Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
Topic: US Presidential Election (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Joel Tesch
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 2834
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 12:15am | IP Logged | 1  

It's a shocking thing to many people that anyone has too many homes to count, or however you want to slice it.  McCain should have seen that landmine and not stepped on it.  

Here's the thing.  Associated Press reported on this, and stated this  (bold emphasis is mine):

"Property records reviewed by The Associated Press show McCain and his family own at least eight homes: A ranch and two condos in Arizona; three condos in Coronado, Calif.; a condo in La Jolla, Calif.; and another in Arlington, Va. The number of houses is a bit trickier to determine since the ranch has at least four houses and a two-story cabin."

See...even AP is having a hard time determining an exact number. Are you shocked by that too? Property and what is considered a home (not to mention property having been bought/sold, etc.)  It's not a simple "wow, how can you not know how many homes you own" matter.

Regardless, it's a stupid issue. No more valid than criticizing Obama for talking about the price of arugula. Frankly, I think his behavior towards and treatment of his first wife, his involvement in the Savings and Loan scandal are far more damning strikes against McCain (not to mention the shortsighted, ineffective McCain/Feingold bill).

 

 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Thom Price
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar
L’Homme Diabolique

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7592
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 12:40am | IP Logged | 2  

Jason Czeskleba:
I just do not get it.  

****

What I think you don't get is that not everyone has a black & white, them-versus-us, "Republicans are evil and Democrats are good" point of view. I am very much in the middle, politically.  Although I've voted Democrat in every major election, it's never been without misgivings.  Every time I've voted for a Democrat for President, it's been with the knowledge that while I may agree with them on some issues there were others that I disagreed with.  Other factors swayed my decision: maybe the issues I agreed with were particularly important to me at the time, maybe I felt the candidate had something special, or (and most likely) I simply found the Republican candidate at the time to be thoroughly unappealing.

Yes, there are issues that I agree with Obama on; and there are others that I disagree with. Beyond that, he offers nothing worthwhile to sway me.  The only thing that separates him from a run-of-the-mill politician is his vague promises of change -- and, from that get go, that struck me as little more than flimflammery.  After all, what else is a thinly experienced, virtually unknown candidate going to say to get attention.?  "Blah blah blah change blah blah blah."  Now that he has the spotlight, not surprisingly he's backing away from it.  It's telling that his VP pick is a Washington insider whose been in office almost longer than I've been alive and one who voted for the war (curiously, the two things he most often railed at Clinton about.)
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Mark Haslett
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6940
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 1:17am | IP Logged | 3  

Thanks Joel, but AP or anyone else having trouble counting his houses is a sideshow to a sideshow.  The political flat-footed-ness of saying "I'll get back to you with the number of houses I happen to own (houses, that is, not cats, socks or televisions)" is what McCain stumbled on here.  A timely deflection in this case would have earned respect from me, if I could have been made aware of it.


But hearing McCain's response was a moment where I couldn't help but gasp at the chasm between his life and mine.  I'm not anti-wealth or success, but I don't consider any politician's wealth to be comforting or endearing.  "I can't remember how many houses I own" is like cold water in the face saying "remember, I ain't like you."

Of course he has much bigger failings, but new news is just newer (tho I guess we can probably agree this is getting to be old).


Back to Top profile | search
 
Keith Elder
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1973
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 1:59am | IP Logged | 4  

Jodi:  If Obama was running against a dog the Klan guy would vote for the dog.

If a dog was in the running, I think he would have a real shot at it.  Appealing to both sides of the political spectrum.

The thing that bothers me about McCain is, he said to be considered wealthy you had to make over 5 Million a year

I think that was a joke; if I remember right, I think he mentioned that reporters would take that out of context right after he said it.

