Talk Back: Reactions to the VP Debate

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-16-2003
Talk Back: Reactions to the VP Debate
788
Thu, 10-02-2008 - 5:14pm

Hi everyone --


We wanted to get your reaction to the Vice Presidential debate between Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin. Did you watch? What did you think -- and who do you consider the winner? Were there any surprises? Tell us what you considered to be the highlights, the low points and everything in between.


 


Please note: This discussion will be featured on our homepage as well as our Election 2008 feature page (http://www.ivillage.com/0,,dkrjhqbk,00.html) and may elicit some "Guest" responses from our "Talkback" box tool on the page. Inappropriate responses that violate our Terms of Service will be removed.


Thanks for your input!

Caryn D. Stein
Director of Community
Photobucket

Pages

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:26pm
Definitely Sarah Palin. She was likable, fluent, and down to earth.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2008
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:26pm

I disagree. She annoyed me with her "folksy" speech, I felt

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:27pm

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-15-2008
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:29pm
The only two people I have heard pronounce it as nook-u-lar are Bush and Palin... maybe that speaks volumes! Maybe it isn't JUST McCain who is so similar to Bush...
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:32pm
She came of as personable, knowledgable and her facts checked out.


They did? Not according to FactCheck.org:

Palin Trips Up on Troop Levels



Palin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said "and with the surge that has worked, we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq."

The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq, according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But even then, there still would be 6,000 more troops in Iraq than there were when the surge began.

Palin's False Tax Claims



Palin repeated a false claim about Barack Obama's tax proposal:

Palin:
Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.


Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on "families" making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000. The resolution would not have raised taxes on its own, without additional legislation, and, as we've noted before, there is no such tax increase in Obama's tax plan. (The vote took place on March 14 of this year, not last year as Palin said.)

Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes. That number includes seven votes that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on corporations or affluent individuals; 23 votes that were against tax cuts; and 17 that came on just 7 different bills. She also claimed that Biden and Obama voted for "the largest tax increase in history." Palin is referring here to the Democrats' 2008 budget proposal, which would indeed have resulted in about $217 billion in higher taxes over two years. That's a significant increase. But measured as a percentage of the nation's economic output, or gross domestic product, the yardstick that most economists prefer, the 2008 budget proposal would have been the third-largest since 1968, and it's not even in the top 10 since 1940.

Palin's Health Care Hooey



Palin claimed that McCain's health care plan would be "budget-neutral," costing the government nothing.

Palin:
He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything ... a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax, that's budget neutral.


The McCain campaign hasn't released an estimate of how much the plan would cost, but independent experts contradict Palin's claim of a cost-free program.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama's plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch's fiscal voter guide estimates that McCain's tax credit would increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone.

Palin also said that Obama’s plan would be "universal government run" health care and that health care would be "taken over by the feds." That's not the case at all. As we’ve said before, Obama’s plan would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. It would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care.

Palin's Small Business Balderdash



Palin repeated a falsehood that the McCain campaign has peddled, off and on, for some time:

Palin:
But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity.


As we reported June 23, it's simply untrue that "millions" of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama's proposal. According to an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, several hundred thousand small business owners, at most, would have incomes high enough to be affected by the higher rates on income, capital gains and dividends that Obama proposes. That counts as "small business owners" even those who merely have some sideline income from such endeavors as freelance writing, speaking or running rental properties, and who get the bulk of their income from employment elsewhere.

Killing Afghan Civilians?



Palin said that Obama had accused American troops of doing nothing but killing civilians, a claim she called "reckless" and "untrue."

Palin:
Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.


Obama did say that troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians. Here’s the whole quote, from a campaign stop in New Hampshire:

Obama:
Obama (August 2007): We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.


The Associated Press fact-checked this one, and found that in fact U.S troops were killing more civilians at the time than insurgents: "As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can’t be attributed to one party." Afghan President Hamid Karzai had expressed concern about these civilian killings, a concern President Bush said he shared.

Whether Obama said that this was "all we're doing" is debatable. He said that we need to have enough troops so that we're "not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians," but did not say that troops are doing nothing else.

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:34pm
Of course, Joe did. He didn't give any "shoutouts". He stuck to the issues and what his party will do for the people.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2001
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:38pm
"She may play up the "family" card, but I felt that the truest emotion of the evening came from Biden when discussing his family."



I loved that moment! :) She thought she was going to pull one over on Biden with her "I'm a single mom, a soccer mom, and oh how hard it was" mantra. I loved how Biden put her in her sexist place to imply only women can oh-so-suffer spiel. ROFL! I just laughed out loud. She lost total credibility for me. I was ashamed, to a degree, as a woman, to see such sexist behavior and verbiage coming out of a woman's mouth, one who is supposed to be running for VP of our country! A country comprised of MANY male single parents as well as female single parents. Good grief! :O And if Biden had implied it was only single dads who suffered, he would have been pounced on right away. Give me a break! This woman is not qualified to be VP on any level.


Blessings,

Gypsy



Photobucket



Photobucket Photobucket



Dog fighting is cruelty, which is a human activity and a human illness.

It's not the dog's fault.

All dogs need to be evaluated as individuals."

--Tim Racer, one of BAD RAP's founders



http://www.badrap.org/rescue/



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket



Mika Dog




"All things share the same breath;

the beast, the tree, the man.

The Air shares its spirit with

all the life it supports."

--Chief Seattle



"If there are no dogs in Heaven,

then when I die I want to go where they went."

~Will Rogers



"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress

can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

~~Mahatma Gandhi







Photobucket



Photobucket




Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:50pm

I


iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:54pm
I didn't go to your link, but my understanding is that the VP has more powers in the Senate than just the tiebreaking vote. Isn't that what he said and she said they have more duties, as prescribed in the constitution as head of the Senate. Can you explain how Biden was right and Palin was wrong in a bit more detail, TIA


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Fri, 10-03-2008 - 2:57pm
Ah.....no, not so much.

Pages