Joe Plumber!
KalElFan
those who didn't catch it, Obama was glad-handing at one of
his rallies or someplace yesterday I think it was, and somehow
he ended up talking to a bald plumber about economics. His
name is literally Joe I think. And Obama starts explaining his
economic plan, with the Obama sound byte being "spread
the wealth around" and the clear unmistakable context being
Joe's wealth too. :-) Joe's standing there and being polite
but he doesn't look so thrilled.
I'm pretty sure Joe himself was on FOX yesterday, along with
a more right wing guy intended to represent the other side of
this "spread the wealth around" nonsense, which of course plays
right into the high tax and even socialist tag on Obama. But lo
and behold Joe doesn't want to play and comes out and says
he doesn't like it either, because he's trying to open his own
business and hire more plumbers. He doesn't want anyone
spreading his wealth around, he wants to invest it and create
jobs.
There'll be conspiracy theories that Joe was a "Repug" plant I
guess, but the FOX host seemed genuinely surprised. Joe
was somehow at the rally or whatever it was, and there was
Obama stopping to talk to him, so I guess she figured Joe
was the Obama side and the other guy would be the Fair
and Balanced opposing view. But she was stuck with no
one to shill for Obama and the segment ended quickly.
So now today Joe the Plumber, or just Joe Plumber as I
think might work better, has become the perfect symbol of
all that is terribly wrong with Obama's economic thinking,
especially in difficult economic times. Again, I'm not 100%
certain the guy they interviewed was the Joe the Plumber,
but I'm pretty sure he was and Joe's a gift that can keep
on giving for the next three weeks.
The McCain campaign or FOX should also dig out the
Nancy Pelosi speech to the press right after the rescue
package passed that Friday. She gave an answer that
was about to spill the beans on how she was *this* ready
for the Dems to start spending like drunken sailors and
wreak untold havoc once they get control of the White
House. But then she realized how what she was about
to say would play right in to the fear of an Obama-Reid-
Pelosi Triumvirate in complete control of the government.
So she quickly shut up for a second and rebooted her
brain and shifted.
Maybe make it Pelosi-Obama-Reid, as in the POR
Triumvirate. That unholy POR Triumvirate is ready to
put Joe Plumbers everywhere in the Poor House, and
four years from now we'll have more leaks and much
bigger leaks in the U.S. and world economy than ever.
Jim Alder
Who was the Fox News host?
--
If Barack Obama has a single tragic failing it’s that he is not Tiger Woods.
If Hillary Clinton has a single tragic failing it’s that she is not Sarah
Palin.
KalElFan
news:6lmv0lF...@mid.individual.net...
It occurs to me the McCain people, he or any of them,
might want to use that last paragraph or some variation
thereof. So I hereby grant full rights to them to do so, for
good and valuable consideration in the form of the smile
on my face right now just contemplating it. :-) There,
now they don't have a Biden problem if they choose to
use it. :-)
Same goes for any of my other posted stuff as well.
They're free to use it, but if they win I want McCain
to seriously consider asking Obama to be Secretary
of State.
KalElFan
news:Xns9B38A0AD52297...@216.196.97.142...
> Who was the Fox News host?
I tried to do a quick search and I think it was Martha MacCallum.
It was a bit more convoluted than I described or remembered it,
because she apparently spliced in Neil Cavuto's interview with
the plumber from a few minutes earlier. I had the TV on in the
background, this would have been probably between 5-6 yesterday
afternoon I guess, and I got the impression she was interviewing
the plumber live. This is the transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438302,00.html
Cavuto's all over it again today, with Huckabee and other guests.
Cavuto theorizes the Dems have market tested this and think it
works for them, but Cavuto's brain isn't really wired to get the
appeal of this issue to the folks. That plumber isn't like the $90
million man and the tens of millions of dollar man Obama had
as advisors and who made that money from Fannie & Freddie,
nor like the Wall street thieves who made billions. He's just Joe
Plumber making $250,000 but working hard for it and trying to
grow a business and support his family if he has one. So he
personifies the issue in a way nothing has so far. It's a video
being worth 10,000 words and maybe 10 million votes if
enough people see it and understand the issue better as a
result.
I think another angle should be the stat that 1%, 5% and 10%
of the wealthiest people already pay at that top 10th percentile
70% of the taxes. When 10% pay 70% that's already taking
more than enough, and I think a 50% rate, which it's already at
as I understand at least when typical state taxes are factored in
(maybe more) are enough. It ought to be unconstitutional, in
fact I'll propose a constitutional amendment right now, :-),
for the government to take more than half what you make no
matter how rich you are. There is NOTHING fair about a
government that appropriates more than half what anyone
makes. Let them keep at least half and spend or invest it,
which they can do better than the government can.
Kevin Cunningham
> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate. For
> those who didn't catch it, Obama was glad-handing at one of
> his rallies or someplace yesterday I think it was, and somehow
> he ended up talking to a bald plumber about economics. His
> name is literally Joe I think. And Obama starts explaining his
> economic plan, with the Obama sound byte being "spread
> the wealth around" and the clear unmistakable context being
> Joe's wealth too. :-) Joe's standing there and being polite
> but he doesn't look so thrilled.
>
> I'm pretty sure Joe himself was on FOX yesterday, along with
> a more right wing guy intended to represent the other side of
> this "spread the wealth around" nonsense, which of course plays
> right into the high tax and even socialist tag on Obama.
Ummm, lets talk about the socialist tag. You repugs just nationalized
Fannie, Freddie, AIG, a brokerage house and now your buying
(nationalizing) chunks of banks. And you call we dems socialist?????
Doorman
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ed97b961-a846-4f09...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
It happened while our side went screaming and kicking. Your side has been
planning this for years. Democrats created the "everybody should own a
home" mentality....look up Cuomo/Clinton. The Democrats knew two years ago
(Franks/Dodd) this was coming and did nothing because they needed a meltdown
to win the presidency. Bush inherited this, and will get an ugly legacy
because of it.
"Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in
history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to
the country's current crisis. He took actions that-in combination with many
other factors-helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets
without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky
investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program
into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and
he legalized what a federal judge has branded "kickbacks" to brokers that
have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four
million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons
why."
Kris Baker
"Doorman" <nos...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:5ctJk.46815$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
>
> It happened while our side went screaming and kicking. Your side has been
> planning this for years. Democrats created the "everybody should own a
> home" mentality....look up Cuomo/Clinton. The Democrats knew two years
> ago (Franks/Dodd) this was coming and did nothing because they needed a
> meltdown to win the presidency. Bush inherited this, and will get an ugly
> legacy because of it.
Uhhh....while you're looking up stuff, Google "ownership society".
Or better yet, read the entire speech about it on whitehouse.gov
Whatever it was that Bush inherited, he "enhanced" to prop up
the homebuilding economy, because that's about all our country
has produced recently.
LOTS of people are guilty in this one, on both sides. You can't
just name-call.
Jim Alder
> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote...
>
>> Who was the Fox News host?
