I guess we're rolling in completely different circles, but I've seen nothing but "mutual partisan respect" in my own life, and for the most part on the Internet as well. Like I've said a bunch of times before, I could have gone either way before McCain selected Palin; if it had been Hillary instead of Barack, I probably would have gone McCain/Palin. Most people I know have perfectly viable reasons for selecting either candidate, and honestly could have gone either way.

This election seems much cleaner to me than 2004. 2000 is all a blur to me, so I can't recall that one very well.

In my own group of friends (college, law school, work, etc.), definitely, I've seen what you described. Outside of those groups, though, things have been the exact opposite for me. My memory, which may be flawed, is that the past election cycles involved more of the mutual respect.

Again, that may just be my subjective perception, and it might not be an accurate picture of the reality of the situation.

Back to a topic from pages 2 and 3, about the comment from McCain that a questioner probably didn't know what Fannie Mae was. Here is the response from the questioner, as copied from Facebook on FirstRead:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/1523335.aspx

And one other fun part to quote from the same link:

Am I reading the reference to 'Ques' correctly, or is this something else?

This is clear, but only because of his stance that he will not raise taxes at all.

There is no evidence this is the case, this is simply your assertion.

Your evidence of this fact is George HW Bush. This could just as easily be turned around on Obama, by saying that if his tax on >$250k income doesn't produce the revenue he needs for his expanded programs (and there is certainly some evidence it will not), then he will be forced to tax the middle class, because there is only so much blood in the proverbial stone.

See how inane the argument becomes?

we can agree to that...I have 2 in my office that shares that view.

What percentage of voters do you think knew what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were six months ago? I think maybe a third. I think a higher percentage of voters had probably heard of them, but I doubt they knew what they did nearly as well as they do now.

While it was probably a condescending thing to say to any individual, I don't think McCain's comment was that far off the mark generally.

Most voters lived in happy ignorance of most of the institutions and practices that are failed/ are now failing.

My answer goes much farther than social class. The things he talks about are the things I care about. Perhaps a lot of it is political propaganda, but he is talking about the things that matter most to me. He has been pushing for equal pay for equal work for women. I'm in agreement with him on issues like abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I think his health care plan will be more effective than McCain's, although I'm not sure either is the perfect answer. I agree with his views on Iraq but I don't feel like he would be 'soft' if we really need to go to war with someone. I agree with him on energy issues (that we need to move away from oil not just find more and that wind and solar are preferable to nuclear). And, while it has been minimized as unimportant and lacking any real duties, his work as a community organizer has put him more in touch with the issues that occur in lower income urban areas. Perhaps some of it is even related to where they serve. Detroiters can certainly relate to Chicago and it's problems more than they can to Arizona. To us, Arizona is the warm nirvana where people go to retire. Many of us see Chicago as the city that Detroit should've/could've been. Both have urban grit, but Chicago has the business/shopping/tourist districts that Detroit so desperately wants to have. I would probably feel like I could relate more to someone who served in New York than in Montana too.

That's my short answer, because this hard-working single mom has to get some groceries before her she gets her kids back from their dad tomorrow :) I can also say that I have it MUCH easier than many single moms because their dad is very involved in their lives (we have 50-50 custody). Financially it makes it tougher, but experientially, it's a much better deal.

First, NEVER said it was the only reason, but one of the many. Just didn't think that they were all worth repeating. To me, just made a good point, as I was telling a coworker a story about a client I met with last night...just to make it short...one of the servicemembers involved in the rescue of McCain is a friend of one of my clients. McCain came back and signed his flight log book to thank him for searching for him. This was two years after he returned stateside. She (an Obama supporter) looked at me quizzically, "Who was a POW? McCain? I had no idea!" She's an obama supporter, because that's who her friends were voting for...she's 52.

It's been made very clear that everyone has different reasons for choosing who they choose, regardless of how legitimate or silly they are. I've heard people saying they are supporting Obama JUST because he had student loans. I've also heard people who are supporting McCain JUST because he was a POW. Neither is a good reason (in my opinion) to base your vote on, but hey, my vote only counts once!

Wow.

Obama: "no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase." (From his website)

Based on the above policy of Obama's and your own declaration of being wealthy according to Obama, (correct me if im wrong) it would mean that you and your husband make MORE THAN $250,000 yearly.

If a family were to make JUST $250,000 and have their taxes raised (throwing out a hypothetical percentage) that meant 20% (or $50,000) of their yearly income would be given to the government. It would still leave that family with $200,000 a year to live on. That can be broken down to roughly $16,600 a month or $33,000 per member (family of 6) yearly.

