McCain Vows to Hold Line on Taxes

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely Republican nominee for president who is seeking to shore up support among conservatives, said today that he would not raise taxes under any circumstances.

"In fact, I could see an argument if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates, which are the second-highest in the world," McCain said on ABC's "This Week."

Even though McCain has neared locking up the GOP nomination, he still faces wariness among many fiscal conservatives because he voted twice against President Bush's tax cut proposals. Democrats have been using the tax issue, too, to take aim at McCain's reputation as a straight-talker, noting that he originally opposed the tax cuts, but later supported them, and now wants to make them permanent.

"I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his conscience to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said last week. "But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for those same tax cuts."

McCain replied that he has wanted the tax cuts to be made permanent "for a long time" but that he has also long argued that Congress needs to restrain spending.

"Spending restraint is why our base is not energized. Spending restraint is why we are having to borrow money from China, and we've got to have spending restraints," McCain said. "But to impose on the American people what essentially would be a tax increase of thousands of dollars per family in America is not something I think -- well, I'm sure would be bad for the economy of this country."

McCain was also asked about his February 2005 comment that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton "would make a good president."

"She would be a good president in the respect that I think she has integrity. I think she has all of the qualities that are necessary, but she has a very different philosophical view, the liberal Democratic view, than I have, which is conservative Republican," McCain said. "So when you say 'good,' she's a good person. But we have strong differences in our views of government. I think she is a very good person. I think that Senator Obama is a good person."

Even though the delegate math made it plain that McCain is all but sure to become the Republican nominee, he said he wasn't ready to grab that mantle yet.

"We've got a very good shot at it, and I'm optimistic. But I think the time to do that is when Governor Huckabee and the party decides that I am the nominee. He's still in the race, and he said he's going to stay in, and I respect that," McCain said, referring to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, his closest competitor.

McCain was the only presidential candidate to appear on the Sunday shows, but the Democratic campaigns sent surrogates as important primaries in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania loom large over the party's nomination process.

One of them, top Obama aide David Axelrod, was asked about a challenge from McCain to commit to accepting public financing in a general election, as Axelrod's boss had previously indicated.

Axelrod did not reject public financing on CBS's "Face the Nation," but he did not endorse it either.

"What Senator Obama said is, once the nomination is secured, we will sit down with Senator McCain as the nominee, and we will talk this through," he said. "I don't think anybody should moralize too much about this."

The Democrats also focused on whether so-called superdelegates -- party higher-ups, elected officials and others -- should vote at the Democratic convention in a way that differs from their state's choice.

"I think that's wrongheaded. To me, we have a very elaborate and very democratic process in the Democratic Party, and you're watching it from little states and caucuses to big, open primaries in Wisconsin and others," said Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, an Obama supporter, on "Fox News Sunday." "And that's the way the delegates are chosen. And I think it would be an absolute disaster for the Democratic Party for the superdelegates to undo the will of the people who have been selected in the primaries and in the caucuses and by the rules that were set out."

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Clinton supporter, said, "I think it's regretful that words like party bosses would be used here. ... To imply that somehow party bosses are going to thwart the will of the people, I think, is a distortion of the process that we have in place, that we have created as a Democratic Party. I'm a superdelegate. I think my responsibility is to vote my conscience, and I intend to do that."

(Strickland, who has been rumored as a possible Clinton vice presidential pick, later said in response to a question, "I have no intention of being vice president even if I were asked.")

McConnell Says Country Now at Greater Risk of Terrorist Attack

National intelligence director Mike McConnell said the risk of a terrorist attack against the United States increased upon the lapsing Saturday of a law expanding the surveillance powers of the government. Enemies of the United States are using "new information, new personalities, new methods of communicating" as they plan attacks, McConnell said, and the government needs more powers to monitor suspected terrorist activity.

Congress gave the government those powers in August, but only on a temporary basis. Their renewal is hung up in a dispute over whether to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that provided private information to the government.

The Bush administration argues that the guiding law, which requires a warrant from a special court to monitor communications that pass through a U.S. system, is out of date.

"Foreigners communicating in a foreign country," McConnell said on "Fox News Sunday," "more than likely the communications would pass through the United States. ... Now, a warrant means probable cause, which is a very time-consuming process to go through. So we were in that situation last summer. We passed the new act to make it -- improve our situation. That act has now expired."

McConnell discussed other topics as well:

* He said the United States had no role in last week's assassination of Hezbollah leader Imad Mugniyeh in Syria. He said the death -- and the promise of retaliation -- is "a serious threat," primarily against Israel.

* Asked if al-Qaeda cells or operatives are currently in this country, McConnell said the federal government has not located any "that is directly associated with al-Qaeda. There are other groups that we watch closely." He added, "They're looking for any means to come back into the United States."

By Post Editor |  February 17, 2008; 4:17 PM ET
Previous: Bush Calls McCain a 'True Conservative' | Next: Nader Hopes Third Presidential Run Is the Charm

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Typical. The Liberalcrats will get around to it after the next 9/11, and a few thousand more have died.

Posted by: forces | February 17, 2008 4:34 PM

I heard a former president say no new taxes, then realizing Reaganomics don't work, raised them and also cut the budget giving Bubba his economic bubble. The economy was turning around just as Bubba was elected. Sadly a great president was voted out for raising taxes. Funny how his son fell so far from the tree and is probably the worst president of our lifetimes.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 4:35 PM

Hey, a few thousand have already died since 9-11... actually, about 4,000 now, all on Bush's watch. And are we safer? Nope. Heck of a job, Bushie!

Posted by: Milo Janus | February 17, 2008 4:40 PM

So now McCain is bring out this tired old George H.W.Bush lie. How is McCain going to fund his perpetual war without raising taxes?
This moron really needs to get a brain.

Posted by: DWayne | February 17, 2008 4:41 PM

What a dumb promise.

Posted by: DH | February 17, 2008 4:44 PM

So, rather than raise taxes, he will ignore
the staggering deficits accrued under
the Bush administration and leave this
problem for future generations?

This is leadership?

Posted by: Dave Kerr | February 17, 2008 4:45 PM

OF COURSE McCain will raise taxes. He will raise the same taxes that all Republicans raise. He taxes those yet unborn to help out his millionaire buddies.

STOP THE BIRTH TAX!! Stop the Republican plan to pay for everything by passing the buck to our children.

STOP THE BIRTH TAX!!

