Printed From: MiddletownUSA.com
Category: Outside World
Forum Name: News, Info and Happenings outside Middletown
Forum Description: It might be happening outside Middletown, but it affects us here at home.
URL: http://www.middletownusa.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=649 Printed Date: Dec 22 2024 at 10:31pm
Topic: Obama's doesn't know who is Middle classPosted By: Pacman
Subject: Obama's doesn't know who is Middle class
Date Posted: Nov 01 2008 at 9:00am
It seems that Obama's idea of the Middle Class is shrinking considerably as we get closer to election day, at this rate Middle Class will be defined as well below $100,000.00 before the tax increase takes affect. It appears that Obama is truly confused at to who or what defines the Middle Class. Obama sure does stand for Change he is changing the Middle Class quicker than I change my........
Then Just yesterday it got lowered again:
Replies: Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 01 2008 at 9:22am
At least this Obama Spokesperson cuts right to the Chase, Middle Class $45,000.00 per year. I just shake my head when I listen to the Liberal's, even the Canadians are shaking their heads at this one:
Posted By: Tazman
Date Posted: Nov 01 2008 at 9:48am
McCain doesn't know who the middle class is either. 7 houses--or is it 8?
There are very few at that level that truly know the middle class.
So--no news here.
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 01 2008 at 10:15am
Nice try Tazman but you get a D, spoken like a true liberal. Obama has clearly defined the Middle Class for himself and his campaign, the problem is he is now scaling it back repeatedly. He is back peddling on promises that were the backbone of his campaign. In these economic times he will not be able to deliver on most of his Campaign promises, simply due to the economy unless he intends to totally destroy this country and its economy.
Also Taz you do not find it disturbing that Obama is making a conscious effort to change his Position on an issue that he basically based his whole campaign? I mean these are not slips of the tongue, these are conscious decisions made at the last minute to change his whole stance on taxes.
It is immaterial how many houses either candidate has, I could care less if Obama has 5 houses or 10, or that McCain has 7, 8 or 15.
By the way Taz I am not a fan of McCain nor Obama, I voted for who I felt was the lessor of two evils at this time, I wish there was another viable candidate or that the Republicans had put forth a better Choice.
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Nov 01 2008 at 7:18pm
Pacman- you state that you don't like either candidate and are voting for the lesser of two evils. Ok, given that, I would be interested in your views on McCain/Palin (pros and cons) as all I have heard from you is a constant pounding of Obama and how pathetic he is. You have aptly made your point that you don't like Obama, Democrats, liberals and the Democratically-controlled Congress. We all know your feelings on these topics. How about the Repubs. Is there anything that you don't like about Bush,McCain, the Repub party, the Congress (when it was controlled by the Repubs), Conservatives, etc? I'd be interested in hearing from you and the many Repubs on this site. You all seem to be die-hard Conservatives, you all probably voted for Bush and will vote for McCain and all seem to worship the Repub doctrine. I'm curious- how do you all feel about Bush at this point in time? Do you think he was a good President and why? Are you all happy with the way things have gone the last 8 years?
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 01 2008 at 10:32pm
Vet I never said Obama is Pathetic. I have nothing against Obama as a person, it is his policies that I dislike and feel are going to be detrimental to this county.
I didn't vote for McCain in 2000 and I wish the Republicans had chosen someone else this time. I was against McCain's Immigration stance. I have issue's with his healthcare plan. I am not sure of his statements on solving the Problems with the economy.
Bush has been a disappoint the last 2-3 years mainly on the issue of the economy and domestic issues. Yes I voted for Bush and would do so again against Kerry or Al Gore. Iraq I have no problem with Bush and Iraq or Afghanistan. As far as the current mess with the economy Both the Dems and Reps. are to blame for the situation.
Vet if you think the economy is bad now let Obama raise taxes on small businesses, large businesses and individuals, you will see more job loss, more companies leaving for forgien countries, more money headed off shore, less investment in business. I make nowhere near $250k a year, but the way Obama's numbers for whois Middleclass as falling in the last few weeks peole making $50k will end getting a tax increase. I disagree with giving anymore tax rebates, tax cuts etc. to people eho don't pay taxes in the first place. I further don't agree with Obama's statement that people who don't want to pay additional taxes are "selfish".
