Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Attacking the average Joe?

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Regenmacher
 


Thank you very much


Unfortunately many have their rose-colored glasses specifically calibrated to filter that out. People don't want to acknowledge the fact McCain believes in re-distribution of wealth so much that he even paused his campaign for it.




posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by RKWWWW

The news reports are right. Joe is an unlicensed plumber. I'm not disputing that. Like I said There may be 2-3 unlicensed guys at the job site doing the "grunt" work. If you asked one of those guys what he does for a living he'd say. "I'm a plumber". Just like Joe the plumber did.

Then he'd be a lier and would be misrepresenting himself. That's like a crossing guard calling themselves a police officer.


It's irrelevent how many plumbers you know that you think do not have the money to buy a plumbing business. None of them are the plumber in Ohio whom you know abosolutely nothing about as far as his finances go. For all you know he's going to inherit a millon bucks.


So a grunt has more money then a bunch of solid, experienced plumbers??? Unlikely.
The reality is that "joe" has been operating an unlicensed plumbing business as if he were licensed which is ILLEGAL. He can be fined or go to jail or both. That's my whole point.
It makes the whole trade look bad when unlicensed hacks pretend to be something they're not.



You're not a psychic, so you couldn't possible know if "joe" has the money to buy a plumbing business or not. You're not a lawyer, so you couldn't possibly know enough about joe circumstances to make a judgement about his legal risks. In fact you don't even have the facts correct. He isn't running his own business, he's working for Allan Newell, an licensed plumber in the State of Ohio.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by RKWWWW]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Funny how those who initially caste blame are usually more guilty of the same thing, and damn strange why people can't see it for what it is e.g. psychological projection.

Over the years, it's seems to me that many people are actually de-evolving from independent critical thought and sliding more towards group-think slave mentality roles. Joe the plumber is easily recognizable as a media stooge that is used to manipulate naive folks, but others can not see it. Go figure, after 8 years of Bush's fraud, I would of thought people would not be so gullible and easily played by the same old con games.

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RKWWWW

You're not a lawyer, so you couldn't possibly know enough about joe circumstances to make a judgement about his legal risks.

Of course I can espouse his legal risks. You see there are several parts to the written portion of all trade tests including plumbing. There is the practical portion and the business/legal portion. I am a licensed builder and have taken and passed the required tests and know the content regarding his legal risks.


In fact you don't even have the facts correct. He isn't running his own business, he's working for Allan Newell, an licensed plumber in the State of Ohio.
[edit on 18-10-2008 by RKWWWW]


So then "joe" isn't a plumber now is he?



[edit on 18-10-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 18-10-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by tide88

First off Joe can get a license.

Yes but he doesn't have one NOW which means he's been breaking the law by practicing a trade without a license.


It really isnt that hard. In florida it is an open book test, although you really need to know your stuff because you have multiple books.

According to the state of Florida, this is what you need for the plumbers test



To qualify for the examination you must be at least 18 years old. You must also meet one of the following requirements:

* Four year construction-related degree from an accredited college (equivalent to three years experience) and one year proven related experience
* One year of experience as a foreman and not less than three years of credits for any accredited college-level courses
* One year experience as a workman, one year proven experience as a foreman, and two years of credits for any accredited college level courses
* Two years experience as a workman, one year experience as a foreman, and one year of credits for any accredited college level courses
* Four years experience as a workman or foreman of which at least one year must have been as a foreman
* Holding an active certified or registered Florida contractor's license

www.contractors-license.org...