Posted by: POed Lib | February 17, 2008 4:47 PM

I believe communications between foreign destinations can be seen without violating the illegal search part of the constitution. To intercept domestic info should require a warrant even 3 days after the fact. I would prefer a system where the FISA court does the data mining and passes the flagged data to intelligence immmediately. I don't want to trust this executive or any other with the citizens privacy.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 4:50 PM

If superdelegates are free to vote their consciences and even thwart the will of the majority in their states why should members of the electoral college not also be given this right?

Then we could just get rid of all this nonsense called public campaigning and cut to the chase.

Think of all the wasted money that would be saved and the reduction in carbon emissions if the jetaircraft were not needed?

Posted by: william | February 17, 2008 4:56 PM

So, how does anybody know how much our Government will cost to run for the next 6 years? Oh, that's right, McCain is a liar. He's lying in an attempt to get our votes, because saying "No new taxes" will cause a certain percentage of our population to vote for him. That percentage who would go through hell and high water to vote for a candidate that "won't make me pay for them (unprintable)". The same percentage whom in all likelyhood live in states and districts which receive more tax money than they generate.

Posted by: JoeMck | February 17, 2008 4:56 PM

I'm sorry,Milo. Have we had another terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11? No, we haven't. Don't speak in general platitudes, in ignorance of the most important fact of the debate.

Posted by: KS | February 17, 2008 4:56 PM

The idea that any adult in this nation would go on record pledging not to raise taxes over the next four years under any circumstances is sufficient for this voter to withhold his vote.

Posted by: william | February 17, 2008 4:58 PM

McCain won't raise taxes? How are we going to pay for his thousand years war in Iraq?

Charge it to the unborn generations he'll never meet.

Posted by: RBS | February 17, 2008 5:01 PM

Why would the terrorists attack our people here and create unity when we have been sending our people to their neighborhood for them to attack more easily with far greater costs in our blood and treasure than anything they could mount here...while creating disunity and serious other problems. The claim of no attacks on Americans since 9/11 is false. Ask the destroyed families if we have had no further attacks. We've just made it easier for them. And by tying us down in Iraq and Afghanistan they have been able to expand their area of operations with impunity.

Posted by: Valjean | February 17, 2008 5:06 PM

Instead of raising taxes you get rid of the social welfare state that the Democrats love so that the poor and disenfranscihed will keep coming back to them.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 5:07 PM

John wants Congress to "Restrain Spending". The only unrestrained spending, right now, is the unrestrained and escalating spending for OIF related expenses. Before much longer John will have signed on to George's entire economic, military, and diplomatic package. His only remnant of "change" will be the good old Republican bait and switch.

Did anyone from the Reaganite wing of the party bother to read the results of ANY election since Nov, 2006, that general election included?

John is a sacrificial victim. The Republicans can write him off and hope to retake the White House in 2012. (Had put 20012, and as far as I'm concerned, THAT is too soon.)

Posted by: ceflynline@msn.com | February 17, 2008 5:08 PM

KS, Correlation doesn't imply Causation. Just because there hasn't been another terrorist attack, it doesn't mean that W's policies have kept it from happening. I could just as easily say that there wasn't a terrorist attack during Clinton's term and that there was one during W's term and as such W is responsible.

Facts are that 4000 Americans are dead after going to Iraq on the Order of George W. Bush. Can you provide the name of one American who would have died had GWB not invaded Iraq? The name of one American who would be dead, if GWB didn't spy on us?

Posted by: JoeM | February 17, 2008 5:09 PM

I'm amazed when I hear a Republican say "spending has to be restrained". Republicans have proven that when it comes to spending they can teach their Democratic brethren a thing or two.
Whatever credibility Republicans may have had for fiscal restraint has been destroyed and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Ask a Republican how they are going to pay back all the debt they racked up during seven years of control and they blame Democrats for Republican spending and failure to fix the AMT and make Bush's tax cut permanent.
The Republican worldview seems to be having a absolute majority that's veto proof is no reason to fix the AMT, make tax cuts permanent or represent the will of the people. Republicans have simply become the "it's not our fault we spent all that money and racked up debt we have no intention of paying for party"!
The financial future of the country is dismal and all we get from McCain is more of the same. I would like him to tell me how we are supposed to pay for two wars.
We have racked up hundreds of billions of dollars for Iraq and Afghanistan and that does not include the hundreds of billions of dollars in interest this nation will pay for wars fought on credit.
Bush has used more bogus accounting techniques than Enron and Worldcom combined and all we get from McCain is more of the same.
Tell me Mr McCain how are we going to pay for Mr. Bush's bogus tax cut, two wars and rein in all that pork your party is surely to spend along with the Democrats.
I'm sorry tax cut, tax cut, tax cut is not going to fix the problems the Republican party has foisted on this nation.
Republicans can scream "Liberal" all they want, but "Conservative" simply means borrow and spend, pass the bill along and do not accept responsibility for anything. Conservative now simply means incompetent, bullying hypocrites.

Posted by: Sheilab | February 17, 2008 5:10 PM

Wow McCain sure is distinguishing himself from the rest of the ideological Republicans. Nothing like a man who thinks for himself!

Posted by: Chris Fox | February 17, 2008 5:11 PM

McCain would rather that the government of the United States be run like a broken down third-world country then tell the truth that the country has huge obligations and not enough money to pay for them. Where does he think he is going to find the money for his 100 year war. McCain is shaping up to be the weakest GOP candidate for President since his fellow Arizona Barry Goldwater.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | February 17, 2008 5:12 PM

The one who "borrows" is the one who pays it back. We, rich and poor, are not the ones ho will pay it back. Bush has taken that money from our kids and theirs without their permission. Isn't there a law that says you can't take something from another without their permission? I don't recall our kids giving their permission to pay for his preemptive war that had nothing to preempt with their money...no different than the bridge to nowhere they would have paid for. Spare us the "low taxes creates more revenue" Houdini claim.

Posted by: Valjean | February 17, 2008 5:13 PM

KS, does the term "anthrax" ring a bell?

Posted by: Mr. White | February 17, 2008 5:13 PM

Ah yes, the last resort of floundering Republicans everywhere, the "no new taxes" ploy. Pandering to the "base" of wingnut ideologues.

Goes hand in hand with the "I'll cut your taxes" ploy, which WW-2 vet Bob Dole trotted out in the 1996 campaign as he was floundering in the polls.

Dole got his butt kicked in 1996 because people saw it for what it really was, a desperation tactic.

Be nice if the GOP actually had SOME idea of what the country needs, like health care, infrastructure, borders that work, etc, but all they do is blow smoke about tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.

