# Joe the plumber



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

What's with all this "Joe the Plumber" stuff.

If the guy wants to BUY a company that earns more than $250,000/yr, then he ain't no "Joe the plumber".... he's more like "Joe the CEO". The national average income for plumbers is around $48,000. And Ohio isn't one of high-cost-of-living "upper earnings" states.

Also, everyone knows that corporations have payroll and at the end of the year, any good accountant will "zero out" the corporation.

If he's earning $250,000/yr in plumbing services, he's making at least $250/hr full time 52 weeks of the year. At that income, with Ohio's cost of living, "Joe the plumber" would be living like a king... I don't get it.

T


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2008)

Actually that sounds about right for a plumber.

You know the story about the person reacting to the plumber's bill, right?

"Wow. I just had surgery, and the surgeon didn't charge as much as you do!"

"Yeah, I didn't make as much when I was a surgeon either."


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Actually that sounds about right for a plumber.



No... check out this link:

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Journey ... er&l1=ohio


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 16, 2008)

I got the impression that Joe (whatever he earns personally) wants to _buy _the business he works for which could include several plummers. That move would put him in another income brackett.

Taking this as a model (i.e. getting a loan, taking on employees, providing healthcare etc.) it would be interesting to see in todays environment if and how that would all work out. Also under which candidate's plan he would actually fare better.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

Dave Connor @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> I got the impression that Joe (whatever he earns personally) wants to _buy _the business he works for which could include several plummers. That move would put him in another income brackett.
> 
> Taking this as a model (i.e. getting a loan, taking on employees, providing healthcare etc.) it would be interesting to see in todays environment if and how that would all work out. Also under which candidate's plan he would actually fare better.



Yeah... in that case he's be "Joe Entrepreneur". :wink: The average plumber doesn't go out and buy a quarter million dollar per year business.

But I agree, it would be interesting to see how it would fair. It's funny how the company makes $250,000/year... exactly what the cutoff is under Obama's plan is.... even though Obama was talking about income... not corporate profit.

T


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2008)

Wealthier people have always been in a higher tax bracket. So I don't get what Joe the Plummer's beef is. 

But, he could turn out to be Obama's Achilles heel imo. 'Bama has some fall out work to do.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 16, 2008)

His beef is that it will be higher still than it's been in the time he's been working 12 hour days to achieve his goal.

Dave is right. It's not that he's pulling 250k as a plumber. It's that achieving the goal of ownership will perhaps put him at or around the 250k number -- or really, maybe it won't, who cares? -- the point is whether the Obama plan punishes achievement.

And it does.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

madbulk @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> It's that achieving the goal of ownership will perhaps put him at or around the 250k number -- or really, maybe it won't, who cares? -- the point is whether the Obama plan punishes achievement.
> 
> And it does.



How so?

Let's not be naive about this. If you are self employed or a sole proprietor, in order to have a stated income of $250,000, you are going to be making a hell of a lot more than $250,000. There are operating costs, salaries, expenses all of which reduce the bottom line. 

So.. yeah... for those who have a "stated" income over $250,000 you will be taxed more.. for those who don't... you won't.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 16, 2008)

Thonex @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> madbulk @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > It's that achieving the goal of ownership will perhaps put him at or around the 250k number -- or really, maybe it won't, who cares? -- the point is whether the Obama plan punishes achievement.
> ...



Because of marginal tax rates. This is just the way it is, the right or wrong of it aside. Now, it doesn't punish ALL achievement, and the ultimate goal of it is to promote more widespread achievement and prosperity. I didn't mean to characterize it as right or wrong.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 16, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> madbulk @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > His beef is that it will be higher still than it's been in the time he's been working 12 hour days to achieve his goal.
> ...



Agreed to the letter.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Oct 16, 2008)

Obama said last night that we need to spend more and raise taxes. 
Two bad things in a repression, er, recession. 

How come the American Dream is suddenly capped at $250K?
What is this sound bite mentality that tosses the $250K figure around for everything? 
$250K for taxation level, $250K for FDIC insurance, $250K for small business income, $250K for corporate profit? 

This repetition from the Obama camp is not careless. It seems directed at the consciousness of those who are not paying close attention to news cycles. 
Anyone who approaches the $250K figure (in any of its forms) has become the enemy. 

Obama thinks he’s Robin Hood. Actually he gives Robin Hood a bad name. 
Robin Hood retrieved money from the government and gave it back to the people who were unfairly taxed. 
Obama wants to take from those who actually earn money and spread around to those who haven’t earned it. 

America is equal opportunity – it was never meant to be equal outcome or equal income. 

What a clever slight of hand Obama is practicing. Yeah, earn some money ‘cuz he wants to ‘spread it around’. 

Only 70% of Americans actually pay federal taxes. How can 95% have their taxes decreased?


----------



## synergy543 (Oct 16, 2008)

I would seriously be more worried about the strong possibility of Palin becoming president than losing a few thousand when you already have hundreds of thousands lining your pockets.

And if you haven't noticed, you've lost far more to a failed economy than you ever would to slightly higher taxes.

http://www.palinaspresident.us/


----------



## madbulk (Oct 16, 2008)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Only 70% of Americans actually pay federal taxes. How can 95% have their taxes decreased?



Because beyond not taxing you, gov't can pay you to live here. Negative tax rates, let's say.


----------



## madbulk (Oct 16, 2008)

synergy543 @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> I would seriously be more worried about the strong possibility of Palin becoming president than losing a few thousand when you already have hundreds of thousands lining your pockets.