I don't want a plan that anywhere resembles Englands or Canadas. I have known to many Canadians who come here for heathcare because they are put on a waiting list in Canada to have needed services performed. Under Obama's plan you will be dumping 45,000,000 people into a HealthCare system which is ill equipped to handle that much of an influx, even if he does it over 4 years which is doubtful. We once again have Tax Credits for people who don't pay taxes to buy health care. We have Mandatory health care thru large employers, what exactly large is I don't know. Large employers that don't participate will be penalized and forced to pay a percentage of their payroll iinto the Public Insurance Fund. More lost jobs with that one. We have mandatory preventive care. Where are all of these Hospitals, Doctors, Nurses, health care professionals going to come from in the next 4 years. Doctors are leaving the Practice, Nurses are in short supply, hospitals are going under and scaling back. Sure it would be nice to see this happen but it is not realistic, especially in the current economic enviroment. While I do agree with some parts of Obama's health care plan i don't see it as doable as he outlines, especially Health Care for all in a very short time.
I think that we will see Unions grow under Obama and I don't see that as a good thing for the economy.
Neither Candidate has addressed Immigration and I believe we will see amnesty for 20 Million illegal citizens no matter who is elected, this is a bad thing.
I don't trust Obama to do the right thing when it comes to foreign policy. He strikes me as someone that would be more concerned with what Iran, France or Germany thinks than what the American People think.
I don't think either has a good Education plan.
I could go on but there is little else that I agree with Obama on. Look for more job loss under Obama.
And yes I voted for McCain, would have preferred Romney.
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 01 2008 at 10:35pm
Vet, question for you why the sudden disception with Obama cutting his definition of Middle Class from $250,000.00 to $120,000.00-$150,000.00?
I have my own opinion but would be interested in yours. Please don't say it was a mistake. Not buying that from 3 different individuals.
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Nov 02 2008 at 6:09pm
Ok Pacman- let's review your post.
1st paragraph- OBAMA is not a bad guy-just don't like his policies.
2nd paragraph- Didn't vote for McCain.Against McCain immigration stance-issues with his healthcare (no explanation unlike the OBAMA comments below)
3rd paragraph- Bush-disappointment the last 2-3 years-domestic.economy.Would vote for Bush again against Kerry/Gore.Dems/Repubs are guilty on economy.Bush Iraq/Afghan war was the right thing to do. Is it winnable in your opinion? How long will it take? How many lives should we lose?
4th paragraph-Let OBAMA raise taxes on people/large/small businesses.More job loss.OBAMA's numbers on who's middle class,OBAMA's statement on people paying additional taxes are selfish.
5th paragraph-OBAMA is going to dump 45 million people into the healthcare system.Mandatory healthcare provided by employers. Shortage of healthcare workers to take care of the influx, etc.People having to wait in England and Canada as opposed to not having healthcare at all and dying due to being turned away at medical facilities due to a lack of a healthcare program. To heck with them- let 'em die.We are scaling back on hospitals and they are going under yet we are building new ones up and down I-75.
6th paragraph-Unions growing under OBAMA.It would be a bad thing to have representation of the worker under, say, an unscrupulous employer.
7th paragraph- Illegals- I agree. We don't need or want them here.They burden the healthcare system and lower wages for citizens because they will accept jobs at lower wages and don't request beneifits. This will help employers cost savings, creating more profits to give to the CEO and middle managers as bonuses and generating more money for golden parachutes for CEO failures as well as creating more jobs.
8th paragraph-Don't trust OBAMA's foreign policies. He cares more about the opinions of other countries than the American people.He wants to attempt to negotiate rather than to start killing right out of the chute. Sounds like he's ready to sell us out. That's a bad thing.
9th paragraph-NEITHER has a good education plan. I haven't heard either talk about education too much at all during their campaigns.Both guilty here.
10th paragraph- More job losses under OBAMA. How about under McCain? What do you see under him?
