Joe the plumber

[psychocat]

Has anyone been following this story ?
Celebrity News Examiner: Joe the Plumber is a fake (he's related to the Keating Five scandal, John McCain's 'asterisk') (http://www.examiner.com/x-264-Celebrity-News-Examiner~y2008m10d17-Joe-the-Plumber-is-a-fake-hes-related-to-the-Keating-Five-scandal-John-McCains-asterisk)

Keating Son-in-Law to Serve Prison Term - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7DE123CF930A25751C1A9659582 60)

[rebgirl420]

Who cares? I don't think thats the point.

I love how the media attacks this guy. It doesn't matter if "Joe the plumber" is a a registered plumber. The nickname was to cover and apply to your average working class Joe.

[MissDaMeaner]

I feel sad for Joe but when you misrepresent yourself to make a point you will suffer the consequences.

If Joe the plumber was what he said he was there would be no story and the media would look like fools.
BUT who looks like the fool now?

OK U win the media still looks like fools.

:s4:

[JakeMartinez]

Who cares? I don't think thats the point.

I love how the media attacks this guy. It doesn't matter if "Joe the plumber" is a a registered plumber. The nickname was to cover and apply to your average working class Joe.

True, but he approached Obama as if he was an average Joe, and the Conservative media outlets pounced on it as if it shows how upset the middle class is with Obama.

[inbud]

You all think Joe the Plumbbber wants to join Cannibis.com?
Seems they take anything to divert or make news. Seems the Issues are what they should be talking about.

The candidates NEED all the Joes to get out and Vote November 4, it's a Tuesday.

[issachar]

he's already become a moment of our pop culture too

the day after the last debate I saw a pretty nice joe the plumber shirt which I immediately bought, I consider it the "I shot JR" shirt of the decade:rasta:

now along with joe blow, joe dirt, and joe somebody the world's joes will have to deal with yet another nickname.... dammit:(

[dragonrider]

The point that McCain was trying to make with "Joe the Plumber" was that Joe supposedly claimed he personally represented someone who was going to be hurt by Obama's tax plan. That was his whole value --- he put a face on the issue, just a regular plumber guy who was going to be denied the American Dream. It was about Joe the person as an example.

So when the person Joe the Plumber who is going to be harmed by Obama's tax plan really turns out to the Sam the Unlicensed Plumber who actually benefits from Obama's tax plan, it does sort of invalidate the value he had to McCain.

When you put a real face on the people making more than $250,000 a year or the business owners whose businesses clear a net profit of more than $250,000 a year, it is not ordinary Joes struggling for the American Dream like this guy. Most ordinary Joes struggling for the American Dream like this guy do not clear $250,000 a year and would see a benefit from Obama's tax plan. 95% of American would see a benefit from Obama's tax plan. This guy actually puts a face on the people who would be helped by Obama's plan.

And now since McCain has thrust this poor bastard into the spolight, all this crap about his shady unlicensed business practices, unpaid back taxes, and indictied family members is coming out too. He is probably going to rue the day the McCain picked him out to be put on the national stage! Hel'll probably face some kind of legal action if he has been doing unlicesned contract work! That sucks, but he brought it on himself by lying on TV to make a bogus political point --- probably just didn't think it would go as far as it did.

[psychocat]

I can only really think of one thing , it's something my mother once said to me.
"Lies have a nasty habit of coming back and biting you on the arse". :D

[daihashi]

UPDATE: Joe the Plumber Not Related to Keating - Political Machine (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/10/16/joe-the-plumber-related-to-keating/)

To be fair I haven't read the article yet but it was one of the first google links that came up in a search.

[daihashi]

Robert M. Wurzelbacher, son-in-law of Keating, was 37 years old in 1991 when federal charges were filed against Keating. It appears that he has addresses in Phoenix and Coronado, CA.

The Robert M. Wurzelbacher of Milford, OH, a heavy donor to GOP candidates, is 83 years old and retired. They're not the same person.

There's probably a reason that this was not wide spread all over the news networks and the above is probably why. I'm surprised the nytimes haven't posted a retraction or update. :wtf:

[daihashi]

Mr. Wurzelbacher was playing football in his front yard with his son, Joey, on Sunday afternoon when Mr. Obama made an unscheduled stop to go door to door greeting voters and asking for their support.

toledoblade.com -- 'Joe the plumber' isnâ??t licensed (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418)

Heaven forbid that you play football infront of your own house.. lest Barack Obama walk up to you.. you ask him a question.. and now you get attacked by the Democrats and the media.

Geez..

Everyone acts like there's some sort of conspiracy here. He lived on the friggin street Obama decided to go door to door campaigning on.

Guilt of operating without a license.. yes.. Guilty for asking a genuine question? No.

But to each his own; heaven forbid that someone ask Obama a question that he doesn't give a good answer to lest you be attacked by mindless drones.

[dragonrider]

toledoblade.com -- 'Joe the plumber' isnâ??t licensed (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/NEWS09/810160418)

Heaven forbid that you play football infront of your own house.. lest Barack Obama walk up to you.. you ask him a question.. and now you get attacked by the Democrats and the media.

Geez..

Everyone acts like there's some sort of conspiracy here. He lived on the friggin street Obama decided to go door to door campaigning on.

Guilt of operating without a license.. yes.. Guilty for asking a genuine question? No.

But to each his own; heaven forbid that someone ask Obama a question that he doesn't give a good answer to lest you be attacked by mindless drones.

I'm not going to pretend Joe the Plumber is a legitimate issue, because he obviously is not. I completely agree with you there. This is a non-issue. But still McCain and Palin bring Joe the Plumber up every day in every speach, and have been doing so for six days straight. It will be a full week today if they bring it up again. I have never heard Obama or the Democrats bring him up once, have you? Ever? Even once?

It sounds like you are blaming Obama and the Democrats for bringing the spotlight on this guy, when it is the opposite. McCain is bringing the spotlight. Joe asked Obama a question and posed it in such a way that the question hinged on WHO HE SAID HE WAS, a plumber who wanted to buy a business that would make over $250,000 a year and thereby might be hurt by Obama's tax plan. And McCain and Palin have been promoting the story ever since. But the fact that none of the story Joe told is true invalidates the point he was making and the point McCain is making.

If McCain wants to put the spotlight on Joe's story every day for a week to make a political point, then it is not the Democrats' or the media's fault for checking if the story is true. Joe's real story does not support the point he was making, so it is perfectly valid to debunk it.

It's not a conspiracy -- it's just the McCain campaign making this guy into a pawn, which they really should not be doing.

[Immolation]

Who cares? I don't think thats the point.

I love how the media attacks this guy. It doesn't matter if "Joe the plumber" is a a registered plumber. The nickname was to cover and apply to your average working class Joe.

Thank You.He was Really Just a Guy asking a question.It is Wrong for the Media to go after this guy.He is Not a "Conservative Plant" by the Right Wing Conspiracy.Lets Focus on Mccain,Obama.:hippy:

[dragonrider]

Thank You.He was Really Just a Guy asking a question.It is Wrong for the Media to go after this guy.He is Not a "Conservative Plant" by the Right Wing Conspiracy.Lets Focus on Mccain,Obama.:hippy:

I'm sure if the McCain campaign would just let it go and stop referring to Joe the Plumber in every speach, this would all blow over in a day or two, and no one would ever bother Joe the Plumber again. I'm sure there is nothing the Obama campaign would like better than to focus on McCain and Obama like you said. Hopefully McCain will lay off Joe soon, and he can go back to his life.

