meazza Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Does the rich guy even have to look up a link for you so you can give to charity? I guess the poor really ARE lazy.
meazza Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Again, slowly this time, it's not the money. It's the mandate that I must take something I sacrificed for and give it to someone who gets it simply because, as Obama put it, they're behind me. If fact, I would ALMOST go so far as to say "I'll meet you in the middle. I'll give up the $1400 but I'm the one who gets to decide who gets it. Here's a kid in school, working two jobs to pay his tuition while maintaining a 3.5 GPA. I'll give HIM the money to pay for school." But that's not the way it works, and THAT is what bothers me. When you give free money to people who have no plans for their life, you only enable their lack of motivation. Why is everyone having such a hard time with that thinking? We have a program here called Benefice Sociale which is basically for the supreme lower income residents. Of course (and this is proven) a lot of the people on this program refuse to try and find jobs because they will be withdrawn from this privilege. Of course when the state tried to abolish this program, it came with protests about the "greedy government".
The Big Cat Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Again, slowly this time, it's not the money. It's the mandate that I must take something I sacrificed for and give it to someone who gets it simply because, as Obama put it, they're behind me. If fact, I would ALMOST go so far as to say "I'll meet you in the middle. I'll give up the $1400 but I'm the one who gets to decide who gets it. Here's a kid in school, working two jobs to pay his tuition while maintaining a 3.5 GPA. I'll give HIM the money to pay for school." But that's not the way it works, and THAT is what bothers me. When you give free money to people who have no plans for their life, you only enable their lack of motivation. Why is everyone having such a hard time with that thinking? So my question is, where do you find this kid? Is he your nephew? Or do all penniless students have to apply to be put into a pool where they await charitable donations like yours?
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Again, slowly this time, it's not the money. It's the mandate that I must take something I sacrificed for and give it to someone who gets it simply because, as Obama put it, they're behind me. If fact, I would ALMOST go so far as to say "I'll meet you in the middle. I'll give up the $1400 but I'm the one who gets to decide who gets it. Here's a kid in school, working two jobs to pay his tuition while maintaining a 3.5 GPA. I'll give HIM the money to pay for school." But that's not the way it works, and THAT is what bothers me. When you give free money to people who have no plans for their life, you only enable their lack of motivation. Why is everyone having such a hard time with that thinking? Whao Marc buddy. I was all behind you until you made that silly statement.
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 $1400 dollars. A person making 250k makes $1400 in three days. Three days. Any idea how much plumbing equipment $1400 can buy? Well really, neither do I but you understand that's $1400 taken out of the economy and sucked down the big black hole called the government. How much of that $1400 actually makes it down to Ditch Digger Dan? Probably not a whole hell of a lot.
The Big Cat Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Any idea how much plumbing equipment $1400 can buy? Well really, neither do I but you understand that's $1400 taken out of the economy and sucked down the big black hole called the government. How much of that $1400 actually makes it down to Ditch Digger Dan? Probably not a whole hell of a lot. And for everyone who gets the $1400, may be enough of them can finally afford to actually CALL a plumber that he makes the 1400 back, and then some.
blzrul Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Joe the Plumber's Taxes "Less than 2% would pay more under Obama's plan".
blzrul Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Actually, the wealthiest people tend to value their money a lot more than the poorest people. I think that's the reason they got their in the first place, because they spent their money wisely. Or in the case of Bush and McCain, they inherited or married it.
Lurker Posted October 16, 2008 Author Posted October 16, 2008 Joe the Plumber's Taxes"Less than 2% would pay more under Obama's plan". No use quoting stuff like this, since people's minds are already filled up with "common knowledge" that trumps any resonable analysis.
ieatcrayonz Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Or in the case of Bush and McCain, they inherited or married it. Is Bush from the family that makes the baked beans? To be fair you should include Kerry in there because there is no way he marries tha hag without all of the ketchup money. They should definitely have a requirement that all senators and presidents are rich and not from inheritance or marriage. This way no poor people get in there trying to steal money and none of the frat boy types get in either. People like John Edwards who got rich by bilking his clients out of 33% because he got them money from corportations so they didn't care about a third are the type of people we need running the show. I don't think you can do it in the house though because no way can 400 + people figure out how to be really good scheisters like Edwards.
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 So my question is, where do you find this kid? Is he your nephew? Or do all penniless students have to apply to be put into a pool where they await charitable donations like yours? It doesn't have to be a penniless student, but it does need to be someone who can prove that they will do something with the money that will better their life. Back when I went to college in NY in the early 80s, I didn't have enough money, but NYS had grants available if you qualified...somewhere around $800 per semester. I can't remember the acronym anymore. But if you qualified based on income, grades, etc., you would keep getting the grant. BUT, the caveat was that the grant was paid directly to the college to pay for tuition. The money didn't go to me. I supplemented it by working two jobs, one on campus and one waiting tables at a Chinese restaurant in downtown Rochester. I held up my end of the bargain and was able to meet the criteria, and in turn, I earned an advanced education. So I'm not going to devise a plan on how to run it, and obviously it's not strictly for education, but if the government is going to MAKE me give up more money to help others, then there MUST be accountability on behalf of the people who are going to receive this free money. The problem is, left or right, government is too big, and when government is too big, it can't possibly police the accountability issue. It's got bad written all over it. But it wins votes, so I guess that's something.
KD in CA Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Unlicensed and working as a plumber. I believe the next knock on his door will be from some representatives of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 189, Columbus, Ohio. Joe the Plumber scab, meet Joe the Union Plumber. Yeah, maybe they'll beat the crap out of him! God forbid anyone should be free to pursue their own line of work or to come up with their own opinions. More "progressive" brilliance.
