http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDMxYjNmMzBiNDAyYWM0Y2JiZjdjZGVjNGZkNGVhNTM=
But...but...but...Joe doesn't pay his taxes and doesn't have a license. Does anyone here this much negative chatter about non-payment of taxes by Al Franken, Charlie Rangel or Keith Olberdude? Of course not.
Of course not. It's okay if MY party does it. Didn't you get the memo?
Nice play of the VICTIM card. Very sweet... [:D]
(http://www.hupsilon.com/images/boohoo.jpg)
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." -- Sarah Palin
"I'm not sorry that we're in Iraq. ... We've liberated another country. I mean, you know, freedom. ... I don't know if you guys are Christians or not, but it's like someone coming to Jesus and becoming saved. These guys have freedom. ... Has it kept us safe? Absolutely. I believe in that 100 percent." -- Joe the Plumber
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending soldiers out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan." -- Sarah Palin
Yeah, boy. She sounds like some other right-wing religious kooks I've heard before:
"Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith. They will need thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph...." -- FDR
"And having thus chosen our course, without guile, and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear, and with manly hearts." -- Abe Lincoln
"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." -- JFK
[xx(]
You missed the point, which is rarely surprising anymore...
Ironic how the right wing likes playing the victim card despite the fact they're in the MAJORITY.... see photo/caption posted above.
No, you missed the point.
It's disgusting how the left will tear down anyone who stands in their way.
This guy asked Obama a question. He tried to participate in democracy. But the left didn't like his viewpoint, so they got busy digging up dirt and tearing him down. A private citizen voices his opinion and gets the full-on Daily Kos Hate Treatment.
It's sad, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
No, you missed the point.
It's disgusting how the left will tear down anyone who stands in their way.
This guy asked Obama a question. He tried to participate in democracy. But the left didn't like his viewpoint, so they got busy digging up dirt and tearing him down. A private citizen voices his opinion and gets the full-on Daily Kos Hate Treatment.
It's sad, really.
No. Actually Floyd, the TRUTH is that "Joe the Plumber" was incessantly spoken about by John McCain when he invoked "Joe the Plumber" no less than TWENTY-ONE FRIGGIN' TIMES during last night's debate!..... he appeared on numerous news/radio programs to exploit his 15 mins of fame... his LIES were told and exploited by Fox News... and this JOE guy misrepresented himself as someone who'd be affected by a 3% rise in income taxes over $250k.... and Obama was gracious enough to speak with him for a long time.... he engaged the guy, respected his point of view, and had a lengthy discussion of "Joe's" concerns... tell me who's lying after viewing the ENTIRE video...
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6031110
Once again, Obama is NOT the one with the problem... he engaged a partisan citizen voter who later LIED about his political affiliations while the RIGHT WING MEDIA RAN WITH IT.
The left wing media smelled a RAT... and they were RIGHT.
Obama's Plan is a Socialist Slippery Slope
http://beltwayblips.com/video/joe_the_plumber_obama_s_plan_is_a_socialist_slippery/
Floyd, it's funny you can defend the indefensible yet have been amazingly SILENT when it comes to the Republican ATTACK MACHINE that seeks to tar Obama as a domestic terrorist...
HATE RADIO has always had much more power and a more profound effect on public opinion than anything I've ever read in Daily Kos or Huffington Post...
The last Domestic Terrorists??? Those included Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who were right wing zealots, btw.
What if I had shown up at a McCain townhall and pretended to be an "uninsured" citizen who recently had cancer surgery... to make a political argument against him...
Do you think the right wing media/blogosphere wouldn't have pounced on me had Obama invoked my name TWENTY ONE TIMES during the course of a presidential debate?!?
Geez.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
No, you missed the point.
It's disgusting how the left will tear down anyone who stands in their way.
This guy asked Obama a question. He tried to participate in democracy. But the left didn't like his viewpoint, so they got busy digging up dirt and tearing him down. A private citizen voices his opinion and gets the full-on Daily Kos Hate Treatment.
It's sad, really.
No. Actually Floyd, the TRUTH is that "Joe the Plumber" was incessantly spoken about by John McCain when he invoked "Joe the Plumber" no less than TWENTY-ONE FRIGGIN' TIMES during last night's debate!..... he appeared on numerous news/radio programs to exploit his 15 mins of fame... his LIES were told and exploited by Fox News... and this JOE guy misrepresented himself as someone who'd be affected by a 3% rise in income taxes over $250k.... and Obama was gracious enough to speak with him for a long time.... he engaged the guy, respected his point of view, and had a lengthy discussion of "Joe's" concerns... tell me who's lying after viewing the ENTIRE video...
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6031110
Once again, Obama is NOT the one with the problem... he engaged a partisan citizen voter who later LIED about his political affiliations while the RIGHT WING MEDIA RAN WITH IT.
The left wing media smelled a RAT... and they were RIGHT.
Obama's Plan is a Socialist Slippery Slope
http://beltwayblips.com/video/joe_the_plumber_obama_s_plan_is_a_socialist_slippery/
Floyd, it's funny you can defend the indefensible yet have been amazingly SILENT when it comes to the Republican ATTACK MACHINE that seeks to tar Obama as a domestic terrorist...
HATE RADIO has always had much more power and a more profound effect on public opinion than anything I've ever read in Daily Kos or Huffington Post...
The last Domestic Terrorists??? Those included Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who were right wing zealots, btw.
What if I had shown up at a McCain townhall and pretended to be an "uninsured" citizen who recently had cancer surgery... to make a political argument against him...
Do you think the right wing media/blogosphere wouldn't have pounced on me had Obama invoked my name TWENTY ONE TIMES during the course of a presidential debate?!?
Geez.
No, Actually USRUF, the truth is the issue is not Joe the Plumber. It was Obama's stupid "spread the wealth around" comment. Attacking Joe is a way to divert attention from Obama's class warfare position.
As far as domestic terrorists go, interesting you left off Bill Ayers. Last time I checked, McCain did not get his political start at McVeigh or Nichols' house.
And here is Obama mocking Joe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4
Per usual Guido, everything you allege is taken completely out of context.
You're all about SOUND BITES and SNIPPETS over substance, because you know that the issues are against you this time around... you know that a slightly higher tax rate for those who earn over $250k is NOT class warfare, and doesn't even equal the tax rates from the Reagan administration pre-1986.
Heck, I understand and am VERY HAPPY to be in a higher tax bracket than I was 5-10 years ago. I may not be crazy about paying more taxes, but I'm grateful to be making DOUBLE THE MONEY.
This "Joe the Plumber" guy is not a licensed plumber; he is a contractor. And he reflects the conservative working man's myth that Obama will raise taxes for people who make $40k per year. And the guy's a completely partisan deluded koolaid drinker. Even if "Joe" were able to buy the business he claims he wants, that plumbing business would be lucky to reap over $100k in profits. As Obama says, how many PLUMBERS do you know who make over $250k per year???....
(http://www.payscale.com/chart/171/Median-Hourly-Rate-by-Years-Experience---Job-Plumber-United-States_USD_20081014082629-v1.0.jpg)
This isn't an insult, it's a fact.... and you continue to manipulate and skew Obama's statements as part of your Quixotian quest to portray Obama as an elitist who disdains the working people in this country when nothing could be further from the trutht... yet when Joe the Plumber compares Obama to Sammy Davis Jr, god forbid anybody recognize the inherent racism in that kind of statement....