Yeah but we've got like a dozen threads about that already. This is real too.



synergy543 @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> And if you haven't noticed, you've lost far more to a failed economy than you ever would to slightly higher taxes.



And this remains to be seen. It can get a hell of a lot worse.


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 16, 2008)

Thonex @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> with Ohio's cost of living



Exactly...



madbulk @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> The question is proportionately how much more should you pay?



Exactly...


I will be voting for Obama knowing my taxes are going to be raised (disproportionately). Having said that, It bothers me knowing that "Joe The Plumber in Ohio" (who favors McCain) will fare better than those of us living in say, LA, NYC. 

Unless there's something I'm missing, the $250,000 threshold seems like a "hatchet" solution, not the scalpel we've been promised. 

Cost of living should be taken into account.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

kid-surf @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Cost of living should be taken into account.



That's why a good accountant is important.

Tax evasion is illegal... but tax avoidance isn't.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2008)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Obama said last night that we need to spend more and raise taxes.
> Two bad things in a repression, er, recession.



Nah bro, you're oversimplifying. He said that he wants to spend more on programs that work and cut programs that don't work. Every increase would be matched dollar for dollar from a cut program or investing in future technologies and preventative health care that would save money in the long run. He also said that he would raise taxes on those making more than $250,000 while cutting taxes for the rest.

I don't think it serves anybody any good to generalize in this election. We have a tough choice to make and this country is in a tough spot. Sacrifices have to be made. 

Personally, I don't like the idea of higher taxes but how the hell else are we going to pay off the Chinese debt, which Obama has stated is one of his main concerns.

best,

Jose


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 16, 2008)

BTW -- 

I'm fuck'n pissed that ANYONE would want to bail out these people who skated on their mortgages. What about those who have not? The majority of those who signed these bad loans knew they couldn't afford it. Now we're supposed to bail them out? I see...

Not to change the subject - there's plenty of things I don't agree with, is all.


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 16, 2008)

Thonex @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> kid-surf @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Cost of living should be taken into account.
> ...




I hear you...


----------



## JohnG (Oct 16, 2008)

[quote:fc53afe233="Jack Weaver @ 16th October ò”y   ˆŸK”y   ˆŸL”y   ˆŸM”y   ˆŸN”y   ˆŸO”y   ˆŸP”y   ˆŸQ”y   ˆŸR”y   ˆŸS”y   ˆŸT”y   ˆŸU”y   ˆŸV”y   ˆŸW”y   ˆŸX”y   ˆŸY”y   ˆŸZ”y   ˆŸ[”y   ˆŸ\”y   ˆŸ]”y   ˆŸ^”y   ˆŸ_”y   ˆŸ`”y   ˆŸa”y   ˆŸb”y   ˆŸc”y   ˆŸd”y   ˆŸe”y   ˆŸf”y   ˆŸg”y   ˆŸh”y   ˆŸi”y   ˆŸj”y   ˆŸk”y   ˆŸl”y   ˆŸm”y   ˆŸn”y   ˆŸo”y   ˆŸp”y   ˆŸq”y   ˆŸr”y   ˆŸs”y   ˆŸt”y   ˆŸu”y   ˆŸv”y   ˆŸw”y   ˆŸx”y   ˆŸy”y   ˆŸz”y   ˆŸ{”y   ˆŸ|”y   ˆŸ}”y   ˆŸ~”y   ˆŸ”y   ˆŸ€”y   ˆŸ”y   ˆŸ‚”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ	”z   ˆ
”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ”z   ˆ ”z   ˆ!”z   ˆ"”z   ˆ#”z   ˆ$”z   ˆ%”z   ˆ&”z   ˆ'”z   ˆ(”z   ˆ)”z   ˆ*”z   ˆ+”z   ˆ,”z   ˆ-”z   ˆ.”z   ˆ/”z   ˆ0”z   ˆ1”z   ˆ2”z   ˆ3”z   ˆ4”z   ˆ5”z   ˆ6”z   ˆ7”z   ˆ8”z   ˆ9”z   ˆ:”z   ˆ;”z   ˆ<”z   ˆ=”z   ˆ>              ò”z   ˆ@”z   ˆA”z   ˆB”z   ˆC


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Well actually, yes, Obama has created the negative taxation plan.
> 
> He wants to make 'Tax Break' deductions that actually payout money to those
> who don't pay taxes. For example, he wants to increase the deduction amounts for
> ...



G.W. Bush.... is that you?? :mrgreen:


----------



## JohnG (Oct 16, 2008)

Jack Weaver @ 16th October 2008 said:


> I stand by my statement that increased governmental spending (i.e. debt) ... during a recession is wrong.)



Then you disagree with Bush, McCain, Obama, Bernake, Greenspan, Congress, and all of Europe's governments. 

Your position -- in this respect -- is uninformed nonsense. 

Every history book will tell you that the mistakes Hoover made were to cut government spending, shrink the money supply, pass a protectionist trade bill, and let the market take its course. If people are telling you that it was Roosevelt who caused the depression then they are clinging to ideology, not history.

Deficit spending in a recession is exactly what we are supposed to do, by contrast with the past eight years of deficit spending in the absence of a recession.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 16, 2008)

midphase @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> I'm so sick and tired of this "anti taxes" attitude. The US does have some of the lowest taxes on the planet, my parents who still like in Italy pay a hell of a lot more than I do and make a hell of a lot less!