We've a crowd of tax cut idiots who can't think beyond their own noses, people who don't care if education (or the whole nation) goes down the drain, all they want is a few more bucks each week for six-packs and a tin of smokeless. To our shame, we actually let these functional illiterates vote. Lets hope these people are the ones on the next bridge that collapses.

Posted by: Seen it all before | February 17, 2008 5:18 PM

How can McCain invoke the unreal Republican promise of No New Taxes when he is so set on continuing the so-called war on terrorism in Iraq and expanded it beyond?
http://www.reflectivepundit.com

Posted by: Brigitte N. | February 17, 2008 5:20 PM

But let's make sure we keep the social welfare state that shovels billions, some reported some not, to the international corporations. If it goes to them it's economic stimulation (with low paid workers over seas of course). If it goes to "There but for the Grace of God go I" people who need the help, and are the ones who buy the goods so necessary to supporting those corporate retail sales, it's that big, bad, non-corporate funding social welfare.

Posted by: Valjean | February 17, 2008 5:20 PM

Here we go again. No new taxes. Republicans are obsessed with taxes and national security. It's the backbone of the party. McCain will never set foot inside the White House as president.

He should finish his term in the Senate and return to Arizona to live in peace for the remaining days of his life.

Posted by: Rob | February 17, 2008 5:21 PM

How sad...a man trying to establish that he has experience and wisdom is making such an impossible promise. "No New Taxes"? That's political suicide ultimately...a cheap short-term vote-getting tactic.

How on earth can any candidate promise no new taxes when we face a national debt that has doubled over the last 8 years?

Make no mistake...if you are "upper middle class" or higher, your taxes are going up.

Posted by: Tina | February 17, 2008 5:26 PM

If McCain manages to stumble his way in to the white house, he will most certainly raise taxes. Unlike daddy bush, johnny will blame his inability to recall his no new tax pledge on his late onset alzheimers, which at his age, is more believable than anything else he's sputtered. What a steller nominee to carry on the incompetence bush 2.

Posted by: pj4521 | February 17, 2008 5:28 PM

A McCain administration would be as irresponsible as the current administration. He wants to continue a useless war on borrowed money and pass the cost to our grandchildren and their children. Our economy will continue to slide as will the value of the dollar, and we will be worse off after four or eight years of McCain than we are now.

Posted by: Ed Schwab | February 17, 2008 5:35 PM

WHERE HAVE WE HEARD THAT BEFORE?????

McCain is proving himself more and more a clone of the Bush's.
Thats definetly something we don't need another Bush in the Oval office for 4 yrs

Posted by: Mike | February 17, 2008 5:35 PM

"No New Taxes"

Read my lips: No Vote for McCain.

What is this guy smoking? America is on the path to bankruptcy and this guy is alright with that concept?

The Plutocrats just pulled off the biggest heist in history by draining the budget surplus and adding trillions to the national debt, but enough is enough. They need to give it back.

Posted by: John | February 17, 2008 6:00 PM

Senator Straighttalk has gradually turned into Senator McPander ever since this campaign started. I hardly recognize him anymore. A shame.

Posted by: Mark | February 17, 2008 6:01 PM

I would prefer he say "No new wars". But were talking encore Bush here.

Posted by: George | February 17, 2008 6:08 PM

He will however find it prudent and necessary to reinstate several old taxes.

Posted by: richard schumacher | February 17, 2008 6:10 PM

Obama is trying to make out McCain as a flip flopper because he originally was against tax cuts, supports the cuts now and indicates if elected would hold the line and even lower taxes if necessary. A true leader can change his mind as circumstances dictate and thats exactly what McCain has done.

I believe that with Obamas oratory strengths he will surely upstage McCain in a one on one debate. Let us not forget that John Kerry was also very articulate compared to Bush's plain talk style.

There reaches a point in time where substance overrides rehtoric and I believe, assuming that McCain is the candidate, he will over shadow Obama with facts, details and real substance on the issues at hand.

Obama is very intelligent and an excellent politician but PREACHING HOPE AND CHANGE WILL ONLY GET YOU SO FAR. Lets HOPE we don't have another terrorist attack. Lets HOPE we don't have a recession. Lets HOPE everyone will be able to afford health care. Lets HOPE that the sky isn't falling (a little humor).

In my humble opinion, I believe Obamas speeches are more suited as a sunday morning sermon rather than a Presidential candidate with real answers to the tough issues we face now and surely will face in the coming future. In short he appeals to the politically naive. If its going to be a Democrat, as much as I hate to say it, I'll take Clinton over Obama any day of the week even with the baggage she carries. At least I know where she's been and probably where she's going and times were really not that bad when Bill was in office and I'm sure he will be in the mix. I believe that Obama is an unknown and untested commodity and would not suit the times we are living in.

Posted by: ziggy1 | February 17, 2008 6:10 PM

Mr. White. It's interesting that the "anthrax" event has never been solved and is essentially on the unsolved mysteries shelf. But, it sure did expand the fear level to help initiate a preemptive war that had nothing to preempt.

Posted by: Valjean | February 17, 2008 6:13 PM

John McCain is a no-mind when it comes to economic policies. McCain is dumber than a door-nail. Three promises from idiot McCain: 1. more wars; 2. jobs gone forever in America, and 3. no new taxes.....McCain will also institute the draft if ever elected to pay for more wars plus McCain will continue the surveillance state and spying on your sorry asses if this wingnut and his war crazies from the neocon school of destroying America are ever back in the White House after the Bush-Cheney disaster. The economy already in the tank after eight years of right-wing GOP rule will be totally gone with McCain as president. With a McCain presidency, one better hope there would be an America still here after the disaster he'd cause with the economy and more wars. McCain is scarier than even George W. Bush. If you liked Bush's wars then you will just love McCain's wars as dictated by the likes of Joe Lieberman and the neocon cabal.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 6:14 PM

John McCain is a no-mind when it comes to economic policies. McCain is dumber than a door-nail. Three promises from idiot McCain: 1. more wars; 2. jobs gone forever in America, and 3. no new taxes.....McCain will also institute the draft if ever elected to pay for more wars plus McCain will continue the surveillance state and spying on your sorry asses if this wingnut and his war crazies from the neocon school of destroying America are ever back in the White House after the Bush-Cheney disaster. The economy already in the tank after eight years of right-wing GOP rule will be totally gone with McCain as president. With a McCain presidency, one better hope there would be an America still here after the disaster he'd cause with the economy and more wars. McCain is scarier than even George W. Bush. If you liked Bush's wars then you will just love McCain's wars as dictated by the likes of Joe Lieberman and the neocon cabal.

