Presidential Debate: Final Round!

@Diest TKO,

You can carry a 'sixpack', but make is soft drinks, will ya. Otherwise, all the mommies and daddies will be calling the police on ya.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Actually it's going to be a six-pack of plungers. Wanna know the funny thing? Plunger buns come in packs of eight.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

I kind of feel like redistribution of wealth is only called that when the money is going from the richest to the poorest. When money travels upwards systemically we don't here the right cry foul about "redistribution" do we? No, because then for some reason, it's all square. I don't know how they reconcile it.

I think there has to be some sort of cycle and if I have to pick which system makes more sense ultimately, I'd rather be bridging the gaps in our society than protecting those at the top.

Hi Deist,

I don't object to the redistribution of wealth due to "natural" forces (economics or capitalism), however, I do object to the idea that our government should be artificially moving wealth from one place to another.

The situation is complicated however, because the tax codes have to many loopholes which can be exploited by the very wealthy. At present, I don't believe that the ultra-wealthy pay an equitable share of tax due to the loopholes.

Ultimately, I would prefer to see a "flat" tax of some kind where everyone (and every business) pays the exact same percentage of what they earn. And if there are people (or businesses) at the bottom who need assistance, then I prefer to see that done with government assistance programs (food stamp type of things) rather than inequitable taxing. At least if it's done with assistance programs we can see where the money is going, but if it's done through taxation, then it's very hard to tell where the government is spending the money.

1 Reply

@kickycan,

Unfortunately he did rather well. I really wish Obama would show more stones occasionally.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

totally agree..and Obama could have pointedly brought that out with conviction and scored major points. the fact that he seems to constantly miss those opportunities is what frustrates me about him and makes me wonder how he will stand up to Putins if he can't (or won't ) fire back at McCain. It's a concern.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I'm trying to get squinney in a sara palin mask with a rifle and I'm going to wear a bullwinkle costume.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Did anyone else think McCain looked like a mad man during the split screen moments when Obama was talking? McCain's facial expression made him appear to be loony, like he was barely controlling himself.

The camera controller obviously saw what I observed and increased the split-screen images. It wasn't done to Obama, who remained calm throughout McCains tirades.

Every time he attacked Obama, McCain's body language represented chest-pounding gloating. The man is losing his mind.

BBB

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I think the challenge itself was kind of indirect. What was it exactly that Obama's tax plan was going to do to prevent Joe the Plumber from buying his business? Was he planning to buy it and suddenly be making lots more money than he was currently? (Because if he was, I've got news for him.) The problem for Obama in answering a challenge issued by McCain but couched inside Joe the Plumber, is that his response is seen as to Joe not McCain. Anything he says that is too direct and too contradictory makes it look like it's Obama against Joe.

I went looking for facts on the Joe the Plumber scenario today but haven't found them yet. According to NPR, Joe says he wouldn't experience a tax increase under Obama's plan, but is worried that Obama might change his plan to include raising taxes on his bracket. I mean, I guess that could always happen, but it doesn't seem like something you bring to a debate.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I don't object to the redistribution of wealth due to "natural" forces (economics or capitalism), however, I do object to the idea that our government should be artificially moving wealth from one place to another.

The problem with this view is that the "natural" forces tend to be something along the lines of the French Revolution, where the populace rises up en masse and slaughters the ruling class.

I'll take progressive taxation, thank you very much....

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

Quote:

totally agree..and Obama could have pointedly brought that out with conviction and scored major points. the fact that he seems to constantly miss those opportunities is what frustrates me about him and makes me wonder how he will stand up to Putins if he can't (or won't ) fire back at McCain. It's a concern.

McCain had his moments, but at some points Obama seemed to playing him like the strings of a violin. For instance, the news has been playing clips of McCain calming down people at his rallies who were saying nasty things about Obama. When Obama made some reference to it, McCain went into a spirited defense of his supporters, "I'm not going to sit here and listen to you talk about the people at my rallies this way" etc etc. Several times this went on.

But the news has been showing these clips all week where people at McCain rallies were saying these things, they've been all over the airwaves. Some people might have seen McCain's denials as "telling off" Obama, but I would bet most people saw McCain as a grumpy old man who you can't tell anything to once he has made up his mind, no matter how many facts you present.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

I think the challenge itself was kind of indirect.

