"Joe the Plumber" as an expression...

[Rainsford]

Does anyone else in this thread notice how quickly economic conservatives abandon the "Obama's going to take more of your money now" line in favor of the "Obama's going to take more of your money when you're RICH" line after it's pointed out how full of crap they are? I'm not saying the latter is a bad argument (although it really is), it's just that it's interesting that it isn't their FIRST argument.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: zoiks
How do you find out if some has paid his taxes or not? Is this public information that someone can go and find out? I'm just wondering if Sam the unlicensed plumber who owes back taxes owned up himself or it was dug up by someone else.

Liens are public info available at the local courthouse.

A lot of this type stuff is also now available on-line

Fern

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Damn, Eng, those sure are some fancy veehicles yah got there - makes mah '93 Shivey Van look like a junker (and it is - LOL - but it gets 20mpg)

Joe the Plumber is sooo played. George 'Macaca' Allen was on the tube yesterday and in one segment not only used Joe, but Ken the Trucker, Tito the Electrician and Karl the Crackhead ...
It's gotten so ridiculous it's almost risen to the level of a Specop post ...

Are these people real?

 

[microbial]

John the failed presidential candidate

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: halikWell unless we're talking about products that are completely price-inelastic, those lower costs of productions have to, in turn, lead to lower prices (assuming our regulators work and there is some sort of competition). People bitch about walmart for example, but at the same time they enjoy that they can buy stuff there for significantly less (lower income people are the biggest benefactors).

The problem is that you can't just look at the front-end costs but also need to consider the invisible and conveniently ignored back-end costs.

First off, those "cheap" goods are being paid for at the cost of having a huge trade deficit and an imbalance of trade, resulting in a transfer of our nation's hard assets (real estate, business assets) to foreigners (why would they use the money to pay for American-produced goods and services when they can get them cheaper from someplace else?). As a general principle and in terms of the big picture, you can't consume more than your produce but our nation is attempting to do just that.

Secondly, you have to ask whether the lower prices for goods and services are lower than or equal to the amount of wage depression. If the price of being able to buy shoes for 25% less than what they would otherwise cost is to have your wages cut by 40% then what's the point? Are the businesses pocketing the cost savings or passing them on to consumers?

Moreover, we have to ask whether the massive invisible social costs are worth the alleged benefits. Is having more unemployment, underemployment, and lower wages worth the supposed cost savings?

As for your second point, it's only natural that not everyone ends up making it - if we all had million dollars in the bank, would it change anything?

My point is that in an ideal, 100% efficient market, many of the people who are "making the money" might make far less money as a result of competition from other qualified people. Employers often overlook a great many perfectly capable and qualified candidates as a result of various forms of discrimination (age discrimination, discrimination against people who were involuntarily-out-of-the-field for a given length of time, etc.) and much of the hiring is this country is based on cronyism.

The fact that government won't tax your at 100% after you make X dollars serves as an incentive, otherwise none of us would have any drive to succeed.

Oh, I agree. I've never advocated a 100% tax; that would be ridiculous. However, an increase in taxes on the upper classes probably won't have much of an affect on the incentive to keep working.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Engineer

First: I'm not management and have no plan or desire to be a manager. I prefer to actually do hands on work.

Joe may have a plan and it may suceed, but he's nowhere near getting a tax increase under Obama and would have gotten a BIGGER cut under Obama than McCain, period. You and Joe and vote for higher taxes if you wish, I'm voting for a bigger tax cut (less taxes) for me.

I didn't state he couldn't make a good living either. I stated he is not currently what McCain is trying to display him as, period.

Now if you have the guts, do you think I'm lazy and worthless? Spell it out little man.

I think your an ignorant buffoon. You assume Joe wont make a certain amount of money and as such assume he is instantly hurting himself with his vote.

What should I assume of you?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Engineer

First: I'm not management and have no plan or desire to be a manager. I prefer to actually do hands on work.

Joe may have a plan and it may suceed, but he's nowhere near getting a tax increase under Obama and would have gotten a BIGGER cut under Obama than McCain, period. You and Joe and vote for higher taxes if you wish, I'm voting for a bigger tax cut (less taxes) for me.

I didn't state he couldn't make a good living either. I stated he is not currently what McCain is trying to display him as, period.

Now if you have the guts, do you think I'm lazy and worthless? Spell it out little man.

