Kerry-Edwards trailing Bush by 15% in NC

[Galahad]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Really ? How nice for you to be able to read the minds of democratic lawmakers

As to your other assertion that you never assumed she was talking to the whole country...so, how did you figure that ? The initial post said nothing about addressing a group of wealthy democratic supporters, just attributed the "quote" to her....How did you know who she was addressing ?

Oh, wait...I get it...This is one of those semantic arguments that you're proving so "good" at, right ? You're shown the obvious difference between the two, which you said didn't exist, so you change the footing of the argument to something else by stating what your feelings (assumptions) were. Sorry, but we couldn't tell what you "assumed" or didn't, only what you said, which has been shown to be wrong.

You know, it's really amazing that someone who just yesterday was so adamant about analyzing every word of a document is now suddenly just peachy with a quote being "close enough". Really makes one wonder what you'd be saying if it were Bush that was misquoted...but nah, you wouldn't pull something like that, would you ?

Wow what a lot. This isn't "one of those semantic" arguments. I knew about the speech, saw part of it on C-Span and "assumed" everybody was talking about the same speech. Your telling me that's not a reasonable assumption then perhaps I should approach these threads differently.

Again, and you won't be surprised by this , I don't see any correlation between my position on the Iraq-9/11 statements and my position on this statement. There is an appreciable difference between "We went to war in Iraq because of 9/11" and "We went to war in Iraq because Iraq DID 9/11". There is no appreciable difference between "If Kerry wins the White House, we will take back all of your tax breaks and take the money away that is in your pocket for the common good of the country." and ""Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

 

[AirForceRocks]

Airforcerocks - are you married to an officer or an enlisted? (you don't have to answer - but the enlisted side of pay is not the same as officer pay)

I'm married to an enlisted member and I'm an enlisted member myself, so I'm well aware that officers and enlisted members are paid differently.

I am talking from personal experience on the E-1 - several of the military members we have come to know have joined and have a family to support - wife and young child - explain to me how $700 (more or less) a month is not considered poverity level??

Base pay for an E-1 with more than 4 months of service is about $1200, before taxes. If they are losing $500/month to withholding, then they need to reaccomplish their W-4 forms to correct the problem.

When you have to have transportation for this member to get to their duty station, because they are on the housing waiting list forever and a day and have to buy diapers and pay their bills, and their wife doesn't work because of the cost of daycare would take away the xtra money she would make.

Oh, they're living off base? In that case, add an addtional $724/month (for Pensacola, it varies by area) for housing allowance, which is non-taxable. And don't forget the $252/month is member food allowance (also non-taxable).

I'm not sure where you are getting the info on less than $700/month income, but it is incorrect and misleading.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by goudaman40
sorry to bring that up . . . but it needs to be looked at. I see too many people saying that the military makes too much money and that they don't deserve the 4% raise they are getting. I just want to shine a light onto the Enlisted side and what the statistics are for the ones joining straight out of high school.

See, this is the kind of thing that makes my blood pressure go up

Show me ONE person saying that the military doesn't deserve a raise. ONE, no more. I don't think even Michael Moore (or "The Great Liberal Satan", as I think he's soon to be known) has even ever argued against a pay raise for the military (thugh i may be wrong on that).

As to the military pay thing, there are DOZENS of systems in place for soldiers (lower enlisted on up) to get assistance if they need it, and if they are forced to live off base they WILL receive a housing allowance (which varies depending on where you live). No, military people don't make much money (which is why very few tend to make it a career), but there are tons of other benefits, and they aren't going to be allowed to starve, regardless of how it's played up by some in the media.

 

[Galahad]

She said that for the wealthiest of Americans, they were going to "cut short" the tax cuts they were given. No where did she say taxes in general would be cut.

I, for one, didn't claim she said taxes would be raised "in general". But to "cut short" tax cuts IS raising taxes on those "wealthiest" of Americans.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
See, this is the kind of thing that makes my blood pressure go up

Show me ONE person saying that the military doesn't deserve a raise. ONE, no more. I don't think even Michael Moore (or "The Great Liberal Satan", as I think he's soon to be known) has even ever argued against a pay raise for the military (thugh i may be wrong on that).

As to the military pay thing, there are DOZENS of systems in place for soldiers (lower enlisted on up) to get assistance if they need it, and if they are forced to live off base they WILL receive a housing allowance (which varies depending on where you live). No, military people don't make much money (which is why very few tend to make it a career), but there are tons of other benefits, and they aren't going to be allowed to starve, regardless of how it's played up by some in the media.

Well said wvrevy, ITA.

 

[wvrevy]

Galahad, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. To me, saying "We are going to war in Iraq because of 9/11" IS misleading. No, it is not the same as saying "We're going because Iraq was responsible for 9/11", as that is an outright lie, while the former merely implies a connection. Statements like that certainly account for the fact that half the population believed, at one time, that Iraq was responsible. Continued association of Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence will do that. But since that kind of misdirection seems to be ok with you (and I'll just assume that you were ok with Clinton's "definition of 'is'" defense as well), like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Well said wvrevy, ITA.