At a time when taxpayers will be bailing out banks and the rich at a higher rate than other investors or homeowners, the concept of a progressive tax code is more important and more practical than ever...
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6031110
"Spread the wealth around" is NOT the prominent thrust of the above conversation... period.
Then we look at your youtube clip, which is worthy of FoxNews and Newsbusters.... of course, only conservatives have the magical powers to be able to see into Barack Hussein Obama's soul... /sarcasm. [xx(]
Ironically enough, you and the McCain campaign like to "twist the truth like Clinton."
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
You missed the point, which is rarely surprising anymore...
Ironic how the right wing likes playing the victim card despite the fact they're in the MAJORITY.... see photo/caption posted above.
What does your pie chart have to do with the "right wing?" It's a breakdown of religious affiliation graphically. There are many left wing democrats who would fall into the "christian" category. In fact, the last time I checked, Obama and Biden both fit into that category.
Is it my fault that you "missed the point" of your own graph?
You're a cartoon.
Right wing evangelicals including Palin's church play victim politics all the time...... "you can't pray in school" and "those evil "secular humanists" are agin' us"....
(http://skreened.com/product-image/w250h350f3z3/wsnvejtmiphdgmjcfpeb/preview.png)
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnexFloyd, it's funny you can defend the indefensible yet have been amazingly SILENT when it comes to the Republican ATTACK MACHINE that seeks to tar Obama as a domestic terrorist...
You are so busy ranting that you fail to see the difference between a voter asking a question and a candidate running for President? You also fail to note that I NEVER post on the politics threads? I do it today because this episode scares me.
You ranting, raving polemicists should lay off "Joe the Plumber" before he goes and kills himself for the incredible mistake of participating in democracy. What would a thorough background check on you, or any of us, turn up? And would we want it aired nationally? Think about THAT the next time you particpate in political discussion.
What the leftists are doing to a voter who spoke his mind will have a chilling effect on free discourse. And the blame goes on the feet of the left wing blogosphere.
/done here
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnexFloyd, it's funny you can defend the indefensible yet have been amazingly SILENT when it comes to the Republican ATTACK MACHINE that seeks to tar Obama as a domestic terrorist...
You are so busy ranting that you fail to see the difference between a voter asking a question and a candidate running for President? You also fail to note that I NEVER post on the politics threads? I do it today because this episode scares me.
You ranting, raving polemicists should lay off "Joe the Plumber" before he goes and kills himself for the incredible mistake of participating in democracy. What would a thorough background check on you, or any of us, turn up? And would we want it aired nationally? Think about THAT the next time you particpate in political discussion.
What the leftists are doing to a voter who spoke his mind will have a chilling effect on free discourse. And the blame goes on the feet of the left wing blogosphere.
/done here
/done here??? Yeah, right.
"A chilling effect on free discourse?"
Are you kidding?
Have you paid no attention to the Rush Limbaugh monopoly on AM radio???
How 'bout some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY from the hypocritical right wing.... when you go out and LIE you should take responsibility for what you say...
I AM A PROUD PATRIOTIC AMERICAN WHO IS A DEMOCRAT THIS YEAR.
I will not sit idly by while a dupe for the right wing is being used to promote an mythical agenda that is disengenous and just plain wrong.
Once again Floyd...... you still haven't answered....
What if I had shown up at a McCain townhall and pretended to be an "uninsured" citizen who recently had cancer surgery?... to make a political argument against him?...
Do you think the right wing media/blogosphere wouldn't have pounced on me had Obama invoked my name TWENTY ONE TIMES during the course of a presidential debate?!?Bueller.... Bueller?!?
"Joe the Plumber" is yet another example of McCain's impetuous campaign. He sees a chance to make a "game changer" by throwing out this guy to the media wolves. McCain, without looking into anything about this guy, uses his name over and over again in a debate.
And of course the media, who likes nothing more than a feeding frenzy on some new guy, floods the guy's house to get a bit of information on him.
I feel a bit sorry for him, except for the fact that he seemed to welcome it. How many interviews did he do yesterday? Five, six? He's done more interviews now than Sarah Palin. Now we know he hasn't paid his taxes and isn't a licensed plumber.
A more organized, better focused campaign would never have done something so erratic. McCain should have made looked into this guy before he threw him out to the media.
And now McCain is running an ad featuring Joe the Plumber. Poor guy.
quote:
"Joe the Plumber" is yet another example of McCain's impetuous campaign. He sees a chance to make a "game changer" by throwing out this guy to the media wolves. McCain, without looking into anything about this guy, uses his name over and over again in a debate.
Do you think that these candidates run background checks and FBI blotter checks on every "Sally Muckenfutch who lost her job" story that they tell? I doubt it.
No one cares about Joe. The story that carries the day is the phrase "spread the wealth." Joe was just lucky enough to get Obama to tell the truth for once about his tax plan.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
"Joe the Plumber" is yet another example of McCain's impetuous campaign. He sees a chance to make a "game changer" by throwing out this guy to the media wolves. McCain, without looking into anything about this guy, uses his name over and over again in a debate.
Do you think that these candidates run background checks and FBI blotter checks on every "Sally Muckenfutch who lost her job" story that they tell? I doubt it.
No one cares about Joe. The story that carries the day is the phrase "spread the wealth." Joe was just lucky enough to get Obama to tell the truth for once about his tax plan.
Of course they do. Before any of the candidates repeats a story about an individual, the candidates checks the story out before hand. The fact that McCain didn't even contact Joe to check out his story just shows how incompetent his campaign is. From Politico:
quote:
John McCain hung his final presidential debate performance on an Ohio plumber who campaign aides never vetted.
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber's not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president.
McCain likes to say that he isn't George W. Bush – and in this case of bungled public relations, it is clear he is not. The famously-disciplined Bush campaign operation would likely have found the perfect anonymous citizen to illustrate a policy proposal, rather than spontaneously wrap itself around an unknown entity with so many asterisks.
While the arc of Wurzelbacher's breakneck trip through the news cycle – from private citizen to insta-celebrity to political target – offers a curious insight into the political media culture, it also appears to offer a glimpse into the McCain campaign's on-the-fly decisionmaking style.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14652.html
All politicians know--or should know--that you don't throw out the name of an individual without sufficiently ensuring that 1)the story is true, and 2) the individual will withstand media scrutiny.
Yeah, keep harping on the "spread the wealth" phrase. The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Of course they do. Before any of the candidates repeats a story about an individual, the candidates checks the story out before hand. The fact that McCain didn't even contact Joe to check out his story just shows how incompetent his campaign is. From Politico:
Because McCain wasn't interested in the Joe the plumber story because of Joe himself. It was a seguay to present the "spread the wealth" comment.
quote:
All politicians know--or should know--that you don't throw out the name of an individual without sufficiently ensuring that 1)the story is true, and 2) the individual will withstand media scrutiny.
Yeah, keep harping on the "spread the wealth" phrase. The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.
Like when Obama wore a bracelet that he was asked not to wear? Or like when Biden talks about a restaurant that doesn't exist? Take off your blinders.
No candidate looks to see is Sally Muckenfutch is current on her taxes or anything else. They don't run criminal background checks or credit reports on any of these people, period.
quote:
The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.
Got any evidence to back this up?
Even if there is some rediculous poll out there that says something close to that, the rich ALREADY pay a higher share of taxes right now. The top 10% pay 70% percent of the taxes collected. Would it make you feel better if they paid 100%?