[Psycho4Bud]

I'm not going to pretend Joe the Plumber is a legitimate issue, because he obviously is not.

Redistribution of wealth is a non-issue?:wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

[texas grass]

Redistribution of wealth is a non-issue?:wtf:

Have a good one!:s4:

when taxes get raised on a person making 15-30k isnt that redistribution of wealth too.

well i know more people paying higher taxes with bush and the republicans that are making low pay. i like how the republicans think that taxing the rich is a redistribution of wealth, but taxing the poor isnt(or isnt talked about)


ill say this, if a person makes 1/4 million dollars a year they can afford a 3% tax increase no problem,

im a small business and the republican standard is hurting us and every big company i deal with daily. and obamas tax plan isnt goin to hurt me as much as mccains plan

[daihashi]

I have never heard Obama or the Democrats bring him up once, have you? Ever? Even once?

Yep.. Obama makes fun of Joe the plumber in the link below; if you'd like I can find at least 3-4 other videos involving Obama and Biden also bringing him up JUST to make fun of him. "Who is John McCain fighting for? A plumber. <obama and crowd laughs>"

YouTube - Obama Mocks Joe the Plumber, Crowd Laughs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4)

IS that really something funny? Is it funny to stand up for the people who have aspirations? Is it cool for Obama to make fun of people who want to make something out of themselves?

Does no one find it unusual that this guy. Who is just an average guy.. an unlicensed plumber.. is getting more media attention than a man who bombed his own country and got off free on a technicality 30 years ago; whom Obama is friends with?

I find that a bit peculiar.



It sounds like you are blaming Obama and the Democrats for bringing the spotlight on this guy, when it is the opposite. McCain is bringing the spotlight. Joe asked Obama a question and posed it in such a way that the question hinged on WHO HE SAID HE WAS, a plumber who wanted to buy a business that would make over $250,000 a year and thereby might be hurt by Obama's tax plan. And McCain and Palin have been promoting the story ever since. But the fact that none of the story Joe told is true invalidates the point he was making and the point McCain is making.

I blame the democrats for jumping on the bandwagon and making fun of this guy. For ridiculing him publicly... and for the media trying to find anything they can on this guy. As seen previously.. if needed, posting false information to challenge his credibility as a PERSON!

That is dispicable.

The point is that the question he posed, which is a valid question to MANY Americans regardless of the legality of the company of which Joe works for, is very real and needs a real answer.

You have to this date failed to acknowledge this and much like the media seek to attack him on the premise of his legal status rather than the question posed. I don't deny the legality of his company and that he should not have lied about it BUT this does not change the question.

I seriously doubt you will ever acknowledge that or that Obama gave a pretty cruddy answer.

In another thread I did the math of Obama "spreading the wealth." and for most middle class Americans it came out to be $40/mo or $80/mo. Hardly spreading the wealth if you ask me.

So I pose this question to you again, was Joe's question Valid in relation to Obama spreading the wealth. Who get's hurt worse here? Who's in the wrong here? The average working class who stands to gain a pitiful amount per month that is likely not going to cover much of anything (when looked at from a paycheck to paycheck basis) or this guy who asked a serious question to a Presidential Candidate?

That was rhetorical.. I know what your round about answer will be.




If McCain wants to put the spotlight on Joe's story every day for a week to make a political point, then it is not the Democrats' or the media's fault for checking if the story is true. Joe's real story does not support the point he was making, so it is perfectly valid to debunk it.

You miss the point. He uses Joe as an analogy for "the average joe". Joe was an average working class guy who aspired to be more; a feeling that many Americans can relate to. He can use the story all day long, what is really disturbing is how easily the media dismisses him and attacks him for something that was not the point of bringing him up.

You like many others miss the point of the question posed and I doubt that you will ever get it. The masses are too hung up on Joe himself instead of what the IDEA of joe represents. This is something that transcends Joe as a person. It's just unfortunate that he has to catch flack for this.

So yes, I do blame the media and democrats for being so blind and obtuse that they cannot realize what the true issue which IS IMPORTANT to many Americans and is and focusing on something irrelevant instead.


It's not a conspiracy -- it's just the McCain campaign making this guy into a pawn, which they really should not be doing.

It is the media.. and the media is controlling the masses like mindless sheep, but I'd never expect you to understand it.

[daihashi]

when taxes get raised on a person making 15-30k isnt that redistribution of wealth too.

well i know more people paying higher taxes with bush and the republicans that are making low pay. i like how the republicans think that taxing the rich is a redistribution of wealth, but taxing the poor isnt(or isnt talked about)


That statement is completely false. Everyone ACROSS THE BOARD is paying lower taxes than they did in Clinton's administration or even Bush 41's administration. We are paying the lowest taxes we have in the last 16 years.

I challenge you to go look it up; my confidence in this statement is 100%.


ill say this, if a person makes 1/4 million dollars a year they can afford a 3% tax increase no problem,

You don't understand businesses then. The business makes 250k a year.. not the person. That 250k is used to grow the business; buy vehicles.. buy equipment.. that 250k is for the business. Salary is something seperate entirely; which the owner would pay himself a salary and not pull money out of the net profit of the company (if he's smart).


im a small business and the republican standard is hurting us and every big company i deal with daily. and obamas tax plan isnt goin to hurt me as much as mccains plan

I had something else written here but I'll let it go for the most part. I'll just say judging by your past statements I seriously question this. But this is your business and not that of the forums.

[daihashi]

In regards to your tax statement Texas_grass

The Tax Foundation - Comparing Income Taxes under Bill Clinton and George Bush (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22958.html)

and if you don't believe me.. here are the actual tax tables over the years

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2008 (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html)

[daihashi]

I had previously said we're paying the lowest taxes we have in the last 16 years.. I exluded the 2 terms Bush 43 has served.. if you include that then we are paying the lowest taxes we have in at least the last 24 years.

[dragonrider]

Yep.. Obama makes fun of Joe the plumber in the link below; if you'd like I can find at least 3-4 other videos involving Obama and Biden also bringing him up JUST to make fun of him. "Who is John McCain fighting for? A plumber. <obama and crowd laughs>"

YouTube - Obama Mocks Joe the Plumber, Crowd Laughs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4)

IS that really something funny? Is it funny to stand up for the people who have aspirations? Is it cool for Obama to make fun of people who want to make something out of themselves?

I think you are missing the point of that comment. It is not to make fun of Joe the Plumber the person, it is to make fun of the idea that McCain is fighting to help ordinary people as represented by Joe the Plumber. That is why Obama doesn't use his name --- he is repsonding to the idea not the person.



The point is that the question he posed, which is a valid question to MANY Americans regardless of the legality of the company of which Joe works for, is very real and needs a real answer.

I think the answer is already out there and has been hashed over many many times already. If you make over $250k, your taxes go up under Obama's plan. He didn't try to say anything different from that.

The point of Joe the Plumber is to imply that he is a real ordinary person who is going to be HURT by additional taxes on a person making over $250k a year. That part is the important lie (not the part about his not being licensed). He doesn't make that kind of money, has no immediate prospects of doing so, and would benefit from Obama's tax plan. For McCain, Joe was a way to fight the idea that higher taxes on people making over $250k a year would not hurt ordinary people. The problem is that the story is not true. If they want an example of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.



