2016 Presidential Horse Race

[woolybug25]

With all do respect, that's not your decision. If a kid has the grades and the desire/determination, they should be allowed. There will always be a marketplace for jobs via higher education and jobs via trade. It's up to the individual to decide which route fulfills their passion.

Oh, save me the bullshit. If a kid has the desire/determination, then he does right now. I don't owe my tax dollars to fund every kid that goes to college. If they have the desire/determination, then go get student loans if you can't get scholarships, grants, etc. Just because a kid really wants to be a history teacher, doesn't mean that he is entitled to my money to pay for it.

Also, this assumption that there are always "higher education jobs and jobs via trade" is also not true. The most underserved career fields in this country are trades. Which has been caused by our current education climate. Handing out free tuition like candy isn't going to fill those jobs, its going to lessen the value of my degree (because hell... anybody can go to college, right?), decrease the quality of education and pull even more capable people out of the blue collar jobs and into government dependency.

 

[RDU Irish]

Here's where I have problem (other than the fact that the whole plan is laughably impossible)




Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by
imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.

There is no way in fuqing hell they are imposing a .5 basis point tax on trades. That is utterly laughable. It would crash our stock market immediately, as all foreign investors would at least temporarily pull their position. The fact that this would be even considered shows the utter lack of understanding this man has about how markets work. This would never pass.

Also, there is this "fluffy" assumption that more college students = millions of jobs. I would like to hear Bernie explain EXACTLY how this translates with facts and figures. Because this is a complete assumption that by flooding our colleges with unprepared students and putting public universities on government welfare we will somehow not dilute the quality of education. So even if that somehow magically didn't happen, what jobs are they going to? Where are these mythical college level careers that will be created?[/QUOTE]



This would destroy NYC. Wall Street would be dead and stocks would move to be listed elsewhere. While I think trading is ridiculously short term focused and something to incentivize long term investing (versus trading) is a good idea, the thought that imposing a tax like this would not change activity in a massive way is beyond naïve, it is utterly stupid. Thankfully for Bern, 95% of the country is utterly stupid when it comes to economic discussions.

 

[pkt77242]

Oh, save me the bullshit. If a kid has the desire/determination, then he does right now. I don't owe my tax dollars to fund every kid that goes to college. If they have the desire/determination, then go get student loans if you can't get scholarships, grants, etc. Just because a kid really wants to be a history teacher, doesn't mean that he is entitled to my money to pay for it.

Also, this assumption that there are always "higher education jobs and jobs via trade" is also not true. The most underserved career fields in this country are trades. Which has been caused by our current education climate. Handing out free tuition like candy isn't going to fill those jobs, its going to lessen the value of my degree (because hell... anybody can go to college, right?), decrease the quality of education and pull even more capable people out of the blue collar jobs and into government dependency.

I might agree with some of your post, but with the bold, college would be free, not that everyone would go. Two different things. There would still be academic requirements to get in (core courses taken, GPA thresholds, SAT/ACT requirements).

Having said that I am not sure if free tuition is the best choice but we need to do something about the rising costs of higher education.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Oh, save me the bullshit. If a kid has the desire/determination, then he does right now. I don't owe my tax dollars to fund every kid that goes to college. If they have the desire/determination, then go get student loans if you can't get scholarships, grants, etc. Just because a kid really wants to be a history teacher, doesn't mean that he is entitled to my money to pay for it.

Also, this assumption that there are always "higher education jobs and jobs via trade" is also not true. The most underserved career fields in this country are trades. Which has been caused by our current education climate. Handing out free tuition like candy isn't going to fill those jobs, its going to lessen the value of mine (because hell... anybody can go to college, right?), decrease the quality of education and pull even more capable people out of the blue collar jobs and into government dependency.

Are you the grumpy gills who complains about increased property taxes to cover local schools' referendums if you don't have kids in the schools? Only half joking. Where I live, one of the wealthiest suburbs declined a referendum because a lot of the demographic are older and w/o kids in the schools. A bunch of teachers ended up getting laid off and that school has been in decline ever since. Oh, and the real estate market isn't fantastic anymore because of this. Joke's on them I guess.

Sorry for my short story, but your post reminds me of that town and how they basically refuse to support the youth and educational system "with their tax dollars."

