• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

10-16-08 'Joe the Plumber' does not have plumbing license

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,993
1,678
126
Originally posted by: jbourne77

Several reasons: there are far more Obama supporters here than McCain; in fact, you can't even question Obama without getting ass raped - usually in the context of McCain, of course. Two, much of the mud being slung is extremely hypocritical. Again, more Obama supporters = more hypocrisy from the left (vs from the right). Three, CAD (and myself) are right-leaning, so while we may not be voting for McCain, we're certainly not excited about Obama. Yet, we're attacked in the context of McCain. Still.
Actually, I've seen posts questioning Obama where the poster didn't get ass-raped. All it takes is a thoughtful post that isn't just echoing right wing talking points. Most of CAD's posts fail this test.

The "mud" being slung from [/i]both[/i] sides is hypocritical. CAD wouldn't get accused of being a McCain supporter if he pointed out the hypocrisy in a fair and honest way. He doesn't, he responds to the mud by slinging his own.

And in a nation where 95% of the registered voters declare that they are either voting for McCain or Obama, it is not at all unreasonable to think that someone posting the kind of tripe that CAD posts up here is nothing more than a McCain shill.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,531
3
0
John McCain hung his final presidential debate performance on an Ohio plumber who campaign aides never vetted.

A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president.

McCain likes to say that he isn?t George W. Bush ? and in this case of bungled public relations, it is clear he is not. The famously-disciplined Bush campaign operation would likely have found the perfect anonymous citizen to illustrate a policy proposal, rather than spontaneously wrap itself around an unknown entity with so many asterisks.

While the arc of Wurzelbacher?s breakneck trip through the news cycle ? from private citizen to insta-celebrity to political target ? offers a curious insight into the political media culture, it also appears to offer a glimpse into the McCain campaign?s on-the-fly decisionmaking style.
 

Zepper

Elite Member
May 1, 2001
18,998
0
0
Guy on the street exposes Obama as a socialist - well who except the mainstream media doesn't already know that. Even though this idiotic thread's entire premise fails as you don't need to have a license in Ohio to work as a plumber if the head of the company you work for does. From all I've seen, he will have his Master Plumber's license by the time he's ready to buy his boss's company, which is his DREAM not fantasy (as the mainstream gets it wrong again). In an Obamanation, perhaps it would be a fantasy for an average Joe to dream about owning the company...

Americans know that socialism (central planning in the form of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and all the other socialist microcosms that fester in our govt. now ) doesn't work which is why Obama has little chance with anyone who knows what U.S. of America is and realizes it's the ONLY ONE that ever has been, and ever will be if we blow it now.

.bh.
 

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
11,994
1,965
126
Originally posted by: Zepper
Guy on the street exposes Obama as a socialist - well who except the mainstream media doesn't already know that. Even though this idiotic thread's entire premise fails as you don't need to have a license in Ohio to work as a plumber if the head of the company you work for does. From all I've seen, he will have his Master Plumber's license by the time he's ready to buy his boss's company, which is his DREAM not fantasy (as the mainstream gets it wrong again). In an Obamanation, perhaps it would be a fantasy for an average Joe to dream about owning the company...

Americans know that socialism (central planning in the form of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and all the other socialist microcosms that fester in our govt. now ) doesn't work which is why Obama has little chance with anyone who knows what U.S. of America is and realizes it's the ONLY ONE that ever has been, and ever will be if we blow it now.

.bh.
you sound like an old person watching Elvis on TV for the first time and complaining about his hip swaying. if the United States does not work with the rest of the world on this economic crisis and adapt accordingly, things could get really bad. anyone using this lame 'Obama is a socialist' garbage surely are not voting for John McCain, he did after all vote for the $700B bailout/rescue. pot meet kettle.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president..
he said he would LIKE to BUY A PLUMBING BUSINESS that would make over $250,000 a year. A plumbing business, meaning, he would have several plumbers working for HIM.

What does any of your point have to do with that?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president..
he said he would LIKE to BUY A PLUMBING BUSINESS that would make over $250,000 a year. A plumbing business, meaning, he would have several plumbers working for HIM.