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 No one is knocking small businesses down. Less than 2% of small businesses will see an increase. A guy making a quarter million dollar profit bitching about an extra $1400 tax is pretty obscene. Where are you getting $1400 from? Increasing the tax rate from 33% to 36% is a 3% increase. Three percent of $250,000 is $7,500. For this "rich" person that is more than three mortgage payments. That's about half of what I put into my SEP IRA. That's more than half what I put into my 401k. If I took that $7500 per year and put it into my retirement in 20 years that grows to $370,000. The government forces me to take that money out over time. At a 33% tax bracket that's over $100,000 I'd pay in taxes. So the government is !@#$ing itself.
Lurker Posted October 16, 2008 Author Posted October 16, 2008 Where are you getting $1400 from? Increasing the tax rate from 33% to 36% is a 3% increase. "But he would pay the higher tax only on the amount that exceeds the cutoff - in 2007, the two top tax rates applied to single filers with income of $160,850"
Chef Jim Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Joe the Plumber's Taxes"Less than 2% would pay more under Obama's plan". Less than 2% of small business owners would pay more. What about people making over $250k that are not considered small business owners? Oh that's right we're not talking about the.
The Big Cat Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 It doesn't have to be a penniless student, but it does need to be someone who can prove that they will do something with the money that will better their life. Back when I went to college in NY in the early 80s, I didn't have enough money, but NYS had grants available if you qualified...somewhere around $800 per semester. I can't remember the acronym anymore. But if you qualified based on income, grades, etc., you would keep getting the grant. BUT, the caveat was that the grant was paid directly to the college to pay for tuition. The money didn't go to me. I supplemented it by working two jobs, one on campus and one waiting tables at a Chinese restaurant in downtown Rochester. I held up my end of the bargain and was able to meet the criteria, and in turn, I earned an advanced education. So I'm not going to devise a plan on how to run it, and obviously it's not strictly for education, but if the government is going to MAKE me give up more money to help others, then there MUST be accountability on behalf of the people who are going to receive this free money. The problem is, left or right, government is too big, and when government is too big, it can't possibly police the accountability issue. It's got bad written all over it. But it wins votes, so I guess that's something. Now we're getting somewhere. (See: Obama's response last night on how to fix education) It's either a money issue, or it's a reform issue. Based on what you've written above, it's NOT a money issue (thankfully). You will hear no arguments from me, NONE WHATSOEVER, when it comes to the need for government reform Defense, welfare, prison, education, voter, so on and so on, it ALL needs reformed, gutted, and re-evaluated.. I've already said that I'm not entirely certain I'll vote Obama. I'm definitely NOT voting for McCain. The problem is, the system isn't going to change, and everybody knows it. Now we're getting close to the "two-party" argument, but the fact of the matter remains: when you vote for a president, you essentially have two options and NEITHER of them will completely retool the system (sadly). So, you're left to vote for someone who at least has ideas that might make a difference. Earlier I asked you specifically where you think your money will go, a question you (conveniently, perhaps) ignored. You seem to have a problem with your money going to entitlement programs, and based on how those programs have been mismanaged, I don't blame you. But wouldn't those programs only receive a fraction of your $1400 (a number i think we can all agree is just a fabrication at this point)? Wouldn't your $1400 be split between entitlement, defense, energy, education, public works, infrastructure, yadda yadda yadda? Now, you've steered your argument just a bit so I want to clarify: you oppose a mandated allotment of your money based on the government's inability to demonstrate effective spending? Or do you oppose in whose hands your money will ultimately land?
Kelly the Dog Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 My big problem with the whole Joe the Plumber nonsense is that John McCain, in arguably the most important night of his political life, made this guy his poster boy for all that is bad about his opponent, and all that is good about his own economic plan, and emblematic of the hard working little guy in America who is getting screwed by big government and taxes without knowing one friggin' thing about Joe the Plumber. The same thing he basically did with Sarah Palin. So if looking into this guy's life and past and licenses and tax liens and voter registrations, etc, is tearing him apart, blame it on McCain, who mentioned Joe 21 times in the debate.
The Big Cat Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 My big problem with the whole Joe the Plumber nonsense is that John McCain, in arguably the most important night of his political life, made this guy his poster boy for all that is bad about his opponent, and all that is good about his own economic plan, and emblematic of the hard working little guy in America who is getting screwed by big government and taxes without knowing one friggin' thing about Joe the Plumber. The same thing he basically did with Sarah Palin. So if looking into this guy's life and past and licenses and tax liens and voter registrations, etc, is tearing him apart, blame it on McCain, who mentioned Joe 21 times in the debate. Which is more times than he's actually used the words "middle class" in all three debates combined.
UBinVA Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Dude - McCain is the one that's making hay over him, which naturally now has the media investigating him. Naturally the media should investigate a guy who actually ask Obama a question that he answered like a good Marxist. The media can investigate this guy but can't even investigate the actual Presidential Candidate himself. You people on the left are truly pathetic. Obama wouldn't even be able to get a security clearance based on the questions they ask about associations to radical groups and anti-American activities. But if he's an elected official it all doesn't matter. He'll have the keys to the car and drive it right off the cliff.
The Big Cat Posted October 16, 2008 Posted October 16, 2008 Naturally the media should investigate a guy who actually ask Obama a question that he answered like a good Marxist. The media can investigate this guy but can't even investigate the actual Presidential Candidate himself. You people on the left are truly pathetic. Obama wouldn't even be able to get a security clearance based on the questions they ask about associations to radical groups and anti-American activities. FALSE
Recommended Posts