McCain vs Obama debate, Who do you feel won? Options

[Billy]

I like McCain. But I feel that McCain treated it like a beauty pageant and Obama actually debated.

[Dogmeat]

I didn't actually watch the debates, however, Obama is a communist liberal pinko and therefore lost the debates.



What I'm much more interested in is the VP debate.

[impala454]

Didn't catch it because I was at the 'stros game but I'm sure they'll re-run it. No other thoughts on it yet?

[Psykopath]

I thought it was a good forum. Both candidates were strong at times, and only mildly flustered at certain points.

Weakness for Obama: He let McCain put him on the mild defensive too many times. (McCain would bring up some point that would make Obama have to interject with a "That's just not true", etc..., kind of remark)

Weakness for McCain: He seemed to belittle Obama with his overall attitude, and he would play the quiet-voiced fear card a lot.

Overall it was a good first debate.

[impala454]

Cool. I don't see the damn thing on rerun yet... I'm sure it'll be on youtube pretty quick if its not already.

[Psykopath]

found just the very first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzlu17kcufM

[Psykopath]

WAIT!
Here's the whole debate on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/...ntire.part1.cnn

[Dogmeat]

Yes, indeed I was correct, Obama lost the debate due to his immoral liberal ideas which will ultimatley accelerate the arrival of the Dick Sex Apocalypse tenfold.

[Mommy]

I think McCain is dead on with his ideals on earmarks and tax cuts to the wealthy. The upper class support our economy and they should have more money in their pockets.

The ONLY earmark I've ever agreed with is the described in Charlie Wilson's War.... btw good movie

[pysex]

McCain won the debate for sure. Obama stuttered way too much for someone who's had a strong presence in the past.

[The Fanatic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu7feUQ-9fg&NR=1

[Mommy]

McCain defines SPECIFIC ways in which he intends on cutting taxes. In fact, he goes a step further and tells how HE HIMSELF can influence the change. He promises to veto every earmark spending bill that comes across his desk. That will save tax payers billions. Obama says he wants to hold corporations accountable. OK. How are you going to do that? Don't you think that is something the United States has been trying to do ever since the Enron failure? Additionally, business taxes do need to be cut. We are losing our industries and manufacturing to foreign competitors. Business owners would rather set up shop elsewhere because it costs too much to do so here. Obama is a fucking idiot if he thinks that business incentives counteract the taxes they have to pay. McCain definitely won.

[Psykopath]

I think McCain is dead on with his ideals on earmarks and tax cuts to the wealthy. The upper class support our economy and they should have more money in their pockets.

The ONLY earmark I've ever agreed with is the described in Charlie Wilson's War.... btw good movie

So you actually believe in trickle-down economics?!

Uggh, sad.

[Mommy]

So you actually believe in trickle-down economics?!

Uggh, sad.

It is proven FACT that the wealthiest 5% of the nation spend over 50% of the money in this country. So, yes, yes I do believe in trickle down economics.

So you actually don't believe in it?

Uggh, sad.

[Spectatrix]

McCain defines SPECIFIC ways in which he intends on cutting taxes. In fact, he goes a step further and tells how HE HIMSELF can influence the change. He promises to veto every earmark spending bill that comes across his desk. That will save tax payers billions. Obama says he wants to hold corporations accountable. OK. How are you going to do that? Don't you think that is something the United States has been trying to do ever since the Enron failure? Additionally, business taxes do need to be cut. We are losing our industries and manufacturing to foreign competitors. Business owners would rather set up shop elsewhere because it costs too much to do so here. Obama is a fucking idiot if he thinks that business incentives counteract the taxes they have to pay. McCain definitely won.

I need to review what Obama has said and fact check it, but I'd like to address your comments about McCain.

1) Minor nitpick -- he has made a big deal about earmarks, but he hasn't promised to veto every one, just wasteful ones. I'm fine with that. Earmark abuse is definitely a problem with some politicians.

