I'm just pointing out that a guy who can't pay taxes for 1,200 bucks can't buy a 250k business, bah who knows maybe the IRS isn't that hard after all. And he is a registered Republican, so whatever he's got to say is biased.Kmarion wrote:
Yes it's a big elaborate scheme. So big in fact that they didn't bother ask him.."hey are you a plumber?".. because they couldn't have picked any other occupation? He was telling Obama what he planned on doing. Who cares if he is a registered republican? Does that mean he can't ask a question? Or if he does he's got to be involved in some elaborate scheme? ..might as well been Kermit the frog. Why don't we talk about something that means anything? Joe the plumber was just a symbol. What Obama said wasn't even entirely bad. It's just his fans are so intent on catching some nefarious plot that they don't even focus on the issues that all of us face.sergeriver wrote:
Well, he is a registered Republican at least, and he doesn't own a licence to be plumber in Ohio. This was all staged by McCain. He used Joe the Plumber during the last debate 20 times. Cmon.Kmarion wrote:
Affiliate why? Because he was a scary conservative? In case you didn't notice Obama casually went up to him. But then what does it matter?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
It doesn't
Let me try it again, let's see, nope, I don't like it. The guy is now McCain's main strategy. At least that was what it seemed the other day when he mentioned Joe the plumber 20 times.FEOS wrote:
Oh c'mon, Dilbert...erm...rammunition...I mean serge.sergeriver wrote:
Well, he is a registered Republican at least, and he doesn't own a licence to be plumber in Ohio. This was all staged by McCain. He used Joe the Plumber during the last debate 20 times. Cmon.Kmarion wrote:
Affiliate why? Because he was a scary conservative? In case you didn't notice Obama casually went up to him. But then what does it matter?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
It doesn't
Don't we already have enough baseless conspiracy theories?
He's a registered Republican. Big deal. There are a lot of registered Republicans whole-heartedly supporting Obama. There are an even larger number still trying to decide if Obama is who they want to vote for (your truly included). What better way to determine that than by attending an Obama rally and asking the dude a question about what concerns you most?
Put the tinfoil hat away, serge. It doesn't suit you.
Of course he is.. everyone is biased to some degree. I prefer opposing viewpoint in open dialogue. It keeps people straight.
He's not a journalist ...
He's not a journalist ...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Hardly think Joe the Plumber as the guy we saw on television with Obama is McCains main strategy, it may have been so in the last debate and maybe not even then ... it was the concept of Joe the Plumber that he used and that turned out to be a political backfire as we never have seen before ... but the concept of Joe the Plumber, Electrician or whatever still makes a good debate ...sergeriver wrote:
Let me try it again, let's see, nope, I don't like it. The guy is now McCain's main strategy. At least that was what it seemed the other day when he mentioned Joe the plumber 20 times.FEOS wrote:
Oh c'mon, Dilbert...erm...rammunition...I mean serge.sergeriver wrote:
Well, he is a registered Republican at least, and he doesn't own a licence to be plumber in Ohio. This was all staged by McCain. He used Joe the Plumber during the last debate 20 times. Cmon.
Don't we already have enough baseless conspiracy theories?
He's a registered Republican. Big deal. There are a lot of registered Republicans whole-heartedly supporting Obama. There are an even larger number still trying to decide if Obama is who they want to vote for (your truly included). What better way to determine that than by attending an Obama rally and asking the dude a question about what concerns you most?
Put the tinfoil hat away, serge. It doesn't suit you.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
McCain has no strategy.
It was a good discussion. And frankly I'm encouraged by Obama's response. Joe's financial troubles aren't nearly as important to me. But to watch Olberfurer mocking him and literally laughing at the fact he makes less that 50k doesn't help dissuade the idea of the media elite .
It was a good discussion. And frankly I'm encouraged by Obama's response. Joe's financial troubles aren't nearly as important to me. But to watch Olberfurer mocking him and literally laughing at the fact he makes less that 50k doesn't help dissuade the idea of the media elite .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
McCain finally said it just now
"How can 95% of americans get a tax cut when 45% dont even pay tax?"