Why is it the government's business to decide when hard working Americans have made too much money and when the excess should be "spread around" to help the guy "coming up behind them?"
What incentive to I have to pursue excellence when I know that Obama is going to take from rich people and give it me as long as I'm behind the rich guy?
I think Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter With Kansas" could easily be updated as:
"What's the Matter With Joe the Plumber"
A few of my favorite quotes:
"Their grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meat- packing. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."
------------------------------------------------
"For decades Americans have experienced a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting. In Kansas we merely see an extreme verion of this mysterious situation. The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irreverently against the arrogant. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawood toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. "We are here," they scream, "to cut your taxes."
------------------------------------------------
"Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, farther to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics . Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower."
------------------------------------------------
"The ills described here-depopulation, the rise of the food trust, the general reorganization of life to favor the wealthy- have been going on for ten to twenty years now. Nobody denies that they have happened, that they're still happening. Yet Kansas, that famous warrior for justice, how does it react? Why, Kansas looks its problems straight in the eye, sets its jaw, rolls up its sleeves-and charges off in exactly the wrong direction..."
------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The top 10% pay 70% percent of the taxes collected. Would it make you feel better if they paid 100%?
Why is it the government's business to decide when hard working Americans have made too much money and when the excess should be "spread around" to help the guy "coming up behind them?"
What incentive to I have to pursue excellence when I know that Obama is going to take from rich people and give it me as long as I'm behind the rich guy?
Oh, good lord. You have "incentive" because you will make a TON more money.... and your MONEY will make more money than I do.... I suppose I could go back to the job I used to have, but I certainly wouldn't go back to that job because of lower taxes...
http://mamorico.blogspot.com/2007/11/us-distribution-of-wealth.html
In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax;
the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%).However, if the federal taxation rate ("Individual Income Tax Rates and Shares, 2004." (2006) published by IRS) is compared with the wealth distribution rate the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax -
the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (earning 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).Keep in mind though that in the above paragraph we are talking about INCOME TAX only - not total tax load. Once you add in the myriad of other taxes to the mix, it becomes clear that people of less means are paying a disproportionately large amount of the total taxes collected.
------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Oh, good lord. You have "incentive" because you will make a TON more money.... and your MONEY will make more money than I do.... I suppose I could go back to the job I used to have, but I certainly wouldn't go back to that job because of lower taxes...
How exactly will I make more money if I'm taxed more? What evidence do you have to back this up? Lowering taxes on small businesses frees capital to invest in expansion and aquisition of employees. Business taxation is a MYTH. When you increase taxes on a business the cost is passed on to the consumer, most often the middle class.
Taxes are a liability, just like fuel, it's considered as overhead and passed on.
quote:
In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%).
However, if the federal taxation rate ("Individual Income Tax Rates and Shares, 2004." (2006) published by IRS) is compared with the wealth distribution rate the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (earning 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).
It is NOT the job of the government to ensure that people like you get their share of the wealth.
If you'd like more wealth, go out and create it. You have no right to take it from anyone else.
You remind me of my 24 year old cousin. He was extoling the virtues of rasing taxes so that the system would be more fair. Those who don't pay taxes ALWAYS think it's a wonderful thing to raise taxes on everyone else, just don't try raising their's. Furthermore, people who make outrageous amounts of money like Buffett also don't have a problem with raising taxes, but a tax increase won't affect him in the least.
And you remind me of all the college republicans who lectured me on Reaganomics and personal responsibility while simultaneously running up mumsy-and-dadsy's credit cards... kinda like what George W. Bush has done with the national debt....
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wealthy_teen_nearly_experiences
Once again, this is not the kind of 70s style progressive taxation that goes up to 70% and beyond... with loopholes you could drive a truck through...
The Clinton Tax Code was reasonable... a flat tax is not and a national sales tax would be a national disgrace...
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
And you remind me of all the college republicans who lectured me on Reaganomics and personal responsibility while simultaneously running up mumsy-and-dadsy's credit cards...
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wealthy_teen_nearly_experiences
Once again, this is not the kind of 70s style progressive taxation that goes up to 70% and beyond... with loopholes you could drive a truck through...
The Clinton Tax Code was reasonable... a flat tax is not and a national sales tax would be a national disgrace...
How do you know if I even own a credit card? FYI, I don't and never have. Credit card debit is for fools. You should do some research before you accuse me of something.
Why was the Clinton taxe code "reasonable?" And I don't know anyone running this year that is running on a flat tax or national sales tax platform.
The purpose of taxation is NOT to rectify what you call "unfairness" in how wealth is distributed in the US.
I'll say it again, if someone wants more wealth, go out and create it. That's what's great about America. You'd don't need a slice of my pie. If you really want more, you can go out and make your own.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
when you go out and LIE you should take responsibility for what you say...
(Emphasis added.)
What was your real name and address, Mr. Pseudonymous Soccer Fan? We need to properly "vet" your comments.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
When you increase taxes on a business the cost is passed on to the consumer, most often the middle class.
Or, like Wal Mart, the business can make itself more efficient and increase its profit margins that way while keeping prices low. There's no law that says higher taxes = increased consumer prices. Taxes are just one more cost of doing business among many.
And, of course -- at least if your government is competent -- you should be seeing return on your taxes in the form of improved infrastructure, better education for your workforce, and prompt law enforcement, etc. You know, all that stuff you take for granted that government provides business.
But really, the kicker is you have to believe that government, if run correctly, can be a partner to business. But it's kind of hard to improve the business atmosphere in the country when you're being drowned ideologically in the bathtub.
We just want you Republicans to carry your share of the load and stop shirking your responsibility and pushing it off onto the rest of us.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Of course they do. Before any of the candidates repeats a story about an individual, the candidates checks the story out before hand. The fact that McCain didn't even contact Joe to check out his story just shows how incompetent his campaign is. From Politico:
Because McCain wasn't interested in the Joe the plumber story because of Joe himself. It was a seguay to present the "spread the wealth" comment.
Then why did he mention his name some 2 dozen times? Why is running an ad with "Joe the Plumber?"
quote:
quote:
All politicians know--or should know--that you don't throw out the name of an individual without sufficiently ensuring that 1)the story is true, and 2) the individual will withstand media scrutiny.
Yeah, keep harping on the "spread the wealth" phrase. The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.
Like when Obama wore a bracelet that he was asked not to wear? Or like when Biden talks about a restaurant that doesn't exist? Take off your blinders.
No candidate looks to see is Sally Muckenfutch is current on her taxes or anything else. They don't run criminal background checks or credit reports on any of these people, period.
Been watching some Fox news lately? The man who didn't want Obama to wear the bracelet was the divorced husband. The mother of the fallen soldiers asked Obama to wear it. A restaurant is not a person. By the way, it still exists, just with a different name. Smart politicians know that when they use a person in a story, the media is going to check it out. Period. You make sure that whatever story you use isn't going to come back to bite you.
quote:
quote:
The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.
Got any evidence to back this up?
Even if there is some rediculous poll out there that says something close to that, the rich ALREADY pay a higher share of taxes right now. The top 10% pay 70% percent of the taxes collected. Would it make you feel better if they paid 100%?
Why is it the government's business to decide when hard working Americans have made too much money and when the excess should be "spread around" to help the guy "coming up behind them?"
What incentive to I have to pursue excellence when I know that Obama is going to take from rich people and give it me as long as I'm behind the rich guy?