>
> I tried to do a quick search and I think it was Martha MacCallum.
> It was a bit more convoluted than I described or remembered it,
> because she apparently spliced in Neil Cavuto's interview with
> the plumber from a few minutes earlier. I had the TV on in the
> background, this would have been probably between 5-6 yesterday
> afternoon I guess, and I got the impression she was interviewing
> the plumber live. This is the transcript:
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,438302,00.html
>
> Cavuto's all over it again today, with Huckabee and other guests.
Yes, I tuned in this afternoon and caught some of it after reading your
post. Sounds like Fox is going to run with it. Let's hope McCain does so in
the debate, too. Wouldn't it be ironic if Obama hung himself on his own petard
and the economy proved to be his downfall?
> Cavuto theorizes the Dems have market tested this and think it
> works for them, but Cavuto's brain isn't really wired to get the
> appeal of this issue to the folks. That plumber isn't like the $90
> million man and the tens of millions of dollar man Obama had
> as advisors and who made that money from Fannie & Freddie,
> nor like the Wall street thieves who made billions. He's just Joe
> Plumber making $250,000 but working hard for it and trying to
> grow a business and support his family if he has one. So he
> personifies the issue in a way nothing has so far. It's a video
> being worth 10,000 words and maybe 10 million votes if
> enough people see it and understand the issue better as a
> result.
>
> I think another angle should be the stat that 1%, 5% and 10%
> of the wealthiest people already pay at that top 10th percentile
> 70% of the taxes. When 10% pay 70% that's already taking
> more than enough, and I think a 50% rate, which it's already at
> as I understand at least when typical state taxes are factored in
> (maybe more) are enough. It ought to be unconstitutional, in
> fact I'll propose a constitutional amendment right now, :-),
> for the government to take more than half what you make no
> matter how rich you are. There is NOTHING fair about a
> government that appropriates more than half what anyone
> makes. Let them keep at least half and spend or invest it,
> which they can do better than the government can.
I have yet to read the books on the subject, but I am enamored of the
FairTax propoal.
It seems like it would turn this country's economy around completely by
drawing in industries that have moved overseas, while getting rid of the
dreaded IRS and making life simpler for taxpayers. Ironically, it is likely
almost impossible to get past congress and either administration. Too bad.
Jim Alder
Well, McCain tried right at the start, but didn't exactly cover himself
with glory. Of course, Obama responded with his usual recording. But he also
said that "Joe" had been listening to McCain ads. In fact, "Joe" was listening
to Obama speak live and face to face, and THAT was where he was drawing his
complaints.
Okay, McCain came out ahead in that one, if you ask me. Is that why the
moderator decided to move on? Is that why Obama didn't try to get the last
word?
VRWC Destruction Machine
It must suck for Obamatrons to have their Messiah exposed as the
Marxist he is.
-
"Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska
I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in
this presidential election seem to look down on that
experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.
I guess a small-town mayor if sort of like a COMMUNITY
ORGANIZER, except that you have actual RESPONSIBILITIES."
-Governor Sarah Palin September 9, 2008
Christopher Helms
> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate. For
> those who didn't catch it, Obama was glad-handing at one of
> his rallies or someplace yesterday I think it was, and somehow
> he ended up talking to a bald plumber about economics. His
> name is literally Joe I think. And Obama starts explaining his
> economic plan, with the Obama sound byte being "spread
> the wealth around" and the clear unmistakable context being
> Joe's wealth too. :-) Joe's standing there and being polite
> but he doesn't look so thrilled.
Joe is pulling down at least $250,000.00 a year. He'll be a
millionaire by the next election, assuming he isn't one already. Joe
doesn't need any goddamn help, so naturally McSame is obsessed with
helping him. Joe is the guy the Republicans are focused on, as usual.
mc
He was the star in the debate!
clouddreamer
>
> He was the star in the debate!
lol. Yeah. His plumbing business is going to skyrocket!
;]
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
bval...@aol.com
No, the Democrats did. Remember? You run both houses now?
clouddreamer
> Has Fox News made Joe an offer to host a talkshow yet?
Wonder if Joe can tell McCain that Palin's child has Down Syndrome, not
Autism.
..
George Grapman
What role did congress play in investing in those bank?
Who originated the bailout proposal.
After congress passed it there was one more step before it became law,
care to tell us what that was?
>
felonio...@aol.com
> Ronnie Bateman wrote:
> > Has Fox News made Joe an offer to host a talkshow yet?
>
> Wonder if Joe can tell McCain that Palin's child has Down Syndrome, not
> Autism.
Her nephew has autism, waste-of-space. Better luck next time.
FDR
> Has Fox News made Joe an offer to host a talkshow yet?
They already have Hannity.
Crescentius Vespasianus
>
>
> Joe is pulling down at least $250,000.00 a year. He'll be a
> millionaire by the next election, assuming he isn't one already. Joe
> doesn't need any goddamn help, so naturally McSame is obsessed with
> helping him. Joe is the guy the Republicans are focused on, as usual.
much better to be like Obama's brother in Kenya, and only make a dollar
a day. More just that way.
Crescentius Vespasianus
> .
>> Ummm, lets talk about the socialist tag. You repugs just nationalized
>> Fannie, Freddie, AIG, a brokerage house and now your buying
>> (nationalizing) chunks of banks. And you call we dems socialist?????
> .
> No, the Democrats did. Remember? You run both houses now?
Unfortunately, Bush let the Democrats run that show even when the
Republicans controlled the Congress. Don't ask me why.
RU12?
Thats fine, in January when we have a filibuster proof senate, the house
and the presidency then it will be the Dems responsibility. As it stands
now the Dems have the house and the house only because the Republicans
have LIEberman in their camp.
--
July 7, 2004
Congress's Risky Zero Down Payment Plan Will Undermine FHA's Soundness
and Discourage Self-Reliance
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
WebMemo #529
The Zero Down Payment Act of 2004, introduced by Rep. Pat Tiberi
(R-OH), would require the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to
offer federally insured mortgage loans to certain eligible households
to buy a house without a down payment.
KalElFan
news:31e0e39f-ab26-45f1...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 15, 2:00 pm, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 15, 3:35 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate. For
>>> those who didn't catch it, Obama was glad-handing at one of
>>> his rallies or someplace yesterday I think it was, and somehow
>>> he ended up talking to a bald plumber about economics. His
>>> name is literally Joe I think. And Obama starts explaining his
>>> economic plan, with the Obama sound byte being "spread
>>> the wealth around" and the clear unmistakable context being
>>> Joe's wealth too. :-) Joe's standing there and being polite
>>> but he doesn't look so thrilled.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure Joe himself was on FOX yesterday, along with
>>> a more right wing guy intended to represent the other side of
>>> this "spread the wealth around" nonsense, which of course plays
>>> right into the high tax and even socialist tag on Obama.
>>
>> Ummm, lets talk about the socialist tag. You repugs just nationalized
>> Fannie, Freddie, AIG, a brokerage house and now your buying
>> (nationalizing) chunks of banks. And you call we dems socialist?????
