The Final Debate: Plumbing (Sorry) the Depths of American Despair

Jon Cummings October 16, 2008 20

Jon Cummings: Why am I so bummed that the debate season is over? Please, Barack, take McCain up on his pleas for a dozen more town halls! I know, I know – these three presidential rumbles have been repetitive at times, excruciating at others. But you gotta admit, there’s a certain entertainment value in watching John McCain implode over the course of 90 minutes, again and again and again.

Joe the Plumber don't need no educationAnd I want to meet more archetypal Americans like Joe the Plumber … who suddenly finds himself the center of attention because he sits on the cusp of Obama’s under-$250,000 tax cut. Wow – I knew plumbers overcharge, but do they really make 250 large in a year? Cripes! Maybe Sarah Palin needs to replace “Joe Sixpack” with “Joe Chambord.” If there could only be one more debate, maybe McCain could lament the plight of “Cindy the Beer Distributor” who’s overburdened with employer-provided-health-care costs.

McCain obviously was trying to turn Joe the Plumber into an everyman, but he went to the well too many times and poor Joe morphed into a caricature. As did McCain, to a large extent. To his credit, he did get off the good line about how if Obama wanted to run against George Bush, “you should have run four years ago.” But where was that well-scripted line in the first debate, when it might have done McCain a shred of good?

It was the best shot McCain had in his arsenal, and he got it out of the way 15 minutes into the debate; after that he flailed about like Palin trying to shoot down Vladimir Putin from a helicopter (isn’t that the way that story went?). Veering wildly from topic to topic within a paragraph (or even a sentence), he reached his moment of greatest derangement when he concluded a response that was ostensibly about Colombian trade (that major driver of the American economy) by bringing up, within the space of 30 seconds, “talking without preconditions to Hugo Chavez,” raising taxes, and Herbert Hoover.

At least he showed some passion in that moment. Now we know why Obama double-dog-dared McCain to bring up William Ayers in a debate. McCain was clearly cowed by the recent criticisms of his rally crowds, and clearly uncomfortable discussing Ayers before an audience that wasn’t universally rabid (I mean sympathetic). So he gave a perfunctory recitation of his lame Ayers talking points, and then ludicrously mischaracterized ACORN’s influence on our political system in a way that won’t register with a single person who doesn’t slavishly follow Sean Hannity’s every utterance. Obama, meanwhile, had a quiver full of arrows and he fired them skillfully: challenging McCain to defend his descent into the gutter; mocking McCain’s devotion to Ayers as a distraction from real issues; using the words “Ayers” in a sentence with “Republicans,” “Reagan,” and “Annenberg”; offering an impressive laundry list of his actual “associations,” at least in terms of policy formation; and, finally, skewering McCain with the suggestion that “these attacks say more about your campaign than they do about me.”

McCain, meanwhile, once again harped on those town hall meetings Obama never agreed to, suggesting that Obama brought all this negativity upon himself. It’s reminiscent of the House Republicans’ excuse for killing the first bailout bill a couple weeks ago – that Nancy Pelosi offended them with a partisan speech right before the vote. And then McCain, looking vaguely teary (or was it just rheumy?), complained that John Lewis’ statement was “hurtful”! Boo frickin’ hoo! I’m quite sure many commentators will note that McCain’s expressions of “hurt” were a typical Rovian tactic, to turn his own weakness (the nastiness of McCain/Palin audiences) against his opponent; as for myself, I’ll just ask, When did Republicans become such whiny bitches?

Apart from his well-rehearsed rejoinder on the Ayers “issue,” Obama largely stuck to the playbook: stay calm, speak in professorial (but not too professorial) detail, and say the words “middle class” as frequently as possible. As McCain launched broadside after broadside to little effect, Obama deflected the attacks with an unflappable demeanor and a litany of policy prescriptions that showed his seriousness about solving problems.