The best summary I have found on attitudes towards taxes comes from AEI: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16838/pub_detail.asp. You can download the summary there. It incorporates various studies, but suffice it to say that several studies have found that the majority of Americans support a progressive tax (eg, AP/Ipsos found 57% support in 2005). Of course, there is some difference depending on how you word it, but even when asked specifically whether the government should "redistribute wealth" by taxing the wealthy, you find a plurality of support.
Like it or not, we all have to pay taxes to run our country. Those who can afford more should pay more.
Unless you are an idiot when it comes to finance, your motiviation for making more money still exists. You pay X amount of taxes on the first 250,000 of your earnings. If you earn $1 more, that dollar is taxed at a 35% rate, not 33%. So instead of earning .67 more cents you will make an extra .65 cents. Why would anyone not want to earn more .65 cents--just because they wanted to full .67? Talk about shooting your nose off to spite your face.
Per CNN headline news Joe just admitted Obama's tax plan would not effect him.
Not sure how he came to that but there it is.
But, Obama WILL allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without renewal, thus RAISING EVERYONE'S TAX (whether or not his 'PLAN' will then lower some, increase others).
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Then why did he mention his name some 2 dozen times? Why is running an ad with "Joe the Plumber?"
Because it under-girds the story of Obama's claims of "spread the wealth."
quote:
Been watching some Fox news lately?
No. I've been smoking cigars all day.
quote:
The man who didn't want Obama to wear the bracelet was the divorced husband. The mother of the fallen soldiers asked Obama to wear it. A restaurant is not a person. By the way, it still exists, just with a different name. Smart politicians know that when they use a person in a story, the media is going to check it out. Period. You make sure that whatever story you use isn't going to come back to bite you.
Well. Obama has the advantage that no matter what he says, it doesn't get challenged, so your claims that everything is scrutinized by the media is junk.
As per the restaurant, details, details. I guess accuracy isn't required from your side either. Just as long as we all get the gist.
Let me get this straight. Because the father was divorced from the mother, his wishes should be ignored? Bottom line, they didn't "vet" that story either, whatever the hell that means.
quote:
The best summary I have found on attitudes towards taxes comes from AEI: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16838/pub_detail.asp. You can download the summary there. It incorporates various studies, but suffice it to say that several studies have found that the majority of Americans support a progressive tax (eg, AP/Ipsos found 57% support in 2005). Of course, there is some difference depending on how you word it, but even when asked specifically whether the government should "redistribute wealth" by taxing the wealthy, you find a plurality of support.
Like it or not, we all have to pay taxes to run our country. Those who can afford more should pay more.
Unless you are an idiot when it comes to finance, your motiviation for making more money still exists. You pay X amount of taxes on the first 250,000 of your earnings. If you earn $1 more, that dollar is taxed at a 35% rate, not 33%. So instead of earning .67 more cents you will make an extra .65 cents. Why would anyone not want to earn more .65 cents--just because they wanted to full .67? Talk about shooting your nose off to spite your face.
Of course people want to tax the rich. It sounds really good, like fighting the man, but it's ignorant. People who support higher taxes fall into two general groups. 1) are the people that don't pay any to begin with and won't be affected and 2) people that make gigantic incomes, like Buffett. Increasing taxes on them is like stealing a thimble of water from the sea.
The people it affects are small business owners and corporations. When a company makes two cents less per unit, they pass that onto the customer or invest less. No one wins. The middle income may pay less taxes percentage wise, but they give it back in the end with higher prices on commodities and goods.
I have no problem paying taxes to run our government. Taxation was created to run essential government activities. They were not sanctioned to redistribute wealth. Taxes are not a vehicle for social justice and curing inequalities and they were NEVER meant to be.
If a person wants more wealth, go out and create it.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
when you go out and LIE you should take responsibility for what you say...
(Emphasis added.)
What was your real name and address, Mr. Pseudonymous Soccer Fan? We need to properly "vet" your comments.
Okay, Mr. Bates. Maybe you can start by giving me the name and address of the TulsaNow forum "Admin" who posted this... [:D]
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2680&SearchTerms=downtown,soccer,stadium
For those who don't know, I was accused on the TulsaNow Discussion/Development forums of being a mole for LaFortune during the back-and-forth over the East Village soccer stadium TIF...
And although I am flattered by your concern over the context of my opinions...
I didn't hear "USRufnex the soccer guy" referred to TWENTY SIX TIMES over the course of the last presidential debate. The McCain campaign isn't using my story as a campaign issue stump speech. I also do not write for a major newspaper like "the Whirled" or weekly shopper like Urban Tulsa... thus I post anonymously on this website (not unlike IPLAW, Guido911, pmcalk, Hoss, Floyd, Cannon Fodder, Conan, Friendly Bear, FOTD, or my good friend OilCapital)... I seem to remember a couple of years back around the date of another election (LaFortune vs. Taylor) your demands to know the real names/occupations of Chicken Little, Swake, etc etc....
I'm sorry you fail to see the stark differences between a small metro political forum (TulsaNow) and the use of "Joe the Plumber" as a political wedge for the McCain campaign.
My website http://tulsaroughnecks.com is not a political site so I do not feel the need to post my name. However, if the city of Tulsa or the Drillers' organization would like to hear my views on a possible USL-1 team playing downtown or at the fairgrounds... or my longterm opinions on the viability of an MLS team in Tulsa, let me know....
My screen name USRufnex can be found on over five years' worth of posts over at bigsoccer.com.
If you need to "vet," check your messages.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
We just want you Republicans to carry your share of the load and stop shirking your responsibility and pushing it off onto the rest of us.
Where the hell do you get off talking about "shirking [] responsibility and pushing it off on the rest of us" you draft dodger! You are an unbelievable hypocrite. Just shut up and keep gravy training off those who made this country safe and free.
Hometown on accepting responsibility and serving his country.
"I was a candidate for the draft back during Vietnam and the lottery. The last year of the lottery my number was close but I lucked out. Before the lottery most of the guys that went were working class. Middle and Upper class kids got out by going to college and that qualified for a deferral before the lottery.
Serving in the military struck me as being a lot like going to prison and if I had been drafted my plan was to go to Canada."
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8081&whichpage=3&SearchTerms=veteran%2Cmilitary
USRufnex, you are such a tool for the Democrat party.
You have a childish attitude and post dribble about your "Savior" but cannot see the truth because of your blind hatred of anything conservative.
Good luck in life, you'll need it.
Guido = coming a little bit unglued there.
Easy there, champ. Don't take the internets personally. It's not worth your time.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Guido = coming a little bit unglued there.
Easy there, champ. Don't take the internets personally. It's not worth your time.
I hear you and advice taken.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
How exactly will I make more money if I'm taxed more?
Say you made $249,999 last year. Say next year you make $260,000. You're making more money, despite paying more tax, because a) the higher rate only applies to the amount over $250,000, and b) the tax rate is not over 100%
Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that you think it's unfair for people to pay about the same amount of tax relative to their wealth.
And just in general, it's ridiculous to think that either side has a monopoly on truth. We just have different ideas about how things should be done. Sadly, since people have this wackjob belief that their way has to be the only true and right way to do things in the world, we've devolved (politically) into a nation of blathering idiots, as this thread amply demonstrates. (and I'm an idiot for wading in)
Just FWIW, my employer has been saying for years he should be taxed more. Of course, he controls a relatively large amount of wealth. (not Kaiser-like, but more than me or 80-90% of Americans will ever see in their lifetime) He must not understand the 'truth' of the situation. I guess he's been sucked in by liberal lies.