Yes, so as long as you have worked for a plumbing company for 4 years you can get a license. If you are capable of passing and are taking the test it is more than likely you already have been a foreman. Joe need 5 years experience to be able to take the test. He is working legally under his boses license. Visit the link I posted. He is legit. He said he will be taking the test soon. His boss can tell the state he has been a foreman. There really is no way to check to see if it is true.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
JOE DOESNT NEED A LICENSE ONE MORE TIME HE STILL IS LEGIT CLICK HERE FOR LINK JFJ123reply to post by jfj123
 


I know a lot of plumbers who work for plumber companies. They do not have licenses. But when filling out an application and it asks what they do, they would put down plumber. As I said before I have a friend who owns one of the largest plumbing company is SW Fl. and has over 100+ employees. The only ones that have their licenses are him, his dad, and two sisters. The other are just on the job trained employees. I am a painting contractor, when I hire someone they do not need a painting license. I train them and teach them how to work efficiently. They are legally working under my license and insurance. I pay insurance for each and every one of them. Again Joe is a Plumber and he is legit. JOE DOESNT NEED A LICENSE ONE MORE TIME HE STILL IS LEGIT CLICK HERE FOR LINK JFJ123


[edit on 18-10-2008 by tide88]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88 Again Joe is a Plumber and he is legit.


Agreed, Joe the plumber is a "legitimate moron" used to distract people so they waste time on trivial crap and to sell them on false promises about tax cuts, while the economy is crumbling to where Joe has no job.

Joe Six-Pack, Joe the Plumber, Joe Jobless Reuters

For evidence of the consequences of this decline, we have to look no further than the nation's crumbling physical foundation -- unsafe roads and skies, collapsing bridges, breaking levies, understaffed emergency rooms.

As unemployment rises and more jobs across the technology, financial, retail and other sectors decline, an emphasis on helping more individuals move into skilled trades and rewarding those who are working in them will not only be good for Joe Six Pack and Joe Plumber, it will provide opportunity for the fastest growing group of Joes - Joe Jobless.


[edit on 18-10-2008 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 
Depends on the plumber, and how hard he humps it. If a plumber hustles contracts from businesses, does a good job, and maintains a good reputation, he can make a lot more than $47k. I don't know if he can hit 250k or not, but I know they charge more per hour than I make.
And Joe was talking about buying a business. I had the impression he would have several trucks, which would indicate several people working for him.
As far as licensing, I don't know what the laws are in Joe's particular state.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
JOE DOESNT NEED A LICENSE ONE MORE TIME HE STILL IS LEGIT CLICK HERE FOR LINK JFJ123reply to post by jfj123
 


I know a lot of plumbers who work for plumber companies. They do not have licenses.

Then they are not plumbers.
They are only plumbers if they have a license that says they are plumbers. That's what the license is for. They can work for a plumber and apprentice but THEY ARE NOT PLUMBERS.


I am a painting contractor, when I hire someone they do not need a painting license.

They don't as long as you have your M & A or builders license. If you don't have one, you cannot take jobs that are over $600 material and labor included.


Again Joe is a Plumber and he is legit.

Until he takes the test and passes it, he's not a plumber he just works for one.
That's like saying that since I have a builders license, any general labor I hire can legally say they're a licensed builder. Nonsense.



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Will this help?

www.merriam-webster.com...




plumber

Main Entry: plumb·er
Pronunciation: \ˈplə-mər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French plummer, plomner, from Latin plumbarius, from plumbum
Date: 15th century
1 : a dealer or worker in lead
2 : one who installs, repairs, and maintains piping, fittings, and fixtures involved in the distribution and use of water in a building
3 : a person whose job is to prevent or put an end to leaks of sensitive information


When you type in "licensed plumber", it goes berzerk. So there you have it, a play on words. Although for the record I wouldn't call a woman to takes blood for a living a doctor, I'm willing to draw the line somewhere.


[edit on 10/18/2008 by TheRooster]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRooster
Will this help?

www.merriam-webster.com...




plumber

Main Entry: plumb·er
Pronunciation: \ˈplə-mər\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French plummer, plomner, from Latin plumbarius, from plumbum
Date: 15th century
1 : a dealer or worker in lead
2 : one who installs, repairs, and maintains piping, fittings, and fixtures involved in the distribution and use of water in a building
3 : a person whose job is to prevent or put an end to leaks of sensitive information


When you type in "licensed plumber", it goes berzerk. So there you have it, a play on words. Although for the record I wouldn't call a woman to takes blood for a living a doctor, I'm willing to draw the line somewhere.


