Dems Pounce on McCain Admission He Doesn't Know How Many Houses He Owns

Originally posted by SectionEight
Let me guess, you want to look over greedily at the the "haves" and take what they got from the fruit of their hard work and give it to the "have nots" ie the lazy bums who live off the govt dole.

How about you don't guess at what I want or think, and while you're not doing that, use that time to get a clue what you're talking about. There is no such thing as government dole in the United States. Each state collects a premium for each employee and deposits it in an insurance fund. The only way for a person to receive anything is to have amassed a large enough deposit in their name and be fired for no fault of their own. Payments are limited to a small percentage of their normal wage for a limited amount of time - usually only a few weeks.

If you think everyone living in poverty is there because they're lazy, it's obvious you've fallen for the Right's propaganda all too easily.

reply to post by projectvxn

I don't hear poor people asking for a hand out from the government.

Try listening and then you'll hear the message loud and clear from many of them.

You talk of making the tax burden more fair... the wealthiest 10% of Americans pay two thirds of all the income tax. Tax payers who fall between the national average income and the wealthiest 10% comprise 45% of the nation's tax payers, yet pay 1/3rd of the taxes. The remaining 45%, the bottom 45% as it is, pay nothing in the end. That seems unfair to me, but I don't believe we agree on why it is unfair. I say it is unfair because that bottom 45% comprises the vast majority of people who draw on the tax payer's dollar. In other words, we have 55% of the nation supporting 45% of the nation. I'd like to see 100% of the nation supporting themselves and 0% supporting everyone else. But then again, I'm a dreamer.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

If you think everyone living in poverty is there because they're lazy, it's obvious you've fallen for the Right's propaganda all too easily.

See, I could say that anyone who believes that the nation's poor are blameless and should be uplifted by those who are successfull is a great example of you falling for the left's propaganda. I could say that, but I'm smart enough to recognize that we've devolved into merely calling viewpoints that disagree with our own "propaganda" instead of stopping to realize that the reality and truth of the situation lies somewhere between. Yes, there are some factors that have caused poverty that are outside the control of those who are poor, but yes, there's a hell of a lot more the poor could be doing for themselves to get out of the pit of poverty they're in. The problem is that the Right makes it difficult for them to do because we expect them to earn it from the ground up and the left makes it difficult for them to do because they love having the poor as pawns they can run out every election year, ala John Edwards and his laughable "two Americas" theory.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Huge difference: John McCain isn't running on a platform which decries capitalism and embraces socialism

I think that an overstatement that borders on the absurd. If person XYZ wants a universal health coverage or even socialized medicine, that doesn't make him/her a socialist even a bit. Capitalism, as many things, has its good and bad sides, and trying to find the right policy is a far cry from non-exitent "decrying capitalism" which you are trying to portray Obama as doing.

reply to post by burdman30ott6

* Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
* By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
* Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.

* In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.

o For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place.
o Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
* As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.” Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.

Suppose we continue this trend.....

When do you suppose these uber-rich guys are gonna "reinvest" these saving in to our economy??? Just asking cause' we could kinda use it....

reply to post by buddhasystem


Uh, I was talking about John Kerry & his running mate, John Edwards in that particular quote, as it was in direct response to a comment about John Kerry. Yes, I believe Obama is a socialist, as has been demonstrated by his emphasis on wealth redistribution into the inner cities, but in this particular case you've misread the target of my post.

reply to post by Grafilthy


Your point is? Tax cuts don't equal total tax burden. Even with the tax cuts, the wealthiest are still paying more into the system every year.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Try listening? I was homeless, many times throughout my life. I'm in a hell of alot better position now(Through hard work). And know many more just like me. Some of them are what is called the WORKING POOR which make up the vast majority of the poor in the US.

You seemed to have ignored or at least overlooked everything but that one sentence in my post. Poor people aren't naturally inclined to be lazy, poor people just want a better opportunity to do better, and work for it. It seems as though making imposed taxes fair across the board is asking too much? I suppose that asking that we stop dumping national resources into illegal wars and actually funding something we desperately need in this country...EDUCATION, and creating NEW industry. This is the only thing that is going to help us get out of the mess we're in.

Many Americans have had enough of being left behind having to catch up, only to see that inflation, massive disproportionate taxation, and war is taking everything they have..And for what?

I haven't seen any benefit to me or my loved ones as a result of the Iraq war. We have lost more Americans to the Iraq war than we did on 9/11 , and for what? We we're told that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction and it didn't, we're paying for it. Hundreds of billions of dollars...And where does this money for reconstruction go? Into someone's pocket, Nothing in Iraq has been rebuilt, but the American people have lost alot of money anyway.

Again if we're not the ones benefiting from these ridiculous policies then who is?