Actually, the phrase Obama used with Joe was "spread the wealth", not "redistribute the wealth". Spread the wealth has sort of a passive meaning which is less specific than "redistribute". So I don't necessarily think that Obama wants to "redistribute".

However, I would be interested in knowing what Obama's basic philosophy is on the role of government with regard to moving wealth around. As I've said before, I don't believe it is the role of our government to do such a thing.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

I think this is somewhere where the two of you would disagree on principle. I don't think Obama intends to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but I do think he believes that 1) folks in the highest echelons of wealth are not contributing enough and 2) we need to fund programs that help the poor get out of poverty. In practical application, that may mean redistribution.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

The problem with this view is that the "natural" forces tend to be something along the lines of the French Revolution, where the populace rises up en masse and slaughters the ruling class.

I'll take progressive taxation, thank you very much....

I think France had a whole collection of different problems. So I don't see much similarity here.

And I don't see how anyone can argue for inequitable taxation. The rich should not be punished for being rich, and if you limit the heights to which someone can rise, it tends to stifle the motivation to be extremely successful/productive, and there's a huge societal downside to that; you can end up with a socialistic malaise. The US owes much of its success over the years to the drive of free individuals who are motivated by their ability to succeed.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

I think this is somewhere where the two of you would disagree on principle.

You might be right, but that's why I'm curious about his basic philosophy in this area.

Quote:

I don't think Obama intends to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but I do think he believes that 1) folks in the highest echelons of wealth are not contributing enough

I agree they are not contributing enough, but I think it's because of loopholes in the tax code. I would prefer that the tax code would be fixed.

Quote:

and 2) we need to fund programs that help the poor get out of poverty.

That's fine by my view. I don't mind government providing assistance in various forms because it can be targeted accurately.

Quote:

In practical application, that may mean redistribution.

I guess it's how they go about it that matters to me. Inequitable taxation bothers me at a very deep level. But social programs are also a form of redistribution. The social programs don't bother me as much.

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Did anyone else think McCain looked like a mad man during the split screen moments when Obama was talking? McCain's facial expression made him appear to be loony, like he was barely controlling himself.

The camera controller obviously saw what I observed and increased the split-screen images. It wasn't done to Obama, who remained calm throughout McCains tirades.

Every time he attacked Obama, McCain's body language represented chest-pounding gloating. The man is losing his mind.

BBB

Ultimately, last night was about non-verbal communication for me. having them both in such close proximity and seeing how they reacted. Sometimes I wondered if Obama laughed or grinned too much, but when juxtaposed with McCain's science-fair-rage-volcano faces and deep inhales, it's a pretty good problem to have if you had to have a problem. The end product looked like Obama was cool and collected while McCain looked like a psychopath. I can't begin to describe how much I don't want a president to ever sit at a table with a foreign power and make faces like that when he hears things he doesn't like.

McCain acted like a giant man-baby.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

To be honest, I think Obama had one bad moment when he looked a bit angry. However, with all the cheap shots McCain bilged out during the debate, Obama kept his cool and didn't return cheap shots in return.

McCain: "If you wanted to run against Bush, you should have run four years ago."

Obama (should have said): Well, you ran against Bush eight years ago, and he destroyed you.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Hi Blickers, Welcome to a2k. What was more telling about McCain's response was he was trying to "justify" the "kill him" from the crowds by saying he has veterans from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam in his crowd, and that he's "proud of them." Didn't really answer the question, but wanted to push the idea of "veterans" to attract the veteran vote. All political plays that doesn't play well to facts.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Thank you, CI.

Your suggested comeback by Obama would have been emotionally satisfying, but probably not a good idea for Obama. At this point McCain is behind and needs some mistake by Obama to change the momentum. The last thing Obama should be doing is trading nasty comments with McCain. McCain has nothing to lose if the election turns nasty, Obama has nothing to gain by mixing it up and getting personal.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

I agree totally with your observation and opinion. I told my wife the same thing before the debate; all Obama had to do was remain calm and collected to win.

0 Replies

Presidential Debate: Final Round!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know