It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Attacking the average Joe?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
maybe someone could lay off the $85 a bottle wine and make do with the $62 one to make sure Joe keeps his house.

Perhaps the Obama's could take that advice as well.

Michelle Obama's Expensive Room Service

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:31 PM
If anyone is angry, they should be angry at the McCain campaign for not checking out Joe and his background. You don't parade a tax-delinquent, unregistered "plumber" in front of 50 million people as "Joe the Plumber" who thinks his taxes are too high.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:32 PM
I think this is on topic with the OP, and not the tax talk in the last few pages......

Destroying Joe makes perfect sense. Anytime anyone new comes into the political realm that challenges the socialist views of the media they get run over. Palin was a good example of that. Joe is next. Who will be the next person to question our elites? Do you really want to go through all of this?

Good job by our MSM and political machines (both parties) in working to strip our first ammendment rights. When people are afraid to talk, they wont.

So whats next?

Obama wins, brings his elite buddies to the white house and re writes the Constitution to read, "All Americans are equal, but some are more equal"?

Because frankly, thats where I see this country heading.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by TheRooster

You are just skimming the surface, unfortunately. In reality, if your take-home is quarter of a million bucks, you'll experience only a mild increase. And you are clearing 600 big ones, yes, that tax would probalby hurt.

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

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

he's looking more and more like this guy

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 03:45 PM

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by TheRooster

i'm not sure that americans get a whole lot back for their taxes and they don't have the same glass ceilings and "old boys" systems in place, so i dunno if i'ld be as happy paying that rate of tax in the US.

That's just it, the government is not fiscally conservative with our tax revenues. That is why most Americans do their best to shelter as much income as they can. Perhaps if DC did a better job of spending it, we could justify giving them more.

And Buddah, you'd be surprised how many good wines are out there for under $20.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:00 PM

Originally posted by TheRooster
And Buddah, you'd be surprised how many good wines are out there for under $20.

good wine's pretty cheap, besides, "its just booze dahling".

okay, i have a thought about america's tax money.
there's a huge big chunk of tax that goes to the military and there's another huge chunk going to the war on drugs, which is 90% of law enforcement and prison costs, on the surface at least. then there's roads and such and the federal organisations.

so, eh, what are the other big bills.

what is being over spent on, what would you wish to cut if taxes are to be cut for the rich.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by buddhasystem

Please tell me? Who does your plumbing? Most I know make at least $80.00 an hour!!! If Nobama was "in touch" with the people he would know this. The truth
is the Democraps , as well as the so called media know how bad Nobama flubbed so they run to do damage control the only way they know how. Make personal attacks!

I think this screw up may end up costing BO the vote of small business's. Let's hope so!!

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by pieman

"so are you saying it is a bad thing that obama wishes to make average americans richer instead of maintaining the present two tier system?"

Yes!!! At the expense of my hard work to give MY money to someone who has
not achieved as much regardless of the circumstances is STEALING!!

Please recognize the definition of socialism.

[edit on 17-10-2008 by paxnatus]

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:28 PM
Disgusting politics at its best! "Joe" didn't ask to be made famous. OK, so he isn't Mr. Perfect - does that make his question any less important? Personally, I was disgusted that he was brought up so much at the latest debate, and even again at the Charity Dinner. While "Joe" is a quite a bit above average than most Americans, earning $250,000 a year, he still was viewed by America to a fair degree, to be an average American. The attacks on him are virtually attacks on every American that may be feeling the same thing. Now people will be scared to ask politicians questions, for fear of being made famous, then slandered in the news, and then made to be the butt of jokes by both sides. It's nothing less than rude, in my book.

I'd be interested in knowing which "side" dug up his personal information and decided to "air" it. Or was it the media?

Not only that, but I want to address something else....why the heck did the politicians decide to use him at all? Our household brings in (before taxes) about $70,000 a year. We live paycheck to paycheck, but we have a home, two cars (one is paid off), and a couple of other bills that will be paid off in 4 years, but we live comfortably within a strict budget. We're not poor, but we're certainly not rich either. However, $250,000 is a LOT of money compared to ours, and the last few times we had to hire a plumber, I was enraged at what they charge. I'm in the wrong business!! I don't feel bad for "Joe the Plumber" and his tax problem in regards to wanting to buy his business. Most contractors are thieves in my book - charging an arm and a butt for shoddy work that gets done only when THEY feel like it. An honest contractor is like an honest lawyer or an honest politician.....they exist, but boy are they hard to find!

