Debate Mark III

[SSP]

My parents are barely above the $250,000 a year line.

*jealous* >_>

[sandmanccl]

That really wasn't necessary.

I'm a little disappointed such a thing would come from you.

*shrugs* Okay. You have every right to be offended by that, but I think you'd be foolish to get up in arms about it. My whole point was to show how utterly ridiculous that conversation was.

Anyway:

Obama will raise taxes for the more wealthy, just not the middle and lower class, and Palin is a fucking moron anyone who disagrees is one, I actually hate her, yes I Hate Her

Don't you get it? Raising taxes on anyone is a bad idea. Lemme give you some figures. (Also, you haven't listed a concrete reason why you hate her. You sound like someone that watches too much liberal news media and is buying into their bias.)

This morning in the Las Vegas Review Journal (probably our most major newspaper in the city), they had some statistics. Did you know that as of 2005, the top 50% of income earners pay 95% of the country's tax revenue? The top 5% of income makers in the United States pay for 90% of the entire country's taxes.

Those are the people Obama wants to tax even more. That's bad economic policy. Do you know why? If you tax the people that are driving our economy (or what's left of it), you send even more people into total poverty. Herbert Hoover did it and that led to the Great Depression. We're talking 50% unemployment rate. 50 effin' percent. Half of the people in the United States at that time didn't have jobs.

Look at who the people you know work for. How many of them work for oil? How many of them work for banks? How many of them work in law? How many of them work for the car industry? I bet you know at least 1 person in each of those areas, and depending on where you live in the US, you probably know a whole lot of people that depend on one industry to be strong, like say Coal if you're from West Virginia. The layoffs that are created by raising the capital gains tax are inevitable.

One thing you have to understand about wealthy people is that they aren't wealthy by accident, at least not in America. Some celebrities, maybe, but definitely not the types of people that own Microsoft, R.C. Wiley's, Wal-Mart, and other major, major businesses. They don't earn a lot of money and then sit on it, lording their cash over other people. I'm not saying they don't live well, but I am saying is that a guy with a net worth of a billion dollars or more re-invests it into the economy. They expand their business, which creates new jobs in a lot of areas. Construction gets work by building new offices. The company employs new people. Supply stores now get increased business. If their product sales are good, the workers at that office will have a steady, good income and will buy houses, buy cars, buy TVs, buy candy bars, invest in stocks, etc. etc.

When you take money away from people who use that money to build the economy, you help cripple the economy. That's unacceptable. I agree on Obama's health care plan (the woman that deflowered me has a pre-existing heart condition that denies her health insurance, so she's probably going to die in 10 to 20 years of a bad heart) but his views on how to solve the economy are naive. In his OWN WORDS, this is the greatest economic crisis we've faced since the Great Depression, and he wants to implement some of the things that helped drive it into the ground back in 1929.

This election has been really hard on me. I've alienated friends because of my avid support of John McCain. There are things Obama wants to implement I would love to see, but the fact is I don't believe he'll be able to attain any of those goals without driving our country into 2nd World status.

[Cynthia]

*shrugs* Okay. You have every right to be offended by that, but I think you'd be foolish to get up in arms about it. My whole point was to show how utterly ridiculous that conversation was.

I don't think it's ridiculous, and I'm not offended, I'm just disappointed as you are usually more mature than that.

[Rehab]

It's seriously pointless to act superior over language.

It's obvious Sand's post above was well though out, but raising any personal tax is that bad? It's certainly unpopular, but even a frugal budget doesn't come from nowhere. This is an "I think," but I think a lot of people will have to take a hit to get ourselves out of the downturn. We already have trillions in debt, so years of a super conservative budget would only start to dent that.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Mac

[Meteor]

I'm aware that some people are affected by SNL, which...is kind of sad, to say the least.

I think it's worse that they'll vote for her because she's "hot."

[_____]

The real winner was Joe the Plumber.

I'd like to comment, but I missed the debate.

[Metal Rabbit]

If Mccain does get elected, he better not die. That's all I have to say about his running mate.

I did watch the later half of the debate and I have to say I was amused by both of their body language when the other was talking. It's like bells are going off in their heads and they want to speak but they can't so they sit nicely and smile.

[Arch]

I'm aware that some people are affected by SNL, which...is kind of sad, to say the least.

I certainly am not, the Katie Couric interview was a complete disaster and people in the McCain campaign said that she was trained 24/7 for the debate (and she still sucked). Although her portrayal on SNL is dead on from what I see, they don't even have to make stuff up! They can just use what she's said during the week "which...is kind of sad, to say the least".

