• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

OFFICIAL thread for the 2nd US Presidential Debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Azih

Member
it's really the top 20% if you add up two-income families as noted above
Click to expand...
Top 20% of American families do NOT have a total income of 200K+, I don't care how many workers it has.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Loki: As far as the debate is concerned, Kerry was only talking about getting rid of Bush's tax cuts, which we obviously couldn't afford, but only for the >200K bracket. As it happens, this would return their tax rate to how it was under Clinton, which is just what he said.

Of course, other things may be involved or different things may transpire, but that's what I got from what was said in the debate itself.
 
L

Loki

Count of Concision
Azih said:
Top 20% of American families do NOT have a total income of 200K+, I don't care how many workers it has.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand.


I didn't state that the top 20% of families earn over $200K per year (they certainly don't, because every "top 20%'er" making $100K per year or more doesn't marry another top 20%'er). This is my point:


- The top 5% of individual earners make from $200K and up.

- The top 20% of individual earners earn $100K and up (the upper two brackets, the top 1% and 5% respectively, are subsumed into this category, comprising the top 20% of earners)

- Now, what happens if Kerry means to tax families making over $200K/year, as opposed to individuals? Well, you can have a situation where there are two professional parents-- one making, say, $120K, and the other $80K. If Kerry's plan only affected individuals (i.e., single people) earning over $200K, neither would be affected by the higher tax burden, since neither of them qualify alone.

- If Kerry means that families earning more than $200K combined will be taxed at a higher rate, then BOTH of those people will be affected should they choose to marry and have children.


My reference to "the top 20%" being affected means that those folks in the top 20% who choose to marry another person in the top 20% (two $100K earners makes $200K family income) will be subject to the new tax. Also, there are other possible breakdowns as well, obviously-- one spouse making $145K and the other making $55K etc. I should have been a bit clearer with my usage of those percentages, though, yes.


My point was that Kerry used the words "individual" and "families" interchangeably in his responses several times. Personally, I don't believe that a family (i.e., 2 spouses and children) making a combined $200K should be taxed in the same way that an individual making $200K is. Further, I'd personally set the bar for family income to $350K; after that, everything else is just gravy no matter how many kids you have or where you live. For individuals, $200K seems reasonable, though I'd still like to see a more progressive tax system put into place-- one that didn't just seemingly say "$200K and up, here's your tax rate; less than $200K, here's yours." That strikes me as a bit odd and unfair, actually. I support fully a TRUE progressive tax system, where individuals earning $200K would pay, say, 35%, individuals earning $500K would be taxed 40%, those earning $1M+ would be taxed 45%, and those earning more than $10M/year would be taxed 50%. Those earning $50M or more per year should be taxed at an even more substantial rate (say 55%), and so on.


Hope that clears it up. :)
 
L

Loki

Count of Concision
Hitokage said:
Loki: As far as the debate is concerned, Kerry was only talking about getting rid of Bush's tax cuts, which we obviously couldn't afford, but only for the >200K bracket. As it happens, this would return their tax rate to how it was under Clinton, which is just what he said.

Of course, other things may be involved or different things may transpire, but that's what I got from what was said in the debate itself.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok; like I said, I just heard bits and pieces as I was studying, so I got the wrong impression. A repeal of the tax breaks given to those earning over $200K per year is reasonable, considering that they shouldn't have gotten it anyway. I figured he was proposing new tax rates for the various brackets. I still say that he should focus more on the top 2% ($500K and up) and corporations, but that's something I've always said. :) The reason I feel that way is that after a certain point, I feel that the accumulation of wealth becomes obscene, and money has diminishing returns (in terms of providing the necessities and luxuries of life); I just don't consider $200K/year for a family of 4 or 5 to be "obscene", nor at that point of diminishing returns yet. $30M per year? Sure.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Loki said:
Oh, ok; like I said, I just heard bits and pieces as I was studying, so I got the wrong impression. A repeal of the tax breaks given to those earning over $200K per year is reasonable, considering that they shouldn't have gotten it anyway. I figured he was proposing new tax rates for the various brackets. I still say that he should focus more on the top 2% ($500K and up) and corporations, but that's something I've always said. :) The reason I feel that way is that after a certain point, I feel that the accumulation of wealth becomes obscene, and money has diminishing returns (in terms of providing the necessities and luxuries of life); I just don't consider $200K/year for a family of 4 or 5 to be "obscene", nor at that point of diminishing returns yet. $30M per year? Sure.
Click to expand...
Money means necessities to the poor, luxuries to the middle and lower-upper class, but influence to the rich, and they buy lots of it.
 