[edit on 10/18/2008 by TheRooster]


Not really. The legal definition is different. But thanks



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Actually a builder is completely different. Of course if you are a builder. you are hiring skilled laborers to do your work. You would hire a dry wall person, carpenter, painter, concrete guy, etc. You may have skilled laborers that know how to do the following and are allowed to do so under your contractors license. I have my painting contractor license. I took an extensive test. A lot of it had to do with osha laws. You as a builder are able to use your own people, if you are insured, or you sub your work to sub contractors or companies. Maybe you subcontract your plumbing work out to a plumbing company. When you do this, does only the owner of the company, the one with the license do this work? Highly unlikely. Unless you are building dinky houses that a two man crew can do. Otherwise, This company will have many plumbers that work for them. As long as they are working under a licensed and insured plumbing company they can do the work legally. When I call a plumbing company they send out their workers, who are plumbers. The owners of the company do not come out there. And these mexicans sure as hell are not licensed. They are plumbers however. Maybe not a plumbing contractor, but nevertheless they are indeed plumbers. And if you ask what they do, they say they are plumbers. And on their tax returns they list their occupation as plumbers, as they do on evey other contract or application they may fill out. And dont go claiming to know everthing about painting either. Every state has different rules. In florida I need to have a painting contractors license. I can do whatever size job I want, as long as I am insured for it. Hell, some states you dont even need to be a licensed painter. I have had up to 50 people working for me and my license and insurance has been checked many times by the county and city. My company is as legit as it comes. But you are right about one thing. People working for you wouldnt be builders. Painter License

[edit on 18-10-2008 by tide88]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRooster
 


"3 : a person whose job is to prevent or put an end to leaks of sensitive information"

No-one has picked up on the Watergate connection yet?

Yes, Joe the Plumber is nothing more than a distraction.

Yes, America will have to flip a coin between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

Just don't think The USA has the monopoly on self-interested elite politicians...



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
This thread amazes me.
First off I neither support Obama or McCain - lets get that out of the way.
Like Pieman, I'm having difficulty grasping where this partisan finger point is coming from.

This Joe guy who is a McCain supporter didn't think Obama was answering tough enough questions and tried to trap him with a "doozey"

Obama responds with "Spread the wealth around" [via taxes mind you]
People respond "AHA! SOCIALIST! BOO HISS!"

And this surprises anyone why? Democrats in general have always had socialist type tendencies. Where is the freaking issue here? You don't like it, don't vote for him. I'm not. If other people like it then they'll vote for him.
THAT SIMPLE!

This will not make America a socialist country - so get over it.
McCain in office will not be another Bush - so get over it.
But this whole socialist concept is getting rediculous.
Oh and about Joe the plummer - if he didn't want to be the target of the MSM he should have told McCain to shut the hell up about him and stop trying to use him as a proxy.



The problem is, it becomes a socialist agenda when you redistribute the wealth, per Obamas plan.


Tax Cuts, real and imaginary
Obama's spending programs in disguise.
by Newt Gingrich & Peter Ferrara
09-15-2008 Volume 14 Issue 1

Thirty years of Republican tax policy have now completely eliminated federal income taxes on the poor and lower middle-income Americans, and almost eliminated them on middle America.

The latest data from the Congressional Budget Office and the Internal Revenue Service show that the lowest 40 percent of income earners as a group actually receive net payments from the federal income-tax system. (They get 3.8 percent of total federal income-tax revenues instead of paying any income taxes.) The middle 20 percent of income earners pay 4.4 percent of federal income taxes. Thus the bottom 60 percent of income earners together, on net, pay less than 1 percent of all federal income taxes. (These workers earn 26 per cent of national income.)

The data show that the top 1 percent of income-earners now pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, which is almost double their share of the national income. The top 10 percent pay 71 percent of federal income taxes, though they earn just 39 percent of the nation's pretax income.