Maybe I just look at it differently than you. Perhaps a slight increase in my state taxes (it can't really be that much...surely not as much as what I'm already saving for my kid's college) invested in furthering the education of our youth doesn't get me riled up because I feel the results outweighs the costs.

People like to use that "watering down the value of a degree" argument a lot. I find this comical as well. What is so wrong with educating more people. Employers will still hire whomever they feel is right for the job. Whats wrong with their applicant pool getting a little bigger? I just don't see the downside in having a more educated society. Regardless of cost. I just don't.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I might agree with some of your post, but with the bold, college would be free, not that everyone would go. Two different things. There would still be academic requirements to get in (core courses taken, GPA thresholds, SAT/ACT requirements).

Having said that I am not sure if free tuition is the best choice but we need to do something about the rising costs of higher education.

Thanks. I totally forgot to add your first part to my posts and I meant to include those points.

To the second, addressing rising costs of education is a must as well. I think the two go together in making this proposal doable.

 

[woolybug25]

I might agree with some of your post, but with the bold, college would be free, not that everyone would go. Two different things. There would still be academic requirements to get in (core courses taken, GPA thresholds, SAT/ACT requirements).

Having said that I am not sure if free tuition is the best choice but we need to do something about the rising costs of higher education.

You don't believe that this would lead to a drastic increase in the amount of students enrolling into colleges? Isn't that kinda the whole point of the proposal?

It's simply supply and demand. If I go interview for a banking gig, I am competing against a pool of people in which one of the main barriers of entry is a college education. If the number of "qualified" candidates go up, then my degree, and the barrier of entry it represents, decreases in value.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Also, there is this "fluffy" assumption that more college students = millions of jobs. I would like to hear Bernie explain EXACTLY how this translates with facts and figures. Because this is a complete assumption that by flooding our colleges with unprepared students and putting public universities on government welfare we will somehow not dilute the quality of education. So even if that somehow magically didn't happen, what jobs are they going to? Where are these mythical college level careers that will be created?

[/QUOTE]

Actually, I don't think this is true. Every time I hear Bernie speak about education, it's in regards to poverty and imprisonment. Call it a Utopian theory, but he's clearly just trying to help the less fortunate have a path towards accomplishment and not a path to a jail cell. If you want to call him out in that regard by claiming "those types of individuals aren't typically the ones who would go to college anyways," I'd semi-agree. But I think you need to start somewhere. So no, I don't believe he's selling this free college = millions of jobs idea that you mention. Maybe I'm wrong. I just haven't heard it that way.

 

[woolybug25]

Are you the grumpy gills who complains about increased property taxes to cover local schools' referendums if you don't have kids in the schools? Only half joking. Where I live, one of the wealthiest suburbs declined a referendum because a lot of the demographic are older and w/o kids in the schools. A bunch of teachers ended up getting laid off and that school has been in decline ever since. Oh, and the real estate market isn't fantastic anymore because of this. Joke's on them I guess.

Sorry for my short story, but your post reminds me of that town and how they basically refuse to support the youth and educational system "with their tax dollars."

Why are "with their tax dollars" in parenthesis? Is it not their money? lol

I don't know your situation, but I recently voted against a tax increase for education in my town and both my sisters are teachers. The reason I did so is because when I look at my property tax breakout, over 40% of my property tax (which is comparatively high) is going to paying for loans to the school district made over the course of the last 5 years. I'm not just going to blindly keep giving them my money when they clearly have shown that they have no answers in fixing their budgetary issues. I don't see why that is "bitter old man" talk?

Maybe I just look at it differently than you. Perhaps a slight increase in my state taxes (it can't really be that much...surely not as much as what I'm already saving for my kid's college) invested in furthering the education of our youth doesn't get me riled up because I feel the results outweighs the costs.

The bolded is astonishing to me. What you are saying is that you don't even know what you're paying in taxes, but it's clearly not enough because education should always be funded. You feel so strongly about this, that you save your own money to pay for your kids education. But meanwhile, see zero reason why anyone else should have to save like you do for your children's future? It's a bizarre outlook, imo.

People like to use that "watering down the value of a degree" argument a lot. I find this comical as well. What is so wrong with educating more people. Employers will still hire whomever they feel is right for the job. Whats wrong with their applicant pool getting a little bigger? I just don't see the downside in having a more educated society. Regardless of cost. I just don't.

