Second Presidential Debate

[ajuhdg]

Originally Posted by WarEagle07

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. On this point I believe that Obama is very much out of touch

Here I am going around feeling like I'm the only one who thinks this guy is a phony. I sent an email to my dad (also a McCain supporter in TX) and asked if there was just something that I was missing, I must've missed the magical Obama Juice when it was being passed around.

Just got back from the dentist, who have me some hope. We, of course, tiptoed around each other as to who our vote was for. When I just came out and told him, he exasperatedly said, "THANK GOD!" Then he preceded to drill on my tooth telling me why. LOL! He said that he thinks that people might say a lot now, but when it comes to really making the choice, they'll go the McCain way. This kind of goes with my lines of hopeful thinking. He says that the only reason people are picking BO is he's the 'popular' guy. Makes sense, 'cause Oprah told me so'. And, yes, hun, he IS out of touch with his 1.6 million dollar income.

On a side note, why is just anybody and their dog allowed to vote? What is up with this 'register the day before, and go vote' crap? I'll check to see if there is another thread.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ajuhdg

Just got back from the dentist, who have me some hope. We, of course, tiptoed around each other as to who our vote was for. When I just came out and told him, he exasperatedly said, "THANK GOD!" Then he preceded to drill on my tooth telling me why. LOL! He said that he thinks that people might say a lot now, but when it comes to really making the choice, they'll go the McCain way. This kind of goes with my lines of hopeful thinking. He says that the only reason people are picking BO is he's the 'popular' guy. Makes sense, 'cause Oprah told me so'. And, yes, hun, he IS out of touch with his 1.6 million dollar income.

That may be the case with some people. But your dentist is either really ignorant or has been sniffing something in his office if he really thinks that the only reason people are picking Obama is because he's "the popular guy" or because "Oprah told them to."

Some people are going with Obama because they sincerely believe, after {gasp} thinking about it, that he is the better choice. Some people, believe it or not, don't trust McCain any more than you trust Obama. Some people think that picking Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the presidency demonstrated that McCain's judgment is sorely lacking. Some people disagree with McCain's approach to foreign policy in general and the Iraq War in particular. People support Obama and McCain for all kinds of reasons -- in both cases, some good, some bad.

And I've got to tell you -- I've had more than one conversation with Republicans who voted for Bush both times and who are not only supporting Obama but very turned off by McCain. And to a person, the economy is the reason.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by ajuhdg

On a side note, why is just anybody and their dog allowed to vote? What is up with this 'register the day before, and go vote' crap?

Wow.

[Nanners52674]

Originally Posted by WarEagle07

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

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????

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.

[AGDee]

^^^^^ 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.

[RaggedyAnn]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

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????

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.

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by Nanners52674

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.

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by WarEagle07

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

I'm very sorry to have to tell you that you ARE wealthy. Really, I am sorry that someone has to tell you, convince you, of that. Just because your lifestyle eats up a lot of your income does not mean you're middle class. There are plenty of celebrities out there that blow millions on clothing, cars, bills, whatever...they're still rich if they had that money to begin with. Do you know what the median household income in the U.S. was last year? Just a little over $50,000. That's per household! You and your husband make FIVE TIMES as much. You may not be millionaires, or have money coming out your ears, but compared to the vast majority of Americans, you are wealthy. About 15% of the U.S. population lives below the poverty line, which is an unimaginable $24,800 for a family of five. I hope you thank God every day for how rich you are.

Here's something I think Americans are going to have to get used to: NOT paying for your kids' college education. So many adults in this country pay for their kids' education rather than their retirement. WarEagle, you and your husband have the luxury of having enough money to pay for your kids' education; most people in this country do not. It's wonderful that you're setting up your kids nicely so they come out of college with no debt, but that's a choice you're making; most kids take out loans. That's what I did. Just because you don't qualify for financial aid doesn't mean the kids can't pay for some of it - at least half. Trust me, they will appreciate it more.

[UGAalum94]

Not that my household income approaches Obama wealthy level, but I think there's a really important distinction in assessing wealth between people who rely on income, even high income, to live and people who have accumulated assets and real wealth and high income.

Sure, gross income of 250,000 is considerably more than average, but depending on where people live, it might really not be associated with a lifestyle most of us equate with "wealthy" or "rich" or actually provide on with the kind of assets that most of us think of as wealth.

I don't want people to continually have to reduce their assets by paying ridiculous amounts of property taxes or some other tax we could invent (capital tax, rather than just capital gains tax? I don't know), but it's funny to pretend that income about 250,000 is the real determiner of wealth when there'd be much better measures to couple it with.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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."

English 101:

Not raising taxes and not being in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy =/=

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

That is why I cringe when he says that he doesn't want to tax the wealthy . . . .

What you said is absolute -- no taxation of the wealthy period. What you quoted doesn't say that.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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?

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.)