Second Presidential Debate

DaemonSeid · #1 10-09-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 10-09-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 10-09-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

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 · #4 10-09-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

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.)

DaemonSeid · #5 10-09-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.)

scroll up

MysticCat · #6 10-09-2008, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

scroll up

I did. Do I understand you correctly now? Are you're admitting that McCain hasn't said he doesn't want to tax the wealthy? And are you understanding that any confusion was because were took you to mean what you said?

DaemonSeid · #7 10-09-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I did. Do I understand you correctly now? Are you're admitting that McCain hasn't said he doesn't want to tax the wealthy? And are you understanding that any confusion was because were took you to mean what you said?

we are close...

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

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

MysticCat · #8 10-09-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

we are close...

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

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

Quite clear in both cases. Just so we continue to be clear, neither of those two things are what you said before.

DaemonSeid · #9 10-09-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Quite clear in both cases. Just so we continue to be clear, neither of those two things are what you said before.

I did...you misunderstood me...and we will KIM.

KSig RC · #10 10-09-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #11 10-09-2008, 03:30 PM

You know...it's great that we can have these discussions and disagree on this as we clearly think that it's important...but someone please give John a clue right now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/.../obama_ayers_2

I still say, when he had him face to face tuesday, why didn't he slide it in?

(Rhetorical)

Last desperate chance by McCain and I think this is the big mistake that will cost him...but...let's carry on shall we?

epchick · #12 10-09-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

...but someone please give John a clue right now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/.../obama_ayers_2

That article was about Sarah Palin, why would someone need to "give John a clue?"

DaemonSeid · #13 10-09-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epchick

That article was about Sarah Palin, why would someone need to "give John a clue?"

ummm...who does Palin work for??

you may want to see this too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200....MH8MFTelsnwcF

ETA

If anything, today has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt McCain doesn't believe in what he says

In 2000

He said "...when you run negative attack ads, you have no vision or cant articulate your own vision."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsX2Gx9jl_o -

u cant make that up.

KSigkid · #14 10-09-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

ummm...who does Palin work for??

you may want to see this too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200....MH8MFTelsnwcF

ETA

If anything, today has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt McCain doesn't believe in what he says

In 2000

He said "...when you run negative attack ads, you have no vision or cant articulate your own vision."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsX2Gx9jl_o -

u cant make that up.

So, if Obama said something 8 years ago, and then is doing somethign else today, does that mean that he doesn't believe what he says? Or is that different?