So I pose this question to you again, was Joe's question Valid in relation to Obama spreading the wealth. Who get's hurt worse here? Who's in the wrong here? The average working class who stands to gain a pitiful amount per month that is likely not going to cover much of anything (when looked at from a paycheck to paycheck basis) or this guy who asked a serious question to a Presidential Candidate?

Joe's question is valid if it is asked in a hypothetical way, but when he says, *I* am a plumber, *I* am looking to buy a business making $250k - $270k a year, *I* will be hurt by your plan, he introduces lies into his question to make a point that is not valid in his case.

And regrdoing the "spreading the wealth" answer, I think that was a bad answer, and did not state the case well at all. It was a dumb way to put it, and I'm sure he regrets it.

But to your question about the small amount each ordinary person is going to recieve from Obama's tax cuts, and whether that is enough benefit to justify the tax increases for those making over $250k, I don't think that is what the tax increases for those making over $250k are about. Those are to pay for the healthcare plan, energy plans, infrastructure plans, etc. Not to give everyone $40 bucks a month.


That was rhetorical.. I know what your round about answer will be.

That's kind of a condescending thing to say.


You miss the point. He uses Joe as an analogy for "the average joe". Joe was an average working class guy who aspired to be more; a feeling that many Americans can relate to. He can use the story all day long, what is really disturbing is how easily the media dismisses him and attacks him for something that was not the point of bringing him up.

You like many others miss the point of the question posed and I doubt that you will ever get it. The masses are too hung up on Joe himself instead of what the IDEA of joe represents. This is something that transcends Joe as a person. It's just unfortunate that he has to catch flack for this.

So yes, I do blame the media and democrats for being so blind and obtuse that they cannot realize what the true issue which IS IMPORTANT to many Americans and is and focusing on something irrelevant instead.


No. Wrong. YOU are the one missing the point. Joe is not being used as an ANALOGY, he is being used as an EXAMPLE. That is why it matters that his story does not add up --- and not the part about the legality of his business, which is an amusing side note ---I'm talking about the part about his income and his taxes. He is supposed to be an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who will be hurt by Obama's tax plan. Turns out he is actaully an example of an ordianry person who will BENEFIT from Obama's tax plan. If they want an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.

There is nothing wrong with debunking a bogus example.

[daihashi]

I think you are missing the point of that comment. It is not to make fun of Joe the Plumber the person, it is to make fun of the idea that McCain is fighting to help ordinary people as represented by Joe the Plumber. That is why Obama doesn't use his name --- he is repsonding to the idea not the person.




I think the answer is already out there and has been hashed over many many times already. If you make over $250k, your taxes go up under Obama's plan. He didn't try to say anything different from that.

So first Obama bashes McCain because he says he's for the rich.. and now he bashes McCain because he's trying to represent the working man.. Which is it.. You can't have it both ways.

And I never argued Obama's 250k tax plan. I understand that if you make over 250k that you won't be taxed. Joe never said he makes 250k, watch the video again.


The point of Joe the Plumber is to imply that he is a real ordinary person who is going to be HURT by additional taxes on a person making over $250k a year. That part is the important lie (not the part about his not being licensed). He doesn't make that kind of money, has no immediate prospects of doing so, and would benefit from Obama's tax plan. For McCain, Joe was a way to fight the idea that higher taxes on people making over $250k a year would not hurt ordinary people. The problem is that the story is not true. If they want an example of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.

No, the point of Joe the plumber is to express someone who may want to buy a business that generates 250k of net income per year. It will hurt his businesses if it makes over 250k. That was the point of the question. Watch the video again and you'll see Joe never said that HE made over 250k; something that Obama does imply when he's making fun of him.

Pay attention to the words that say. Again you missed the point of the question and your rebuttal exemplifies this.




Joe's question is valid if it is asked in a hypothetical way, but when he says, *I* am a plumber, *I* am looking to buy a business making $250k - $270k a year, *I* will be hurt by your plan, he introduces lies into his question to make a point that is not valid in his case.

If it is his business.. and his salary comes from that business.. Then yes; as a business owner he will be hurt because he can't grow HIS business as much as he would be able to under CURRENT tax laws.

Regardless of if his question is hypothetical or real.. it is still applicable to many Americans. I don't understand why you can't move past Joe the plumber and realize how this applies to other citizens.


And regrdoing the "spreading the wealth" answer, I think that was a bad answer, and did not state the case well at all. It was a dumb way to put it, and I'm sure he regrets it.

I'm sure he does too. Otherwise they wouldn't be lashing out at Joe so hard. Although if you would ask Obama he would probably say that he wouldn't retract that statement; but in retrospect I'm sure he wishes he just answered it in a more socially acceptable way.


But to your question about the small amount each ordinary person is going to recieve from Obama's tax cuts, and whether that is enough benefit to justify the tax increases for those making over $250k, I don't think that is what the tax increases for those making over $250k are about. Those are to pay for the healthcare plan, energy plans, infrastructure plans, etc. Not to give everyone $40 bucks a month.

61% of Americans currently receive employer based insurance. 19% of Americans do not have insurance at all, I forget the number but the rest of the percentage were people not polled or people on medicare/medicaid ( I have to find my sources to be able to post an actual figure.) but effectively you are punishing 61% of Americans for 19% of the population that is confirmed without health care. That hardly seems like a good solution. I would rather see Social Security, medicare and medicaid restructured so Medicare and Medicaid became a TRUE healthcare support system for those in times of Need. Not something for people to permanently be on. We already have problems with abuse in the healthcare system and this will just amplify it in addition to hurting employers who in turn will have that effect fall down onto it's consumers and employees.

And spreading the wealth indicates money. He even indicates that in the first video where Joe asked the question.



That's kind of a condescending thing to say.

Is it? You just rebuttal'd the exact same way I thought you would. I'm sorry that I have decent foresight, but that is not condescending.


No. Wrong. YOU are the one missing the point. Joe is not being used as an ANALOGY, he is being used as an EXAMPLE. That is why it matters that his story does not add up --- and not the part about the legality of his business, which is an amusing side note ---I'm talking about the part about his income and his taxes. He is supposed to be an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who will be hurt by Obama's tax plan. Turns out he is actaully an example of an ordianry person who will BENEFIT from Obama's tax plan. If they want an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.

Again, you don't get it. Joe was referring to the business making that much; which if true or not is irrelevant because the question still applies to many Americans whom are business owners. Why can you not acknowledge this?

You still don't get it and are stuck on Joe making 250k himself which is not something he ever said.


There is nothing wrong with debunking a bogus example.

Sad that you still think the example of Joe; whether true or not, is bogus.

[psychocat]

I often start threads to get a better insight into things I have only a glimpse of , I now have a reasonable idea because of the discussion you folks have been having.
US politics sometimes seems to be a question of who can make up the most shit about each other..
But it doesn't seem all that different here in the UK .. :wtf: :D

[daihashi]

I often start threads to get a better insight into things I have only a glimpse of , I now have a reasonable idea because of the discussion you folks have been having.
US politics sometimes seems to be a question of who can make up the most shit about each other..
But it doesn't seem all that different here in the UK .. :wtf: :D

Even if 500k of small businesses fit into this bracket.. Let's say each small business employs 4-5 people not including the business owners, that comes out to be an indirect effect on 2 million Americans... slightly less than 1% of our population; which may not sound like much but that number is significant. In reality the number of businesses effected by this employ more than 4 - 5 people.