>
> No, the Democrats did. Remember? You run both houses now?
There is that, but I think the main distinction is that the financial system
is inherently state-controlled and regulated at its core, and in this case
it was a crisis of confidence in the financial system that needed to be
addressed. It's not a philosophical shift away from capitalism, it's
supporting the system so that capitalism can get back on track after
it got temporarily derailed.
Obama's "spread the wealth around" philosophy is much more at the
core of socialism, though in an idiotic and ironic way because it just
leads to less wealth in the overall "community" that Obama's philosophy
ostensibly cares more about. Four years of his philosophy and policies,
with Pelosi and Reid and Democratic control of Congress, will be a
disaster for the U.S. economy. McCain is right that Obama's policies
would risk a second great depression, and that risk is one of the things
the market is already factoring in -- that Obama is favored, for example
that poll where he was 14 points ahead. The last thing you want to do
is invest in the stock market, when even if it might have turned out your
risk would have been worth it, your rewards would be taxed more and
everyone will be poorer.
Capitalism has to be regulated though, to the extent necessary. So for
example anti-pollution laws, consumer protection and food safety laws
and the like are no-brainers. Less obvious, but extremely damaging,
have been rigged markets like the oil industry. Government's job in
a case like that, and in the case of monopolies and oligopolies, is to
regulate -- change the rules so that it benefits rather than drags down
the system. Everyone agrees it's bad for the U.S. to be borrowing
hundreds of billions from China to send it to the Middle East or to
Venezuela for oil.
trotsky
> On Oct 15, 7:47 pm, clouddreamer <S...@Climate.change.ca> wrote:
>> Ronnie Bateman wrote:
>>> Has Fox News made Joe an offer to host a talkshow yet?
>> Wonder if Joe can tell McCain that Palin's child has Down Syndrome, not
>> Autism.
>
> Her nephew has autism, waste-of-space. Better luck next time.
Does she have any family members that aren't retarded?
clouddreamer
lol. I searched for an autism-Palin link last night before I posted that
and came up donut. If she does have an autistic nephew, it's definitely
not well known...if at all.
If McCain wanted to elicit a connection the people would understand, he
would have used the condition everyone knows her son (grandson?) has.
The simple fact of the matter is he screwed up....like the fine on Joe
Plumber.
Zero.
What? <insert wide eyes>
Yes, Senator. Zero.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
felonio...@aol.com
> trotsky wrote:
> > feloniousdogt...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Oct 15, 7:47 pm, clouddreamer <S...@Climate.change.ca> wrote:
> >>> Ronnie Bateman wrote:
> >>>> Has Fox News made Joe an offer to host a talkshow yet?
> >>> Wonder if Joe can tell McCain that Palin's child has Down Syndrome, not
> >>> Autism.
>
> >> Her nephew has autism, waste-of-space. Better luck next time.
>
> > Does she have any family members that aren't retarded?
>
> lol. I searched for an autism-Palin link last night before I posted that
> and came up donut. If she does have an autistic nephew, it's definitely
> not well known...if at all.
>
> If McCain wanted to elicit a connection the people would understand, he
> would have used the condition everyone knows her son (grandson?) has.
> The simple fact of the matter is he screwed up...
Nope, you did. But continue crying about it and amusing the rest of
us.
Unique
> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate.
McCain should have checked this guy out before turning him into a
symbol, because now it's blowing up in his face.
Joe the Plumber hasn't always paid his taxes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-is-it-see_n_135211.html
He is not registered to vote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus-reporter/joe-the-plumber-not-votin_b_135201.html
He is a racist:
"I asked the question but I still got a tap dance..almost as good as
Sammy Davis Jr.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/16/politics/horserace/entry4525242.shtml
And he doesn't even have a plumbing license:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJsPHiQlgYvAsrHz9mvHJlezQJLwD93RONUO0
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Amerika,
Space, Lon Chaney, George Washington 1 & 2,
Rich Man Poor Man 1 & 2, Beatles Music Videos,
and many more...
clouddreamer
> KalElFan wrote:
>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate.
>
> McCain should have checked this guy out before turning him into a
> symbol, because now it's blowing up in his face.
>
> Joe the Plumber hasn't always paid his taxes:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-is-it-see_n_135211.html
>
> He is not registered to vote:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/off-the-bus-reporter/joe-the-plumber-not-votin_b_135201.html
>
> He is a racist:
> "I asked the question but I still got a tap dance..almost as good as
> Sammy Davis Jr.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/16/politics/horserace/entry4525242.shtml
>
> And he doesn't even have a plumbing license:
> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJsPHiQlgYvAsrHz9mvHJlezQJLwD93RONUO0
>
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some believe he was a McCain plant.
Bill
Then there is this of course (notice it is from a pro-McCain blog):
Bill
charliekilo
news:294ss3....@news.alt.net...
> KalElFan wrote:
>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate.
>
> McCain should have checked this guy out before turning him into a symbol,
> because now it's blowing up in his face.
What's sad is that no one is paying any attention to Barack's answer to the
guy.... Marxist to its core. We need to take money for those with the means
and "spread it around" to those in need?! WTF? How did the U.S. come to this
(about to elect an openly socialist/Marxist activist) as our president?
Obveeus
"clouddreamer" <Cl...@te.Change.is.real.ca> wrote in message
news:YO-dnausFLXHP2rV...@supernews.com...
Yahoo had a clip of a Joe the Plumber interview on ABC News. The guy isn't
very bright. He was whining about Obama's desire to overtax the wealthy,
but he seemed unaware that McCain is doing the same. It isn't like either
candidate is supporting a 'Flat Tax' system, which seems to be what Joe the
Plumber actually wants. Of course, if he isn't registered to vote, that
explains why he was evasive when asked who he was going to vote for in the
election.
Kris Baker
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:gd8agc$52e$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>
> Yahoo had a clip of a Joe the Plumber interview on ABC News. The guy
> isn't very bright. He was whining about Obama's desire to overtax the
> wealthy, but he seemed unaware that McCain is doing the same. It isn't
> like either candidate is supporting a 'Flat Tax' system, which seems to be
> what Joe the Plumber actually wants. Of course, if he isn't registered to
> vote, that explains why he was evasive when asked who he was going to vote
> for in the election.
He's registered, but his name is spelled wrong (and he never
bothered to correct the error - it's right there on his voter
registration card).
The problem? The Republicans in Ohio want a sweep of voter
records against driver license records. That would mean that
Sam The Amateur Plumber will only be able to vote via a
provisional ballot under the Republican desires.
clouddreamer
<sigh> What Obama means is tax the higher income earners so that there
is more public money and less reason to tax the middle and lower income
earners. That is spreading the wealth.
Why should middle and low income earners have the bigger burden when
CEOs are getting $400 million bonuses. That's obscene. Tax him more so
that you have to tax the single mom earning $20,000 less.
