I want to be in McCain's middle class

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1846364920080818

$5,000,000 in yearly income defines "rich" for McCain. So $2,500,000 much be middle class, with the sub $1,000,000 class being the lowly working schlubs?

Video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DENW3wSovTs&eurl=http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/winning-the-west/2008/aug/18/mccains-rich-definition-new-fodder-obama-attacks/

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped Republican rival John McCain on Monday for joking during a televised discussion on values that $5 million fit the definition for being monetarily rich....McCain, who made the comment to evangelical pastor Rick Warren on Saturday, caught himself immediately and said the remark would likely be taken out of context.

Yawn. Do you have video of the actual interview?

This is one that is being blown out of proportion. Yes it appears that McCain has little idea of what the average American makes, but what would you expect of a Republican.

His answer matches mine pretty well, weathy is a 7 figure salary. You can start to argue that some 6 figure salaries are but as someone made the point to me long ago, they have a house, I have a house. There's may be nicer but that's about the only difference.

poopshovel wrote:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama ripped Republican rival John McCain on Monday for joking during a televised discussion on values that $5 million fit the definition for being monetarily rich....McCain, who made the comment to evangelical pastor Rick Warren on Saturday, caught himself immediately and said the remark would likely be taken out of context.

Yawn. Do you have video of the actual interview?

I'd settle for lower lower lower middle class at that rate.

slefain wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1846364920080818 $5,000,000 in yearly income defines "rich" for McCain. So $2,500,000 much be middle class, with the sub $1,000,000 class being the lowly working schlubs? Video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DENW3wSovTs&eurl=http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/winning-the-west/2008/aug/18/mccains-rich-definition-new-fodder-obama-attacks/

At the rate inflation's going, those figures may not be that far off soon...

AoR, You speak the truth.

Be worried if they start raising the minimum wage from $3.35... E36 M3 .

Hold on, lemme put on my flame suit.....

Definitions of wealth: Republican - Any amount that allows me to steer the government at my whim Democrat - Anybody who makes more that I do

Normal citizen - Who cares, I just wanna have enough to pay my bills!!

-Rob

And take the kids out to a hooker every now and then.

rob_lewis wrote: Hold on, lemme put on my flame suit..... Definitions of wealth: Republican - Any amount that allows me to steer the government at my whim Democrat - Anybody who makes more that I do Normal citizen - Who cares, I just wanna have enough to pay my bills!! -Rob

Someone has to look out for their better interests.

Some call it paying a stripper, I call it clothing the needy.

slefain wrote: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1846364920080818 $5,000,000 in yearly income defines "rich" for McCain. So $2,500,000 much be middle class, with the sub $1,000,000 class being the lowly working schlubs? Video of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DENW3wSovTs&eurl=http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/winning-the-west/2008/aug/18/mccains-rich-definition-new-fodder-obama-attacks/

Brian, you're either trolling, or failed to watch the video-link you provided.

The gist of McCain's comments was that he doesn't want to raise anyone's taxes and provide everyone an opportunity to "better" their lives with less government intervention.

McCain, himself, acknowledged his definition of "rich" would be taken out of context and said so with a measure of levity, appreciated as humor by a laughing audience.

I'd wager the majority of the seats in that studio were occupied by lowly, working schlubs and they understood what he was saying.

You think we can take things any more out of context??

McCain said this in response to a question from Rick Warren. It was CLEARLY a joke. Hears the entire quote:

(APPLAUSE)

What is significantly more frightening was Obama's response to the same question. His joke answer was $25 million (which none of you seems to want to mention), but in all seriousness he stated that $150,000 income is middle class, possibly poor. Here's the whole quote:

WARREN: OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. [ laughter ] I mean give me a number, Is it $50,000, $100,000, 200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?

OBAMA: Look, the - here's how I think about it. Here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down you're basically middle class, obviously depends on the region where you're living.

I would HAPPILY settle for half of his alleged "poverty" line, and never once complain that I was poor.

It amazes me how much you guys can twist the facts sometimes.

oldsaw wrote: Brian, you're either trolling, or failed to watch the video-link you provided.

I was in a bad mood yesterday Shockenberry, so I was in a trolling mood, but I did watch the link and really didn't get the humor of it.

I didn't say anything about Obama. He's just as out of touch as McCain. My point was even jokingly McCain's idea of "rich" is still pretty high. I'm not voting for either of them. If I'd have heard about the Obama clip, I'd have posted it too. In my opinion, no matter who wins the election, we all still lose this year. I'm a Libertarian, I get to bash both sides. If McCain wins, we get 4 more years of Bush, if Obama wins, we get a couple of feel good years and then reality will set in. I'm voting for Bob Barr.

Both of their answers seem pretty reasonable to me.

$5 million is certainly rich, regardless of where you live. McCain didn't seem to say $5 was the minimum threshold for being rich, just a point at which you definitely qualify as rich.

Less than $150,000 is middle-class or poor (Obama said [i]less than[/i] $150, not $150 on the nose). The point at which you fall from middle class to poor varies by region, as Obama noted.

Many of my peers are right around that $150 mark (household, two incomes for most). They are all comfortable, have nice homes, and drive newer cars. But, if any lose their jobs, they lose their health care benefits and possibly their homes - just like the family that earns $75k or $50k.

So you are deliberately wasting your vote?