"How can 95% of americans get a tax cut when 45% dont even pay tax?"
That's abit of a mundane statement to make tbh. He's just capitalising on the fact that they accidentally said "Americans" instead of "American taxpayers" - Obviously not all Americans pay tax. That kind of rhetoric is playground rhetoric, picking up on individual words and then making a big deal out of it without getting or talking about the big picture. Actually that happens alot on this forum too.SealXo wrote:
McCain finally said it just now
"How can 95% of americans get a tax cut when 45% dont even pay tax?"
Sealxo, I bet you didn't even notice that.
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-10-19 13:56:25)
.. I guess they will get credits.. or since we will be bankrupt, maybe just handjobs in the oval office.SealXo wrote:
McCain finally said it just now
"How can 95% of americans get a tax cut when 45% dont even pay tax?"
Xbone Stormsurgezz
"95% of all working american families making less then 250,000 will see a tax cut, not a tax increase..." - BHO.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
That's abit of a mundane statement to make tbh. He's just capitalising on the fact that they accidentally said "Americans" instead of "American taxpayers" - Obviously not all Americans pay tax. That kind of rhetoric is playground rhetoric, picking up on individual words and then making a big deal out of it without getting or talking about the big picture. Actually that happens alot on this forum too.SealXo wrote:
McCain finally said it just now
"How can 95% of americans get a tax cut when 45% dont even pay tax?"
Sealxo, I bet you didn't even notice that.
Last edited by SealXo (2008-10-19 15:35:00)
McCain is a moron, and anyone who believes that lie: that 45% of 50% of Americans don't pay tax on their payroll are bigger morons.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-19 15:36:01)
http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/09/ … ncome-tax/topal63 wrote:
McCain is a moron, and anyone who believes that lie: that 45% of 50% of Americans don't pay tax on their payroll are bigger morons.
Like I said utter morons.
PS: I am not going to explain it to you... believe what ever stupid nonsense you want.
PS: I am not going to explain it to you... believe what ever stupid nonsense you want.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-19 15:43:34)
i don't even care where the money goes, its too fucking high.topal63 wrote:
Like I said utter morons.
PS: I am not going to explain it to you... believe what ever stupid nonsense you want.
people need to grow a pair and work to the top themselves.
obama thinks all these people making a lot of money got there on easyfuckingstreet and they're all hedge fund owners and shit. he fails to see many people in the high tax bracket worked all their lives to keep what they make not give more then half of it away.
if someone has to pay, say 60% i think EVERYONE should pay 60 fucking percents thats what i think fairness is.
Last edited by SealXo (2008-10-19 15:50:33)
Introduce a flat rate of tax and everyone could quite possibly be paying 60% in tax if not more. At the end of the day the rich will always be paying in a larger chunk of dollars - because they're more capable than those vulnerable and on the breadline. What you're talking about could only be implemented in a nation that has just been born - the economic upheaval in an established nation would be too much for that nation to bear.SealXo wrote:
if someone has to pay, say 60% i think EVERYONE should pay 60 fucking percents thats what i think fairness is.
It also doesn't allow for very refined taxation policy. A simple necessary tax increase could make millions homeless, leaving the more affluent largely untouched. Anarchy. It would have to be supported by significantly increased spending on social safety nets.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-19 16:02:35)
CameronPoe wrote:
A simple necessary tax increase could make millions homeless, leaving the more affluent largely untouched. Anarchy. It would have to be supported by significantly increased spending on social safety nets.
SealXo wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
A simple necessary tax increase could make millions homeless, leaving the more affluent largely untouched. Anarchy. It would have to be supported by significantly increased spending on social safety nets.
So you agree an Obama tax increase on the "wealthy" will cause unemployment?CameronPoe wrote:
SealXo wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
A simple necessary tax increase could make millions homeless, leaving the more affluent largely untouched. Anarchy. It would have to be supported by significantly increased spending on social safety nets.