What's so horrible about that? You think the CEO is going to miss $100
million? Can he not live off the $300 million? Or $200 million...or $100
million????
charliekilo
Low income earners pay no income tax, as in ZERO. Middle income earners pay
very little. The vast majority of income tax paid by Americans is paid by
the wealthy. See the article below.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Joe Curwen
>
>>> On Oct 15, 3:35 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate. For
>>>> those who didn't catch it, Obama was glad-handing at one of
>>>> his rallies or someplace yesterday I think it was, and somehow
>>>> he ended up talking to a bald plumber about economics. His
>>>> name is literally Joe I think. And Obama starts explaining his
>>>> economic plan, with the Obama sound byte being "spread
>>>> the wealth around" and the clear unmistakable context being
>>>> Joe's wealth too. :-) Joe's standing there and being polite
>>>> but he doesn't look so thrilled.
>>>>
Amazingly, despite the strong anti-incumbent feelings people have, the election
will be very, very close because of the issues raised here.
>Everyone agrees it's bad for the U.S. to be borrowing
>hundreds of billions from China to send it to the Middle East or to
>Venezuela for oil.
>
They would, except that the US does not "borrow hundreds of billions from China"
to buy oil from the Middle East. Obama misspoke when he said that (twice), and
McCain didn't call him on it.
Until the recent price hikes, the money spent by Americans for oil was little
compared to the wealth we created and the lifestyle we enjoyed. When the price
for oil goes back down it will be that way again, but only temporarily this
time. No matter who wins, cheap oil is going to be replaced with expensive
alternatives so that energy prices will be higher permanently.
Personally, paying a lot more money to Joe Windmill so that I don't have to give
Omar Oilwell a dime doesn't make me feel as good as Obama and McCain assume.
--
Joe
Unique
The statement was ill-advised, but only because of its potential for
misuse by those who wish to demonize Obama, as the above comment clearly
demonstrates.
clouddreamer
>> hundreds of billions from China to send it to the Middle East or to
>> Venezuela for oil.
>>
>
>
> They would, except that the US does not "borrow hundreds of billions from China"
> to buy oil from the Middle East. Obama misspoke when he said that (twice), and
> McCain didn't call him on it.
It's an analogy. He didn't mean the money literally goes from one hand
to the other.
>
> Until the recent price hikes, the money spent by Americans for oil was little
> compared to the wealth we created and the lifestyle we enjoyed. When the price
> for oil goes back down it will be that way again, but only temporarily this
> time. No matter who wins, cheap oil is going to be replaced with expensive
> alternatives so that energy prices will be higher permanently.
>
Guess what...there's only so much oil in the ground and most believe we
are close to or beyond Peak Oil. As demand increases and supplies
dwindle, would you not rather have an infrastructure of clean, alternate
energy sources in existence?
> Personally, paying a lot more money to Joe Windmill so that I don't have to give
> Omar Oilwell a dime doesn't make me feel as good as Obama and McCain assume.
It will when Saudi oil wells start going dry.
And don't depend on Alaska. Only enough oil there to supply the US for
five months at its current usage.
clouddreamer
>
> Low income earners pay no income tax, as in ZERO. Middle income earners pay
> very little. The vast majority of income tax paid by Americans is paid by
> the wealthy.
If that is the case (and I really doubt it), then what is the
problem???? Why do so many people want tax cuts??????
Kris Baker
> charliekilo wrote:
>>
>> Low income earners pay no income tax, as in ZERO. Middle income earners
>> pay very little. The vast majority of income tax paid by Americans is
>> paid by the wealthy.
>
> If that is the case (and I really doubt it), then what is the problem????
> Why do so many people want tax cuts??????
The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7
percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all
federal taxes in 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
I don't know anyone else who'd define that as a "vast majority".
charliekilo
news:ojPJk.4413$yr3...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Depends on how you define "wealthy" as I stated in my post. I'd generally
consider people in the top five to be wealthy, not necessarily rich but
wealthy nonetheless. The top 5 carries 60% of the tax burden so the
remaining 95% of the population carries 40% of the burden... or in my
thinking, the top 5 are pulling the cart.
RU12?
<Cl...@te.Change.is.real.ca> wrote:
>
>ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Some believe he was a McCain plant.
>
>
> ..
I don't think he was a plant, I think he was just talking out his ass
with no idea of what the fact were. He isn't a plumber though
evidently he works for one, he had no plan or ability to buy the
business and with no license no one would hire him. I wonder how long
he is going to keep his job now that he has pointed out the fact that
he has been "working under someone elses license".
McCain's mistake was embracing "Joe the plumber" without veting the
story.
Dano
> "Doorman" <nos...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:5ctJk.46815$XT1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>>
>>
>> It happened while our side went screaming and kicking. Your side
>> has been planning this for years. Democrats created the "everybody
>> should own a home" mentality....look up Cuomo/Clinton. The
>> Democrats knew two years ago (Franks/Dodd) this was coming and did
>> nothing because they needed a meltdown to win the presidency. Bush
>> inherited this, and will get an ugly legacy because of it.
>
> Uhhh....while you're looking up stuff, Google "ownership society".
> Or better yet, read the entire speech about it on whitehouse.gov
> Whatever it was that Bush inherited, he "enhanced" to prop up
> the homebuilding economy, because that's about all our country
> has produced recently.
>
> LOTS of people are guilty in this one, on both sides. You can't
> just name-call.
Nah...that's ALL they can do.
Jon Rossen
"charliekilo" <miles_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IrPJk.2627$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
Without interjecting my political views I'd like to take a step back and
make some general comments on how this has been covered. The media and most
everyone else has overlooked some rather obvious things:
1. When 'Joe the Plumber' stated that he didn't think it was fair that you
should pay more when you make more (I presume he was talking about a higher
tax rate or percentage). What he's reacting against is nothing new; it's
called the Progressive Tax System where you pay a higher percentage as you
move up the tax brackets. It's nothing new or specific to making $250,000
or higher, etc. etc. I haven't heard one person in the media step back a
bit and look at the big picture. This is the tax system we have and it
applies to all the brackets. Using 'Joe the Plumbers' rationale, a guy
making 28,000 a year could say, 'it's not fair I should pay more if I make
60,000 a year (because he'd be in a higher bracket) The fact is, that's the
way our tax system is structured. To be accurate, what Joe should have said
was that he was against the progressive tax system and wanted a flat
tax...but I guess I shouldn't expect him to look at the big picture.
Sure, Obama wants to rase the tax rate of the bracket that $250,000 a year
and higher falls in but that should be attacked on its specific merits, not
the general issue of the progressive tax...unless of course you want to make
an argument for a flat tax. I just want to be real clear how this issue
should be discussed in order to maintain clarity and direction. Even
*without* Obama's tax increase people who make $250,000 would be paying more
(higher percentage) than say folks making 60,000 simply because of the way
our tax system already works.