A small business is defined by a business that employs 500 or less employee's.

If generating income for Obama's health plan is the true purpose of this tax then the exact same thing can be accomplished by lowering taxes. Through this businesses can do a number of things to increase the VOLUME of which they do business. Which in turn would equal the same amount of taxes or more while at the same time not taking a hit on small or large business.

I simply don't understand why raise or lower taxes at all. The real problem is the spending problem that both republicans and democrats have a like. Our politicians love to spend crap loads of money that don't need to be spent; this should be the real issue that is being discussed.

Simply by reducing spending by 100 billion a year we could reduce our debt by nearly half a trillion dollars by the end of any candidates first term.

I don't see the need to either raise or lower taxes. Raising taxes always hurts the little man in the end; lowering taxes generally never hurts anyone and can be good.. Spending more than your income allows; or in this case the government spending more money than the productivity of the country allows, always results in massive problems. AKA living above your means. Something that a number of Americans are guilty of doing.

[dragonrider]

Daihashi, we have a completely different understanding of what Joe the Plumber is meant to represent and the purpose of trying to use a specific person to make an example.

Say Obama repeatedly cited the example of a real person he called Suzy the Store Clerk, and Suzy was on MSNBC telling John McCain, "I am a single mom making $30k a year. I work for a store that gives me a health plan. which is a good thing, because I have cancer, and my four kids all have diabetes. If your health plan is enacted and my employer gets taxed on the cost of my haealth care plan, he is going to drop my plan. I'll have to get health insurance on my own, which I probably cannot do with my pre-existing conditions. And if I do it will probably cost $12k a year. You are onoy going to give me a $5k tax credit to pay for the $12k plan I'll have to buy, if i can even get in a plan. You are going to put me $7k in the hole. I migth even die, and then who'll take care of my kids?"

That's a compelling example, because it is a real person confronting McCain with her real problems, right? Now if it came out that this Suzy was not waht she claimed and was actually a marketing executive making $300k a year, who was in perfect health, was married, had one healthy kid, had a great health plan, and would benefit by $70k a year under McCain's plan instead of Obama's, I think her example would not be as compelling, becasue her story was all a lie. Maybe you would disagree becasue her story COULD be true..

I don't think these kinds of examples work just because they COULD be true for a hypothetical person. There are a million hypothetical examples used al the time. The impact of real-life examples of real-life people is greater because they are authentic. If they are found to be based on a lie, they lose their value.

[daihashi]

Daihashi, we have a completely different understanding of what Joe the Plumber is meant to represent and the purpose of trying to use a specific person to make an example.

Say Obama repeatedly cited the example of a real person he called Suzy the Store Clerk, and Suzy was on MSNBC telling John McCain, "I am a single mom making $30k a year. I work for a store that gives me a health plan. which is a good thing, because I have cancer, and my four kids all have diabetes. If your health plan is enacted and my employer gets taxed on the cost of my haealth care plan, he is going to drop my plan. I'll have to get health insurance on my own, which I probably cannot do with my pre-existing conditions. And if I do it will probably cost $12k a year. You are onoy going to give me a $5k tax credit to pay for the $12k plan I'll have to buy, if i can even get in a plan. You are going to put me $7k in the hole. I migth even die, and then who'll take care of my kids?"

That's a compelling example, because it is a real person confronting McCain with her real problems, right? Now if it came out that this Suzy was not waht she claimed and was actually a marketing executive making $300k a year, who was in perfect health, was married, had one healthy kid, had a great health plan, and would benefit by $70k a year under McCain's plan instead of Obama's, I think her example would not be as compelling, becasue her story was all a lie. Maybe you would disagree becasue her story COULD be true..

I don't think these kinds of examples work just because they COULD be true for a hypothetical person. There are a million hypothetical examples used al the time. The impact of real-life examples of real-life people is greater because they are authentic. If they are found to be based on a lie, they lose their value.

Her question would still be valid because there are many other people in her situation.

I feel that these are questions that the media and others should be asking the candidates but for whatever reason they are not throwing any hardballs; more so at Obama but even McCain hasn't really been pressed.. if it takes a make believe person to ask these serious question then I am all for it and I want to see what these candidates have to say when they are put on the spot.

I place value in the question regardless of who asks it.

So while you are placing value in the person whom asks the question and who they really are.. I place value in the question because I realize that the question that is being asked applies to many other people out there not just the individual who asked it and it is a question worthy of an answer.

[veggii]

! fuk joe the plumber tell him too pay his taxes! its been reported he owes $1200 :wtf:

[dragonrider]

Her question would still be valid because there are many other people in her situation.

I can't believe I have spent as much time on this thread as I have --- it makes me feel like I've been sucked into the pettiness, shallowness, and irrelevance of the McCain campaign itself.

To respond to your point: Yes, the question in and of iteslf is a valid question. But posing as someone who you are not and claiming that your question applies to yourself directly is not a valid way of making a political point. And when that person is exposed to be a liar, it overshadows the value of the point they were tryng to make.

Frankly, I am amazed that the McCain people did not check Joe out first before they decided to make such a big deal out of him. They should have at least checked if the story was even true before they had McCain mention it over 20 times in the debate.

If the circumstances that Joe described really did apply to someone real (not Joe, obviously), doesn't it seem like the McCain campaign could have found a real person to use as an example? Not some made-up story? My feeling is that there are probably far fewer people who are really in the circumstances Joe described than the McCain campaign would like you to believe. Very few people will be hurt in any significant way by the Obama tax plan, and most of them are not the kind of people that voters would relate to the way they did to Joe. They could not find a real person as an example. That's why they glommed on to Joe, he was willing to SAY the Obama plan would hurt him, even if it is not true.

On a side note, a few posts ago I asked if there were any examples of Obama ever bringing Joe up in a speach by name. Today I heard the first example. Today Obama was saying something like, "I just LOVE Joe the Plumber. I love him so much I want to give him a tax break!" Then he goes on to make the case that the real Joe the Plumber, with his real income, not his fantasy income, would receive a larger tax break under Obama's plan than he would under McCain's plan. See how that works? That's how you use a real person to make a political point!

[Immolation]

Just because the Mccain Camp mentions Joe the Plumber Often is no reason to go after a Guy for Asking a Legit. question.An ordinary citizen should be allowed to ask a question with the Media Camping out at his house looking for Dirt.

[psychocat]

To respond to your point: Yes, the question in and of iteslf is a valid question. But posing as someone who you are not and claiming that your question applies to yourself directly is not a valid way of making a political point. And when that person is exposed to be a liar, it overshadows the value of the point they were tryng to make.

Frankly, I am amazed that the McCain people did not check Joe out first before they decided to make such a big deal out of him. They should have at least checked if the story was even true before they had McCain mention it over 20 times in the debate.

That's why they glommed on to Joe, he was willing to SAY the Obama plan would hurt him, even if it is not true.

On a side note, a few posts ago I asked if there were any examples of Obama ever bringing Joe up in a speach by name. Today I heard the first example. Today Obama was saying something like, "I just LOVE Joe the Plumber. I love him so much I want to give him a tax break!" Then he goes on to make the case that the real Joe the Plumber, with his real income, not his fantasy income, would receive a larger tax break under Obama's plan than he would under McCain's plan. See how that works? That's how you use a real person to make a political point!