I just think they should have left poor Joe alone, and they owe him an apology for thrusting him into the arena. People are associating with the "plumber" thing, thinking he is an average guy doing a dirty job. I've known many plumbers, and their houses would put mine to shame any time, and their wives drive Mercedes and other high end cars, and their kids want for nothing. I don't feel bad for the tax issue, but I feel bad that he got hammered for asking a question. If the politicians want to "use" an average American, try getting one a little closer to "average" next time. But "use" is the key word here...Joe was just used, plain and simple. They don't give two craps about him or his situation. He was fodder for political hard ball, and that's all he was.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by pieman

It is called Pork.

It is ridiculous and out of control and both parties do it with abandon.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:32 PM
It seems to me that everyone here got off the original topic of "trashing Joe the plumber". I see most people are screaming that this is Obama's doing. Here's how I see it.

1. Joe asked Obama about his tax plan, Joe didn't like Obamas answer.

2. McCain campaign SOMEHOW found out about this Joe the plumber. How? I have no idea, maybe someone could tell me.

3. McCain uses Joe the plumber in his debate with Obama to prove a point about Obamas tax plan. 21 TIMES!

4. After hearing about Joe the plumber 21 times the media wants to know who exactly this man is, so they start digging. They camp at his house, etc.

5. The media finds out all kinds of interesting facts about Joe the plumber. He owes back taxes, he's not licensed, he is not making 250K a year, and is not even in the process of buying this business. If they are not licensed I don't see this company raking in as much money as the licensed guys down the street either. So he may well never fall into that tax bracket.

6. Currently Obamas plan will help him save the money faster that he will need to buy this business. So it's okay for him to enjoy a tax break for a few years that allows him to get further ahead, but is not okay with paying higher taxes when he gets there if he indeed can make that kind of money without being a licensed business.

7. How is all this info about Joe the plumber coming out Obamas fault?

Oh, I guess it's the "liberal" media, therfore, Obamas fault.

The logic in this thread has been lost with the second post.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:43 PM

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by TheRooster

so you think that the rich shouldn't be taxed because they have worked for a few years to get their businesses off the ground?

besides, having owned two businesses surely you're very aware that you're doing pretty damn well if you make enough to fall into obamas tax brackets owning a small business.

OMG!!! Pieman how thick are you? Did you skip Rooster's post where he says
"the first 2-3 years you starve owning a small business?" How hard does a person need to work before they are allowed to actually keep what they've earned?

"When I count to three, you will awaken" 1..2..3..

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Let's not forget the tactics of the republicans. They're both equally guilty of dodgy tactics. And this is coming from someone who, if American, would vote Dems..

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by Cowgirlstraitup7

The video of Joe asking Obama the question was quite liberally shown on many news stations for a good 24 hour period prior to the debates. At the time of the debate, it was pretty common knowledge. McCain picked up on it, due to the use of "Spread the wealth around" which is one of the biggest political faux pas a candidate can make. The use of the term socialist about a candidate can cost them an election in America.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by nyk537

thats what percentage taxes do, that's their function!!

regardless, doesn't matter.
so are you saying it is a bad thing that obama wishes to make average americans richer instead of maintaining the present two tier system?

do you think that in america, at the moment, hard work = well paid?


the guy who does the worst job, like Cleaning a Toilet
gets paid almost nothing

while the guy who sits on a golfcourse all day, makes millions

the easy jobs pay the most

the hard jobs pay almost nothing

it makes absolutely no sense lol

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 04:58 PM

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:10 PM

Originally posted by paxnatus
OMG!!! Pieman how thick are you? Did you skip Rooster's post where he says
"the first 2-3 years you starve owning a small business?"

strange that your attacking me for a reply i made to another poster that seemed to understand the intention of the question, at least once he read my posts, but okay, lets have an argument.

i say that because no man can make any money without the help and continued stability of the society in which he lives, at no point is he exempt from contributing support to that society.

with the high level of civic rights that the people of the US enjoy there should also be a level of responsibility felt by the citizens.

the cry of "no taxation without representation" in itself suggests that there should be no representation without taxation.

if each man only has responsibility to himself then it should also stand to reason that it is not the societies responsibility to protect the interests of the individual.

lets see you argue with me in a logical fashion. i'm thick, you should have no problem.

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:21 PM
I think the point he was implying,was as a small plumbing contractor 250k a year in buisness employee just 5 people he would have to do double that a year just to cover his expenses so taxes would eat up any profit he would hope to make,payroll tax,workers comp etc

posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 05:43 PM
he put himself out there. he tried to make obama look bad because in his own words: people weren't asking him tough enough questions.
he said in prior interviews that he was for mccain regardless.
he just as easily could've have gone to obama's website and do his own research into obama's platform.
he stretched the truth about himself and reporters looked into his claims.
i don't feel sorry for him a bit.
he's a big boy.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in