11th paragraph-Voted for McCain. Preferred Romney. Why? Did he seem like another Ronald Regan? Would that be a good thing for the working person?
SCORE: OBAMA with 8 negative comments- McCAIN with 2 negative comments-BOTH with 1 with neither on education in paragraph 9.Your comments indicate a strong tendency to be more highly critical of OBAMA and much more "forgiving" of McCain and Bush.You sound like the McCain campaign of constantly attacking Obama, but yet never offering specific solutions. The best we have been able to expect from the McCain camp is vague generalities but no specifics in any category. We have seen alot of "Joe the plumber" who has become the McCain court jester in a weak Repub attempt to identify with the common working person. Thanks for your input-guess we'll never agree on the national front even though I think we agree on city issues. Oh- you didn't mention Palin- how do you feel about her? What are her strong/weak points?
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Nov 02 2008 at 6:24pm
Pacman- Obama cutting his numbers down as to middle class earnings being taxed. Was listening to an Obama speech as I typed this post. He, once again, made the statement that he has made from early on that a person/business making under $250,000 per year will not see a tax increase. I have heard from other people that he lessened the amount to tax, but haven't heard that statement myself. If Obama did make that statement, (here it comes Repubs- an admission of deception/wrongdoing- the Repubs might want to try it sometime- it's called honesty in opinion- Obama was dead wrong to do that. Will never say it was a mistake. I'm saying that if he said it, he was dead wrong to say it and lied to the people if he is changing the $250,000 amount. There, an admission of honesty from a political opponent.
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 6:59am
Vet do you see those videos at the beginning of this topic watch them. Obama has clearly changed his tune. Vet it is not Honesty in my opinion when you have been basing your whole tax program, if elected, on $250,000.00 per year as defining the Middle class. Honesty in my opinion would have been when he had his Infomercial he stated, "Since the devasting blows to our economy over the last 2 years, we may have to adjust our tax plan for the Middle Class and cut back on the Re-distribution of Wealth plan that we originally put forth. We have presently lowered our no tax increases pledge/plan to those making $200,000.00, or pick your number, a year or less." Honesty is not slipping it into a commercial and then havimg your VP Pick and surrogates lower it even more.
Also, I put my numbers a week or so ago, into the Obama magic tax savings calculator on his website and got $1720.00 savings under Obama's re-distribution of wealth plan. Today after Obama's redefining of the Middle class from $250k, to $200k to $150k to $120k or where ever it is at today, my savings have dropped considerably to $1000, I expect that to drop even lower if not disappear altogether.
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 7:24am
Ok, Pacman. Obama isn't clear (and neither are we) as to his level on the salary with respect to his tax plan. If you're not happy with Obama's tax plan, how do you feel about McCain's? Once again, in your post, you went on a rant about how bad Obama's plans are. I understand-you have made it perfectly clear- you don't like much of what Obama is offering. Now, elaborate about McCain as you have Obama. I would just like to hear your thoughts on McCain and Palin. Once again, you failed to mention how you feel about Palin because you are too busy pounding on Obama. Tell us about your side of the political tracks.( By the way, this post is another negative in the Obama column and puts it at, what, 9 to 2 on the score) By the way, it can be shown that McCain has changed his tune on various subjects when compared to the outset of his campaign. It happens to all candidates during a lengthy election run. It's just not one party doing this.
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 8:21am
Vet spoken like a true democrat, what isn't clear. I clearly heard the words $250k, $200k, $150k, $120k, what exactly wasn't clear.
What rant all I said is he should have been straight forward about changing his numbers.
As far as McCains plan isn't that what I basically have now. Yeah he wants to add a tax credit for Health Care, another one here, I already deduct my Health Care as a small biz so that doesn't help me.
I have no issue with Palin.
Vet I have no issue with any candidate changing his tune. I have an issue when you try to slide it under the radar in the last few days before election day. He should have come out and been honest and clear about the change. Not just mention it is passing and then have his VP Pick lower it and so on. Then you have his connections to Acorn, Rezo, Wright, Ayers, and so on. I just don't buy what he is selling for America or selling as himself, you don't associate with these people for as long as he did and then claim, oh I didn't know.
