"McCain spokes-Doberman Brian Rogers had this to say, 'The reality is they have some investment properties and stuff. It's not as if he lives in ten houses. That's just not the case,' Rogers said. 'The reality is they have four that actually could be considered houses they could use.'That makes it better, doesn't it? Only four houses? Wow, that guy really knows what life is like for most of us.
And then there is this, which many people are starting to point out is becoming a very tired response, and one that might end up costing McCain some votes:
He also added: 'This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison,' referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War."This "I was a POW" card only goes so far. No one doubts that was tough on him, and no one I know doesn't appreciate and value that service. But at a certain point, this turns into a really cynical use. We can't criticize him on marrying into wealth (after dumping his first wife because of her injuries) because he was a POW? When Elizabeth Edwards pointed out that McCain has had government sponsored healthcare his entire life, he played the same card.
Just not sure how often he can go to that well.
59 comments:
Does Obama know either with clearing millions last year? With a house in Chicago that is worth 2 million dollars?
Let me clarify that. Does Obama understand what any of us on this blog go through with netting (I think) 4 million last year or by having a house worth 2 million dollars?
Come on man. Nearly every politician is the exact same. Republican and Democrat. They arent connected with us.
The point here is that McCain has been trying to paint Obama as some kind of elitist celebrity. Perhaps you are correct in that they are all wealthy, and all disconnected. I don't completely agree. Some have had to work harder for their money. John McCain not only has so much he doesn't know what car he drove last year or how many houses he has, but he earned his money by divorcing his first wife and marrying it.
Say what you will about Obama, he is closer to the American dream than McCain.
I think Democrats too often side with the wealthy and the powerful. But I think Republicans always side with them.
Good morning
I hardly thing Sen. Obama, growing up with a single mom, and only coming into moderate wealth for the last few years compares with the long term over 100 million fortune of McCain's situation. Driving a 9 car motorcade to get a cappuccino, having VERY nice houses all over, buying an extra one because your kids 'crowded' you are pretty far removed from average life.
That being said, you are correct that most politicians aren't very closely connected with common people, but then when have they ever been?
I just want a politician who can read Amos 5:10 - 24 and not blush with shame.
Let's consider the source of their incomes. Obama's wealth is recent, and much of it has come through his own efforts in writing two best-selling books. McCain married an heiress, owns a private plane, and at last count, at least 8 houses (see this morning's Chicago Trib for the figure), yet calls Obama an out of touch elitist.
I agree with Ubub and MIT. There is a difference in how they approach the world, and my most recent post shows how McCain's tax cut would make the McCain's even wealthier, giving them a cut that would cover their budget for household staff.
We are also missing that other part about how McCain and his campaign appear to want to play that POW card whenever he is criticized. At some point, that becomes very tiresome.
I tire of the POW card being played every time he is remotely criticized. Honestly, what does being tortured in VN have to do with his owning eight (or more) houses? To borrow a phrase coined by Jon Stewart (I think), John has contracted "I was a POW" Tourette's.
Stewart's crack was 9/11 Tourette's regarding Giuliani, but it seems to apply just as much to McCain these days. After seeing this bio ad from '82, I wonder if he's done this his entire political career, and gotten away with it until now because only Presidential elections have him in the news every day.
Yeah, I ripped it off from Jon. :)
But, it sure seems applicable. I don't discount his experiences, but it is beginning to sound like the angry man who blames his childhood for every bad experience and fails to move beyond it.
What difference does it make if he passes a tax break that saves he, his wife, and Obama money? Seriously what difference does that make?
I am totally against a federal tax for anybody!
Bottom line is this. Both Mccain and Obama (let us assume) came by their money legit. Who are we or the government to determine how much of it we should take away?
What difference does it make if he passes a tax break that saves he, his wife, and Obama money? Seriously what difference does that make?
It means that his plan makes the wealthy even richer, while Obama's plan would not.
I am totally against a federal tax for anybody!
