~ * THE OFFICIAL "JOE THE PLUMBER" CAN GO FUCK HIMSELF THREAD * ~
- Thread starter Nebulizah
- Start date
thought you were talking about this Joe the Plumber... she would get the bizzness...:lick:
http://www.josplumbing.com/
No, the trickle down effect isn't when they share the wealth. The trickle down effect is when they tax the fuck out of the rich, and WE (the smaller people), end up paying for it because of price increases. Yes, when big business and all those rich folks have to pay MORE, they make up for it by making US, the little people, pay more.
EXACTLY. Some people (I'm not saying anybody on here) think that if good ol' Joe were making $249,000 under Obama his taxes wouldn't go up, but if he made $250,001 all of a sudden he's paying a buttload of taxes on that.... NOT TRUE... he'd be taxed a total of what... $0.36? Something like that. Poor Joe, forced to dig in his sofa to pay his taxes.
The bottom line is, as has been said, this has been nothing more than a last ditch desperate attempt by the McCain campaign to make up ground in the final weeks. They're championing a caricature of the "average Joe," who according to the right wing always has to be a mid-30's white male living in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a ballplayin son, and a golden retriever. It's all a farce. They want to "champion" good ol' Joe and call him the winner of the debate, because they want to STAY AWAY from talking about the REAL ISSUES and championing the real middle class.
This is the McCain campaign strategy for the final weeks. Champion our tax-evading friend Joe, have bot calls placed to random homes to talk about Obama's ties to Bill Ayers (yes, the same Bill Ayers who McCain claimed to not care about last night, but yet still spends millions talking about), and encourage hate in their rallies.
Real winning combination.
The bottom line is, as has been said, this has been nothing more than a last ditch desperate attempt by the McCain campaign to make up ground in the final weeks. They're championing a caricature of the "average Joe," who according to the right wing always has to be a mid-30's white male living in the suburbs with a white picket fence, a ballplayin son, and a golden retriever. It's all a farce. They want to "champion" good ol' Joe and call him the winner of the debate, because they want to STAY AWAY from talking about the REAL ISSUES and championing the real middle class.
This is the McCain campaign strategy for the final weeks. Champion our tax-evading friend Joe, have bot calls placed to random homes to talk about Obama's ties to Bill Ayers (yes, the same Bill Ayers who McCain claimed to not care about last night, but yet still spends millions talking about), and encourage hate in their rallies.
Real winning combination.
Big business wants to profit no matter what, when prices go up they stay up and hardly ever go back down. Take airlines for instance, do you think all of those extra little fees (luggage etc.) will go back down when the economy gets better? Nope. The only trickle down that takes place is that into executive pockets.
You have a stance and it's just appropriate to know where you are coming from that's all. If you're not making more than 250k then the government isn't taking anything more from you. If you happen to be making more than 250k, which only after that initial 250k would face an increase, I highly doubt it's going to put you between a rock and a hard place where you have to decide whether you pay for food or you pay for heat for the week.
It will all go up MORE, that's what I'm saying. Is it right for Big Business to make any MORE profit than they already do? Even if it was, say, $0.37. That shit adds up, believe me. Recording artists get rich off $0.07 a spin. Either way, it's going to come back down to the middle class paying more in one way or another.
I'm used to the government bending me over either way. I don't make that per year, but I'm not hurtin' either. I just don't like the idea of this chain right here...from EITHER side of the tracks.
Government increases taxes on big business owners.
Big business owners increase prices to maintain their bottom line.
The rest of the people end up paying for that tax increase with the price increases.
It's not going to hurt ME, but it's going to hurt people that absolutely DO have to make that decision between food and heat...feel me?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama is all WRONG. I believe his heart is in the right place, I just don't think this is the way to go about it.
Government increases taxes on big business owners.
Big business owners increase prices to maintain their bottom line.
The rest of the people end up paying for that tax increase with the price increases.
It's not going to hurt ME, but it's going to hurt people that absolutely DO have to make that decision between food and heat...feel me?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama is all WRONG. I believe his heart is in the right place, I just don't think this is the way to go about it.
Yes it will go up more, even if companies get tax breaks. Companies will not give consumers breaks after the economy gets better, their profits will not equal more for the people or jobs. To them it just means they are operating a higher efficiency or lower cost of operation.
So say Mike Hunt has a business and through 5 years, he has made 1 million dollars annually. The economy goes sour in year 6, prices for fuel and every other supply goes up. He has then started to pass the costs down to his customers because he wants to stay making a million. Now at year 7 the economy is looking up, fuel has gone down, his cost of operation has lowered back down to just about what it was the year before things went downhill. Do you really think he is going to pass his savings back to reflect his old costs? No way, why would he if his profiting say 10% more? Only shit rolls down hill, not money.
So say Mike Hunt has a business and through 5 years, he has made 1 million dollars annually. The economy goes sour in year 6, prices for fuel and every other supply goes up. He has then started to pass the costs down to his customers because he wants to stay making a million. Now at year 7 the economy is looking up, fuel has gone down, his cost of operation has lowered back down to just about what it was the year before things went downhill. Do you really think he is going to pass his savings back to reflect his old costs? No way, why would he if his profiting say 10% more? Only shit rolls down hill, not money.
