Johnny Coli

I'd say that personal politics has no correlation on whether two people of the same economic status and living in the same region save money at the same rate. There are wealthy Dems and there are Republicans living in poverty. Politics has nothing to do with it. Your hypothesis says more about what you think of the people who lean towards the Democratic ticket than it does about the fiscal proclivities of those same people. Are you suggesting that Democrats are lay-a-bouts looking for a government handout when they retire? That couldn't be further from the truth.

In actuality, it's worth a lot more than what I paid for it. Records are probably a bad example because depending on the collection, the rarities and their condition they can be worth a ton of money to collectors. I'd bet mine is worth quite a bit. For every crappy platter that isn't worth a damn, there are others in there that well offset the crappy ones. I've also got two custom Les Paul guitars that are worth a lot now that I paid only 700 a piece for back in 89/90. Plus my Marshall amps, etc. I'd never sell any of it, though.

Really? If I made the post you just did with a sweeping generalization like yours the flaming would crash this message board.

No, the point of contention was that Palin considers herself some sort of average Joe Six Pack, claiming that losing 20k of her retirement money makes her average. My contention with that is that not everyone, and certainly not the average American, has that kind of cash in a retirement package (to lose 20k on Monday puts hers at roughly 230k). I only used myself as an example of an upper-middle class, white collar white guy in his 40s who doesn't, and that it's not a stretch to assume I'm more the norm than the exception.

Investing money instead of buying records over the course of 30 years? Listen to yourself. The argument is stupid. The $8 record I bought in 1985 is worth more to me personally than whether I'd put that $8 into some account for 45 years. Music, art, etc can't be compared to money. People buy things that add value to their everyday lives. Records, a pair of sneakers, a ticket to a ball game. You, and others, aren't even looking at quality of life. How many of you people spent money on stuff other than your retirement? I can guarantee that the majority, if not all but one or two of you, weren't saving for freaking retirement at age 20. I had a damn good time, went back to school when I was done, and am pretty comfortable with how I lived my life. I wouldn't change a thing. You might think having a minor retirement package at my age, while having a room full of LPs bought over almost 30 years is stupid. I disagree, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in that aspect. I have a condo, a fabulous job, a smoking hot wife that I met because I was having fun playing in a band, and we save our fair share. And I bet I'll end up with more in the end than some moron who didn't buy anything and saved every penny instead of living a full life.

So, the numbers showing the public has more confidence in Obama handling the economy crisis during an economy crisis isn't issue driven? His numbers started to elevate by the end of last week, and the debate just sealed the deal for a lot of voters. Absolutely people are running away from McCain...because he's tied to the worst administration in US history. But that's not why Obama is leading in the polls. His numbers are at or above 50%. You don't poll those numbers if people are only enamored with you because they hate the other guy. You may not agree with it or like it, but he has connected with a lot of voters. It's just nonsense to think the media is driving people into the Obama column. The McCain people would like you to believe it because the McCain campaign is about blaming everyone instead of looking inward and realising they're running a crap campaign. Look, if your campaign is built on gimmicks to get the press to change it's narrative so you can avoid an issue-based campaign, you can't B word and whine about the press for covering your gimmick if it crashes and burns.

I think it's a reach to think the teachers were "recruiting" students for Obama. How many of these kids can even vote? A handfull of seniors? Also, teachers seem to get crapped on, but every one of them I know has nothing but the interest of their students at heart. They're not some recruiting team for Obama. They're teachers. Lastly, there are plenty of GOTV campaigns in many High Schools across the US. I'm sure many are in predominantly conservative areas. I think it's a great thing.

Old news. It's already been played out. Anybody not voting for him because of Wright has already made up their minds. If there's no bounce from this debate tonight the McCain campaign will have no choice but to go really negative. However, I think even that window has passed because the Obama campaign has a lot of issue-driven momentum and most voters will consider any "Bring up Wright" tactics as desperation, which they are. This race isn't over by a long, long shot, but McCain is going to have to do some serious campaigning to catch up. If Palin really tanks tonight it could get pretty ugly and he'll have an even deeper hole to dig out of. He might have to prostrate himself before the Dark Lord, Karl Rove, begging for help, but I'm not sure even that will do much. Not over, but not looking good.

What? An email was sent out for teachers to wear a blue T-shirt...no Obama shirts with slogans or Obama buttons. A blue T-shirt. Also, where the hell is the evidence of any threat or intimidation in that piece? You saw an article on teachers wearing a blue T-shirt to school, then you remember a largly misrepresented story from a week ago, and from this you make the leap to "a goal of intimidation?" Really?

He made that statement twice, once last year and once in 2001. That's not "repeatedly." And how is that "still lying on the campaign trail?" Plus, the article you link to is from a month ago, and the only reason that article is out is because Inside Edition dug up the video from 2001, called up Dunn's family and showed them the tape of the piece they ran.

I don't see that happening. Biden's debate prep team is pretty good. They have plenty of tape from Palin's debates in Alaska. And, most importantly, Biden isn't cramming for a final exam like Palin is. His debate prep is most-likely how to NOT look like he's being sexist. The question should be, who's going to be more prepared in the areas they need to do well in? Will it be easier for Biden to just hammer away at McCain and not confront Palin? Or will Palin be able to form coherent senteces and not look like a moron? I'd say Biden has the easier job, really.