Bully. So no national parks, no federal agencies? And how do we pay for our wars? (not that this administration cares, mind you). No federal regulation of airline safety. No FBI. No military. Taxes are our enemy?
What difference does it make if he passes a tax break that saves he, his wife, and Obama money? Seriously what difference does that make? Does this not reflect a clear conflict of interest to you?
I am totally against a federal tax for anybody! So all taxes are bad? Even the ones that provide you roads to drive on, bridges to cross, schools for your kids to go, parks to enjoy, military, etc. etc.
Who are we or the government to determine how much of it we should take away? Huh? Makes no sense.
We must have been posting at the same time, Tony.
I am for state taxes but not federal taxes so that would pay for our roads, our parks, etc.
Next, less taxes doesnt make the wealthy, wealthier! It just leaves them what is theirs.
Tony why would that be a conflict of interest to me?
Sorry streak, I posted two in a row cause I didnt see Tony's question about the conflict of interest. What is the proper blog protocol so I am not being a...shark?
Streak,
Yeah, evidently.
FP,
No, not to you--I mean a conflict of interest between McCain passing a tax cut that would obviously benefit the tax strata he is in. That is a conflict of interest.
I am for state taxes but not federal taxes so that would pay for our roads, our parks, etc.
Still no army. No military at all. No CDC. No agencies to address food safety?
This assumption that state and local governments operate more efficiently is, in my view and experience, completely false. And the continued assertion that "my money is my money" completely ignores all the ways that our country assists and enables people. I went to three different state and federally supported schools. I assume all of us benefit from national highway systems that allow us travel relatively cheaply--or even commute to work.
Taxes are not our enemy. They certainly can be onerous and can be implemented badly. There are certainly bad taxes. But we also use taxes to invest in our broader community. I am not sure why conservatives have been so quick to hate government and taxes.
The conflict of interest, btw, is that the people making the laws benefit more from them than you or I do. Obama's plan would not do that.
Ahhh...Ok. Sorry I misunderstood.
Let me think about that. I mean is it a conflict of interest for Senate to continually pass raises for themselves?
If we paid state taxes the federal government has the right to gather their taxes from the states that would pay for the military, national highways, etc.
It would also put power back in the states where it belongs.
You are totally correct that Obama's wouldnt benefit. It would only hurt everyone.
Yes. Yes it is. Just as it is a conflict for them to give themselves some of the best healthcare in the world while telling us that the market should take care of us.
I mean is it a conflict of interest for Senate to continually pass raises for themselves?
Apples and oranges.
Let's say for instance Huckabee is elected and he passes a law that gives tax breaks to ministers. That would be a conflict of interest because he was once a minister.
Hmm. So the states tax us, and the Feds tax the states, yet that puts the state back in power. Where you say it should be.
Ok. I am sure that would make sure that you weren't taxed as much.
I am too tired to argue this tonight, but the very assumption that taxes harm us always is simply intellectually lazy.
BTW, under your plan, we would be really well equipped when the next flu epidemic hits. Well, unless we had the bad luck to be in a poor state with bad state agencies and underfunded healthcare. Or the next natural disaster. Or the next whatever.
This hatred of government and taxes is destructive.
Tony how would that be apples and oranges? Both are passing laws that benefit them more than others.
I do agree that if Huckabee passed such a thing it would be wrong and specialized attention.
Streak, I agree about the health care in regards to Congress.
I am really too tired for this conversation so will leave it. But will just point out that leaving power solely to the states would mean that we would still have legal segregation in most of the South. We would also have absolutely no environmental standards. We would have no response to disease or poverty.
I guess the churches could handle all of that. They did such a bang up job with segregation and slavery.
Maybe it is, but your ease at penalizing Obama and Mccain simply becuase they are rich is every bit as destructive and dangerous.
Except I am not penalizing them. I am asking that they pay their fair share. And Obama agrees with me. So do a lot of rich people. Not all of the wealthy are greedy "I've got mine" types. Many of them think we should be investing more into infrastructure and healthcare and environmental issues and energy. They think that the wealthy have a particular burden to carry.