Did Obama sit on his lead a bit? Probably. Did he need to do anything else? Nope. And did McCain send the last independent women in America flocking into the Obama camp with his repeated use of air quotes to accompany his discussion of the “health” exception to abortion restrictions? You betcha!

So where does McCain go from here, having (probably) failed to move the needle in his last appearance before a huge television audience before his (probable) concession speech on Nov. 4? McCain telegraphed in this debate that he wants to shift his focus over the last three weeks to a traditional Republican, low-tax-and-don’t-spend argument. He’s welcome to do that – if nothing else, it might ensure that he holds his base – but there are two problems with the strategy. First, the Republican base is nowhere near big enough these days to win an election. Second, the American people have just watched their government – their Republican government, with John McCain’s support – commit to bailout and rescue packages totaling (so far) more than $2 trillion. What possible resonance can “we’ve got to cut spending, and I know how to do it” have right now with the vast majority of the electorate?

There goes McCain, palling around with terrorists againMcCain no doubt will continue to amp up the rhetoric and the frenetic energy of his speeches, in an attempt to close the enthusiasm gap between his supporters and Obama’s. Obama needs to be careful not to coast too much over the next 20 days – he needs to keep the choices stark, the crowds big, and the TV saturated with ads. If he can do all those things without making any major rhetorical errors, he should be able to turn a still-considerable lead over to his vaunted ground game on Nov. 4.

Obama, unlike McCain, has one more opportunity to appeal to the vast electorate directly via television – his multi-network, half-hour ad buy on Oct. 29. The Fox network announced tonight that it will push back a World Series game in order to take Obama’s money and join the party. Such a move is a no-brainer when the Series in question promises to be as low-rated as the impending Phillies-Rays matchup; would Fox have pushed back Dodgers-Red Sox for the same purpose? I guess we’ll never know.

Dw. Dunphy: Bob Schieffer said the nicest thing I’ve heard all day: “This concludes the final debate.” Hallelujah!

Like that long-distance runner who’s just a mile from the finish line, the cramps in the legs are easing, the nasty, boiled salt of sweat no longer tastes so sour, and a solid conclusion is in sight. From here it’s a couple of weeks, a lever pull, and an assured, prolonged recount situation, and this two-year election cycle will finally be done. I might just break my diet and eat a whole pizza in celebration.

“But Dunph’,” you may ask, “what about the debate?” Well, what about it? Talking points galore; endless volleys of “you did,” “you didn’t,” “you did”; and a clarion call for insane doses of fact checking all indicate what occurred during this entire debate process. If you caught any of the earlier ones, trust me: Hofstra University was a rerun.

But let me make this perfectly clear: Bob Schieffer walked away from tonight’s debate standing pretty tall. He got it right, mostly – except for the climate change/climate control flub — by moderating the thing like Face The Nation, not like a Presidential Debate. He let Senators Obama and McCain go past their allotted time without raising too much of a stink. And why did he do that? Because they were going to do that anyway, so why get in the way? That’s why the man’s a pro; you’d think the previous moderator, Tom Brokaw, would have known these things as well.

I’m still not saying much about the debate, and for that I apologize. It was mentioned in the pre-event commentary that John McCain had only two ways to go – he could rise above, and come off as a statesman; or he could rip it like a bunny in the bulldog’s jaws, which is not too far from what occurred. The polls have been skewing heavily toward Obama lately, almost like a scale; as the Dow Jones dips lower and lower, his polling numbers go higher and higher. The perception of Republican failure has leached into the money well, and with each successive dip, change becomes more delineated.

Worst of all, there’s not a damn thing McCain can do about it. By dint of being a Republican for the last eight years, he bears the burden of those Republican failures. He can co-opt the change concept all he wants, and scribe the word “Maverick” into the breast pocket of his suit jacket, but it’s still out of his hands — and he hates that. That hate showed tonight as he rattled and prattled, tossed his digs, hammered his rhetorical nails in sideways, and scribbled feverishly onto his pad with his Sharpie. The American economy is in jeopardy because America no longer has the primary control over it. The Asian markets are a major driver now, and, as much as he wants to bring the death blow down on Barack Obama, he is actually running against them, not him. For such a proud POW as McCain justly is, that has to be particularly galling.

