The VP Debate

[lowellhigh79]

You know in watching these two debates it's clear to me that it's so lame to argue over silly debate details and the usual crap of "who won" or who stumbled. Isn't more important to discuss the high level meaningful issues at stake? For example...

Many if not most people don't understand or care that raising taxes on the rich is one reason why companies leave the US. Of course your local 7-11 doesn't leave, but if you're looking for a skilled engineering, science or manufacturing job, good luck.

2. These same people generally don't understand that the rich and upper middle are already paying a proportionally much higher burden of Fed Tax. I've mentioned this before here, elsewhere and to people in person, but most don't care. The top 1% (income) of taxpayers pay 39% of all the income tax. So, why not simply force these people to pay 50% or 75% of all the tax? Yeah, let's stick it to the rich.

But you better keep in mind that money is not wealth, the wealth of a society is inherent in the goods and services it produces, and sufficient production only occurs when there is an incentive to produce.

As we continue to hit up the rich by raising taxes, there is less and less incentive to produce. The rich can well afford to say, screw it, why bother? I'm just going to retire early or just move my operations to a country with less of a tax burden. We've already seen the constant erosion of meaningful jobs here in the USA so, why people don't get it, is a mystery. Other countries are cutting their corporate tax rates. They're finally getting it. And I'm not just talking about China, India, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. Countries in Europe are getting the message. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world and we should be cutting it. Just Google "lower corporate tax rate" if you don't believe me. Here...read this link about Ireland...

http://www.completetax.com/taxguide/news/08-323corptax.asp

Obama wants to use our tax code to make things "fair" and to redistribute wealth from the so-called haves to the have nots. McCain wants to cut the corporate tax so that the US is competitive and businesses stay here and even want to come here from other countries. If the corporate tax rate was cut from 35 to 25 percent - we would see companies stay here and we would also see foreign investment.

What does this mean? More jobs, jobs staying here, better jobs and more revenue for the treasury. This is a good thing and why more people don't get this is something I don't get.

This is not a zero-sum game. Let's not worry about the proportions of the pie instead lets make the whole pie bigger.

Most companies manufacture overseas because the cost of labor and goods is much much cheaper, not because they can save on taxes. Those jobs are never coming back (unless our standard of living falls close to or below where many of the other nations are) There are non-manufacturing America companies that have moved their entire operations overseas for pure tax savings, but they are so fiscally astute/selfish, that they won't come back until our coprorate tax rates are the lowest in the world. Solution? Create a whole new industry such renewable energy. Invent baby, invent!

Regards,

Danny

 

[NSX-Files]

Jimbo,
Well said.

 

[lowellhigh79]

Anyone catch Biden say he wanted, for people who don't pay their mortgage, for the government to be able to change not only their interest rate, but all their principle????? WTF was that???

That ALONE is a deal breaker.
No one is giving away free houses to poor people with my tax money.


"BIDEN SAID "We should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to readjust, not just the interest rate you are paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but in -- be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that that you owe. That would keep people in their homes"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5942414&page=1


.

I couldn't agree with you more. However, isn't that exactly what is happening now, all over the country via all those foreclosures and this bailout? You may be surprised to learn that on upside-down homes with multiple notes that are tettering on the brink of foreclosure, the primary mortgage holder is offering the second (and possibly the third) note holder a $1,000 (yes $1,000), to walk away. So this is already happening. At least in this manner, no new loans and loan fees are generated, which will free up more funds for other credit needs. I don't like how it sounds at all and I couldn't agree with you more on how it essentially forgives the wrecklessness of the entire housing bubble, but it's no different than buying all this junk paper from the big banks.

Regards,

Danny

 

[myguitar]

The Statement: At a debate Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin charged Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of supporting higher taxes. "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

The Facts: The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument. Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 instances were. Key findings:

–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Verdict: Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

****

We should all know that when McCain/Palin say "Obama will raise your taxes", they are actually only talking to their fellow rich folks, and not to the middle class. From what we've seen of the McCain/Palin policies, they clearly have no plans for the middle class. I've made this mistake four/eight years ago when I voted for W. I think I will stick with the majority this year and not vote for any of these pricks. Both camps have yet to give me ONE good reason to leave work and go give them my vote.