In fact, I just did a little searching, and it was interesting.  I found some youtube links that have his real answer edited out, so he responds '5 million' when the moderator asks him to define 'rich'.  The print articles I turned up did basically the same.  It took a fair amount of searching to find a transcript of McCain's answer, which is nothing like what was generally reported:

Q        ON TAXES,
DEFINE RICH. EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAXING THE
RICH AND -- BUT NOT THE POOR, THE MIDDLE CLASS. AT WHAT
POINT -- GIVE ME A NUMBER, GIVE ME A SPECIFIC NUMBER WHERE
DO YOU MOVE FROM MIDDLE CLASS TO RICH? IS IT 100
THOUSAND, IS IT 50 THOUSAND, 2 HUNDRED? HOW DOES ANYBODY
KNOW IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE?
A    SOME OF THE RICHEST PEOPLE I'VE EVER KNOWN IN MY
LIFE ARE THE MOST UNHAPPY. I THINK THAT RICH IS -- SHOULD
BE DEFINED BY A HOME, A GOOD JOB AND EDUCATION AND THE
ABILITY TO HAND TO OUR CHILDREN A MORE PROSPEROUS AND
SAFER WORLD THAN THE ONE THAT WE INHERITED. I DON'T WANT
TO TAKE ANY MONEY FROM THE RICH. I WANT EVERYBODY TO GET
RICH. I DON'T BELIEVE IN CLASS WARFARE OR REDISTRIBUTION
OF THE WEALTH. BUT I CAN TELL YOU FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE
SMALL BUSINESSMEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE WORKING 16 HOURS A
DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK THAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD CLASSIFY AS,
QUOTE, RICH, MY FRIENDS, WHO WANT TO RAISE THEIR TAXES AND
RAISE THEIR PAYROLL TAXES. LET'S HAVE -- KEEP TAXES LOW.
LET'S GIVE EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA A 7 THOUSAND DOLLAR TAX
CREDIT FOR EVERY CHILD THEY HAVE. LET'S GIVE THEM A 5
THOUSAND DOLLAR REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT TO GO OUT AND GET
THE HEALTH INSURANCE OF THEIR CHOICE. LET'S NOT HAVE THE
GOVERNMENT TAKE OVER THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN AMERICA.
SO -- SO I THINK IF YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT INCOME, HOW
ABOUT FIVE MILLION. SO -- BUT SERIOUSLY
, I DON'T THINK
YOU CAN -- I DON'T THINK, SERIOUSLY THAT -- THE POINT IS
THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE SERIOUSLY -- AND I'M SURE
THAT COMMENT WILL BE DISTORTED, BUT THE POINT IS -- THE
POINT IS -- THE POINT IS THAT WE WANT TO KEEP PEOPLE'S
TAXES LOW AND INCREASE REVENUES.
Amazing how actual answers get buried, and the entire attention is focused on four words out of the middle.  Four words that were followed by "but seriously".  It happens to both candidates, I'm sure; but God, our media coverage is awful.

As far as the house thing, I think it's really a non-issue.  I know a few people that would have to spend a few moments counting on their fingers to figure out how many properties they own.

Thom:  That McCain and Obama are in a virtual dead-heat or Obama is, at best, leading by low single digits seriously undermines any claims towards Obama's effectiveness.

That's been my amazement over the last two elections; the Democrats lost?  Really?  How did they manage that?  Bush won not because he's an appealing candidate in the least, and not not because of dirty tricks or vote fraud, but because of the Democrat's poor candidates and colossally mishandled campaigns.  By all rights, they should have won.  Obama isn't a poor candidate, but I think his campaign is starting to swerve dangerously.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Tom French
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4154
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 3:49am | IP Logged | 5  

 I saw John McCain defend not knowing how many houses he had with: I'm a war hero don't you know...

 

Oh really? Where did you see that? I call BS.

 

 

Quote from SLATE.com:

"You know, could I just mention to you, Jay, and a moment of seriousness. I spent five and a half years in a prison cell, without -- I didn't have a house, I didn't have a kitchen table, I didn't have a table, I didn't have a chair. And I spent those five and a half years, because -- not because I wanted to get a house when I got out."
-- John McCain, asked jokingly by Jay Leno how many houses he has
 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 5:50am | IP Logged | 6  

WHAT? Certainly he couldn't be a Democrat Jodi! He MUST have been a Republican!!

Ahhhh but Joel, he declared his racism and explained he is now voting Republican. (Hee hee, before I get jumped on, I am kidding!!!!!)

 After all, what else is a thinly experienced, virtually unknown candidate going to say to get attention.?  "Blah blah blah change blah blah blah."  Now that he has the spotlight, not surprisingly he's backing away from it.  It's telling that his VP pick is a Washington insider whose been in office almost longer than I've been alive and one who voted for the war (curiously, the two things he most often railed at Clinton about.)

Thom have you seen the Biography channels Barack Obama Biography? If you have seen that and then say all he has is words "Blah, Blah, change...."  Then I would be shocked. Or have you read his book?