I have to agree with the points you make , anyone misrepresenting themselves is going to lose any validity if and when they are exposed.
I am sure that if this question had been posed in a way that made it clear that the asker was speaking rhetoricaly then there would have been no problem , by implying that he himself would suffer when it isn't true just destroys any credence the question has.

[justanotherbozo]

I have to agree with the points you make , anyone misrepresenting themselves is going to lose any validity if and when they are exposed.
I am sure that if this question had been posed in a way that made it clear that the asker was speaking rhetoricaly then there would have been no problem , by implying that he himself would suffer when it isn't true just destroys any credence the question has.

not if you're a business man making around $200,000.00 it doesn't.

and if you go back and really listen to the entire piece, Joe says he
hopes to buy the business, and he hopes to make $250,000.00 after
he buy's it.

not that it matters 'cause if you're anyone making around $200,000.00,
you know that if you earn just a little bit more, Uncle Sam is gonna come
and take it.

the point you guy's all miss is that the question is relevant regardless of
who asked it, Obama want's to 'spread it around'. that's his philosophy,
and he's gonna spread yours around too, mark my words.

and when he raises taxes on all those nasty rich people, they're just gonna
raise thier prices and we're all gonna have to pay more, the fat cats will
remain fat, it's us that gets screwed.

[daihashi]

On a side note, a few posts ago I asked if there were any examples of Obama ever bringing Joe up in a speach by name. Today I heard the first example. Today Obama was saying something like, "I just LOVE Joe the Plumber. I love him so much I want to give him a tax break!" Then he goes on to make the case that the real Joe the Plumber, with his real income, not his fantasy income, would receive a larger tax break under Obama's plan than he would under McCain's plan. See how that works? That's how you use a real person to make a political point!

It's no wonder a valid question doesn't get asked by the media. People are more concerned by investigating the person rather than investigating the question.

I've said before that Joe owes back taxes.. that Joe never said he made that income.. but let's say Joe or any other business owner aspired to grow their business to 250k + net income. Well everyone has just dismised the question because they are too hung up on the person.

Regardless of Joe's real income there are many small businesses that do make over 250k and employ MANY people.

If a reporter had asked this question; whom didn't own a small business, would the question be a worthy question then? Fact is Joe asked a very real yet serious question and instead of focusing on the question they focused on Joe. Maybe that was McCain's fault for invoking his name so many times but it does not change the validity of the question which should be the main focus here.

And I'd hardly giving Joe anywhere from $10 - $20 a week as helping him with his real income.

Truth be told, taxes are so low that no one could cut taxes for the majority of middle class Americans enough to make a TRUE difference.

The focus of this topic has shifted several times after I've brought up points. From Joe the plumber and his supposed (false) connection to the keating 5, to spreading the wealth of taxes, to the number of potential americans effected by this, to Obama using the money to create his healthcare and not to actually give back income to middle class americans, to Joe's personal credibility and then to something closer to what this really boils down to... How a person's background story and it's credibility effects a valid question, but people here are so set on not accepting that it's a question that is credible and worthy of investigating for many other Small Business owners and the employee's that work for them. Does no one wonder why Obama doesn't go into greater detail instead of constantly making Jabs at Joe the plumber? Obama is invoking his name as a tool to try to make the question posed seem mediocre and stupid instead of actually addressing it in detail.

Both candidates should stop using the name and should start focusing on the question.


What will we shift the topic to next? I am amused.

[daihashi]

I am sure that if this question had been posed in a way that made it clear that the asker was speaking rhetoricaly then there would have been no problem , by implying that he himself would suffer when it isn't true just destroys any credence the question has.

So you're trying to say that because of the person who asked it that other American's to whom it's applicable to don't need to know the answer or that it's suddenly become an irrelevant question.

Too much focus on an individual who doesn't matter in this election.. and more focus on the question itself.

Look at how Obama will spread the wealth. Is $10-$20/week really spreading the wealth?

[dragonrider]

Does no one wonder why Obama doesn't go into greater detail instead of constantly making Jabs at Joe the plumber? Obama is invoking his name as a tool to try to make the question posed seem mediocre and stupid instead of actually addressing it in detail.


Below is the full transcript of the exchange between Obama and Joe. Where is the part where Obama does not answer the question? What question is left unanswered? It seems to me that Obama DOES answer his question --- he acknowledges that if Joe's business makes over $250k that the marginal tax rate will go from 36% to 39% on that part over $250k.

Of course, after he acknowledges that point and answers Joe's question, Obama describes why he thinks his plan is beneficial --- Joe would have had a tax break for the entire 15 years he worked as a plumber before being in a position to buy a business making $250k a year. He would have had the money to get to this point sooner.

If Joe buys health insurance for himself and his employees through his business he gets a 50% tax credit, which will help his buiness. If Joe grows his business and sells it, he'll get a break on his capital gains.

Regarding the "spread the wealth" comment, Obama is making the point that most of Joe's customers would recieve a tax break and be in a better position to afford his services. That is the context in which he says, "If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." It's not some socialist BS --- it's the idea that if people who are financially pinched have some money to spend, it benefits the economy.

This is the original exchange before it became clear the Joe had misrepresented himself and the business he wanted to buy and that he actually would be one of the 95% of people who would BENEFIT under Obama's plan. I think Obama answered his question. What part do you think he didn't answer, Daihashi?

Here is the transcript:

Obama: What's your name?

Joe: My name's Joe Wurzelbacher.

Obama: Good to see you, Joe.

Joe: I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000 â?¦ $270-$280,000 a year.

Obama: All right.

Joe: Your new tax plan's gonna tax me more, isn't it?

Obama: Well, here's what's gonna happen. If you're a small business which you would qualify as, first of all, you'd get a 50 percent tax credit, so you get a cut on taxes for your health care costs. So you would actually get a tax cut on that front. If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are gonna stay the same. It is true that for â?¦ say, from $250,000 up, from $250,000 to $300,000 or so â?¦

Joe: Well, here's my question â?¦

Obama: I just want to answer your question. So, for that additional amount, you'd go from 36 to 39 percent, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason we're doing that is because 95 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000 so what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less â?¦ I want to give them a tax cut and so what we're doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than $250,000 that that marginal amount above $250,000, they're gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36 percent rate.

Joe: Well, the reason why I ask you about the American Dream I mean, I work hard. I'm a plumber, I work 10-12 hours a day â?¦

Obama: Absolutely.

Joe: â?¦ and I'm, you know, buying this company and I'm gonna continue to work that way. Now, if I buy another truck and adding something else to it and, you know, build the company, you know, I'm getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.

Obama: Well, here's a way of thinking about it. How long have you been a plumber? How long have you been working?

Joe: Fifteen years.

Obama: Okay. So, over the last 15 years, when you weren't making $250,000, you would have been getting a tax cut from me. So you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means that you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it. I mean, one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful â?¦

Joe: Through hard work.

Obama: â?¦ through hard work, you don't want to be taxed as much.

Joe: Exactly.