This is a result of the across-the-board income-tax rate cuts adopted by Ronald Reagan and the current President Bush, plus the Earned Income Tax Credit first proposed by Reagan in the 1970s, and the child tax credit enacted into law as part of the 1994 Contract With America.

Barack Obama claims to be proposing income-tax cuts for low- and moderate-income and middle-class workers, but Reagan Republicans have already eliminated most of their income-tax liability. What Obama is calling tax cuts for the middle class is really a slew of refundable federal income-tax credits that would primarily go to those who are paying little or no federal income taxes now. Such credits would primarily not reduce tax liability, but instead be checks from the federal government for child care, education, housing, retirement and health care; even outright giveaways. These are not tax cuts. They are new federal spending programs hidden in the tax code.

When Obama says that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income-tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent of income earners, this will be just another check from the federal government rather than a reduction in tax liability. It is another sharp increase in government spending rather than any sort of tax cut. An arbitrary cash grant does not, moreover, do anything to improve the economy or incentivize productive business. That only comes from cutting tax rates. What Obama is proposing here is really quite similar to George McGovern's 1972 plan to send everyone a $1,000 check, which voters rightly saw as a crass vote-buying scheme rather than serious policy.

Obama also proposes to increase the top marginal tax rates for virtually every major federal tax. These increases would not come remotely close to financing the trillion dollars of increased direct federal spending Obama is promising--including a new national health-insurance entitlement that would be bigger than any of the massive entitlement programs we already have and already have trouble paying for. Indeed, if the tax-rate increases cause a serious-enough economic decline, they will lose revenue on net.

Obama's plans are the opposite of tax reform. Instead of closing loopholes and lowering rates, he is creating new loopholes and raising rates.

But there is a real tax agenda that would benefit middle-America.

America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, with a federal rate of 35 percent--rising to 40 percent on average with income taxes. The average corporate tax rate in the European Union countries is 24 percent. Even India and China have lower corporate tax rates. Ireland adopted a 12.5-percent corporate tax rate 20 years ago. Since then per-capita income has soared from the second-lowest in the EU to the second-highest.

John McCain is proposing to reduce our federal corporate tax rate to 25 percent. The top income-tax rates borne by noncorporate small businesses and investors should be reduced to 25 percent as well. Obama is taking the opposite tack, calling for increases in the income-tax rates that small businesses pay and additional tax increases for larger corporations (such as the so-called windfall-profits tax on oil companies that would only further hurt the American economy with higher energy costs).

With two thirds of the American people now owning stocks, capital-gains taxes are another middle-America issue. Obama proposes to increase the top capital-gains tax rate by 33 percent, which will cause a decline in the value of stocks held by middle-income families. History has also proven, time and again, that rising capital-gains tax rates cost the federal government money. From 1968 to 1975 the capital-gains tax rate was raised four times, and capital-gains tax revenue fell more than 50 percent. When capital-gains tax rates were raised 40 percent as part of the compromise in the 1986 tax-reform act, revenues fell 40 percent the next year, and by 1991 they had fallen 63 percent.

McCain is proposing to retain the current capital-gains rate of 15 percent. But to maximize economic growth for working people and middle-income families, the capital-gains tax rate should be zero. The capital-gains tax is just another layer of taxation on capital income. It taxes the present discounted value of future income that will be taxed again--multiple times, in fact--when it is earned. That is not fairness or good economic sense. Many of our international competitors maintain a zero tax rate on capital gains--including 14 out of 30 OECD countries, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore. Eliminating the capital-gains tax would cause the stocks held by two-thirds of the American people to soar in value.

The most-important middle-income tax issue, however, is payroll taxes: the taxes withheld by your employer to pay for programs like Social Security and Medicare. The federal payroll tax is now the largest tax most workers pay. With federal income taxes already abolished for the poor and lower middle-income workers, and almost abolished for middle-income workers, the next big tax cut for these working people would be the ability to use personal accounts for Social Security.

