Here's a transcript from a broadcast of Hardball in 2000. It was a town-hall style meeting on the "college tour." I won't add any editorial comment; let's see where this thread goes. Hardball: Thursday, October 12, 2000:: Partial Transcript UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hi. Since I've been studying politics, I've had this question that I've never fully understand. Why is it that someone like my father, who goes to school for 13 years, gets penalized in a huge tax bracket because he's a doctor? Why is that -- why does he have to pay higher taxes than everybody else, just because he makes more money? Why -- how is that fair? MATTHEWS: You mean... MCCAIN: I think your question -- questioning the fundamentals of a progressive tax system where people who make more money pay more in taxes than a flat, across-the-board percentage. I think it's to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more. We have over the years, beginning with John F. Kennedy, reduced some of those marginal tax rates to make them less onerous. But I believe that when you really look at the tax code today, the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do when you just look at the percentages. And I think middle-income Americans, working Americans, when the account and payroll taxes, sales taxes, mortgage pay -- all of the taxes that working Americans pay, I think they -- you would think that they also deserve significant relief, in my view... MATTHEWS: How many -- how many people here believe that the people who made the highest level of incomes in this country should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes? Miss, do you want to follow up? Miss, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up, do you want to follow up? Go ahead. MCCAIN: Do you want to follow up? Please... MATTHEWS: Go ahead, please, go ahead. MCCAIN: ... you were dissatisfied with Chris's comment, I could tell. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I still don't see how the -- how that's fair. Isn't the definition of slavery basically where you work and all your money goes? I'm not saying this is slavery, I'm saying that isn't the defin -- are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff, when you have -- you have some people paying 60 percent overall in a year of their money to taxes. That's their money, not the government's. How is that fair? I haven't understood it. MCCAIN: Could I point out, one of the fundamentals of a town hall meeting is, we respect the views of others, and let them speak. So, look, here's what I really believe, that when you are -- reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. But at the same time, that shouldn't be totally out of proportion. There's some countries such as Sweden where it doesn't pay anything to work more than six months a year. That's probably the extreme. But I think the debate in this country is more about tax cuts rather than anything else. And frankly, I think the first people who deserve a tax cut are working Americans with children that need to educate their children, and they're the ones that I would support tax cuts for first.
I don't think John McCain has ever changed his position on tax progressivity. The debate lies with the slope. Obama would prefer it to be steeper than McCain.
Sounds to me like what changed is the slope of McCain's honesty. He wouldn't be caught dead saying that today. barfo
I personally don't have many issues with McCain. I think it's the Republicans that will be the ones disappointed in a McCain presidency, not me. I've said from the beginning that McCain has been playing games with his political stances for a few years now in order to win the nomination from his party and secure the base in his campaign for President. Although it's unlikely he gets elected, if he does, I expect him to work with the Democratic Congress and pass legislation that will upset a lot of the ultra conservatives that are currently supporting him.
I do think many of the republican base might be unhappy with McCain if he is elected but they would be way more upset if Obama is elected. So, they have to always think it could have been worse. I think many of them would be very happy if McCain gets elected.
One thing I have noticed is that there is a severe shortage of actual McCain supporters out there. It seems to me that the whole election is based around Barack Obama. There are Obama supporters and Obama haters. Even the one strong McCain supporter on this board has become more of an Obama hater and less of a McCain supporter lately (CelticKing). Also, my answer, that you have quoted, has to do with my POV, not that of the Republicans. Sure, they will be more upset when Obama wins, but my point is that after the initial excitement, they will start to come to the realization that a McCain presidency isn't that much different than what an Obama presidency would have been.
Obama vs McCain presidency would be different very different IMO. I do agree they are closer then many people want to admit especially the Obama people.
They won't be. McCain is going to have a ton of things to address as President, and the Democratic Congress is only going to offer up solutions along the lines of Obama's proposals. He won't be able to just keep vetoing bill after bill, so he's going to have to compromise. He will be sending the bills back to Congress with specific requests, but overall the Democrats will be getting what they want.