[edit on 21-8-2008 by projectvxn]

McCain Camp Fires Back at Obama Over ‘How Many Homes?’ Comments
FoxNews
WASHINGTON –The McCain campaign fired back Thursday at comments made by Barack Obama over the presumptive Republican nominee’s memory lapse about the number of homes he owns.

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses?” the McCain camp responded. “Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people cling to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

I just saw on channel 4 news here in the UK Mc Cain has been quoted as saying-you're not rich unless your worth over 5 million dollars!

The majority of people would be happy to be able to pay for essentials like food, energy, gas, debt and rent/mortgage (or be able to GET a mortgage!) without having two jobs, I reckon?

Mc Cain is a dinosuar and anyone who votes for him is voting for more of the same i.e-rich get richer, poor get poorer and more war for profit to benefit the big money in armaments,oil etc.
At least with Obama there's the possibility of change!

[edit on 21-8-2008 by the way]

Well it pays to become a political whore in this time and age when it comes to our nations political system and their many pimps that pay for favors in the name of lobbyist.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by projectvxn

 

I don't hear poor people asking for a hand out from the government.

Try listening and then you'll hear the message loud and clear from many of them.

You talk of making the tax burden more fair... . The remaining 45%, the bottom 45% as it is, pay nothing in the end. That seems unfair to me, but I don't believe we agree on why it is unfair. I say it is unfair because that bottom 45% comprises the vast majority of people who draw on the tax payer's dollar..

???

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the bottom 45% do not pay in the end???

Are you serious?

I can tell you I am in that category... and you are saying I don't pay?
I seems that your factual information, political and economic philosophy is not based on reality. I suspect you believe any information fed to you from conservative sources. This, is not denying ignorance, please!

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by Grafilthy

 

Your point is? Tax cuts don't equal total tax burden. Even with the tax cuts, the wealthiest are still paying more into the system every year.

Do you have a disconnect???

The wealthiest go without want or need...

We all have one life, existence itself, why are you shilling for the big money?

How rich are you?

Originally posted by the way
At least with Obama there's the possibility of change!

You're right. I get to see more of my take home pay get changed into taxes.

I find it pathetic that the McCain campaign keeps repeating the mantra that Obama is "a guy who worries about the price of arugula ". As far as I am concerned, Obama does the right thing that he worries about the price of groceries, which may include arugula when the shopper is trying to pursue a healthy lifestyle. Heck, I like arugula a lot and it's getting expensive.

McCain, on the other hand, does not have to worry about the price of arugula or any other food stock because he's so freaking shielded from reality it's really scary -- and that includes his real estate interests.

reply to post by mental modulator

How rich are you?

I'm rich in spirit. Otherwise, hardy har har! Grew up dirt poor and am raising a family on a single income with my wife staying home & caring for our kids. I make enough to get by, but am solidly middle class.

The issue isn't one of rich people siding with rich people all against the poor where I see it. It is an issue of whether or not being successfull should be punished through higher taxation and whether that is fair. I say no, it is not. As for Buffet's secretary comment, unless she was single and without kids well, well over half of that 30% is easily recovered at the end of the year in deductions and an income tax refund check is issued. The wealthy do not get refunds, they end up paying more as they ALWAYS owe the IRS come April.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
McCain, on the other hand, does not have to worry about the price of arugula or any other food stock because he's so freaking shielded from reality it's really scary -- and that includes his real estate interests.

Like Obama is out in the local Food King, checking the tomatoes for freshness!

None of these guys have a clue what's going on with the world, and that includes Lord Obama.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Grew up dirt poor and am raising a family on a single income with my wife staying home & caring for our kids. I make enough to get by, but am solidly middle class.

Ditto. We are peers in this.

The issue isn't one of rich people siding with rich people all against the poor where I see it. It is an issue of whether or not being successfull should be punished through higher taxation and whether that is fair. I say no, it is not.

One has to recognize that getting quite rich is possible mostly in a very capitalist environment, and while that environment makes these fortunes possible to people who work hard etc, it also carries many ills with it. Progressive taxation is fair in that regard, not because it "punishes", but because it is essentially a utility fee.

Originally posted by jerico65
Like Obama is out in the local Food King, checking the tomatoes for freshness!

Fair enough, but at least he checked his grocery bill (and quite possibly other bills as well).

McCain remarks remind me of Bush Senior, who was so deeply impressed by the sight of a scanner at a grocery check-out register -- he hadn't seen one ever, until he went on a particular trip, to shake hands at a supermarket. He thought it was brand new tech straight from sci-fi.

reply to post by Grafilthy


This is getting ridiculous.
I can see that in this election no relevant political issues are going to be debated. Seems that people are only interested on the anecdotal, the substance will remain unknown, due to the people. So, in a year or two, the next President will be bashed over some stance that nobody knew was his. All people seem interested in is race, religion, personal issues, and everything irrelevant under the sun...

I also do not know how many houses I have, so what????