New Developments III

[Okri]

Is this a real ad? It says "Paid for by Newt" at the end, but wouldn't it say something else?

[criddic3]

It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.

I give you a lot of credit, Criddic. I've had this discussion with several conservatives, and none of them would concede that $200,000 is a lot of money. I could nitpick over some points you made, but never mind. For once, your answer was refreshing.

On second thought, I'll nitpick. "Millionaire" is sort of a loose term, used to call people who appear rich even if they don't make over a million dollars. They're referring more to a life-style than a gross amount of income. So in a way you're right. Technically, someone who earns $200,000 a year may not be a millionaire. But if you look at their total assets, I'm willing to bet that far more of them are millionaires than you think. And if you're suffering financial hardships when living on such an income, then you're terrible at household management.

Anyway, we've veered off the point. If, as you've conceded, $200,000 is a lot of money, then Gingrich's 2010 income of $2.6 million is "a lot of money" 13 times over. And if he's sincere and doesn't believe he's rich, then he is (as they say) out of touch with the American people. And if you believe he's sincere, then you have no right to accuse Mitt Romney (which I haven't seen you do yet; I'm just saying...) of being out of touch for making a $10,000 bet or saying he likes to fire people.

You bet it's a lot of money. I make around $11,000/yr. I don't mind making that known. People assume that if you're relatively poor you will vote Democrat. There are many reasons not to, and the class warfare is one of them. If i don't make $200,000 a year, it's probably because I don't deserve to. Maybe I'm not smart enough, or maybe life just didn't turn out that way. Anyway, whoever says it's not a lot of money must have a different comparative view of money versus the cost of living. Of course, the more money you have, the more expensive are the things you buy.

[Sonic Youth]

It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.

I give you a lot of credit, Criddic. I've had this discussion with several conservatives, and none of them would concede that $200,000 is a lot of money. I could nitpick over some points you made, but never mind. For once, your answer was refreshing.

On second thought, I'll nitpick. "Millionaire" is sort of a loose term, used to call people who appear rich even if they don't make over a million dollars. They're referring more to a life-style than a gross amount of income. So in a way you're right. Technically, someone who earns $200,000 a year may not be a millionaire. But if you look at their total assets, I'm willing to bet that far more of them are millionaires than you think. And if you're suffering financial hardships when living on such an income, then you're terrible at household management.

Anyway, we've veered off the point. If, as you've conceded, $200,000 is a lot of money, then Gingrich's 2010 income of $2.6 million is "a lot of money" 13 times over. And if he's sincere and doesn't believe he's rich, then he is (as they say) out of touch with the American people. And if you believe he's sincere, then you have no right to accuse Mitt Romney (which I haven't seen you do yet; I'm just saying...) of being out of touch for making a $10,000 bet or saying he likes to fire people.

[flipp525]

Fairfax County, Virginia ($105,241).

Where I grew up. Sucks that we were apparently #2 that year, though.

[criddic3]

It is a lot of money, but when Obama points to those who make that amount, he makes it seem like some evil thing and seems to equate it with being a millionaire. As some have said, many such people are small business owners who hire people. I concede your point to the extent that it is a lot of money. However, when average people talk about rich people, they are thinking about millionaires. $200,000/yr, even $100,000, is definitely a comfortable place to be (even with all the taxes), but I think you know what I'm talking about.

[Sonic Youth]

If that story is true, it's simple to explain. "Rich" is in the eye of the beholder. Obama thinks it's anyone earning $200,000 or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudoun_County,_Virginia

"Loudoun County ( /ˈlaʊdən/ lowd-ən) is a county located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and is part of the Washington Metropolitan Area.... As of 2007, Loudoun County has the highest median household income of any county in the United States ($107,207), beating neighboring Fairfax County, Virginia ($105,241). The two counties have been trading places as the highest-income county in the United States in recent years."

In other words, even if you live in the wealthiest county in the U.S., if your household makes $200,000 per year, you're earning much more than most other people who live there. So please stop BS-ing by saying $200,000 isn't rich. That income level is very much in the "rich" category, even if you live in the poshest area in the country.