Given those rough numbers I have trouble understanding how a family that makes a MINIMUM of $250,000 a year (before taxes) would have trouble living comfortably???? :confused::confused:

If anyone can explain to how one would struggle to live a comfortable life on a $16,000 a month income, I would greatly appreciate the explanation.

^^^^^ Thanks for that. I think I live comfortably. I have a house (not huge, but it's in a nice neighborhood), I have no trouble putting food on the table. We have more TVs and computers than people living here. I have a (modest) car and will be buying another in a year so that my daughter can use my current car when she gets her license. I can't spend indiscriminately, but we aren't lacking for needs and we manage a vacation every year. I have to plan out when I'm going to make major purchases (furniture, home remodels) and sometimes I have to pay the Girl Scout dues out of the next paycheck because the current one is already spoken for. However, we are far more comfortable than my family was when I was a kid. We live on a budget, but that budget allows for cell phones for both kids and myself with unlimited texting and internet access. It allows for digital cable with almost all the premium channels. That's pretty comfortable. I don't buy designer stuff. My car (new) was $13K, my next one will be $20K, not $40K or $50K, but we're comfortable. I do all this on around 1/4th of the $250,000 salary. We can't buy everything we want the minute we want it, but we're not hurting either. I'm even putting money into a money market every month. If a person can get themselves debt free, other than a mortgage, it's very possible to live comfortably on much much less than $250K. It's why I cringe when co-workers of mine, who make twice as much as I do and who have a husband who makes more than them, complain about not having any money. I want to hit them over the head! I am not using credit cards for anything anymore, unless there is an emergency that costs more than I have in the emergency fund. If I don't have cash, we don't buy it. Few things can't wait two more weeks til the next paycheck. It's really liberating! I think we, as a society, have become far too materialistic.. never happy with what we have, always wanting more.

This is really a deep question with a lot of things to consider. $16,000 a month would go a lot further say in West Virginia than in New Jersey or New York. You really can't make it a blanket statement. You have to look at cost of living in each area. We're not comparing apples and apples.

I have a coworker than lives on $3500 (gross) per month in Rockland County, NY (where the median cost of a house is $499,000). My family doesn't have much more than that. I don't buy it.

No, not really. I see far more than 20% of my paycheck deducted each month, and I don't make 250K. If you do make that much, it's more like 33%...so, that ends up being about $13K a month. For 6 people (4 kids!), that's not that much. Also, don't forget:

-insurance premiums/deductions
-pre-tax deductions for retirement
-state/local taxes
-Social Security
-any other pre-tax deductions (for example, I get one for public transportation)

Also, you have to factor in regional costs of living. What's "comfortable" in Michigan is "middle class" in NYC/SF, and "honking wealthy" in Mississippi.

I was just respondong to what you reported your dentist said:
Yes, you've made clear that people have different reasons for supporting candidates, but of all the examples you have given of why someone might support Obama, I haven't seen any acknowledgement that some people might have good reasons for doing so -- just examples of silly reasons.

I agree. Isn't protecting our democracy, including our right to vote, part of what McCain served in the military to protect?

Maybe we should go back to the days when only white male landowners were allowed to vote.

There are members of my family who are praying for the day.

ETA: All of the men I'm talking about are Republicans. :p

My mistake, just tried to get a few thoughts down without blabbing on and on. It was not the 'be all' reason...in his opinion. Just for a large segment of our uneducated (not talking book education, talking not looking at issues) will vote for whichever candidate their friends/coworkers/family tell them too. And, that is on both sides.

While I have given silly reasons on both sides. I have also reiterated reasons that I have heard from others. When I find a good reason for voting for BO, I'll be sure to let you know! ;)

Kidding aside, the voting thing. You totally overexaggerated my statement, and basically put me barefoot and pregnant 80 years ago. My concern is with what was reported at length again yesterday about the group ACORN, and a guy who was able to register his CAT to vote. I'm talking more about accountability. Why is that some states don't mandate voters to prove their identity? I read an article about German tourists registering to vote! There was a problem in my husband's south Texas hometown with DEAD people registering to vote! We are all given the right to vote, I'm upset that the states don't take more measures to make sure that everyone gets their ONE vote, and that they are in fact, eligible to vote. So, basically "ANYONE (a dead person, a non-resident) and their dog (or cat) is being allowed to vote."

Regardless, the whole 'register the day before' concept still has me raising my eyebrow. People are given so many opportunities to register throughout the years, why does it have to be in the 11th hour? Although, they are saying the BO supporters are the ones pushing it, in all honesty, if it were the McCain camp doing it, I would still have a problem. I'm sure there are exceptions to the last minute (just turning 18, etc), but seriously, what could happen LITERALLY the day beofre that you're like "Wow, there's an election tomorrow, I should probably register."