I call it wasting since there is no way he can win and you leave the decision to be determined by the unwashed masses.

Libertarian can't win, it's a shame, but it's a fact. Knowing that you still choose to not have a say in the eventual winner. I don't get it.

Wait, I do get it, now you get to gripe that no matter who wins you aren't part of the problem because you didn't vote for them so you are taking the moral high ground in protest.

carguy123 wrote: So you are deliberately wasting your vote? I call it wasting since there is no way he can win and you leave the decision to be determined by the unwashed masses. Libertarian can't win, it's a shame, but it's a fact. Knowing that you still choose to not have a say in the eventual winner. I don't get it. Wait, I do get it, now you get to gripe that no matter who wins you aren't part of the problem because you didn't vote for them so you are taking the moral high ground in protest.

Nope, I'm not wasting my vote. Not voting is wasting my vote. Actually taking a stand and saying that I'm unhappy with the two choices given to me and voting my opinion means I'm using my vote as intended, to convey my opinion. If more people realized that they don't have to vote with the rest of the sheeple and can actually choose a President that more closely matches their beliefs we would not have the usual "lesser of two evils" voting that happens. People are getting sick of politics as usual and viable third parties are slowly taking offices across the country. It will take time, but the opportunity for a third party is there. My candidate may not win, but at least I know I voted for someone, not just against the other guy. Vote Green Party, vote independent, vote Libertarian, vote anyone you want that matches your beliefs. Don't assume that just because the two biggest political parties tell you who you can vote for that you don't have options. You do have options, stand up for them.

I 'wasted' my vote in the last two, and I'll do it again until we get someone that's not a total berkeleytard in there.

Other than Perot (and that got us that pervert Clinton and the LQ) and the "Bull Moose" party there has never been a third candidate garner enough votes to make anyone stand up and take notice so you don't even get the satisfaction of saying "I'm showing them!"

If your voting didn't have anything to do with the eventual winner, either by voting him in or by making it a close enough call that the other party says I need to make some adjustments to my policies, then your vote was wasted.

Guess I'm poor.....my household income is around $72,000

carguy123 wrote: Other than Perot (and that got us that pervert Clinton and the LQ) and the "Bull Moose" party there has never been a third candidate garner enough votes to make anyone stand up and take notice so you don't even get the satisfaction of saying "I'm showing them!" If your voting didn't have anything to do with the eventual winner, either by voting him in or by making it a close enough call that the other party says I need to make some adjustments to my policies, then your vote was wasted.

Alright then, so tell me who you are voting for so I can counter your vote. If who I want to vote for can't win, then the best I can do is nullify your vote. I would be voting for one of the two major parties, and therefor not wasting my vote, right? My only other choice is to just flip a coin. Or would you prefer I vote my choice. I cannot in good mind vote for either McCain or Obama. Whichever one wins I will complain about them, but if I vote for one of them and still complain about it that makes me a hypocrite.

slefain wrote:

carguy123 wrote: So you are deliberately wasting your vote? I call it wasting since there is no way he can win and you leave the decision to be determined by the unwashed masses. Libertarian can't win, it's a shame, but it's a fact. Knowing that you still choose to not have a say in the eventual winner. I don't get it. Wait, I do get it, now you get to gripe that no matter who wins you aren't part of the problem because you didn't vote for them so you are taking the moral high ground in protest.

Nope, I'm not wasting my vote. Not voting is wasting my vote. Actually taking a stand and saying that I'm unhappy with the two choices given to me and voting my opinion means I'm using my vote as intended, to convey my opinion. If more people realized that they don't have to vote with the rest of the sheeple and can actually choose a President that more closely matches their beliefs we would not have the usual "lesser of two evils" voting that happens. People are getting sick of politics as usual and viable third parties are slowly taking offices across the country. It will take time, but the opportunity for a third party is there. My candidate may not win, but at least I know I voted for someone, not just against the other guy. Vote Green Party, vote independent, vote Libertarian, vote anyone you want that matches your beliefs. Don't assume that just because the two biggest political parties tell you who you can vote for that you don't have options. You do have options, stand up for them.

+1

As I recall, we used to have more than two parties, at the founding of this country, our electoral system quickly gave into the reality of its mechanics. I winner-takes-all system means that you need to capture 51%. To be viable, a party has to cater to the largest population possible.

I think we'd be much better off with a parliamentary system. Then we might get a congress that demographically represents our country. Last I checked, this country wasn't that white, or 100% Christian.

slefain wrote: but if I vote for one of them and still complain about it that makes me a hypocrite.

you're going to have a long time waiting for someone who does exactly what he says.. and.. also fits your ideals.

Also will someone please tell me how $150k or less and you might be poor is wrong. Seems correct to me.

I'd like to at least be at the poor level of 150k, of course if that were truely the level of being poor the average car would cost $200k new

That's because you understand math and logic. Clearly both of those things limit if you are looking for a reason to dislike the socialist.

ignorant wrote:

slefain wrote: but if I vote for one of them and still complain about it that makes me a hypocrite.

you're going to have a long time waiting for someone who does exactly what he says.. and.. also fits your ideals. Also will someone please tell me how $150k or less and you might be poor is wrong. Seems correct to me.

I just hope I don't end up being Obama's rich, and have whats left of my pay taxed away from me.