But let’s not forget that Barack Obama is in the same position. Had the credit logjam not occurred, prompting the bailout proposal; had McCain been able to drive that goodwill train forward on the announcement of Sarah Palin as his running mate; had Obama’s decision to overlook Hillary stuck harder, tonight would have been much different, and he knows it. He is the beneficiary of incredible fortune because the U.S. is in such dire misfortune. He now personifies change — not as a logo or metaphor or tagline, but as the embodiment of something not the current state. All he needs to do is attempt to stay calm and rational and, whenever necessary, defend himself precisely as his opponent whirls around in desperation. The Ayers inferences are clearly desperation, as is this new, snippy attitude. Obama handled them fairly well, but there were several moments where, undeniably, he was biting that tongue hard.

And it still is out of the candidates’ hands. The prime asset any politician has is the ability to spin his lemons into tasty lemonade, to seize any situation and twist it to his advantage — in short, to control. For now, both McCain and Obama are caught in a wake created by something bigger than themselves. The person who wins this election will be the one who rides the tide, not the one who gets sucked in by the undertow. The power is in neither man’s hands. All the talking points in the world can’t alter that now.

  • rockrdude

    Honest to God.. These are the two absolute worst Presidential candidates ever! Both of them are beneath contempt, and neither of them will faithfully follow the Constitution or even come close.

    McCain's a Democrat in Republican clothing.. and Obama is a true Soclialist. Neither of them tells the truth, or even comes close to it.

    It seems the Popdose writers are all vehemently anti-McCain, and understandably so.

    But honestly.. Is Obama really the best hope for our nation? The man can't tell the truth, has no solid plans for our nation that even have a prayer of working, has no understanding of money and how it works, and doesn't even know what a Constitutional Republic truly is. He loves to mention his “Christianity” and yet he seems to be a walking billboard for something else. He has this nation by the balls, and once he's voted in next month, a whole lot of people are going to wish someone else had been elected.

    Ron Paul maybe? Won't matter, because by then we'll be in bigger trouble than we are now.

    At least our current leadership will finally be out of office… thankfully. Sadly what we get to replace it will likely do nothing but continue our downward spiral as a nation.

    So.. I guess I can give Obama one thing..

    We'll definitely get “Change”.
    What he leaves out is that this will likely be change.. for the worse.

  • Dr. F

    John McCain once admitted that used to think Godzilla was real, and Obama has reoccurring dreams that he is the Highlander.

    See, I can make claims and not back them with any sources too. A socialist? really? The man talks about cutting taxes for 95% of Americans and suddenly he's a socialist? I suppose its more democratic to continue to cut taxes for the other 5% of the nation (not to mention that 1% of that population owns over 20-30% of our national wealth) and hope that enough scraps fall into the gutters so the rest of us can survive.

  • rockrdude

    There's plenty of verification of this out there. Here's a good one, and well documented:

    http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archi

  • JonCummings

    Haven't you heard? We're all Socialists now, dude.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Okay, so because Obama was pictured with members of a socialist party, and sought that party's endorsement, he's Karl Marx all of a sudden? Wipe the foam off your lips and take a deep breath, Mr. Dude. Obama doesn't belong on any list of this country's worst presidential candidates — and I'm speaking here as a guy with a history degree, not an Obama supporter.

    Can't tell the truth? No solid plans? “Walking billboard for something else”? Good Lord, man. Can I get you a beer? Quaalude, perhaps? You're worrying me here. And offending me a little, too.

  • Standing_Damaged

    Voting the desperate act of faith of a member of a failed faith based religion – fac3e it – all we ever get are appointed oligarch owned puppets – but in this case Obama is the lesser evil.