More graduates does not equate to better educations. Larger student bodies mean larger student-teacher ratios. It means universities may have to make cuts to pay for the infrastructure for serving more people. Furthermore, future pay is in direct correlation with degree choice. A kid isn't going to pay $150k for a job that pays $25k a year (well, some due, but I digress). If there the risk/reward is removed from education. More people will graduate with "general business", "Communications" and "English" degrees, simply because it doesn't cost them anything. Those people will then go compete for banking, sales & teaching jobs with less actual skill. Making my degree worth less in an ever increasing pool of grey majors.

Getting an education and being educated are two different things.

 

[woolybug25]

Actually, I don't think this is true. Every time I hear Bernie speak about education, it's in regards to poverty and imprisonment. Call it a Utopian theory, but he's clearly just trying to help the less fortunate have a path towards accomplishment and not a path to a jail cell. If you want to call him out in that regard by claiming "those types of individuals aren't typically the ones who would go to college anyways," I'd semi-agree. But I think you need to start somewhere. So no, I don't believe he's selling this free college = millions of jobs idea that you mention. Maybe I'm wrong. I just haven't heard it that way.

Are you kidding me??? You literally linked this for our reading pleasure...

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

You are correct. Linked is a detailed version of his proposal. There isn't a single thing I have a problem with.

Which reads....

It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year
which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.

 

[drayer54]

Is it possible that one day the cost of college will run itself out of business and bring the prices under control?

It's kind of like supply and demand, because it is... If college gets more expensive and trade schools/community colleges/cheap schools prove to be a reasonable alternative; could we see the day where enrollment dips because people don't want to pay 150k for your piece of paper that doesn't do anything special?

I think this one could work itself out over time, but the tuition will likely get more out of hand first and more and more people will drive themselves into insane debt.

 

[pkt77242]

You don't believe that this would lead to a drastic increase in the amount of students enrolling into colleges? Isn't that kinda the whole point of the proposal?

It's simply supply and demand. If I go interview for a banking gig, I am competing against a pool of people in which one of the main barriers of entry is a college education. If the number of "qualified" candidates go up, then my degree, and the barrier of entry it represents, decreases in value.

I think that you will see a small increase (relative to the amount of students that currently go to college) in the number of students enrolling but as long as they aren't dropping entrance requirements (which I am against, and I might even be for increasing entrance requirements) then most of them will be from middle class families that are "smart" enough to go to college but are daunted by the cost. Lets be honest it wouldn't change the amount of rich kids going to a university and it wouldn't change the amount of poor people significantly either (due to the fact that many that can get into college can get grants and scholarships to cover most of the cost).

For example the cost for a resident living on-campus at Arizona State University is about $22,000-$23,000 just for tuition, room and board. Not including books, notebooks, etc. They estimate the total cost to be about $27,000. The cost of higher education is getting out of control and we need to do something about it. As I have said I am not sure that free tuition is the way to go but at least it is an idea (and not the worst one out there).

 

[kmoose]

I think that you will see a small increase (relative to the amount of students that currently go to college) in the number of students enrolling but as long as they aren't dropping entrance requirements (which I am against, and I might even be for increasing entrance requirements) then most of them will be from middle class families that are "smart" enough to go to college but are daunted by the cost. Lets be honest it wouldn't change the amount of rich kids going to a university and it wouldn't change the amount of poop people significantly either (due to the fact that many that can get into college can get grants and scholarships to cover most of the cost).

For example the cost for a resident living on-campus at Arizona State University is about $22,000-$23,000 just for tuition, room and board. Not including books, notebooks, etc. They estimate the total cost to be about $27,000. The cost of higher education is getting out of control and we need to do something about it. As I have said I am not sure that free tuition is the way to go but at least it is an idea (and not the worst one out there).

:jawdrop: Did you really just say that poor people are shit?

 

[woolybug25]

I think that you will see a small increase (relative to the amount of students that currently go to college) in the number of students enrolling but as long as they aren't dropping entrance requirements (which I am against, and I might even be for increasing entrance requirements) then most of them will be from middle class families that are "smart" enough to go to college but are daunted by the cost. Lets be honest it wouldn't change the amount of rich kids going to a university and it wouldn't change the amount of poop people significantly either (due to the fact that many that can get into college can get grants and scholarships to cover most of the cost).