Follow their money and find out how much was enabled or assisted by that same federal government you have been taught to hate.
sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.
Ok. Whatever. I suppose socialism is just around the corner.
I give. All taxes are evil. We should not care a bit for anyone who doesn't live in our own state, or local area for that matter. America is for the selfish, and the greedy. Amen.
Out
You know I dont get you streak. I kept on target. I was polite, even when I posted two in a row apologized and asked what is the proper protocol for that.
Then you insult me. You expect a certain standard from me but violate your own standards.
Interesting.
sorry streak that is my other email account...some how it logged in as that one.
FP,
One is in regard to salaries and the other in regards to taxes on the salaries. How can a 3.9% cost of living raise compare to the $370K tax cut proposed for McCain's tax bracket? But anyway, it really is neither here nor there for the context of this conversation.
And I don't know how you will take this, but I think a lot of your problem here is that you don't really listen to what anyone is trying to say (or at least it seems that way)--you assume you are correct and instead of allowing leeway for differing opinions, you just press harder. In the context of this evening's conversation, even when Streak said he was tired and done with it--you kept on. You and I don't get along very well for that reason, or at least from my perspective. Yours may be different.
I do think you are trying a lot harder than when we first met you. Have a great evening. See you later.
It is a blog...I didnt really think about it. If he said he was going to bed that is great. Didnt really realize I should of not commented after he said that and waited till morning.
Listening and agreeing are two different things. There a few things that I have listened and disagreed and then changed. There are quite a few things that I listened to evaluated and decided I dont agree.
That doesnt mean I am not evaluating their comments
FP,
Good morning. This was quite a thread to discover!
It seems to me that the political theory you espouse closely correlates with the old Confederacy. It didn't even work for them, as they had to increase power and taxes for the Confederal Government to attempt to fend off the dreaded Yankees.
I love history and have been amazed how so many ideas from the 19th Century swim around today, even though they failed back then.
There are many places where the Scriptures have higher taxes on wealthier people and lower on poorer, the principle is carried through out the Hebrew Scriptures.
The mother of Christ had to have mere turtledoves sacrificed for her on her purification after Jesus' birth, rather than the more expensive sheep. (Luke 2:24, Leviticus 12:8)
FP,
See, here is the other reason you and I do not get along very well. The point is not that you should have discontinued commenting. The point is that you push and push and push, even when someone says they are done.
You are deflecting the issue back on Streak when it isn't about Streak at all. Then you return with a mealy mouthed, "Well, it is a blog." Yes, but it is still a conversation with another person, not a computer screen. We have variances of opinion yet you are rude and condescending when we do not agree--short, terse, flippant responses that disrespect the other's position.
Listening and agreeing are two different things. I'm not stupid, FP. That was not my point. When I said you weren't listening, I mean exactly that--you aren't listening. No one has ever said disagreeing was not OK here. Streak et. al. and I disagree about a lot of things but it doesn't mean that I don't try to address the substance as well as what is directly said.
This is that shared understanding we have been trying to help you understand. But hey, you continue to comment all you want. Dump text, be rude, patronize about blog etiquette, and then whine when you are asked to back off. But I'll tell you this; your presence makes me desire to come to Streak's Blog less and less.
Have a great day.
For my part, I will admit to being a little snippy last night. Tired, sore, and a little anxious, I rose to a debate that I probably should have avoided.
And as Monk pointed out, part of my frustration was that the argument of gutting the federal government back to some 19th century view of governing is so hard to defend or even take seriously. It isn't workable, and I tried to suggest that by pointing to the issues around segregation, modern health, consumer protection, etc. I didn't even get to how relying on state agencies would allow us to handle the threats posed by modern terrorism.
I was impatient and can admit that. But that argument is very hard to take seriously. It seems like a meme running through conservative thought that demonizes government and taxes to the point that they have become the perfect enemy for conservatism. Perfect, because few will defend either, and perfect because neither is going away. Ever. But it is a constant target to snipe about.
