Thread: Debate #3! Its about time McCain took the fight to Obama!

Originally Posted by Bruno

No idea what the DNC is, but I was just trying to defuse some anger with logic and reason.

DNC= Democratic National Commitee!
That line of reasoning could lighten things for one group, but potentially anger another Bruno!

By the way, what anger?

Originally Posted by JMS

Are you feeding at the DNC trough also Bruno?

By the way Bruno, This post was only meant in fun!

There doesn't have to be a lie. No need to be so readily angered.
I don't have the stats so I could be wrong, but is it possible that 95% of the Americans are not the ones who benefited from the Bush tax cuts?

Bruno


Bruno, it doesn't work the way you described. BTW, I am not angered, merely bewildered. In a SANE world, neither of those clowns would be a candidate for President. They would have been weeded out in the first couple of Primaries. Obama doesn't actually SAY anything. He bloviates and people hear what they like. McCain isn't any better. Neither of them should have gotten this far!
I am a Lower Middle Class Taxpayer. I got some nice Tax reductions when the "Bush Tax Cuts" were enacted. If they are rolled back, my Taxes WILL go up. There are a lot more than 5% of us who were helped by the Tax Cuts and a lot more than 5% of us will get hammered when they are taken away from us. So NO, 95% of Americans are not going to get an Obama tax cut.

There was some commentary afterward that I felt was very true. We're facing a time when tax cuts may not be possible. Yeah, it's tough, it's probably going to get worse before it gets better, but we're all going to have to tighten our purse string, pitch in, work together, and work through this pile of s&*t we're in. It's nice to hear about having a little extra spending money at the end of the week/month/year but the problems that are facing our country are more important than the amount of money in question. Our national future is hanging in the balance, we should all be asking what can we do for our country, not what our country can do for us (to quote a good man).

As for the debate, I don't think either candidate "won"; they both had good points, they both had issues that needed to be clarified.

One point of contention: McCain tends to put a lot of weight on aspects that make him look desirable as a candidate, but have very little substance to them. This was especially true in his closing statement. Things like serving this country for your entire life and being from a long line of patriotic veterans/public servants (which I can claim as well, from the civil war to WWI & II, to Korea & Vietnam, as well as public office at various points) means absolutely nothing with respect to how you are going to address the issues that are on the table.

Originally Posted by JMS

DNC= Democratic National Commitee!
That line of reasoning could lighten things for one group, but potentially anger another Bruno!

By the way, what anger?

Brother Jeeter's post called Obama a liar and used capital letters, which usually infer anger. If that was not anger, then I was wrong about BJ (apologies for that).

While my political views are no secret, I would have made the same reply if Brother Jeeter would have said 'McCain' instead of 'Obama' (assuming for a moment McCain would have uttered those 2 phrases)
My reply was not meant to judge those actions (the tax cuts) but to indicate that there is not lie, and that both are not mutually exclusive.


Now to answer your point:
The economy is in trouble, and a lot of people are on the brink.
If they go over, the economy will truly be borked because the only thing keeping an economy going is if the money is going round. If a tax cut for the majority means that they will get some breathing room instead of losing their homes / not being able to pay for medical care, isn't that a good thing?
Especially since they will spend that money and keep the economy going.

Isn't that more important than the ability of the very rich to get richer at a higher rate than normal, through a tax cut they only got because they had enough money to be important to Bush?

"One could argue that the "Bush tax cuts" were the ones pertaining to the wealthiest 5% and to big businesses..."

Russell Baldridge


I am Lower Middle Class (see my previous post) and I was helped by the 'Bush Tax Cuts." And I will be hurt when they are taken away. I live on a fixed income and everything and I mean EVERYTHING has increased in price, since those tax cuts were enacted!

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

One could argue that the "Bush tax cuts" were the ones pertaining to the wealthiest 5% and to big businesses, so by altering the distribution of taxation, there could be more money received in taxation as well as possible tax cuts for a large portion of the population.

I dont know what all the tax cuts pertained to, but I know Bush's cuts also raised the child credit (or lowered the income requirement for the EIC) which only applies to low income households. You can argue the cuts pertained to the top 5% but you can't argue they only pertained to them

Like Brother Jeeter wonders, I do too. Obama would roll back the cuts that Bush passed on to the lower income brackets (at least those with kids) and then replace them with something else - 4 more years of tax cuts either way I guess. More of the same failed economic policies... Higher taxes are probably the real changes we can believe in though

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

I am a Lower Middle Class Taxpayer. I got some nice Tax reductions when the "Bush Tax Cuts" were enacted. If they are rolled back, my Taxes WILL go up. There are a lot more than 5% of us who were helped by the Tax Cuts and a lot more than 5% of us will get hammered when they are taken away from us. So NO, 95% of Americans are not going to get an Obama tax cut.

That depends on the amount and % involved. Your Bush tax cut might disappear, but you would get a new tax cut which could be in the same amount for you, but still favor those earning less than you, and disfavoring those earning more than you.
I don't have numbers so I can't prove it, but it's at least possible.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

One could argue that the "Bush tax cuts" were the ones pertaining to the wealthiest 5% and to big businesses, so by altering the distribution of taxation, there could be more money received in taxation as well as possible tax cuts for a large portion of the population.

This is what I meant.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Brother Jeeter's post called Obama a liar and used capital letters, which usually infer anger.
While my political views are no secret, I would have made the same reply if Brother Jeeter would have said 'McCain' instead of 'Obama' (assuming for a moment McCain would have uttered those 2 phrases)
My reply was not meant to judge those actions (the tax cuts) but to indicate that there is not lie, and that both are not mutually exclusive.


Now to answer your point:
The economy is in trouble, and a lot of people are on the brink.
If they go over, the economy will truly be borked because the only thing keeping an economy going is if the money is going round. If a tax cut for the majority means that they will get some breathing room instead of losing their homes / not being able to pay for medical care, isn't that a good thing?
Especially since they will spend that money and keep the economy going.

Isn't that more important than the ability of the very rich to get richer at a higher rate than normal, through a tax cut they only got because they had enough money to be important to Bush?

See Jeeters second post! I am lower middle class but by most Government definitions I am dirt poor! Bushes tax cuts put extra money in my pocket! I think your news sources are a little slanted!

By the way, Jeeter types that way because he has trouble seeing, not because he is angry!

"Brother Jeeter's post called Obama a liar and used capital letters, which usually infer anger...My reply was not meant to judge those actions (the tax cuts) but to indicate that there is not lie, and that both are not mutually exclusive."

Bruno

Bruno, read it again. I did not call anyone a liar. I pointed out two opposing positions and I said, "He CANNOT have it both ways." Perhaps I should have followed that with "Which one is the truth?" My bad.
I use capitalization, NOT to show anger, but in place of voice inflection.
Now...if you have read all three of my previous posts in this thread, you should understand why I feel that those two statements are in fact mutually exclusive. And if that is in fact the case, only one of them CAN be true.
They might both be wrong, but they can't both be right.