Posted by: Porky | February 17, 2008 6:17 PM

No new taxes.

Just new wars.

But don't worry. Everything will be fine for those who work in the "defense" business.

Yes, the Lockheed lobbyist, the Grumman engineer, the Du Pont explosives guy, can be sure their grandchildren's college fund is taken care of ... because GW Bush and John McCain secured it with a Chinese loan using YOUR grandchildren's college fund as collateral.

PS your family gets to pay the interest too.

Posted by: Kevrobb | February 17, 2008 6:20 PM

Tax-happy Democrats are like the drunken clowns in DUMBO!

HIGHER! HIGHER! HIGHER STILL!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:21 PM

Tax-happy New York Democrats want to impose a taxes on CRACK and POT!

It's called the CRACKPOT TAX!

Isn't New York Hillary's state? Yep, for now it is...the Clintons move a lot...

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:24 PM

No new taxes? McCain is simply taxing the unborn. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch ... or a cheap war.

Posted by: OD | February 17, 2008 6:24 PM

People who don't understand that taxes are the expenses that go along with profits, neither understand business nor life. And people like this shouldn't be left to attend to things without adult supervision.

They could hurt themselves.. and the rest of us.

Thanks much. Professional electrical engineer in private practice

Posted by: HLB Engineering | February 17, 2008 6:24 PM

What he's really saying is: "I plan to give my supporters a free ride, and pass all these costs on to Americans who are too young to vote against me."

Posted by: OD | February 17, 2008 6:26 PM

Will Democrats ever propose an AIDS death tax?

Now that would truly be A PROGRESSIVE SIN TAX!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:26 PM

Will Democrats ever propose an abortion tax?

I doubt it. Democrats want to tax pro-life people to pay for nontaxpayers' abortions.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:30 PM

I'm not the smartest person in the world nor do I have a degree in economics but the ignorance on economic issues by the masses is overwhelming. All I hear is that the rich and large corporations benefit more in tax cuts than the average or more disadvantaged of the American population.

How do people think that jobs are created and growth in the economic sector occurs? By providing incentives for those that have the power to invest the economy grows and new workers and revenue is added to the tax rolls thus generating tax revenue and adding to The U.S. Treasury. How many individuals in the poverty area who basically don't pay taxes will help the American economy by investing if taxes are only lowered for the poor? Economics 101 as stated by an average American.

Posted by: Ziggy1 | February 17, 2008 6:34 PM

No thanks to the Democrat Senate, I will get my tax money back in May, because the Democrat pigs backed away from the trough!

I had about written off getting my tax money back, because I thought those Senate Democrats would queer the deal with so many welfare add-ons that our dear President would have to veto it.

Saved by the Democrats' cowardice!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:34 PM

When the Hanoi Hilton thugs tried to trade an early release for John McCain in return for anti-American propaganda, McCain told 'em NO WAY. It cost McCain five years imprisonment, but he stuck to the honorable American way.

When John McCain says NO NEW TAXES, the tax-happy Democrats know he means it.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:39 PM

What do TAX-HAPPY DEMOCRATS fear more than another September 11?

NO NEW TAXES! NO NEW TAXES! NO NEW TAXES!

Now that grabs their attention!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:41 PM

I would rather hear, "No illegal immigrants." But we know JM has a thing for illegals!

Posted by: Extraordinary Rendition | February 17, 2008 6:43 PM

Oh PLEASE...Maybe all Presidental candidates and congressmeen should take some Economics and Accounting classes!!! Or better yet a class in how to balance a checkbook...

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 6:44 PM

When John McCain says NO NEW TAXES, tax-happy Democrats are like heroin addicts who hear COLD TURKEY, COLD TURKEY COLD TURKEY, and they immediate begin to have withdrawal symptoms!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:44 PM

Why does this remind me of when the first Bush said "Read my lips. No new taxes." 20 years ago?

Posted by: Anonymous | February 17, 2008 6:46 PM

Mr McCain is a sorry nominee if there ever was one. The issue isnt taxes McCain, its whether the American people are going to bear the cost of their dual Empire and Welfare state obligations. Why doesn't he just propose that the government's obligations be paid for through the hot air of his straight talk.

Posted by: Paul Nolan | February 17, 2008 6:46 PM

Tax-happy Democrats will raise your taxes!

GUARAN-DAMN-TEED!

HIGHER! HIGHER! HIGHER THAN YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING, YOU CAPITALIST WAGE-EARNER!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:48 PM

Ziggy1. Poor people pay no taxes? Not so. They pay taxes, federal to local, every time they pay their rent or purchase something, goods or services. The taxes are built into the price they pay. And I'll wager the taxes they pay represent a far greater percent of their total income than those not poor with all their tax loopholes. The sellers are the conduit between the purchaser and the tax collector. It's providing a good product or service that produces the revenue for the company that then increases their product that leads to increasing employees that increase their profit, and tax revenues, etc. Not tax incentives that are only self-sustaining if the incentives continue without end. Economics 201 might help.

Posted by: Valjean | February 17, 2008 6:50 PM

Why do tax-happy Democrats and national security defeatists always vilify American POWs and the American armed forces?

What is the tic behind their compulsion?

What makes these Democrats so small, so mean, so cowardly?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:52 PM

Why are republicans so obsessed with lower taxes? I don't get it. I'm not sure, but I'd bet that the rural Republican strongholds are the districts and states that get more tax money than they pay. In VA, the tax revenue from NoVA, is easily more than the revenue from the rest of the state. And I'd be willing to bet than even though NoVA gets most of the tax dollars, the rest of the state gets a better return on their tax dollars. But people still believe the "welfare queens" mantra? Really? I don't get it. The Government costs money. Roads cost money, schools cost money.

Posted by: Why So Obsessed | February 17, 2008 6:55 PM

So, why won't tax-happy Democrats just join John McCain in bipartisan opposition to NEW TAXES?

Is it because NO NEW TAXES means NO NEW GOVERNMENT HOG TROUGHS?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:56 PM

Why So Obsessed wrote:

Why are republicans so obsessed with lower taxes? I don't get it.

DaTourist replied:

Do you pay any taxes? Do you want to pay more taxes?

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 6:59 PM

NO NEW TAXES. Bush got into office on that same pledge and then turned around and had to raise taxes. That is one reason why he lost to Bill Clinton in '92.

