One of Kerry's statements really bothered me...

About halfway through the debate, Kerry was talking about the tax burden of people making more than $200,000 per year. He quickly glanced around the room and said:





I didn't talk to the TV much during that debate, but this comment got a response from me. I felt it was very condescending to... well, everyone in the room! For Kerry to imply that he could look around the room and immediately and without proof come to the conclusion that only three people in the entire place made more than $200,000 a year? Rude. Rude. Rude.

I don't want a political argument out of this, I'm talking about rudeness. If someone came up to me and said, "Well you sure don't look like you make XX amount of dollars per year," I would be offended.

Am I alone?



* quote taken from the official Commission on Presidental Debates transcript located at http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

I think he's making a point about the income disparity in America and where the majority of the tax burden lies. You might have found his method rude, but you'll have to see past that. I have observed that Bush has a unique talent for this.

I think that what Kerry was getting at was that, statistically speaking, not nearly as many people/families in the US make over $200,000 per year as the number of those who make under that amount. According to figures I've seen, only about 5% of Americans make over $200,000 per year. So, if you look at the (relatively small) number of people who were in attendance at the debate on Friday, assuming that about three out of that number, and the most obvious three there, could very well be the only people in that income bracket was probably spot-on. That's more of a statistical assumption than a comment on the people at the event.

People should not have to see past what Kerry says in order to know what he really means. If he was talking about "income disparity," he should have said so instead of making a snap judgment about everyone in the room.

Once gain, if that's what he meant, he should have said so. He should have said "based on statistics it's safe to assume no one in here makes $200,000 or more per year."

The point is... he didn't. He said "LOOKING AROUND HERE, AT THIS GROUP HERE"; he made the decision based on the evidence before him: what they looked like. It was rude, regardless of what he meant to say.

So what you're saying, then, is that Kerry should have assumed that the people there were too defensive about their incomes, or incapable of grasping the subtleties of his arguments, that he needed to spell out everything in black and white? See, now, THAT would be an insult to me.

Going down a similar route, people need to be ready to read more into what is said during a debate because both candidates are rushing to get answers out before their time is up. They do have to make assumptions about the intelligence level of the listeners.

Speaking of being insulting, you could also get a rough idea of income levels by how people speak. Of course, with Bush in the room you'd be wrong with at least one person.


(To be fair, he has improved a lot in the last 4 years, though. Yet another advantage of being privileged.)

-Zax

Aaron,

<<"Well you sure don't look like you make XX amount of dollars per year," I would be offended.>>

I've never been in that situation, but I suspect that I would probably be flattered.

According to this information the median household income for Missouri is $39,934. The debates were in St Louis so it seems his statement in that room was pretty safe & accurate.

I expect that Kerry and Bush were both briefed about the demographics of audience members. In fact, they were probably involved in choosing selection criteria. I think it's likely that Kerry was pretty darn sure that no one in the audience was in the top tax bracket. But then, I love a good conspiracy theory...

If you're concerned about the ambiguities of what Kerry says, I do hope you can explain Bush's "Battling green eye shades" comment, because right now, sunglasses are looking very, very dangerous. It may be that green eye shades are a new weapon of mass destruction, even. Oh, do explain his statement, before the world of accessories is pummelled by our leader's shocking and awful terror.

In other news, I agree, Kerry was making a statistic out of the audience. If you listened at the start of the debate, a voiceover said that the people in attendance were working class swing voters. So. Kerry's statement was an easy way to obtain the attention of the audience and make a point that matters to them. And yet but Bush said after, "You heard it right there, Kerry's going to tax you," but of course when he said "you" he was speaking to the TV audience and not the audience on the stage, because Bush gives tax cuts to the wealthy and not the middle class. And as for Kerry, he does the reverse.

"green eyeshades" in a slang term for accountants who - I guess must prefer green eyeshades.

So he meant "we are battling accountants - ..." but being the doofus that he is, he didn't think that perhaps we would get that.