I think your an ignorant buffoon. You assume Joe wont make a certain amount of money and as such assume he is instantly hurting himself with his vote.

What should I assume of you?

And you assume that Joe will thrive when 80% of all small businesses fail within the first few years and the housing market is in shambles, not to mention an economic recession. People are going to use draino instead of Joe.

You can assume anything you want but you don't have the guts to call me lazy and worthless on this forum.

Ignorant is one thing (and I'm not) but stupid is something else...and it's not an assumption on my part that you are entirely full of it...based on your posts, it's a fact.

Just make sure if Obama is elected and you get a tax cut to call yourself worthless and lazy as well.

/discussion or lack thereof.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: halikWell unless we're talking about products that are completely price-inelastic, those lower costs of productions have to, in turn, lead to lower prices (assuming our regulators work and there is some sort of competition). People bitch about walmart for example, but at the same time they enjoy that they can buy stuff there for significantly less (lower income people are the biggest benefactors).

The problem is that you can't just look at the front-end costs but also need to consider the invisible and conveniently ignored back-end costs.

First off, those "cheap" goods are being paid for at the cost of having a huge trade deficit and an imbalance of trade, resulting in a transfer of our nation's hard assets (real estate, business assets) to foreigners (why would they use the money to pay for American-produced goods and services when they can get them cheaper from someplace else?). As a general principle and in terms of the big picture, you can't consume more than your produce but our nation is attempting to do just that.

Secondly, you have to ask whether the lower prices for goods and services are lower than or equal to the amount of wage depression. If the price of being able to buy shoes for 25% less than what they would otherwise cost is to have your wages cut by 40% then what's the point? Are the businesses pocketing the cost savings or passing them on to consumers?

Moreover, we have to ask whether the massive invisible social costs are worth the alleged benefits. Is having more unemployment, underemployment, and lower wages worth the supposed cost savings?

As for your second point, it's only natural that not everyone ends up making it - if we all had million dollars in the bank, would it change anything?

My point is that in an ideal, 100% efficient market, many of the people who are "making the money" might make far less money as a result of competition from other qualified people. Employers often overlook a great many perfectly capable and qualified candidates as a result of various forms of discrimination (age discrimination, discrimination against people who were involuntarily-out-of-the-field for a given length of time, etc.) and much of the hiring is this country is based on cronyism.

The fact that government won't tax your at 100% after you make X dollars serves as an incentive, otherwise none of us would have any drive to succeed.

Oh, I agree. I've never advocated a 100% tax; that would be ridiculous. However, an increase in taxes on the upper classes probably won't have much of an affect on the incentive to keep working.

First off, free trade and account deficit are two different things and you should not be making them into one argument.

More importantly, if you replace the notion of 'outsourcing' with 'technology' in what your wrote above, your argument is identical. How come you're ok with robots taking away jobs but not people in asia?

Either way this process of trade leads to better global efficiency, where US is the leader in high tech and mind-intensive jobs and let china make nike shoes. The benefit of cheaper goods is borne by many where as the drawback of wage-depression is only borne by the people in the comparatively-disadvantaged jobs. If not people in china, robotized assembly lines would replace them anyway.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: halik

More importantly, replace outsourcing with technology and your argument is identical. How come you're ok with robots taking away jobs but not people in asia?

Either way this process of trade leads to better global efficiency, where US is the leader in high tech and mind-intensive jobs and let china make nike shoes. The benefit of cheaper goods is borne by many where as the drawback of wage-depression is only borne by the people in the comparatively-disadvantaged jobs. If not people in china, robotized assembly lines would replace them anyway.

When you send factories of jobs out of this country, you lose every job with that factory. You lose management, engineers, quality people, production workers, janitors, everyone. When you place technology in your plant, you lose production workers but you gain (not to the same extent) trained, technological staffs. The plant remains in the US and employees the management, the engineers, production workers (fewer of them), janitors, and it also makes way for outside support jobs for those technology jobs and items (support engineers, etc).

I would rather keep a plant full of robots in the US than ship the entire plant to Mexico or China. My company did just that (closed most of the US plants and shipped the jobs to Mexico) and are starting to wonder if they didn't fuck up in a major way, especially with quality issues and shipping costs.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Damn, Eng, those sure are some fancy veehicles yah got there - makes mah '93 Shivey Van look like a junker (and it is - LOL - but it gets 20mpg)

Joe the Plumber is sooo played. George 'Macaca' Allen was on the tube yesterday and in one segment not only used Joe, but Ken the Trucker, Tito the Electrician and Karl the Crackhead ...
It's gotten so ridiculous it's almost risen to the level of a Specop post ...