2) Even eliminating all earmarks doesn't save much. While there are exceptions, most often an earmark is just a specification of what projects a given agency is to work out, out of money they're already allocated in the budget. As an example, I know some Dems have been giving Palin a hard time about keeping the money that had been earmarked for the "Bridge to Nowhere", but the truth is that those funds were already set aside for general Alaska transportation use. The bridge earmark wasn't diverting additional money, just specifying that X amount of the money they were receiving was to be used for the bridge. Once the earmark was killed, it was still perfectly appropriate for Alaska to keep those transportation funds.

3) To my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), McCain has yet to specify what specific government agencies/projects he would cut money from. He has effectively said that defense spending is off the table (and may actually increase), but hasn't said where he's going to cut money from. If defense spending is included, cutting $100 billion from the budget would be approximately an 18% average reduction in spending across all other agencies/projects. Great! But I'd like specifics.


Anywho, I'd like more specifics from BOTH sides. It really disgusts me that politicians fall into this rut of broadcasting broad ideological differences without getting into policy specifics. And then they keep repeating the same old, inaccurate smears for months on end. I swear to god, if I ever got into politics, I would have a policy of thoroughly fact-checking every single ad and mailer that went out. Misleading and/or false into has no place in a campaign. I'm more or less ok with tearing down one's opponent, but it damn well better be based on factual, contextually accurate info.

</rant>

Yes, I'm pissed at both sides for this crap.

[Mommy]

I need to review what Obama has said and fact check it, but I'd like to address your comments about McCain.

1) Minor nitpick -- he has made a big deal about earmarks, but he hasn't promised to veto every one, just wasteful ones. I'm fine with that. Earmark abuse is definitely a problem with some politicians.

2) Even eliminating all earmarks doesn't save much. While there are exceptions, most often an earmark is just a specification of what projects a given agency is to work out, out of money they're already allocated in the budget. As an example, I know some Dems have been giving Palin a hard time about keeping the money that had been earmarked for the "Bridge to Nowhere", but the truth is that those funds were already set aside for general Alaska transportation use. The bridge earmark wasn't diverting additional money, just specifying that X amount of the money they were receiving was to be used for the bridge. Once the earmark was killed, it was still perfectly appropriate for Alaska to keep those transportation funds.

3) To my knowledge (and please correct me if I'm wrong), McCain has yet to specify what specific government agencies/projects he would cut money from. He has effectively said that defense spending is off the table (and may actually increase), but hasn't said where he's going to cut money from. If defense spending is included, cutting $100 billion from the budget would be approximately an 18% average reduction in spending across all other agencies/projects. Great! But I'd like specifics.


Anywho, I'd like more specifics from BOTH sides. It really disgusts me that politicians fall into this rut of broadcasting broad ideological differences without getting into policy specifics. And then they keep repeating the same old, inaccurate smears for months on end. I swear to god, if I ever got into politics, I would have a policy of thoroughly fact-checking every single ad and mailer that went out. Misleading and/or false into has no place in a campaign. I'm more or less ok with tearing down one's opponent, but it damn well better be based on factual, contextually accurate info.

</rant>

Yes, I'm pissed at both sides for this crap.

On point #1, go back and listen to the debate. He promises to veto every one until the system is revised.

[Mommy]

And Zach,

The total combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans now stands at $1.25 trillion.

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives...s_publishe.html

[Mommy]

Christine, tell me how Obama plans to increase government "welfare" (calling them that for lack of a better word) programs but still decrease taxes without providing a solid plan for how to cut government spending?

[Dogmeat]

Obama is a principle in the proprieting of the Dick Sex Apocalypse that is afoot!

[Spectatrix]

On point #1, go back and listen to the debate. He promises to veto every one until the system is revised.

I haven't actually watched the debate yet. My bad.

Christine, tell me how Obama plans to increase government "welfare" (calling them that for lack of a better word) programs but still decrease taxes without providing a solid plan for how to cut government spending?

I don't know. I think Obama's rhetoric is lacking in specifics as well. See the complaints in my last post on that general topic.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Sep 27 2008, 07:51 PM

[Mommy]

I haven't actually watched the debate yet. My bad.


I don't know. I think Obama's rhetoric is lacking in specifics as well. See the complaints in my last post on that general topic.

ooops. i read the first line of your post, responded, and meant to go back and read the rest but i forgot.

