She is whooping on Joe B!
She is whooping on Joe B!
Get real...she's not screwing up as much as expected, but it's blatantly obvious everything she's said is robotic/coached. Any time she is found ignorant of something Biden says (which has been pretty much everything in the debate) she pulls out some random subject or silly lie. Pretty boring pandering.
I turned it off after about an hour because the format didn't give them a chance to do more that give well-rehearsed answers. Palin's "you betchas" were pretty silly, not presidential at all, made her sound more like the head of a Hockey Mom Club -- which she would be qualified for.
I thought she did a great job and exceeded any expectations I could have had for her. She had a great command of the issues. And she came off as real while Biden really was laboring to connect with normal people. He even tried to wrest a tear, which seemed so forced and skeevy to me. And Gov. Palin did a great job of not letting the moderator keep her from making her points.
I have a feeling we're going to start seeing a lot more of her. There is a huge draw to her, as evidenced by the higher ratings for this debate than the first presidential one. I wish there were more vice presidential debates.
Biden did ok even though he misrepresented some facts like Obama’s plan to increase taxes and his assertion that we spend more in three weeks of combat in Iraq than we have in the last seven years rebuilding Afghanistan. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/)
I agree that the format didn't allow for more back and forth. Biden was definitely taken aback by her skill and was visually flustered the first 30 minutes. I would have loved to see her put him on his back.
lol...Biden was flustered -.- Flustered that Palin was reading pre-written, generic answers off a paper in a debate. Flustered Palin was making ridiculous, laughable points...."Obama voted against funding the troops!!"....yeah, your damn running mate voted the exact same way. How can you debate someone who hears the word economy and looks down at her pre-written speeches for what she should say about economy? Flustered that he spent five minutes stating very clearly that 95% of the population wouldn't see a single increase in taxes, after which, Palin continued to state the evil Democrats would raise taxes and destroy jobs. Command of the issues? Yeah, command of the ones she wanted to talk about. You can't go from talking about the economy to how Obama voted on health care. She didn't even attempt to answer a question "straight." Again, get real.
She survived, which is all they wanted. If you consider that doing well, then I guess she did well. Personally, I like to see someone in a debate who doesn't have to read straight off a paper when he/she is discussing something like the state of the economy.
Yeah, he was flustered big time. And no, she wasn't reading any notes or pre-written speeches. Unlike Obama she doesn't need a teleprompter to tell her what to say. She did more than survive. She pwned Biden, which scares the pants off liberals.
BTW...You forgot to mention that the 95% figure is extremely misleading, if not an outright lie.
The ones he claims to only raise taxes on are businesses. He’s going to raise taxes on every small business (so good luck starting your own business) who already pay the majority of taxes in this country as is, thereby killing the US’s economic engine. So if we own our own business or work for a business that makes more than $250k a year, we’d have to get ready to feel the pinch. That includes all of us from an admin at a corporation to a cashier at a grocery store. Instead of being upfront about it with us and taxing us directly, however, he’s going to raise taxes on businesses that employ us so they can’t keep as many of us on the payroll, give us wage increases, etc.
And to further destroy small businesses, he wants to raise the minimum wage 45%! (If you don’t believe me look it up on his website.) Most people hope for something close to a 3% raise. It just went up this July and most economists will tell you that raising the minimum wage only gives a very short-term benefit, but leads to higher prices and costs for ALL consumers, which has HUGELY detrimental long-term effects. In fact, it actually hurts the poor disproportionally. Just look at how much basic items like food has gone up in the last few months. (If you want me to, I can give you a very simple example of how this works.)
Does ANYONE really think our taxes won’t go up under Obama? Do you really trust this guy? How’s he going to pay for all the government-managed healthcare he’s promising (which if you think government can manage effectively, just look at any failed system around the world that as implemented this scheme)? And how’s he going to pay for the $1 Billion he plans to give away for “transitional” (AKA no-show) jobs? Or the “Green Corps” he’s promising? Or the job training and employment opportunities he’s promising to convicted felons? Or giving even more “tax refund” money back to people who don’t even pay income taxes. Again, if you don’t believe any of this, just look at his website.
I know there’ll be those who claim that Obama’s scheme to raise the minimum wage is a good thing, so here’s a simple, commonsense example of how/why raising the minimum wage is detrimental.
Now I only went to a “regular” state college, but this seems like commonsense to me. So how could Obama, who went to two Ivy League colleges (Columbia and Harvard) get it so wrong? How could he advocate raising the minimum wage 45%? Where’s the proper judgment?
Suppose “Joe” works at a grocery store and makes minimum wage ($x.xx), and the minimum wage goes up 10%. Now he makes 10% more than he did ($x.xx + 10%). Sounds great. But where does the 10% come from? The store owner, who just saw his costs go up. So now to keep up with the increased costs, the store owner has to raise his prices 10%. So now while Joe is making $x.xx + 10%, the money he has can only buy what $x.xx did in the past. On the surface, it seems like “no harm, no foul,” but that’s far from the truth. Now that the cost of food has gone up 10%, even the guys who were making more than minimum wage need an increase of 10% to keep up with their costs, which drives prices up in all industries. So in the end wages went up 10% for everyone, but also prices increased 10% for EVERYONE, so it nets out to a zero increase in buying power. In fact, prices react much more quickly in the marketplace than wages, so it may be months or years before wages catch up to the price increases. In the meantime, everyone is paying more money for the same goods with less income.