Obama: Which I understand. But another way of looking at it is, 95 percent of folks who are making less than $250,000, they may be working hard, too, but they're being taxed at a higher rate than they would be under mine. So what I'm doing is â?¦ you know, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever â?? $60,000 or $70,000. Under my tax plan, you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you'd be spending lower taxes, which means that you would have saved and gotten to the point where you are faster. Now, look, nobody likes high taxes, right? Of course not. But what's happened is that we end up â?¦ we've cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than $250,000. We haven't given a break to folks who make less and, as a consequence, the average wage and income for just ordinary folks, the vast majority of Americans, has actually gone down over the last eight years. So all I want to do is â?¦ I've got a tax cut. The only thing that changes is, I'm going to cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need, and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well, even though they've been working hard â?¦ and I understand that; I appreciate that â?¦ I just want to make sure that they're paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. Now, I respect your disagreement, but I just want you to be clear. It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too.

Joe: It seems like you'd be welcome to a flat tax then.

Obama: You know, I would be open to it except for â?¦ here's the problem with the flat tax. If you actually put a flat tax together, you'd probably â?¦ in order for it to work and replace all the revenue that we've got, you'd probably end up having to make it like about a 40 percent sales tax. I mean, the value added, making it up. Now, some people say 23 or 25, but, in truth, when you add up all the revenue that would need to be raised, you'd have to slap on a whole bunch of sales taxes on it. And I do believe that for folks like me who are, you know, have worked hard but, frankly, also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress who I just met over there, who's â?¦ things are slow and she can barely make the rent. Because my attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody. But, listen, I respect what you do and I respect your question. And even if I don't get your vote, I'm still gonna be working hard on your behalf 'cause I want to make sure â?¦ small businesses are what creates jobs in this country and I want to encourage it. All right. (applause) One other thing I didn't mention. For small-business people, I'm gonna eliminate the capital gains tax, so what it means is if your business succeeds and let's say you take it from a $250,000 business to a $500,000 business, that capital gains that you get, we're not gonna tax you on it 'cause I want you to grow more so you're actually going â?¦ you may end up â?¦ I'd have to look at your particular business but you might end up paying lower taxes under my plan and my approach than under John McCain's plan. I can't guarantee that 'cause I'd have to take a look at your business.

Joe: Okay, I understand that.

Obama: All right. Thanks for the question, though. I appreciate it. Okay, guys, I gotta get out here. I've gotta go prepare for this debate. But that was pretty good timing. Thanks.

[daihashi]

Below is the full transcript of the exchange between Obama and Joe. Where is the part where Obama does not answer the question? What question is left unanswered? It seems to me that Obama DOES answer his question --- he acknowledges that if Joe's business makes over $250k that the marginal tax rate will go from 36% to 39% on that part over $250k.

Thanks for going through the trouble of posted that, but I was referring that ever since Joe the plumber situation he has avoided talking about the taxation on those above 250k. Only stating that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut. You misunderstood what I was referring to.



Of course, after he acknowledges that point and answers Joe's question, Obama describes why he thinks his plan is beneficial --- Joe would have had a tax break for the entire 15 years he worked as a plumber before being in a position to buy a business making $250k a year. He would have had the money to get to this point sooner.

10-20 buck a week is really going to go a long way to help him buy that business </sarcasm>.. we're already paying the lowest taxes currently than we have in the last 16-24 years. You yourself said that this is a red herring so I'm not sure why you defend him so adamantly.



If Joe buys health insurance for himself and his employees through his business he gets a 50% tax credit, which will help his buiness. If Joe grows his business and sells it, he'll get a break on his capital gains.

In addition to this small business would need to come up with the money first before they could get the tax credit. It seems to me by raising their taxes you are being counter productive to the health care solution you are trying to implement.

Under the plan, small businesses would get a refundable credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid on behalf of their employees. To be eligible, small businesses will have to offer a quality health plan to all of their employees and cover a meaningful share of the cost of employee health premiums.

So basically they have to offer it to every employee within the company regardless of their full time/part time status. It has to be a quality health plan which has NO DEFINITION, and cover a meaningful share which also has NO DEFINITION. In addition to that only 50% of that cost is put back into small businesses pockets.. meaning that they are still dishing out 50% more than they normally would.

There is a lack of information and also the way that it is worded is manipulative. In addition they would need to come up with the extra money to purchase the plan before the tax credit would be received.

Sorry but there is just too much information lacking there and it doesn't make sense logically.

That's like me saying "buy a car today for your neighbor and I'll pay you back 50% of that cost in a year. But it has to be a quality car.. something that I don't have a definition for but I'll decide what's quality, and you have to pay for a significant portion of the premium of that car.. I don't know what that is but I'll decide what is significant at a later date".


Regarding the "spread the wealth" comment, Obama is making the point that most of Joe's customers would recieve a tax break and be in a better position to afford his services. That is the context in which he says, "If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you. And right now, everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody. And I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." It's not some socialist BS --- it's the idea that if people who are financially pinched have some money to spend, it benefits the economy.

Have you ever gotten plumbing work done? I'm sure you have. Plumbing generally costs more than the $10-20 a week you would get. In addition I am positive the last thing on people's minds when they see the $10-20 is "ooh I can hire that plumber now". We are pinched so bad for money because of poor spending by the people of this country (again we are paying the lowest taxes since the tax restructure in 1986, at least) and by government overspending. If we can't make it at our current tax rates then how the hell is this country ever going to make it. Lowering taxes aside from businesses is just like saying it's ok to be irresponsible.. we'll just lower taxes again when that time comes.

Again, you yourself have said this is a red herring; why do you defend it so adamantly? We've semi agreed on this before and you still argue against what we both have agreed on, LOL!


This is the original exchange before it became clear the Joe had misrepresented himself and the business he wanted to buy and that he actually would be one of the 95% of people who would BENEFIT under Obama's plan. I think Obama answered his question. What part do you think he didn't answer, Daihashi?

Again, and maybe this was my fault for not clarifying, but since the first interaction with Joe. He's gone out of his way to avoid the topic of how this will effect small business since this interaction and gone out of his way to down play Joe the Plumber by saying he's going to "spread the wealth".

[dragonrider]

Well, Daihashi, I'm glad you agree that Obama did answer Joe's question.

And I do still think that the tax issue is mostly a red herring, and all the arguing about whose tax plan is better means very little when it comes to the real practical impact of either plan on most people. It means almost nothing. I wasn't "adamantly defending" either tax plan as you said, I was simply saying what Obama said in response to the question. That's what this is about, right? Joe's question is in regards to taxes, so I don't think there is really any way to take Joe's question seriously and answer his question without talking about taxes, even if I personally think it isn't as important an issue as most people seem to think it is.

So I'm glad we also agree that Joe's question is a red herring.

[daihashi]

Well, Daihashi, I'm glad you agree that Obama did answer Joe's question.

And I do still think that the tax issue is mostly a red herring, and all the arguing about whose tax plan is better means very little when it comes to the real practical impact of either plan on most people. It means almost nothing. I wasn't "adamantly defending" either tax plan as you said, I was simply saying what Obama said in response to the question. That's what this is about, right? Joe's question is in regards to taxes, so I don't think there is really any way to take Joe's question seriously and answer his question without talking about taxes, even if I personally think it isn't as important an issue as most people seem to think it is.

So I'm glad we also agree that Joe's question is a red herring.