"Democrats are a party of no ideas. Republicans are a party of bad ideas!"

 

[JonBoy]

I listened (with my wife) to much of the debate last night. Quite frankly, I was pretty frustrated by Biden. I didn't hear a lot of substance in what he said and Palin was right - he kept pointing back at Bush more than anything, then trying to tie McCain to it.

Biden was more knowledgeable on a few specific topics and in many of those areas, I had to agree with him. However, I did find him extremely frustrating because on multiple other topics, he didn't really give details on how or what he and Obama were going to do.

Palin exceeded expectations, I think. I saw some of her previous debates when she was running for governor and her performance last night was definitely in line with those.

As I read earlier today, anything remotely resembling a tie means that Palin won, mainly due to lower expectations going into the debate.

I also checked CNN on their "Fact Checker" and it's a load of baloney. I've never seen such blatant Obama support.

Examples?

Fact Check: Is Obama willing to meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad?

Direct Quotes:

Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama Answer: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous," Obama answered.

CNN Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has said he wouldn't rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he'd meet with the Iranian president.

I mean, come ON! They specifically mentioned Iran in the question and he said that he WOULD meet with the leaders those countries. The president of Iran is obviously going to be one of the leaders of those countries. He is the "leader" of Iran, at least on paper. How is that not a firm "TRUE" verdict?

-----------

Fact Check: Did Obama vote to cut funds for troops?

A: On May 24, 2007, Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas.

CNN Verdict: Misleading. Obama supported a different version of the troop-funding plan — one that McCain spoke against.

Again, he DID vote against it. His reasons are not the point, though they are certainly relevant in a debate. However, the direct and proper verdict is YES, he DID vote to cut funds for the troops. Furthermore, he didn't introduce new legislation to replace what he voted against, so without a replacement proposal, he absolutely did vote against troop funding.

-----------

A fact check is to check the facts, not to try and reason as to why someone did or didn't do something and there were a number of times where they pointed to Obama's (or Biden's) supposed intentions to somehow turn a "TRUE" into a "MISLEADING". Debates are where each person gets to defend against narrow "facts" like these but the media should not be doing the debating themselves.

 

[queenlives]

i thought palin and biden both exceeded expectations.

 

[Jimbo]

Most companies manufacture overseas because the cost of labor and goods is much much cheaper, not because they can save on taxes. Those jobs are never coming back (unless our standard of living falls close to or below where many of the other nations are) There are non-manufacturing America companies that have moved their entire operations overseas for pure tax savings, but they are so fiscally astute/selfish, that they won't come back until our coprorate tax rates are the lowest in the world. Solution? Create a whole new industry such renewable energy. Invent baby, invent!

Regards, Danny

Danny,

Can you back this up somehow? Do you have any numbers? As the owner of a manufacturing business I would take issue with your use of the word "most". As manufacturing becomes increasing automated and roboticized, labor cost will start to become less and less important.

Also, I'm not implying that lower taxes are the only reason, but it one thing we can do something about. Let's face it. There are lots of jobs that USA employees just don't want to do. And there's no way we can compete with the low wages that can be found in other countries.

We can't do much about $1/hour wages in other countries and we can't force people to work for $1 here. Heck, with the ever-increasing minimum wage, many companies no longer hire high-school kids. But we can do something about the tax situation.

-Jim

 

[NSX-Files]

Most companies manufacture overseas because the cost of labor and goods is much much cheaper, not because they can save on taxes. Those jobs are never coming back (unless our standard of living falls close to or below where many of the other nations are) There are non-manufacturing America companies that have moved their entire operations overseas for pure tax savings, but they are so fiscally astute/selfish, that they won't come back until our coprorate tax rates are the lowest in the world. Solution? Create a whole new industry such renewable energy. Invent baby, invent!

Regards,

Danny

I'm barely knowledgeable on foreign trade issues, but I would agree with you that tax policy is not the only factor that has driven jobs overseas. I'm sure it plays a part in a composite of factors.