Again this seems like “no harm, no foul” on the surface (at least in the long run once wages have caught up to price increases). But what about pensioners, people with disabilities, widowers and retired people who are living on a fixed income, such as social security, pensions or retirement income? They get royally screwed because their everyday prices go up, yet they can’t demand a wage hike. The poor and marginally poor are also disproportionally affected because they typically don’t have the ability to cover the increase in prices while waiting for wage increases to catch up with prices. And because of their status they typically have less power to demand wage increases as the more affluent in society are.
On a macro level, the problem gets intensified. Because of the increase in wages and prices, the value of the dollar drops. So when we buy products from China, etc. We have to send more dollars out to get the same goods. But unlike the worker who demands higher wages, the US can’t really create more dollars without further accelerated inflation. So while inflation can help pay old loans more quickly, new loans (i.e. foreign debt) are much larger. For example, if we owe China $1 Trillion, but the value of our dollar is cut in half, theoretically we can pay the debt off twice as quickly. But the next year, instead of borrowing $1 Trillion, we need to borrow $2 Trillion to buy the same goods. Plus China will demand a higher rate of return (i.e. interest) to cover past decreased values. I don’t know about you, but I rather pay a smaller interest rate on a smaller sum than a higher interest rate on a higher sum.
I could go into tons of detail on the reasons why increasing minimum wage is detrimental. In the end it’s a misguided scheme to get votes from whom the DEMOCRATS label “idiots,” “minorities,” “GED's” and “drop-outs.” It’s hard to believe there are those who actually want these people in power. Here’s a story about how much they value their constituency (note my sarcasm):
So presumably you would also be against corporate executives awarding themselves massive pay increases as well?
This argument about the minimum wage is old hat - in the UK we had Tory spokespeople saying that it would be the end of the world as we know it when it was proposed here. Complete bollox.
Your argument is that, given x dollars in the economy, you should keep the distribution so that the bottom wage earners are more and more impoverished. This means, of course, that they claim more welfare, pay less tax, are more alienated from realistic social goals and become generally pissed-off.
At the same time they see corporate heads of banks, who have made disastrous decisions about THEIR mortgages which mean that they are suddenly in danger of being repossessed, awarding themselves HUGE pay increases and golden parachutes when they eventually get forced out...
LOL she wasn't reading pre-written notes or speeches?....did you even watch it? geeze...it doesn't take a liberal to recognize that -.- (not to mention everybody has pre-written notes in a debate...they just don't read straight off the paper and look down every 5 sentences because they're actually knowledgeable about what they're blabbering on about).
She corrected her image a tad bit if she did anything positive. She by no means outplayed Biden.
I think Biden was trying to not attack Palin during the debate, because he might be seen as a sort of bully -- probably a good idea too, since Palin was putting on that whole "you betcha" thing. I believe Biden made some great arguments.
I'm not sure where you came up with that based on what I said. It's a whole new discussion that I'm happy to have with you. (BTW... I'm not sure where you picked up that sound bite, but executives don't set set pay/compensation. Shareholders [aka main street investors] do. I suggest you check out the bylaws of any publicly traded company.)
Two things: First, the reason you may consider the argument "old hat" is because it has been argued back and forth to death and it has been pretty much settled that raising the minimum wage just for the sake of raising the minimum wage is an asinine strategy. Obama must have been "community organizing" when that happened because he's advocating a strategy that is wrong just to gain some cheap votes. Second of all: To be honest, I really don't care what some "Tory spokesperson" says. He/she doesn't speak for us. As soon as I get to vote on a "Tory spokesperson" and what he/she says or does and that affects us I'll care.
No. That's not my argument at all. My argument is that Obama's plan of destroying small US businesses is wrong. By definition we're always going to have some people who fall below the mean, but the key is that those people gain BUYING POWER. Instead of eroding it like Obama wants to do, we should adopt a plan that helps lower income people secure more of the necessities of life (i.e. food, housing, medical costs, etc.) without damaging our long-term health (hyper inflation, etc.). If that happens, we won't need welfare as it currently stands, but it will function as those who proposed it meant: Temporary help instead of a way of life.
Again, the discussion on how to do that is a whole other discussion, which I'm happy to have with you.
Again, I suggest you look up corporate bylaws. It should clear up you misguided preconception of how executives' compensation is set. The reason we're in this mess isn't because of the salary of a few CEOs. If that was the case you would have seen Congress pass a resolution that cut performance compensation rather than a bailout. The underlying issue is that people who couldn't afford and shouldn't have tried to get mortgages they couldn't afford got them. I agree that there is some fiduciary responsibility that some companies totally messed up on, but at the end of the day, these mortgage holders have a share in the blame.
Yeah, he my have tried to make some good arguments, but at the end of the day Sarah walked all over him.
What generally happens here is that a 'remuneration committee' is set up, normally consisting of executives from other companies. This committee makes recommendations to the board about the level of pay and these are nearly always nodded-through by the board. The shareholders are then informed about the pay levels at the AGM - but they have no power to veto the pay at all. In other words you get fat-cats setting pay levels for each other via a system of interlocking committees. Some boards do not even go through this charade - they set the level of pay via a sub-committee of the main board itself, or delegate it to the HR department. This is one major reason why executive pay has risen dramatically - regardless of performance.