I guess we simply disagree here. The cost of education is a much bigger barrier of entry to higher education than academic requirements. Not to mention, this would be on every level of education from the small community college to large universities. A kid with a D average can get into community college. So I simply cannot imagine how this wouldn't drastically increase attendance, nor would it serve the purpose of the project, if more people aren't getting degrees.

For example the cost for a resident living on-campus at Arizona State University is about $22,000-$23,000 just for tuition, room and board. Not including books, notebooks, etc. They estimate the total cost to be about $27,000. The cost of higher education is getting out of control and we need to do something about it. As I have said I am not sure that free tuition is the way to go but at least it is an idea (and not the worst one out there).

This may sound like i'm being a d!ck, but I have good intent, so hear me out.

If a kid can't afford to get a degree at a school that costs $27k, then he should find somewhere else to go. If he cannot find a college he can afford, then he should save money. If he cannot make money fast enough for his liking to pay for tuition, then he can go to the military and get a GI bill. If he doesn't want to do any of these, then he can learn a trade and probably do just as well as he would have if he would have got into ASU and studied blonde coeds and got an Arts history degree.

It's not the costs of education that's out of control. It's the manipulation of our youth, forcing them to attend universities and incur debt. When it's clearly not resulting in more or better jobs for their future. If we simply made people make decisions with their own pocketbooks instead of reaching into others pocketbooks, then supply and demand would naturally decrease the cost of attendance.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Sorry, Wooly, have to keep this short. Just received an unfortunate phone call and need to run.

I can't respond to everything but the reason I said it can't be much more than what I'm already saving is because I was referencing the 33% liability for states to cover in this proposal. I haven't seen a figure of what sort of tax increase that will suggest. So I just don't know the answer and I'm assuming that it will be less than what I'm currently saving. meaning my kids and everyone else's kids (if they're willing and able) can go to college for less than what I was already saving for just my own. If that makes sense.

My quote to RDU about education and millions of jobs was just a simple oversight. Trying to do too much on a Friday afternoon and literally that's the first I've heard about it from Sanders. Sorry for that.

I also understand why you don't like to pay your money into a school system that isn't responsible with it's funds. I totally agree and think that for this whole system to work, companies and schools, etc will need to be more fiscally responsible.

Again, sorry if this is too brief and doesn't make sense, but I need to go.

Happy Friday/Bye Week everyone.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't know your situation, but I recently voted against a tax increase for education in my town and both my sisters are teachers. The reason I did so is because when I look at my property tax breakout, over 40% of my property tax (which is comparatively high) is going to paying for loans to the school district made over the course of the last 5 years. I'm not just going to blindly keep giving them my money when they clearly have shown that they have no answers in fixing their budgetary issues. I don't see why that is "bitter old man" talk?

They can't fix their budgetary issues (well I guess I can't say how your state works). For example I live in Arizona which is either last or second to last in education dollars per student. Our legislature is the one that decides how much goes to the schools not the schools themselves so they have little ability to fix their budgetary issues. I am not sure that it is fair to blame the school district for their budget issues.

 

[pkt77242]

I guess we simply disagree here. The cost of education is a much bigger barrier of entry to higher education than academic requirements. Not to mention, this would be on every level of education from the small community college to large universities. A kid with a D average can get into community college. So I simply cannot imagine how this wouldn't drastically increase attendance, nor would it serve the purpose of the project, if more people aren't getting degrees.



This may sound like i'm being a d!ck, but I have good intent, so hear me out.

If a kid can't afford to get a degree at a school that costs $27k, then he should find somewhere else to go. If he cannot find a college he can afford, then he should save money. If he cannot make money fast enough for his liking to pay for tuition, then he can go to the military and get a GI bill. If he doesn't want to do any of these, then he can learn a trade and probably do just as well as he would have if he would have got into ASU and studied blonde coeds and got an Arts history degree.

It's not the costs of education that's out of control. It's the manipulation of our youth, forcing them to attend universities and incur debt. When it's clearly not resulting in more or better jobs for their future. If we simply made people make decisions with their own pocketbooks instead of reaching into others pocketbooks, then supply and demand would naturally decrease the cost of attendance.

Just so we are on the same page as my original post wasn't clear, that is $27K per year. So over 100K for 4 years (sorry that my original post wasn't very clear).

 

[woolybug25]

They can't fix their budgetary issues (well I guess I can't say how your state works). For example I live in Arizona which is either last or second to last in education dollars per student. Our legislature is the one that decides how much goes to the schools not the schools themselves so they have little ability to fix their budgetary issues. I am not sure that it is fair to blame the school district for their budget issues.

Budgets and state monies aren't what they are addressing. These are local tax increases to create more school district funds and bond issuances.

But regardless of that. When the district is drowning in debt because they can't stay under budget, why is forcing me to pay more the logical answer?

 

[pkt77242]

Budgets and state monies aren't what they are addressing. These are local tax increases to create more school district funds and bond issuances.

But regardless of that. When the district is drowning in debt because they can't stay under budget, why is forcing me to pay more the logical answer?

I can't speak for your school district but many districts saw budget cuts at the state level during the recession. Thus they started turning to bonds to fund things that the district needed. Also what was the bonds for? I know that when my district had bonds up for last year we got a breakdown of what the money would be used for (most of which went to building a new school and adding building to two others as the student population in my district is growing fast since there are a lot of new home communities in it and another significant portion went to replacing ACs in some of the original schools that are 20+ years old). Again I can't speak for the specifics of your district and why they needed the additional money but many times it is because state funding isn't rising fast enough (some years it is flat or lower than inflation) and sometimes there are cuts at the state level or because expansions or expensive equipment (such as buses) are needed.

ETA: Just because it was a local bond doesn't mean that it wasn't addressing a funding issue from the state. It just means that they are circumventing the state and are trying to get funding from bonds.

 

[pkt77242]

I guess we simply disagree here. The cost of education is a much bigger barrier of entry to higher education than academic requirements. Not to mention, this would be on every level of education from the small community college to large universities. A kid with a D average can get into community college. So I simply cannot imagine how this wouldn't drastically increase attendance, nor would it serve the purpose of the project, if more people aren't getting degrees.



This may sound like i'm being a d!ck, but I have good intent, so hear me out.

If a kid can't afford to get a degree at a school that costs $27k, then he should find somewhere else to go. If he cannot find a college he can afford, then he should save money. If he cannot make money fast enough for his liking to pay for tuition, then he can go to the military and get a GI bill. If he doesn't want to do any of these, then he can learn a trade and probably do just as well as he would have if he would have got into ASU and studied blonde coeds and got an Arts history degree.

It's not the costs of education that's out of control. It's the manipulation of our youth, forcing them to attend universities and incur debt. When it's clearly not resulting in more or better jobs for their future. If we simply made people make decisions with their own pocketbooks instead of reaching into others pocketbooks, then supply and demand would naturally decrease the cost of attendance.

The bill I saw from Bernie only included 4 year public universities.

 

[woolybug25]

I can't speak for your school district but many districts saw budget cuts at the state level during the recession. Thus they started turning to bonds to fund things that the district needed. Also what was the bonds for? I know that when my district had bonds up for last year we got a breakdown of what the money would be used for (most of which went to building a new school and adding building to two others as the student population in my district is growing fast since there are a lot of new home communities in it and another significant portion went to replacing ACs in some of the original schools that are 20+ years old). Again I can't speak for the specifics of your district and why they needed the additional money but many times it is because state funding isn't rising fast enough (some years it is flat or lower than inflation) and sometimes there are cuts at the state level or because expansions or expensive equipment (such as buses) are needed.

ETA: Just because it was a local bond doesn't mean that it wasn't addressing a funding issue from the state. It just means that they are circumventing the state and are trying to get funding from bonds.

The first bond was for a new gym. The second was for new grandstands and AV equipment for the football team and this last one was for remodeling the junior high and upgrading the Internet capabilities. Now, if the latter would have been the first thing they demanded our residents to pay for, I probably would have voted for it.


On the point about 4 year schools, I didn't see that, but I'm not sure that changes anything. There are still tons of shitty schools that kids can get into. Also, as I said before, isn't the whole point to make college more available? (i.e. More students) I disagree with that being the right way to fix the system, but regardless, if it didn't lead to more degrees, then what is the program's purpose? To simply fix the rising costs of higher education by forcing the entire country to pay for those costs through taxes?

I don't see why I'm responsible to "pay my share" of the cost of attendance of a kid I'll never meet, so he can bang coeds, get high in his dorm room and get that valuable general studies degree that he's entitled to simply because he was born in the good ol US of A.