Are these people real?

In Macaca's mind they were. In the anecdote he used he said Ken and Karl came up to him at a rally and asked for a bumper sticker ...

oops! ---- I missed it

Stumping for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Allen worked a populist angle to the race, citing not only "Joe the Plumber" -- who was mentioned in last week's debate between McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama -- but also "Ron the Trucker" and "Ken the Carpenter."

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: halik

More importantly, replace outsourcing with technology and your argument is identical. How come you're ok with robots taking away jobs but not people in asia?

Either way this process of trade leads to better global efficiency, where US is the leader in high tech and mind-intensive jobs and let china make nike shoes. The benefit of cheaper goods is borne by many where as the drawback of wage-depression is only borne by the people in the comparatively-disadvantaged jobs. If not people in china, robotized assembly lines would replace them anyway.

When you send factories of jobs out of this country, you lose every job with that factory. You lose management, engineers, quality people, production workers, janitors, everyone. When you place technology in your plant, you lose production workers but you gain (not to the same extent) trained, technological staffs. The plant remains in the US and employees the management, the engineers, production workers (fewer of them), janitors, and it also makes way for outside support jobs for those technology jobs and items (support engineers, etc).

I would rather keep a plant full of robots in the US than ship the entire plant to Mexico or China. My company did just that (closed most of the US plants and shipped the jobs to Mexico) and are starting to wonder if they didn't fuck up in a major way, especially with quality issues and shipping costs.

That obviously can't be the case, because otherwise we'd see our GDP shrink over the past decades. Instead the disappearance of those jobs makes people retrain for more value added positions (IT engineers etc.) versus staying in menial jobs. Also this is why to government absolutely needs to have safety nets and retraining for workers displaced by outsourcing. It is absolutely paramount.



Look we won't "beat" china when it comes to making nike shoes, instead we continuously wipe the floor with them when it comes to IT, aerospace and so on. Look at the back of your ipod, it says "Designed by Apple in Cali, Assembled in China"... that's EXACTLY the idea.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: halik

More importantly, replace outsourcing with technology and your argument is identical. How come you're ok with robots taking away jobs but not people in asia?

Either way this process of trade leads to better global efficiency, where US is the leader in high tech and mind-intensive jobs and let china make nike shoes. The benefit of cheaper goods is borne by many where as the drawback of wage-depression is only borne by the people in the comparatively-disadvantaged jobs. If not people in china, robotized assembly lines would replace them anyway.

When you send factories of jobs out of this country, you lose every job with that factory. You lose management, engineers, quality people, production workers, janitors, everyone. When you place technology in your plant, you lose production workers but you gain (not to the same extent) trained, technological staffs. The plant remains in the US and employees the management, the engineers, production workers (fewer of them), janitors, and it also makes way for outside support jobs for those technology jobs and items (support engineers, etc).

I would rather keep a plant full of robots in the US than ship the entire plant to Mexico or China. My company did just that (closed most of the US plants and shipped the jobs to Mexico) and are starting to wonder if they didn't fuck up in a major way, especially with quality issues and shipping costs.

That obviously can't be the case, because otherwise we'd see our GDP shrink over the past decades. Instead the disappearance of those jobs makes people retrain for more value added positions (IT engineers etc.) versus staying in menial jobs. Also this is why to government absolutely needs to have safety nets and retraining for workers displaced by outsourcing. It is absolutely paramount.



Look we won't "beat" china when it comes to making nike shoes, instead we continuously wipe the floor with them when it comes to IT, aerospace and so on. Look at the back of your ipod, it says "Designed by Apple in Cali, Assembled in China"... that's EXACTLY the idea.

I've got seven factories that have closed down in the last two years that have ZERO of our employees working in them that state otherwise. Every single job in those factories is now gone. There may be someone else who stepped in and added jobs to those empty buildings.

I'm not going to argue with you. I've been through this with Evan and I'll admit I'm emotional about it (of course, watching over 50% of the people in our plants lose their jobs due to outsourching has that effect on people). Not everyone can just give up their life on a dime to retrain for the next big IT explosion, or the IT bubble that popped in 2000. Maybe they can retrain for healthcare and wipe old people's asses from the retiring baby boom generation that has sold them out.