Posted by: Absolute_0-K | February 17, 2008 7:01 PM

Why So Obsessed wrote:

In VA, the tax revenue from NoVA, is easily more than the revenue from the rest of the state. And I'd be willing to bet than even though NoVA gets most of the tax dollars, the rest of the state gets a better return on their tax dollars. But people still believe the "welfare queens" mantra? Really? I don't get it. The Government costs money. Roads cost money, schools cost money.

DaTourist replied:

Yes, Virginia has noticed Senator Saslow's bill to add a penny a year to a gallon of gas for five consecutive years. We believe that Senator Saslow and the tax-happy Democrats never met a tax they didn't like, have no concern that the average Virginian already pays $700.00 a year in gasoline taxes.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 7:04 PM

Tax-happy Democrats will not only raise your taxes and sell us out to the terrorists, tax-happy Democrats will feel HIGHER AND NOBLER about doing it.

Democrats are PROUD to raise your taxes. Democrats expect you to pony up and shut up.

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 7:08 PM

I think that I shall never see a tax-happy Democrat who's proud of the land of the free!

A tax-happy Democrat's as suspect as a vampire at a blood bank!

Posted by: DaTourist | February 17, 2008 7:11 PM

Someone asked "Why are Republicans so obsessed with lower taxes"?

Mainly, because they are selfish pigs, to put it bluntly. Sort of like Leona Helmsley and her belief that "only little people pay taxes."

In any event, around the time of Reagan, some smart Republican economists managed to bamboozle people into believing that tax cuts were the road to prosperity. That belief, coupled with a belief that the resulting huge federal deficit would eventually kill off the social programs, left us where we are today: a nation on the verge of bankruptcy unable to pay its bills, a disappearing middle class facing runaway inflation, and with a huge transfer of wealth to the billionaires, most of whom could care less about America.

And just think. McCain wants more of the same.

He won't get my vote. Not in a million years.

Posted by: Johnny | February 17, 2008 7:14 PM

"Read my lips...NO NEW TAXES"

hahahaha

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 17, 2008 7:18 PM

What programs does DaTourist feel are warranted beyond the military and which should be eliminated. You never lower taxes. You reduce or eliminate the programs they fund. Spare us the "Welfare Queens" meaningless mantra. What federal programs would you reduce or eliminate and why? I support the military. and national security. I'm a vet. But I don't support putting them in front of the arms of others without cause and I don't consider Bush's preemptive war that had nothing to preempt worth putting them in danger. All we've done in Iraq is create a first class training ground for them to improve and spread their operations, worldwide where they were more contained before.

Posted by: Valjean | February 17, 2008 7:19 PM

Apparently, McCain is letting us know that he is stupid. What will he do if circumstances require increased taxes?

I have no time for politicians who want to buy their office with rigid doctrinaire policies that do not work.

This guy is on a downhill slope.

Posted by: Robert James | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM

Johnny:

McCain wants WORSE.

As Bush's last "budget" shows, Republican tax cuts for the rich have created a structural deficit of at least $400 billion. And that's with limited and declining spending on infrastructure, education, research etc.

Moreover, Social Security will start running an operating deficit in 2017. The government will no longer be able to fund these deficits with the SS surplus (now substantial -- 1.5% of GDP or more) and will be faced with the obligation of repaying the huge debt held by the SS trus fund as result of borrowing from it since 1986 to fund the Reagan-Bush-McCain deficits. There is also the trillions in US bonds peddled to foreigners to finance the Reagan-Bush-McCain tax cuts for the rich over the past 28 years.

McCain does not and cannot outline how he will keep this party going. He talks about "spending cuts." Conservative "yahoos" think this can be accomplished by eliminating "liberal" welfare programs which were done away with back in 1996 and, in any event, were DWARFED by the Bush McCain deficits.

McCain would have to cut all discretionary spending, significantly shrink the military (while conducting a 100 year War in Iraq), and ultimately slash Social Security benefits by half or more. Indeed, the rest of the world will force us to do so. No one has infinite credit, including the US, as the declining dollar is showing. The notion that the Chinese will lend the US trillions every year to pay SS benefits to boomers and fund our military machine is ludicrous.

In short, McCain is promising to bankrupt the United States -- to drown it in a bathtub. All in pursuit of the all-too- quixotic dream of a deranged old man to hold the nuclear button in his palsied hands.

McCain's election would result in a massive sell off of US debt. Indeed, expect to the US to lose its "AAA" credit rating if McCain is nominated. Anyone with treasury securities should sell them now. Use some of the proceeds to buy the guns you will need to protect the rest.

Posted by: mnjam | February 17, 2008 7:25 PM

Give me a break--McCain is totally committed to continue the Iraq war to its bitter end and go to other wars allegedly to fight terrorism. At the same time, he does not want to increase taxes? If this is what he really means he will have to dismantle the little social security net the riches country in the world established in the past.
McCain is another--albeit older George W. Bush and then some. He seems set to lead us into more wars. That's not what we need.
http://www.reflectivepundit.com

Posted by: Brigitte N. | February 17, 2008 7:31 PM

Parroting Bush 41, Magoo's not going to raise taxes? Like his mentor, apparently he's forgotten about a Democratic-controlled institution called "Congress." He even may be weaker than Obama and Hillary on economics. A four-time Republican governor of a Democratic-legislature state, Huckleberry probably knows what it's all about. And how!

Posted by: Bohdan Balzic | February 17, 2008 7:31 PM

At least GHWB was president when he said no new taxes.

Somewhat presumptuous, Mr. McCain?

Posted by: Michael1945 | February 17, 2008 7:35 PM

I concur with John McCain: NO NEW TAXES, MAKE THE BUSH TAX CUTS PERMANENT, CUT WASTEFUL SPENDING AND GET RID OF $$$$$ EARMARKS. There is plenty of money if it is spent wisely.

Posted by: ArmyVet | February 17, 2008 7:37 PM

We have a debt of $9,100,000,000,000! How is this going to get paid? We have to rebuild our army and marine corps. We have to rebuild infrastructure. We have to get energy independence. We have to reform health care. Where is the money coming from? Oh-I get it -- It will be manna from heaven!! John McCain get REAL!

Posted by: eskieville | February 17, 2008 7:42 PM

No new taxes: seems to me that GHW Bush still has the scars from where that promise bit him in the but. Big talk from someone who will never have to pay. McCain is 71 and will be dead before the country crumbles.

Posted by: Bushless in Seattle | February 17, 2008 7:58 PM

To the right wingnuts on this post daming democrats as anxious to raise taxes and who demonize democrats for social programs, i ask this question, how much mortgage interest do you whack off your taxable income? How many deductions do you claim for breeding? How much do you deduct for state and local taxes? If the answer to any or all of these questions is more than a dollar, welcome to government sponsored welfare. Its only a handout if you dont get it.