[criddic3]

The dicitonary describes rich as having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation. Under hat deifintion anyone running for President is rich.

While one who earns $200,000 a year with a large family and/or large expenses may not be rich, it's difficult to comprehend why anyone would not think someone with a net worth of $6.7 million and an annual income in excess of $500,000 whose perfectly coifed wife buys her baubles at Tiffany's wouldn't be considered rich by anyone.

However, I can't find fault with Gingirch's answer to the question posed him. As the saying goes, "ask a silly quesiton, get a silly answer".

lol. True enough.

[Big Magilla]

The dicitonary describes rich as having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy: a rich man; a rich nation. Under hat deifintion anyone running for President is rich.

While one who earns $200,000 a year with a large family and/or large expenses may not be rich, it's difficult to comprehend why anyone would not think someone with a net worth of $6.7 million and an annual income in excess of $500,000 whose perfectly coifed wife buys her baubles at Tiffany's wouldn't be considered rich by anyone.

However, I can't find fault with Gingirch's answer to the question posed him. As the saying goes, "ask a silly quesiton, get a silly answer".

[criddic3]

Yeah, Gingrich. Really, sincere.

When Gingrich was campaigning in Laconia on Wednesday, a fellow came up to the former House speaker and asked, “Won’t you buy a home in the Lakes Region if elected president?” This was a reference to Mitt Romney’s house in New Hampshire.

Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that. I’m not rich.”

And his wife Callista quickly added, “We have one home.”

Not rich? This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealed that he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That’s about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany’s, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech. These are the sort of actions that tend to be associated with richness.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/new ... m-not-rich

If that story is true, it's simple to explain. "Rich" is in the eye of the beholder. Obama thinks it's anyone earning $200,000 or more. I don't think Gingrich is insincere in this instance. Perhaps you or I would consider ourselves rich with that money, but certainly if you have one house you may not feel the need to buy another one just to win someone's vote.

[Sabin]

Sonic Youth wrote
But Sabin, remortgaging the house is worth it if it means outlawing contraceptives and gay marriage.

I look at the pile that Obama has tried to get done, I look at the pile that he hasn't, and I look at the pile where his hand was either forced or it belonged to an owner I didn't know as well as I thought, and, I'll grant you, it doesn't add up. It doesn't begin to. A month ago, I said to myself that regardless of the fact that nobody on the right could sway me over, I could not remain ideologically consist and vote for Barack Obama. The fact that I live in California means I have the luxury of voting for whatever third party I like with the assurance that I won't wake up and find that Romney took California.

The way I see it, if a President puts something into motion that directly affects you like President Obama has with me, it takes some degree of precedence over everything else. Let's say for the sake of arguing that Obama legalized gay marriage but he did a series of other things that were pretty horrible. Like, unforgivable. But you can marry whomever you want, forge a future for yourself and your chosen loved one regardless of sex. Then I can try to tell you why the person you're voting for is except for that one thing a very bad President, but it's probably not going to work and it shouldn't because that President has done something to directly earn your vote. That's what he's done for me. My reason for voting for President Obama again doesn't have to work for you and if Health Care Reform hasn't directly affected you then it shouldn't. I don't want people to blindly follow him or any President. But personally, I can't not vote for the guy. I've never had a President's actions directly - again, DIRECTLY - affect my life for the better as President Obama's has. Unless John McCain was going to do everything that Obama did with Health Care and better, if Barack Obama isn't the President, then my family is in a very bad place.

[Damien]

Thanks for sharing your story, Sabin. I'm still on the fence about voting for Obama in 2012 or being true to myself and going progressive or lunatic fringe. Well, actually, I'm not on the fence, I'm almost always on with the right side of the fence (your story, Hilary Clinton pushing for gay rights as human rights in other countries) or the left side of the fence (Guantanamo Bay, The National Defense Authorization Act, no single payer plan in his health care). But for today, your account of your uncle pushed me over to the right side.

[Sonic Youth]

But Sabin, remortgaging the house is worth it if it means outlawing contraceptives and gay marriage.