As a Canadian watching this election, this has always been funny to me. Americans are so obsessed with taxes even though theirs are pretty low. The best is people who complain about taxes while at the same time complain about underfunding.


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2008)

Personally I dont mind taxes so long as I see them being spent on something worthwhile.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2008)

"How come the American Dream is suddenly capped at $250K?"

That's not at all what he wants to do; it's just that Obama wants to back away from the trickle-down economics that Reagan started. Remember Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2008)

Joe the Plumber is totally naff.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Joe the Plumber is totally naff.



poor guy... the guy hasn't paid his taxes ....ooopsie... and he's concerned what his taxes are going to be with Obama?? :roll: 


(but I do feel sorry for the guy... he did not ask to be put in the national spotlight... but just like Palin... McCain didn't vet Joe well enough before making him the new mascot of his campaign.)


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2008)

Thonex @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Joe the Plumber is totally naff.
> ...



Is this true? He hasn't paid his taxes yet. Ha! that's just totally too funny. :lol: 

I bet he's filling out those forms now!!!


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 16, 2008)

choc0thrax @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> midphase @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm so sick and tired of this "anti taxes" attitude. The US does have some of the lowest taxes on the planet, my parents who still like in Italy pay a hell of a lot more than I do and make a hell of a lot less!
> ...



Me too!


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2008)

_Joe the Plumber: No new taxes -- and no old ones, either

Joe the Plumber really is no fan of paying taxes.

According to records from the Lucas County (OH) Court of Common Pleas found by my colleague Avi Zenilman, Samuel J. Wurzelbacher has a lien placed against him to the tune of $1,182.92.

The lien is dated from January of '07._


Hahahaha!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Thonex @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> ...



Is this true? He hasn't paid his taxes yet. Ha! that's just totally too funny. :lol: 

I ò”ˆ   ˆ¡×”ˆ   ˆ¡Ø”ˆ   ˆ¡Ù”ˆ   ˆ¡Ú”ˆ   ˆ¡Û”ˆ   ˆ¡Ü”ˆ   ˆ¡Ý”ˆ   ˆ¡Þ”ˆ   ˆ¡ß”ˆ   ˆ¡à”ˆ   ˆ¡á”ˆ   ˆ¡â”ˆ   ˆ¡ã”ˆ   ˆ¡ä”ˆ   ˆ¡å”ˆ   ˆ¡æ”ˆ   ˆ¡ç”ˆ   ˆ¡è”ˆ   ˆ¡é”ˆ   ˆ¡ê”ˆ   ˆ¡ë”ˆ   ˆ¡ì”ˆ   ˆ¡í”ˆ   ˆ¡î”ˆ   ˆ¡ï”ˆ   ˆ¡ð”ˆ   ˆ¡ñ”ˆ   ˆ¡ò”ˆ   ˆ¡ó”ˆ   ˆ¡ô”ˆ   ˆ¡õ”ˆ   ˆ¡ö”ˆ   ˆ¡÷”ˆ   ˆ¡ø”ˆ   ˆ¡ù”ˆ   ˆ¡ú”ˆ   ˆ¡û”ˆ   ˆ¡ü”ˆ   ˆ¡ý”ˆ   ˆ¡þ”ˆ


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

Jack Weaver @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> The issue is not 'Joe the Plumber'.
> 
> 
> The issue is what Obama said directly, directly - not in some aside or gaff - that he wants to take the money and spread it around.
> ...



and you want to give oil companies tax breaks??? Subsidies? 

Just because Obama wants oversight on certain things doesn't make him a socialist :roll: I guess because we have policemen you call the U.S. a police state???

Did McCain even mention "middle class" in the last debate?? Don't fall prey to McCain's fear mongering tactics... and 11th hour pandering.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 16, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> Joe the Plumber is totally naff.




no kidding. I figured that out about the 3rd sentence out of his mouth.


"I'll leave this by saying that this is not my personal vision of a strong America."

Then, McCain is?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2008)

"Very clear socialist-speak. You cannot escape what he said. You cannot excuse it 
as some attack against him or that he was misquoted."

But it doesn't need escaping or excusing, and I can attack McCain's distorted premise that it's socialist-speak. You could call all taxes socialist if you wanted, but socialism is a political ideology that has nothing to do with what Obama is proposing. McCain knows that full well, of course; he's just trotting out mouldy Cold War rhetoric in a desperate attempt to change the poll numbers.

Obama wants to make the tax burden more fair. That's a departure from Bush's tax cuts for the rich. The Laffer curve was proven Laffable during the Reagan era. Remember "voodoo economics?"

And the other side of it is that Obama needs to find a way to pay for his health proposal, which to me seems like a very good idea. A socially responsible program is not socialism.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 16, 2008)

Jack Weaver @ 16th October 2008 said:


> The issue is what Obama said directly, directly - not in some aside or gaff - that he wants to take the money and spread it around.



On this point, Jack, I think, is unambiguously correct.

Whatever you call it, I think Jack does point out one very big difference between McCain, who wants to continue* the tax breaks given to the wealthiest, and Obama, who wants to end them and have the wealthy pay a higher share of tax. 

Although conservatives are hepped up about taxes as if they are civil rights, while ignoring Bush's massive deficit spending (which someday must be repaid with -- taxes), I wouldn't characterize Obama's plan as socialist. 

"Socialist" means that the state is co-owner or wholly owns / controls "the means of production" (i.e. companies themselves). A good example is what our current, Republican, administration is doing via the bank bailout, thanks to which the US government now owns stakes in most of the large financial institutions in the country. That is, by definition, socialism. 

Even if redistribution as an objective can be called "socialist," Obama's plan amounts to faint tinkering, when compared with the genuinely and unapologetically socialist regimes of England and Scandinavia in the 1970s, with marginal tax rates of over 90%. Calling Obama's timid proposals "socialist" doesn't pass the laugh test.



* actually, since he supports cutting capital gains taxes, McCain wants to increase these breaks to the wealthiest beyond what Bush acheived.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2008)

Exactly John G. The idea of any tax is already a communist idea taken from Karl Marx.

Taxes are an unfortunate part of Government these days. The idea of "spreading wealth around" while I'm not a big fan, I'm much less of a fan of government buying into banks, or buying mortgages, ect... Obama is actually coming off less socialist than McCain at this point.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 16, 2008)

If taxes are raised on businesses, those costs will be laid off onto the consumer (always have always will.) Just like gas prices going up make groceries more expensive since they are trucked in. So any raise in taxes on any strata will effect us all. As far as hitting the wealthy harder on taxes, closing tax loopholes is a good thing but never done effectively enough and probably wouldn't generate as much as one would hope.

So I agree that raising taxes in a depressed economy seems a very bad idea and historically proven so. But what a moot point (aside from whether Obama's plan is sound or catostrophic) because the bailout as well as the Iraq war has sealed our fate for a good while on taxes.

The next president will be constrained to make modest changes in the system is my guess. What we need is to return to old fashioned _work hard and live within your means_ Americanism which is actually how the world has always had to function: _two cars in every garage_ is a very recent phenomenon.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 16, 2008)

McCain wants to cut capital gains tax. That's "spreading it around" too, just to a different set of folks - folks who don't actually work for their money. Folks who can make money while sleeping.


----------



## blue (Oct 16, 2008)

josejherring @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> The idea of any tax is already a communist idea taken from Karl Marx.



Huh? Tax is as old as society itself. Karl Marx did not invent taxation.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

blue @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Oct 16 said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of any tax is already a communist idea taken from Karl Marx.
> ...



you're thinking of the Russian Karl Marx. Jose meant the Neanderthal Carl Marx.. who had troglodytes pay cave tax.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2008)

I'm talking about progressive taxation. 

The quote is, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

The idea of tax is old but the idea of taking from the rich to giving it to the poor is pretty new.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 16, 2008)

Joe the Plumber? More like Joe the Fraud.

* The guy isn't a licensed plumber. He's a contractor.
* The guy makes about $40k per year
* The guy would get a bigger tax cut under Obama's plan than McCain's
* The guy had no concrete plan to buy his bosses business.
* The bosses business makes about $100k a year.

About the only fact that McCain got right is that the guy's name is Joe.

* Joseph is the guy's middle name.

We have 300 million Americans in this country. McCain could have easily cherry-picked somebody who has a good story and who would honestly benefit more under McCain's tax plan. But the campaign couldn't even get that right.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 16, 2008)

Check out this tax calculator (on the right hand side)... very cool idea:

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 17, 2008)

This whole Joe the plumer thing reminded me of the movie Wag the dog...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 17, 2008)

Fernando Warez @ Fri Oct 17 said:


> This whole Joe the plumer thing reminded me of the movie Wag the dog...



lol, true... 

It's quite fishy to say the least. I saw Anderson Cooper 360 on Joe Plumber... Not pretty.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 17, 2008)

There's lots of Joe's out there. I think it's a good thing for people to evaluate the actual effect of either candidates policies on small business. So I don't care whether this guy is real or not compared to the effect of new taxes on small business. He will go away but the future won't.

But let's face it, these guys are just trying to get elected and once someone get's into office they are going to change their tune. Things are too volatile to go in there with an iron clad plan. It's pobably as simple as understanding their philosophies which are clearly to the left with Obama and more to the right with McCain. Each one will tend in their natural direction.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Oct 17, 2008)

Part of the (false) story is that the business earns $280k per year. The deal is, the tax increase would only be on the marginal $30k over the $250k line. So the tax increase might be $1,500 or so over a full year. That's $125 a month or about $30 a week. 

It's not enough to make this mythical business owner fire a worker. In fact, if more regular people have cash, Joe might get more business, which could more than make up for a $30/wk loss.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 17, 2008)

JonFairhurst @ Fri Oct 17 said:


> Part of the (false) story is that the business earns $280k per year. The deal is, the tax increase would only be on the marginal $30k over the $250k line. So the tax increase might be $1,500 or so over a full year. That's $125 a month or about $30 a week.
> 
> It's not enough to make this mythical business owner fire a worker. In fact, if more regular people have cash, Joe might get more business, which could more than make up for a $30/wk loss.



Good point.

It's laughable to see the republican pundits get up and talk about the tax "Killing" growth... like it's some kind of death sentence. There's that republican fear mongering attitude again... :roll:


----------



## JohnG (Oct 17, 2008)

It's just hypocritical for the spend-and-spend Republicans to be complaining about taxes. It's the spending that CAUSES the taxes, and their spending -- particularly shameful in a period of prosperity -- has broken records for foolishness, pork, and deficits.

I don't care if it's Obama or McCain in that regard, but we need someone who cuts spending -- after the recession. In the mean time, as someone else on the thread pointed out, defense spending is the lowest multiplier / contributor toward the overall economy. Newly-minted Nobel laureate Paul Krugman recommends infrastructure spending. Since that helps every state, why not?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2008)

Infrastructure spending seems like a better investment than a stimulus check aka buying votes with our own money. I'm not an economist, but intuitively it feels way too simplistic to think that because our economy is 70% consumer spending we need to stimulate that by essentially borrowing more money.

My guess is that renewable energy is going to be the next gold rush that gets us out of this mess. I don't see why it wouldn't be bigger than the digital revolution.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 17, 2008)

I laughed out loud when John McCain was asked in the debate what he was going to do about alternative energy sources. The first words out of his mouth was Nuclear power. Nuclear power is gross. It's expensive. It's expensive to dispose of. Not to mention that radiation is the most harmful substance to biological tissue in the universe. It's so harmful that it can set up generational birth defects. It can alter the genetic code of living organisms. McCain obviously hasn't given the idea of alternative energy any real consideration.

That's what I don't dig about McCain. Every debate and every speech just shows that he has a fumble grasp of things that are really important. Sure he's solid on making war. But, being president I think requires a bit more foresight which he just doesn't have.

I'm all for paying taxes if I see that my government is actually trying to improve the condition of the world. 

As for Joe, he needs to quit his belly aching get to work and pay his fines.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 17, 2008)

I agree that alternative energy is the next gold rush. I've been slapping my forehead for the last 8 years as the oil men in charge have been ignoring this enormous opportunity that can solve so many problems for the US -- manufacturing, energy, wars, economy, environmental, etc. 

However, I don't agree that Nuclear power is a terrible idea. The waste is confined to a small space that is easily managed. A pool of water is enough to temporarily contain the waste, and then they contain it cement in there to lock it all in and ship it to that mountain in New Mexico or whatever. I certainly think it's less damaging than coal. Chernobyl literally couldn't happen here, even if we turned off every safeguard and ran an overload test like the Soviets did. I think it's a good idea for the next 50 years or so as we transition to solar, wind, and other sustainable energy technology that isn't quite there yet.


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2008)

The technology for sustainable energy is there the problem is Oil Companies own patents to a lot of technology like the electric car or some more advances in Solar Power. It also has to compete for market share with the Oil Companies. Look up how good Geo-Thermal energy could be if they just invested the resources. Unfortunately theres so much politics and money linked to Oil the technology is being held back.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 17, 2008)

Nuclear power. We don't need it. Cost more to produce than it's worth and is dangerous no matter how careful you are. Plutonium 237 is unstable. Just apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Sooner or later something goes wrong with everything. Just when it goes wrong with Nuclear power bad shit happens.

7 Mile island was as good a Nuclear facility as any we have now. The technology was good. All precautions were in place and it still leaked.

Solar power is a pipe dream on a mass scale. It can work in a home in conjunction with other stuff though.

The answers are simple. They just don't make money. Wind powered turbines can produce electricity abundant enough. The technology has been around in Palms Springs since I can remember. Also Hydrogen can power turbines and cars as well. Its only byproduct is water. Natural gas is already in use for stoves and heaters.

Coal, oil and nuclear power are big money makers. Creating lots of jobs. But, it's dangerous stuff.

The challenge the next pres faces if he wants to become energy independent is the fact that many miners and many oil communities will see massive layoffs.

It's not just evil greedy people that benefit from the traditional fossil fuel industry, but it's also many, many ordinary people.

But sacrifices need to be made for the betterment of all.

best,

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2008)

It's not that simple, Ed. The oil companies have what Paul Roberts call "investment inertia" in his book The End of Oil, meaning that they can't just walk away from billions upon billions of investment in infrastructure before it wears out.

So even if it were easy just to switch to the next thing(s), there would be that issue. But it isn't that easy. At this stage everything has some technical obstacles.

I believe we can and will overcome them, given enough research, and of course the politics are important. But it's not true that the evil oil companies have the keys to salvation and are holding onto them selfishly. After all, they know that affordable oil is going to run out better than we do, and they want to be the ones to sell us the next thing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2008)

Jose, nuclear power is dangerous; hydrogen takes energy to make, and it takes a lot of room to store compared to oil; liquified natural gas is going to be the next big thing, but it still contributes to global warming; wind power only works when the wind is blowing; solar power requires solar panels and only works when the sun is shining; coal is dirty, and at this point "clean coal" (carbon sequestration) is very expensive.

Every technology still has some hurdles or problems, although to be honest I don't know exactly what the problems are with geothermal or tide power.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 17, 2008)

Yeah, it will probably be solar + wind. But then we need better battery tech as well, charging and storage. And cars that run on that tech. 

Geothermal is like when they run a pipe to the bottom of the ocean, and the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the pipe = energy? I think that hasn't worked very well in testing.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 17, 2008)

If those morons in Washington (in both parties) hadn't made such a mess of things I'm guessing that a trillion dollars might have helped to get the alternative energy ball rolling. Here we are talking about being taxed to death or just taxed way way too much and it's all for things of the past not the future.

Politicians are like bad musicians. I'd rather not hear from any of them.


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2008)

synthetic @ Fri Oct 17 said:


> Geothermal is like when they run a pipe to the bottom of the ocean, and the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the pipe = energy? I think that hasn't worked very well in testing.