It will be hard to tell the impact on employment amidst the unemployment caused by the credit crunch. If he increased public spending on infrastructure projects in tandem then it would lighten/negate the blow. At the end of the day society has to pay the bill for maintaining a functioning society. At the moment that tab does not seem to be being picked up. Eight years of unashamedly favouring the filthy rich doesn't seem to have created a bed of roses in the US.SealXo wrote:
So you agree an Obama tax increase on the "wealthy" will cause unemployment?CameronPoe wrote:
SealXo wrote:
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-19 16:14:30)
The wealthy are quickly disappearing.. pretty soon we won't have anyone to tax. At least under punish the rich plan.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I presume by that you advocate taxing the 'poor' - those earning less than $250k - more heavily? It's a two way street Kmar. Rich people provide capital with which products are produced and sold. All people, rich and poor, use their disposable income to buy those products. 'Poor' people also have to provide the labour to those that employ their capital. Cutting into their incomes isn't going to help all that much, especially when the capitalists are holding onto all their capital because they're shit scared of the markets right now.Kmarion wrote:
The wealthy are quickly disappearing.. pretty soon we won't have anyone to tax. At least under punish the rich plan.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-19 16:46:33)
Wait, so its a two way street. But you're also saying it should only be one way?CameronPoe wrote:
I presume by that you advocate taxing the 'poor' - those earning less than $250k - more heavily? It's a two way street Kmar. Rich people provide capital with which products are produced and sold. All people, rich and poor, use their disposable income to buy those products. 'Poor' people also have to provide the labour to those that employ their capital. Cutting into their incomes isn't going to help all that much, especially when the capitalists are holding onto all their capital because they're shit scared of the markets right now.Kmarion wrote:
The wealthy are quickly disappearing.. pretty soon we won't have anyone to tax. At least under punish the rich plan.
Last edited by SealXo (2008-10-19 16:49:34)
It has been one way for eight years has it not? Time to rebalance I would imagine. Although I openly admit I'm not an expert on US domestics. Just looking at your budget deficits alone would give one the impression taxation would have to increase, especially with capital being locked up safe away from the volatile markets right now and employment consequently nosediving, and it is only natural that those with the largest disposable incomes should take a hit, although everybody should take some level of hit.SealXo wrote:
Wait, so its a two way street. But you're also saying it should only be one way?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-10-19 16:55:23)
I am not stationary in the way I feel about taxes. I think different times require different plans. Clearly the situation has been abused. The corporate tax breaks did their job initially but they were left unchecked. Corporations became irresponsible. One of the primary reason I'm voting for Obama is because of his tax plan. It is in fact 95% the same as Bush's . And increasing the rate from 36% to 39% is moderate enough for me. Especially since he is eliminating capital gains tax.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So two wrongs makes a right?CameronPoe wrote:
It has been one way for eight years has it not? Time to rebalance I would imagine. Although I openly admit I'm not an expert on US domestics. Just looking at your budget deficits alone would give one the impression taxation would have to increase, especially with capital being locked up safe away from the volatile markets right now, and it is only natural that those with the largest disposable incomes should take a hit, although everybody should take some level of hit.SealXo wrote:
Wait, so its a two way street. But you're also saying it should only be one way?
Sure, I just don't see how obamacuts, 800 billion dollars of new spending, a tax cut for "95% of working americans" and a tax increase on the people who employ millions is going to help the deficit.
He's eliminating capital now? Jesus I can't keep up with his shit these days.Kmarion wrote:
I am not stationary in the way I feel about taxes. I think different times require different plans. Clearly the situation has been abused. The corporate tax breaks did their job initially but they were left unchecked. Corporations became irresponsible. One of the primary reason I'm voting for Obama is because of his tax plan. It is in fact 95% the same as Bush's . And increasing the rate from 36% to 39% is moderate enough for me. Especially since he is eliminating capital gains tax.