Oh, and if you honestly think that the US is going to maintain it's "technology leadership" based on what the rest of the world is doing (in math, science, etc), you're crazy. There is more than widgets that come out of manufacturing (innovation and discovery are a few examples). It's all about the cheap labor wages. Maybe that's why the US needs bubbles to keep itself going instead of a good base of "making something for a living". GDP should be GIP for Gross Imported Product.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Engineer

First: I'm not management and have no plan or desire to be a manager. I prefer to actually do hands on work.

Joe may have a plan and it may suceed, but he's nowhere near getting a tax increase under Obama and would have gotten a BIGGER cut under Obama than McCain, period. You and Joe and vote for higher taxes if you wish, I'm voting for a bigger tax cut (less taxes) for me.

I didn't state he couldn't make a good living either. I stated he is not currently what McCain is trying to display him as, period.

Now if you have the guts, do you think I'm lazy and worthless? Spell it out little man.

I think your an ignorant buffoon. You assume Joe wont make a certain amount of money and as such assume he is instantly hurting himself with his vote.

What should I assume of you?

And you assume that Joe will thrive when 80% of all small businesses fail within the first few years and the housing market is in shambles, not to mention an economic recession. People are going to use draino instead of Joe.

You can assume anything you want but you don't have the guts to call me lazy and worthless on this forum.

Ignorant is one thing (and I'm not) but stupid is something else...and it's not an assumption on my part that you are entirely full of it...based on your posts, it's a fact.

Just make sure if Obama is elected and you get a tax cut to call yourself worthless and lazy as well.

/discussion or lack thereof.

*cry cry cry*

Lets keep it REAL simple for the advanced "Engineer".

If Joe has a business plan and reasonably expects to make in excess of 250k a year within the next 4 years, is he better served by voting for McCain or Obama?

Just answer the simple question.......

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: halik

More importantly, replace outsourcing with technology and your argument is identical. How come you're ok with robots taking away jobs but not people in asia?

Either way this process of trade leads to better global efficiency, where US is the leader in high tech and mind-intensive jobs and let china make nike shoes. The benefit of cheaper goods is borne by many where as the drawback of wage-depression is only borne by the people in the comparatively-disadvantaged jobs. If not people in china, robotized assembly lines would replace them anyway.

When you send factories of jobs out of this country, you lose every job with that factory. You lose management, engineers, quality people, production workers, janitors, everyone. When you place technology in your plant, you lose production workers but you gain (not to the same extent) trained, technological staffs. The plant remains in the US and employees the management, the engineers, production workers (fewer of them), janitors, and it also makes way for outside support jobs for those technology jobs and items (support engineers, etc).

I would rather keep a plant full of robots in the US than ship the entire plant to Mexico or China. My company did just that (closed most of the US plants and shipped the jobs to Mexico) and are starting to wonder if they didn't fuck up in a major way, especially with quality issues and shipping costs.

That obviously can't be the case, because otherwise we'd see our GDP shrink over the past decades. Instead the disappearance of those jobs makes people retrain for more value added positions (IT engineers etc.) versus staying in menial jobs. Also this is why to government absolutely needs to have safety nets and retraining for workers displaced by outsourcing. It is absolutely paramount.



Look we won't "beat" china when it comes to making nike shoes, instead we continuously wipe the floor with them when it comes to IT, aerospace and so on. Look at the back of your ipod, it says "Designed by Apple in Cali, Assembled in China"... that's EXACTLY the idea.

I've got seven factories that have closed down in the last two years that have ZERO of our employees working in them that state otherwise. Every single job in those factories is now gone. There may be someone else who stepped in and added jobs to those empty buildings.

I'm not going to argue with you. I've been through this with Evan and I'll admit I'm emotional about it (of course, watching over 50% of the people in our plants lose their jobs due to outsourching has that effect on people). Not everyone can just give up their life on a dime to retrain for the next big IT explosion, or the IT bubble that popped in 2000. Maybe they can retrain for healthcare and wipe old people's asses from the retiring baby boom generation that has sold them out.

Oh, and if you honestly think that the US is going to maintain it's "technology leadership" based on what the rest of the world is doing (in math, science, etc), you're crazy. There is more than widgets that come out of manufacturing (innovation and discovery are a few examples). It's all about the cheap labor wages. Maybe that's why the US needs bubbles to keep itself going instead of a good base of "making something for a living". GDP should be GIP for Gross Imported Product.