Finally, again, I'm not in that 250k+ set, but why should they have to pay so much more JUST BECAUSE they make more? Just becuase you CAN live on 13k a month doesn't mean you should have to simply because you make more. I get the whole different tax brackets thing, but I just don't think the gap should be widened. If the government would spend more effectively, there wouldn't even be a need to raise the taxes.

I'll be waiting. :D

I don't think we overexaggerated what you said. I think we took you to mean what you said, which came across as broader than the legitimate concerns you're raising now. ;)

You are correct that they have to subtract state/local taxes, Social Security and Medicare deductions, but we all pay those at the same rate and you don't pay Social Security or Medicare deductions after you've earned (I think this is the right number) $90,000K in one year.

When you figure your real income tax rate, you have to look at what you paid for the whole year per your tax return, after deducting your mortgage interest, charitable deductions, health care deductions, etc. Also, our tax rate is graduated. When people say "I'm in the 33% tax bracket", they aren't paying 33% on all their income. They're paying 10 % on the first 11,500, 15% on the next 20,000 or so, etc. They are only paying 33% on the amount above (again, shooting from memory here and could be wrong on exact figures) $125,000. So the average of all these different rates ends up being much lower 33%. I do understand that the cost of living in NYC and California is significantly higher than other places. Some of those costs do end up being deductions too, which should help balance it out (mortgage interest, for one)

But just about anywhere in this country, $250K is a pretty high income.

My whole point was that money goes much faster than you'd think, especially once you start making a considerable amount and a lot goes away in taxes and other deductions.

I also know how tax brackets work. Since I'm actually AT work now, I shouldn't get into the whole thing, lest I want to keep this job. I was simply responding to an uninformed, simplistic view of income deductions.

It might be awhile...LOL!

Gotcha! It was kind of an afterthought, and I thought it was probaby discussed more in depth on another thread!

If you take your $13,000 a month figure thats still a yearly income of $156,000 and would allow each member of the 6 person family $26,000 to live off of. In my mind cost of living is factored in automatically I live in Ct where the median cost of a home is $300,000 not as high as say orange county, Ca but still it's not cheap to live here. Granted i don't have children and i live with a family member so rent and utilities are not something in my current budget. But I live on max $100 a week for groceries gas and general spending and most weeks i don't spend all of that.

Maybe im just lost because im only 21 and don't have a family or mortgage or those kinds of responsibilities but i just cant accept the fact that $13,000 is not enough money to live comfortably.

But then again maybe my definition of comfortable is different than yours and thats where the problem lies.

I live in CT as well, and when you factor in mortgage, insurance, utility bills, taxes, healthcare (even with insurance, things like co-pays for visits and Rx), the odd home improvement (which, depending on the problem, could run you upwards of $10,000), heating for the winter (if needed, whether oil or wood), clothing, and a number of other factors, those numbers go up quite a bit.

DEFINITELY definitions different. For example, median home cost here is half of that in CT. Not to mention, my family of 5 (MIL lives with us) would NEVER be able to get by $100/week. (I went to the store yesterday and bought FOUR loaves of bread and 2 gallons of milk, which MIGHT get us through the weekend.)

While comfortable is certainly a debatable term, again, just because you CAN live off of a certain amount why should you HAVE to? There are certain things that I have no problem buying generic of, while others might not even look at the price of things. I cut coupons, not because I have to, but because I like to save money where I can. My cousin and her husband make slightly less than we do, but she is STRICTLY organic in her food choices. Obviously that costs more, but that is her 'necessity'.

It seems to be the progression, people who make more money tend to spend more money. If I was making 250k+ per year, then I would have wider opportunities for say a vehicle purchase. I don't HAVE to have a $700/month car payment (believe my, I'm happy that I have a $250 one!), but if the money's there why not!? I don't think anyone's whining that there just barely scrimping by on $13k/month, but if you're really working for it why should you have to give it back. Not to mention, if you're making more, you're most likely putting most of it back into the economy anyway, right? That was just an side thought...

nuff rambling!

That's where the arguments for a national sales tax instead of the income tax make sense. The FairTax plan has a "prebate", where you get a check for what the government has determined to be the tax an average family of your size in your area would pay on necessities (so you aren't paying taxes on things you need to get by), but after that the idea is that rich people spend more money and buy more expensive things, so they pay more sales tax. It is a progressive tax in that sense. It also helps with the fact that some of the richest people in the world have no real income and are just paying the capital gains rate on investments and no other income tax, so you can get at their money when they spend it.

