Not talking about where he is now..I am talking about where he has been...he has not always lived in a million dollar home or came from a family full Ivy League students...that is the approach I am taking with what I said. Obama comes off as knowing what it's like to be poor and knows what it's like to work hard to live a comfortable life. McCain to me doesn't strike me that way....hell, I can relate more to Palin knowing what it's like to struggle a bit with family and bills moreso than I can see McCain being able to relate.

That is why I cringe when he says that he doesn't want to tax the wealthy because he knows that he and his wife would be included...and we all know that the last thing anyone want is somebody messing with their money...especially when you don't have any and those that have more than enough don't want to give any up.

You do realize that at no point has he said "I don't want to tax the wealthy" don't you? Oh of course not, you just hear what you want to.

Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5? Why do people who work hard to make high salaries (believe me, I am far from being one of them!) have to pay more taxes? I compare to upper-ups in my company. One floats around, nobody sees him, and when you do he's pretending to work. The other works his butt off, does a great job managing and balancing his large family. Now, I wouldn't mind at all if the one lazy manager has to pay more, but the other one really does work to have what he has. How is that fair? Is that just 'classist'? NOBODY WANTS to pay taxes, regardless of how much they make, since they're included in that isn't it just honesty?

I'm really looking all over the place to see where Obama has struggled at all, DaemonSeid. I guess maybe mine and Obama's (and your!) idea of living 'comfortably' is very different. Loosing your parents at a young age sucks. Moving all over the place sucks too. Haven't seen anything about him working three jobs just so his kids can eat, or having family members share a small apartment just so nobody's on the street, in fact, his father went to Harvard too, right?

Munch: 'blue-collar savior'...I love it!

You know, if BO wins, I REALLY hope that I'm eating crow. Until then, I'll just be holding my breath, as I am now, watching the stock market.

Did he ever really struggle that much, though? I mean, both his father and stepfather had decent jobs (didn't his stepfather work for Mobil or something like that?), his mother had a college education (and a graduate degree, I believe), and, even when he was living with his grandparents, I thought that they were, at least, upper middle class. Also, as Munchkin pointed out, he did go to a rather prestigous private high school; again, that takes away, at least a little, with him being able to be in touch with the "regular American." I may be wrong on this, but beyond the divorce aspect, it seems like he came from an upper-middle class background.

I could see that he would face adversity growing up because of his race - but I think one could reasonably describe his life growing up as "comfortable." That's not to say McCain didn't have a good life growing up, but I don't think you can make that great a distinction between McCain and Obama in that way.

I see where you're going with your thoughts - as I've said many times, I didn't grow up with much money, and I know the every day stresses of the lower middle class American family all too well (although, as a white family in the Northeast, that does limit my understanding to a certain extent); I understand when a family has to make tough choices, sometimes between things such as medical care and food. I personally don't think either of these candidates truly understands that perspective, and honestly, that's fine with me. They don't have to empathize or sympathize with the struggles, as long as they work out reasonable domestic policy.

It's fine if you want to make these subjectively make these distinctions between McCain and Obama because of your own leanings, but I don't think, from an objective standpoint, that one could say that one candidate understands those types of struggles any more than the other.

I think that, perhaps, it's a question of how one defines "fair share." To some people, everyone paying their fair share means, for example, everyone paying X%. (Of course, even under this simple formula, those who make more are paying more in fact, even if they are paying the same proportionally.)

Others would disagree that this is the fairest way to assess taxes. Say X% = 20%. 20% of $30,000 takes a much bigger chunk out of what is needed to live on than, say, 20% of $300,000. Hence, tax brackets in a progressive tax system like we have now. Of course, all of that gets muddled once deductions, credits and the like all get mixed into the equation.

I think that one can have "classist" reasons for thinking that the wealthier should pay more, and I think that others can have, for want of a better word, "honest" reasons for thinking so. And I don't think anyone can seriously question that the current tax structure is a mess and needs overhauling. I'll admit, though, that I don't know the best (and fairest) way to fix it; I doubt, though, that there's on;y one "right" way.