    You wan tPalin in office? Because frankly we have all watched McSame slowly fall apart just during his primarys he won't last another YEAR – and no way do I want a believer in protection from witchcraft Moosalini in orifice.

    I'm surprised there were no references to 'Joe the Plumber' the relative of Charles Keating who got planted Rovian to be their surprise package – amazing attempt in the age of internet research and fact checking :)

    I agree with the 1st bit of this – at this point this entire mess – including the freefall into complete planetary economic collapse – is out of the hands of ANY candidate. Yes yes I paraphrased and added my own spin. BUT – looks to me like since Cheney couldn't steal it all he decided (yes Cheney muppet Gollum W has NEVER been in charge) he is going to let it all fall down so the dealing with planetary disaster will protect him from indictment investigation and imprisonment.

    See y'all in the internment camps

  • http://www.popdose.com Ted

    There was a point in last night’s debate where I sort of felt sorry for John McCain. It wasn’t the frequent mentions of “Joe the Plumber,” nor was it scare tactics of taxes and voter fraud, that peppered his comments. No, it was McCain’s truncated answers that ostensibly where about one topic, but quickly shifted to another in an effort to hit some keyword like “No preconditions” that have become all-too-common in his campaign. This time, however, the critique over preconditions wasn’t about Iran, but Hugo Chavez and terrorism: “Well, let me just said that that this is — he — Senator Obama doesn't want a free trade agreement with our best ally in the region but wants to sit down across the table without precondition to — with Hugo Chavez, the guy who has been helping FARC, the terrorist organization.”

    Sounds like someone has been palling around with Sarah Palin a little too much because answers like the one above suggests McCain, when framing a retort, pushed the same panic button of attack words Palin uses for her non-sequitur ramblings. Ah well…

    I must say, though, that this debate was the best out of the three. The first one lacked any kind of passion from both candidates and there was too much “Me too” going on. The second debate was a Potemkin village “Town Hall” that served as prop for Obama and McCain to show how much they care about “real folks.” Last night’s exchange actually highlighted many of the differences between the candidates, but there was very little said about how each would address the current financial woes. And truth be told, it’s not really a fair question – mostly because both campaigns do not have the resources of the Executive Branch to give them advice needed to make policy. What they have are their economic philosophies that will inform their choice to head up the Treasury Department and advise them on economic matters.

    For Obama, it’s a neo-Keynesian philosophy of lower interest rates and taxes plus direct government investments in the economy and infrastructure to stimulate growth. McCain’s view is an Arthur Laffer-inspired supply-side economics that has been the guiding economic philosophy of the Republican Party — until the Bush Administration altered it to include massive socialism for the wealthy. Low taxes for the wealthy (i.e., “Producers”) are key for McCain because he believes these “producers” will take their surplus wealth from low taxation and invest in companies that make products and deliver services. The goodies (i.e., jobs and more “stuff”) will trickling down to us plebs.

    Here’s the problem: both philosophies do not address the reality of a highly interdependent/globalized economy, and the limitations of government control. Capitalism may be global, but governments around still operate under a nation-state model of politics — with variations, of course. And phrases like “City on a hill,” or 
“American exceptionalism,” or even “Joe the Plumber” glosses over the fact that our political and economic issues are not isolated from the world.

    It would be political suicide for either candidate to acknowledge this, so they stick to their prepared talking points, and we get to sift through the verbiage.

  • http://thevitaminkid.blogspot.com autodidact

    Ted, I will squelch my urge to prattle at great length about the issues. You have boiled it down to the essential political gruel. First of all, no one fully understands the nature of this economic crisis, and therefore neither has answers to address it. I think easy money is probably the root cause of everything. And the name of that plague is Greenspan. That germ has mutated into the Bernanke strain.

    And what is this bailout — which both our presidential bozos voted for — but welfare for billionaires?