Poor Joe the Plumber [/sarcasm]. You guys really don't get it, do you? Joe isn't getting picked on because he's against Obama. This is newsworthy because hypocrisy is always a good story.
If Joe were a normal Joe...even a Republican one, then this would have been your normal media kabuki dance and people would have moved on by now.
But Joe is a sanctimonious turd who cheats us all but still has the nerve to ask for more. Oh, the intrinsic bullsh*t...a tax chiseler whose is no doubt very sincerely indignant about higher taxes!
And because McCain's team didn't take a closer look at Joe (throwing a log on the fire of ANOTHER meme), now thousands of Americans are suddenly aware of how this $250,000 threshold applies to them (screw Joe, he's a turd).
If McCain were running for most ironic, then this was certainly a "game-changer".
Obama stated his plan would only raise taxes on "those businesses who could afford it".
Is it really necessary to once again point out where businesses get the money to pay their taxes?
Surely you know what happens when his windfall profit tax would be applied to oil companies....that's right, gas at $4.00/gal again.
Who pays your gas bill?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
USRufnex, you are such a tool for the Democrat party.
You have a childish attitude and post dribble about your "Savior" but cannot see the truth because of your blind hatred of anything conservative.
Good luck in life, you'll need it.
Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything.
Obama is not my "Savior."
I do not have hatred for true conservativism. I do have a hatred for blind conservativism, though.
I've already had good luck in life.
Thanks for caring.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
USRufnex, you are such a tool for the Democrat party.
You have a childish attitude and post dribble about your "Savior" but cannot see the truth because of your blind hatred of anything conservative.
Good luck in life, you'll need it.
I do not have hatred for true conservativism.
So would you call it a strong dislike then? [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Surely you know what happens when his windfall profit tax would be applied to oil companies....that's right, gas at $4.00/gal again.
If so, we need to whip out the antitrust laws on their asses again. A tax on profit cannot, by definition, reduce their profit to below zero, so if prices do go up because of a "windfall profits tax", it's due to a lack of competition in the market, not the tax.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Surely you know what happens when his windfall profit tax would be applied to oil companies....that's right, gas at $4.00/gal again.
If so, we need to whip out the antitrust laws on their asses again. A tax on profit cannot, by definition, reduce their profit to below zero, so if prices do go up because of a "windfall profits tax", it's due to a lack of competition in the market, not the tax.
Can I get someone to translate what Nathan just wrote for me?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
(http://www.hupsilon.com/images/boohoo.jpg)
(http://i38.tinypic.com/dlg5ds.jpg)
(http://i34.tinypic.com/idg289.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Can I get someone to translate what Nathan just wrote for me?
Which part was unclear?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Surely you know what happens when his windfall profit tax would be applied to oil companies....that's right, gas at $4.00/gal again.
If so, we need to whip out the antitrust laws on their asses again. A tax on profit cannot, by definition, reduce their profit to below zero, so if prices do go up because of a "windfall profits tax", it's due to a lack of competition in the market, not the tax.
Can I get someone to translate what Nathan just wrote for me?
I'll help you out. Wrinkle thinks that a tax will put gas back at $4/gal, which is a pretty silly argument. It got there once
without a tax, and it will again. If you haven't figured it out yet, oil companies will charge you as much as they can with no compunction whatsoever. It's not their job to worry about how your family will survive paying $4/gal or $40.
When nathanm talks about monopolies, is he wrong? Start riding a skateboard to work...that'll school 'em. They got us exactly where they want us, brother.
I don't expect big oil to have a social conscience (or brain for that matter), and therefore I don't expect them to "hurry things along" towards alternative fuels. They'll milk the present situation for every nickel first. I'm not judging them, I'm judging anybody who is foolish enough to expect something else.
If we want to see investment in alternatives, then we're going to have to be the ones to invest in it. If we have to skim their record-breaking profits in order to do that, then so be it. Makes sense, doesn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
USRufnex, you are such a tool for the Democrat party.
You have a childish attitude and post dribble about your "Savior" but cannot see the truth because of your blind hatred of anything conservative.
Good luck in life, you'll need it.
Stand up for something or you'll fall for anything.
Obama is not my "Savior."
I do not have hatred for true conservativism. I do have a hatred for blind conservativism, though.
I've already had good luck in life.
Thanks for caring.
I was a little over the top on my comments. After reading through your posts, they aren't childish.
My apologies.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Can I get someone to translate what Nathan just wrote for me?
Which part was unclear?
Were you talking about Sherman Act violations when you discuss "anti-trust"? If so, what is your evidence?
Also, are you or are you not advocating a windfall profit tax on oil companies? If so, why stop there. Let's pick a magic percent profit number, and any company that is successful enough to surpass that number, let's tax their windfall profit too. I mean, fair is fair.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Poor Joe the Plumber [/sarcasm]. You guys really don't get it, do you? Joe isn't getting picked on because he's against Obama. This is newsworthy because hypocrisy is always a good story.
If Joe were a normal Joe...even a Republican one, then this would have been your normal media kabuki dance and people would have moved on by now.
But Joe is a sanctimonious turd who cheats us all but still has the nerve to ask for more. Oh, the intrinsic bullsh*t...a tax chiseler whose is no doubt very sincerely indignant about higher taxes!
And because McCain's team didn't take a closer look at Joe (throwing a log on the fire of ANOTHER meme), now thousands of Americans are suddenly aware of how this $250,000 threshold applies to them (screw Joe, he's a turd).
If McCain were running for most ironic, then this was certainly a "game-changer".
Screw you chicken. Joe did not go to an Obama speaking event as a plant or to stir up trouble. Obama came into Joe's neighborhood during his "door to door" campaign, encountered Joe, and made his "spread the wealth around" comment. You and the media ignore that because it was a stinging admission.
As far as Joe being a "tax chiseler", what does that have to do with Obama's comment about spreading the wealth around? Oh, wait, I know. NOTHING! Incidentally, I assume you have referred to Al Franken, Charlie Rangel, and Keith Olberdude as tax chiselers as well.
Going after a guy because he dared to question a presidential candidate is shi**y and cowardly. Persons defending those that go after this guy, persons like you, are even more shi**y and cowardly. I take that back, they are un-American.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
It incorporates various studies, but suffice it to say that several studies have found that the majority of Americans support a progressive tax (eg, AP/Ipsos found 57% support in 2005). Of course, there is some difference depending on how you word it, but even when asked specifically whether the government should "redistribute wealth" by taxing the wealthy, you find a plurality of support.
Like it or not, we all have to pay taxes to run our country. Those who can afford more should pay more.
Unless you are an idiot when it comes to finance, your motiviation for making more money still exists. You pay X amount of taxes on the first 250,000 of your earnings. If you earn $1 more, that dollar is taxed at a 35% rate, not 33%. So instead of earning .67 more cents you will make an extra .65 cents. Why would anyone not want to earn more .65 cents--just because they wanted to full .67? Talk about shooting your nose off to spite your face.
43% not supporting a progressive tax rate is a significant minority.
A flat tax rate would still require those that make more to pay more. Make twice as much, pay twice as much. A basic cost of existence deduction would be required for the bottom of the economic ladder. That basic deduction should apply to everyone, regardless of income level. Otherwise you are back to the progressive tax rates.