2. I've heard a few 'pundits' explain Obama's plan, and once again they
obfuscated the fact that he's not trying to reinvent the wheel; he's just
changing a tax bracket in a system that we already have in place; the
Progressive Tax. One of them went on to explain that if you make $260,000
you don't get taxed all of that taxed at the full rate, only the amount over
$250,000 (which in this case would be $10,000). That's true, but the way it
was presented was misleading; this is nothing new; this is simply how the
Progressive tax system *already* works, and always has based on how its
architected. In other words nothing in what Obama wants to do is changing
the mechanics of this but the way it has been presented by the 'pundits' is
misleading. I just feel that the way its been presented is faulty because
it appears if the reiteration of how the system already works is being
presented as something new. For example someone who is in the 30% tax
bracket doesn't get all of their income taxed at that rate, only the amount
over the threshold that defines where the bracket starts. That's the way
it's always been, someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
-jon rossen
charliekilo
news:dYidnXfxZM9j3WTV...@comcast.com...
You put a lot of thought and effort into your post but I think you
explained what everyone already knows...that we have a progressive tax
system. What riles many of up is that Obama wants to make the system MORE
progressive to "spread the wealth around" i.e socialist/Marxist social
engineering to take from those with the means and give to those in need.
That Utopian theory has never worked for a society and never will.
Jon Rossen
My point was about the *media* coverage of it; not what folks here in this
newsgroup may already know. The media coverage was rather brain-dead as if
the progressive tax code was something new that Obama engineered.
Obama is advocating reversing the tax cut that Bush implemented. The rate I
believe would get bumped back to the level it was when Reagan was president.
Are you suggesting that Reagan was a Marxist? <g>
I could also say that in the workplace there are decisions made when salary
decisions are made about who gets what pay. Of course this is something we
never talk about in this country because it is considered 'off limits' I
suppose because our hallowed 'market system' makes sure it works out ok. I
guess the events of the last month sort of challenges that, huh? In any
event, I used to work for a private company that was publically traded in
the stock market. I was a share holder and an employee. I saw how much
more the CEO and his staff got compared to me and my peers. Do I feel that
they deserved to get more than me? You bet, that's because they had more
responsibility. Do I think they were compensated *disproportionately* based
on their contributions towards the success of our commercial endeavor, YOU
BET. You see, notice that I said they should get *more* but I also felt
they got too much, disproportionately....vis a vis the good old boys network
that seems to be permeating our corporate workplaces these days. Why is it
that conservatives like to challenge tweaks to the tax codes yet they
*never* talk about this stuff? If you want to make an argument that Obama
is a socialist then I could make a similar argument that we live in a
corporate oligarchy, good old boys network where the workplace is a lot more
inequitable than the tax code could ever be.
To say that what Obama is trying to do is socialism/Marxism is hyperbole.
Tax codes are tweaked all the time in democratic capitalist based societies.
But I suppose it depends on where you are politically because after all the
perception of what someone else is politically is really *relative* rather
than absolute. In other words, the more to the right someone is, the
further to the left an opponent appears to be and vice
versa.....*relativity*. Someone in this country that is branded as a
*liberal* may be a moderate in Europe. I'm not asking you to agree with a
particular political point of view but to simply acknowledge bias and
perception and relativity. This then relates to something else we are
constantly debating in this country....ad nauseum IMHO.....the press.
This is also something that is lost when we have these endless tedious
discussions of whether the mainstream media is biased towards the left or
not. I feel that they are not; they are just clueless. (as in the Joe the
Plumber coverage) They drop the ball when having the opportunity to pin
down corporate excesses that could easily be done from a left wing point of
view. They are called 'liberal/leftist' by the fringe elements of the right
who are so right wing (usually socially), that the media appears to be
'leftist' simply because they are looking at the media from such a far our
right wing point of view. In my opinion the media is moderate, yet
incompetent. Ok, maybe *a bit* liberal...in that wishy washy kind of way,
but nowhere *near* the amount that they are accused of. Look at it this
way: Why in our society, in our political discourse can someone feel
comfortable throwing out the term 'liberal' (as in 'Oh, he's a LIBERAL') as
a pejorative when (I don't believef) the oppostive is true, at least to the
same extent. If this country's media is so biased towards the left, then
why is that true?
I don't have all the answers or maybe any answers....I'm just making
observations and trying to be objective and looking at all the variables.
Sure I bring my own biases in to the mix (who doesn't), but I'm at least
trying to look at all the info.
-jon rossen
clouddreamer
>
> You put a lot of thought and effort into your post but I think you
> explained what everyone already knows...that we have a progressive tax
> system. What riles many of up is that Obama wants to make the system MORE
> progressive to "spread the wealth around" i.e socialist/Marxist social
> engineering to take from those with the means and give to those in need.
> That Utopian theory has never worked for a society and never will.
<sigh> Taxing the wealthy more so that the poor don't have to pay as
must IS spreading the wealth.
What do you think he's gonna do....go all Robin Hood on your asses?
bval...@aol.com
> bvall...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 2:00 pm, Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 15, 3:35 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate. For
> >>> those who didn't catch it, Obama was glad-handing at one of
> >>> his rallies or someplace yesterday I think it was, and somehow
> >>> he ended up talking to a bald plumber about economics. His
> >>> name is literally Joe I think. And Obama starts explaining his
> >>> economic plan, with the Obama sound byte being "spread
> >>> the wealth around" and the clear unmistakable context being
> >>> Joe's wealth too. :-) Joe's standing there and being polite
> >>> but he doesn't look so thrilled.
> >>> I'm pretty sure Joe himself was on FOX yesterday, along with
> >>> a more right wing guy intended to represent the other side of
> >>> this "spread the wealth around" nonsense, which of course plays
> >>> right into the high tax and even socialist tag on Obama.
.
> >> Ummm, lets talk about the socialist tag. You repugs just nationalized
> >> Fannie, Freddie, AIG, a brokerage house and now your buying
> >> (nationalizing) chunks of banks. And you call we dems socialist?????
.
> > No, the Democrats did. Remember? You run both houses now?
.
> What role did congress play in investing in those bank?
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ
You can't bury the truth, crapman. Or can I call you "crappy"?
George Grapman
What ever pleases either. Either way it is a tacit admission that the
facts have failed you and speaks volumes towards your intellect and
maturity. Each time you do this I accept it as a white flag of surrender.
Kevin Cunningham
> "clouddreamer" <C...@te.Change.is.real.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:2dOdnTjsYuwcKWrV...@supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > charliekilo wrote:
> >> "Unique" <akjsk...@akjsfdsa.biz> wrote in message
> >>news:294ss3....@news.alt.net...
> >>> KalElFan wrote:
> >>>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate.
> >>> McCain should have checked this guy out before turning him into a
> >>> symbol, because now it's blowing up in his face.
>
> >> What's sad is that no one is paying any attention to Barack's answer to
> >> the guy.... Marxist to its core. We need to take money for those with the
> >> means and "spread it around" to those in need?! WTF? How did the U.S.
> >> come to this (about to elect an openly socialist/Marxist activist) as our
> >> president?
