Debate Round 2

What did you guys think? I didn't like how McCain was dodging questions and never responded after calling out Obama on the tax issue.

I thought obama was more than clear that he is lessening the tax burden for people making less than 250k and increasing the taxes for people making more than 250k. I"m sorry but i have zero empathy for this countries wealthy and i actually believe obama when he says he is going to handle the CEO problems with them making millions on bonuses for failing companies.

I think the CEO's are a huge problem in this country and that needs to be addressed. I met a guy through a bank i worked at that made 618k per month. No one is worth that kind of money, no one.

I haven't thought that there was a clear winner to either debate. They are both guilty of the typical lies, almost-lies, and hypocrisy. I do wish that Obama had come down harder on McCain for continuing to misrepresent the Obama tax plan.
I completely agree that the economic divide is far too large. I have read several articles by strongly pro-market economists (mostly in The Economist) that say a large income gap is incredibly detrimental to the market and to any national economy. However, for some reason, the ratio of executive compensation to shop floor income continues to dwarf that of other developed countries. The CEO of Lehman Brothers is a perfect example of an executive receiving massive compensation for supervising a catastrophic failure.

I did not like the town hall format at all, and I felt that Obama did not fair as well as he did during the first debate. McCain's "humor" and snide remarks completely backfired for him. But both of them upset me in the fact that all they do is say the same thing over and over again, always somewhat dodging, somewhat answering a question, but only in the vaguest notion. At this point I want a Bulworth. I agree with Ethan, I'm glad that Obama is taking more the high road but I want him to lower the boom eventually and just tear into the other side. And really, is it that hard to contain yourself to a time limit to answer a question??

I was talking to a former customer of a bank i worked at and her husband was a CEO of not one, but two companies in the 60's and 70's. They were not fortune 500 companies but still highly profitable. They were a wealthy couple and all but she told me his net income between both companies....BOTH...was 70k per year.

70k was a nice income in the 60's and 70's, that is probably equivalent to 150k of todays dollars. Scary that these people think they are worth 100's of millions.

I agree with ethan and the economist, you can't have this kind of spread between floor employees and CEO's to run a profitable business. I remember reading in a case study in college that 3 of the top 10 money earners (back in early 2000) worked as Walmart execs.

IMO, had all 3 of them quit their jobs on the same day with no notice, walmart would not have skipped a beat.

the debate was the same as the 1st one. you didn't learn anything new about their positions

I'm with Reynolds.

I'm also in full agreement with a statement that Adam Carolla made about the debates. He brought up the point that they shouldn't be called debates because a debate implies that two sides go back and forth making points about an issue. Perhaps we should call them presidential question dodgings, or presidential vague panderings.

that is a good way to put it. I don't really watch debates but have had more than a few about such topics as strategies in Risk or Monopoly and when we debate those...we actually have an opportunity to retort and counter points.

The question dodging was maddening.