Second Presidential Debate

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I would hope that others would give me the same respect about my decision to vote McCain, or that others would respect those who have chosen to vote Obama, but that "mutual partisan respect," so to speak, has been missing this election cycle.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

[pbear19]

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

7. How did I feel about Sen. McCain stating “You probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before this.”
Well Senator, I actually did. I like to think of myself as a fairly intelligent person. I have a bachelor degree in Political Science from Tennessee State, so I try to keep myself up to date with current affairs. I have a Master degree in Legal Studies from Southern Illinois University, a few years in law school, and I am currently pursuing a Master in Public Administration from the University of Memphis. In defense of the Senator from Arizona I would say he is an older guy, and may have made an underestimation of my age. Honest mistake. However, it could be because I am a young African-American male. Whatever the case may be it was somewhat condescending regardless of my age to make an assumption regarding whether I was knowledgeable about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

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

4. Was I nervous?
No. I was cool as a polar bear’s toe nails. Yes, of course I was nervous, they said the show was going to be seen by tens of millions of people, but hey I am son of Blood and Thunder so I held it down! Shout out to the Ques Roo!

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

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

we are close...

McCain will not raise taxes on the wealthy <---clear?

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

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

if taxes are raised in his admin it will be on the poor and middle income people <---clear?

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?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by pbear19

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?

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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)?

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.

[ajuhdg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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."

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.

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!

[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.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by RaggedyAnn

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.

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ajuhdg

First, NEVER said it was the only reason, but one of the many.

I was just respondong to what you reported your dentist said:

Originally Posted by ajuhdg

Just got back from the dentist, who have me some hope. . . . He says that the only reason people are picking BO is he's the 'popular' guy. Makes sense, 'cause Oprah told me so'.

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.

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? I'll check to see if there is another thread.

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Wow.

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.