No one ever said it wasn't enough to live comfortably. It's just not as much as you think it is. Get back to us in a few years, once you've been on your own and seen what it takes.

I don't want to have to cut coupons, spend a max of $100 a week on groceries. I'm not an elitist. I worked long and hard to get where I am. I lived off of $9000 a year...a YEAR for four years in medical school. Worked 120 hrs per week with 36 hr call every three nights as a surgery resident for the grand total of $35,000 for two years before moving to a more reasonable residency that only required 70 hrs a week with 30 hr call once or twice a week. I did this for 6 years while my student loans accrued interest that I couldn't pay since the payment is $1000 a month. From Kindergarten through residency, my education lasted 27 years! Add into that my husband's med school debt, my mortgage and you see a woman with a LOT of debt with a husband who makes a minimal salary as a fellow at Hopkins. No one will choose to go through what I did just to pay more than their fair share once they finally get to the point where they are paid appropriately for their level of education. I deserve to be comfortable, and I'm not going to be made to feel guilty that I make a good living.

For anyone who missed the SNL special last night (it was on against Grey's so I'm sure lots of people missed it ;)) -- this is their take on the 2nd debate: http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Li...e-open/742065/

(the link on the right for Seth & Amy's "Really?" segment on Update is worth a click too)

Exactly what I'm saying! I don't know if you're practicing now, but that's certainly not an easy job...pretty much 'on-call' 24/7. You busted your ass through school, why do you have to contribute more.

That's why I don't get why people are so upset that he's not going to tax the wealthy. It's not like everyone making 6 figures is stealing it from little-old-ladies coffee cans.

I am an Obama supporter, because taxes to me are not the most important issue in this election for me, but...I was so mad at Biden when he basically said that it was time for people who made over $250,000 to be patriotic and pay more taxes! What!??? I'm not patriotic paying the taxes that I already pay, caring for many poor, nonpaying patients in Prince George's County, MD? Yes, I'm currently in practice...only for 1 year, so I haven't had much time yet to enjoy my success!

Tying patriotism to the payment of taxes is a slippery slope, in my opinion. If you're going to be doing that, then you should not be taking advantage of any tax credits or deductions, and you should be paying the full amount of taxes levied each year. If you suggest that those who are against paying higher taxes are unpatriotic, and you're not paying every dime of your tax burden, it's a bit hypocritical.

The physicians in my health care system don't get paid $250K a year. They get around $150K a year. Therefore, they would not be in the group that would get taxed more.

I completely agree with you, and I hope you didn't misread my statement above, because it is completely ridiculous to imply that more affluent Americans are not patriotic for opposing a tax increase while middle and lower income Americans can maintain their patriotic appearance while doing the same thing!

It depends on what field of medicine they are practicing. Primary care MDs can make around that much or less...especially Pediatricians. Of course, their residencies are less rigorous and shorter than mine. (Pediatrics, Internal Medicine, Family Medicine- 3 year residencies; Surgery and Surgical Subspecialties 5-7 years, Radiology 5 years.) There are many physicians who make more than that...some make A LOT more!

Oh no, I understood you completely - I was agreeing with you.

Good...just making sure!:D
By the way, I'd like to look at Biden's tax returns...you think he patriotically refuses to use deductions and loopholes?

Yeah, in our medical group, it's set up differently than other health systems where I've worked. They all get paid from health system itself, the health system does all the billing and gets the money directly and the health system provides the benefits, including the malpractice insurance. It's a massive medical group practice. They sacrifice some in pay, but they save overhead on office space, billing, insurance, etc.

There are lots of ways to go into practice. A lot of hospitals are now buying up medical practices or hiring doctors to basically work as employees...something physicians in the past would NEVER have agreed to! My group is contracted by our hospital to provide radiology services. Radiology is also a field in high demand with a shortage of physicians...always a good mix for the radiologist!

So I have a question. My mom & her teacher friends were talking about Obama's health care plan yesterday, and one of them made the comment about how Obama's gonna tax people who can't afford health care.

I check on his website and it says that children HAVE to be covered, but it doesn't say anything about what would happen if you can't get the health coverage for your children.

Does anyone know about it?

Does EVERY state have plans for children? I live in NY and there are plans specifically for children who's parents don't have group insurance.

As someone in the medical field, AOIIAngel (or anyone else) how do you see a government funded health care system affecting your field? Talking with my OB/GYN the other day, that was his biggest reason for NOT supporting Obama. I would hope that nobody chose one or the other based on taxes, I don't think ANYONE wants to pay more! LOL!