts would increase the the rewards from productive efforts. The effects of a tax relief for the middle-class would arguably be a better incentive for wealth creation that what we got. It's studied in that TD paper I provided. I don't have much time right now, but I'll go back to this. And McCain put a lot of emphasis in the spending caps - but you chose to cherrypick his statements.
The most important thing about this issue: the best measure to tax burden is government spending. One way or the other, sooner or later, you'll have to pay it.
Everything you've posted to this thread is parroting the Democrat position on tax cuts. Maybe you should consider supporting Obama or Hillary, because they certainly seem to share your sentiments. Even McCain isn't as far left on tax cuts as you are, since he says he supports making them permanent.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
who cares if he SOUNDS like the democrats. the fact is that he may be correct. this is a legitimate economic debate.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
I'm not about to argue with Brooks Rob II about the effect of tax cuts on the economy. If he wants to believe that tax cuts are bad for the economy, he can certainly believe as he wishes. That doesn't really put him on common ground with 95% of the Republican party, though. This is about the worst possible way to defend McCain that I could imagine.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Maybe you missed the part where he claims to support making those same tax cuts permanent today, because allowing them to expire would harm the economy.
So the tax cuts went from "undermining the economy" 4 years ago to "helping the economy" today. How's that for Kerryesque nuance?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Arguments based on short-term economic stimulus, or immediate budgetary implications, are obviously going to be different 6 years later. There's a huge difference, in economic terms, between opposing tax cuts in the face of an expanding deficit, and opposing a tax hike when the deficit is shrinking rapidly.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
Try 4 1/2 years later. He made these comments in the middle of 2003. If he was a supply sider he might have been able to guess what might happen to the deficit, but apparently he has more in common with Teddy Kennedy than Ronald Reagan on his economic views. We're supposed to elect a guy who has that myopic a view of the economy as POTUS? It is not an argument in his favor, no matter how you slice it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
That even the guy who actually designed those tax cuts - Greg Mankiw - is wrong in his assessment?
The beneficial effects of marginal tax cuts presuppose that they are paid for by spending cuts. If paid for by increasing the budget deficit, -like Bush's were- they won't have any beneficial effects. Indeed tax cuts that do not improve incentives and is paid for by borrowing will in fact have a negative effect on growth.
If you have a chance to read the Treasury Department paper, you will understand that these tax cuts were not well balanced and came to soon. And they should have been financed by waste cuts.
You can't have it both ways. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but we haven't exactly been cutting spending since those tax cuts were passed.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
McCain changed his position because he's running for president. When it was time to cut taxes to stimulate the economy, McCain voted with Teddy Kennedy and voted to keep the economy in recession. After all, those jobs are going away and they aren't coming back. Oh, but now McCain would have you believe that he's a tax cutter who cares about a strong economy.
You want McCain to oppose a fiscal policy in 2008 as he opposed it in 2000, even if the economic facts have changed.
In 2000, it looked as if cutting taxes without reducing spending would increase the deficit too much and lead to serious shortfalls.
It turned out that the tax cuts have reduced - although not eliminated - the deficit even without spending cuts.
In our current situation, when the facts no longer support as much McCain's 2000 position, you nonetheless want him to maintain his opposition.
I understand you don't like McCain, and you probably think he has changed his position on the Bush tax cuts for electoral reasons, and you are welcome to those opinions.
I don't see justification for insisting that someone refuse to learn from and adapt to changing facts, however.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
Did you miss his statements just a couple weeks ago that he was right to vote against the tax cuts and that he would do it again? Those comments completely destroy your argument here. I'd be positively thrilled if he saw the light and learned to not oppose tax cuts. If he had simply come out and said that even 9-12 months ago, he would be ranked much higher on my list. But no, he continues to maintain that the tax cuts were bad and he was right to vote against them, but they should be renewed anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
those statements don't destroy my argument
he said he was right to vote against them at that time, and that's a defensible position.
he also emphasized that he was right to vote against them b/c there were no spending cuts.
i will agree, however, that mccain has not been as clear as he should be on this subject, and he has laid himself open to the charge of trying to have it both ways.
frankly, i think he's being a little too proud.
i don't think he has to say he was wrong in 2000. but he can state clearly why he thinks the facts now justify locking in the bush tax cuts.
if for no other reason, he MUST do this if he's going to reassure some conservatives who might support him but for his former tax and immigration positions.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
he also emphasized that he was right to vote against them b/c there were no spending cuts.