There is the labor cost. If a company can pay a worker in China $1 USD to make something you'd have to pay $5 in the US, you know where the company is going to prefer. This labor cost can be artificially manipulated by foreign countries and that may be outside our control if we don't have enforceable agreements with the foreign countries. (Didn't China manipulate the value of its currency relative to ours?)

If the U.S. is the primary target market for the products made by those manufacturers that have moved overseas, then there is a transportation cost associated with shipping products back here. Depending on the product, that might tend to sway companies to stay in the U.S.

So while tax policy might not be the only deciding factor, it's not a reason to ignore it. If it's part of a package to entice jobs back here, then why not try it? The reason is because the federal government likes having money coming in.

The real problem we have in the U.S. is wasteful spending. All those fu**ers in D.C. that hide pork project spending into worthwhile bills. These are the earmarks McCain is always talking about. They do it because they know if their bill or request for money came up for vote in isolation, no one would vote for it except the schmuck who's asking for it. Doesn't that tell us something? If a spending bill is worthwhile for the country, then it will get passed. If not, then we don't need it rammed down our throats by sneak attack. Do we really need the government to give $2.5 Million to State X to build a National Tadpole Museum?

The net effect is one of two things: if there are BS earmarks in a worthwhile bill and it gets passed, then we've just wasted money on BS. If the BS level is too high for even the D.C. hacks, then the worthwhile bill doesn't get passed at all. This is why people say nothing ever gets done in Washington.

If the wasteful spending could be reigned in, then the federal government wouldn't need as much of our money as they're taking now. Which means the average Main Street guy that everyone is talking about now will have more of his earnings to spend.

 

[Jimbo]

The Statement: At a debate Thursday, Oct. 2 in St. Louis, Missouri, Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin charged Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of supporting higher taxes. "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

The Facts: The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument. Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 instances were. Key findings:

–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Verdict: Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

****

We should all know that when McCain/Palin say "Obama will raise your taxes", they are actually only talking to their fellow rich folks, and not to the middle class. From what we've seen of the McCain/Palin policies, they clearly have no plans for the middle class. I've made this mistake four/eight years ago when I voted for W. I think I will stick with the majority this year and not vote for any of these pricks. Both camps have yet to give me ONE good reason to leave work and go give them my vote.

"Democrats are a party of no ideas. Republicans are a party of bad ideas!"

Why did you only list stuff on Palin?? I see you need to be FactChecked as well. Here's a few of Biden's fact gaffes...

BIDEN: Complained about "economic policies of the last eight years" that led to "excessive deregulation."

THE FACTS: Biden voted for 1999 deregulation that liberal groups are blaming for part of the financial crisis. The law allowed Wall Street investment banks to create the kind of mortgage-related securities at the core of the problem now. The law was widely backed by Republicans as well as by Democratic President Clinton, who argues it has stopped the crisis today from being worse.

------
BIDEN: Warned that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's $5,000 tax credit to help families buy health coverage "will go straight to the insurance company."

THE FACTS: Of course it would, because it's meant to pay for insurance. That's like saying money for a car loan will go straight to the car dealer.
------

BIDEN: Said McCain supports tax breaks for oil companies, and "wants to give them another $4 billion tax cut."

THE FACTS: Biden is repeating a favorite saw of the Obama campaign, and it's misleading. McCain supports a cut in income taxes for all corporations, and doesn't single out any one industry for that benefit.

------
BIDEN: "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry -- deregulate it and let the free market move -- like he did for the banking industry."

THE FACTS: Biden and Obama have been perpetuating this distortion of what McCain wrote in an article for the American Academy of Actuaries. McCain, laying out his health plan, only referred to deregulation when saying people should be allowed to buy health insurance across state lines. In that context, he wrote: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation."
------

 

[lowellhigh79]

I listened (with my wife) to much of the debate last night. Quite frankly, I was pretty frustrated by Biden. I didn't hear a lot of substance in what he said and Palin was right - he kept pointing back at Bush more than anything, then trying to tie McCain to it.

