Jump to content

Poor Joe


Pangloss
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay here's the funniest story you will read regarding Joe the Plumber. It's the New York Times struggling to dish up some dirt on the guy.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html

 

Oh my god, look at the smear! This guy is just a working stiff like the rest of us, he's not stumping for McCain! And yet here's the great and powerful NEW YORK TIMES hammering the guy for having a couple of liens or whatever. Hilarious!

 

The far left is outraged over this guy, but I have no idea why. He's just a guy who wanted to ask a freaking question. The far left tried to tell us that we had to tolerate Cindy Sheehan's politics because she lost a son in Iraq, but it can't sit still for this guy because he had the audacity to actually ask a candidate a question. Heaven forfend!

 

Check out this Diane Sawyer interview from Thursday morning:

http://www.yahoo.com/s/971720

 

- Yes, I am registered to vote

- No, I don't think people who make more should be taxed at a higher rate

- Sure, it's cool that this happened

- No, I will not be supporting either candidate at any rally, even though I've been asked

- No, I will not tell you who I am voting for

 

I watched that and I thought my god, there is hope for this planet yet. Not because I agree with his positions (I don't!), but just because I got a vibe of honest independence from the guy. Sure he usually votes Republican -- so what? He's refusing to campaign for McCain -- BULLY ON HIM. He had the audacity to ask Obama a direct question about his situation -- BULLY ON HIM.

 

Joe makes me think there is hope for this country yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This The daily show vid gives a good look at the "love em then turn on em" media behavior.

 

at 1:13 in vid:

 

J Oliver: "Jon, it's been over 12 hours, we are on to phase two"

J Stewart: "What's phase two?"

J Oliver: "Blithly destroying the man's life, through excessive, unwarranted scrutiny"

 

 

It's pretty sad, can't really say much more than that. For some reason though, it seems good ratings fodder, so real news will have to take a back seat...again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/MNQ013J6JV.DTL

 

Joe the Plumber:

 

1) Isn't named Joe, his name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher.

2) Sam isn't a licensed plumber

3) Is an odd fellow to be using as an example case for tax policy, considering he owes a substantial sum in back taxes

4) Despite all that, Joe, I mean... Sam, would still pay less tax under Obama, that is... if he paid his taxes

 

*facepalm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In less than 24 hours, we've seen more media interviews with Joe the Plumber than we have with Sarah Palin since she was picked to run as McCain's VP. :rolleyes:

 

I think I've done more interviews than Palin since she was picked.

 

Anyway …

 

Just another thing to file under "This passes for journalism?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Joe. An anybody else who thumbs his nose at the IRS and takes the wealth redistributionist pigs to task for their theft.

 

I don't remember McCain "choosing" him for anything, that's funny. Also, who called him Joe? I don't remember hearing "Joe" call himself Joe. I thought that came from the ole "Joe Blow" generic naming convention for blue collar guys.

 

Any other stupid shit we can trash him with? Hey, I heard his great grandfather gave a dollar to the KKK back in 1920, so surely he's a racist too right??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Joe getting trashed anyway? Why does it matter if his name is Dirk Diggler? Or if he's never paid a dime in taxes in his whole life? Or if he's even an american citizen? Or if he's a serial killer on vacation in the US? Why does a single speck of his personal information have to do with the validity of his questions and the revelation of Obama's answer: wealth redistribution.

 

But then, there's the anwer. That's it. Because Obama accidentally told the philosophical truth of his position, his campaign and his disciples are defending him by mounting the pathetic offense against a small businessman.

 

So weird. Why not just stand behind that truth? Why not say it everyday, to every camera, without shame? Not sure why Joe deserves to be trashed. (other than that he didn't "obey" like the Obama posters request)

 

Is this the new democratic party? You're either with us or against us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is Joe getting trashed anyway? Why does it matter if his name is Dirk Diggler? Or if he's never paid a dime in taxes in his whole life? Or if he's even an american citizen? Or if he's a serial killer on vacation in the US? Why does a single speck of his personal information have to do with the validity of his questions and the revelation of Obama's answer: wealth redistribution.

