The Palin-izing of Joe the Plumber

[TulsaFan-inTexas]

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.

[guido911]

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.

[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.

[Red Arrow]

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.  

[Chicken Little]

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...

[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.

[Chicken Little]

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?

[Wrinkle]

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.

[guido911]

[/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?

[nathanm]

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.

[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?  

[Chicken Little]

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.

[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?

[Wrinkle]

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.

[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.