You know the Presidential Race is already over When...

[zoosermom]

<p>

Context is everything. Broaden your lens to take in more of the big picture. If the top 1-5% aren’t called rich, what are they? Not poor, not middle-class… wealthy

</p>

<p>Hardworking? Hubby and I have been at $200k, but it took us three jobs and tons of overtime to do it. By no stretch of the imagination are we rich or even wealthy. Just willing to do whatever it takes to give our kids better lives.</p>

[Tyler09]

<p>^no, that’s rich. By any stretch of the imagination unless you’re Bill Gates.</p>

<p>If you make 4 times as much as someone whose middle class, you aren’t middle class anymore.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

Bedhead has no real response to what I posted, and so refuted it by bringing up something entirely unrelated.

</p>

<p>

The issue threatened to become an election-year talking point when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the likely GOP nominee, sided with the White House in opposing the bill. McCain and several other Republicans introduced an alternative proposal offering lesser benefits. Their position was skewered by veterans groups and Democrats, including likely presidential nominee Sen.Barack Obama (Ill.). But the politics surrounding the issue has since been neutered: McCain announced his support for the Webb bill after the transferability language was added.

</p>

<p>Unrelated? The core issue is McCain’s no straight talker and was telling people something with an egregious sense of expedience. He spoke to this audience in a way that suggested he had been in favor. Yes, he changed his position and I understand the dynamics of negotiations. He can do that. But what he did in the political rally he attended was to leave a false impression.</p>

<p>Here are multiple examples of McCain saying what sounds good in a moment whatever the facts were or of changing his tune completely:</p>

<p>[YouTube</a> - The Real McCain 2](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLfsG8XKWfw]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLfsG8XKWfw)</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>My guess is “rich” is anyone who has more than they do…regardless of income. In a socialist state that would be a problem. Of course rich would be defined by where you live. $200k in Cincinnati (where I am) is quite well off. $200k in San Fran is like $75k here (let me tell you 75k doesn’t cut it). I feel for the ones trying to scrape by on $20 or 30k a year. It’s tough. It’s also their responsibility to do better.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

^no, that’s rich. By any stretch of the imagination unless you’re Bill Gates.

</p>

<p>By no stretch of the imagination are a garbageman/stockboy and an admin with no education who work for hourly/ot wages rich. As I’ve said, there’s no one who couldn’t work a second job overnight at a supermarket to bump up their salary if they so chose.</p>

[WashDad]

<p>An income of $180k is certainly high, but unless the family has been earning that for a long time they are unlikely to be rich. “Wealth” and “income” are related but are hardly the same thing. A 25-year-old NBA player certainly is a high-income earner, but there are lots of examples of the same man being broke within a year or two of “retiring” at 28, largely due to bad financial judgments. Someone who spends all of their income doesn’t get rich, no matter how high that income is.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>[Cindy</a> McCain Pays Back Taxes on San Diego Condo | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/]Cindy”>http://www.newsweek.com/id/143775/)</p>

<p>This may explain McCain’s flip-flop on the tax issue:</p>

<p>

When you’re poor, it can be hard to pay the bills. When you’re rich, it’s hard to keep track of all the bills that need paying. It’s a lesson Cindy McCain learned the hard way when NEWSWEEK raised questions about an overdue property-tax bill on a La Jolla, Calif., property owned by a trust that she oversees. Mrs. McCain is a beer heiress with an estimated $100 million fortune and, along with her husband, she owns at least seven properties, including condos in California and Arizona.</p>

<p>San Diego County officials, it turns out, have been sending out tax notices on the La Jolla property, an oceanfront condo, for four years without receiving a response.

</p>

[bz2010]

<p>

This may explain McCain’s flip-flop on the tax issue:

</p>

<p>What flip-flop, BedHead?</p>

<p>You mean where he opposed the tax cuts until they went into effect, now doesn’t want them to be repealed b/c that would amount to a tax increease?</p>

<p>That is hardly a flip-flop and hardly relevant to the article:</p>

<p>

County records show the bills, which were mailed to a Phoenix address associated with Mrs. McCain’s trust, were returned by the post office.

</p>

<p>

an elderly aunt of Mrs. McCain’s lives in the condo, and the bank that manages the trust has not been receiving tax bills on the property. Shortly after NEWSWEEK inquired about the matter, the McCain aide e-mailed a receipt dated Friday, June 27, confirming payment by the trust to San Diego County in the amount of $6,744.42.

</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

What flip-flop, BedHead?

</p>

<p>[Dancing</a> With GOP Stars: McCain, Romney Do Flip-Flop Waltz - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402806.html]Dancing”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402806.html)</p>

<p>

Nachama Soloveichik, communications director for the Club for Growth, a free-market think tank and lobby group, said Romney comes across as “more sincere” than McCain when it comes to maintaining President Bush’s tax cuts. She said the senator had sounded “like Ted Kennedy” in 2001, when he opposed the tax cuts because they helped the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.</p>

<p>“He is trying to have it both ways,” Soloveichik said. “It’s hard to take him seriously when he says he is going to fight to make the Bush cuts permanent. He was front and center opposing them.”</p>

<p>The issue of flip-flopping came up repeatedly during the campaign for the Florida primary and the run-up to today’s Super Tuesday voting. Speaking in Jacksonville, Fla., McCain sarcastically praised Romney: “He’s consistently taken both sides of any major issue. He has consistently flip-flopped on every issue.”</p>

<p>Romney shot back that McCain was “against the Bush tax cuts” but “now he’s for making them permanent.” And “he was for McCain-Kennedy” immigration reform, Romney continued. “Now he’s for a new program on immigration. He’s changed his view on issue after issue. He was against ethanol, then for it, then against it again.”