Just so you know my position on this. I don't really think McCain's plan is key either. Honestly I think our tax rates for both business and working class Americans is fine where it's at; but I think Obama's tax plan is a way to cloud people's judgement by making offers that just don't really make sense.

And I never agreed that Joe's question is a red herring. I agreed that Obama's tax plan for the middle class is a red herring. I think Joe's question is very valid in relation to small business employers.

So if you feel that way then we'll just have to agree to disagree as we don't seem to be gaining any traction in either direction. :thumbsup:

[dragonrider]

So if you feel that way then we'll just have to agree to disagree as we don't seem to be gaining any traction in either direction. :thumbsup:

Agreed!!!

[psychocat]

So you're trying to say that because of the person who asked it that other American's to whom it's applicable to don't need to know the answer or that it's suddenly become an irrelevant question.

No.
I am however saying that misrepresentation is hardly a way to make a point and only detracts from the issue.

[justanotherbozo]

No.
I am however saying that misrepresentation is hardly a way to make a point and only detracts from the issue.

focusing on a supposed misrepresentation distracts from Obama's
desire to spread your wealth around, why don't you see that?

[dragonrider]

focusing on a supposed misrepresentation distracts from Obama's
desire to spread your wealth around, why don't you see that?

Well, I think Psychocat is safe in another country. He has a different government to spread his wealth around.

[dragonrider]

Typical f**king plumber! You count on them to be there at a specific time, and you end up waiting all day, and they never show up!

Joe the Plumber didn't show up for a McCain rally, so when McCain went to introduce him to the crowd, he was just left standing there alone like an idiot:

"My friends, let me introduce the most famous plumber in America! The centerpeice of my campaign! The sage of Toledo! The Ayatollah of smearolla! My future Secretary of the Treasury! Put your hands together for JOE THE PLUMBER!!!!

"Uh ... Joe? My friend, are you there? Has anyone seen Joe?

"What's that --- he's not here?

"Well, my fiends, it turns out Joe stepped out for a leak --- he is a plumber after all."

Here is the article:


Joe the no show
Posted: 11:42 AM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

(CNN) â?? Joe Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, has become an integral part of John McCain's presidential bid, but it appears the Arizona senator's campaign and the now-famous Toledo plumber need to work on their communication skills.

McCain aides told CNN's Dana Bash Wurzelbacher would appear with the Republican presidential candidate at his first campaign event in Defiance, Ohio. But in what was a slightly awkward moment for McCain, Wurzelbacher was nowhere to be seen when the Arizona senator called out for him.

A campaign aide later said Wurzelbacher had "decided not to come" and may join McCain later in the day.

But reached at his home by CNN's Mary Snow, Wurzelbacher said it was "news to him" that he was supposed to be at the McCain rally. Wurzelbacher said nobody from the McCain campaign confirmed he was attending the event and called the incident a "miscommunication."

Wurzelbacher also said he is headed to Philadelphia for a charity event unrelated to the campaign and has no plans to meet up with McCain today.

UPDATE: Contacted by CNN a second time, Wurzelbacher said the campaign only called him to confirm after the event in question already took place. He will now try to meet up with McCain later in the day.

Wurzelbacher also said he had gotten an initial call about coming to the morning rally, "but no one called back to confirm," and was "not happy" that McCain had called out his name and he wasn't there.

[Psycho4Bud]

Have to admit though, ol' Joe the Plumber has really turned things around.:thumbsup: I find it VERY FUNNY that this bald headed middle income dude is the one that drug down the "chosen one".

Have a good one!:s4:

[maladroit]

that only proves that mccain is not one of the elite washington types who follow up formal campaign invitations with complimentary jet/limosene service and a $150,000 makeover (vice-presidents excepted)

[dragonrider]

Have to admit though, ol' Joe the Plumber has really turned things around.:thumbsup:

I have to admit that? I don't think so. Has Joe the Plumber made any difference whatsoever? I haven't seen any evidence of that at all.

Seems to me the McCain campaign is just wasting its time on trivial things. Sarah Palin spent several days focusing on her fabulously expensive wardrobe. And it wasn't the "media elite" focusing on it --- she kept bringing it up herself in her speaches! I thought they wanted that to die out, so why keep it alive for a few more days?

Then once they got past that, they started dragging Joe the Plumber around on the trail with them --- I saw footage of one rally in which Joe the Plumber was expounding on any and all policy subjects, like anyone cares what Joe the Plumber thinks about Middle East foreign policy! Maybe McCain should propose him as Secretary of State! Ha ha! He should definitely get a cabinet position!

Last night Obama had Bill Clinton join him for a rally in front of about 10 million supporters. Bill Clinton is the kind of campaigner who can make a difference for your camapign and that many fired up Florida supporters can make a difference in a state like Florida.

In contrast, John McCain can't even get Joe the Plumber to show up for a rally!

[maladroit]

i think joe makes a difference (but it might not be in the form of votes)...joe has the common touch that mccain lacks...he's great for the mccain campaign even when he doesn't show up because that's the kind of mistake any regular person can make

it's like george bush's folksy texan act...people want to sit down over a few beers with joe or george and have a good old chin wag about stuff without neccessarily getting into heavy details...just gut talk and male bonding

[JakeMartinez]

Some new news...

Joe the Plumber said a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel (even though Obama has said that Israel is one of our best allies and their survival is crucial), and has hired a publicist to handle his media appearances and help him plan a pretty bright future.

Everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame, I guess.

Fox News' article on Joe (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/30/joe-plumber-ponders-future-dismisses-country-music-star-chatter/)

[maladroit]

i bet joe runs for office on the republican ticket...he could be sarah palin's vice-president!


Palin-Wurzelbacher 2012
LIFE FOR ISRAEL

[dragonrider]

I wonder if Joe the Plumber is being paid as much as Sarah Palin's hair stylist. If so, then he should show up for work.

[Psycho4Bud]

I wonder if Joe the Plumber is being paid as much as Sarah Palin's hair stylist. If so, then he should show up for work.

LMAO!!! This coming from somebody that supports Obama? Hell, how many days has he actually worked in Senate since he was elected? Never heard of somebody missing so much time on a new job and expecting a major promotion.

Have a good one!:s4:

[JakeMartinez]

LMAO!!! This coming from somebody that supports Obama? Hell, how many days has he actually worked in Senate since he was elected? Never heard of somebody missing so much time on a new job and expecting a major promotion.

Have a good one!:s4:

Oh, about as many as McCain has in the past 2 years.

Doesn't matter how much tenure you have. If you take 2 years off, you should be lucky to still have a job let alone have the gall to ask for a promotion.

(see, P4B, that works both ways)

[Immolation]

He Did Vote Present 130 times.:wtf: What major decisions did he make?

[Immolation]

He Did Vote Present 130 times.:wtf: What major decisions did he make?

[Psycho4Bud]

Oh, about as many as McCain has in the past 2 years.

Doesn't matter how much tenure you have. If you take 2 years off, you should be lucky to still have a job let alone have the gall to ask for a promotion.

(see, P4B, that works both ways)

I think it should work both ways. IF these people want to run for President they should be forced to step down from ANY state position they currently hold.

The BIG difference then between these two would be that Obama would have virtually NO experience in Federal government OR a management position while McCain has years of experience behind him. Obama NEEDS to be called a Senator at the present time, McCain doesn't.