The result, as I noted, has been a particularly destructive public policy put forward by Republicans. Tax cuts have been the watchword, no matter what the economic situation. We are approaching a trillion dollars in spending on two wars that we haven't paid for, and McCain is promising more tax cuts. Our infrastructure is crumbling and the Republicans want pledges of no new taxes.
I have said this repeatedly on this blog, but hating government and taxes has produced only destructive policies. FP's counter that my attack on Cindy and John's wealth was equally destructive was not a reasonable comeback and was more of a "so do you" response. I don't hate wealthy people and don't want to make them un-wealthy. But I have no sympathy for those who have benefitted greatly from our society's laws, markets, government subsidies, and tax laws--being asked to pay for that right.
Conservatives seem to want to make this all about individuals--individual wealth, individual rights and responsibilities--well, until it is homosexuality and abortion, and then the state is being called in. I think we are all in this together. Better that we realize that. Going back to some "state's rights" argument, in my estimation, will not get the job done.
Tony, respectfully you should limit your comment about who gets along with who to yourself.
My comment on the blog, is this. It isnt really a conversation the way you are making it out to be. For example you posted your comments at 6:51 AM and now at 10:30 I am responding. Not a standard conversation. I was merely saying if I were to post after Streak said he was going to bed it would be there in the morning for him to look at and respond or not respond.
Further you assume my motivation is to patronize streak and this blog. Ask streak as I have been emailing him on the side to figure out the blog protocals and such.
Going back to some "state's rights" argument, in my estimation, will not get the job done.
Never mind that we tried to make voluntary cooperation among the states w/re taxation, military force, etc. work with the Articles of Confederation. We all (should) know how well that worked out.
Tony, respectfully you should limit your comment about who gets along with who to yourself.
Dude...Tony's been around this blog a hell of a lot longer than you have. Watch your mouth.
That is fine leighton, I understand that he has been here a lot longer than most. But he can keep his opinion about who I like or dont like, etc to himself.
That really is not your call to make--that's Streak's if it's anyone's. You're pretty far out of line here.
Couple of points.
Streak, you may not hate wealthy people but it would appear that you definitely have a sense of entitlement to their wealth.
No. NO. NO. I have never said that. I have said that they don't have the ultimate claim to their wealth. They benefit from being in this country and from our rules and laws (I have already said this).
You want to define this as me being jealous of the rich, you are free to do so. It is incorrect. I am not asking for more tax cuts. I actually think we should pay for our wars and that building bridges and roads and hospitals and schools and protecting us from disease and terrorism, and having a safety network for natural and unnatural disasters is a good idea. You are the one who wants to go back to, as Leighton noted, the Articles of Confederation.
Ulitmately it is all about individuals. This is why we left England.
Really? Are you sure about that?
And finally, I think you might want to use another term for your previous tax experience. I am not sure a rape victim would appreciate your comparison. I don't.
There is plenty of room to argue about how those taxes should be configured, but read that NYT Magazine article I just posted and see how well the truly rich have done of late. And, btw, I suspect that Obama's tax plan would be better for you than McCain's.
Evening FP,
I would like to discuss your statement 'sense of entitlement to their wealth', as I think the poor do in fact have some, entitlement and it is scripturally supported, but perhaps we should remove this discussion to email.
Monk, I think there is a good topic there. After all, FP is in complete agreement that Christians are mandated to help the poor. There seems to be a little disconnect between the conservative mantra of "it is my money, and my money alone" and "God demands that we tend to the poor."
I think that would be a good discussion, Streak. The Hebrew Scriptures are replete with mandates of inefficiency to help the poor, overriding private property rights.
I think most of our ideas about economics come from Adam Smith and John Locke, not the Bible.
Streak, I will respond to your comments first.
You dont like me comparing the governments tax system to rape because why? The government takes more out of the small business owners than most. It is an outright atroicity. So here is how this plays, you either have to be well beyond rich to be able to afford anything or below middle class in order to even make money because of taxes. That seems to be similar to rape to me.