S

Stele

Holds a little red book
Loki's numbers completely does not jive with what I thought was the common notion that 90% of America makes less than 40K a year.
 
L

Loki

Count of Concision
Hitokage said:
Money means necessities to the poor, luxuries to the middle and lower-upper class, but influence to the rich, and they buy lots of it.
Click to expand...

True-- but that's precisely the sort of trend we should be looking to reverse, though increased taxation alone will never accomplish that (after all, if you tax a guy making $40M/year at 55-60%, he still takes home $16-19M, more than enough to toss some money around each year to various senators' campaigns or other causes). We need substantial political reform so that the influence of those with money is limited as far as possible. There's no reason that a person making $20M per year should have any more political clout than Joe Schmoe making $45K; I'm sure you agree. I'm sure you'll also agree with me that such an idealistic situation will, unfortunately, never come to pass. :p
 
T

teiresias

Member
*Kerry's assertion that President Bush received money and owned part of a lumber company. Which let's face it, made everyone think, "What?"

*Bush's 'I didn't know I owned a lumber company, would anyone like to buy some wood?' show-stopper zinger.

*The fact that it was proven to be true after the debate.
Click to expand...

I thought it was hilarious, when I heard that whole exchange I thought to myself, "It's going to be hilarious if Kerry is proven correct." AND WHAT DO YOU KNOW!!!! Of course, the media's not going to say shit about it, so most everyone that watched it will just assume Bush was correct.
 
L

Loki

Count of Concision
Stele said:
Loki's numbers completely does not jive with what I thought was the common notion that 90% of America makes less than 40K a year.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I got my data from this site: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_income_taxation.htm

...first graph down. This was the site on my search whose little google abstract seemed to be most relevant (or at least the first one I came across). If the actual US Census data is different, then I dunno. I just went to the Census Bureau page, and it's much too convoluted for my tastes, and all the .pdf files wreak havoc on my PC anyway, so I didn't bother. I just looked again through google for about 5-10 minutes for a simple graph of income brackets in the US but couldn't find one. If you find one that's contrary to the numbers I've posted, let me know.


EDIT: I just downloaded one of the Census Bureau .pdfs, and from what I can make out, this is what it says:

$75K-$99,999 = 11% of the population
$100K and over = 14.1% of the population


So I guess I was around 5% off with those figures. Still, take some of those people earning $95K and add them to the $100K category, and it'll be close to 20%. :D


Oh, FYI Stele, it seems that about 45% of people earn $40K or less according to the Census data.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
maharg said:
This is not *quite* right. Nitpicky I may be, but a TCP/IP network that occupies only one segment is not an internetwork (from which internet is shortened), it's just a network. It becomes an internetwork when you have a bridge between two different segments.

Likewise, a network that was capable of bridging of that sort is subject to the same rules. It's not IP (TCP is not really relevant here) that makes it an 'internetwork,' it's the bridging. IP was one of the first such protocols, though.
Click to expand...


I ws torn on this one-- on one hand, I tend to agree with you-- but the "I" in "IP" does stand for Internet-- meaning even if it's not a connected internet, it's a potentially connected one, and hence an internet.

We're splitting fine hairs either way-- I was just tired of people jumping on Bush for a little thing like that when he's a lying asshole who started a pointless war and is driving up a huge deficit. I mean, pick your battles, people!
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Ignatz Mouse said:
I ws torn on this one-- on one hand, I tend to agree with you-- but the "I" in "IP" does stand for Internet-- meaning even if it's not a connected internet, it's a potentially connected one, and hence an internet.

We're splitting fine hairs either way-- I was just tired of people jumping on Bush for a little thing like that when he's a lying asshole who started a pointless war and is driving up a huge deficit. I mean, pick your battles, people!
Click to expand...
Splitting hairs? Protocols designed for the internet does not equal the internet itself. You're entirely off base there. :p
 
C

capslock

Is jealous of Matlock's emoticon
Either Bill Clinton or Tony Blair would eviscerate and disembowel both of these ass clowns if they were up on the stage with them.
 