I know of many MFG companies that moved everthing to mexico and because of Quality issues it has or has almost Bankrupted the company.

I know a Company here in Akron that mfg's Aircraft parts and they were planning on having all operations moved to mexico by 2010. The parent company is having second thoughts now due to Quality

and they are being threatened by Our state Senator Sherrod Brown that he will make it his mission that they lose their government contracts.

I guess there was a lot of shady stuff going on in the plant with the mexico stuff quality wise and the Local union called the senators office and narced on the big bosses

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I thought "Joe the plumber" was an expression showing how an unstoppable juggernaut political machine backed by media cronies would do anything to protect the image of their messiah candidate, including sicking their lawyer and media armies against some random guy that got said messiah candidate to embarrass himself, thus taking attention away from the gaffe and sacrificing the random guy on the altar of the polling gods.

Or maybe that's just me.

You nailed it. Joe had the audacity to question the Messiah and got shit hammered for his trouble. A simple what-if resulted in a deeper investigation of Joe than was ever done on the guy who stumbled through the answer.

Democrats can't stand to have anyone who's striving for the American Dream make them look bad. It might stir up their base that relies heavily on the government to take care of them.

The only buffoons are people like the op, and those that think Joe not having a plumbers license is the issue.

Get a clue.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: halik

More importantly, replace outsourcing with technology and your argument is identical. How come you're ok with robots taking away jobs but not people in asia?

Either way this process of trade leads to better global efficiency, where US is the leader in high tech and mind-intensive jobs and let china make nike shoes. The benefit of cheaper goods is borne by many where as the drawback of wage-depression is only borne by the people in the comparatively-disadvantaged jobs. If not people in china, robotized assembly lines would replace them anyway.

When you send factories of jobs out of this country, you lose every job with that factory. You lose management, engineers, quality people, production workers, janitors, everyone. When you place technology in your plant, you lose production workers but you gain (not to the same extent) trained, technological staffs. The plant remains in the US and employees the management, the engineers, production workers (fewer of them), janitors, and it also makes way for outside support jobs for those technology jobs and items (support engineers, etc).

I would rather keep a plant full of robots in the US than ship the entire plant to Mexico or China. My company did just that (closed most of the US plants and shipped the jobs to Mexico) and are starting to wonder if they didn't fuck up in a major way, especially with quality issues and shipping costs.

That obviously can't be the case, because otherwise we'd see our GDP shrink over the past decades. Instead the disappearance of those jobs makes people retrain for more value added positions (IT engineers etc.) versus staying in menial jobs. Also this is why to government absolutely needs to have safety nets and retraining for workers displaced by outsourcing. It is absolutely paramount.



Look we won't "beat" china when it comes to making nike shoes, instead we continuously wipe the floor with them when it comes to IT, aerospace and so on. Look at the back of your ipod, it says "Designed by Apple in Cali, Assembled in China"... that's EXACTLY the idea.

I've got seven factories that have closed down in the last two years that have ZERO of our employees working in them that state otherwise. Every single job in those factories is now gone. There may be someone else who stepped in and added jobs to those empty buildings.

I'm not going to argue with you. I've been through this with Evan and I'll admit I'm emotional about it (of course, watching over 50% of the people in our plants lose their jobs due to outsourching has that effect on people). Not everyone can just give up their life on a dime to retrain for the next big IT explosion, or the IT bubble that popped in 2000. Maybe they can retrain for healthcare and wipe old people's asses from the retiring baby boom generation that has sold them out.

Oh, and if you honestly think that the US is going to maintain it's "technology leadership" based on what the rest of the world is doing (in math, science, etc), you're crazy. There is more than widgets that come out of manufacturing (innovation and discovery are a few examples). It's all about the cheap labor wages. Maybe that's why the US needs bubbles to keep itself going instead of a good base of "making something for a living". GDP should be GIP for Gross Imported Product.

The definition of GDP is

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)

Which means our balance of trade actually works to reduce that numbers. This leads me to the same point I made above - if all that outsourcing did to us is remove jobs, you'd see GDP drop. Since that hasn't been the case, something else must've changed. Are all the people that were laid off from those plants still unemployed?


