»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
You better say it ain't so, Joe!
| The Alley |
|
You better say it ain't so, Joe! |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Run and hide, Joe the plumber. You are finding out what happens when you cross a democrat. Simply because he asked a question to Obama about taxes being raised, he is now under full democratic and media (another term for democrat) attack. Media vans have taken residence in front of Joe's house. Information has been released that Joe is not a licensed plumber. Information has been released that he owes taxes. He has become fodder for the late night talk shows. Joe Biden claims there are no 250,000 a year plumbers in his neighborhood. Please raise your hands if you think that there are ANY plumbers living in Joe's neighborhood. Joe's position has been completely mischaracterized. He did not say he made that much. What he said was that he would like to buy a company that produced that much. The press, Obama and Biden have ignored that completely, preferring to crack jokes about the 250,000 plumber, the one without a license (which he doesn't need when working for someone else). Welcome, Joe. You are in good company. In Miami, three days ago, the story came out of a woman who found three federal agents at her door. Seems that an Acorn representative had called her, trying to enlist her to register and vote for Obama. She said that she had already decided to vote for McCain and hung up. The representative called federal authorities and told them the woman has said that she would like to see Obama dead, thus agents showed up at her door. There was no taped conversation, no proof of any kind and yet she was subjected to questioning based on nothing more than the Acorn worker's statement. The lady is a decent woman who should not have been subjected to this which the agents determined that the report was "probably false". Welcome, miss. You are in good company. Sarah Palin? We don't even have to go there, do we? The personal attacks against her have hit lows that are beyond belief, thanks to the Democrats and their propaganda machine, our mainstream press. Take the case of good old reverend Wright, for example. After his escapades came to light, there appeared stories that Sarah Palen attended church services in which the pastor said inappropriate things. A great job of investigative reporting on display there. Where was that wonderful investigative reporting with Obama, who claimed he had never attended a service in which the garbage flowed from the Wright pulpit? Did he or didn't he? It would certainly be easy enough to check. They had the dates of the slime sermons. Surely it wouldn't have taken much effort to find out if Obama had attended them or not. Did they even bother to check? either they didn't or they did, found out that Obama had indeed attended and didn't want to publish the fact that he was a liar. This is our mainstream press in action - and inaction. Next time, Joe, just keep quiet or chant something like "We LOVE Big Brother, er, Obama" and your life won't be dissected with a democratic scalpel. |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Uh, Mike? Wasn't it McCain who brought poor Joe into the national spotlight? That was probably a mistake for both of them. Turns out Joe admitted he would bring home more money, not less, if Obama's tax plan is enacted. Not great news for McCain, I would think. Ultimately, it seems Joe will, indeed, have to pay more taxes if he buys the plumbing business. However, if he's really serious about that purchase, Obama is going to help him save more money to make it happen. Go figure. That's NOT an endorsement for the Democratic tax plan, by the way. I personally think everyone should pay more. Or start spending a lot less. |
||
moonbeam
since 2005-12-24
Posts 2356 |
"Or start spending a lot less." Eureka! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I missed the part where Obama is going to save him more money so he could buy his business. could you enlighten me on that, please? McCain used the clip of Joe asking the question, yes. He didn't send Joe to the Democrat rally. Actually, it would seem that Joe was either leaning toward obama or trying to make up his mind be even attending the rally. What Mccain did was key in on the "redistribution of wealth' Obama answer. Now they've investigated him, misrepresented him, laughed at him and have their news vans parked at his house. If you want to claim that's McCain's fault for bringing him in, go ahead, but that's like blaming your friend for introducing you to the wife who is divorcing you. I also missed the part where Joe acknowledged he would be better off with Obama. If that were true, it would be a strong statement for Obama to use to nullify McCain's offensive. Instead he has crowds laughing about the "$250,000.00 plumber". Everyone should pay more? Even the over 40% who don't pay anything? That would be interesting to see. Yes, by all means, send more money into the government so they can use it as wisely as they always do. Lower your purchasing abilities so you can spend less and stagnate the economy even further. Let them eat cake!! Oh, I think that phrase has already been used  Individuals deciding to spend less on their own? There we are in complete agreement....at last.