SInce some commenters are too stupid to get it, Betsy Newmark writes that this may have been Barack Obama's "macaca" moment:
For those on the left who think that this whole story is about Joe's personal background, let me put in in terms they should understand. Think of Joe as a symbolic construct whose situation is "fake but accurate." The left always seems to like that sort of approach to what they regard as underlying truths. Think of him as the left thought of Rigoberta Menchu, the Guatemalan writer who won the Nobel Prize for literature with her autobiography of how, as an indigenous Mayan, she and her family had suffered at the hands of the Guatemalan army. Except it turns out that many of the details in her autobiography were fabrications. That didn't matter to the left or the Nobel Prize Committee because they regarded her story, true or not, as an essential expression of suffering that could have been true.
It doesn't matter if Joe is secretly a multimillionaire plumbing magnate or an apprentice plumber with unrealistic dreams. What matters is how Obama answered his question and what it revealed about his approach to redistribution of wealth. We're not about to elect Joe the Plumber.
She has another thought:
I would have thought that Democrats would have learned the dangers of going too far in sliming an opponent or anyone who doesn't support their guy. They helped promote Sarah Palin to a phenomenon by their relentless pursuit of anything that could be used against her. Questioning whether or not she was really the mother of her baby and if she could serve as vice president with a Down Syndrome infant set her up not only for a backlash among ordinary people but helped innoculate her against more substantive criticisms.
Obama suffered some of his biggest setbacks in the primaries after he was taped describing Pennsylvanians as bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Now John Murtha is having to backtrack after calling his own constituents in western Pennsylvania racists because they might not support Barack Obama. And Obama's followers are now all outraged that a guy asked the senator a question that evoked a revealing answer when Obama popped into his neighborhood for a photo op. It wasn't Joe's question that was so important, but Obama's answer.
Are they trying to demonstrate that they have actually no real care for ordinary people unless those people are falling in line to vote for The One? They really ought to be more careful not to let that mask slip before the election is over.
The thing is, they never learn. Smearing and sliming comes naturally, and is always their first resort. And of course, like their lies and racism and generally fascist tendencies, they project it on their political opponents.
Think of Joe as a symbolic construct whose situation is "fake but accurate."
Bingo, Betsy, he's "fake but accurate". That is exactly what McCain, Cavuto, and even Joe himself have in mind.
Whereas Obama is just fake, period.
Jim, I don't know where you live or who you know. The places I've lived, and the people I know, are more like Joe the Plumber or less ambitious and less capable versions of Sarah Palin than they are like McCain, Obama, anyone in the media and so forth. Normal people are imperfect, and any one of us could have a dozen things in their background that, if subjected to the full on "media scrutiny" (code for "destroy at all costs"), they would be embarrassed about. I suspect you do as well. So here's a guy who gets a rare shot to ask a candidate a question — he does not seek this out; it just happens to him — and suddenly the media is out to destroy him, and childish slime such as yourself are out to slander him, not for anything he's done, but because the question he asked caused your preferred candidate to go off script and accidentally tell the truth, a truth that many ordinary people find repellant. Maybe it will even work. Maybe there are fewer people who get angry when ordinary guys are pilloried for having the temerity to act like citizens than there are people who think all's fair in politics, so long as it's their side that's winning. Maybe there are more dishonorable people than honorable people. It's possible. But it's sad that your hope for election, and your need to prove your own worth by looking down your nose, are so dependent on those propositions being true.
It wasn't Joe's question that was so important, but Obama's answer.
Absolutely. This is a classic dodge to attack the person that asked the question and not the answer.
This could have been Doug the Doctor, Andy the Attorney, or Sandra the Scientist. It does not matter. What matters is that Obama wants to take their money and give it to people that support Obama.
Yeah Obama is a fake; I mean look at all the stuff he was into with Ayers:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002974214&parm1=2&cpage=1
And then he fakes it at the debate. Got get him guys.
Except the point is that Joe was wrong! Under Obama's tax plan, Joe get a tax cut. Which, if you read the entire Obama exchange (see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/spread-the-weal.html for video and transcripts) Obama was trying to explain to him.