[Sonic Youth]

Yeah, Gingrich. Really, sincere.

When Gingrich was campaigning in Laconia on Wednesday, a fellow came up to the former House speaker and asked, “Won’t you buy a home in the Lakes Region if elected president?” This was a reference to Mitt Romney’s house in New Hampshire.

Gingrich replied, “No, I can’t afford things like that. I’m not rich.”

And his wife Callista quickly added, “We have one home.”

Not rich? This past summer, Gingrich had to file the financial-disclosure form required of presidential candidates. It revealedthat he has a net worth of at least $6.7 million and that his income was at least $2.6 million in 2010. That’s about 65 times the income of the average family of four in the United States. That puts him well into the top 1 percent (about $520,000 a year or more) and close to the top 0.1 percent. He, of course, had that $500,000-plus tab at Tiffany’s, and weeks ago was boasting that he pulled in $60,000 a speech. These are the sort of actions that tend to be associated with richness.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/new ... m-not-rich

[Sabin]

I've largely stayed out of these discussions for a bit now...

I didn't have much intention of voting for Obama because I didn't feel like gilding a series of his decisions I don't like in the image what I had hoped he would be. I'm not very happy with his administration. But then this happened...

My Uncle Mike got a blood transfusion when he was ten or so. This must have been the early 60s. Anyway, he got hepatitis. He's been living with it for years, through an legendary-within-the-family run of bad luck that now sees him in his late 50s, twice divorced, with a small appliance repair business that is doing horribly. And now he needs a new liver. Two years ago, he was dropped from his insurance plan for making too much money basically. I don't know the specifics, but something had been shuffled w/r/t whether he belonged in one bracket or another. Anyway, no insurance group would take him. Obviously. He needs a new liver. Bad business. So recently the discussion began as to whether or not my father would have to remortgage our house to pay for his liver transplant, which is something no sixty-one year old man wants to think about after working like a horse for the past thirty-five years and nearing retirement. But what can you do? Can't let your sister's brother die.

The word Obamacare is interesting to me because it's clearly a name given by the Right. They mean it as an insult. For the past couple of months and onward through this year, the word is going to change in meaning for a lot of people. It won't be enough for the country to move away from viewing it as this mysterious, money-wasting, socialist plot and as something that is flawed, that needs to be changed for the better, but probably where we need to be headed, but there are many Americans that are going to start feeling its effects in a profound way. At the end of last year, I had no intention of voting for Obama. Because of his efforts and those of Nancy Pelosi, my father doesn't have to remortgage our house and my Uncle is going to be covered. And it's not going to be enough to sway everybody or even close but a lot of people are going to feel this kind of personal connection to a President's actions, and they have friends and family who might be. I doubt it will be enough, but it will be something.

Outside of the War in Iraq where admittedly I didn't lose anybody I know and this horrible recession, I have never in my life directly felt the impact of a presidency before. Positive impact, I should say. My family has directly felt the impact of Barack Obama's Presidency. He's far, far from perfect, but he made an incredible impact on my life.

[criddic3]

Even if there's a slight uptick in the economic news, it is still a volatile situation where almost anything can happen. Most likely, there will not be a booming return like Reagan had during his re-election bid. But I concede that if the unemployment comes under 7% and it isn't because everyone who is unemployed gave up on looking, then he'll win comfortably.

An otherwise nicely rational post, but you spoiled it at the end by setting that absurdly high bar. Unemployment doesn't have to go below 7%. When Reagan ran in '94, it was 7.5%, and that was good for a 49-state wipeout --because it was heded the right direction. Just continue along the lines of today's report for the next 6-8 months, and Barack will be untouchable

When Ronald Reagan ran in 1984 the economic upturn was fierce and strongly felt by the electorate. The uptick we see happening now has been very slow and will continue to feel that way. In 1992, when George H.W. Bush was running for re-election, the smaller recession was over and the economy was slowly coming back, but the people didn't feel it. He lost.

So crddic, which candidate are you supporting?

Newt. I can't say I agree with everything he's ever said, but Romney strikes me as very insincere. The others are either too fanatical or too weak at this point.