Also i thought you said you worked in automotive? Those plant closings had a lot more to do with UAW wanting 70+/hr for assembly labor than competition from china. Hell they were competing with Alabama....

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I thought "Joe the plumber" was an expression showing how an unstoppable juggernaut political machine backed by media cronies would do anything to protect the image of their messiah candidate, including sicking their lawyer and media armies against some random guy that got said messiah candidate to embarrass himself, thus taking attention away from the gaffe and sacrificing the random guy on the altar of the polling gods.

Or maybe that's just me.

No, it's not just you.

Unfortunately, many McCain supporters have been fooled into actually believing this kind of garbage.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I thought "Joe the plumber" was an expression showing how an unstoppable juggernaut political machine backed by media cronies would do anything to protect the image of their messiah candidate, including sicking their lawyer and media armies against some random guy that got said messiah candidate to embarrass himself, thus taking attention away from the gaffe and sacrificing the random guy on the altar of the polling gods.

Or maybe that's just me.

You nailed it. Joe had the audacity to question the Messiah and got shit hammered for his trouble. A simple what-if resulted in a deeper investigation of Joe than was ever done on the guy who stumbled through the answer.

Democrats can't stand to have anyone who's striving for the American Dream make them look bad. It might stir up their base that relies heavily on the government to take care of them.

The only buffoons are people like the op, and those that think Joe not having a plumbers license is the issue.

Get a clue.

I think the Clue has slipped you also

It was never the "question" Joe asked Obama.

It was McCain making him the centerpiece of his campaign

McCain cited him as a Average joe that would be hurt by obamas Tax plan

Bullshit was called and McCains analogies became crap.

Now you all or holding on to this Fail by Claiming the Guy who is a normal person that claims he just wants to be left alone, is being investigated and smeared "because he dared to ask" all the time while he does his media tour on Hannity and Rush and all those other Right Wing Radio and TV shows.

If he wants to be left alone, tell Kato Kaelin that his 15 minutes are up and to go sit down. He is being used by the right now and he Will be thown out in 13 days

 

[Oceandevi]

Is this thread about Joe the unlicensed plumber? He was used by both sides, get over it.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: halik

Also i thought you said you worked in automotive? Those plant closings had a lot more to do with UAW wanting 70+/hr for assembly labor than competition from china. Hell they were competing with Alabama....

None of my plants were union. They lost to cheap, Mexican labor. Now, quality sucks, shipping sucks, and we're losing business because of both (on top of the slowdown) to our competitors (taking existing business and moving it to another supplier). They had ZERO to do with UAW.

I would wage to say that "consumption" (incuding that on credit) played a big part of GDP growth for the last few years, but I'm not an economist and don't want to play one either. I don't believe everyone can be a college educated designer and don't believe that we'll be well positioned for the future by relying on that idea going forward. Since I don't have a say and it's happening whether I want it to or not, I can only hope that I'm wrong. I once saw a chart that had that 7 steps of decline of every empire and step #6 was relying on slave and conquered lands for goods and services. I hope that the US is not on step #6 of that decline.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: smashp

I know of many MFG companies that moved everthing to mexico and because of Quality issues it has or has almost Bankrupted the company.

I know a Company here in Akron that mfg's Aircraft parts and they were planning on having all operations moved to mexico by 2010. The parent company is having second thoughts now due to Quality

and they are being threatened by Our state Senator Sherrod Brown that he will make it his mission that they lose their government contracts.

I guess there was a lot of shady stuff going on in the plant with the mexico stuff quality wise and the Local union called the senators office and narced on the big bosses

The problem in Mexico is that the turnover rate is huge. I have never seen fewer than 50% newer workers in any of our plants at any one time (new workers of less than one month wear yellow but others over one month wear blue). The turnover causes people to not really care about what they are doing. They work for a week or two, get paid and then move on to the next job, which is fairly easy in the border region of Mexico. The people are really good people and don't have bad intentions, they just don't stay with the job long enough to train to do a good, quality job. (They also are very accident prone because of it but there is no real OSHA in Mexico though).

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I thought "Joe the plumber" was an expression showing how an unstoppable juggernaut political machine backed by media cronies would do anything to protect the image of their messiah candidate, including sicking their lawyer and media armies against some random guy that got said messiah candidate to embarrass himself, thus taking attention away from the gaffe and sacrificing the random guy on the altar of the polling gods.

Or maybe that's just me.