 

Please excuse me if I don't take a tax dodger's opinion on taxes at face value

 

But then, there's the anwer. That's it. Because Obama accidentally told the philosophical truth of his position, his campaign and his disciples are defending him by mounting the pathetic offense against a small businessman.

 

I find wealth redistribution much better to the neocon alternative: wealth evaporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please excuse me if I don't take a tax dodger's opinion on taxes at face value

 

Exactly what I was talking about. What does Joe's opinion matter on anything? See, you're doing it too. You're redirecting the focus to irrelevant bullshit. You might as well point out the color of socks you're wearing.

 

Again, why does Joe matter at all? The questions and answers are absolutely relevant for a presidential job position.

 

I find wealth redistribution much better to the neocon alternative: wealth evaporation.

 

Ok. And I find thinking outside of my self made box much better to false premises like Shitty Option A or Shitty Option B. We're not lab rats, there are other options besides redistribution and evaporation. But not when you're hooked by partisan competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, why does Joe matter at all? The questions and answers are absolutely relevant for a presidential job position.

 

Joe the plumber is a fiction, so unlike McCain, we don't need to keep our talking points on him.

 

If someone is making 50,000 a year and has dreams of owning his own business someday, I think Obama's tax plan may be better for him than McCain's.

 

If someone already owns a business and takes home over 250,000 a year, then he will pay more under Obama's tax plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, redistribution of wealth happens with both parties, and in the plans of both candidates, so let's not pretend that it's a democratic coup like the retards who listen to Rush think.

 

They all redistribute wealth, it's just that they distribute it to different groups. Repubs to the wealthy and the corps, the Dems to the poorer and to social projects.

 

Either way, redistribution of wealth is hardly an issue specific to Democrats. The only difference between the parties is where they redistribute wealth to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe the plumber is a fiction, so unlike McCain, we don't need to keep our talking points on him.

 

If someone is making 50,000 a year and has dreams of owning his own business someday, I think Obama's tax plan may be better for him than McCain's.

 

If someone already owns a business and takes home over 250,000 a year, then he will pay more under Obama's tax plan.

 

Exactly. Why is that so hard? You laid it out just perfectly, and fairly.

 

And putting it just like that doesn't seem that unreasonable to me - and this is coming from a libertarian-like dude. I would take issue with it, making a case for small business and against gigantua business, but it sure doesn't sound like a deal breaker or dirty little secret like Rush is making this out to be.

 

Also, redistribution of wealth happens with both parties, and in the plans of both candidates, so let's not pretend that it's a democratic coup like the retards who listen to Rush think.

 

They all redistribute wealth, it's just that they distribute it to different groups. Repubs to the wealthy and the corps, the Dems to the poorer and to social projects.

 

Either way, redistribution of wealth is hardly an issue specific to Democrats. The only difference between the parties is where they redistribute wealth to.

 

It's a socialist concept. It's perpetrated by both parties, but disproportionately. Sure the republicans redistribute wealth as a matter of course, whereas the democrats redistribute wealth as a matter of principle and belief. Both are dangerous, yet to a certain extent unavoidable.

 

We're always going to be "technically" redistributing wealth, no matter who's in office, no matter how saintly, it's inevitable that some poor guy's tax dollars are going to end up in some other guy's pocket, if no other reason than to buy paint for the white house.

 

But to exercise the notion that the poor's income be supplemented by the rich is an entirely different approach that the democrats get sole responsibility for, for better or for worse.

 

The republicans have an even nastier responsibility to answer for: supplementing the rich with proceeds from the tax payers. That one applies with or without rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a socialist concept. It's perpetrated by both parties, but disproportionately. Sure the republicans redistribute wealth as a matter of course, whereas the democrats redistribute wealth as a matter of principle and belief. Both are dangerous, yet to a certain extent unavoidable.

 

I understand where you are coming from, and I am largely libertarian in most of my views, especially when it comes to laws that "protect us from ourselves" and state run services outside those that should be owned and run, due to a critical nature, by the people (military, electric, natural gas, water, fire, police, education, healthcare, management of highway infrastructure, etc) to ensure service.

 

When it comes to taxation, I am definitely more liberal minded, I'd like to share my perspective since I can definitely see yours too.