Edited October 16, 2008 by Arch

[Doom103]

Honest to God I would rather have Bush in office than Pailn

[sandmanccl]

It's seriously pointless to act superior over language.

It's obvious Sand's post above was well though out, but raising any personal tax is that bad? It's certainly unpopular, but even a frugal budget doesn't come from nowhere. This is an "I think," but I think a lot of people will have to take a hit to get ourselves out of the downturn. We already have trillions in debt, so years of a super conservative budget would only start to dent that.

Starting to dent it is still denting it. It's certainly better than the alternative, which is even more growth.

Something a lot of liberals don't realize is that tax revenue has actually increased the last two times taxes were cut. A company that pulls in more money will cover the spread of having to give up an increased percentage of what they do make.

They play a dangerous game with Class Warfare. I'm sorry, but as a capitalist at heart, I want people who've earned the right to make millions to make their millions. I'm pretty poor right now, only able to get by because my parents realize the economic struggle I'm facing and are letting me live with them. The whole thing with people screaming that big corporations are bad and want the government to come in and save them don't realize all they want is for the government to be the only big corporation. That's not good for any country, and definitely not one that was built the same way America was.

[Mufasa]

Starting to dent it is still denting it. It's certainly better than the alternative, which is even more growth.

Something a lot of liberals don't realize is that tax revenue has actually increased the last two times taxes were cut. A company that pulls in more money will cover the spread of having to give up an increased percentage of what they do make.

They play a dangerous game with Class Warfare. I'm sorry, but as a capitalist at heart, I want people who've earned the right to make millions to make their millions. I'm pretty poor right now, only able to get by because my parents realize the economic struggle I'm facing and are letting me live with them. The whole thing with people screaming that big corporations are bad and want the government to come in and save them don't realize all they want is for the government to be the only big corporation. That's not good for any country, and definitely not one that was built the same way America was.

Exactly. I heard this analogy on the radio:

"It's like if everyone in a class got C-, except one student got an A. Obama's plan would esentially take that one kid's 'A' and make it a C- like everyone else."

It would pretty much make us a communistic country. Which is something that we've been fighting against since pretty much WW2.

[sandmanccl]

Well, that's the EXTREME right's arguments against his plans. I don't think it's as drastic as the conservatives in media make it out to be, but then again they have to be a bit over the top because they're the minority in the news and have to really shock people into actually wanting to take a deeper look into situations for their selves so they don't take everything for granted.

BUT

Basically, that's truth. Tax the taxpayers to give it to the non-taxpayers. It's been the Democratic party's party line for years, and it's why they have a history of blowing elections. Obama has every single indicator in his favor that he should win this election, and it's still close. That's how scared a lot of America is at his proposals.

You know who Glenn Beck is? He's a Mormon conservative radio talk show host, which is also filmed and shown on some news network (probably Fox, but I forget which station exactly.) Michelle Obama said something along the lines once of wanting to take a piece of the pie from big companies and give it to the middle class. Glenn Beck said "This is America. We're a bakery! Just bake more pie! I want everyone to have pie. They should have all the pie they could ever eat. You don't need a piece of my pie!" I agree with that 100%.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Exactly. I heard this analogy on the radio:

"It's like if everyone in a class got C-, except one student got an A. Obama's plan would esentially take that one kid's 'A' and make it a C- like everyone else."

It would pretty much make us a communistic country. Which is something that we've been fighting against since pretty much WW2.

That's a horrible analogy for Socialism. There are so many flaws in it I can't point them all out. Do you understand the concept?

The whole point behind Socialism is that anyone, a farmer, a doctor, anyone, should have enough to live. They're important to society. In the society we have now, CEOs of companies, who do NOTHING make more money than the people that are essential for society. Do you know that a lot of farmers LOSE money? Teachers wages continuosly fall. Labor wages are getting increasingly small. We need these people to survive, yet these occupations are becoming more and more unsavory, and useless looking. We need everyone.

Now, Capitalism isn't exactly godly. In pure Capitalism (there is no society that is pure Capitalism, even the US has a little Socialism mixed in), everything would VERY soon end up in a monopoly. Do you want a company responsible for everything, from your defense to your roads? Pure Capitalism is a scary thought. On the other hand, so is Pure Socialism, because in that, the Government controls everything. That's just as bad. But no-one in their right mind wants either really.

A mix is what you want. The pie analogy is also a little off. First, anything on Fox news is good for nothing but lulz (just kidding, please, don't sick the extreme Christian Right on me!). :P See, it misses the point. Why should some guy who really does nothing, or just inherited, or traded on the stock market, make SO MUCH more money than someone who is integral for our SURVIVAL. It's not that we can't make more pies, it's that the pies immediately go to the rich.