Except the point is that Joe was wrong!
No, that's not the point. Read again. Whether Joe is right or wrong has no relevance whatsoever. The point is that Obama slipped and let us know that his agenda is wealth redistribution.
"Obama was trying to explain to him
Yea, Obama was trying to explain how Joe shouldn't worry his shiny little head over trying to move up in the world and just wait for his tax credit hand out to arrive.
OK, Chris, so if Joe does get a tax cut, does that make income redistribution OK? You are fine with taking money from some people to give to other, just because you want to, as long as Joe gets a tax cut? And if so, are you OK with the same rules when, say, the Republicans are in power? Can they take money from people that don't vote for them to give to people who do?
So Obama's setting up two sides to consider:
there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you’ve become more successful through hard work – you don’t want to be taxed as much. But another way of looking at it is 95% of folks who are making less than 250, 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, put yourself back 10 years ago when you were only making whatever, 60 or 70. Under my tax plan you would be keeping more of your paycheck, you’d be paying lower taxes, which means you would have saved…
That's the conservative concern right there in Obama's response. Obama's plan will halt financial growth by providing incentives for people to make less and receive more from the government. If you work hard to become successful, then you won't want to be taxed, but if you are successful, then too bad. But if you work hard but only make an arbitrary dollar value determined by the government, then the government will reward you. It's the recipe for freezing economic growth in the US for years.
Jeff Medcalf - I reject your premise. Taxing different income groups at different rates is not "income redistribution." It's "progressive taxation" and is simple fairness.
This may be off-topic, but since you asked, let me briefly explain. For lower income families, the amount they pay in taxes (this includes payroll taxes like Social Security and Medicaid, which are taxed at dollar one) is more critical to the functioning of their household. Median household income in the US is $50K. The $1,000 they save on Obama's plan is a more critical part of their budget then the comparable percentage is for a worker making $250K.
Leland - are you arguing that the only incentive people have to work hard is their tax rate? I don't know about you, but I'm a lot more worried about what I can buy with additional money then what my taxes are.
Besides, Obama's top tax rate is 39.6% - the same rate as during the 1990s. It's not exactly a crippling rate. The top capital gains tax rate of 20% is a third lower then Reagan's rate in 1996.
Obama's detailed plan (PDF file) is here http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
I am not trying to make an argument, hence I have no premise to reject. I am asking you, in response to your earlier comment (10:03), what your premise is. My question to you is, if you are correct that Joe gets a tax cut under Obama's plan, then what is your implication? From your answers, I gather than your point is defend the Obama tax plan, which I would characterize as redistribution of wealth and you would characterize (12:38) as simple fairness. I'm willing to have that debate with you, if you are willing and if Rand concurs that we could use his space for it.
Jeff- we may have cross-posted, but my implication is that expecting those that can pay more to pay more is not redistribution, but being fair.
I do agree that one can go overboard with higher taxes at higher incomes. However, I contend that we've gone overboard in the other direction.
Chris, so the fact that the top 2/3 already pay almost all of the taxes, and the top 20% pay 80%, and so on, that's not overboard yet?
Rick C. - No it's not. Actually, it's even more distorted then you portray. The top 1% pay a lot of taxes, chiefly because they have incomes over $600K a year.
I really think people ought to look at this chart (http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/) before they discuss taxes. What you will see is, thanks to drawing the brackets to scale in terms of tax rate AND population, is that McCain's plan is truly a handout to the very rich.
Does anybody want to defend on grounds of fairness a 4.4% tax cut for incomes over $2.8 million? Does anybody want to argue that people won't strive to make $2.8 million because their tax rate will go up? Does anybody want to argue that a 0.7% tax cut for people making under $66K will stimulate the economy more then a tax cut of 2.4%?
I don't grant the premise that fairness is either desirable or implicated. I suppose that it depends on what your idea is of the purpose of taxation, and on what are the bases of liberty and prosperity. I don't think, based on your comments, that we would even have the same premises to debate from, which makes a debate rather difficult. At the very least, we'd have to agree on the goals of taxation before we could argue premises, and we'd have to argue premises before we could argue something as specific as plans and rates.