As far as Obama's new tax plan...it would not benefit me because my small business makes slightly over what he considers to be rich. This is before my deductions.
MIT...Yes the OT and NT mandate giving to the poor, but that is for the people of faith, not the government. Next, it does have some exemption clauses in their as well. For example you should not give under complusion, you should give cheerfully, etc.
I am all about giving and give quite a bit! The problem is that the government takes that money and wastes it on things I would never support. Such as abortion, homosexual education, benefits for illegal immigrants, etc. I wonder how much we spend a year in that? Obviously not as much as the war, but I bet it is significant.
I also think that the welfare system has to be reformed if you are going to tax me to pay for it. There are tons of jobs that need to be done that the people abusing welfare could do for that money. I.E. city cleaning, trash pick up on the highways, etc.
The problem is that the government takes that money and wastes it on things I would never support. Such as abortion, homosexual education, benefits for illegal immigrants, etc. I wonder how much we spend a year in that? Obviously not as much as the war, but I bet it is significant.
1) The federal government doesn't pay for abortion, and I'm not aware of any state that does. That's why abortions cost so much out of pocket.
2) There's no such thing as "homosexual education."
3) Illegal immigrants are a net benefit to the system, as contrary to the stereotype, most do have federal income, medicare and social security taxes withheld from their paychecks. Employers are willing to pay lower wages to people they suspect are not authorized to work, but they aren't so eager to have IRS breathing down on them for tax evasion.
And seriously, you are a mouth-breathing idiot if you think paying taxes is anything like rape. That's a deliberate insult that I don't intend to apologize for.
Leighton might be a bit strong with his comment, but the sentiment is correct. Rape is one of the most invasive, intimate and brutal attacks that people can face. Comparing a tax rate to that is simply ridiculous. And then crying foul about it is even worse.
The rest of Leighton's comments could be my own. And honestly, even if your list was about things that our federal taxes paid for, that is hardly the point. There are countless things that our taxes pay for that I object to. And there always will. That is why we live in a democracy.
Streak, you're right. I've had friends raped, and it's a hot-button issue for me. I'm done in this thread; it's better without me. I'll cool off and be reasonable in other threads later.
Good afternoon FP,
To engage your comment "the people of faith, not the government", I would submit that there isn't any separation in the Hebrew Scriptures at all between the two. The community was one, I think the world view of separation between Church and State is a modern one we can not impose on ancient peoples.
Secondly, the 'exemption' you mention appears to be from the Christian Scriptures, do you know of any from the Hebrew books? I am trying to think of one, but I can't.
As far as illegal immigrants go, I know some business owners that scam them by keeping the money withheld from their checks that was to be sent to the Gov't for Medicare, taxes, and such.
I would submit that the Scriptures are VERY clear how we are to treat the alien stranger in our midst, legal or not.
I really do appreciate our dialog, it is quite difficult for people of such differing views to communicate at times.
Good afternoon FP,
To engage your comment "the people of faith, not the government", I would submit that there isn't any separation in the Hebrew Scriptures at all between the two. The community was one, I think the world view of separation between Church and State is a modern one we can not impose on ancient peoples.
Secondly, the 'exemption' you mention appears to be from the Christian Scriptures, do you know of any from the Hebrew books? I am trying to think of one, but I can't.
As far as illegal immigrants go, I know some business owners that scam them by keeping the money withheld from their checks that was to be sent to the Gov't for Medicare, taxes, and such.
I would submit that the Scriptures are VERY clear how we are to treat the alien stranger in our midst, legal or not.
I really do appreciate our dialog, it is quite difficult for people of such differing views to communicate at times.
MIT, I would disagree. The Hebrew Scriptures are quite clear that though the alien needs to be treated fairly and properly that they are not subject to the tithing system of the OT.
There would be no OT example of the NT example I use. The Law of the OT was without exceptions.
Since my comments were so offensive I am removing them.
Post a Comment