Also, when do the payouts happen? Does every kid that managed a 2.5 gpa get the privilege to "go find themselves" at State U and then leave the American public with the bill when he flunks out or decides college isn't for them?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So a person with a severe disability shouldn't get assistance? Last I checked their disability is a life style, one they can't help. You think it's wrong for them to get help?

Do you realize that out of the 20-30% of Americans who get assistance, only about 5% of them receive more than half their income via government programs? Which means that vast majority of them are working, they just need some help putting food on the table, getting medicine, or keeping a roof over their head. By the way, that help is only about $400 a month in food stamps and other benefits. They're hardly living the life of the wealthy.

Do you think it's wrong that poor kids get a free lunch at school because otherwise, they'd go hungry?

The problem isn't that you want to help people in need. The problem is that in every situation you present the narrative of "the government needs to do this" or "people are going to go hungry, be illiterate, be pushed off a cliff, or die in the streets."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

A lot to unpack here, but I'll just point out that average college tuition has been increasing faster than the rate of inflation for several decades now. Going to school is no longer a matter of graduating thousands of dollars in debt, but potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. What students of your generation had to do has nothing to do with the experiences of modern day students. It also has nothing to do with the normative question of how we should develop human capital in this country.

Closer than you think. I'm 30, not 50. Everyone I know in my age group is saddled with college debt, aside from a select few who had athletic/ academic scholarships. Absolutely relative to the generation behind us and the challenges they face.

 

[woolybug25]

Closer than you think. I'm 30, not 50. Everyone I know in my age group is saddled with college debt, aside from a select few who had athletic/ academic scholarships. Absolutely relative to the generation behind us and the challenges they face.

Haha... Everyone always assumes that Leppy is a 48 year old Plummer, wearing camo and drinking Budweiser. I'm not sure what that means. lol


I'm guilty of it.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I meant to reply to this too and forgot:

-Polish Leppy

This is another thing I thoroughly do not understand. The tax revenue to pay for tuition will be paid for by Wall Street under Bernie's plan. There are already programs in place to help kids pay for the costs of living while in college. Why on Earth do people have a problem with kids getting a free education? The youth of this country are the foundation for the future. Consider it an investment. If you can make it easier, why wouldn't you? Hillary's against it because she "doesn't want to pay for Trump's kids' college education." This is so short-sighted and spiteful. It's like us bitching about Nico Fertita getting a football scholarship even though his dad can afford the tuition. There are plenty of smart kids out there who have the grades and the desire to go to college but can't because they can't afford it. Why not make it easier for them? Just because you worked through college and paid your own way doesn't mean you can't step back and rethink the system. College debt combined with unemployment rates are a massive reason why young people are struggling to get ahead. And you have an issue with trying to fix that problem?

It's important for us to think with our heads, not our hearts, on this. Your intentions are sincere, but the proposal to pay for this is a disaster. And no, you're wrong, it won't all be on Wall St.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Haha... Everyone always assumes that Leppy is a 48 year old Plummer, wearing camo and drinking Budweiser. I'm not sure what that means. lol


I'm guilty of it.

I'm actually Joe the Plumber from Ohio lol

Don't have any camo, Bud Light sometimes (no Bud Heavies), and work in sales. I do live in Amish Country, PA in a renovated barn on 6 aces with a few guns in a locked safe.

Hope that helps haha

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm actually Joe the Plumber from Ohio lol

Don't have any camo, Bud Light sometimes (no Bud Heavies), and work in sales. I do live in Amish Country, PA in a renovated barn on 6 aces with a few guns in a locked safe.

Hope that helps haha

Just an aside...

Joe the Plumber was not named Joe. He was also not a plumber.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Just an aside...

Joe the Plumber was not named Joe. He was also not a plumber.

It was a joke.

 

[BGIF]

Just an aside...

Joe the Plumber was not named Joe. He was also not a plumber.

Leppy's first name could be Joe and he might be a plumber.


Then again, he might be Sam Wurzelbacher.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It was a joke.

I wasn't trying to be snarky. And I got your joke. Just think Joe the Plumber is a funny story.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm actually Joe the Plumber from Ohio lol

Don't have any camo, Bud Light sometimes (no Bud Heavies), and work in sales. I do live in Amish Country, PA in a renovated barn on 6 aces with a few guns in a locked safe.

Hope that helps haha

You have money buried in random places on your property, don't you?