L

Loki

Count of Concision
Dude, you act like I'm trying to pull a fast one on you or something lol. :) I didn't have access to information showing the family income breakdown, so I proposed a scenario where two earners would be making a combined $200K. In no way did I state or insinuate that 20% or even 10% of American families made $200K or more combined. Acting under the assumption I was (which Hito has since corrected, which was that Kerry was proposing hiking the tax rates), my point was this:
Click to expand...
didn't think you were trying to decieve me, but the 20% figure you calculted seemed very wrong to me.

In any case top 5% of the population is RICH by any standard measure. I think your standard doesn't have a gradation for 'obscenely rich' and so the highest income level gets the rich label and everything below doesn't, even though you know... they're RICH.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
Acting under the assumption I was (which Hito has since corrected, which was that Kerry was proposing hiking the tax rates), my point was this:
Click to expand...
Just an aside, but this isn't unexpected. One of the perks of cutting taxes no matter how deep you dig yourself into debt is the ability to accuse anyone correcting your insanity to be "raising taxes", which the mere mention of seems to get many people into a shrill panic. People should learn that tax and spend, for all the bile it gets, is many times better than borrow and spend.
 
J

JoshuaJSlone

Member
Banjo Tango said:
In regards to the whole General Shinseki comment, where Kerry says:
Factcheck.org states:Gotcha. But then they go on to say... So what I'm wondering is... how does leaking the story of who will replace him undercut his authority? If it's well known that he's retiring, what difference does it make if they know who's going to replace him?
Click to expand...
I guess it would be like being the president of the US between the November election and their January replacement... but drawn out.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
John Kerry's tax comment could come back and bite him in the ass. But what if he actually delives on that promise? If he truly does NOT raise taxes, as he promises, he could use the clip to his advantage in four years, just like it could be used against him.

It was a gamble to say that, yes. But don't be dismissing the comment yet. It could help Kerry, and it could hurt him. We really won't know for a while. :p
 
shoplifter

shoplifter

Member
If he wins, I'll just be waiting on the republican controlled congress to pass a tax hike attached to some random -necessary and useful- bill, which he'll then have to veto.
 
H

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
shoplifter said:
If he wins, I'll just be waiting on the republican controlled congress to pass a tax hike attached to some random bill, which he'll then have to veto.
Click to expand...
And because Republicans* cannot comrehend legislation beyond 2 line summaries, he'll be accused of hating children or something.


* You know, I wish I was making a baseless generalization here, but considering their campaign, I'm not.
 
M

Matt

Member
shoplifter said:
If he wins, I'll just be waiting on the republican controlled congress to pass a tax hike attached to some random bill, which he'll then have to veto.
Click to expand...
There is a distinct possibility in this election that the Democratic Party could take control of the Senate.
 
T

Triumph

Banned
Just watched the latest farce thanks to my cable provider's on-demand service.

Well, this debate cleared up several things for me.

First and foremost, I was right to not support John Kerry. Anyone who still supports the Patriot Act in any shape, way or form after reading it and seeing it in action deserves scorn and ridicule, not a vote for President. I don't care if you're playing politics with this. Christ, I wish there were candidates who had the balls to NOT play politics with this issue... oh wait, there are. We just don't here about them, even when they're getting arrested attempting to have their grievances addressed.

The Patriot Act is one of the more evil things ever conjured up out of Washington's sleaze parlors, and it doesn't surprise me that a mind as draconian as Ashcroft's dreamed it up. Saying that you support the re-orginization of the FBI and CIA and thus support the Patriot Act is IDIOTIC. That's bureaucratic re-organization, probably not even requiring legislation to enact and if it was could certainly be accomplished without giving law enforcement carte blanche to ignore our civil liberties.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

That about sums it up, don't you think?

And the fact that Kerry didn't lay into and DESTROY Bush on the environment makes me nervous too. I mean, the response Bush gave in no way resembled a clear or coherent thought. All the people in the audience and watching at home are now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Billy Madison references aside, sweet jumping Jesus on a pogo stick. Why doesn't Kerry nail Bush to the wall? Is he waiting until the last debate to really hit the guy good? Man.