</p>

<p>

Romney supporters argue that McCain’s flip-flops have largely been under the public radar because they conflict with the “straight shooter” narrative that they say has been accepted and promoted by the media. McCain has altered his position on such issues as taxes, immigration, the religious right, Roe v. Wade and ethanol. McCain has moved toward mainstream Republican positions on all these issues, including an embrace of the Ronald Reagan philosophy that tax cuts always lead to higher government revenue.</p>

<p>The senator has sought to disguise his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts by arguing that the main reason he opposed them was that they were not accompanied by cuts in government spending. This was not the explanation he gave at the time, however. In a May 2001 speech on the Senate floor, he said he could not “in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

</p>

<p>Someone once said: “The worst lies are the lies we tell ourselves.”</p>

<p>

You mean where he opposed the tax cuts until they went into effect, now doesn’t want them to be repealed b/c that would amount to a tax increease?

</p>

<p>Oh I get it: he was against them before he was for them. Indeed.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>BedHead - you’ve outdone yourself! You’ve manged to include “old news” AND bunk in the same post!</p>

<p>Are you really trying to fault McCain for opposing Bush’s Tax Cuts b/c they weren’t accompanied with decreased spending - then opposing lifting them b/c is would amout to a tax increase??</p>

<p>McCain WAS and IS right on the issue - give it up.</p>

[pmrlcomm]

<p>Hey tyler, what is the “middle class”. I would love to know your standards on that. Any sort of statistics to back it up?</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

give it up.

</p>

<p>I will give up adding commentary, since the record speaks loudly enough to beggar your argument without my expending more effort:</p>

<p>

Are you really trying to fault McCain for opposing Bush’s Tax Cuts b/c they weren’t accompanied with decreased spending - then opposing lifting them b/c is would amout to a tax increase??

</p>

<p>

This was not the explanation he gave at the time, however. In a May 2001 speech on the Senate floor, he said he could not “in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

</p>

[bz2010]

<p>^^ That’s a BAD thing???</p>

[LongPrime]

<p>Here are some thoughts that people get confused about. Think about them and see if you can use them to answer your questions and make new questions. </p>

<p>Wealth does not mean Income.
You make income at your job, but your wealth makes you relax.
Wealth can make income
Income does not make wealth.
Wealth is not taxed at income rates
With the same amount of money, You can make more money owning the bank rather than saving at the bank
Owning the bank has better tax rates than receiving interest which is taxed higher.
Property has better preferred taxation, for the wealthy.
Any one can be rich. Not everyone can be wealthy.
Buy high and sell low.
Buy low and sell high.
Lafer’s Curve is a Curve. Where are you/we on the curve? The rising side or falling side.
Anything can be explained by statistics.
Anything can be explained by religion.
Its been done before.
Equal and per capital taxation eventually led to revolution.
Unequal taxation eventually led to revolution.
Coup d’etat are for the rich. Wealthy don’t care. Poor still pays.
It is in the best long range interest for the top 20% to tax themselves.
It is in the best short term interest for the bottom 80% to learn from the top 20%.
Being able to flip-flop is better than dogmatic in a dynamic situation.
Dynamic is better than static.</p>

[BedHead]

<p>

^^ That’s a BAD thing???

</p>

<p>Is what a bad thing? </p>

<p>Is it that:</p>

<p>1) I won’t need to add more commentary?
2) You’ve implied that you are in favor of both sides of McCain’s flip-flop on taxes and in the case of his opposition to Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, you’ve suggested both his rationales for opposing the tax cut are okay even though the latter rationale was used to obfuscate the former?
3) You don’t understand that McCain’s earlier opposition to Bush’s tax cuts is substantively a different position than his support for extending the tax cuts? That it is an example, in short, of a flip-flop?</p>

<p>I’d say the latter two are bad. And as far as the first thing goes, I need say no more. </p>

<p>Done.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>BH - I understand everything. Don’t worry, it’s all good.</p>

[ellemenope]

<p>You know the presidential race is over when…</p>

<p>Jon Stewart and the Daily Show no longer makes jokes about both candidates, but only just one of them.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>When I look at current poll numbers, as well as the state of the country, and Obama’s strengths as a candidate, and McCain’s weaknesses, it seems to me that the election should be over. It’s hard to imagine how the Democrats could screw it up this time, given the situation Bush has created. However, there are some wild cards. We still don’t really know how Obama’s race and other personal elements will play out. According to an article I read yesterday, 10% of Americans think he’s a Muslim. Other things could happen. Some new scandal about him could come out. He could make a bad pick for VP. Something could happen on the world stage that would make people look for somebody who seems tougher. To put it another way, there are people with sound, rational reasons to vote for McCain. But I don’t think there are enough of them for him to win unless they are joined by people voting against Obama for unsound, irrational reasons, and it’s their behavior that is hard to predict.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>

To put it another way, there are people with sound, rational reasons to vote for McCain. But I don’t think there are enough of them for him to win unless they are joined by people voting against Obama for unsound, irrational reasons, and it’s their behavior that is hard to predict.

</p>

<p>You almost had me there, until the irrational part. As you pointed out so eloquently, there are a lot of things that could happen between now and November that no one can predict that may make voting against Obama a completely rational choice. I do think this is his race to lose, particularly since McCain gets no love on my side, but to imply that voting against Obama is irrational is a bit much. Believe it or not, there are plenty of rational, sound conservatives who disagree with Senator Obama on matters of policy and serious issues.</p>

[HiWei]

<p>

10% of Americans think he’s a Muslim

</p>

<p>I’m not advocating a test to be able to vote, but if you can’t get the basic facts about a presidential candidate right (granted, certain parts of the national media have done a “good” job of perpetrating it), you should not vote. I’m sorry, but being in a democratic process implies actually being involved, not just included.</p>