Rand,
You seem convinced that Obama is a fake. And if not a fake, some ultra-lefty radical.
This article might help:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
If elected, he might turn out a lot different from what you've been theorizing.
The places I've lived, and the people I know, are more like Joe the Plumber or less ambitious and less capable versions of Sarah Palin than they are like McCain, Obama, anyone in the media and so forth.
Since you ask, Jeff, I have lived in several places in America too, and sure, many people are a lot like Joe Worzelbacher. Or, often, they are less ambitious and more capable versions of Sarah Palin. Be that as it may, no one is about to destroy Joe Worzelbacher as a person. It's just a matter of accurately answering his question to Obama about his taxes. And the attitude here and in the McCain campaign is that accuracy is destruction. That is, the premise and intent of his question fall apart before the facts.
So it's not that Joe Worzelbacher the man is fake but accurate. He's genuine all right: He surely truly believes that Obama is a socialist who tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr. Sure, there are a lot of people like that (although not at the moment a majority). But the interpretation of his tax question certainly is fake but accurate, because Obama's stated tax plans wouldn't increase Worzelbacher's taxes.
The claim of this post that Worzelbacher himself isn't the point is also fake but accurate. That is just the old debate trick of making your side a moving target. Everyone including Worzelbacher himself understands that "Joe the Plumber" is a much more sympathetic taxpayer than "Kevin the CEO of Roto-Rooter".
While we are on the subject of fake but accurate, these sermons about the evils of spreading wealth are related to Rand's boast that he isn't counting on Social Security or Medicare. How exactly does someone who needs a job in his 50s not count on Social Security and Medicare ten years down the line?
He surely truly believes that Obama is a socialist who tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr.
No, that's your racist, assholish belief.
How exactly does someone who needs a job in his 50s not count on Social Security and Medicare ten years down the line?
None of your fucking business, malignant hemorrhoid.
Doesn't it bother you to know how low peoples' opinion of such a vile creature as yourself is?
No, that's your racist, assholish belief.
No, Rand, I don't think that Obama is a socialist or that he tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr. Both were Joe the Plumber's words. If you want to call it racist and "assholish", then that's an overheated way to express a valid criticism of a certain prejudice, but it's not my prejudice.
As for whether or not you'll count on Social Security and Medicare, yes sure, you could argue that the question is none of anyone else's business. But if so, why did you make this claim? I might tell you that I've made money in the stock market, or I might tell you that it's none of your business, but I'm not going to tell you both.
No, Rand, I don't think that Obama is a socialist or that he tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr. Both were Joe the Plumber's words.
So what? If he'd said "tap dances like Gene Kelly," that would have been OK? The point is that he tap dances.
As for whether or not you'll count on Social Security and Medicare, yes sure, you could argue that the question is none of anyone else's business. But if so, why did you make this claim?
What claim are you deluding yourself that I made that has anything to do with the fact that I ran short of consulting business a couple months ago, malignant hemorrhoid?
Leland - are you arguing that the only incentive people have to work hard is their tax rate?
Chris, please reread what I wrote. Here, I'll help:
if you work hard but only make an arbitrary dollar value determined by the government, then the government will reward you. It's the recipe for freezing economic growth in the US for years.
Is your argument Chris that the government doesn't use the tax code for social engineering? Do you understand what social engineering is?
You make this simpleton claim:
I'm a lot more worried about what I can buy with additional money then what my taxes are.
So are you saying you don't take deductions on your income tax? If you do, how about asking yourself why you take those deductions?
So what?
You're the one who called it racist, not me. Also someone in the other thread, again not me, called it racially tinged. All I did was quote Joe the Plumber.
What claim are you deluding yourself that I made that has anything to do with the fact that I ran short of consulting business a couple months ago
I was referring to at least this remark:
It's true that you didn't explicitly say which camp you are in: the people who count on Social Security and who will be burned by life extension, or the people who have never counted on Social Security. But you clearly implied that you are among "those of us" in the latter group.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/07/good_news_on_th.html
So again, if you think that spreading the wealth is such a crime, how aren't you counting on Social Security?