What does any of your point have to do with that?
Give it up, your shill has been called on the carpet just as you have.

The state has a lien on his house, he is not going to be buying a business but in his dreams.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president..
he said he would LIKE to BUY A PLUMBING BUSINESS that would make over $250,000 a year. A plumbing business, meaning, he would have several plumbers working for HIM.

What does any of your point have to do with that?
.....
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president..
he said he would LIKE to BUY A PLUMBING BUSINESS that would make over $250,000 a year. A plumbing business, meaning, he would have several plumbers working for HIM.

What does any of your point have to do with that?
.....
He's in no position to buy a business.

Even if he did buy the business, his taxes wouldn't be raised since it's not profitable enoughh..

The central point of the Joe the plumber story, is that Obama's tax plan is stopping him from buying a business. That point has been shown to be all in Joe's head.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president..
he said he would LIKE to BUY A PLUMBING BUSINESS that would make over $250,000 a year. A plumbing business, meaning, he would have several plumbers working for HIM.

What does any of your point have to do with that?
.....
He's in no position to buy a business.

Even if he did buy the business, his taxes wouldn't be raised since it's not profitable enoughh..
Joe SAID the business would make over $250,000 per year. How do you know it wouldn't be profitable enough? Do you have a crystal ball?

Originally posted by: yowolabi
The central point of the Joe the plumber story, is that Obama's tax plan is stopping him from buying a business. That point has been shown to be all in Joe's head.
Joe never said Obama's tax plan was stopping him from buying a business. What he said was that Obama's plan would raise taxes on businesses making more than $250,000 per year. Which is true. So no, that point is not "all in Joe's head", its a reality.

Instead of justifying WHY Obama wants to tax companies like the one Joe wants to start more, Obama answered with the now famous response of wanting to "spread the wealth around".

Go ahead and try to play down Joe the Plumber's argument, it doesnt change the fact that Obama slipped and showed what he really wants to do with his tax plan.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president..
he said he would LIKE to BUY A PLUMBING BUSINESS that would make over $250,000 a year. A plumbing business, meaning, he would have several plumbers working for HIM.

What does any of your point have to do with that?
.....
He's in no position to buy a business.

Even if he did buy the business, his taxes wouldn't be raised since it's not profitable enoughh..
Joe SAID the business would make over $250,000 per year. How do you know it wouldn't be profitable enough? Do you have a crystal ball?

Originally posted by: yowolabi
The central point of the Joe the plumber story, is that Obama's tax plan is stopping him from buying a business. That point has been shown to be all in Joe's head.
Joe never said Obama's tax plan was stopping him from buying a business. What he said was that Obama's plan would raise taxes on businesses making more than $250,000 per year. Which is true. So no, that point is not "all in Joe's head", its a reality.

Instead of justifying WHY Obama wants to tax companies like the one Joe wants to start more, Obama answered with the now famous response of wanting to "spread the wealth around".

Go ahead and try to play down Joe the Plumber's argument, it doesnt change the fact that Obama slipped and showed what he really wants to do with his tax plan.

After all of the rich fat cats on Wall Street received their bailout, I don't give a shit if they raise taxes on the rich by 100% to give me a tax cut and my own bailout. I'm tired of the trickle up shit or "piss down" economics.

Most of us "hard working" folks that aren't running a business welcome the extra money especially since the elite "rich" have helped run the economy and country into the ground, especially since 2000.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Engineer
After all of the rich fat cats on Wall Street received their bailout, I don't give a shit if they raise taxes on the rich by 100% to give me a tax cut and my own bailout. I'm tired of the trickle up shit or "piss down" economics.
I agree, the bailout should have never happened. However, I don't consider someone making $250,000 to be "Rich".

Originally posted by: Engineer
Most of us "hard working" folks that aren't running a business welcome the extra money especially since the elite "rich" have helped run the economy and country into the ground, especially since 2000.
Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?
 