Depends on what you need to do for the last dollar. My father had the opportunity to hire some temporary workers to do manual labor years ago. They were unwilling to work for about a 25% increase in income compared to sitting on their butts collecting whatever benefits they were receiving. (My dad passed away several years ago so I cannot provide specific dates and $.) Sometimes paying an accountant to find a legal tax loophole can be more profitable than paying a high tax rate. If the tax rates are low enough, it's not worth the expense to avoid the tax.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Poor Joe the Plumber [/sarcasm]. You guys really don't get it, do you? Joe isn't getting picked on because he's against Obama. This is newsworthy because hypocrisy is always a good story.
If Joe were a normal Joe...even a Republican one, then this would have been your normal media kabuki dance and people would have moved on by now.
But Joe is a sanctimonious turd who cheats us all but still has the nerve to ask for more. Oh, the intrinsic bullsh*t...a tax chiseler whose is no doubt very sincerely indignant about higher taxes!
And because McCain's team didn't take a closer look at Joe (throwing a log on the fire of ANOTHER meme), now thousands of Americans are suddenly aware of how this $250,000 threshold applies to them (screw Joe, he's a turd).
If McCain were running for most ironic, then this was certainly a "game-changer".
Screw you chicken. Joe did not go to an Obama speaking event as a plant or to stir up trouble. Obama came into Joe's neighborhood during his "door to door" campaign, encountered Joe, and made his "spread the wealth around" comment. You and the media ignore that because it was a stinging admission.
As far as Joe being a "tax chiseler", what does that have to do with Obama's comment about spreading the wealth around? Oh, wait, I know. NOTHING! Incidentally, I assume you have referred to Al Franken, Charlie Rangel, and Keith Olberdude as tax chiselers as well.
Going after a guy because he dared to question a presidential candidate is shi**y and cowardly. Persons defending those that go after this guy, persons like you, are even more shi**y and cowardly. I take that back, they are un-American.
I can't explain it any clearer than I already have. Joe invited scrutiny the moment he opened his mouth and told his story. When the media, in the course of doing it's job, spotted the irony then it was all over. Hypocrisy is red meat.
Do you know who Tim Mahoney is? He's the Democratic Congressman who replaced Mark Foley. Mahoney made the mistake of campaigning as the morality candidate. Well surprise, surprise, the lecher has had at least TWO affairs in the last year. Now HE'S getting slaughtered...deservedly. That's what hypocrisy gets you.
So stop acting like a tool: "Cowardly"? "Un-American"? Do you ever listen to your loud-mouthed self? There's little room for that kind of idiotic rhetoric, even in the "Pro-America" parts of this country. And you wonder why nobody invites you to parties anymore...
Chicken:
I am guilty of idiotic rhetoric? Let's see, who said "Joe is a sanctimonious turd who cheats us all" and Joe is "a tax chiseler" and "screw Joe, he's a turd."
Thanks for illustrating for us all what "hypocrisy" is.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Chicken:
I am guilty of idiotic rhetoric? Let's see, who said "Joe is a sanctimonious turd who cheats us all" and Joe is "a tax chiseler" and "screw Joe, he's a turd."
Thanks for illustrating for us all what "hypocrisy" is.
What do YOU call a person who doesn't pay his taxes?
quote:
Wurzelbacher hasn't paid the taxes he already owes, according to the state of Ohio, which placed a tax lien against him for $1,182.98 on Jan. 26, 2007, that is still active. A second judgment against him was filed in March 2007 by St. Charles Mercy Hospital for $1,261, records show.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aysiUbzAUIZs&refer=us
I think people who have tax liens against them are sort of disqualified from serving as anti-tax spokesmen, don't you?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Surely you know what happens when his windfall profit tax would be applied to oil companies....that's right, gas at $4.00/gal again.
If so, we need to whip out the antitrust laws on their asses again. A tax on profit cannot, by definition, reduce their profit to below zero, so if prices do go up because of a "windfall profits tax", it's due to a lack of competition in the market, not the tax.
Can I get someone to translate what Nathan just wrote for me?
I'll help you out. Wrinkle thinks that a tax will put gas back at $4/gal, which is a pretty silly argument. It got there once without a tax, and it will again. If you haven't figured it out yet, oil companies will charge you as much as they can with no compunction whatsoever. It's not their job to worry about how your family will survive paying $4/gal or $40.
When nathanm talks about monopolies, is he wrong? Start riding a skateboard to work...that'll school 'em. They got us exactly where they want us, brother.
I don't expect big oil to have a social conscience (or brain for that matter), and therefore I don't expect them to "hurry things along" towards alternative fuels. They'll milk the present situation for every nickel first. I'm not judging them, I'm judging anybody who is foolish enough to expect something else.
If we want to see investment in alternatives, then we're going to have to be the ones to invest in it. If we have to skim their record-breaking profits in order to do that, then so be it. Makes sense, doesn't it?
No, I think any business selling anything will raise prices to cover all the tax Obama puts onto them.
Probably should've used another example since oil companies price increases defy gravity, logic or mathematics.
But, your gas cost will increase by whatever Obama charges them, along with everything else you buy.
Net result, YOU pay whatever increase Obama has in mind.
[/quote]
I think people who have tax liens against them are sort of disqualified from serving as anti-tax spokesmen, don't you?
[/quote]
Still ignoring the point that Obama made the "spreading the wealth around" comment. You and the media's attack on Joe is either retaliation or an attempt at diverting attention from Obama putting his foot in his mouth. Done with you here. You are boring.
BTW, I think people who have never served in the military should be disqualified from commenting on the military strategy in Iraq, don't you?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Also, are you or are you not advocating a windfall profit tax on oil companies? If so, why stop there. Let's pick a magic percent profit number, and any company that is successful enough to surpass that number, let's tax their windfall profit too. I mean, fair is fair.
I'm not advocating, I'm discussing what would happen if it were implemented. I think your argument is flawed. Not everybody has to be for or against a given thing to discuss it (yet, or ever), you know.
If such a one time tax on windfall profits in the energy industry did cause prices to rise, it would indicate there may well be collusion in the market. Any company would be best served by keeping their prices at the same level, as they would increase sales relative to the companies who raised their prices.
Now, if it were an ongoing tax increase, they would have to price it in, but that's not what the proposal is.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
43% not supporting a progressive tax rate is a significant minority.
Without seeing the results of the survey, it's impossible to tell whether the "no" number was actually 43%. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 10-15% "don't know" or "no opinion" on a question like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Net result, YOU pay whatever increase Obama has in mind.
Taxes are a part of the cost of doing business, which also includes things like raw materials, labor, and hurricanes.
What YOU pay is ALL costs associated with the production plus the maximum profit that the company can get away with. If they COULD charge you $4/gal, with or WITHOUT a windfall profits tax, then they sure as heck WOULD. They have done it before and will do it again.
It's against their interest to limit profits by expanding the domestic energy supply. Why then, is it wrong to take a portion of their record-breaking profits to develop alternative forms of energy for ourselves?
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Still ignoring the point that Obama made the "spreading the wealth around" comment. You and the media's attack on Joe is either retaliation or an attempt at diverting attention from Obama putting his foot in his mouth. Done with you here. You are boring.
BTW, I think people who have never served in the military should be disqualified from commenting on the military strategy in Iraq, don't you?
I'm not ignoring that...we've had a progressive income tax structure since 1913, it's simply not a noteworthy statement.
What's worth noting is your rumination about whose more American. Americans can disagree without being disagreeable...that's one of our best features...it's called freedom.