So again, if you think that spreading the wealth is such a crime, how aren't you counting on Social Security?
I am not counting on Social Security, because I think it is a scam, and a Ponzi scheme, and I will never see it, you malignant hemorrhoid. And once again, how I am dealing with that reality is none of your fucking business, and the fact that you attempt to use my finances to make your asinine and bogus political points is why you are a malignant hemorrhoid and troll. And if not the Worst Person In The World, at least the worst person to comment at this blog, but only because I've banned those worse.
I am not counting on Social Security, because I think it is a scam, and a Ponzi scheme, and I will never see it
But thinking that something is a scam is totally different from materially not counting on it. Since you so enjoyed the unaccountable prediction that Obama is unelectable, I'll make a prediction too: You sure will see Social Security, and Medicare too, and together they'll be a big fraction of your livelihood.
None of this is to single you out as a socialist bum. The point is that you're in the same boat as the rest of the middle class. Maybe your opinions imagined an iceberg and jumped ship, but you in the flesh are still on the deck.
But thinking that something is a scam is totally different from materially not counting on it
I am not materially counting on it, you malignant hemorrhoid. How I am doing so remains none of your fucking business.
Leland - yes I itemize. I am not in favor of paying more taxes then I have to. Yes I am aware of what social engineering is. I'm not sure social engineering is necesarily a bad thing. The US criminal code, for example, is an attempt at social engineering.
My point was that the tax code is one of many factors driving people's behaviors. I find it hard to believe that an increase in the top rate from 36% to 39.5% will be that significant of a factor.
I am not in favor of paying more taxes then I have to.
So you do worry about your taxes, and you modify your behavior to save on taxes. But a 4% pay cut is no big deal to you, because
I find it hard to believe that an increase in the top rate from 36% to 39.5% will be that significant of a factor.
Well, you also believe Bill Ayers is just a Chicago socialite and Todd Palin is a terrorist sleeper agent. So, I think this is far as I can take this argument with you.
Leland - I'm do itemize, but I'm not going to turn down a raise or otherwise not do something to make more money just because of taxes.
Todd Palin was a member of a political party that advocated Alaskan independence until 2002. What I asked was, "would you be okay with Mrs. Biden being a member of a political party advocating independence from Delaware?" I've never gotten an answer to that.
Regarding Ayers, I'm getting sick of this waving the bloody shirt of the 1960s. I'm also trying to point out that it's impossible to be involved in educational reform in Chicago without running into Ayers. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.
"would you be okay with Mrs. Biden being a member of a political party advocating independence from Delaware?" I've never gotten an answer to that.
I'd have no problem with it.
it's impossible to be involved in educational reform in Chicago without running into Ayers.
It is possible to be involved in educational reform in Chicago and disagree with his radical educational philosophy. The available evidence is that Obama went happily along with it.
Rand - thanks for answering the AIP question. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
I'm going to apologize for going off-topic here, but regarding Ayers: there is a paucity of available evidence that Ayers advocated radical educational reform via the Annenberg program. Educational partners funded under that program were such radical Chicago institutions as the Chicago Children's Museum and the Chicago Symphony.
Based on my personal and limited experience with inner-city Chicago kids, it's important to note that we have lots of educational opportunities in Chicago, but that many inner-city kids don't get a chance to take advantage of those resources.
From what I've seen of the Annenberg program, the grants were provided to allow kids an opportunity to visit these places. The reason they were given to parent groups was twofold - first, at the time, the Chicago Public School system was too disfunctional to get light bulbs into classrooms, let alone organize field trips. Second, there was an attempt to improve parental involvement, on the theory that involved parents would lead to better educated kids.
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge)
Gerrib points to field trips.
Annenberg spent $150M. That's not just field trips. In fact, the majority of the money didn't go to field trips.
One problem is that Obama spent $150M of Annenberg's money and didn't improve kids education.
Another problem is that he used that $150M for political reasons.
Yup, that's change.