Biden was more knowledgeable on a few specific topics and in many of those areas, I had to agree with him. However, I did find him extremely frustrating because on multiple other topics, he didn't really give details on how or what he and Obama were going to do.

Palin exceeded expectations, I think. I saw some of her previous debates when she was running for governor and her performance last night was definitely in line with those.

As I read earlier today, anything remotely resembling a tie means that Palin won, mainly due to lower expectations going into the debate.

I also checked CNN on their "Fact Checker" and it's a load of baloney. I've never seen such blatant Obama support.

Examples?

Fact Check: Is Obama willing to meet with Iran's Ahmadinejad?

Direct Quotes:

Q: Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama Answer: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous," Obama answered.

CNN Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has said he wouldn't rule out meeting with any foreign leader, he never specifically said he'd meet with the Iranian president.

I mean, come ON! They specifically mentioned Iran in the question and he said that he WOULD meet with the leaders those countries. The president of Iran is obviously going to be one of the leaders of those countries. He is the "leader" of Iran, at least on paper. How is that not a firm "TRUE" verdict?

-----------

Fact Check: Did Obama vote to cut funds for troops?

A: On May 24, 2007, Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against a war-spending plan that would have provided emergency funds for American troops overseas.

CNN Verdict: Misleading. Obama supported a different version of the troop-funding plan — one that McCain spoke against.

Again, he DID vote against it. His reasons are not the point, though they are certainly relevant in a debate. However, the direct and proper verdict is YES, he DID vote to cut funds for the troops. Furthermore, he didn't introduce new legislation to replace what he voted against, so without a replacement proposal, he absolutely did vote against troop funding.

-----------

A fact check is to check the facts, not to try and reason as to why someone did or didn't do something and there were a number of times where they pointed to Obama's (or Biden's) supposed intentions to somehow turn a "TRUE" into a "MISLEADING". Debates are where each person gets to defend against narrow "facts" like these but the media should not be doing the debating themselves.

Hi Jon!

I have to disagree.

Ahmadinejad is not the true leader of Iran, only the mouthpiece of the theocracy there. I agree this is a weak argument as I believe (and agree) he meant all the leaders on that list, but this is not to the extent of Bill Clinton's "Is" quote.

Voting against additional/emergency funds is not the same as cutting. Cutting means taking away, which is different from not giving more. Not getting a pay raise at work is very different from getting a pay cut.

Also Jon, while your at it, how was CNN's fact checking on McCain? While it's easier to argue that CNN tends to skew towards Obama, any evidence that they skewed away or towards McCain should be brought out as well. Hope all is well on your end:smile:

Regards,

Danny

 

[NSXrunner]

i thought palin and biden both exceeded expectations.

+1 But I'll have to give the nod to Biden for experience. The nod for Palin is for presentation and looking good. Other than that she seemed very scripted. I officially am sick of the word maverick now as she coming back to that phrase. Time to give it a rest.

Now the fun part. As mentioned in the debate. Heaven forbid, but one of these folks could be a heart beat away from the presidency. Would you rather see Palin or Biden on there? I'm going for Biden. Hence Obama.

2 cents.

 

[Tom239]

I much rather have a honest Hockey/Soccer mom than a guy who plagiarized his speech while ran for presidency and lied about his college grades, a person who didn't know we didn't have TV back in 1929 and who the president was.

But Palin isn't honest.

 

[NSX-Tuner]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI

I wonder if these guys managed to watch the debate or... probably not. They had to practice their routine.

Isn't this just so wonderful. Starship Troopers for Obama.

Brain washing and indoctrination of our youths... didn't someone do this before???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdPSqL9_mfM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH-2Fwx5RU0


And then there's the Obama Civilian Security Force...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

The similarities are striking...

 

[lowellhigh79]

I'm barely knowledgeable on foreign trade issues, but I would agree with you that tax policy is not the only factor that has driven jobs overseas. I'm sure it plays a part in a composite of factors.