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: See, that's not the way I've been reading it, Mike. Joe was a registered Republican in the past and has readily admitted he's a McCain supporter (though he hasn't yet directly said how he intends to vote). He's also admitted he wanted his question to "throw" Senator Obama. Couple that with what we know of Joe's precarious financial situation, and my personal take is that Joe was being, shall we say, disingenuous. I think Joe's dream of buying a successful plumbing business is right up there with his fervent hope to win the Ohio state lottery. I have a lot of sympathy for people who inadvertently find themselves in the public eye. You're right, Mike, the media can be merciless, often unfairly so. Not this time, though. I think Joe should have made sure he wasn't living in a glass house before he reached down to pick up his first stone. By the way, I had a chance this morning to take a closer look at Obama's tax plan (PDF document). There's a lot there I don't like, Mike, and a lot more I think is very unclear, but no where in the document will you find the phrase "gross income." On the contrary, when talking about ordinary income, the document states, "The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990's levels ... " Tax brackets, of course, are based on net income, after deductions, not gross income. Honestly, I would have been very surprised (nearly horrified) to learn Obama's $250K ceiling represented a business's gross revenue; the cost of doing business is too disparate across industries for that to make any sense at all. In short, Mike, I think you can safely hire ten new employees, with all the accompanying expenses, and not necessarily have to worry about your taxes going up just because revenue does. I think it's safe to say income tax liability will continue to follow profit, not revenue, just as it has since first enacted into law. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: Do you have a source on this, Mike? I find it difficult to believe that this, if documented, would bother you at all, since you have defended the government's right to do exactly this sort of thing against "terrorists" for as long as I have been sharing my outrage against the Patriot act with you. Standards of proof have more or less gone out the window in investigations of this sort with the Patriot act, haven't they, Mike? And you've been telling me that we have nothing to fear if we've done nothing wrong. When I've said to you that even if you trusted the current administration (and I don't, profoundly so), there would be no guarantee that future administrations would not abuse such powers, you were dismissive. 1) I would like to see the references, because a lot of rumors get spread during campaigns, and your good-hearted open-ness makes you an easy victim to them — witness the gross-income/net income rumor you were apparently mislead by that Ron pointed out above. 2) I'd like to know why you would think this would be an abuse of power, given your position that should such a person actually be innocent she has nothing to fear. I think, if it's true, and the report is accurate, that it seems like an abuse of power to me, but then I've always thought that this sort of thing was an abuse of power. You have been steadfast in your belief that this is not the case and whatever the government does against such "terrorists" must be right. You think this particular evidence is flimsy? I say that as long as the evidence against such "terrorists" is not public and open to examination, it will always be flimsy and subject to abuse. You and I may both be grateful that torture has not yet been applied (should the situation be real) to gain a "confession." If it has not. I would remind you that you have stated you are in favor of such procedures as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, stress positions and other things labled internationally as torture to coerce confessions. If you are trying to gain the sympathies of democrats by making such complaints, you already have it. If you are trying to gain the sympathies of the same people who've been leading the charge against people's rights to be confronted by their accusors, a speedy trial, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and extra-legal actions by the state — the current administration and those who have supported it — heaven knows what you'll have to do. You challenged me at one point to come up with one point where my personal rights had been abridged, and discounted my response. Do you feel that this, should it be real, is an abridgement of rights? Would this count? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks for the file, Ron. I have some reading to do I did see, skimming it, that Obama promises no capital gains taxes for entrepreneurs and investors in small business. Ive never heard THAT before.