 I love in your paragraph you call Barack, thinly experienced,  then you say his running mate:  is a Washington insider whose been in office almost longer than I've been alive. Come on Thom, which are you most upset with, too much or too little?  As my mom would have said "he can't win for losing"

Edited to add: I thought Hillary did a pretty fine job.

 



Edited by Jodi Moisan on 27 August 2008 at 5:51am
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12843
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 5:51am | IP Logged | 7  

In American society there's a difference between 'well-to-do' and 'wealthy'. Most of us here probably consider ourselves well to do. We don't have tens of thousands of dollars of cold, hard cash in our bank accounts. What we do have is access to large amounts of money when the need arises, primarily through bank loans. Banks give us the money because we have skills and relatively steady jobs, are of good character, and are likely to make good on those loans. We take the money and spend it on important things like housing, education, children, etc. Money literally flows through us, making the economy run successfully. Hence the term 'affluence'.

The truly wealthy don't have to borrow from anyone to support their personal lives. Most of them wouldn't panic if they lost a job or couldn't find one. There's nothing wrong with that; it's a good place to be and many of us are trying to get there. (Some of them do manage to live beyond their means, but that's truly nobody's problem but their own.)

Since the late 80's right-wing propagandists have done an incredible job blurring the differences between the two. Raising taxes on the wealthy is now somehow equivalent to class war on Middle America. Demands for social / environmental responsibility from corporations is now the reason for all our economic ills. And as far as I can tell the Democrats have done little to counter this lie. Most probably because they feed from the same corporate and private troff as the Republicans.



Edited by Joe Zhang on 27 August 2008 at 5:58am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5744
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 7:24am | IP Logged | 8  

Here's a few editorials to read with your morning coffee if you all are so inclined:

Tom Friedman compares the actions of the Chinese over the last seven years with actions taken by our country and notes how this is a unique time for an American Renewal.

Maureen Dowd notes how this Convention is different from any other before and how the Democrats are tearing themseleves apart again. 

Finally, Jeffrey Rosen attempts to dispell the myth of Biden v. Bork while confirming that the Bork appointment began the movement toward the "politics of personal destruction."

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 7:24am | IP Logged | 9  

Not so fast. Don't confuse "wealthy" with "rich."  Two different things. Chris Rock put it best describing the difference (paraphrasing):

Shaquille O'Neil is rich.

The guy that writes Shaquille O'Neil's check? He's wealthy.

Very good point.  I agree with McCain completely on that.  Wealthy and Rich are two completely different things.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 7:27am | IP Logged | 10  

Joel: And really, what we're seeing here is Barak and the Dems playing old school politics. The real reason for McCain's nonanswer comes from owning multiple properties, some of which they do not reside in. These properties are bought and sold - especially in today's volatile market. It's not bc "the rich old guy doesn't know how many houses he has."

***
What is the meaningful difference you are trying to point out?  If McCain owns multiple properties worth 14million and doesn't know how many there are... he is NOT an old rich guy who doesn't know how many houses he has?

Most people in that income bracket hire people to handle their investments.  On any given day they have no idea what their actual holdings are.  Smart people are willing to delegate to the professionals.   I'd be more worried if he knew exactly how many since it would mean he micro-manages instead of deferring to the experts.  I want a man who is willing to double check rather than be incorrect.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 7:30am | IP Logged | 11  

I think the thing  that is upsetting about this, is how can a guy that has 7 homes and think anything below 5 million a year is not wealthy is out of touch with what is going on in most peoples lives.

Which is it, rich or wealthy?  McCain said rich, not wealthy.  What was the income for the Obama family in 2007?  I'd say they qualify for out of touch based on your standards.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Geoff Gibson
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5744
Posted: 27 August 2008 at 7:33am | IP Logged | 12  

In Muncie Indiana, if you make $150,000 a year you are considered rich.  I don't know about Long Island, but an average income in Indiana is around $40,000

The most important words in your statement are "In Muncie Indiana."  One of the many inequities in the tax code in this country is there is no consideration of cost of living factored into the application of income taxes.  You get more for your $150,000 in Muncie than you do in Manhattan -- your dollar stretchs much further.  That was my objection to Obama's blanket response that $150,000 was wealthy -- it may depend on where you live not just your gross earnings.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 1093 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login