There is the labor cost. If a company can pay a worker in China $1 USD to make something you'd have to pay $5 in the US, you know where the company is going to prefer. This labor cost can be artificially manipulated by foreign countries and that may be outside our control if we don't have enforceable agreements with the foreign countries. (Didn't China manipulate the value of its currency relative to ours?)

If the U.S. is the primary target market for the products made by those manufacturers that have moved overseas, then there is a transportation cost associated with shipping products back here. Depending on the product, that might tend to sway companies to stay in the U.S.

So while tax policy might not be the only deciding factor, it's not a reason to ignore it. If it's part of a package to entice jobs back here, then why not try it? The reason is because the federal government likes having money coming in.

The real problem we have in the U.S. is wasteful spending. All those fu**ers in D.C. that hide pork project spending into worthwhile bills. These are the earmarks McCain is always talking about. They do it because they know if their bill or request for money came up for vote in isolation, no one would vote for it except the schmuck who's asking for it. Doesn't that tell us something? If a spending bill is worthwhile for the country, then it will get passed. If not, then we don't need it rammed down our throats by sneak attack. Do we really need the government to give $2.5 Million to State X to build a National Tadpole Museum?

The net effect is one of two things: if there are BS earmarks in a worthwhile bill and it gets passed, then we've just wasted money on BS. If the BS level is too high for even the D.C. hacks, then the worthwhile bill doesn't get passed at all. This is why people say nothing ever gets done in Washington.

If the wasteful spending could be reigned in, then the federal government wouldn't need as much of our money as they're taking now. Which means the average Main Street guy that everyone is talking about now will have more of his earnings to spend.

Well said, I couldn't agree with you more.

At least 15 years ago, I heard that the US would become mostly a service industry nation. My question back then was if we are all serving someone else, who's actually making anything? The answer was that the poorer countries would be tapped to do our manufacturing for us. Herein lies the problem we find ourselves today.

We no longer generate real capital (not talking just dollars here), kind of like someone who inherited a large sum of money and stopped working .
Once the inheritence money was spent, we started pawning everything we had (trade inbalance/ national debt). Sooner or later, we're gonna have to get back to work because there's nothing left to pawn. Lowering taxes may slow the loss of more jobs, but those "tax" savings won't off set the cheaper cost of goods sold. The only scenario (outside of trade barriers and raised tariffs) where manufacturing jobs will ever return to America is if the cost difference between manufacturing overseas vs. domestically is less than the cost of transportation-and transportation ain't that much.

The real answer is to open up new industries, like renewable energy and drilling, where there is no competition due to a lack of knowledge or access. Once we invent something new, we will need to keep our invention's production at home (like that will ever fly)-no exceptions. The only reason why China has made such leaps and bounds is because we (and Europe) brought all of our manufacturing knowledge to them. It's one thing to buy a car and try to build a production plant around what you learn from that sample, it is far easier when the plant that made that car is in your backyard.

Regards,

Danny

 

[Jimbo]

A more complete list of Biden fact-gaffes...

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate. Here's Biden in his own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXyTRT-NZg

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

 

[lowellhigh79]

+1 But I'll have to give the nod to Biden for experience. The nod for Palin is for presentation and looking good. Other than that she seemed very scripted. I officially am sick of the word maverick now as she coming back to that phrase. Time to give it a rest.

Now the fun part. As mentioned in the debate. Heaven forbid, but one of these folks could be a heart beat away from the presidency. Would you rather see Palin or Biden on there? I'm going for Biden. Hence Obama.

2 cents.

After watching it a second time, I have to agree (last night I thought it was fairly even). The breadth of Biden's discussion is coming through louder and Palin's narrow scripted lines are starting to fade. Palin is an intellectually dis-interested person with great stage presence who likes to wink at the camera, which after 8 years, we should be very wary of. Also, as much as I would like to think that her performance erases all doubts raised by her Couric interview, it only reinforces them. All the questions were about what you would do.. pick between.. and she avoided many questions. I truly believe she still doesn't know anything. If the debate was in a Jeopardy format, she would have bombed, and this would not have been "gotcha" politics. Get past the first reponse, onto the second and third line of questioning, and nothing is there for Palin.