Have a good one:s4:

[JakeMartinez]

I think it should work both ways. IF these people want to run for President they should be forced to step down from ANY state position they currently hold.

The BIG difference then between these two would be that Obama would have virtually NO experience in Federal government OR a management position while McCain has years of experience behind him. Obama NEEDS to be called a Senator at the present time, McCain doesn't.

Have a good one:s4:

Very true, but what about re-election campaigns? I think our process has some flaws that should be worked out, but that's pretty low on the priority list considering what our nation is going through at the moment.

If you want to run on qualifications for the presidency, Sarah Palin is the most qualified person in this race for the job. Senatorial experience has virtually NOTHING to do with executive positions. That's why we rarely have senators who get elected to office.

See, the only thing you could learn in the senate that would come in handy as president is the basic way the legislative and executive branches work with each other, something someone could pick up in the first year (someone with brain enough to be holding an office such as senator, anyway).

Do you know that many of our greatest presidents (FDR, Lincoln, just to name two) were elected president with only a few years in federal government? FDR served 6 years as assistant secretary to the Navy, and as Governer for 3 years before being elected. Lincoln was in the House for 2ish years (can't find exact dates, but it's only one or two terms), an Illinois state senator, and yet was elected. Both of those men were "untested" and "Inexperienced", yet they lead us through the two hardest periods our nation has ever faced, the Great Depression and the Civil War.

Besides that, Sarah Palin has plenty of executive experience but I still want her to stay in Alaska, where D.C. is safe from her. That woman not only annoys me but scares me.

[Dreadscale]

Hi All !!!:thumbsup:

"Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them." William Shakespeare

Good Luck Joe the Plumber with the rest of your life!!! :thumbsup:

Your 15 minutes of fame will end in 4 days.

[Reefer Rogue]

'We've got Joe here tonight, Joe? Where are you Joe? Say it ain't so' :(

[maladroit]

YEAH! if you want to take two years off, you should wait until you're promoted to president first (like george bush did)


Record Breaker! Bush Takes Most Vacation Days For Sitting President

Mar 11, 2008

(UWIRE.com) This story was written by Beau Elliot, The Daily IowanPresident Bush recently spent his 879th day at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, since the Supreme Court, in all its great wisdom, elevated him to the presidency. This according to NPR's "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me," which noted that Bush broke former President Reagan's record for taking vacations from the White House.rIt's interesting to recall, all these wild years later, that George W. Bush did not decide to buy the ranch near Crawford until after he decided to run for president. Apparently, after Ronald Reagan's example, it seemed presidential to cut brush on a ranch, and Bush was seeking a brush with history. Or something.

Here are the vacations of record by the current and previous 4 administrations: Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton



*

President Jimmy Carter (D) Georgia:

79 Days (over 1 term - 4 years)



*

President Ronald Reagan (R) California:

335 days (over 2 terms - 8 years)



*

President George H. W. Bush (R) Texas:

543 days (over 1 term - 4 years)



*

President William J. Clinton (D) Arkansas:

152 days (over 2 terms - 8 years)

[Psycho4Bud]

Very true, but what about re-election campaigns? I think our process has some flaws that should be worked out, but that's pretty low on the priority list considering what our nation is going through at the moment.

I think our process has ALOT of flaws to be ironed out, this election has proved that more than ever before. A new senator that hasn't even gotten wet behind the ears yet going off on the road for 2 years; uneven campaign money that gives a gross advantage, biased press, ACORN voter fraud, again the dismissal of ANY third party groups, etc....

Who the hell are we to ask other countries to have an honest election process?



If you want to run on qualifications for the presidency, Sarah Palin is the most qualified person in this race for the job. Senatorial experience has virtually NOTHING to do with executive positions. That's why we rarely have senators who get elected to office.

Funny that you stated that, I feel the same way. Seems damn funny that the ONE person that has the actual qualifications to be president, not to mention the governor of the ONLY state where it is legal to grow for recreational use, has the most hate on THIS site. VERY bi-partisan of a few.

Have a good one!:s4:

[Dreadscale]

Hi All !!! :thumbsup:

I think the Joe the plumber thing has gotten way out of control.

I watched Senator McCain standing with Joe the Plumber addressing a crowd of his supporters.
Senator McCain actually told the crowd when he goes to Washington he is taking Joe the plumber with him.

Why would he say that?
What possible help could Joe the Plumber provide?

Senator McCain either has very poor judgment choosing people who could actually help him if elected.
OR
Possibly he has no intention of taking him to Washington and is just publicly lying.

And I guess a third option would be he knows he will never get elected and won't have to make good on the promise.

JOHN MCCAIN APPEARS WITH JOE &QUOT;THE PLUMBER&QUOT; IN OHIO - New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10312008/news/politics/mac__plumbers_in_my_dc_pipeline_136138.htm)

[allrollsin21]

Funny that you stated that, I feel the same way. Seems damn funny that the ONE person that has the actual qualifications to be president, not to mention the governor of the ONLY state where it is legal to grow for recreational use, has the most hate on THIS site. VERY bi-partisan of a few.

[/QUOTE]

thats funny, i thought the reason i don't think she should be vice president is because she believes in creationism. What a relief to know it is in fact just my bi-partisan nature...

[maladroit]

"I'm going to Washington and I'm going to bring Joe the Plumber with me!"
- John McCain


WTF? so it's not a joke! this takes pandering to a new level...mccain just exchanged his last shred of political credibility for a few votes from people that want uniformed boobs for leaders so they don't feel like they're being ruled by elitist snobs

[Breukelen advocaat]

"I'm going to Washington and I'm going to bring Joe the Plumber with me!"
- John McCain

Joe the Plumber would have been a better choice for VP than Palin. ;)

[dragonrider]

"I'm going to Washington and I'm going to bring Joe the Plumber with me!"
- John McCain


WTF? so it's not a joke! this takes pandering to a new level...mccain just exchanged his last shred of political credibility for a few votes from people that want uniformed boobs for leaders so they don't feel like they're being ruled by elitist snobs

Ha ha! The joke is on McCain! This year's October Surprise is that on Monday the GOP is going to announce that they have decided to change the ticket and add Joe the Plumber --- and they are not dropping Palin, they're dropping McCain!

Ha ha!

But seriously, what does he mean, "I'm going to Washington and I'm going to bring Joe the Plumber with me!" What role does McCain have in mind for Joe the Plumber in his administration? Is he joking? I think McCain has finally snapped.

[maladroit]

joe makes 500-700% more than the median income in the usa...'average' joe speaks for the top 2% of americans...that's the kind of maverick mccain really is

[psychocat]

Hi All !!! :thumbsup:

I watched Senator McCain standing with Joe the Plumber addressing a crowd of his supporters.
Senator McCain actually told the crowd when he goes to Washington he is taking Joe the plumber with him.

Why would he say that?
What possible help could Joe the Plumber provide?

Maybe the toilets at the White House need sorting out ? :D

[dragonrider]

I wonder what Joe the Plumber is doing now that McCain lost. Still giving press conferences and talking policy? Or do you suppose he is back to unclogging drains? He is probably studying for that plumber's license exam he always intended to get someday so he could be a REAL plumber. Maybe he is working out how much money he is going to save when Obama's tax policies get enacted. I wonder if he still has a publicist on retainer, or if they just told him, "It's over, Dude. Pay us what you owe us, and get back to reality."