A: You could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created. But let’s have some straight talk. Things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis. Americans are uncertain about the economy, as we see the stock market bounce up and down. But I think what we’re trying to do to fix this economy is important. We’ve got to address the subprime housing problem. We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do so. I think we need to eliminate the alternate minimum tax.
Q: It sounds like that we’re not better off, is what you’re saying.
A: I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, etc.
A: Yes, and it’s tough here in California, it’s tough in Arizona, it’s tough particularly all over, but it’s very tough particularly in the high growth states. The efforts that have been made so far are laudable. We may have to go further, but the fact that the FHA and the other organizations of government under Secretary Paulson’s direction, and he is doing a good job of sitting down and fixing at least a significant number of these problems. We’ve got to return to the principal that you don’t lend money that can’t pay it back. There’s some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished. There’s got to be a huge amount more of transparency as to how this whole thing came about so we can prevent it from happening again. If necessary, we’re going to have to take additional actions and particularly in cleaning up a mortgage.
A: I have to agree with the governor. I’m a federalist. The states should decide to enormous degrees what happens within those states, including off their coasts. The people of California have decided they don’t want oil drilling off their coasts. The people of Louisiana have decided that they do. I applaud the governor’s efforts and that of other states in this region and other states to try to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Suppose that the governor and I are wrong, and there’s no such thing as climate change. We adopt these green technologies, of which the US and the innovative skills we have and the entrepreneurship and the free market cap-and-trade proposal is enacted. Then all we’ve done is giving our kids a cleaner world.
A: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. So to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate, it won’t. We went through various amendments which prevented that proposal. We will secure the borders first when I am president. I know how to d that. I come from a border state, where we know about building walls, and vehicle barriers, and sensors, and all of the things necessary. I will have the border state governors certify the borders are secured. Then we will move onto the other aspects of this issue, as importantly as tamper-proof biometric documents, which then, unless an employer hires someone with those documents, that employer will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That will cause a lot of people to leave voluntarily.
A: I’m proud of Sandra Day O’Connor as a fellow Arizonan. And my heart goes out to her family in that situation that they have today. And I’m proud of her. The judges I would appoint are along the lines of Justices Roberts and Alito, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the Constitution of the US. I’m not going to second-guess Reagan.
A: Reagan would not approve of someone who changes their positions depending on what the year is. Reagan came with an unshakable set of principles, and there were many times, like when he had to deploy the cruise missile to Europe and there were hundreds of thousands of demonstrators against it, he stood with it. Reagan had a deal in Reykjavik that everybody wanted him to take, but he stuck with his principles. He knows that I stick with my principles.
I’m sure he’s a fine man. He managed companies, and he bought & sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That’s the nature of that business. We’re at a time in our history where you can’t afford any on-the-job training. My experience and background qualifies me to lead. That’s why I’ve gotten the support of over 100 retired Army generals and admirals. Every national security expert from the Reagan & other administrations are supporting my candidacy.
A: Because I know how to lead. I led the largest squadron in the US Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit. And I can hire lots of managers, but leadership is a quality that people look for. I have the vision and the knowledge and the background to take on the transcendent issue of the 21st century, which is radical Islamic extremism. I’ve been involved in every single major nationa security crisis in the last 20 years. I’m proud to have played a role in those, and I’m proud to have played a role in making sure that we didn’t raise the white flag and surrender in Iraq, as the Democrats wanted us to do and we would have done if we had set timetables for a withdrawal. I have the qualifications and the knowledge and the background and the judgment. I don’t need any on-the-job training. I had the great honor of serving this country in uniform for 22 years.
ROMNEY: Unequivocably, absolutely no. I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for exit from Iraq. Sen. McCain pointed to an interview when I said that our president and their prime minister should have timetables and milestones. [When asked what I’d do with a bill with] a date specific to withdraw, I said I’d veto it.
McCAIN: Well, of course, he said he wanted a timetable. In April 2007, the buzzword was “timetables.” Governor, the right answer to that question was “no,” not what you said, that Maliki and the president should enter into some kind of agreement for, quote, “timetables.”
ROMNEY: Why don’t you use the whole quote, Senator?
MCCAIN: The actual quote is, “We don’t want them to lay in the weeds until we leave.”
ROMNEY: What does that mean?
MCCAIN: It means a timetable until we leave. If we weren’t leaving, how could the enemy lay in the weeds?
A: Lower and middle income Americans need more help. Obviously, that’s the case today. That’s one reason why we’re giving them rebates. I support the Reagan tax cuts, and they had spending restraints associated with it. I made it very clear when I ran in 2000 that I had a package of tax cuts which were very important & very impactful, but I also had restraints in spending. And I disagreed when spending got out of control. I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint. Guess what? Spending got out of control. Republicans lost the 2006 election not over the war in Iraq, over spending. Our base became disenchanted. If we had done what I wanted to do, we would not only have had the spending restraint, but we’d be talking about additional tax cuts today.
|
The above quotations are from 2008 Republican debate at Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, on Jan. 30, 2008, the eve of Super Tuesday.
Click here for main summary page. Click here for a profile of John McCain. Click here for John McCain on all issues.
John McCain on other issues: |
Abortion
|
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade
Govt. Reform
| Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform Technology/Infrastructure War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
| Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||||||