[Spectatrix]

Also, Jessica, as far as your comments about trickle-down economics, I largely agree (though Zach, I'd like to hear more on why you disagree with it), but not in specific economic situation we're finding ourselves in now. The current economic woes we're having are largely due to a budget crunch on the middle class. I think the smartest course of action would be to reduce middle class taxes now, then as the economy stabilizes and we get government spending under control, arrange an upper-class tax cut.

[Mommy]

Also, Jessica, as far as your comments about trickle-down economics, I largely agree (though Zach, I'd like to hear more on why you disagree with it), but not in specific economic situation we're finding ourselves in now. The current economic woes we're having are largely due to a budget crunch on the middle class. I think the smartest course of action would be to reduce middle class taxes now, then as the economy stabilizes and we get government spending under control, arrange an upper-class tax cut.

I think I can agree to that. I'm curious why Zach said that as well. As far as tax cuts for the middle class, I think (note I said THINK) both candidates plan for tax cuts to the middle class. McCain wants to include the upper class, though, and Obama wants to include the lower income class. That makes no sense to me, though, because most people in the low income bracket hardly pay taxes, if at all. Maybe I am wrong about their tax cut policies.

[Spectatrix]

McCain's plan is to cut taxes across the board, with most of the cuts being for the upper class. Obama plans to cut taxes for all those making below 250k/yr and raise taxes above that mark. I don't really agree with either plan. I would probably favor a tapered tax cut. Biggest cut for middle class, then tapering off in either direction, but not raising anyone's taxes. A couple of years after that, assuming government spending has gotten reined in (crucial!), I would favor a tax cut similar to the one that McCain is proposing now.

The main reason I'd favor the middle class now is that the current economic stagnation is stemming from there, by and large. I think it's crucial to get that cleared up before worrying much about anything else.

[Spectatrix]

I have such interest in politics, but I'm far too rational for it. I'd never get elected.

[Psykopath]

Trickle-down economics largely relies upon "good-faith investments" by those receiving the cuts.
I.E.- Top businesses/corporations will take the saved income from the tax cuts and invest it in such areas as the stock market and towards developing greater business infrastructure. This would then, in theory, lead to more product development and production and therefore more jobs and earning potential for the middle and lower classes.

There is no guarantee that such investments would be made by the business elite....and with the present economic crisis showing just how much of a bang-up job many of those signing the cheques has done, I have even less trust in that economic theory being even remotely effective. Though I will concede that it can work under the right conditions.
As Christine stated: now is certainly not the time.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Sep 27 2008, 09:24 PM

[impala454]

McCain won the debate for sure. Obama stuttered way too much for someone who's had a strong presence in the past.

no teleprompter

[impala454]

McCain's plan is to cut taxes across the board, with most of the cuts being for the upper class. Obama plans to cut taxes for all those making below 250k/yr and raise taxes above that mark. I don't really agree with either plan. I would probably favor a tapered tax cut. Biggest cut for middle class, then tapering off in either direction, but not raising anyone's taxes. A couple of years after that, assuming government spending has gotten reined in (crucial!), I would favor a tax cut similar to the one that McCain is proposing now.

The main reason I'd favor the middle class now is that the current economic stagnation is stemming from there, by and large. I think it's crucial to get that cleared up before worrying much about anything else.

Tax cuts for citizens, whether rich or poor aren't a huge deal. They're just vote getters. What we really need to see is corporate taxes (like the capital gains tax, etc) cut. If the damn democrats will ever pull their thumbs out of their asses and sign off on it, we'll have some great economic times.

[THECHICKEN]

My biggest problem with obama is his "if you make less than 250k a year you want get tax raises" (inferring a tax increase above that). Then he goes on to say that to the people who say he is raising taxes on small businesses (since small businesses are equated to the owner's income taxes), he is planning on closing the "tax loop holes" that let small businesses pay less taxes than lower tax brackets. ... that scares the shit out of me. The reason small businesses SHOULD be given lower tax brackets is because of the way the tax system is SET UP. 250k of income when taking into account a business isn't that much in today's world... and we need those businesses to hire people... you know... jobs.