McCain has been under the press microscope since day one while Obama has for the most part got a pass. Now we have in the last few days stuff coming out that the press has had for months and is just releasing. Middle class, Use of Coal by industry, LA Times holding back a tape, etc.
I told you I am no big fan of McCain but I far prefer him over Obama and his socialistic plans.
Posted By: spiderjohn
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 9:10am
OK--Vet is a Demo lifer and Pacman drinks the Repub kool-aid. Nothing will change there.
Obama---lacks experience and has never really been in charge of anything significant. Has a lot of media fluff and Hollyweird presentation, along with being the darling of the liberal press(Cox News at the forefront). His associations and hangers-on are less than inspiring/impressive. Add in Pelosi.Reid,Frank and the crooks from Fannie/Freddy to paint a pretty scary picture. This crew are master magicians at making $$ disappear with nothing positive to show. He will win, so let's hope for the best.
Biden--been around for over 30 years, so he is a major part of the problem. Hard to represent real change with this guy on board. Still--Biden is better than many, and has knowledge and a few good ideas.
McCain--has run a terrible campaign until the final two weeks. Comes accross as a grouchy old 72yo man. Has a stellar history in the military, and a much greater understanding of theIraq/Afghani situation. Has a history of fighting against waste and influence with few concrete victories. GW and the Repub disaster of the last 8 years as a major ball & chain. The public is frantically narrowing the gap, however it is far too late.
Palin--Hardly the star made out to be, but very unfairly treated by the media. She scared them at first until they could activate the well-oiled personal destruction mechanisms. Is she a future star? I doubt it, though she will pave the way for hopefully better people.
We have serious voter fraud going on, which is bad for everyone. This election sadly mirrors a 3rd world effort, and tomorrow will probably be a black day in the history of democracy. Chaos and legal challenges may well dominate the happeniongs, though we can hope for the best.
The true character of our citizen make-up will be revealed on the left and right. We are all in this together, and can rectify any significant over-stepping in two years, as we witnessed during Clinton's first term and GW's 2nd term.
The move towards socialism is already in place, thanks to the disastrous bi-partisan bail-out vote last month. That decision shackled both candidates, and is far more important than tomorrow's election imo.
I wish y'all could vote for me, and that I could break away to do the dirty job ahead. But that won't happen at this time--maybe later.
So--vote out ALL incumbants, particularly in Butler County.
Vote down all monetary issues since all levels of govt. have proven to be extremely poor stewards monitoring your money.
Vote down the casino issue. Casinos just suck away money from the public and the business community. Very little $$ actually makes it back into the system, and the few jobs created really don't matter much in the big picture.
So--where do you disagree?
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 10:04am
Spider with McCain and Obama the only two choices you have it is a matter of do you want a Nose Bleed, McCain, or do you want to severe an artery and bleed to death, Obama.
By the way many, many years ago I was a Democrat until to many of them jumped off the Left end.
Posted By: Middletown News
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 10:14am
I don't know what the Obama supporter are drinking but I can asure you that it ain't Koolaid.
I would call it un-Koolaid. Heck, half the country is in a drug induced coma, why not get free health care and tax the job making well to do's.
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 10:49am
Just heard the new Obama Mantra in a radio commercial on 99.9. No tax increase for anyone making $200K or less, and yes he approved the Ad
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 12:24pm
Concerning McCain's healthcare plan. He wants to give everyone $5000 per year to purchase their own healthcare plan. That won't pay for a full year of coverage for a family. I guess under his plan, the family will pay out of pocket for the rest of the year which no one can afford, except his Repub buddies, of course. Your comment about McCain being under the press microscope is incredibly one-sided. While Obama may have "gotten a pass" from the press as you say, he has been heavily scrutinized by the Repubs to the point of the Repubs picking and choosing bits and pieces of a speech to alter the meaning at times. And, yes, you rant Pacman. Go back and read your posts when Obama is the subject. Most of your posts on the Obama subject is geared toward the negative and how he will hurt the country with his policies. In comparison, you have said very little on behalf of McCain and almost nothing concerning Palin.