[Leonri]

That's a horrible analogy for Socialism. There are so many flaws in it I can't point them all out. Do you understand the concept?

The whole point behind Socialism is that anyone, a farmer, a doctor, anyone, should have enough to live. They're important to society. In the society we have now, CEOs of companies, who do NOTHING make more money than the people that are essential for society. Do you know that a lot of farmers LOSE money? Teachers wages continuosly fall. Labor wages are getting increasingly small. We need these people to survive, yet these occupations are becoming more and more unsavory, and useless looking. We need everyone.

Now, Capitalism isn't exactly godly. In pure Capitalism (there is no society that is pure Capitalism, even the US has a little Socialism mixed in), everything would VERY soon end up in a monopoly. Do you want a company responsible for everything, from your defense to your roads? Pure Capitalism is a scary thought. On the other hand, so is Pure Socialism, because in that, the Government controls everything. That's just as bad. But no-one in their right mind wants either really.

A mix is what you want. The pie analogy is also a little off. First, anything on Fox news is good for nothing but lulz (just kidding, please, don't sick the extreme Christian Right on me!). :P See, it misses the point. Why should some guy who really does nothing, or just inherited, or traded on the stock market, make SO MUCH more money than someone who is integral for our SURVIVAL. It's not that we can't make more pies, it's that the pies immediately go to the rich.

I pretty much agree with everything here. Basically at the moment the largest multinational companies are growing stronger and richer, while the countires weaken. With the current system of government in the world, in the furture we will see the emergence of the transnationals, superpowerful companies, which will basically hold the power in the world. Which is an extremely alarming thought, as companies are not interested in the welfare of humanity, only profits. Capatilism does not work, but neither does socialism. We have yet to find a system of governance that can truly build a stable and progresive society

[Mufasa]

Well of course there are people who simply inherited the money, but there are also people who worked for their money and made something of themselves from nothing. And even with inherited money, someone along their family line, worked their ass off for that money. Everyone has an oppurtunity to be rich and let their family be rich, you just have to work at it.

It'd be really nice if everyone could be happy and equal, but that's not the way the world works. People need to understand that not everyone can be equal. It's impossible. The idea that it would be possible is simply slowing down our progress when we can be focusing on stuff that really matters. Let things work themselves out. Or do something about it for yourself.

[Leonri]

Well of course there are people who simply inherited the money, but there are also people who worked for their money and made something of themselves from nothing. And even with inherited money, someone along their family line, worked their ass off for that money. Everyone has an oppurtunity to be rich and let their family be rich, you just have to work at it.

It'd be really nice if everyone could be happy and equal, but that's not the way the world works. People need to understand that not everyone can be equal. It's impossible. The idea that it would be possible is simply slowing down our progress when we can be focusing on stuff that really matters. Let things work themselves out. Or do something about it for yourself.

But surely, we could change the way the world works? Under capatilism, it is impossible. But a under a new system, it could be. And if it is possible, is it not our duty to do it? To ease the suffering of others? Is not a truly fair and equal society something we all want?

Slowing down our progress to what? If it's not preogression towards a better future, it's not progress at all. This is the stuff that really matters.

[Mufasa]

But surely, we could change the way the world works? Under capatilism, it is impossible. But a under a new system, it could be. And if it is possible, is it not our duty to do it? To ease the suffering of others? Is not a truly fair and equal society something we all want?

Slowing down our progress to what? If it's not preogression towards a better future, it's not progress at all. This is the stuff that really matters.

The world has a way of balancing itself out. When one bad thing happens to someone, something good happens to another. And vice versa. Trying to make the world better, would end up causing something even worse to happen in result. It's impossible to avoid. And can't be changed. It's not a matter of "Well if we try to do this, it will get better!" it's an impossibility, and it's the foundation on which this world is built. When one person suffers, another thrives.

And it slows down our progress to this. The world is constantly changing on it's own. If we stay put in one place trying to fix something that will naturally recover if we stop messing with it, then we'll lag behind in the changing of world, and something will happen that we won't be prepared for.

[Meteor]

The world does not balance itself out. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.

[Doom103]

Why is this still going on, the debate is over, wayyy over

[Arch]

Because people like to talk about the candidates, which shouldn't be a problem.

I agree with Meteor, the world does not naturally balance itself out. Problems don't just magically disappear on their own, they need someone to fix them. The economy won't magically fix itself because the greedy are never content, they'll always try to milk us for more money, more deregulation (which was essentially the cause of this mess) certainly won't help either. The war won't magically fix itself because if we just ignore the real problem it'll just grow out of hand until it is strong enough to strike back (AlQueda). The healthcare system won't fix itself and millions (including my poor mother) will continue to go without proper insurance, hell John McCain is going to make it worse, his $5000 dollar tax credit won't help my mother or anyone else for that matter and deregulating the Healthcare system will put it in the same place as our economy (the rich getting richer and the poor getting screwed over even more).