Zepper

Elite Member
May 1, 2001
18,998
0
0
alien42 wrote:
"you sound like an old person watching Elvis on TV for the first time and complaining about his hip swaying. if the United States does not work with the rest of the world on this economic crisis and adapt accordingly, things could get really bad. anyone using this lame 'Obama is a socialist' garbage surely are not voting for John McCain, he did after all vote for the $700B bailout/rescue. pot meet kettle."

I'm glad I'm not young, else, like you, I'd have no clue what America is all about. You don't adapt to others that have it wrong. America's founding principles are as correct as have ever been formulated. That our elected politicos have been screwing it up for so many years doesn't make the principles wrong. If the USA was still on the gold standard as the Constitution still requires, none of this economic crap would have happened - not the Great Depression or whatever kind of mess is currently brewing. Things can't get this screwed up without the ability to fabricate money from thin air. The Federal Govt. is not authorized by the Constitution to back any investments: not FDIC, not SIPC, not Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac. That's what contract law is for - to hold malfeasors accountable. And I haven't voted for major party candidates for over 30 years - none of them that I can remember in that period really seemed to know or cherish the American principles. Reagan talked the talk, but didn't really act on principle - he said he'd do away with the Fed. Dept. of Education and he didn't. That would be the one best thing a President could do to help the country - disband the unConstitutional federal departments. Second best would be to avoid foreign entanglements as warned one of the founders.

.bh.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: Corbett


Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?

LOL. Warren Buffet said it best when he said that tax rates have NEVER stopped anyone from tyying to bring in more income...NEVER. If higher tax rates keep you from reaching higher on your income, you were "WEAK" and didn't want it to begin with.
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,703
1
71
Originally posted by: Zepper
Guy on the street exposes Obama as a socialist - well who except the mainstream media doesn't already know that.
Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America's democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It's a form of sharing the wealth. Both Republican and Democratic tax plans use this system.
 

Zepper

Elite Member
May 1, 2001
18,998
0
0
The idea that centrally planned transfers from a group or groups in disfavor to group(s) in favor (also part of socialism) is an acceptable way to do things, may have crept in with the waves of central and eastern European immigrants around the turn of the 20th century, but it was never intended that way. I'll send you a link if you'd care to find out how it was intended: http://www.garymcleod.org/1/ConstitutionSoc/davy.htm . Like I said, that the politicos have been screwing it up for years doesn't make it correct. Today, credit is the "means of production" and now the fed. govt. is "buying shares of banks". Well, in the US, shares are ownership. That the FRNs that they are buying them with have no basis doesn't seem to matter.

.bh.
 

whistleclient

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2001
2,703
1
71
Originally posted by: Zepper
The idea that centrally planned transfers from a group or groups in disfavor to group(s) in favor (also part of socialism) is an acceptable way to do things, may have crept in with the waves of central and eastern European immigrants around the turn of the 20th century, but it was never intended that way. I'll send you a link if you'd care to find out how it was intended: http://www.garymcleod.org/1/ConstitutionSoc/davy.htm . Like I said, that the politicos have been screwing it up for years doesn't make it correct. Today, credit is the "means of production" and now the fed. govt. is "buying shares of banks". Well, in the US, shares are ownership. That the FRNs that they are buying them with have no basis doesn't seem to matter.

.bh.
Holy crap that guy is a nut! I can't believe you'd even use him as a source. He has sections like "Clyburn's Anti-Christian voting record" (I'm assuming Clyburn is his opponent.) Another choice tidbit from his site: "Not all muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are muslims and we need to understand what motivates them." (I suppose his world would shatter if I mentioned Timothy McVeigh.)

So... yeah... good luck with that.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Corbett


Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?

LOL. Warren Buffet said it best when he said that tax rates have NEVER stopped anyone from tyying to bring in more income...NEVER. If higher tax rates keep you from reaching higher on your income, you were "WEAK" and didn't want it to begin with.
Easy for someone like Warren Buffet to say.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Corbett


Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?

LOL. Warren Buffet said it best when he said that tax rates have NEVER stopped anyone from tyying to bring in more income...NEVER. If higher tax rates keep you from reaching higher on your income, you were "WEAK" and didn't want it to begin with.
Easy for someone like Warren Buffet to say.
This coming from a Republican shill that doesn't consider $250,000 as being rich :roll:
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Corbett


Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?