    If Obama prevails, I will at least take some pleasure in blaming the “Obama economy” as his economic theories are put into practice and we slide toward European levels of unemployment and malaise. If not worse. If we cannot drill our way out of our energy problems (true enough, but it would help), neither can we tax and spend ourselves out of depression. I guesstimate the deficit next year at $800 billion. Will the candidates merely be pushing on a string trying to revive the economy, leading to disinflationary recession or worse? Or will they reignite the economy at the expense of massive inflation?

    All I know is that it will be an angry four years a-comin'. Pick yer poison.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Dude! Where were you last night? We were hoping you'd jump on the Popdose train!

  • steve

    Wow, the most balanced set of comments I've seen on a political Popdose post. Glad to hear that so many agree with me that our two choices this year are both lying butt-clowns who have no clue what to do to fix things. I don't want to be all pessimistic and say that 4 years from now things will still be getting worse – I think Americans themselves (not their inbred politicians) will turn things around. And we have to remember, we still have the highest standard of living in the world, the most opportunities, and if you think things are so bad, well then move to “insert pretty much any of the other 200 countries in the world here” and have at it.

    So I'm ending on a high note that our two lying candidates can't tarnish.

  • JonCummings

    Steve, I'd love to hear your ideas for how “Americans themselves” — without, or despite, any input from their government — are going to “turn things around” over the next few years. Your juxtaposition of love-it-or-leave-it nationalism and obvious disgust with “inbred,” “butt-clown” politicians may be intended to sound Reaganesque (or even Capra-esque), but in the current circumstances it sounds more like a prescription for cash-in-the-mattress, guns-in-the-basement, Ruby Ridge survivalism.

    It has been the workings of our financial sector and its clients (those “Americans themselves”) — with oversight (or not enough of it) from the government — that have gotten us into this mess. At this moment, the entirety of that financial sector, and the vast majority of Americans who don't have the first clue how things have gotten so bad so fast, are waiting with bated breath to see what their government is going to do next, and whether it's going to work.

    Of COURSE McCain, Obama, Congress and the current executive branch are flailing about for ways to fix the mess. They're politicians, not economists, and I don't personally know many economists who can win an election. (Certainly, Paulson, Bernanke & Co. have proven themselves inept at selling a bailout/rescue plan to the public.)

    Regardless of all that, solving this crisis is going to require the greatest economic minds we've got — Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative — to come up with a coherent and viable plan (or two or three), convince the private sector and the public to embrace that plan, and then implement it. Whether it involves great expenditures of public funding, a massive change in the way we do business, or both, there's going to be a whole lot of necessary governmental action and direction in our economy over the next several years.

    Which direction that involvement takes will depend a lot on who wins next month, but will need to be bipartisan and will need to attract a significant public buy-in. Systemic change, of the sort that's currently required, is going to have to be a public/private partnership that incorporates effort and sacrifice by millions of individuals, businesses and governmental organs working with common purpose.

  • http://www.popdose.com DwDunphy

    Even though Alan Greenspan was totally Laissez Faire and traded in nonsensical Yoda-tropes, he is sorely missed. Ben Bernanke just crawls and stumbles along. For my money, and apparently it is my money we're talking about lately, Bernanke is the last guy I'd want to see running this country.

  • steve

    Jon, I will be the first to admit that I think Americans are actually mostly to blame for the mess. See my comments here http://popdose.com/pop-politico-three-cheers-fo

    Yes, some banks outright lied/committed fraud. Others put the actual terms of bad loans in small print to cover their ass legally and the folks borrowing the money failed to read it and ask the right questions (sorry – their fault, do a little homework if you're gonna borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, be an adult). But overall, it comes down to the average American spending more than they take in (not even counting a mortgage) because they constantly want everything and more of it. No standard of living is high enough in our Blackberry/SUV/TIVO/HD/XBox/Ipod culture. Give us more, and we'll gladly keep going into more debt to get it.