Oh well, I'm going to be sleeping with an entirely clean conscience when I go to bed November 2nd. Fuck both of these idiots for contributing to the downward spiral of dumbness that our nation's politics have become.
 
B

border

Member
What's wrong with wanting to reform the Patriot Act rather than destroy it entirely? Are you saying that there is nothing about it that's going to be useful or helpful?
 
M

maharg

idspispopd
Ignatz Mouse said:
I ws torn on this one-- on one hand, I tend to agree with you-- but the "I" in "IP" does stand for Internet-- meaning even if it's not a connected internet, it's a potentially connected one, and hence an internet.

We're splitting fine hairs either way-- I was just tired of people jumping on Bush for a little thing like that when he's a lying asshole who started a pointless war and is driving up a huge deficit. I mean, pick your battles, people!
Click to expand...

The dominant feature of IP is that it allows internetworking (through the ability to define routes to a destination host that involve more than one broadcast link), thus the name is entirely suitable, regardless of the popularization of the 'global Internet.'
 
shoplifter

shoplifter

Member
border said:
What's wrong with wanting to reform the Patriot Act rather than destroy it entirely? Are you saying that there is nothing about it that's going to be useful or helpful?
Click to expand...

It'd be far better to start from scratch.

USA PATRIOT ACT is one of the most reprehensible pieces of legislation ever passed, and reforming it isn't enough.
 
O

OG_Original Gamer

Member
Why does Bush remind of a farm animal when he talks. I think I'm going to start calling him President Chicken Head. I wish I had editing skills. I would place a chickens head over his while he speaks, and replace the UM's with Buc-Ah, Buc, Buc. :D
 
R

Raven.

Banned
From debates:
bush-debate-12.gif


Don't know if this' been posted, but the sad thing is the guy was probably wired, and getting real-time assistance...

Bush was wired during the debate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3730364.stm

.A bulge in the back of President George W Bush's suit jacket during the first TV debate with John Kerry has triggered rumours that he was wired to get help.

Internet websites alleged the apparent bulge, during last week's debate in Miami, was a radio receiver feeding him answers from an offstage aide.

The Bush campaign dismissed the claims, saying it was just a wrinkle in the presidential jacket.

It also denied some web reports that Mr Bush was wearing a bullet-proof vest.
Click to expand...

_40161014_bulge_203body.jpg


edited
Critics of Bush, especially bloggers, have suggested for sometime that Bush wears an earpiece during public events in order to assist him with his speeches.

To add weight to the matter, during a D-Day speech in France by Bush, television viewers reportedly heard a voice from a crossed frequency that was feeding lines to Bush during his speech and also during the question and answer period. Additionally, In one odd moment during the presidential debate, Bush, in response to. . . well. . . nothing, held up his hand and strongly stated, "let me finish," suggesting that there was someone else talking to him aside from the moderator as he still had plenty of time left to make his point.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000637.html
 
J

Joe

Member
you internet folk are fucking loco.

what is kerry' stance on the draft? bush gave a very confident "no" on the draft while kerry seemed passive on the issue during the second debate.
 
shoplifter

shoplifter

Member
What Kerry said is that Bush is not quite telling the truth.

There are stop loss orders coming non-stop to people that have served their time. There's a case of some folks being all but told "re-up, or we're sending you to Iraq."

If a draft is necessary, it's necessary (it isn't in this case). However, the administration is more or less drafting with what they're doing now.
 
N

NWO

Member
Joe said:
bush gave a very confident "no" on the draft while kerry seemed passive on the issue during the second debate.
Click to expand...

Kerry isn't going to touch a draft because it would be suicide for him to get re-elected. Bush CANNOT be re-elected so he won't have any political consequences this time and just look at all the fuck ups he had this time around when he KNEW he was running for President again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Will the result of the US elections force behaviors of video game publishers and pop culture in general (not an actual politics thread)?
2 3
113
5K
SmokedMeat replied
Baldur’s Gate 3 getting official mod support in September
3
824
Dazraell replied
PS5 Pro enhanced launch day games listed by Sony
2
96
7K
Bartski replied
Genuine question...Has another game inspired more popular threads than Concord?
23
803
GymWolf replied
'Parasite' star Lee Sun-kyun commits suicide amid marijuana scandal
2
89
8K
John Marston replied
Top Bottom