LOL. Warren Buffet said it best when he said that tax rates have NEVER stopped anyone from tyying to bring in more income...NEVER. If higher tax rates keep you from reaching higher on your income, you were "WEAK" and didn't want it to begin with.
Easy for someone like Warren Buffet to say.
This coming from a Republican shill that doesn't consider $250,000 as being rich :roll:
I don't make anywhere REMOTELY NEAR $250,000 a year, but I still dont consider $250k "rich". I consider it upper-middle class.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,504
23,441
136
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Corbett


Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?

LOL. Warren Buffet said it best when he said that tax rates have NEVER stopped anyone from tyying to bring in more income...NEVER. If higher tax rates keep you from reaching higher on your income, you were "WEAK" and didn't want it to begin with.
Easy for someone like Warren Buffet to say.
This coming from a Republican shill that doesn't consider $250,000 as being rich :roll:
I don't make anywhere REMOTELY NEAR $250,000 a year, but I still dont consider $250k "rich". I consider it upper-middle class.
And as we've shown in other threads you are trying to claim that someone who's income is in approximately the top 3% nationwide is upper middle class. You are more than welcome to think that if you want, but it seems pretty silly to me.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
I think someone hijacked my browser. I typed in anandtech but it took me to dailykaos instead.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
699
126
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Corbett


Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?

LOL. Warren Buffet said it best when he said that tax rates have NEVER stopped anyone from tyying to bring in more income...NEVER. If higher tax rates keep you from reaching higher on your income, you were "WEAK" and didn't want it to begin with.
Easy for someone like Warren Buffet to say.
So you're stating that people will just sit down and quit because taxes are higher and that they "MIGHT" have to pay more? LOL. Again, weak, period. GREED doesn't stop with higher taxes. They might start looking for more shelters or cheating, but people will not stop trying to make more money, period (as you suggest).
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Corbett


Hey, I'm a hard working guy too, but I don't believe in spreading the wealth around. I hope one day to be rich, and if someone is going to bring in policies that say no matter how hard you work, we all get to share it, well then, what motivation do I have to work EVEN HARDER to get rich in the first place?

LOL. Warren Buffet said it best when he said that tax rates have NEVER stopped anyone from tyying to bring in more income...NEVER. If higher tax rates keep you from reaching higher on your income, you were "WEAK" and didn't want it to begin with.
Yeah, I don't know anyone who refuses a new job or refuses to work overtime because of tax issues. All that shit is in the mind of economists, not real people with real lives.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber?s not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president..
he said he would LIKE to BUY A PLUMBING BUSINESS that would make over $250,000 a year. A plumbing business, meaning, he would have several plumbers working for HIM.

What does any of your point have to do with that?
.....
He's in no position to buy a business.

Even if he did buy the business, his taxes wouldn't be raised since it's not profitable enoughh..
Joe SAID the business would make over $250,000 per year. How do you know it wouldn't be profitable enough? Do you have a crystal ball?

Originally posted by: yowolabi
The central point of the Joe the plumber story, is that Obama's tax plan is stopping him from buying a business. That point has been shown to be all in Joe's head.
Joe never said Obama's tax plan was stopping him from buying a business. What he said was that Obama's plan would raise taxes on businesses making more than $250,000 per year. Which is true. So no, that point is not "all in Joe's head", its a reality.

Instead of justifying WHY Obama wants to tax companies like the one Joe wants to start more, Obama answered with the now famous response of wanting to "spread the wealth around".

Go ahead and try to play down Joe the Plumber's argument, it doesnt change the fact that Obama slipped and showed what he really wants to do with his tax plan.
The same investigation that you criticize discovered that the business only pulled in 100,000 last year. I don't need a crystal ball to find the difference between 250 grand and 100 grand.

Joe said that Obama's tax cut negatively affected him personally. His words were ""I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?"

So Joe wasn't speaking theoretically about people other than him who make more than 250,000 a year. He was worried about his taxes specifically. His taxes will actually go down whether he buys the business or not.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY