McCain, who would like us to see him as holding a consistent and principled stance on tax cuts and fiscal discipline, is engaging in the mother of all economic policy flip-flops.
If McCain's opposition to Bush's tax cuts was based on the unseemliness of letting deficits balloon for the benefit of top earners in a time of war, then his opposition should have grown stronger. Instead, it grew weaker and then collapsed.
Full Story »
"Flip Flopper," the now popular ad hominem levied at those who change their minds on a or a range of views. In reference to someone who held or voted on one view, then later on denies that they ever did so and now claim an opposing or opposite view, it may be deserved. Other than that is is a catchy & dismissive informal fallacy. I don't believe I have seen McCain actually state he never with good reason held the oppossing view (maybe he has, I don't follow him closesly bc I don't plan on voting for him), rather, I think he has admited to change his mind. And, I believe it is to be expected from someone that in some circles has admitted to not being the best at economic principles. Changing one's mind is not a bad thing, it is only in disgust when it doesn't allign with our own. More to the point. The article also carefully used words that do assist in the visualization of our impending doom. When we use words like "cost" in reference to revenue, it paints a picture like we are spending when in fact non gathered income is not a cost, it's simply just not obtained. Moreover, the article seems to lack a balanced perspective or explanans as to why such tax cuts could be beneficial. More facts like in 2006 92 million Americans paid zero income taxes would be nice to include. (Only 2% of those were in the top 20% of income earners.) In addition, that the top 20% of income earners (those in 2006 with an average household income of $95k a year) pay already 70% of all income taxes. We need business, business owners, and the like to continue to invest and sustain the coorporate structure, it supplies jobs, a stabling dollar, growth, and not to mention the ability for corp America to continue to absorb rising health care costs. I am not rich, but I also don't believe I pay my share, and I don't believe someone who earns more, owes more. Moreover, I don't feel that the article even provided us sound reason as to how giving the government additional revenue is going to affect thing we are concerned about. I was just hoping for more...a bit dissapointed.