Geothermal is also taping volcanos. Watch an interview with the Pioneer Jacque Fresco done in 1974 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOPkGAtt48

The technology is there but theres far less or *no money at all* in it! Look at how much money is tied up in fossils fuels, if you imagine all the energy the world received was suddenly abundant, clean, renewable and _cheap_, its no longer scarce and therefore no money can be made from it. Just look at how much money is tied up in oil companies, look at how much politics and oil are so intrinsically linked. *Profit *is what stops technology like this from being developed or gaining the appropriate funding. Look at how much money spent on War, developing weapons like the Atom Bomb etc. Hundreds and thousands of scientists develping these things, billions upon billions of our money. Imagine what the world would have been like if you spent even half that on developing technology like this. Money, I am coming to understand, really is the rootò•9   ˆÇx•9   ˆÇy•9   ˆÇ


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 17, 2008)

It aint cheap, that's for sure.

I think it's much easier for the motivated individual to tap into solar energy than most realize. One can substantially reduce costs by installing themselves (so easy). Also, used panels are common. Even easier- is using solar to heat water and cook. These can be entirely built at home. Easier for you L.A guys than Seattle as you definitely need the sun to shine to heat water and cook.

For example- I was just on ebay and there are some great deals on used panels. Even some broken panels which still output 80%. The nice thing about panels are no moving parts and for the most part-repairs consist of soldering leads. So, practically, it's extremely easy for the do it yourselfer. There is no proprietary skill in mounting the panels and somewhat easy to mount an invertor and connect leads into the home panel. 

One can save thousands.

edit-BTW- 6k will buy you a 600watt system. Considering many live alone or a 2 person household- that's very do-able. This is not including batteries which aren't needed if you are hooked up to the grid.

So- use it during the day- use the grid at night drawing on the credit gained from selling excess back to the power company during the day.


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2008)

Exactly Art, just imagine now that you know this if the goverment invested itself once and for all to get a sustainable energy supply from clean energy technology. They could do it, but they dont want to. You save thousands but they loose, much more if they dont need fossil fuels, because they'd have to charge next to nothing for energy by comparison.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 17, 2008)

What happens when there's a foot of snow on the solar panels?! >8o


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2008)

Ned, solar panels flat on the ground isnt the only way of implimenting them


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 17, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Oct 17 said:


> What happens when there's a foot of snow on the solar panels?! >8o



well..since I'm obsessed with snow- I'll be happy to brush off the snow.

It's not perfect but darn near for much of the world. Soon I hope.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 17, 2008)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Fri Oct 17 said:


> What happens when there's a foot of snow on the solar panels?! >8o



There's no snow in LA :D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 17, 2008)

[quote:b50f3a8de3="Ed @ 17/10ò•M   ˆÊê•M   ˆÊë•M   ˆÊì•N   ˆÊí•N   ˆÊî•N   ˆÊï•N   ˆÊð•N   ˆÊñ•N   ˆÊò•N   ˆÊó•N   ˆÊô•N   ˆÊõ•N   ˆÊö•N   ˆÊ÷•N


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2008)

Nick, Obama tells us they spend $10 *billion *each *week *(or was it month?) fighting in Iraq and Im meant to get excited on them spending 15 billion over a few YEARS on this? Not even Obama will do what is really necessary. The technology is there so we do not have to ever burn fossil fuels again, think how much money they will loose. Think how oil companies have their greedy little fingers into everything. They will not let it happen.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 17, 2008)

there are two issues here. Creating/research/inventing the tech and then implementing it.

The good news is that most of the world is working on the research part. So- whether the U.S develops it (further) or not isnt as crucial as how to implement the change-over.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2008)

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy

What I said was wrong, Ed. He takes it as seriously as he's able to get away with.

It's $150 billion over ten years. $15 billion a year isn't enough but it's something.

Sorry about the misinformation.


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2008)

That is good, Nick. But he will never take it as far as he would have to. You think he would get rid of Oil in favour of all the the new energy technology and support electric or totally clean transport? I doubt it. Furthermore thats from his website where politicians make all kinds of promises to get elected. Even if he'd like to, which I doubt, the society and the government would not allow him to.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 17, 2008)

15 billion is enough to get the ball rolling. You could build 5 wind turbine sites that would power 750,000 homes each.

What I see is new communities coming up using this kind of technology, off the main electrical grid.

I'm excited again.

Jose


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2008)

And I will also say that $1ò•c   ˆÎz•c   ˆÎ{•c   ˆÎ|•c   ˆÎ}•c   ˆÎ~•c   ˆÎ•c   ˆÎ€•c   ˆÎ•c   ˆÎ‚•c   ˆÎƒ•c   ˆÎ„•c   ˆÎ…•c   ˆÎ†•c   ˆÎ‡•c   ˆÎˆ•c   ˆÎ‰•c   ˆÎŠ•c   ˆÎ‹•c   ˆÎŒ•c   ˆÎ•c   ˆÎŽ•c   ˆÎ•c   ˆÎ•c   ˆÎ‘•c   ˆÎ’•c   ˆÎ“•c   ˆÎ”•c   ˆÎ••c   ˆÎ–•c


----------



## synthetic (Oct 18, 2008)

I know that they've done a lot of geothermal experiments in Kona, Hawaii, where both deep ocean and volcanoes are plentiful. I know this because the experiments are now abandoned and the giant pipes make interesting SCUBA dive sites. I assume that they are abandoned because the experiment was a total failure. 