Obama is just a little to naive for me. He's extremely intelligent, but a little to idealistic. He doesn't seem to see some of the nuances of the world. Giving 50 bucks back to every tax payer is one tank of gas. Giving money back to more wealthy puts money either into stocks (capital to grow businesses), or into banking so that the banks can loan to people to start businesses or get homes... when those are paid off then money in the economy grows... allowing more loans ... then more money...etc.

Of course im not for taxing the middle class and not the rich... obviously. Also, i recognize the failure that has taken place with our banking systems running off the tracks. But those are all fixable with legislation. When FINANCE smartly dictates companies... economics takes over. America has had the most steady system in history... thats why investments in america are sure payments (historically). The system isn't broken... only the players. Clinton started the banking crash... bush perpetuated it, and congress let it happen.

[Dogmeat]

obama is a fraud

[Mommy]

My biggest problem with obama is his "if you make less than 250k a year you want get tax raises" (inferring a tax increase above that). Then he goes on to say that to the people who say he is raising taxes on small businesses (since small businesses are equated to the owner's income taxes), he is planning on closing the "tax loop holes" that let small businesses pay less taxes than lower tax brackets. ... that scares the shit out of me. The reason small businesses SHOULD be given lower tax brackets is because of the way the tax system is SET UP. 250k of income when taking into account a business isn't that much in today's world... and we need those businesses to hire people... you know... jobs.

Obama is just a little to naive for me. He's extremely intelligent, but a little to idealistic. He doesn't seem to see some of the nuances of the world. Giving 50 bucks back to every tax payer is one tank of gas. Giving money back to more wealthy puts money either into stocks (capital to grow businesses), or into banking so that the banks can loan to people to start businesses or get homes... when those are paid off then money in the economy grows... allowing more loans ... then more money...etc.

Of course im not for taxing the middle class and not the rich... obviously. Also, i recognize the failure that has taken place with our banking systems running off the tracks. But those are all fixable with legislation. When FINANCE smartly dictates companies... economics takes over. America has had the most steady system in history... thats why investments in america are sure payments (historically). The system isn't broken... only the players. Clinton started the banking crash... bush perpetuated it, and congress let it happen.

Agree with you 110%... especially the part where you said "He doesn't seem to see some of the nuances of the world. Giving 50 bucks back to every tax payer is one tank of gas. Giving money back to more wealthy puts money either into stocks (capital to grow businesses), or into banking so that the banks can loan to people to start businesses or get homes."

I also agree with Christine to an extent. I mean, the middle class is a large group of people, AND they carry buying power so it would only make sense to decrease those taxes. The lower income tax bracket DOES NOT NEED A TAX CUT. They hardly pay taxes as it is. Many don't. I think every working citizen should pay at least some taxes... even if it's $10. It's our responsibilities as Americans to pay taxes. The thing is, like I said before, the upper class (even so little as the richest 400 people in our country) carry HUGE financial power in this country. Taxing them MORE is completely irresponsible.

[Billy]

CNN poll indicates Obama won first round of Debate

OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top, but there was overwhelming agreement that both Obama and John McCain would be able to handle the job of president if elected.

[Mommy]

I'll be honest, I only watched part 1 of the debate on CNN.com. I didn't get around to watching the other 2 parts yet; however, during that 1 part, McCain definitely was stronger. Did it go down hill from there or something? I didn't go by this analyst's opinion, but some yahoo writer gave poor marks to McCain for the debate but marked Obama very high. I just didn't see that from the portion I watched.

[THECHICKEN]

CNN poll indicates Obama won first round of Debate

Cnn polls always tend to show democrat "winners"... though im against labeling a winner or loser in a presidential debate

[Mommy]

Cnn polls always tend to show democrat "winners"... though im against labeling a winner or loser in a presidential debate

I've noticed more liberals frequent that site. McCain can be ahead in the national polls, but then Obama is ahead on the CNN polls. It's the ghey

[woody]

polls in general have become ghey

they've become useless

[chook]

I think spex has the right idea about middle class spending. The middle class usually keeps money coming in and going out. In the upper end, money is stockpiled and the ripple effect isn't seen as much. Look at the current crisis, middle class money tied up in morgages and spending down. You become rich by keeping your money. They are more likely to buy the $1 menu at McDonalds.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_distri...e_United_States