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 1:53pm
Vet my Health Care for my family costs $18,000.00 per year. Do you think maybe it is because I don't agree with many or most of his policies? At this point in time it doesn't matter who gets elected I would venture a guess that neither is going to be able to put into place 90% of what they have promised or want.
Vet you are obsessed with Palin. Palin is not running for the Presidency. I have also stated I have no problem with Palin being the VP.
Vet rants what rants at this point I am just trying to answer your posts. Speaking of ranting........hmmmmmmm.
Posted By: arwendt
Date Posted: Nov 03 2008 at 3:24pm
I love this story and this bit below. From the LA times back Feb 2008.
And, of course, last summer Biden attempted to endear himself to an Indian American supporter by telling him that in Delaware, “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” Not only was this an offensive line, it didn’t even make any sense: The observation, familiar to anybody who watched a comedian on cable television 15 years ago, is that Indian Americans are the only ones who work in convenience stores, not that they’re the only ones who shop there. The man can’t even keep his condescending cliches straight.
------------- “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” Benjamin Franklin - More at my http://wordsoffreedom.wordpress.com/ - Words of Freedom website.
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Nov 04 2008 at 6:51am
arwendt- it was a poor and offensive attempt by Biden at stereotyping. When one thinks of a 7-Eleven, calling for computer help, or other selected jobs, one MIGHT think of linking those jobs to foreigners- ie- people from India.- ie Apoo (sp?) on the Simpson's with the "squishy machine" While we're criticizing Biden, let's also criticize the writers for the Simpson's show, aired nationally and very popular by the way, for this aggregious act. Heck, while we're at it, let's villify the people who stereotype the people living in trailer parks with their mullet haircuts/rusted pick-up trucks/redneck lifestyle. Jeff Foxworthy does this very well and makes money doing it.His show is on TV and apparently is acceptable.There is a show on TV where they mimic the TV show with Ty Pennington that rehabs trailer park homes. There are many examples of labeling/stereotyping people based on their habits, speech and lifestyle that today's society finds acceptable. Look at the sitcoms of the 70's. Good Times with a black family cast in a setting that is stereotypical low income poor America living in the "projects". I agree, this is in poor taste on Biden's part and should never have been said.This was also last summer and we have moved on down the pike since then.
Posted By: VietVet
Date Posted: Nov 04 2008 at 7:37am
Pacman- No, I'm not "obsessed" with Palin. I merely asked you (several times) what your opinion was of her. My opinion is that she is a ditzy airhead with no substance or understanding of what the VP position entails.She would make a good cheerleader, den mother in a Cub Scout troop,or PTO leader at a local school, but she would be a disaster if anything should happen to McCain. Certainly not ready for prime time. It's a very simple concept. I told you my opinion of her. Now, I'm asking what your opinion is. As to your ranting comment- again- if you were to go back and review all of your comments on this site, concerning the presidential race, I believe that you would find that overall, you have demonstrated a strong trend toward the trashing of Obama's ideas and the Dems in general. I would define that activity as ranting. Obviously, you will disagree with that comment.
Posted By: Pacman
Date Posted: Nov 04 2008 at 8:00am
Vet I am pretty sure Palin with a little on the Job Training could handle this:
Vice-Presidential Duties
The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. John Adams holds the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, however, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.
The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents — John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush — had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office.
Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."
Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.
The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.
During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.
Posted By: Middletown News
Date Posted: Nov 04 2008 at 9:41am
For a little while, John Adams presided over the senate. He was promptly voted to shut up within a few years. Adams was a bit long winded. Had he been more prone to let others speak, history might be different regarding VP duties.
Posted By: arwendt
Date Posted: Nov 04 2008 at 12:36pm
VieVet..Although I see why others might find Biden's comments offensive, I do not.
I think we are all subject to making what some would call stereotypical remarks but for the most part I believe these are innocent comments based on our own experiences or the popular image of any group that is most prevalent at any given time. That’s not to say that remarks such as this even need to be to be said. It’s just that I don’t see them as proof of any evil or racist agenda.
------------- “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” Benjamin Franklin - More at my http://wordsoffreedom.wordpress.com/ - Words of Freedom website.