Posted by: pj4521 | February 17, 2008 7:58 PM

I just love it comments by morons like "forces". It wasn't "liberalcrats" that missed the 9/11 warnings, it was the imbecile in the White House and his pathetic excuse for a National Security Adviser.

"Forces" affection for this tool is an example of like attracting like.

As for McCain --he believes in a "right to life" for any tax cut ever thought of, but wants to continue a war indefinitely.

You see, he really doesn't grasp the concepts of income and expenditure. Probably his mommy still gives him an allowance....

Posted by: tc125231 | February 17, 2008 8:09 PM

I don't like taxes. Nobody likes taxes.

I dislike debt even more. We now have a $9 trillion debt. $8 trillion of it has been accrued during GOP administrations (Reagan and the Bushes).

Anyone think the GOPpers have a CLUE about balancing a budget ?

-- stan

Posted by: Stanley Krute | February 17, 2008 8:10 PM

what a pander. Every president thinks he'll get a 2nd term. So why box yourself in for 8 years? McCain doesn't know what the situation will be 8 years from now. For example, if he and the other hawks actually start a shooting war w/ Iran, we certainly won't be able to responsibly fund that through more deficit spending.

Posted by: ugh | February 17, 2008 8:15 PM

How's McCain going to pay for his hundred-year Iraq war?

Posted by: Tom Yates | February 17, 2008 8:25 PM

Aack....aack...phhhhht!

Posted by: BilltheCat | February 17, 2008 8:26 PM

You don't like taxes? OK. Which programs that benefit you do you insist be reduced or eliminated? Or does that dislike only apply programs that benefit others? The only way to reduce taxes is to reduce programs. Your choices?

Posted by: Valjean | February 17, 2008 8:29 PM

Yes John, I can read your lips, and my eyes and ears hurt. Really, how do you expect to pay for your 100 year war with Iraq. And John, I am already using my credit card, boasting 30% loan shark rates to pay my taxes so your rich friends don'thave to pay theirs. What about the staggering infrastructural repair and operating costs our communities incur? We had to close our elementary school, move the kids into empty rooms at the highschool, combine classes, layoff teachers and counselors and cancel programs because we can't afford to heat the buildings. How on earth are you going to keep your promise of no new taxes and keep America from becoming a second rate nation?

Posted by: geopoet | February 17, 2008 8:44 PM

DaTourist replied:

Yes, Virginia has noticed Senator Saslow's bill to add a penny a year to a gallon of gas for five consecutive years. We believe that Senator Saslow and the tax-happy Democrats never met a tax they didn't like, have no concern that the average Virginian already pays $700.00 a year in gasoline taxes.

Yeah, $700.00 a year in Gas Tax...so what? what does $700.00 a year have to do with anything? Oh...it's too much. You loath $700.00 per year in gas tax, but you apparently have no problem paying over a dollar per gallon pure profit to the oil companies. By your remarks, it would seem that you support Bush, even though it was his war which caused oil prices to spike. Is all that you have "Tax-Happy Democrats"? Democrats use taxes to pay for government services and to help solve the citizens problems. Republicans cut taxes to fool people like you into voting for them, while simultaneously putting tax money into the richst 1%'s pockets, all at the expense of bankrupting America's future. It's amazing, as a personal citizen if you spend more than you have you go broke, your credit is shot, you lose your home, you lose your car. It's called being fiscally irresponsible. As a Republican, if you do the same you get cheered, and called fiscally conservative.

Posted by: Tax-Happy | February 17, 2008 8:44 PM

It's so very easy to promise no taxes while in office that it borders on a lie just to say it. The full brunt of Bush's presidency hasn't fully materialized yet. When it does the money will have to come from somewhere. Guess where. If McCain bets the office on it, saying he will resign when and if taxes are created, I'll listen. Until then,no thanks.

Posted by: erkola | February 17, 2008 8:49 PM

Are you he didn't say "No new Texas"? I think he is in total agreement with Gauleiter Delay's re-districting.

Posted by: Gatormouth | February 17, 2008 8:53 PM

McCain is the same fascist that we have had to deal with for 7 years

Posted by: Paul | February 17, 2008 8:57 PM

So, the esteemed Senator McCain thinks he can conduct our undeclared war for another 100 years, reduce or at hold the line on taxes, stimulate the economy, and not bankrupt the treasury, all at the same time. Senator, I have bad news for you and worse news for you. The bad news is that you're blowing or perhaps inhaling the same smoke as Shrub. The worse news is that Obama will send you packing and it won't even be close. Fortunately, that's good news for the country!

Posted by: markomd | February 17, 2008 9:06 PM

Republicans with the immature and immoral desire to finance their wealth on the future of our children and grandchildren, need to realize that they are the ones that are causing the economic problems that we have now and that they will only get worse for future generations. No one likes to pay taxes, but it is a much more mature and moral stand to say that 'I will pay my own bills'. I am all for electing politicians that will cut government spending as much as possible, but Republican have proven that they are not any more capable, in fact much worse, at controlling spending.

When the only two choices are between 'tax and spend' and 'spend and spend', then I will with a clear conscience look at my two sons and say "Tax me. I will pay for my own bills".

Why do you think that the dollar is decreasing in value almost daily. It is because our debt is so high. Supply-side economics has never worked and to continue with this deficit spending is morally despicable. I honestly do not know how supply-siders can look at their kids and not feel overwhelming guilt.

Posted by: jbfromBigD | February 17, 2008 9:10 PM

while anyone can claim no new taxes, money has to come from somewhere. there was a statement made about lowering coperate taxes... why? that is where the largest amount of loop holes exist, why would anyone want to help them out? i agree that the tax system needs revamped, but so do the way that programs are financially fed.

Posted by: bighorn | February 17, 2008 9:15 PM

Well, tomorrow Sen. McCain will get the endorsement of Pres. George HW Bush aka "REad my Lips...NO NEW TAXES" well until Bob Dole told him to go for it. Reasons why Bush was NOT re-elected and Dole was NOT ELECTED!!! You all might have a great education but you don't have any common sense!!

I am voting for Gov. Mike Huckabee in Ohio's March 4th primary and my family will vote in TX the same day for him!!! He can still get the nomination....Lincoln got it on the 4th ballot at the Convention and it took Garfield the 36th ballot to win!!!

GO MIKE GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Fair and Balanced | February 17, 2008 9:21 PM

Just remember two things: (1) when Reagan left office the country had the biggest deficit in its history, and (2) Bush 41 said no new taxes and then had to increase them.