The only problem is that he didn't say that then, when it mattered. He's only saying it now, when he needs Republicans to forget that nasty attack of Maverickitis that made him stand with Tom Daschle and repeat the "tax cuts for the Rich" mantra after him.
Esp. as it relates to the US tax system. After you do that, tell me why you think that taxes shouldn't be cut. (Granted, Bush's tax cuts weren't everything they should have been, but they were better than nothing.)
McCain hardly made any mention of spending caps when the tax cuts where being debated, made no mention of the fear that the tax cuts would not pay for themselves without spending cuts. This "concern" for spending cuts is just a hindsight CYA move for the Primaries.
No, what McCain did then, was deploy the Democrat's "richest X%" class warfare arguments against a broad based tax cut.
Indeed tax cuts that do not improve incentives and is paid for by borrowing will in fact have a negative effect on growth.
And what, pray tell, are the growth numbers of the American economy, averaged and annualized over the past four years since the tax cuts? Negative or positive? What has happened to the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP? Has it gone up or down?
Pick the latter options on both questions and you'd be correct. Your point that they should have been accompanied by spending cuts to make them more effective is valid. Too bad that wasn't the argument I heard from John McCain.
... that the "economics change" right about the time McCain has to start to try to appeal to Republican Primary Voters.
Very convenient, indeed.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
... because I know he'll cut the spending - his record makes me believe in that.
If he was the guy promising a Marshall Plan to Michigan, I wouldn't trust him.
I guess that new program he proposed that would send paychecks to laid off autoworkers for an indeterminate length of time is somehow going to reduce spending?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
He wasn't proposing the Marshall Plan to Michigan - he was proposing the FDR, Redux "I'll have the taxpayers make up the difference in pay between the job you lost and the job I'm going to make sure you're stuck with" Plan. Just flipping great.
Bzzzzzt. No sale, Sailor.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
to retrain those workers for new jobs, because the current ones aren't working.
I don't believe he made any statement about spending more money than we're already spending.
Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
This is about comments he made about a month ago about the Feds picking up the tab when someone who used to make $24 an hour gets a new job for $10 an hour for some period of time. He didn't say how much it would cost and he hasn't provided enough parameters to figure it out, but just looking at the proposal, you can tell it would be ridiculously expensive.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
not good
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
The auto workers in Michigan were making bank the whole time they and the UAW were driving the big three into the ground. They should have saved a little to pay for community college. They don't need another government program.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
McCain also said that letting the tax cuts expire would be tantamount to a tax increase, and he opposes tax increases.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left -- Ecclesiastes 10:2
Letting them expire would simply take us back to where we were when he was opposing the tax cuts. Once a tax cut (that he stridently opposed) has been passed, it becomes untouchable? Is this stare decisis, McCain-style?
All his reasons for opposing the tax cuts are still operational... the only difference I can see between now and then is that he is now trying to shore up his support among the base so he can win the nomination.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
by your reasoning, no anti-war democrats should ever change their opposition to the war, no matter what happens in iraq.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
What I won't take is him being on both sides at the same time. That's where he is right now.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yeah, ever since those Bush tax cuts, the deficit has gone through the roof. We can't afford them!
Oh right, the deficit has been more than cut in half since 2004. Too bad reality doesn't match your talking points.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Well, at least nobody who graduated from the Teddy Kennedy School of Economics, anyway.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Bush had followed McCain's advice and proposed spending cuts along with the tax cuts?
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
and consistently asserting that he did just makes you look like a fool.
He said he was against the tax cuts because they "gave" too much to the rich.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
... he was too busy echoing the Democrats' "Tax Cuts for The Rich™" mantra.
This insistence on rewriting history is becoming absurd.
Not only is the mayor more hawkish, cutting taxes and supply-side economics are in his DNA.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
No. If you want to support a candidate that is rather consistently getting beaten by Ron Paul, be my guest.
I'll bet you $100, straight up, that in the Florida primary Rudy at least doubles the number of votes Ron Paul gets.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Rudy Guliani will beat Ron Paul, and beat him handily. It will be quite an accomplishment.
Or did you think it was a fair comparison to compare one candidate that's not campaigning in a state with another that is?
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
They've been spot-on correct so far is this primary season: Obama will win New Hampshire; McCain will win MI, since he won in 2000; Giuliani should drop out since he's finishing last in states he's barely campaigned in.