    Our greed and wastefulness as a people are legendary, and if the 6+ Billion in the world lived to our standard and behavior for even a week it'd be over. Game, set, match – not only of course for the environment but for economic markets.

    However.

    Ever heard the phrase “America and Americans tend to do the wrong thing before they eventually do the right thing”. I think history has proven this to be true time and time again. I truly believe this crisis will get worse, and people will eventually come to realize that they never should have bought that 42'' HD TV (on a payment plan nonetheless) when their old 22' CRT worked fine. Why did they do that? They'll realize things will REALLY get bad, and they'll actually have to live without all the little perks they THINK they need (kids in Rwanda should feel so sorry for them). They'll have to spend LESS than they take in and actually learn financial and fiscal discipline. When this happens, things will turn around. People will start SAVING money (what a novelty!!!) and realizing you CAN live with an $18,000 minivan instead of a $35,000 Navigator – and you won't die from embarrassment (really). And BONUS! – it also gets better gas mileage so those horrible “Big Oil” people won't be “Stealing” your money…..

    Are there truly poor people in America who don't fit in the bin above – of course. For them we have welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and other programs to help and I support that. But you know as well as I do there are folks collecting money on welfare right now who are also watching CSI Miami on a big flat screen they had no business buying. Americans will change their behavior and fix most of this by reducing personal debt. I have to have faith that will happen because that's at the root of this whole mess.

    Give it time, things will get worse and some folks will find they have to actually open a savings account and buy a piggy bank.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Okay, here's a little side tangent for you: Do you think the government bears any responsibility for our dismal saving habits? I know Japan, for one, has encouraged saving with tax breaks, something the U.S. doesn't do. If we had different policies in place, I wonder if people would start socking more money away…

  • steve

    Excellent point Jefito. Yeah, I think the government does bear some responsibility. And this is where it gets sticky. I've been clear that I don't like either candidate for various reasons. One of the big negatives on Obama gets to this topic – saving and investment. I believe him when he says he wants to cut taxes for most and raise taxes for those making over $250K (the so-called rich). Okay fine. BUT, he's just talking about INCOME tax there. Federal income tax. We pay lots of other taxes of course, and one key tax he wants to raise for everyone is the capital gains tax. More than one third of Americans own some stock – mostly in 401Ks. When a stock goes up and you make money (which teaches that saving is GOOD and pays off) you have capital gains. He wants to raise the tax you pay on that. That will affect even a person making 50K a year who has a 401k with stock. Now to be totally fair – he has waffled on this because some savvy reporters have called him on it in interviews when he claims he won't raise taxes. In some interviews he has then said he'll “look into” raising cap gains tax. In others he has said flat out that he plans to raise them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8&feat

    Given the record of these two who have lied throughout the campaign about each others positions, I don't believe him.

    So I agree the government should create programs and policies that encourage saving, but raising capital gains taxes obviously won't encourage people to save.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Okay, here's a little side tangent for you: Do you think the government bears any responsibility for our dismal saving habits? I know Japan, for one, has encouraged saving with tax breaks, something the U.S. doesn't do. If we had different policies in place, I wonder if people would start socking more money away…

  • steve

    Excellent point Jefito. Yeah, I think the government does bear some responsibility. And this is where it gets sticky. I've been clear that I don't like either candidate for various reasons. One of the big negatives on Obama gets to this topic – saving and investment. I believe him when he says he wants to cut taxes for most and raise taxes for those making over $250K (the so-called rich). Okay fine. BUT, he's just talking about INCOME tax there. Federal income tax. We pay lots of other taxes of course, and one key tax he wants to raise for everyone is the capital gains tax. More than one third of Americans own some stock – mostly in 401Ks. When a stock goes up and you make money (which teaches that saving is GOOD and pays off) you have capital gains. He wants to raise the tax you pay on that. That will affect even a person making 50K a year who has a 401k with stock. Now to be totally fair – he has waffled on this because some savvy reporters have called him on it in interviews when he claims he won't raise taxes. In some interviews he has then said he'll “look into” raising cap gains tax. In others he has said flat out that he plans to raise them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8&feat

    Given the record of these two who have lied throughout the campaign about each others positions, I don't believe him.

