McCain the elistist NOT Obama
Find a Conversation
McCain the elistist NOT Obama
| Thu, 08-21-2008 - 11:13pm |
Obama raps McCain for ignorance of his own houses
WASHINGTON - John McCain may have created his own housing crisis.
Hours after a report that the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting didn't know how many homes he and his multimillionaire wife own, Democratic rival Barack Obama launched a national TV ad and a series of campaign stops aimed at portraying McCain as wealthy and out of touch.
With the economy the top issue in the race, Obama sought to turn McCain's gaffe into one of those symbolic moments that stick in voters' minds

Pages
We have no idea what McCain's life was like after the war and you have no right to judge
My husband has been to Iraq three times and it wasn't a cake walk for him.He would never cheat on me as he
I agree that Obama owes his brother nothing.
But how can you then say your neighbor, to whom you're not even related, owes you something?
You see I believe Obama should extend himself to his family members and not to do so is a moral failing but should the government mandate it? No. It's not withing their realm of responsibility though they may disagree! It's the same way I feel about my neighbors.
I don't think anyone suggested it was OK.
Here maybe this will help explain it.
I don't want a crack cocaine user as President of the United States. Barrack Obama admittedly used cocaine as a younger man. He claims to have learned the error of his ways and accepts responsibility for his actions which he does not deny.
Did he while running for the highest office in the nation present himself as a man of honor and integrity? A role model for others to follow and look up to? Has he earned the support and respect of many? Yes.
Now what would you think if during all this time it was discovered that he was a closet cocaine addict?
You see John McCain's moral failing transpired roughly 30 years ago. He appears to have remained "clean" by all accounts taking full responsibility for his moral failing in which he betrayed his marital vows (not a whole slew of supporters mind you).
Now were he to be found carrying on an extra-marital affair during this past year he would indeed be on the same level of scumbagness as John Edwards.
To compare the two as anywhere near identical is like saying Barrack Obama as an illegal drug user is morally bereft and unfit for the position.
You must consider the context and time period which you're failing to do.
No, I am not saying because he was a POW that it is okay that he cheated.
Why do think that would happen?
In my state we recently had a ballot measure passed that would force local government's to restrict their spending which was completely out of control. It was amazing that although we had that run-up in property prices over recent years and their property tax income skyrocketted proportionately than somehow managed to spend it all--that's how most governments tend to work when they're allowed to expand without restraint--or when their constituents vote themselves more entitlements.
As a result my property taxes, for the first time in many years actually went down last year. They are going down even further this year. My tenants are very fortunate as I have owned my properties for awhile never having over paid for them in the first place. Because of this my rents have always been under the cost of ownership and offered a great value to someone not in the market to "buy". Not to mention I have a tendency to reward good tenants because I value them.
Let me give you an example of how I do business. When my cost of ownership was increased in the neighborhood of $500 a year, I absorbed those costs because I could. When government meddling into the property insurance situation caused most of the major insurers to leave the state and thus lower the options available leaving only the most costly behind as an option coupled with the local government spending spree caused by their ability to suddenly tax homeowners on properties that had gone up ridiculously in value (not that as an owner with no intention to sell benefitted me in any way--only really tends to cause the price of the tenant to rise) and my costs rose between $1000-$1500 per property and there are a few of them....I could not afford to do.
So instead of taking in $500 less on a property, rents were raised anywhere from $15 a month to $30 a month and instead I took roughly an $800-$1200 per property loss. Sure, not all landlords can do that but I'm conservative in my purchasing and make sure not to get into my head.
In those cases other people's tenants likely will pay more. Imagine how much more if those landlords are taxed even more? How do you feel about the government now bailing out so many irresponsible homeowners and landlords whose actions have hurt everyone?
Now were I taxed even more, leaving me with less capital to invest I likely wouldn't be able to provide affordable housing to a dozen or more people. Perhaps in those cases where I needed to replace a roof, replumb a house, or replace the heating and AC unit the tenant would have to go without longer, or their rent would be raised higher causing them to be uprooted from their home.
I'm not sure why you're so convinced that those with money don't respect or appreciate others with less and are somehow out to see them pay more. Do I feel it's best for society for all to pay something? Most definitely. I'll give you another example in a separate post to see if I can better relay why.
So I do believe those who pay nothing should pay something and those who pay so much now should be capped or experience relief so as not to stifle growth. Reduced spending always has worked well for me.
I am not blaming her for something she couldn't help but she did let
Politicians are more likely than average to be from the wealthier side of the population. Their children are far less likely to serve in the armed forces than children from the bulk of the population. Can you see how it might be in the interest of the majority if their very representatives had a greater personal stake in the armed forces? I mean they are involved in voting for everything related to those armed forces--how much they're paid, what sort of benefits they receive, how they will be utilized.
If we had a draft (I believe this would benefit the country in many ways although I see issues with it as well) or if there was a military service requirement to serve in certain political capacities, it would be a good thing. Because while I believe that most politicians are not evil but intend to do right by the public, it's just not the same as when you have a personal stake in the matter. It makes them think longer and harder about where they lend their support.
The same comparison can be made between taxpayers and government spending. Voting trends are not the same when they involve other people's money and not your own. The same as when it involves decisions that directly affect your family members or those of your peer group.
We all should have a direct stake in protecting our nation as well as in funding it.
Pages