>
> > <sigh> What Obama means is tax the higher income earners so that there is
> > more public money and less reason to tax the middle and lower income
> > earners. That is spreading the wealth.
>
> > Why should middle and low income earners have the bigger burden when CEOs
> > are getting $400 million bonuses. That's obscene. Tax him more so that you
> > have to tax the single mom earning $20,000 less.
>
> > What's so horrible about that? You think the CEO is going to miss $100
> > million? Can he not live off the $300 million? Or $200 million...or $100
> > million????
>
> Low income earners pay no income tax, as in ZERO. Middle income earners pay
> very little. The vast majority of income tax paid by Americans is paid by
> the wealthy. See the article below.
>
The above is a filthy lie. Of course what's so rare about a repug
lying. People in the under $50 K pay taxes, every thing from sales
taxes, federal of all kinds and state taxes.
Kevin Cunningham
> In article <6lo0okFd92m...@mid.individual.net>, KalElFan says...
Geez, this is one of the really funny post of all time!
We created wealth??? So all these loans were for what????? And we
have to pay back all these loans because?????
Tell us more about all this created wealth, moron. Oh, and tell us
how we don't owe hundreds of billions to the commie Chinese.
Moron.
Kevin Cunningham
> "Kris Baker" <kris.ba...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ojPJk.4413$yr3...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "clouddreamer" <C...@te.Change.is.real.ca> wrote in message
> >news:DKWdncUbVqjFIGrV...@supernews.com...
> >> charliekilo wrote:
>
> >>> Low income earners pay no income tax, as in ZERO. Middle income earners
> >>> pay very little. The vast majority of income tax paid by Americans is
> >>> paid by the wealthy.
>
> >> If that is the case (and I really doubt it), then what is the problem????
> >> Why do so many people want tax cuts??????
>
> > The top 1 percent of income earners paid about 36.7
>
> > percent of federal income taxes and 25.3 percent of all
>
> > federal taxes in 2004.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
>
> > I don't know anyone else who'd define that as a "vast majority".
>
> Depends on how you define "wealthy" as I stated in my post. I'd generally
> consider people in the top five to be wealthy, not necessarily rich but
> wealthy nonetheless. The top 5 carries 60% of the tax burden so the
> remaining 95% of the population carries 40% of the burden... or in my
> thinking, the top 5 are pulling the cart.
The top 5% should pull the cart. They earn tons more money and use
tons more services. It's up to them to pay for their privileges.
Plus your never, ever ready to deal with the facts. Facts are that no
wealthy person ever paid what the tax code says initially. That's why
there are courses by the thousands in tax law.
KalElFan
news:294ss3....@news.alt.net...
> KalElFan wrote:
>
>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate.
>
> McCain should have checked this guy out before turning him into a
> symbol, because now it's blowing up in his face.
Hey, Unique, later this afternoon or tomorrow I'll probably reprint
a piece from the New England Journal of Loony Life Magazine's
Medical Column, which hits the stands Monday. It's about the new
strain of Loon Derangement Syndrome you've contracted. It was
Charles Krauthammer who's said to have coined the term "Bush
Derangement Syndrome" or BDS to describe the far left's rabid
attitudes towards George Bush. Others have extended that to
Fox Derangement Syndrome or FDS, and Palin Derangement
Syndrome or PDS.
The syndrome's focus now extends to Ordinary Joe Plumbers
in Ohio. It's a defining moment in the campaign, since Obama,
Biden, MSNBC/NBC and others have all climbed on board
the "Attack Joe!" bandwagon. Not only is it a failed attempt to
deflect attention away from Senator Government, Barack
"Spread the Wealth Around" Obama, it's another backlash in
progress. The "Pro Joe" forces are becoming legion, and they
have Huckabee on their side tonight to launch a counterattack
that will have left wing loons and their false Messiah on the run
until the Berg forces arrive and seal the deal for McCain. As
John said at the Alfred E. Smith dinner, if he pulls this one off
it's gonna be a long night at MSNBC November 4. :-)
> Joe the Plumber hasn't always paid his taxes:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/<---all-you-need-to-know-it's-bs.html
A lien for like $1,100 or some such a couple of years ago. Combine
it with the fact he isn't a $250,000 guy but more an Ordinary Joe who
aspires to be that, it actually resonates more. By the time he makes
good out of his newfound fame (maybe a two-hour block with Mike
Huckabee and then Joe's Show after it, or vice versa :-)) he'll pay
the rest of that off if he hasn't already.
> He is not registered to vote:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/<---all-you-need-to-know-it's-more-bs.htm
Already debunked. He voted Republican in the primary and they
have his name spelled wrong in the registration.
> He is a racist:
Ding ding ding! We've hit a loony left nerve! The smears have turned
to the r-word!
> "I asked the question but I still got a tap dance..almost as good as
> as Sammy Davis Jr.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/<---yep-it's-yet-more-blog-bs.htm
Is this like that supposed "Kill him!" comment at the Palin rally that
no one can substantiate except the guy who made it up and the
mainstream media reported it without vetting? I hope not because
it's a funny, non-racist line except in the minds of left wing types
afflicted with Loon Derangement Syndrome, and their ilk.
> And he doesn't even have a plumbing license:
> http://ap.google.com/article/<---if-it's-AP-it's-pot-luck.htm
But his employer does, or perhaps his soon to be former employer
if Joe goes on to much bigger things now. McCain gave him his 15
minutes of national fame, but Obama, Biden, MSNBC, NBC, and
countless others Unique as you are Unique have helped to elevate
and extend his fame even further. Mike Huckabee thanks you too.
Same with Rose the Teacher, Phil the Bricklayer and others that
Carl Cameron says were all pumped up with their signs for the
McCain rally this afternoon.
KalElFan
news:gd8dt...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <6lo0okF...@mid.individual.net>, KalElFan says...
>>
>>>> On Oct 15, 3:35 pm, "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate. For
>>>>> those who didn't catch it, Obama was glad-handing at one of
>>>>> his rallies or someplace yesterday I think it was, and somehow
>>>>> he ended up talking to a bald plumber about economics. His
>>>>> name is literally Joe I think. And Obama starts explaining his
>>>>> economic plan, with the Obama sound byte being "spread
>>>>> the wealth around" and the clear unmistakable context being
>>>>> Joe's wealth too. :-) Joe's standing there and being polite
>>>>> but he doesn't look so thrilled.
>
> Amazingly, despite the strong anti-incumbent feelings people have, the
> election will be very, very close because of the issues raised here.
The race was already closing and 17 days is a long enough time
in politics, especially with the volatility and issues in this election,
that there's no doubt McCain can come back. As always, the biggest
handicap he's working with is the mainstream media running interference
on all the scandal, doubt and unanswered questions surrounding Obama.
On the bright side, the MSM also helps by being so blatantly biased AND
even going into attack dog mode as they did with Palin and now with
Joe the Plumber. When voters see both the Obama campaign and its
proxies, including the media, coordinated in that mode, it helps create
a backlash effect.