 

The basic premise of my view is, we can't make a lot of money without the social infrastructure in place, when we work hard, or smart, and we "make it big" it's because of that social infrastructure, we should want to put more back into it's support.

 

If you make 250k a year, then the system has really helped you: police keep your possessions safe, banking laws keep banks from stealing your money, insurance laws keep scammers from ripping you off if your house burns down, education system has helped you or at least your customers get jobs that can pay for your services, the list goes on.

 

When America is good to you, why not show a little love and help the people who are working 50 hrs a week and still unable to afford health insurance? They may not have made the smartest choices, but 50% of people will always make "below average" decisions, but these people still keep phones answered, cars running, roads repaired, homes built, volunteer as firefighters, and contribute huge amounts of sweat to the very infrastructure every successful person needs to be successful.

 

I am not saying its all the state - I am not a socialist and I think the state should largely stay out of our business, and the fair amount to give back is an open question for sure... but when I hear "I earned it, it's all mine, what is their right to tax it??" I just can't help but to feel that's somewhat arrogant. Maybe it's somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction, but when you are upset people aren't seeing Obama's "wealth redistribution" for what it is, try to consider this other perspective, and you may understand why people aren't all fighting it so hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does Joe's opinion matter on anything?

 

Well, among other things, he's whining about how, hypothetically, if he were to make over $250,000, and if he were to actually pay income tax, that his taxes would go up approximately $800. Oh noes, the government is "punishing" him for being rich by upping his tax rate by 0.3%.

 

Clearly you don't like progressive taxation. Great! I happen to like it. But it's not tantamount to socialism. And you're certainly not going to convince me something is bad by labeling it "socialism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, among other things, he's whining about how, hypothetically, if he were to make over $250,000, and if he were to actually pay income tax, that his taxes would go up approximately $800. Oh noes, the government is "punishing" him for being rich by upping his tax rate by 0.3%.

 

Clearly you don't like progressive taxation. Great! I happen to like it. But it's not tantamount to socialism. And you're certainly not going to convince me something is bad by labeling it "socialism".

 

Not one word goes to answering my question as to why a single damn word from Joe should matter to me or anyone else...at all. Two paragraphs of hand waving.

 

Again, what does Joe have to do with the questions and Obama's answers?

 

Don't lecture me on Joe. He's not running for office. Don't redirect the discussion because you're scared of your candidate's position on socialism. I don't care if Stalin rose from the dead and asked Obama these questions, they are legitimate questions and answers from the guy you just spent your vote on, for the highest office in the land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay ParanoiA. I'm confused. Can you answer some questions for me?

 

What answers from Obama are you referring to explicitly? It's hard to answer you when you're referring to something vague.

 

What does the tax structure have to do with redistribution of wealth?

 

What does the tax structure have to do with socialism? (or for that matter, what does redistribution of wealth have to do with socialism? wealth is redistributed under feudalism too)

 

Finally, this thread is about Joe, hence me pointing out things specific to Joe. If you'd like to talk about something other than Joe, perhaps you could start another thread and give it the proper context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you make 250k a year, then the system has really helped you: police keep your possessions safe, banking laws keep banks from stealing your money, insurance laws keep scammers from ripping you off if your house burns down, education system has helped you or at least your customers get jobs that can pay for your services, the list goes on.

 

Well the laws of the land that benefit the rich equally benefit the poor. Laws that keep your employer from robbing your 401K money, and keep your employer honest and paying you what he/she agreed to and etc...

 

However, I definitely share your view on supporting the infrastructure that made it all possible. I think Bill Gates has made a statement to the effect that successful capitalists have a duty to give back to the people of the land for their support of capitalism - it is tough to support a system that you aren't particularly successful at yourself.

 

However, I don't believe in coersion, or rather I don't believe in the investment of coersion. It's difficult to conclude where you're standing in terms of investment in government, but to me, it's contrary to what I believe is mankind's long term evolutionary goal of self governance. Investment in external forces is diametric opposite from the goal of internal, self motivated force.