YES, and here's why. The market is competitive. With products, MOST Americans are looking for the best deal they can get, rich or not. So, as soon as Mike Hunt gets back on his feet but keeps his prices where they are at, his competitors will drop prices and take a nice portion of his business. He will then be forced to either drop his prices back down and compete, or he'll lose a lot of business. The market fluctuates, and as long as there are anti-trust laws, there will always be somebody in the same business, with the same product, at a lower price.
One good example here is Apple. If Apple were to lower the prices of all their products to compete with HP or Sony, they would KILL the market. They don't, they are happy with their loyal customers. If they were SERIOUSLY interested in their bottom line, their products would be around the same price as their competitors and they would snatch up people who otherwise don't fuck with their systems.
Don't get me wrong, Mike Hunt might keep it at the higher level. He'd be a stupid businessman if he did, though.
One good example here is Apple. If Apple were to lower the prices of all their products to compete with HP or Sony, they would KILL the market. They don't, they are happy with their loyal customers. If they were SERIOUSLY interested in their bottom line, their products would be around the same price as their competitors and they would snatch up people who otherwise don't fuck with their systems.
Don't get me wrong, Mike Hunt might keep it at the higher level. He'd be a stupid businessman if he did, though.
Sydal, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a good debate, but your argument goes out the window as soon as I drop this bomb on you.
Wal-Mart.
Trust me, the middle class won't be thrown into a panic from all sorts of rising prices if Obama wins and taxes a few cents on each dollar over $250,000 that a company makes. There will always be somebody that offers the same goods or services cheaper, and those who know how to live within their means will keep these companies in business.
Wal-Mart.
Trust me, the middle class won't be thrown into a panic from all sorts of rising prices if Obama wins and taxes a few cents on each dollar over $250,000 that a company makes. There will always be somebody that offers the same goods or services cheaper, and those who know how to live within their means will keep these companies in business.
The market is only competitive sometimes. Look at the inflated housing market where supply and demand is out of whack and pricing was not reflecting currectly After 15 years we are just now seeing breaks in pricing and that's because of mass foreclosure. Name some commodities that have gone back down in price after the economy has gotten better.
If Rolls Royces were cheaper they would snatch up more of the auto market as well.
Apple has a product that isn't saturated nearly as much as it's "competitor" and the core product is OSX. Nobody but apple makes apple computers with OSX. Their are tons of companies that make windows based computers which is why the cost is much cheaper. Hell I can even build my own windows based PC. Supply and demand.
If Rolls Royces were cheaper they would snatch up more of the auto market as well.
Apple has a product that isn't saturated nearly as much as it's "competitor" and the core product is OSX. Nobody but apple makes apple computers with OSX. Their are tons of companies that make windows based computers which is why the cost is much cheaper. Hell I can even build my own windows based PC. Supply and demand.
Well I wouldn't know, we've only been in this situation twice in my lifetime. The last time it happened, I was like, 5 or some shit.
But Rolls Royce isn't mass produced like, say, Windex. Those cars cost a house, and in some states more than a house. They produce smaller amounts, extremely rich people buy them for $350,000 or so, and the company is good...kinda like Ferrari.
Very true. However, there are a LOT of people that love the Mac OS, that won't buy a Mac because they are too expensive. If they lowered the prices to compete, the demand would be there.
But Rolls Royce isn't mass produced like, say, Windex. Those cars cost a house, and in some states more than a house. They produce smaller amounts, extremely rich people buy them for $350,000 or so, and the company is good...kinda like Ferrari.
Very true. However, there are a LOT of people that love the Mac OS, that won't buy a Mac because they are too expensive. If they lowered the prices to compete, the demand would be there.
Falling oil prices? Food won't necessarily follow
Found an interesting article today.
Source : http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/19/sticky.prices.ap/index.html
" (AP) -- Worries about a global recession have pushed the price of oil to its lowest in over a year. Don't expect the same for a bottle of beer, a tube of toothpaste, or a box of cereal.
Companies are paying less to transport goods, but that doesn't mean prices will drop at stores.
Companies are paying less to transport goods, but that doesn't mean prices will drop at stores.
You can blame "sticky" prices.
That's what analysts call it when companies slap higher prices on products and keep them there even though the rationale for the price hikes -- such as soaring oil prices -- is gone.
The falling cost of oil could help companies pad their profit margins as they pay less to make and transport goods. But it won't mean a break on the average grocery bill."
Found an interesting article today.
Source : http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/19/sticky.prices.ap/index.html
" (AP) -- Worries about a global recession have pushed the price of oil to its lowest in over a year. Don't expect the same for a bottle of beer, a tube of toothpaste, or a box of cereal.
Companies are paying less to transport goods, but that doesn't mean prices will drop at stores.
Companies are paying less to transport goods, but that doesn't mean prices will drop at stores.
You can blame "sticky" prices.
That's what analysts call it when companies slap higher prices on products and keep them there even though the rationale for the price hikes -- such as soaring oil prices -- is gone.
The falling cost of oil could help companies pad their profit margins as they pay less to make and transport goods. But it won't mean a break on the average grocery bill."