Another factor related to that attack dog symphony has been all the
preemptive race-baiting from the Obama side. It's become a constant
running theme now that everything critical is racist. The only issue is
who it comes from, whether it's Obama or Biden or John Lewis or
the Associated Press or Whoopi Goldberg or one of dozens if not
hundreds of proxies. Before the Republican convention, I don't think
it was having much effect and I think Obama's race was a net plus of
at least 2 to 5 points overall. Many people saw it as a progressive
vote and liked that aspect of it, making history and feeling good about
it. Part of the reason the left became so deranged attacking Palin is
because she changed that favoring dynamic. No matter which ticket
people vote for, it'll be historic, and Palin's experience and
qualifications for President match up well against Obama. It freed
people up to take a second look at Obama in a more objective and
skeptical way.
(None of the above applies to the left wing loons because they're not
relevant. It's the centrists and independents and undecideds and
those willing to be persuaded to change their minds that matter.)
>> Everyone agrees it's bad for the U.S. to be borrowing
>> hundreds of billions from China to send it to the Middle East
>> or to Venezuela for oil.
>
> They would, except that the US does not "borrow hundreds of
> billions from China" to buy oil from the Middle East.
In the macro sense, the US absolutely does borrow hundreds of
billions from China and send it to the Middle East or to Venezuela
for oil. That's why I said it, because it's true in the macroeconomic
sense. I specifically mentioned Venezuela because I believe it's
your second or third largest foreign supplier after us (Canada) and
possibly Mexico at #2 or #3. You may have seen those ads from
the oil industry saying 2/3 of your oil comes from North America.
It's actually a smaller fraction that comes from the Middle East, but
still a significant amount dollarwise and in the world macro sense
our allies in Europe and the Far East are also vulnerable.
The $700 billion a year number that was thrown around was quite
misleading because it included all foreign oil, so Canada's and
Mexico's. It was also based on oil at its relative high earlier this
year. But that's why I didn't say "per year" above. There's no
doubt that it's hundreds of billions, in fact it'll be trillions over the
next say 20 years or next generation, that you'll be borrowing from
China to send to other countries that don't like you very much.
> Personally, paying a lot more money to Joe Windmill so that
> I don't have to give Omar Oilwell a dime doesn't make me
> feel as good as Obama and McCain assume.
Well if you can find a party or candidate who supports your
view then vote accordingly. I think there's a reason the major
party candidates both agree this is a national security matter as
well as an economic and environmental issue.
KalElFan
> "charliekilo" <miles_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hceKk.2746$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> You put a lot of thought and effort into your post but I think you
>> explained what everyone already knows...that we have a
>> progressive tax system.
Yeah, but go easy on Jon, eh? He has to change the subject to
something irrelevant and as far away as possible from Barack
"Spread The Wealth Around" Obama's admitted agenda.
> My point was about the *media* coverage of it...
Nah, your point was to change the subject.
> Obama is advocating reversing the tax cut that Bush implemented.
Right, and how does that work exactly, seeing as those
have been around for what, four years, six years? Enlighten
us on that. Doesn't that really represent a tax increase in
itself?
While you're at it, how about giving a tax cut to the 40% who
don't pay income tax? How's that work? Don't babble about
the payroll tax because that's part income tax withholding and
part program contribution. For Barack Obama to be telling
the truth about "95%" getting a tax cut, he'd have to... well
he'd have to change the laws of mathematics. I concede that
may not be beyond the power of the Messiah Himself. He
might part the Mississippi in the morning, alter the laws of
mathematics after lunch, and turn water into wine for dinner
the first Saturday after He gets sworn in in January. But is
there a Bible or a How To magic book or something that
explains how he does it? I used to be a dumb accountant
and I never learned the funny math he's using, but maybe
you can educate me on it.
> The rate I believe would get bumped back to the level it
> was when Reagan was president.
There you go again as Ronnie would say. What you're really
saying is that Obama is looking to the far past for inspiration,
to a time when Ronald Reagan fought for and succeeded in
reducing obscenely high tax rates. Obama wants to roll back
the clock and raise not Lazarus but taxes back up to where
they were a generation ago, so he can "spread the wealth
around" and dole out welfare and along with his anti-trade
policies become the Herbert Hoover of our times, turning a
recession into a depression. Good plan! :-/
[snippage]
> I don't have all the answers or maybe any answers....I'm
> just making observation[s]...
Sure.
Don't anyone forget to either watch Joe on Huckabee's show
(FOX at 8:00 p.m. tonight) or program it on your DVR. Also
Governor Sarah Palin on SNL, probably with Tina Fey so
watch closely to make sure you know which is which.
KalElFan
news:294ss3....@news.alt.net...
> KalElFan wrote:
>
>> The minute this story broke I thought it would resonate.
>
> McCain should have checked this guy out before turning him into a symbol,
> because now it's blowing up in his face.
Hey, Unique, I just finished writing... er, found and cut and pasted that
piece I mentioned in the other post. It's from the New England Journal
of Loony Life Magazine's Medical Column, which hits the stands on
Monday. Hope it helps...
"The very smart (though not always right :-)) Charles Krauthammer
is said to have coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" or
BDS to describe the far left's rabid attitudes towards George Bush.
Uncertain who it was that extended that to Fox Derangement
Syndrome or FDS, for the left's similar kind of reaction to FOX News.
Michelle Malkin is said to have extended it to Palin Derangement
Syndrome or PDS, which judging by its virulence and associated
vitriol is surely the most pathological of all diseases in the Loon
Derangement Syndrome class.
The only good thing about Loon Derangement Syndrome is that the
focus or trigger of the mania has heretofore always been confined
to established and fair game "major league" targets, i.e. (i) previously
established for 10+ years national cable news entities that hold the
highest ratings share in their market, (ii) two-term Presidents, and
(iii) most popular Governors from the state of Alaska who become
Vice Presidential candidates on a Republican ticket and strike fear
into the hearts of Outdoor Chicago Election Victory Party Planning
Loons everywhere.
Unfortunately a new strain has surfaced within the last week,
characterized by a focus or trigger that extends beyond previously
established boundaries found in all prior clinical studies. In the
virtual world, i.e., the Internet, some medical professionals have
warned of a DailyKos strain so virulent, and a Usenet strain so
supercharged in its crosspost breeding potential, that a new
superbug in the Loon Derangement Class might emerge and
jump the virtual world firewall. In theory, say disease control
and mental health professionals, such a new strain would likely
first appear at sites like the Huffington Post, spread to rec.arts.tv,
while real world versions appear at MSNBC, NBC, and at
Democratic presidential and vice presidential candidate rallies.
At that point, caution experts, none of us will be safe.
"It won't just be major networks and Presidents and Vice
Presidential candidates," cautioned Dr. Werall Soscrude, Ph.D.,
of the Columbia and Harvard Joint Venture for Socialist Studies
at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "You can kiss all of our
a$$es goodbye at that point. Buy a gun if you don't have one,
stock up on supplies, board up your windows and doors and
try to ride it out for four years if you can. But I can't say I like
your chances. The rabid hordes will be descending on every
Curly, Moe, Larry and Joe. You could be a Plumber or a
Pauper, a Buffet or a Muppet, it won't matter."