Once free energy is a possibility (solar, wind, geothermal, whatever) it won't be a hard sell for anyone. I seriously do not think an oil exec is twisting his mustache while the plans for cheap geothermal sit in his safe.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 18, 2008)

synthetic @ Sat Oct 18 said:


> I
> 
> Once free energy is a possibility (solar, wind, geothermal, whatever) it won't be a hard sell for anyone. I seriously do not think an oil exec is twisting his mustache while the plans for cheap geothermal sit in his safe.



Then you should rent the documentary: "Enron -- the smartest people in the room". Don't underestimate greed.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 18, 2008)

IT's probably the opposite . The writing is on the wall for oil and with those kinds of deep pockets, any savvy investor is going to move their investments into newer alternative energy.

The same companies may very well dominate the "energy" industry in the future.-in fact, speeding up the change over rather than hindering. just a thought.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2008)

I think it's a very safe bet that they're already planning for it, artsoundz. As I said, they know better than us that affordable oil isn't forever. They're already invested in liquified natural gas in Mexico, for example.

This is an interesting article on today's NYTimes.com about both candidates' plans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/po ... ref=slogin

Headline: Candidates Agree on Threat of Global Warming


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 18, 2008)

It's encouraging that at least the Supreme Court gets it more or less

Dirty Green- ha!

http://www.livescience.com/culture/0810 ... ience.html


Similar info with some additional insights.


----------



## rgames (Oct 22, 2008)

midphase @ Thu Oct 16 said:


> The bottom line is....the more money you make, the more taxes you should have to pay....simple!



Why? Should you also pay more for bread? And milk? And gas?

If not, why should people with higher salaries pay so much more for the same government services that everybody else uses for lower fees?

Does the guy making $250k/year use the armed services that much more? Or the FDA? OK - he uses the Supreme Court more, correct? That's why he should pay more, right?

If a guy has an AGI of five times the national average and gets a few percent break on his income tax rate, guess what: he's STILL paying a heck of a lot more taxes than the average person.

Here's one thing I haven't seen addressed anywhere: how much effect will that $250k tax hike really be? Seriously - in terms of revenues, how much? My guess is that it's not much and Obama is simply using it as a ploy to win votes: punish those successful capitalists! I guess it makes people feel better; I doubt it'll have much effect on the treasury.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Oct 22, 2008)

RE: renewable energy

IMHO, the main problem with the renewable energy plans I've seen is energy distribution, not collection. I don't know why this discussion never makes it into the media...

The best sources of renewable energy tend to be on mountaintops (wind), middles of deserts (solar), etc. The cost to get the energy from those sources to the users is huge. We definitely need advances in collection, don't get me wrong, but that's still not going to get us out of the distribution problem. Power lines are about as cheap as dirt and they're still too expensive for distribution on this scale. Plus, just imagine the maintenance costs for millions of miles of power lines...

What we need is a satellite-based power distribution network, like GPS but for energy. Then you could set up power generation plants anywhere, beam it up, and bounce it around the planet to wherever it needs to go. No power lines until the last leg of the transmission; we can use existing infrastructure for that. Once that infrastructure is put in place, renewable energy will really start to take off.

There are a whole host of issues that still need to be resolved, like preventing birds and airplanes from getting caught in the beam during transmission . But those issues can be worked out.

rgames


----------



## Thonex (Oct 22, 2008)

rgames @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Does the guy making $250k/year use the armed services that much more? Or the FDA? OK - he uses the Supreme Court more, correct? That's why he should pay more, right?



in a word.... Yes.

What you haven't considered is that who benefits the most from the rule of law? Why do we have police?? To enforce the law. When the law protects you from theft, then who benefits the most from the police?? If we didn't have the police, what would stop a someone from robbing the rich?

The wealthy in this country reap the financial reward that this country provides. I'm sure they use roads, the FDA, and other public services to make their money. 

So, I ask you, who does the police protect more?? The poor or the wealthy? Who benefits and exploits roads, commerce and the American infrastructure more... the rich or the poor?

It's not as simple as you originally laid out James. If all things were equal, why do you think there are so many Political Action Committees??

The United States is a country of publicly funded infrastructure, and because of it's opportunistic environment, the wealthy benefit from it more than the poor (in a material sense). I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I am saying that if you make tons of dough, you should help support the system that gave you your riches more than the poor guy on the street.

My opinion... and no.. I'm not a communist or socialist. :wink:


----------



## midphase (Oct 22, 2008)

"Why? Should you also pay more for bread? And milk? And gas? 

If not, why should people with higher salaries pay so much more for the same government services that everybody else uses for lower fees? "


The point that you're not understanding Richard is the exact one that you just made.

Basic cost of living is the same for everyone. So let's say that it takes a minimum of $30k/year to pay for basic living expenses in an average US city. You could then arrive to the conclusion that anything a person makes above that could be considered "luxury" money (yes, unfortunately putting money away for retirement is becoming a luxury as well). So the guy who makes $200k/year can easily cover $30k/year for basic living, and on top of that, he's got $170k/year for what we can call "luxury expenses" such as a larger home, a nicer car (or two), more dining out, going to theatres, etc.

Because of that, he has more "disposable income" and hence is able to weather the tax burden considerably more than the guy who can barely afford the basic living expenses.

The bottom line is that it takes a lot of money to run a civilized nation (a civilized nation needs to be a compassionate nation with social services and aid for its most unfortunate). 

It takes even more when said civilized nation goes to war. I always find it amusing how the very same people who favor the war are also the ones who are against higher taxes, to which I have to ask.....which one is it?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2008)

"why should people with higher salaries pay so much more for the same government services that everybody else uses for lower fees?"