Over time, personal accounts could expand to replace the entire payroll tax and finance the same benefits. Instead of paying a tax, working people would be saving and investing in their own personal family wealth engine. With fully expanded accounts, average families could expect to accumulate a million dollars or more, even while paying in about 25 percent less than the current 15.3-percent payroll tax. Such accounts are estimated to pay at least twice what Social Security currently promises and provide the only real hope of addressing the long-term funding problems of Medicare without harming retirees.

This would be nothing less than a revolution in the personal prosperity of working people. McCain at least favors starting such personal accounts. But, as is so typical of Barack Obama, he would just slam the door on a truly revolutionary change, and hark back to the stale ideas of the 1960s or even the 1930s. Obama's tax policies would take America in exactly the opposite direction of tax reform and threaten economic disaster in already-difficult times.

Newt Gingrich is the former speaker of the House and chairman of American Solutions for Winning the Future. Peter Ferrara is director of entitlement and budget policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation, and general counsel of the American Civil Rights Union.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by jfj123
 


Actually a builder is completely different. Of course if you are a builder. you are hiring skilled laborers to do your work. You would hire a dry wall person, carpenter, painter, concrete guy, etc. You may have skilled laborers that know how to do the following and are allowed to do so under your contractors license. I have my painting contractor license. I took an extensive test. A lot of it had to do with osha laws. You as a builder are able to use your own people, if you are insured, or you sub your work to sub contractors or companies. Maybe you subcontract your plumbing work out to a plumbing company. When you do this, does only the owner of the company, the one with the license do this work? Highly unlikely. Unless you are building dinky houses that a two man crew can do. Otherwise, This company will have many plumbers that work for them. As long as they are working under a licensed and insured plumbing company they can do the work legally. When I call a plumbing company they send out their workers, who are plumbers. The owners of the company do not come out there. And these mexicans sure as hell are not licensed. They are plumbers however. Maybe not a plumbing contractor, but nevertheless they are indeed plumbers. And if you ask what they do, they say they are plumbers. And on their tax returns they list their occupation as plumbers, as they do on evey other contract or application they may fill out. And dont go claiming to know everthing about painting either. Every state has different rules. In florida I need to have a painting contractors license. I can do whatever size job I want, as long as I am insured for it. Hell, some states you dont even need to be a licensed painter. I have had up to 50 people working for me and my license and insurance has been checked many times by the county and city. My company is as legit as it comes. But you are right about one thing. People working for you wouldnt be builders. Painter License

[edit on 18-10-2008 by tide88]


I think you're misunderstanding what a plumber is.
A plumber is someone who has a plumbers license.
Yes a licensed plumber can have an unlicensed person or persons work under his/her license and have them go out into the field to perform plumbing however that does not make the person a plumber, it merely makes that person, a person who performs plumbing for the plumber. I know it sounds like semantics but plumbers, builders, painting contractors, etc.. must acquire their licenses by taking tests, paying out money, renewing their licenses, take on liability, etc... and those who haven't done those things, are not called plumbers, builders, painting contractors, etc.. they're either called apprentices', skilled labor, general labor, etc...
So the unlicensed guy who changes out your sink is not a plumber, he's the guy who works for the plumber.
And in Michigan where I work, large plumbing companies typically will only have 1 licensed plumber with a number of apprentices, skilled labor, and general labor personnel. Plumbers are typically too expensive for another plumber to pay as they would garner the same/similar rates and the owner of the company is not about to pay a sub the same amount as he would get for obvious reasons and once a person gets their plumbers license, they typically start their own company to either sub contract with a builder(s) or to go out on their own. Sub contracting is king in Michigan.



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
The problem is, it becomes a socialist agenda when you redistribute the wealth, per Obamas plan.


The problem is stupidity, and it's already a socialist agenda.

The problem is $700 billion (more to come) was already redistributed and the nationalization of the Western banking sector which makes Putin look like George Washington.

The problem is blatant ignorance of people when they're staring "market socialism" right in the face and have no idea and how screwed they have become as their life savings and 401k's go poof .

The problem is tax rates have been skewed many times over many decades and people believe now it's socialism because some demented old idiot said so.