Regards,

Danny

 

[NSX-Files]

I officially am sick of the word maverick now as she coming back to that phrase. Time to give it a rest.

Now the fun part. As mentioned in the debate. Heaven forbid, but one of these folks could be a heart beat away from the presidency. Would you rather see Palin or Biden on there? I'm going for Biden. Hence Obama.

I agree on the overuse of "maverick".

Why would you make a voting decision based on looking past the person who would be President? What is logical about assuming the President will die while in office? When is the last time that happened?

The theme "a heartbeat away" is an Obama talking point. Is it really reasonable to think the guy can't last another 4 years? When I was 19, 4 years seemed like a long time, but not anymore.

I think Gwen Ifill did a good balanced job as moderator. She had to go out of her way to appear neutral given the revelation that she has a financial interest in an Obama presidency given her upcoming book. But I think the "heartbeat away" question is implicitly loaded in favor of Obama's strategy. Conspiracy theorists have at it.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the differences between the candidates for President, not V.P.

 

[NSXrunner]

Why would you make a voting decision based on looking past the person who would be President? What is logical about assuming the President will die while in office? When is the last time that happened?

No reason. I just want to try and cover all the bases as best as possible when making my decisions. Yes a President croaking in office hasn't happened in a while, but it has happened. Also when I mean heart beat I don't mean just by natural causes. Kennedy was the last one to die while in office, they attempted with Reagan. It's not a perfect solution by looking past the President, but you do have to keep it in mind IMO.

Also I agree that the moderator did a good job by the way too. I was concerned when I heard she was writing an Obama book. But I felt she kept things going without leaning to one side vs. the other.

 

[minervoflorida]

Palin would not answer questions that were off her talking points, this was so blatant that it is hard to believe they let her off that way.

The reason she came across so well is that her coaching for the past 5 days was all about talking points. If you get anything else, just go to the talking points no matter what.

I would love to see her in open question interviews in the weeks to come, the normal Palin would be back. However you WILL NOT see this, she will be sheltered.

I think if anyone listed Govs and Senators who would be a quality VP before McCain picked her, she would have been at the bottom 5%.

 

[KSXNSX]

Palin would not answer questions that were off her talking points, this was so blatant that it is hard to believe they let her off that way.

The reason she came across so well is that her coaching for the past 5 days was all about talking points. If you get anything else, just go to the talking points no matter what.

I would love to see her in open question interviews in the weeks to come, the normal Palin would be back. However you WILL NOT see this, she will be sheltered.

I think if anyone listed Govs and Senators who would be a quality VP before McCain picked her, she would have been at the bottom 5%.

Yeah. Her speeches were practically a re-iteration of what McCain re-hashed from his speech writers. You can tell by the diction they both used--uncharacteristic of both of them.

"Naivete" for example was used uncharacteristically by both Mccain and Palin.

 

[KSXNSX]

yes she did great and i think she smashed every bad opinion people had of her tonight.



i cant wait to see the "who do you think won" poll results, because it was a great debate and personaly i dont think anybody "won", nor did anybody "loose"


but ofcourse msnbc will report biden victory by 99-1:tongue:

I disagree. I think Palin is pretty loose.

 

[NSX-Tuner]

A more complete list of Biden fact-gaffes...

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate. Here's Biden in his own words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rXyTRT-NZg

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

How about Biden's Gaffe With Katie Couric???

I think this post best sums it up...

"When interviewed by Couric, Biden said "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television..." LOL. FDR wasn't president in 1929 when the market crashed, and Americans did not have TV yet. But Couric, of course, let it slide. Now, if McCain had said something so stupid, the mainstream media would cite it as proof that McCain is senile. If Palin had said it, the mainstream media would say it proves she's not ready. But the Mainstream media gives Biden a pass, just as they give him a pass for saying he was shot at in Iraq (he wasn't), and for saying that his helicopter was forced down in Afganistan without mentioning that is was forced down by SNOW. And can you imagine what the mainstream media would be saying if the moderator of tonight's debate had just written a book extolling the virtues of John McCain? I don't understand why so many people are snowed by the blatantly pro-Obama media. They sure don't fool me. I'm not that naive. "

http://cfc.wciv.com/forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=89&Topic=47083