Posted by: Charles Swanson | February 17, 2008 9:24 PM

What a dumb thing to say. Listen up, Johnny Boy. The way YOUR PARTY wrote the law in 2001, all tax cuts will expire in 2011. That's the way its gonna be, no Congressional action needed. How bout a little straight talk, for example, how are we going to pay for another century of war?

Posted by: Chris W. | February 17, 2008 9:33 PM

If CORPORATE taxes were ENDED, then investment would be done on the basis of free market demands rather than government controls. You cannot take earnings from those without subjecting someone with income taxes. When corporations are taxed, workers and investors are double taxed... first on what the corporation pays by having less profit or wages and then by paying on their income.

The Jeffersonian view is that liberty which is limited is lost. For once, dismiss the Marxist ideology that the means of production belongs to the government. This is more than envy of the rich.... it is control of the means of production.

Posted by: omarkhyam1951 | February 17, 2008 9:35 PM

'Typical. The Liberalcrats will get around to it after the next 9/11, and a few thousand more have died.'

--------------------------
Don't you wish you could say, "We haven't been attacked since 1/20/01?"

Posted by: mrots | February 17, 2008 9:37 PM

"He eventually spent five and a half years in various prison camps, three and a half of those in solitary confinement, and was repeatedly beaten and tortured before he was finally released..."

No one wants to ask if there are any psychological problems that may impair McCain's ability to manage a nuclear arsenal. Just like no one wanted to ask about Bush blowing up frogs.

Maybe this time we should ask.

Direct Democracy

Posted by: Marc | February 17, 2008 10:37 PM

I'd rather he said "no new wars."

Posted by: Sara B. | February 17, 2008 10:40 PM

Economy 101 exam for Ziggyf

Jan 21, 2001 - Inauguration of George Bush.
Jan 22, 2001 - S&P 500 opens at 1343
Feb 15, 2008 - S&P 500 closes at 1350.

After 7 years of George W. Bush and his tax cuts the S&P 500 is up a whopping 7 pts.

What is the % gain of the S&P after 7 years?

Posted by: Jim | February 17, 2008 10:54 PM

After eight years of watching our trade deficit soar out of control, after watching our national debt go beyond bankrupting the next 3 generations, watching a trillion dollars spent on death, destruction all based on a lies or a pair of delusional psychotic terrorists living in what is no longer a white house, I wouldn't vote Republican if GOD was running as one for the presidency.

Time to get a decent human being who actually cares about their OWN country and their OWN LEGAL citizens into office and John McCain isn' it.

Posted by: Jesus | February 17, 2008 10:54 PM

"Governor Bush has 38 percent of his tax cut go to the wealthiest one percent of Americans--pay down the debt, Social Security and Medicare. If we're going to save Social Security, we've got to take a bunch of the non-Social Security surplus, pump it into the Social Security system, because we all know that it's going broke.."
- McCain 2000 S. Carolina debate

hmm... Strikes me as unpatriotic to not sacrifice and pay for the "central war on terror" If we had a real war and a real president, war bonds could be sold instead of borrowing from other nations. This is the worst administration in my life time.

Posted by: Mike R | February 17, 2008 11:14 PM

I'm a McCain fan and am actually somewhat disappointed at McCain's "no new taxes" pledge. First, an emergency might arise that requires new sources of revenue - and it is wrong-headed of the presidential candidate to forswear any tax increase. Second, it makes him sound like a GOP-bot, instead of his usual independent-minded (although conservative) self.

Posted by: Joe Red | February 17, 2008 11:39 PM

McCain: The new improved Romney flip flopper. (Against the tax cuts before he was for them.)

Posted by: Scott in PacNW | February 18, 2008 1:16 AM

Earmarks don't have to be hidden. Bush earmarks hundreds of billions of dollars every year for his preemptive war that had nothing to preempt...the war to nowhere. The earmark champion insisting "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Posted by: Valjean | February 18, 2008 1:28 AM

** Man files Federal Lawsuit against Obama regarding GAY sexual act and drug use claims **

A man named Larry Sinclair posted a video to YouTube claiming to have used cocaine and engaged in a gay sexual act with Obama when Obama was a state legislator in 1999.

In the video, Sinclair claims he and Obama met on two separate occasions, that Obama used crack cocaine and that Sinclair performed an oral sexual act on Obama both evenings.

Now Obama and company are quickly trying to quiet this man, but Sinclair has filed a federal lawsuit. Sinclair filed suit against Obama and his campaign guru David Axelrod and DNC chair Howard Dean in Minnesota district court for allegedly attempting to abridge Sinclair's right to free speech, and for waging an intimidation campaign against him.

check out the video on youtube for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

This has also been covered by The Smoking Gun but no one else.

America wants to know: where's the media coverage on this???? We deserve to hear the truth!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626 is the latest website covering the story.

Posted by: bar123 | February 18, 2008 2:11 AM

The Cult of Her Own Personality

To my fellow Democratic Party American's; we have a dark specter crossing the landscape of our Party. Divisive primary politics aside, we have a radical element among our membership. This element is becoming more evident with each and every loss that they rack up, in that they are pulling apart of our Party. This element is showing that the pulling apart, and possible fracturing of our great Party, for what seems to be nothing more then feelings of self-entitlement toward the nomination, is a justifiable cost for their goals and aspirations.

"Senator Obama's words are contradicted by deeds. He said he would -- he pledged to take public financing as now Senator McCain has pledged. He has just reversed that pledge.
--Hillary Clinton surrogate Lanny Davis, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 17. 2008.

Again, I feel it necessary that we examine the true benefit of tying the hands of a possible Republican challenger, in this case Sen. Obama, when it comes to financing a general presidential campaign. Is it a responsible move for a Party member to actively fight against another possible presidential candidate in such a way?

Is it wise for the Party to allow ourselves to enter into a most important election with one arm tied behind our backs? Of course it is not a smart political move, yet this dangerous element in our Party feels it is fair game to attack a fellow Party member on such a matter. And, in a sense, help the opposition's presidential candidate's campaign.

By rejecting public funds, which no major party candidate has done for a general election since public funding for elections was instituted in the 1970's, Sen. Obama will be putting himself at an obvious disadvantage. Not just because Sen. Obama would have to return more money then McCain. Sen. Obama has raised $6.1 million toward the general campaign, compared to the $2.2 million that McCain has raised, but his grassroots fundraising machine is massive and not nearly close to being tapped out. This would be not just poor politics on the part of Sen. Obama, but it would be irresponsible to the Party to do such a thing.