You're a sore loser, Guido. You should work on it.
Joe the Plumber asked Obama a few questions that Obama clumsly stumbled with and now the media is diverting attention from what Obama said by stripping down the poor sap who dared ask Obama a few questions. Obama came to this guy to talk, it wasn't like he's a McCain campaign plant who went to attack Obama.
Two questions:
1) The next time any democrat refers to a regular person in their campaign, you think the main stream media will strip this person bare and expose anything remotely questionable?
2) Since the pro-Obama media has now made an example of Joe the Plumber, you think any other average Joe will dare ask Obama a question that may trip him up?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Net result, YOU pay whatever increase Obama has in mind.
Taxes are a part of the cost of doing business, which also includes things like raw materials, labor, and hurricanes.
What YOU pay is ALL costs associated with the production plus the maximum profit that the company can get away with. If they COULD charge you $4/gal, with or WITHOUT a windfall profits tax, then they sure as heck WOULD. They have done it before and will do it again.
It's against their interest to limit profits by expanding the domestic energy supply. Why then, is it wrong to take a portion of their record-breaking profits to develop alternative forms of energy for ourselves?
Wasn't attempting to establish right/wrong, just clearing up who it is that pays the costs.
As for oil companies specifically, I'd actually favor redirecting current economic incentives (tax credits, grants, etc) given them and redirect to alternate energy. That's some $30 billion annualy, which would be quite a boost for alternate energy development programs, if so applied.
I think your claim is they've been getting all this profit (from sales, not grants, but do get huge grants and tax credits as well) and are not redirecting it well into alternate sources as it's percieved we need/want these days.
So, adding another tax for same would seem unnecessary, and fairly poor political fodder.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
BTW, I think people who have never served in the military should be disqualified from commenting on the military strategy in Iraq, don't you?
You mean like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge, etc. etc. etc......???
In fact, only one member of G.W. Bush's cabinet has ever served active duty in the military.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
BTW, I think people who have never served in the military should be disqualified from commenting on the military strategy in Iraq, don't you?
You mean like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, John Ashcroft, Paul Wolfowitz, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Matt Drudge, etc. etc. etc......???
In fact, only one member of G.W. Bush's cabinet has ever served active duty in the military.
ahhh....
That's gonna leave a mark...
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
[
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
43% not supporting a progressive tax rate is a significant minority.
Without seeing the results of the survey, it's impossible to tell whether the "no" number was actually 43%. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 10-15% "don't know" or "no opinion" on a question like that.
I would say that 43% do not actively support the progressive tax is a reasonable assumption. I will agree that some "don't know" or "no opinion" percentage may not be supporting something else.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Wasn't attempting to establish right/wrong, just clearing up who it is that pays the costs.
As for oil companies specifically, I'd actually favor redirecting current economic incentives (tax credits, grants, etc) given them and redirect to alternate energy. That's some $30 billion annualy, which would be quite a boost for alternate energy development programs, if so applied.
I think your claim is they've been getting all this profit (from sales, not grants, but do get huge grants and tax credits as well) and are not redirecting it well into alternate sources as it's percieved we need/want these days.
So, adding another tax for same would seem unnecessary, and fairly poor political fodder.
These are fair points, and if $30 billion is enough to create an "Apollo Program"-type effort, then I'm fine with moving forward without a windfall profits tax.
I simply wanted to take the "boo" factor out of your statement; I felt it needed more context. We pay taxes at a rate of about 50 cents/gal nationally. Do I want to pay another 10, 20, or 50 cents a gallon? Heck no, who does? But the oil companies would charge us that extra money anyway if they could. I'd feel better knowing that the money would be used to create domestic alternatives which will lead to lower prices in the future, something that they'd never choose to give us on their own.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
[But the oil companies would charge us that extra money anyway if they could. I'd feel better knowing that the money would be used to create domestic alternatives which will lead to lower prices in the future, something that they'd never choose to give us on their own.
If the Oil Companies are smart (big assumption, I know) they will become energy companies rather than oil companies. If an alternative was then available at a lower cost but still at a profit, it would become readily available.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
If the Oil Companies are smart (big assumption, I know) they will become energy companies rather than oil companies. If an alternative was then available at a lower cost but still at a profit, it would become readily available.
I don't think this is how capitalism works; why would they voluntarily and unilaterally make a move that would increase competition and lower their profits?
I think we're currently in the position where one big industry is fighting the other for energy control/profits. It has little to do with actual demand at this point, future demand certainly, but years, perhaps decades away yet.
I fully expect big oil to begin to check out geothermal as their primary alternative, while electrical power producers are attempting to corner other markets, primarily wind/solar and the natural gas markets.
The Chesapeake problems of late are due to their (and their entire industry, of which they are a major player) attempt to ride big oil to the upside, producing huge profits for reinvestment. Turns out, there's little actual relationship between natural gas and imported oil. But, they were attempting to create a market where there would be, with plans to require importation of liquified natural gas. Prices had to rise to do so. Same as for other alternatives, though wind is proving to be a self-sufficient alternate source.
We've seen what I'll just call collusion between natural gas producers and electrical energy providers lately which targets the public pricing policies of both. They need the additional profit (i.e., revenue) to corner these additional markets.
So, for anyone to even suggest energy is a 'free market' at this point is laughable.
The only demand-driven control at this point is on the international scale, and of concern primarily to mid-east producers.
quote:
Originally posted by HazMatCFO
Joe the Plumber asked Obama a few questions that Obama clumsly stumbled with and now the media is diverting attention from what Obama said by stripping down the poor sap who dared ask Obama a few questions. Obama came to this guy to talk, it wasn't like he's a McCain campaign plant who went to attack Obama.
Two questions:
1) The next time any democrat refers to a regular person in their campaign, you think the main stream media will strip this person bare and expose anything remotely questionable?
2) Since the pro-Obama media has now made an example of Joe the Plumber, you think any other average Joe will dare ask Obama a question that may trip him up?
You still don't get it. It wasn't his questions of Obama that brought him into the spotlight. No one would know who this guy was if McCain didn't sell him down the river in a political stunt. Whether Obama or McCain, you can count on the media to act like piranhas. As soon as McCain started mentioning this guy, the media was off in a feeding frenzy; they would have done the same for Obama. That's what they do. I am completely confident that many, many more people will question Obama about his policies. But, as long as neither party uses those questions as part of a campaign gimmick, you will never hear of them.
PS--I am not so sure he wasn't a plant.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Red Arrow
If the Oil Companies are smart (big assumption, I know) they will become energy companies rather than oil companies. If an alternative was then available at a lower cost but still at a profit, it would become readily available.
I don't think this is how capitalism works; why would they voluntarily and unilaterally make a move that would increase competition and lower their profits?
Did I say lower profits? No, I said lower cost but still at a profit. However, at some point in the future, lower profits may be better than no profits. If the oil companies don't diversify, they will eventually go away. I am thinking about the change from whale products to petroleum. If they are actually making such huge percentage profits now, even a reduction in profit may still give an acceptable return to shareholders.
Well well, speak up or out against Obama and get investigated by the state:
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
I am sure it was just a coincidence that a maxed out donor to Obama just happened to look into Joe the Plummer's child support payment history shortly after the third debate.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well well, speak up or out against Obama and get investigated by the state:
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
I am sure it was just a coincidence that a maxed out donor to Obama just happened to look into Joe the Plummer's child support payment history shortly after the third debate.