 

[lowellhigh79]

Most companies manufacture overseas because the cost of labor and goods is much much cheaper, not because they can save on taxes. Those jobs are never coming back (unless our standard of living falls close to or below where many of the other nations are) There are non-manufacturing America companies that have moved their entire operations overseas for pure tax savings, but they are so fiscally astute/selfish, that they won't come back until our coprorate tax rates are the lowest in the world. Solution? Create a whole new industry such renewable energy. Invent baby, invent!

Regards, Danny

Danny,

Can you back this up somehow? Do you have any numbers? As the owner of a manufacturing business I would take issue with your use of the word "most". As manufacturing becomes increasing automated and roboticized, labor cost will start to become less and less important.

Also, I'm not implying that lower taxes are the only reason, but it one thing we can do something about. Let's face it. There are lots of jobs that USA employees just don't want to do. And there's no way we can compete with the low wages that can be found in other countries.

We can't do much about $1/hour wages in other countries and we can't force people to work for $1 here. Heck, with the ever-increasing minimum wage, many companies no longer hire high-school kids. But we can do something about the tax situation.

-Jim

Sure. Any US company with a domestic address with overseas manufacturing (Walmart, Things Remembered, AMD, Intel, HP). Robotics? Is that why China gets a lot of their work. I thought it was the 1000 yuan/month (roughly 160 dollars) salaries and cheaper materials. I agree with you that reducing taxes is about all we can do to decrease the disadvantages of producing domestically, but that is a small piece of the pie and won't make any real difference in convincing companies to bring back manufacturing jobs.

Regards,

Danny

 

[lowellhigh79]

How about Biden's Gaffe With Katie Couric???

I think this post best sums it up...

"When interviewed by Couric, Biden said "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television..." LOL. FDR wasn't president in 1929 when the market crashed, and Americans did not have TV yet. But Couric, of course, let it slide. Now, if McCain had said something so stupid, the mainstream media would cite it as proof that McCain is senile. If Palin had said it, the mainstream media would say it proves she's not ready. But the Mainstream media gives Biden a pass, just as they give him a pass for saying he was shot at in Iraq (he wasn't), and for saying that his helicopter was forced down in Afganistan without mentioning that is was forced down by SNOW. And can you imagine what the mainstream media would be saying if the moderator of tonight's debate had just written a book extolling the virtues of John McCain? I don't understand why so many people are snowed by the blatantly pro-Obama media. They sure don't fool me. I'm not that naive. "

http://cfc.wciv.com/forums/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=89&Topic=47083

At least Biden knew about FDR speeches caught on film and that FDR had addressed the nation about/during the depression (radio), something an intellectually disinterested person such a Palin would never have had any knowledge about.

Gotcha journalism? She couldn't name any journals or magazines because she doesn't read. She has no idea what Supreme court decisions she disagrees with, because she doesn't know of any other Supreme court decisions beyond Roe v. Wade. That's sad to say of any Joe Shmoe off the street and this lady wants to be our VP. She may complain of judicial activism (first line), but she can't give any examples of what she is against (second line) and why (third line). Nothing in yesterday's debate went beyond the first line, possibly due to the moderator's concern of perceived impartiality. Any physician who has taken an oral board exam will know what I am talking about. Seven schools in 6 years (6 actually because she registered at U Idaho twice), is not what I would want to see on a resume, especially for a job as important as this one, and her amazing lack of knowledge only confirms that.

Regards,

Danny

 

[Jimbo]

something an intellectually disinterested person such a Palin...

Gotcha journalism? She couldn't name any journals or magazines because she doesn't read...


That's really unfair and mean spirited Danny.

I may just have to start agreeing with Michelle Obama that your "downright mean."

Look, just admit it. There's a double standard at work here. Excuses will be made for Obama/Biden.

But when it comes to McCain/Palin the mainstream media will do their best to put them in the worse possible light.