You nailed it. Joe had the audacity to question the Messiah and got shit hammered for his trouble. A simple what-if resulted in a deeper investigation of Joe than was ever done on the guy who stumbled through the answer.

Democrats can't stand to have anyone who's striving for the American Dream make them look bad. It might stir up their base that relies heavily on the government to take care of them.

The only buffoons are people like the op, and those that think Joe not having a plumbers license is the issue.

Get a clue.

I think the Clue has slipped you also

It was never the "question" Joe asked Obama.

It was McCain making him the centerpiece of his campaign

McCain cited him as a Average joe that would be hurt by obamas Tax plan

Bullshit was called and McCains analogies became crap.

Now you all or holding on to this Fail by Claiming the Guy who is a normal person that claims he just wants to be left alone, is being investigated and smeared "because he dared to ask" all the time while he does his media tour on Hannity and Rush and all those other Right Wing Radio and TV shows.

If he wants to be left alone, tell Kato Kaelin that his 15 minutes are up and to go sit down. He is being used by the right now and he Will be thown out in 13 days

thanksfor making my point for me. 'preciate it.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I thought "Joe the plumber" was an expression showing how an unstoppable juggernaut political machine backed by media cronies would do anything to protect the image of their messiah candidate, including sicking their lawyer and media armies against some random guy that got said messiah candidate to embarrass himself, thus taking attention away from the gaffe and sacrificing the random guy on the altar of the polling gods.

Or maybe that's just me.

You nailed it. Joe had the audacity to question the Messiah and got shit hammered for his trouble. A simple what-if resulted in a deeper investigation of Joe than was ever done on the guy who stumbled through the answer.

Democrats can't stand to have anyone who's striving for the American Dream make them look bad. It might stir up their base that relies heavily on the government to take care of them.

The only buffoons are people like the op, and those that think Joe not having a plumbers license is the issue.

Get a clue.

Let me whip out my clue stick for you..


Quick question: Who put Joe in the national spotlight?

That right, McDick mentioned him a dozen times during the debate, dragging him (quite willingly, mind you) into the headlights of the oncoming MSM bus. Everyone wanted to know who the fuck "Joe the Plumber" this guy McCain kept talking about, so the media did its job, and Joe did his by pimping himself out to every news outlet that asked for his opinion.

Well, now we know who "Joe" is.

Well, some of us. You guys can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb-Iran!"

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
I thought "Joe the plumber" was an expression showing how an unstoppable juggernaut political machine backed by media cronies would do anything to protect the image of their messiah candidate, including sicking their lawyer and media armies against some random guy that got said messiah candidate to embarrass himself, thus taking attention away from the gaffe and sacrificing the random guy on the altar of the polling gods.

Or maybe that's just me.

Nomination for "Ownage of the OP" Thread Post 2008.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Engineer
The bullpen just called you. Joe wouldn't vote for Obama if Obama made Joe 100% tax free and both he and you know it. Joe was an attempt by McCain to make the "rich" look like an average Joe. It backfired as the Joe he picked was far from being in the income range to pay more under Obama. I pay my taxes and plenty of them. I guess I'm not supposed to get more of my money back? Screw that. I've been given large chunks of my 401k plan back for the last three years (and had to pay taxes on that) because I make too much because I work a thousand hours (or more) of overtime per year and am considered to be an HCE (Highly Compensated Employee), so screw that. If I can get more back and the rich pay more, than yay for me. If you and Joe are stupid enough to not get more back, that's your own ignorance.

Maybe someone can do a followup on Joe the Plumber and see how his plans for the future work out.

Oh I apologize Engineer. I forgot this is AT where we all make 900k a year and drive Ferrari's.

So, aside from all of us HCE individuals perhaps Joe has a plan and wants to make over 250k a year. You dont know that he didnt. A motivated tradesman could do it no problem.

But lets all ASSUME Joe was a set up.....

No let's assume that the median household income in the US is like less than 70K. Let's assume that if you are PULLING in 250K+ you are doing just fucking fine. That's more than triple what the average HOUSEHOLD(more than 1 working person) pulls in.

Let's assume that you're not a reader and that you don't know that Obama wants to repeal the Bush tax CUTS for these people and put them back at Clintonian levels.

Let's also assume that all of your sniveling is based on false information.

Let's assume that you're a Kool-aid drinker without a leg to stand on.

That's enough ASSuming for us all methinks.