When pressed further by the Journal to offer some hope to
our readers, should such an apocalyptic scenario unfold, Dr.
Soscrude said the only hope would be to rally round the focus
or trigger, as one would contain Patient Zero in a conventional
plague. So for example, he said, if the focus or trigger was,
say, a Plumber named Joe, enough people could mobilize in
support of not so much Joe the Plumber but the principle that
no Ordinary Joe should ever become the focus or trigger of
a new Loon Derangement Syndrome class that threatens us
all. 'Stand Up! Stand Up and Fight!" as John McCain might
say, for the Ordinary Joes and Janes everywhere who
aspire to succeed and don't want to be targeted by Left Wing
Loons. Not now and not later, when their pockets are being
picked so their Messiah and his disciples Harry and Nancy
can rev up their agenda engines and 'Spread the Wealth
Around'."
There you have it, Unique. Not sure where you can buy the
New England Journal of Loony Life Magazine. Maybe try
that diner place that Joe Biden mentioned in the debate and
said he goes to to keep in touch with the folks. I'm pretty sure
it's available there. Not New England, not quite the Outer
Limits, but someplace in between -- the diner that doesn't exist
anymore and hasn't for a generation, but occasionally pops up
again in a place called the KalElFan Zone.
clouddreamer
>
> The race was already closing and 17 days is a long enough time
> in politics, especially with the volatility and issues in this election,
> that there's no doubt McCain can come back.
Hardly over. Remember Palin's so-called 60,000 attendees to a Florida
stump that no one could provide a wide angle picture for?
Well...here's a wide angle of 100,000 at an Obama speech.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/18/scenes-from-the-trail-100000-in-st-louis-for-obama/
It's hardly over. McCain is campaigning in states he owns or states he
has no chance of winning. He has resorted to smears and outright lies
which is driving more to Obama than to him. The polls have stabilized at
an average of 7 points up and a 2:1 advantage in EVs. Historically, once
the debates are done, this is an insurmountable lead.
..
--
We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.
felonio...@aol.com
> KalElFan wrote:
>
> > The race was already closing and 17 days is a long enough time
> > in politics, especially with the volatility and issues in this election,
> > that there's no doubt McCain can come back.
>
> Hardly over. Remember Palin's so-called 60,000 attendees to a Florida
> stump that no one could provide a wide angle picture for?
Continue wetting yourself over the scary lady from Alaska, waste-of-
space. It sure amuses the rest of us :)
>
> Well...here's a wide angle of 100,000 at an Obama speech.
>
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/18/scenes-from-the-trail...
>
> It's hardly over. McCain is campaigning in states he owns or states he
> has no chance of winning. He has resorted to smears and outright lies
> which is driving more to Obama than to him.
You can't even lie very well :(
Joe Curwen
>
>>> Everyone agrees it's bad for the U.S. to be borrowing
>>> hundreds of billions from China to send it to the Middle East
>>> or to Venezuela for oil.
>>
>> They would, except that the US does not "borrow hundreds of
>> billions from China" to buy oil from the Middle East.
>
>In the macro sense, the US absolutely does borrow hundreds of
>billions from China and send it to the Middle East or to Venezuela
>for oil. That's why I said it, because it's true in the macroeconomic
>sense.
Not really. "We borrow hundreds of billions from China to send it to the Middle
East" is political sloganeering at its worst. Federal borrowing and domestic oil
consumption have almost nothing to do with one another. The amount of money
borrowed from Japan, China, the UK and others has no impact on the amount of oil
or gas we purchase, nor does it materially impact energy prices, according to
economists.
Imagine a scenario where the US government cut spending and passed a balanced
budget. Would we buy less oil?
Federal borrowing and oil consumption are directly linked only in the sense that
the US government itself buys oil in years where the US government also borrows.
Even then, this is a small percentage of the total energy consumed by the US and
it would be the same whether we borrowed more or not at all. The government buys
oil for defense and strategic purposes and consumes energy to maintain
operations and will always do so.
You can also say it is linked indirectly in as much as China takes our dollars
and buys oil from the middle east. But again, that isn't because of government
borrowing as much as it is from domestic consumption of goods manufactured in
China. China has bought about $400 billion of US debt total, but enjoys a $170
billion ANNUAL trade surplus. The irony of course is that even if you think that
it is a bad thing to borrow from China, both party's alternative energy plans
would require us to borrow from China, who would then turn around and buy oil
with it! In every scenario (except for the scenario where we stop borrowing
money to run the government) we will cause money to be spent with "people who
don't like us very much".
<<SNIP>>
>
>> Personally, paying a lot more money to Joe Windmill so that
>> I don't have to give Omar Oilwell a dime doesn't make me
>> feel as good as Obama and McCain assume.
>
>Well if you can find a party or candidate who supports your
>view then vote accordingly.
Fortunatley, I won't have to do the impossible. When the public understands how
costly forced conversion to alternative energy sources is, how badly it hurts
the pocketbook and how badly it hurts our business competitiveness, either of
the major parties will do the right thing and let the market handle it.
>I think there's a reason the major
>party candidates both agree this is a national security matter as
>well as an economic and environmental issue.
They agree because that it is what the public wants. My opinion is that forced
conversion would be bad for the economy, have very little impact on global
warming, no impact on borrowing from China, only a negative impact on our trade
balance with China and would not increase our national security because there
are many other vital, got to have it commodities that we must import from
overseas. So in the end the Obama/McCain plan isn't going to happen.
--
Joe
William December Starr
Kevin Cunningham <sms...@mindspring.com> said:
> We created wealth??? So all these loans were for what????? And
> we have to pay back all these loans because?????
>
> Tell us more about all this created wealth, moron. Oh, and tell
> us how we don't owe hundreds of billions to the commie Chinese.
Nah, China hasn't been communist for decades. Where there used to
be a real Communist Party in power there, now it's just the "We're
the Privileged People Who Run Things So Don't Fuck With Us" Party.
-- wds
bval...@aol.com
Crappy it is.
.
> Either way it is a tacit admission that the
> facts have failed you and speaks volumes towards your intellect and
> maturity. Each time you do this I accept it as a white flag of surrender
.
tanturm because I called him a name.
Just too funny, crappy.
bval...@aol.com
> > >>> No, the Democrats did. Remember? You run both houses now?
.
> > >> What role did congress play in investing in those bank?
.
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAuOEdttjZQ
> > > You can't bury the truth, crapman. Or can I call you "crappy"?
> Crappy it is.
> .> Either way it is a tacit admission that the
> > facts have failed you and speaks volumes towards your intellect and
> > maturity. Each time you do this I accept it as a white flag of surrender
> Hehehehehe - crappy just got proven wrong, so he throws a temper
> tanturm because I called him a name.
> Just too funny, crappy.
.
(crickets)