Ok, this is a strange argument

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Ok, this is a strange argument

 

[Galahad]

But since that kind of misdirection seems to be ok with you

I was with you up to this point. I'm not OK with that kind of misdirection....I just do think there was "that kind of misdirection". That is probably where we have to agree to disagree. I'll truce on either point that works though.

BTW,

I agree as will with your comments about military pay. There are sure a lot of E-1's and E-2's at Fort Bragg with brand shiney new Mustangs. If they are having trouble eating they haven't learned to set priorities yet.........

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Galahad
I, for one, didn't claim she said taxes would be raised "in general".

Didn't say you did....

Of course goudaman40's revised edition of Ms. Clinton's statement would certainly leave one to believe that not only would they end the tax cuts for everyone, but they'd dip into your pockets for what tax breaks you had already received.


That's a helluva lot worse than simply repealing the tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans...

Still, the statements were relatively the same, right?

 

[goudaman40]

AF - ok - you have $1193 - of that the first year has $100 a month coming out for MGIB - then you have the Top Up - I apologize for the comment about the $700 - I was going by experience during the Clinton Years that equaled out to my husbands BAH being $383 a month along with his take home pay being taxed at approx. 23% (married and zero at higher single class rate).

We don't have kids and don't own a home so we are always taxed through the nose. I am very thankful for all of the military pay raises that the BUSH administration has pushed through and still get upset about what the Clinton Administration did to pay. I am afraid if another Dem. gets into the White house - it will be the same as it was in 96.

As far as housing here in Pensacola - the average rental is $750 a month and electricity is $120 a month and water is $50 a month. Again - I am sorry about listing the $700 and would like to thank you for pointing out my flaw.

But, a dual military househould is living better than a single military household because of the benefits. My sis-in-law and her hubby are both in the Air Force and receive alot of better standards of living than my hubby does in the USMC - you know the old saying "if the Marines wanted you to have a wife, they would of issued one to you." (oops - I did the finger quotes)

Anyway - thanks for pointing out my faux pas and again I apologize. I know you have seen alot of up and down in pay system since you are coming up on your 20 year mark. Congrats again and thanks for your and your husbands service in the Military.

 

[stormi65]

http://www.wral.com/news/3530033/detail.html


Mason/Dixon Poll: Presidential Race Considered Dead Heat In N.C.

POSTED: 6:15 pm EDT July 14, 2004

RALEIGH, N.C. -- Results are in from the first statewide poll since North Carolina's John Edwards joined John Kerry in the race for the White House. From the numbers, the news is mixed. Right now, the WRAL/Mason-Dixon poll shows George Bush and John Kerry in a statistical dead heat in North Carolina. Just three points separate them, though the gap was closer three months ago. The undecided vote could make all the difference.


ELECTION 2004
WRAL Election News
Candidates & Issues: GOP Gubernatorial Candidates



Many experts predicted a huge Democratic bump when Edwards joined the ticket. While the new WRAL/Mason-Dixon poll has two positive indicators about Edwards' popularity in North Carolina, it does not necessarily mean a Tar Heel win for the Democrats.

President George W. Bush visited Raleigh one day for a fund-raiser, followed by Kerry and Edwards for a rally. Still, a new poll said Edwards' connections to North Carolina are not giving the Democratic ticket in North Carolina a boost. In fact, the state is about split in its support.

North Carolina State University Political Science professor Andy Taylor said the lack of Democratic bump is good news for the president, but there is bad news, too.

"He won North Carolina by 13 percentage points in 2000. If North Carolina is that close, say three, four, five percentage points, that's an 8 percent gain by the Democrats. If that's replicated across the country, then Kerry wins and Kerry wins pretty well," he said.

The WRAL/Mason-Dixon poll found Edwards is the second-most favored candidate just behind Bush. John Kerry is the least favorable. It also said that 64 percent of North Carolinian's approve of Kerry's decision in choosing Edwards as a running mate.

However, the state still did not see a Democratic bounce. Taylor believes a majority of people were firm in their choice even before Kerry's pick.

"Somewhere in the range of 80 to 90 percent of people already said -- and I don't know whether they are going to do it or not, -- they said they have made up their minds. That's very unusual," Taylor said.

The Democratic ticket has overwhelming support in the Triangle -- 57 percent for Kerry/Edwards compared to Bush/Cheney's 37 percent. However, the president leads in every other part of the state.

The poll also found that more Democrats would vote for Bush than Republicans for Kerry. As for gender, 53 percent of men say they would vote for the current administration while 51 percent of women would vote for John Kerry.

The racial breakdown shows that 59 percent of white voters are for Bush while 84 percent of the black vote goes to Kerry.