[Mufasa]

That just means that the poor need to work harder. Sure there are plenty of people who are suffering and will need help, and the government will help. But there are also people who are just lazy. There are people who work their asses off to get where they are, and other people who don't do anything, and will get rewarded for it under Obama's plan.

McCain's plan will result in more job openings, and people who are poor and want to work, will have an oppurtunity to do so. Rather than just sitting on their couch and having money being sent to them.

[SSP]

There's something I'd like to know.

My mother works her ass off as both a single parent and at work for at least 10 hours a day just to earn about $30,000 a year, and even then has to work her ass off at home to support this family, even with my help. Sound like enough money to get by? Think again. Gas, the mortgage, electricity, the phone, heating...expenses add up to thousands and thousands of dollars, and what remains is hardly enough money to pay for luxuries such as buying groceries and making school payments. I skip meals occasionally; it makes things easier on the wallet.

Now, you'd have to be ignorant or absolutely apathetic to not realize that this is common. I have friends in similar or worse situations, and I live in a town that's considered rich. People are struggling and are in need of any help they can get. They've done all they can to help themselves. They're not sitting on their asses hoping for money to come; they're the hardest workers of this entire country, and yet they are the ones who struggle, while the richest people here hardly ever work and practically boast their wealth. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the fairness in so many people toiling just to put food on the table with little time to experience "happiness," while others can simply burn money that they never worked for at their leisure?

And most of all, what will either candidate do to help struggling working-class families like ours so that we too can realize the American Dream? I believe that no American should be denied the right to America's promise, including the Dream itself.

Edited October 19, 2008 by SSP

[Arch]

Barack Obama is for the middle class, it's always been his message. He wants to lower your taxes (so that's less money to add to your expenses), John McCain wants to reduce taxation on the big industries that already have 100x more than you do. Obama invest money in finding renewable energy sources so you don't have to overpay for gas, McCain wants to try to drill our way out of the problem (which even the top oil experts say we cannot do) and heavily rely on nuclear energy which (as we know) can be very dangerous (nuclear meltdowns), plus once the energy is spent it's radioactive waste, where is that going to go? Barack Obama supports Universal Healthcare, that's less money to add to your expenses if you already have health care and a load of relief if you don't. John McCain supports a $5000 refundable tax credit, however he also wants to tax your health care benefits, you get $5000 and you pay even more than that.

[YokaiKnight]

And most of all, what will either candidate do to help struggling working-class families like ours so that we too can realize the American Dream? I believe that no American should be denied the right to America's promise, including the Dream itself.

Never, ever, ever look at a political figure to change your life. There have always been more people who struggle to get by in the world than those who are comfortable, and if that's going to change it's not going to come from a politician. Sorry to shoot you down, but no candidate is going to fix that. Look to yourself, your family, your friends, and if you think it'll work for you higher education.

Barack Obama is for the middle class, it's always been his message. He wants to lower your taxes (so that's less money to add to your expenses), John McCain wants to reduce taxation on the big industries that already have 100x more than you do. Obama invest money in finding renewable energy sources so you don't have to overpay for gas, McCain wants to try to drill our way out of the problem (which even the top oil experts say we cannot do) and heavily rely on nuclear energy which (as we know) can be very dangerous (nuclear meltdowns), plus once the energy is spent it's radioactive waste, where is that going to go?

Nuclear power plants are far, FAR more efficient than coal or oil, produce minimal amounts of waste compared to fossil fuels (especially in atmospheric release), and nuclear accidents are very, very rare with modern technology and even more rarely have disastrous results.

[Defeatist Elitist]

That just means that the poor need to work harder. Sure there are plenty of people who are suffering and will need help, and the government will help. But there are also people who are just lazy. There are people who work their asses off to get where they are, and other people who don't do anything, and will get rewarded for it under Obama's plan.

McCain's plan will result in more job openings, and people who are poor and want to work, will have an oppurtunity to do so. Rather than just sitting on their couch and having money being sent to them.

Because a single parent who spends all their time working is definitely not working as hard as a CEO. Definitely.

Come the hell on man. There are tons of people in the world who are rich because they are RICH. Not because of hard work. Hell, most really rich people are rich for that kind of reason. There aren't too many that are rich because they really worked hard, etc. The fact that you can say that the poor need to work harder is kind of worrying. Sure, some people will live off the system, but a lot of people are doing it anyway. At least this way the hard working people will get their reward.