I love how some Republicans get all riled up over invasion of personal records after supporting eight years of "Eastern Germany" tactics perpetrated by the Bush Administration. The next thing you know they will turn feminist and start using the words "sexist" and "sexism" to defend Pali.....oh dang, nevermind.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well well, speak up or out against Obama and get investigated by the state:
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
I am sure it was just a coincidence that a maxed out donor to Obama just happened to look into Joe the Plummer's child support payment history shortly after the third debate.
I love how some Republicans get all riled up over invasion of personal records after supporting eight years of "Eastern Germany" tactics perpetrated by the Bush Administration. The next thing you know they will turn feminist and start using the words "sexist" and "sexism" to defend Pali.....oh dang, nevermind.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
Man, pass around what you've been smokin'. I guess you have no problem with what the state official did to Joe.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by mrburns918
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Well well, speak up or out against Obama and get investigated by the state:
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/27/copy/joe28.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
I am sure it was just a coincidence that a maxed out donor to Obama just happened to look into Joe the Plummer's child support payment history shortly after the third debate.
I love how some Republicans get all riled up over invasion of personal records after supporting eight years of "Eastern Germany" tactics perpetrated by the Bush Administration. The next thing you know they will turn feminist and start using the words "sexist" and "sexism" to defend Pali.....oh dang, nevermind.
Mr. Burns
Bob Barr for President
Man, pass around what you've been smokin'. I guess you have no problem with what the state official did to Joe.
No but the problem here is that you're linking the state official doing the inquiry to Obama with absolutely no proof that he had anything to do with it.
Wingnuttia in action. It will get uglier for the next week.
Wingnuttia?
Last I checked McCain did not have these folks in his camp:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77052
Come to think of it, this crew's demonstration is right up your alley.
Yes, Wingnuttia. When did you start chanelling Friendly Bear, Guido?
Sorry, but I don't see Hitler youth here.... What, a few black kids scare ya???
Geez.
And you get this from WorldNutDaily???... the same people who give us this...
How Obama prepped world for the Antichrist by Hal Lindsey (the guy who told us the planet alignment in 1982 would provide the gravitational pull to make "the rapture" a reality?!?)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=71144
Sleaze charge: 'I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama'
Minnesota man takes his case to court, YouTube, $100,000 polygraph challenge
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626
Yeah, pure class, Guido...... and all because you can't be asked to pay 3% higher taxes on income above $250,000.......
Go figure.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Yeah, pure class, Guido...... and all because you can't be asked to pay 3% higher taxes on income above $250,000.......
I think that's important to note. People are calling Obama a socialist over an extra $1500 in taxes per $50,000 over $250,000. Still, their tax rate will be about the same or lower than it was pre-Clinton.
Joe the Plumber should be killed.
Warning, explicit language:
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-supporter-kgo-libtalker-calls-for.html
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
What, a few black kids scare ya???
Nope, although they do scare me a crap ton more than panty waste soccer players.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Joe the Plumber should be killed.
Warning, explicit language:
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-supporter-kgo-libtalker-calls-for.html
How is this any worse than those in wingnuttia screaming 'off with his head'?
Seriously Gweed, two days left. You're not gonna make much of a mark. But McCain will love you for trying!
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
What, a few black kids scare ya???
Nope, although they do scare me a crap ton more than panty waste soccer players.
Here's an early Christmas present for ya'.... (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v701/Attaturk/7230_1-1.jpg)
Bring it on , you lying, traitor, sissy boy. [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Yeah, pure class, Guido...... and all because you can't be asked to pay 3% higher taxes on income above $250,000.......
I think that's important to note. People are calling Obama a socialist over an extra $1500 in taxes per $50,000 over $250,000. Still, their tax rate will be about the same or lower than it was pre-Clinton.
Your income is next.
So Red Arrow, I guess that makes you psychic... or an elitist.... or both...
"Your income is next?" Who do you think you are? Nostrademus?!?
Yeah, like the way Bill Clinton raised my taxes???? Not.
The Clinton administration gave us budget surpluses while your Bush administration and its sidekick Republican congress will have a legacy that will force future generations of Americans to either pay higher taxes or watch helplessly while working class seniors face draconian cuts in social security and/or medicare...
I want to shrink the size of Grover Nordquist's dittohead followers until they can be strangled in a bathtub...
Same ol' scare tactics from you anti-tax nutjobs. Same ol' arrogance. Use of fear. Pathelogical LYING about who's affected by Obama's tax plan....
You republican cheerleaders for OLIGARCHY and ENTRENCHED WEALTH AND PRIVILEDGE seem to have an intense disdain for the working poor... and you have fooled me into believing your CRAP about taxes before....
My taxes went up.... UNDER RONALD REAGAN!!!
And for the greater part of a decade working part time jobs while full-time in college, I watched as Ronald Reagan gave huge tax cuts for the wealthy that were supposed to trickle down, stimulate the economy and magically reduce the federal deficit.... it didn't happen that way, no matter how you guys keep trying to re-write history...
Reaganomics in the 80s dispensed upon us the Gramm-Rudman budget cuts.... AND I DO NOT WANT ANY OTHER STRUGGLING COLLEGE STUDENTS IN THEIR TWENTIES TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT ME AND MANY MANY OTHER STUDENTS HAD TO GO THROUGH...
You use the same FEAR TACTICS YOUR MISERABLE PARTY USED AGAINST THE CLINTON TAX CODE: it would be the biggest tax increase EVER!
Yet taxes weren't raised on the middle class in the Clinton era... the Bush tax cuts for inheritance and estate taxes were horribly irresponsible and the legacy left behind will make life harder over the long run for almost everybody who isn't related to Sam Walton....
Republican elitist class warfare has succeeded in duping the likes of Joe-the-Plumber...
Joe the Plumber and GOP 'Authenticity'
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122463199532056477.html
Joe's town may be circling the drain, but Joe's real concern, as the world knows, is that he might have to pay more taxes when his ship finally comes in. For good measure, Joe also declares Social Security "a joke": "I've never believed in it," he told reporters last week. Maybe that's because this realest of men knows that Social Security is just a hippie dream, despite the Census's insistence that 28% of his city's households received income from that source in 2003. Maybe all those people would be better off if we had invested Social Security's trust fund in WaMu and Wachovia -- you know, the real deal.
Here is the key to this whole strange episode: Government is artifice and imposition, a place of sexless bureaucrats and brie-eating liberals whose every touch contaminates God's work. Markets, by contrast, are natural, the arena in which real people prove their mettle. After all, as Mr. McCain said on Monday, small businessmen are just "Joe the Plumbers, writ large." Markets carry a form of organic authenticity that mere reality has no hope of touching.
This is not a good time for market-based authenticity, however. It now seems that those real, natural Americans who make markets go also cook the books, and cheat the shareholders, and hire lobbyists to get their way in Washington. They invent incomprehensible financial instruments and have now sent us into a crisis that none of them has any idea how to solve.
If that's nature, I'm ready for civilization.
------------------------------------------------
Amen.
/rant.
Okay. Even I think this is a stupid attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBMdWxcFXQg
Drudge has it headlined.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Okay. Even I think this is a stupid attack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBMdWxcFXQg
Drudge has it headlined.
You're right. It is stupid.
I'm afraid Drudge is losing his mind.
Sadly, this isn't hyperbole, because Drudge's mother was institutionalized for severe mental illness. And his odd little obsessions in recent years make me wonder whether he'll be next in the loony bin.