It's not suddenly *so* much more, it's a percentage that results in a higher amount.

And the answer is Because they can afford to pay more. How much more? There's always a balance, and that's where you can argue.

One interesting proposal is the Fair Tax, which changes income tax to a sales tax ("consumption" tax). Huckabee was in favor of that, and it would mean that everyone pays the same for everything. The problem is that even with the solutions he proposed, it shifts the burden down, since the poorer you are the higher a percentage of your income the sales tax represents.


----------



## rJames (Oct 22, 2008)

Thonex @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> rgames @ Wed Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Does the guy making $250k/year use the armed services that much more? Or the FDA? OK - he uses the Supreme Court more, correct? That's why he should pay more, right?
> ...



Whoa there. Don't drag my name into this. I am rJames (aka Ron James), he is rGAmes (aka Richard G. Ames). Just wanna be clear if we ever sit across the table at another LANs hang.

I think the rich should pay more taxes but I'm thinking $250K is a little low. I live in California.


----------



## midphase (Oct 22, 2008)

Ron,

Maybe you ought to change your avatar to your picture so we can all tell the difference when we see you at LANS!


Also...we don't really know how much the tax increase will be if you make....say...$280k/year. It might be pretty minimal.

There's also the idea that if you're pulling in over $200k/year, you can probably afford a damn good accountant that will make sure you're paying the least amount possible.

One more....if it turns out that your income is over $250k...and you happen to be a freelancer or small business....chances are you're pulling in considerably more than that before all of the "expenses"


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2008)

You won't miss Ron, Kays - he's a big guy.


----------



## Ed (Oct 23, 2008)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> You won't miss Ron, Kays - he's a big guy.



Bigger than EP's smile? :D


----------



## Thonex (Oct 23, 2008)

rJames @ Wed Oct 22 said:


> Thonex @ Wed Oct 22 said:
> 
> 
> > rgames @ Wed Oct 22 said:
> ...



Sorry Ron o 

You're not alone... I actually called Frederick by the name of Russ. I'm horrible with names to start with... then throw in a person with 2 "first names" and I'm totally screwed :lol:


----------



## rJames (Oct 23, 2008)

Andrew, I don't care if you call me "hey you," as long as you don't invoke my name when responding to Richard. I was worried when rgames first came to VI cause I thought we'd be confused. But lately all of my work has come through that confusion, so, I've learned to live with it.

But please remember that I am the rJames that believes that paying taxes IS patriotic.

For some crazy reason, I believe, that helping to pay the salary of the President of the United States IS patriotic. Stupid me, I believe that paying for armor for our soldiers is patriotic.

Get this, I even believe that it is patriotic to help keep the government of the United States of America solvent. Ha! Deluded, you say?

It is NOT patriotic to hide assets in an offshore account. It is NOT patriotic to send business functions offshore. It is not patriotic to sell mortgages to people you know are seeking the American Dream but are in over their heads and won't be able to repay. It may be good business sense...but it is NOT patriotic.

It is NOT patriotic to pretend that saying, "it is patriotic to pay taxes," is a bad thing. It may not be smart to say that in an election year, but isn't it refreshing to hear a politician being a tiny, tiny bit truthful?

Darn, I had a lot more to say but I just got another call cause they like the demos I posted at VI (rgames) so, back to work...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 24, 2008)

Who knew? Sarah's a jazz singer!

http://www.therestisnoise.com/2008/10/p ... music.html


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 24, 2008)

hehe..I always suspected she was an improvisor.


----------



## midphase (Oct 24, 2008)

"I think we should be in the middle somewhere and I don't think Obama is any kind of centrist."

I think it's all very relative to where you're sitting!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 24, 2008)

I think the absolute farthest left politician in all three branches of our federal government right now is a centrist. There are no liberals in power.

The country moved so far right with its head in the toilet that someone who's just standing in the toilet with both feet looks like there's nothing wrong.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 25, 2008)

Bush took the country right militarily and the country has completely left him on that. The issue between the left and right has been how we get out: pack up now or pack up later when Iraq can handle it. Obama has steadily moved toward the right's position saying he now wants a _residual force_ left there. I'm for the right when I percieve they're correct and the left when they're correct. I simply can't have a predetermined stance based upon an ideology. People get so offended when I take that very constitutional position. 

Nick, you don't see the bailout as a collossal move to the left? The government taking over private businesses en masse? I'm not saying it's good or bad I'm just saying what direction it is scientifically. It means a ton of new taxes. So I'm not inclined to elect someone who tilts that way as a way of problem solving. Socially the country's been moving to left since Kennedy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 25, 2008)

Not really. I see it as a colossal reaction that's beyond ideology.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 25, 2008)

Well, I didn't say the move was ideological. Both parties signed onto that in a big way. That whole catastrophe is a sort of perfect storm of what's wrong with both parties. Now that we're stuck with that bill I figure that's enough ballooning of the government for now.

In any case it looks like we're going to see the Democrats in control of the Presidency, House and Senate. So we will witness the fruit of their leanings. Bush being gone will be a relief for everyone. What a shame that any president would have to inherit this present mess. I hope Obama is the genius everyone thinks he is. It will be very tough for him even if he is.


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 25, 2008)

midphase @ Fri Oct 24 said:


> "I think we should be in the middle somewhere and I don't think Obama is any kind of centrist."
> 
> I think it's all very relative to where you're sitting!



I'm sitting in front of my computer! I need a new one! I just want tb able to afford it! :wink:


----------