 

Further, investment in this tactic of government is catastrophic to diversity of ideas, cultures, morals and etc. Investment in centralized external force can only lead to sanitization of the populus. I'm not sure how wise that is for humans. I'm pretty sure it's accepted that the most successful survival scheme for a given species is diversity and adaptability - both of which are optimized with maximum individual liberty.

 

All that to say that I prefer to tax proportionately, but support a moral imperative for the wealthy to engage in philanthropy, in the form of extra taxes, or hopefully more in the form of private involvement. That way results are required in order to maintain the money flow; to create a working system of help. This is a point often missed when discussing the effectiveness of government assistance.

 

We must fix the problem of people unable to provide for themselves - to hunt and gather. Not so much to maintain the system of giving them food and shelter. As some around here know, my biggest complaint about these kinds of issues is the constant misdirection of where our problems are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

I cut your quote out because really, I want to respond to all of it and all of it was written pretty well.

 

On the first note, I don't believe the laws equally help the poor and the rich: yes, the police keep $20k of assets save in one person's house, but keep $320k of assets safe in another. I think they are basically equally fair since they don't discriminate, but the wealthy have more at stake and thus benefit more from their protection.

 

Second, I do agree with you in terms of investment by the government, from what I can tell of what you are saying there (maybe with NASA being an exception) but would you consider tax breaks for green technology companies an investment? The way I see it, if government employees are paid with federal dollars, to achieve a result, that's an investment, if federal dollars (loans, grants, tax breaks) help private companies achieve a socially beneficial result, is that still investment in the same sense?

 

In the second case, I think they should be minimal, as it's better for the market to determine these things, but at times it can be better to invest this way to soften the impact of what would be heavy economic shifts that would cause a lot of harm to people's lives.

For example: federal incentives to reduce pollution before people get angry about pollution causing serious health issues to cause a natural correction.

 

 

But when it comes to Obama's tax plans, I don't think "investment" is the right word to use exactly. He proposes higher taxes on the wealthy, but we already are not paying for the services we use as a nation - we have a deficit. His solution to getting out of the deficit, is to use those tax dollars to help shore up and repair some of the leakier services we all need: education, health care, basic services, so they produce the benefits we want. Right now, we spend tax dollars on all of those, and when they fail, we spend our own money to augment it personally (health care premiums), or see secondary loss of income effects from them (lower education = lower wages for would be customers of our services that can't afford them).

 

His plan involves stopping those losses, so we can have a tighter, more efficient means of providing those services with better results and at a lower cost in the near future. I have no idea how well this will work, but I do know one thing: the poor and the wealthy both have been getting a free ride in terms of deficit spending, and that is unsustainable.

 

We usually see politicians take one of two sides: "cut programs" or "increase taxes" and at least Obama is taking a third approach: "Shift taxes a bit, increase revenue so we can fix, consolidate, or render obsolete various programs, so we can work towards a balanced budget with balanced taxes."

 

Since we are already living beyond our means, someone has to help pick up the buck, and the poor certainly can't do it. The solution he has is more of a left wing idea, but I think he's on the right track. We need more than the "repubs cutting demo programs, and demo taxes" vs "demos cutting repub programs, and repub taxes" struggle that has gotten us here, and get new, creative, effective solutions into the programs we need so they can finally start operating in an efficient manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not one word goes to answering my question as to why a single damn word from Joe should matter to me or anyone else...at all. Two paragraphs of hand waving.

 

Again, what does Joe have to do with the questions and Obama's answers?

 

Don't lecture me on Joe. He's not running for office. Don't redirect the discussion because you're scared of your candidate's position on socialism. I don't care if Stalin rose from the dead and asked Obama these questions, they are legitimate questions and answers from the guy you just spent your vote on, for the highest office in the land.

 

Joe was an example of an averageish American. As an American who can vote, his opinions matter if only a little to us and to the presidential candidates he would vote for. As soon as you move from Joe the citizen to Joe this particular citizen, his opinion is no longer that of a group of citizens but instead that of only one citizen. His opinion still matters, but not nearly as much.

 

That said, Joe the Plumber played a disappointingly large role in the debate. As I am a young voter, these three are the only presidential debates I have watched, and I must say that I expected better, and would have expected better from college or even high school debate competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.