In days of yore long before spreadsheets or even electronic calculators, accountants did their number crunching the hard way - by hand. They sat at cramped desks under bright lights, and they wore these dorky green eye shades on their furrowed brows. Bush was referring to the opposing sides having different numbers, and thus dueling teams of accountants. Yeah, it was an obscure reference, and no one under 50 should get it (I wouldn't have but my mind is a lint trap for trivia).

Thank you for that explanation! I don't know a single fellow student, including any accounting major I have spoken to, who understood that.

I had the same reaction.

On the other hand, I can't imagine anything that Kerry could have said that would get me to vote for Bush!

I was reading through the political posts that were submitted over the weekend and happend to come across yours Daemioth. Sorry, don't mean to single you out, but had some thoughts on this.

Does everyone realize that only 5% of our citizens make over 200K a year. I myself am not that fortunate...but I'm curious as to why I received a tax rebate, due to a tax cut that Bush approved, if he only gives tax cuts to the wealthy and not the middle class which I am a part of. I feel it is important to note as well, that all of my family members, none of which fall into the >200K category, received tax rebate checks as well. Some received more than I did because they had paid even more in taxes than I had. Also, does everyone here realize the impact of levying higher taxes on that 5% who make more than 200K a year? This is the group responsible for a good many jobs in this country, from small business to major corporations. Soooo...let's tax the job makers, resulting in a higher unemployment rate, which thereby spurs higher unemployment payouts...which, wow, guess who pays for all that? That's right, the middle class tax payers foot that bill.

For the record, I consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

oh, and here's an interesting link for both the Republicans and Democrats alike. Helpful when you wish to state fact and not just opinion or incorrect word-of-mouth.

http://factcheck.org/

What you recieved was not a tax cut. It was a check issued by the IRS against future tax liabilities. In other words -- Here's $300 loan this year -- pay us back next year.

and yes -let's tax the corporations rather than the middle class. In a consumer society such as we live in, it makes zero sense to tax the middle class with a heavier burden than the wealthy top 5%.

First, I'd say it's a safe bet that both Kerry's and Bush's staff already had detailed bio's on just about everyone in the room, so his comment wasn't -really- so off the cuff, second I think it was to connect to those people, as in 'Us against Them', or 'There's way more of you folk than rich folk'. It was also a good way to flat out admit he's filthy rich but still come off as working towards the middle class and below.

True, the exact phrasing could perhaps have been less direct, but the sentiment was dead-on.

Kendra, I'm a CPA, I make my living off of tax preparations and financial analysis. What I find amazing is that I was actually able to deduct the amount of that check I received from my 2003 tax filing under earned income. So in what way was this a loan? When is it to be paid back? And what kind of penalties and interest am I accruing?

Speaking from personal experience, in our case (my husband's and mine), the amount we received in July 2003 was just an advance on what we were supposed to receive as a return in 2004 when we filed our 2003 taxes.

Since we have two children, we get a tax credit; I believe it was about $1,000 for 2003 ($500 for each child I think, I'm not 100% certain on the exact numbers). So, the $600 or $800 or so that we received in July 2003 was an advance on the $1,000 (for the child tax credit) we would have received in March 2004 when we filed our 2003 taxes.

I remember this clearly because I was disappointed when we received less of a refund this year than I expected.

And I'll go on record as saying that the people who make the most money in the US should be taxed at at least the same rate as the rest of us are, if not higher. However, many people in that top tax bracket have ways of avoiding taxes in the form of loopholes and tax shelters. That's pure B.S.

Well CPA --if you filed your 2003 then you've already paid back your "rebate".

Aaron,

I'm sure you're not alone. However, I also saw that and was not offended. I think it's all in your viewpoint and feelings toward the person who made the comment.

It is all about knowing your audience, and trying to connect with them. As others have said, the candidates were aware of the backgrounds of the audience, and the demographics of where they were speaking. While an audience in Miami certainly contained a few 200k + earners (as Coral Gables and many Miami suburbs are extremely wealthy and the audience was not speficically hand picked), this is just not the case in Missouri. I think you took more offense to the remark because you dislike Kerry than anything else, and that is understandable. I find every slimy piece of retarded doublespeak that is slurred from GWB's mouth to be nauseating.