Rudy Giuliani is about to render a lot of pundits and bloggers speechless.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
If Guliani hadn't poured *millions* into NH, only to lose badly. What we have been seeing is those same national security voters that Guliani had earlier in 2007 migrating to McCain, not the other way around. My question to you is this: if a pro-choice Rudy Guliani can't do very well in a Northeastern state with a relatively small number of evangelicals and pro-life voters, where does he expect to do well? Bailing out of NH after sinking a lot of money there was *not* the Guliani camp's original gameplan, and you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence that this was their preferred option all along.
...to do well in Florida, and then in large states on Super Tuesday, where he's still got a very good chance. It's really always come down to Florida, and if he does well there, it will carry over into Super Tuesday without any trouble. It would have helped a great deal if he had taken a good position in NH, which is why he spent so much money there, but it wasn't necessary.
OTOH, he's the only one strongly campaigning in Florida right now - everyone else is scrambling for a piece of the South Carolina pie. Which only helps Rudy's chances, because a lot of Florida voters are going to vote early, and nobody else is talking to them right now.
It's *way* too early to write him off.
W.C. Fields for President!
www.shortenurl.com/7cxfm
He cut back his staff and ad buys when it became clear that he wouldn't be able to win, and consistently tried to lower expectations, but he campaigned in Iowa and New Hampshire both enough that his showings in each state were, frankly, an embarrassment.
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
The mayor's campaign correctly assumes that a win in Florida gives him momentum into not one primary - a New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, or Florida, but twenty-plus primaries. States where only the mayor has been campaigning. If he wins Florida, he (thankfully) gets the nomination and we (thankfully) get the White House. Giuliani/Romney would not be a bad ticket at all. That's sixteen years of strong, smart, conservative leadership.
thearmchairrepublican.blogspot.com
or he thinks we do not. He says...
"I don’t think the governor’s tax cut is too big — it’s just misplaced. Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10% of Americans — and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need ... Governor Bush wants to spend the entire surplus on tax cuts. I don’t believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks ...
How exactly do you give tax breaks to the lowest 10%. These people already pay no taxes and many get earned income credits, by which they receive a bigger refund than the taxes they paid. Bush's tax cuts reduced taxes for the middle class. Most of the items included in his proposals didn't even help the rich. They were only for the middle class. If they are allowed to expire as all of the Democratic candidates trumpet they will allow to happen, I guarantee you it will be the middle class that is hurt the worst.
It's entirely possible that the top 10% saved 60% of the taxes that were cut, but that makes sense since they are paying 90% of the taxes being paid. McCain's quote above is just a Democrat talking point. It shows a liberal misunderstanding of taxes.
John McCain is either stupid regarding taxes, which I doubt, or he thinks we are. Either way, I don't want him deciding which tax bills to sign or veto. I want a president who will extend the tax cuts and who will understand why it is right to do so.
Those of you who still argue that these tax cuts without spending caps paid for themselves in the long run or had a positive effect in the long term economic growth, should be arguing with the guy who designed them or, better yet, with the Treasury Department.
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisrepor...
«If the tax relief is financed by future tax increases – that is, if the aggregate amount of tax relief is temporary – then it may result in lower output in the long run. For that reason, the Administration has emphasized permanence for the tax relief and spending restraint in its Budgets.»
Now, if you disagree with this paper, please explain why and bring some numbers to the table.
Tax cuts perform better as stimulus if coupled together with spending restraints/cuts.
But that's not what we're talking about here and you're threadjacking it away from the main point.
Which is that John McCain did not oppose Bush's tax cuts for anything having to do with there not being spending cuts to go along with them. He opposed them for the same reason Democrats opposed them using the same rhetoric; "Tax Cuts For The Rich™"
Defend that, not some straw man about whether or not Redstaters are opposed to spending cuts.
in spending cuts. We can start with the Departments of Education, Commerce, HUD. Eliminate them. Fire every one of their employees and cancel every income transfer program they currently mismanage.
In the meantime, deal with Martin's point about the reason McCain voted against the tax cuts. Or just go away.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I didn't mean to imply that I was done. :)
I would also take a real hard look at Homeland Security & the overlapping law enforcement agencies.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Have always - ALWAYS - resulted in more net tax revenue. It's the simple math of 10% of $100 is better than 15% of $50. McCain was wrong on the tax cuts & seems to be extra-reticent to admit when he's wrong.
every time this comes up?
Our old pal has ruined economics for me for the rest of my life...
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
I don't want a Republican 'bipartisan' president, I want a Republican conservative president. John McCain does not qualify.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.