I have a better title for the thread: Britneykov the Plumbob Sinks Ship of Fools

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
The problem is, it becomes a socialist agenda when you redistribute the wealth, per Obamas plan.


Fine. Socialism is all the rage right now. Let's play with some examples.

1. Can you explain to me how the Bail Out McCain voted for does not also qualify then? As a 'socialist agenda'.

Also, you saw the second debate right?

2. Can you explain how McCain's proposal to buy up the bad home mortgages with half that Bail Out does not qualify then? As a 'socialist agenda'.

McCain has made proposals that are just as 'socialistic'.

People are just using this demonized word as mudslinging. If it was a legitimate concern against socialistic principles then the ones McCain is 'guilty' of would be acknowledged as well. Why are they not being acknowledged as well?

[edit on 19-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ok, I agree with you to some point. And I admit I have no idea what the laws are up there. They have unions and it could be completely different. I just talked to my friend who owns the plumbing company. They do have laborers, the ones who are digging the ditches and other manual labor. They are called plumber helpers. Then the more experienced ones are their skilled plumbers. Some do have licenses, some just have experience. But they are allowed, by law, to go to any job by themselves and do the work. They have to be able to do service work and read blueprints. And then they have service technicians. They have to be experienced in plumbing repair and trouble shooting. They do not need a license, just a lot of experience. I am sure Joe, knows how to do all the above. That is why I would consider him a plumber. Of course that would be according to florida law not ohio. Edit to add This

just called the Ohio Construction Industry Licensing Board. The same people that license plumbing contractors in the state of Ohio. These guys: www.com.state.oh.us...

To the best of my recollection this is how the conversation went. (I took notes as we talked and typed it out immediately after I hung up.)

Me:
Quote:
How do I go about getting my journeyman plumbing license in the state of Ohio?

Her:
Quote:
You know sir, the state of Ohio does not really provide for a journeyman plumbing license. If you need a journeyman card for any reason that would be issued by the union to it's members. You would have to contact the union to get that. But that is not a state license because we do not issue a journeyman plumbing license.

Me:
Quote:
So the state only licenses plumbing contractors, but not journeymen or apprentices?

Her:
Quote:
That is correct sir. I believe the union does have an apprentice program and a journeyman program but the state of Ohio does not issue licenses for those.

I got my answer from the horses mouth.

Looks like Joe Plumber does not have an Ohio journeyman plumbing license because there is no such license.

Had to cut through all the partisan bias, the MSM BS, and the union BS to get what I wanted to know. But I am satisfied now.

Thanks to all for your patience.
SOURCE
Found the above from a plumber on a plumber forum who called the ohio state licensing board.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by tide88]



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Never posted before.
Just reading.
If you watched the debate, You will see that John McCain brought up Joe the Plumber!!!!!



posted on Oct, 19 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by West Coast
The problem is, it becomes a socialist agenda when you redistribute the wealth, per Obamas plan.


Fine. Socialism is all the rage right now. Let's play with some examples.

1. Can you explain to me how the Bail Out McCain voted for does not also qualify then? As a 'socialist agenda'.

Also, you saw the second debate right?

2. Can you explain how McCain's proposal to buy up the bad home mortgages with half that Bail Out does not qualify then? As a 'socialist agenda'.

McCain has made proposals that are just as 'socialistic'.

People are just using this demonized word as mudslinging. If it was a legitimate concern against socialistic principles then the ones McCain is 'guilty' of would be acknowledged as well. Why are they not being acknowledged as well?



McCain is not going after my wealth, he is not redistributing my income by taxing me more. He is not punishing me for being successful.

McCain supported the bail out, which I thought could have been better dealt with by using other means. I did not support the bailout, however, it will be paid back, and with interest. This was not done with a socialist takeover mentality.

Furthermore, considering the alternative presented (which was to just do nothing) we are arguably in better shape as a result of the bailout, though there were other avenues that I think could have been used to deal with this debacle.

[edit on 19-10-2008 by West Coast]






top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join