The Democratic Party has a wonderful advantage against the Republican nomination this election year cycle when it comes to funding. A tool, which if not utilized, would be a politically reckless action on the part of a presidential Party candidate.

What we are facing with this dangerous Party element, is a high ranking member of the Party that is willing, and desirous, that we concede such an advantage for what? Is it for a possible underlying feeling of presidential self-entitlement? Is it a campaign's last ditch effort to win? A do or die burn fest? Whatever the reasoning behind such a destructive move on the part of Sen. Clinton, it is nonetheless, a very dangerous ploy for such little possible gain.

Is this the kind of politics that we need in the party, let alone in America? The idea which seems to resonate with the American populace is that we need to move away from the typical day to day operations of our political leaders. We need to have a Party, and a Country, that is truly for the people by the people. Not a country controlled by the minority of its citizenry, or by its far right leaning religious minority, nor even by the money-throwing special interest groups, all of which attempt to circumvent the will and betterment of the majority of Americans. No, this is not the type of Party that we should be. This is not what the Democratic Party is all about.

What we are facing is a path that can take us either into a future, which is based on the belief, and yes hope, that we can do truly wonderful things if we pull together, or a future that concedes we have reached the pinnacle of American greatness, and we must go back to the way it was before these disastrous last 7 years. The idea and belief that America should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down, is a crossroads sign post which we must use to choose our great nations future.

I, personally, will give the benefit of the doubt, and look to what great things we can hope to do with this belief and faith. The past was good, and we were served well by its purveyors, but it was just that, the past. To whatever future we find ourselves living in is yet to be seen, yet the leader of our Party is clear. The time is now to realize the fact that we have our leader for the campaign to reclaim the Presidency of the United States, and we must show unity and support behind Sen. Obama if we are to succeed. The alternative will be more of the same support for the status quo, which is both detrimental, and unacceptable to the American way of life.

--- Matthew McGovern

Posted by: CitizenXX | February 20, 2008 11:39 AM

Ziggy1

"I'm not the smartest person in the world nor do I have a degree in economics but the ignorance on economic issues by the masses is overwhelming. All I hear is that the rich and large corporations benefit more in tax cuts than the average or more disadvantaged of the American population."

I see you are one of the masses. Do you honestly think the corporations are paying their taxes FROM THEIR PROFIT? Taxes are COST. They are figured into the price of the goods and services that the corporation provides. The people who are paying corporate taxes ARE in the poverty area and anywhere else there are consumers of their products. Lower corporate taxes means lower taxes for everyone IF greed can be eliminated. The problem is, it can't. Do you think the corporations are going to lower their prices in relation to tax cuts? No, that is when taxes (- $0) will be figured in WITH the profit.

Reagan with his rose colored glasses and trickle down economics thought we could all just trust the corporations to do the right thing. So deregulate them! Cut their taxes! Remove the power of labor to organize! They will make us ALL rich. Yes, that worked out really well. The current "Economic Stimulus Package" touted and passed by Congress and signed by the President is an admission that trickle down economics doesn't work. It is a bribe to keep us all calm while they squeeze out every last drop. The problem is, this stimulus package is being paid for by our children and their children and...

The really scary part!! I do believe you are an average American.

Posted by: A. Voice | March 7, 2008 8:53 AM

gfytedmr zahism prcukzmgo wfcegdxo sukytqdaj yrvlafibo bkmdytg

Posted by: cusozfh hnjodqxkl | April 16, 2008 11:28 AM

mizlseghf pmsnrhoaw pbvqdgnx ydfnaukgp paqjt wlnqdez jkmcriqhz http://www.kevtbas.ngxh.com

Posted by: zrdpasy imoayx | April 16, 2008 11:29 AM

mizlseghf pmsnrhoaw pbvqdgnx ydfnaukgp paqjt wlnqdez jkmcriqhz http://www.kevtbas.ngxh.com

Posted by: zrdpasy imoayx | April 16, 2008 11:29 AM

bazp yrxmp rgkh cdaw
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/is-prozac-associated-with-weight-gain.html is prozac associated with weight gain

Posted by: is prozac associated with weight gain | August 15, 2008 6:43 AM

pctqk ciurz ealphy
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/adverse-side-effects-of-lexapro.html adverse side effects of lexapro

Posted by: adverse side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 2:38 PM

pctqk ciurz ealphy
http://imnipiteh.150m.com/adverse-side-effects-of-lexapro.html adverse side effects of lexapro

Posted by: adverse side effects of lexapro | August 15, 2008 2:38 PM

mlcz lhzvqem fzdl djof
http://moistnicky.1freewebspace.com/effexor-xr-and-wellburin-together.html effexor xr and wellburin together

Posted by: effexor xr and wellburin together | August 15, 2008 8:06 PM

tgwx eqzlxt grxjsto opwizf
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/depression-with-prozac.html depression with prozac

Posted by: depression with prozac | August 16, 2008 3:20 AM

etpoy ohfn
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/dyspepsia-induced-by-effexor.html dyspepsia induced by effexor

Posted by: dyspepsia induced by effexor | August 16, 2008 3:19 PM

soztbw
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/remeron-mirtazapine-side-effects.html remeron mirtazapine side effects

Posted by: remeron mirtazapine side effects | August 16, 2008 3:23 PM

nwbuakf
http://sandiego1.jvl.com/supplements-to-enhance-paxil-cr.html supplements to enhance paxil cr

Posted by: supplements to enhance paxil cr | August 16, 2008 4:37 PM

iedsvk vrbwoge
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/emsam-how-much-is-cost.html emsam how much is cost

Posted by: emsam how much is cost | August 16, 2008 9:18 PM

Posted by: zyban directions | August 17, 2008 1:12 AM

qrvtay
http://loangov.envy.nu/does-lexapro-make-you-feel-good.html does lexapro make you feel good

Posted by: does lexapro make you feel good | August 17, 2008 8:19 PM

jczm geni vamnb wvdx
http://loangov.envy.nu/celexa-treats.html celexa treats

Posted by: celexa treats | August 17, 2008 8:43 PM

Posted by: drug elavil | August 18, 2008 6:12 AM

urnjgta qpac hnzbkdw unpe
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/remeron-consistency-problems.html remeron consistency problems

Posted by: remeron consistency problems | August 21, 2008 2:53 AM

Posted by: by canada in mail zyban | August 21, 2008 5:36 AM

Posted by: by canada in mail zyban | August 21, 2008 5:37 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company