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OBAMA TAX PLAN RAISES BIG BRACKET By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief June 14, 2008 WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama called yesterday for jacking up the payroll tax, which would slap top wage earners with tens of thousands of dollars in additional fees. Under his plan - which would be the largest tax hike in at least a decade - the 6.2 percent payroll tax would be applied to the entire income of workers making $250,000 or more a year. Currently, that rate applies only to the first $102,000 of income. "That way, we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden onto seniors," he said yesterday. Social Security is slated for bankruptcy after years of the federal government raiding it. A worker making $200,000 a year would pay no additional payroll taxes under Obama's plan. But anyone making $250,000 a year or more would pay 6.2 percent in payroll taxes on their entire income - not just on their first $102,000. Though Obama's tax-hike plan is still vague, it appears the tax would apply also to employers who match workers' payments, amounting to another proposed tax increase on businesses. http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142008/news/nationalnews/obama_tax_plan_raises_big_bracket_115443.htm Obama, Tax increases, Economy, Obama plan hurts everyone, Obama lied about taxes, Truth about Obama tax plan October 17, 2008 · 22 Comments Barack Obama continues to state he will only tax incomes over $ 250,000 and that 95% of taxpayers will get a tax cut. Does it make sense to you that Obama will increase spending by more than a trillion dollars, increase taxes on business and that will be good for the economy. If you think about it for just a minute you will agree that it does not pass the common sense, the smell test. The following data comes from the IRS for the year 2003 and reveals the number of businesses with revenue over $ 250,000 in 2003. From IRS statistics in 2003: Revenue Range Number of businesses $250,000 - $500,000 1,331,692 $500,000 - $1,000,000 932,914 $1,000,000 - $2,500,000 686,257 $2,500,000 - $5,000,000 263,211 $5,000,000 - $10,000,000 143,693 $10,000,000 - $50,000,000 124,568 $50,000,000 - Above 32,040 Many of you work for a company that falls into one of those categories. Now lets examine the pratical consequences of Obama raising taxes on these companies: Obama states that he will raise taxes on incomes above $ 250,000. Look at the number of businesses affected above. When businesses pay more taxes, they must do one or more of the following: * Increase the price of their products or services, thus affecting consumers. * Cut other costs such as salaries, jobs or investment in new technologies such as energy. * Move to a country with less taxes. * Some companies will go out of business due to profits declining, increased taxes and lower sales, when prices increase. Corporations are primarily taxed three ways. Once on the corporate income, next on dividends and then on the sale of stock. If you are a retiree and own stock, you will have less money because the corporation will have less profit and if you sell the stock you will pay more tax on the sale. Government is extremely inefficient. $ 1,000 taken from a business will remove money that drives the economy, creates more jobs and ultimately brings more revenue for the government. That $ 1,000 will be wasted in government bureacracy and overhead. Obama is using this old lie to appeal to his core support that is promised everything by politicians that use them to win elections. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took part in a debate several months ago hosted by Charlie Gibson. Gibson asked Obama about his plan to raise the capital gains tax. Then Gibson pointed out that studies have shown that lowering the capital gains tax increases government revenues and is good for the economy. Obama began stammering and stuttering and in one of the most revealing moments of the election, Obama’s lack of understanding of the economy and taxes was made clear. Obama was unable to rely on a canned teleprompter response. http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/obama-tax-increases-economy-obama-plan-hurts-everyone-obama-lied-about-taxes-truth-about-obama-tax-plan/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, you state..... I don't like social security, medicare, national health care, unemployment benefits, welfare, or any of the other dozen or so socialist programs based on taking from those who have and giving to those who have not. ...and also I personally think everyone should pay more Ok, Ron. I'll bite...huh? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGhTw82j998&feature=related |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Mike, please explain to Mr. Hurt that taxes in America aren't based on revenue. Taxes are calculated on what we keep after deductions, which is obviously going to include normal business expenses. Mr. Hurt would have us believe that GM (which is losing money every quarter) would have their taxes increased because they have a lot of revenue? It doesn't work that way now and there's no way it's going to work that with Obama in office. As Mr. Hurt so eloquently says, it doesn't pass the smell test. quote: This is a prime example of taking from the rich to give to the poor. FICA has always been capped on the input because it is necessarily capped on the output. Bill Gates essentially can't draw any more social security than you and I can. It therefore makes sense he shouldn't have to pay in any more than you and I do. In my opinion, this part of Obama's plan does exactly what he says it will do, and exactly what I think he wants it to do. It increases the burden on the wealthiest. If one accept that goal as worth pursuing, I think this bodes well for the rest of Obama's plan. It indicates he knows how to get where he wants to go. quote: You left out the important alternative, Mike. Or start spending a lot less. I don't believe in bread and circuses. I don't believe in entitlements. I think the unfortunates of this world, of which there are far too many, should be cared for through private endeavors. Family. Church. Organizations like the Red Cross or Salvation Army. People should help people. NOT the government, which historically does it very poorly while simultaneously diluting the individual's motivation to help. I don't like any system where a single mother who made a few mistakes gets the same consideration as the drunk or addict who continues to make the same mistakes every day. However, having said all that, if the people of this country insist on voting themselves more bread and circuses, I think those same people should be the ones who have to pay for them. You shouldn't hit yourself in the head with a hammer and expect someone else to bear the pain, because ultimately, pain is the only way we learn what hurts. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
More hysterical ACORN nonsense: In googling "ACORN Convictions," I came across this link under "Acorn Convictions. http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2375 I don't expect anyone to read this, because, aside from the inane rant at the head of the post, which, incidentally CITES NO ACORN convictions, despite the google category, it is on a Liberal or Moderate web site. I also include this extract from a comment in the thread: "So, when you hear someone getting hysterical about ACORN and voter fraud, remember: Five years, unprecedented resources, across the country, not one case (against ACORN)was even prosecuted, let alone a conviction." A little bit further down which won't be read either, there is a statment from ACORN the organization, concerning cetrain dumb-ass employees who thought the "point" was to get paid for as many forms as they could possibly turn in. These employees WERE prosecuted. Who turned over the documents to resulted in these prosecutions? ACORN! How many prosecutions and convictions for voter registration fraud of these contract employees were there? Eight. Over five years, nationwide. I say again, ACORN, the organization, has NEVER been prosecuted for nor convicted of ANYTHING. But why bother with facts when fear mongering is so much more amusing? Me, I think I'll go visit my e-pal Mike in Florida, and see if I can hang a few chads to steal the election while I'm at it, but only after we go fishing and down a couple of cold ones. Best, Jimbeaux |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Oh, and Mike: The below is an anecdote. It has no credibility. There was no prosecution. There is no indication of pending prosecution. In fact, there is no reason to believe it is truthful at all. If one believed everything one read in the newspapers, the LA Dodgers have already won the world series. "In Miami, three days ago, the story came out of a woman who found three federal agents at her door. Seems that an Acorn representative had called her, trying to enlist her to register and vote for Obama. She said that she had already decided to vote for McCain and hung up. The representative called federal authorities and told them the woman has said that she would like to see Obama dead, thus agents showed up at her door. There was no taped conversation, no proof of any kind and yet she was subjected to questioning based on nothing more than the Acorn worker's statement. The lady is a decent woman who should not have been subjected to this which the agents determined that the report was "probably false". What the anecdote as quoted doesn't mention is that the actions ascribed to the Acorn worker, having no taped conversations, no proof of any kind, ever occurred. Maybe her next door neighbor was a busy-body who objected to her talking to an Acorn man/woman in the first place and turned in this "probably false" report out of spite. The anecdote just doesn't hold water. I hope your boat does, Mike, 'cause when I visit to go fishing and rig the election, I'd hate for either of us to drown in a sea of allegations. Best, Jimbeaux [This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (10-19-2008 01:30 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