    So I agree the government should create programs and policies that encourage saving, but raising capital gains taxes obviously won't encourage people to save.

  • steve

    Jon, I will be the first to admit that I think Americans are actually mostly to blame for the mess. See my comments here http://popdose.com/pop-politico-three-cheers-fo

    Yes, some banks outright lied/committed fraud. Others put the actual terms of bad loans in small print to cover their ass legally and the folks borrowing the money failed to read it and ask the right questions (sorry – their fault, do a little homework if you're gonna borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, be an adult). But overall, it comes down to the average American spending more than they take in (not even counting a mortgage) because they constantly want everything and more of it. No standard of living is high enough in our Blackberry/SUV/TIVO/HD/XBox/Ipod culture. Give us more, and we'll gladly keep going into more debt to get it.

    Our greed and wastefulness as a people are legendary, and if the 6+ Billion in the world lived to our standard and behavior for even a week it'd be over. Game, set, match – not only of course for the environment but for economic markets.

    However.

    Ever heard the phrase “America and Americans tend to do the wrong thing before they eventually do the right thing”. I think history has proven this to be true time and time again. I truly believe this crisis will get worse, and people will eventually come to realize that they never should have bought that 42'' HD TV (on a payment plan nonetheless) when their old 22' CRT worked fine. Why did they do that? They'll realize things will REALLY get bad, and they'll actually have to live without all the little perks they THINK they need (kids in Rwanda should feel so sorry for them). They'll have to spend LESS than they take in and actually learn financial and fiscal discipline. When this happens, things will turn around. People will start SAVING money (what a novelty!!!) and realizing you CAN live with an $18,000 minivan instead of a $35,000 Navigator – and you won't die from embarrassment (really). And BONUS! – it also gets better gas mileage so those horrible “Big Oil” people won't be “Stealing” your money…..

    Are there truly poor people in America who don't fit in the bin above – of course. For them we have welfare, unemployment, food stamps, and other programs to help and I support that. But you know as well as I do there are folks collecting money on welfare right now who are also watching CSI Miami on a big flat screen they had no business buying. Americans will change their behavior and fix most of this by reducing personal debt. I have to have faith that will happen because that's at the root of this whole mess.

    Give it time, things will get worse and some folks will find they have to actually open a savings account and buy a piggy bank.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Okay, here's a little side tangent for you: Do you think the government bears any responsibility for our dismal saving habits? I know Japan, for one, has encouraged saving with tax breaks, something the U.S. doesn't do. If we had different policies in place, I wonder if people would start socking more money away…

  • steve

    Excellent point Jefito. Yeah, I think the government does bear some responsibility. And this is where it gets sticky. I've been clear that I don't like either candidate for various reasons. One of the big negatives on Obama gets to this topic – saving and investment. I believe him when he says he wants to cut taxes for most and raise taxes for those making over $250K (the so-called rich). Okay fine. BUT, he's just talking about INCOME tax there. Federal income tax. We pay lots of other taxes of course, and one key tax he wants to raise for everyone is the capital gains tax. More than one third of Americans own some stock – mostly in 401Ks. When a stock goes up and you make money (which teaches that saving is GOOD and pays off) you have capital gains. He wants to raise the tax you pay on that. That will affect even a person making 50K a year who has a 401k with stock. Now to be totally fair – he has waffled on this because some savvy reporters have called him on it in interviews when he claims he won't raise taxes. In some interviews he has then said he'll “look into” raising cap gains tax. In others he has said flat out that he plans to raise them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8&feat

    Given the record of these two who have lied throughout the campaign about each others positions, I don't believe him.

    So I agree the government should create programs and policies that encourage saving, but raising capital gains taxes obviously won't encourage people to save.