McCain:

So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000."

He still never explained how reducing the tax burden would help people who have no kids.

And what would have to be done to increase the EIC? I don't see that as somehting that would happen over night and even still, I have an odd feeling that part of that increase has to do with the $5000 he 'promises' to give Americans to buy health care...at that point you will NEED the increased EIC to pay the premiums!

Honest-to-God question: what about Obama makes you think he can relate to someone in your position (i.e. a hard-working, middle-class single mother in a state with a declining manufacturing economy)?

I was raised in a single parent household, for starters....

small difference, my father died when I was 5 weeks...

I still managed to make it thru school, college and did all of this in a rough environment and still have my head on straight.

English 101:

Not raising taxes and not being in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy =/= What you said is absolute -- no taxation of the wealthy period. What you quoted doesn't say that.

History lesson....remember who said that:

No NEW taxes...and what happened?

Those taxes went UP

So let's not raise anybody's taxes,

But, how many candidates said that and taxes went up?

and those increased taxes affected who, exactly? (Rhetorical)

As the deficit increases in this country so do our taxes to pay for them...but when have we seen that apply to those who make millions and billions?

So you're saying that because Bush I increased taxes, after saying he wouldn't that, logically speaking, McCain would lower taxes for the wealthy? I don't quite get how that computes. By your logic in this post, if Obama said that he won't raise taxes on a particular segment of society, that means that he will actually raise those taxes, because once a politician promises not to raise taxes, that means he or she will do it.

If you want to say that, because of your support of Obama, you truly believe he'll have a more "fair" tax structure, or something like that, that's one thing and completely understandable. But, you seem to be twisting words to make your point.

I am wondering the exact same thing!! My husband and I are part of the demographic considered wealthy by Obama's standards but I can tell you that we are a far cry from wealthy. We live in that nasty income bracket where we get hit with the AMT every year so we can't maximize deductions, we don't qualify for financial aid so we pay out of pocket for kids colleges, we don't qualify for stimulus help, and we probably won't qualify for any of the amazing tax credits promised by either candidate. So once we pay our 'fair share' of taxes, pay tuition, pay medical bills, and dental etc there isn't a ton left over for us to be in any way considered wealthy. Yeah, we worked so hard and payed our way through college and worked long hours to get where we are at. It's like being penalized for achieving, in other words why is my hard work not valued as much as a middle class person's hard work by the government? Why is the upper-middle class now considered wealthy? If Obama wants to come see my 'truly wealthy' lifestyle, he can come cut coupons with me and I can drive him around in my car with 110,000 miles on and hoping that it will last another couple of years! On this point I believe that Obama is very much out of touch

DS: In fact "I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy" would seem to indicate the exactly opposite of what you're saying, he quite clearly wants to tax the wealthy if they are the ones not getting tax cuts.

BUT I don't really care to defend the tax system or income tax plans anyways. FAIR Tax all the way, baby.

No...that is not what I mean at all...what I mean is McCain won't change taxes at all for the wealthy (those that pay their taxes anyways) but what he will do is if he has to find a way to generate more income, is tax those that are not rich.

Look back at what I just said about his health program.

I used the example of Bush I to show you how even when he said 'no new taxes', he still found ways to raise taxes and most of that came out of working America's pocket.

What I AM saying however, is, if either feels a need to increase taxes, take it from those that will "miss" it the least.

IMO, McCain's plan benefits he and anyone that can 'afford' to have several houses and think that 5 mil. is 'middle income' (yes, I know it's a joke but still).

Take a look:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...d_pattern.html

and from earlier this year...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...s_wealthy.html

Let me see if I have this straight. You said McCain has said he does not want to tax the wealthy.

When challenged on that, you countered with his statements in Tuesday night's debate: "Let's not raise anybody's taxes" and "I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy."

When it was pointed out to you that those comments are not statements that "he does not want to tax the wealthy," you responded by essentially saying that because Bush and others went back on their campaign promises, McCain's statements must be interpreted to mean "he does not want to tax the wealthy"?

Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

(It's always a good day when you can quote Buffy Summers.)