Two minute response format. He'll do fine. Apparently there's quite a bit of gametape on her from her debates in Alaska. All Biden has to do is smile, acknowledge her every once in a while (no directed responses in this debate, so he won't appear like he's bullying her) and bludgeon McCain's shoddy record. It's not up to Biden to make Palin look like a fool. It will all depend on what types of questions Gwen Iffle asks, and whether she hammers Palin for talking in generalities. I really see two debates here. Biden vs. McCain's record, and Palin vs. herself. She has a pretty steep hill to climb, and broad, sweeping generalities and hokey local colloquialisms are not going to sway anyone at this point. She's already described herself as a pitbull, so she also can't go up there and expect people to give her a pass by doing her DC outsider/small town girl crap.

How? Are you suggesting they get better jobs with an increase in income? And how does the average person in America do that? They go to college, which is increasingly out of reach for a large number of people. So, should they squander that money on an education, or should they just accept their lot in life and hope they don't die in an industrial accident so they can get to 65?

This isn't a pissing match between you and I. You and I will be fine. However, it doesn't eliminate the fact that a vast number of American families will never have $230k in savings, and it doesn't eliminate the fact that the Palin family isn't anything like the average American family, and not even remotely like the average Alaskan family.

Bad choices like eating or paying for heat? Sure, the math supports you idea that putting aside $100 a month will return 300k in 40 years. But the reality is life isn't like that. People get sick. People have accidents. People get laid off. People end up with unforeseen burdens. It's unrealistic to think that the average person jamming 100 bucks into a mattress is going to see that 300k after 40 years.

Sure. Sous chef circa same period. Chose to live a musician's lifestyle because the job sucked, then busted my ass to go back to school to become an infectious disease scientist. It's all about student loans. What others here are saying is that I should have just stayed a sous chef instead of going back to school, continued to rent and take public transportation, and pump everything into savings so I could retire at 65. Not only is that unrealistic, it's stupid, and it's incredibly stupid (and probably a lie) to suggest that many would remain on that same dead-end path.

Find the post where I'm asking for your money. I used myself as an example that not everyone who has a job and is in their 40s has a massive 401k. It's not reality. A handful of TSW blog posts four years ago relating some stories from twenty years ago, and you've got me pegged as a shiftless punk on the dole? Tell me, how much of the government's assistance do you get from being in the military? The issue was that Palin thinks she's some blue-collar representative of the working class, fighting the system tooth and nail to become VP. She's not.

Un-freaking-real. You're never going to get it. There are millions of people in America "putting their noses to the grindstone" every day, living without and scraping by. Occasionally buying a pair of shoes or going on vacation isn't about "gratification." It's about doing what they can to make the rest of the hard work meaningful, giving themselves something to keep them going, making their hopeless lives a little brighter. If a single mom takes her kids to a baseball game, she's not screwing you because she didn't bank it all for when she's 65. She's not concerned with her ability to pay rent 40-some years from now. She's spending that money on her kids. If a city kid chooses to buy himself a new pair of sneakers or a jacket with the money he made at some crap job, then good for him. He's not thinking about when he's 65, because in his day-to-day world 65 and retiring in the burbs is a freaking fantasy. Retiring and playing out the string is so far off some peoples' radar it's moronic to even suggest they should put that money into "savings." You can bet they'd love to plan for the future. They'd love to be able to eliminate a few "luxuries" and sock that money away. But a lot of have no future to plan for because the hurdles to get to that mindset are too high.

Exactly where in this thread did I suggest that? It's not about subsidizing shoes and vacations. It's about removing some of the insurmountable burdens that the middle and lower class are faced with in trying to survive, or even better, aspire to a higher standard of living. Healthcare is a significant burden. Education is a significant burden. And, once again, that's not what this thread topic is about. This thread is about the absurdity of Palin suggesting she's anywhere near the same boat as average Americans.

Agreed. The point is that the number of Americans who don't have six figures saved is far greater than the many that do, and it's not because they're lazy, shiftless, or throwing money around.

A full-time employed couple is not the reality for the majority of Americans in this country. The problem is that people who relate everything to the best-case scenario of a young full-time employed couple living in a fabulous, yet affordable home happily taking the train from the suburbs back and forth from their jobs are ignoring the majority of Americans. The JoeSixPacks who enter their mid-40's without 230k in their retirement fund far outnumber the ones who do. That's reality. And that's why Palin's comment that she's just like everybody else because she just lost 20k is laughable. It couldn't be further from the truth.

Ah, now it's becoming clear. You think the working class should just schlep back and forth to work every day, never giving a thought to the quality of their life. Wear your crappy shoes. Drive that crappy car. Never take your spouse to the movies. Never take your kids to a sporting event or a vacation. Work and save. Work and save. How freaking out of touch are you? Those are the small things people do to give their everyday lives value. I see nothing wrong with that at all.

Really? The car allows someone to expand the area of where they can find work opportunities outside of just a zone of public transportation, better opportunities that they might not have access to witout personal transportation. Paying a condo's mortgage is far more future-thinking that just renting and paying some landlord's mortgage for him. We didn't save for a Mercedes. We had a 400 car, then saved and got a better car, then saved and got a new car because I didn't want an old used car stranding my wife on the side of the road. Seriously, this is reality. I'm not pining away for a handout. I'm just using my own case to show that it's very possible for someone in their 40's to not have 230k saved for retirement. It's really not that uncommon. It has nothing to do with being lazy, refusing to save, or being ignorant.

Read the rest of the post.