Instapundit:
They've done more investigations into Joe the Plumber in 24 hours than they've done on Barack Obama in two years...
They've also had more interviewers with him lately than they have with Bill Ayers. Aren't they curious at all as to what he thinks? I mean, he was brought up in the debate, too...
[Friday morning update]
Is Joe the Plumber the forgotten man?
Glenn Reynolds knows as well as anyone that it's fun to make smart-aleck comments that still sound clever even if they are plainly false. Maybe especially when they are plainly false.
As for Rand's question, the difference between Bill Ayers and Joe Worzelbacher is that Worzelbacher wants the attention. Reporters can't force people to be interviewed. Maybe Ayers wanted to be interviewed before (and in fact he was), but apparently not lately.
Since Worzelbacher went out of his way to ask Obama about his taxes, he deserves the correct answer. Obama was caught off guard in the rope line, and maybe not fully briefed on old Joe in the debate either, and his answer could have been better.
First, Obama's plans would not raise Worzelbacher's taxes. Worzelbacher conflated gross revenue with net income in his question. If his plumbing company makes $250K in revenue, then that number is much more than his reported income unless he mysteriously has no business expenses.
Second, the real reason that Worzelbacher is antsy about his taxes is that he is already delinquent in paying them. If he wants tacit reassurance that the IRS is not going to enforce the law, then maybe McCain can do that for him, but that is a very bad way to cut taxes.
The malignant hemorrhoid troll is nothing if not reliable.
They've also had more interviewers with him lately than they have with Bill Ayers
And more than they have with Sarah Palin, for that matter.
Maybe there should be a debate between Joe the Plumber and Bill the Bomber!
III: And more than they have with Sarah Palin, for that matter.
It's the same principle. People who don't want interviews, don't get interviews.
The Washington Post says Palin is unfit for the job. I'm sure that opinion surprises some of you:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
McCain's very bad date needs to hold a series of Press Conferences. That's the least that someone who says Country First owes the electorate. She really needs to show that she isn't just a Banana Republican. Who knows, it might even work.
The Washington Post says Palin is unfit for the job.
Let's see. It's Mike Gerson... he's linking to the Washington Post... and he's complaining about Palin... all in a thread about an average citizen not running for office. And some claim Joe is out of touch?
Rand, why do you allow these morons to post? He's not adding to the debate, he's just trying to control the blog content.
As for the union going after Joe... oh please! Do it guys. Make Joe the poster child for why everyone else should oppose the new union legislation that Congress wants to pass.
Why should anyone listen to the Washington Post?
They are clearly unfit for the job.
Jim Harris opinion about poor old joe the plumber is a perfect reflection of the left-wing at large and how they feel about the middle class. On one hand claiming that their policies really don't hurt the middle class but on the other hand demonstrating their loathing and contempt for the middle class.
Just like the book, "What's the matter with Kansas?", written by Thomas Frank. The Democrats can't understand why the non-rich whites keep voting against Democrats. The best answer Frank seems to come up with (and which Obama echoed at the infamous S.F. fundraiser) is that lower class white voters are too stupid to understand their own best self-interest. So it is up to the Democrats to soothe those voters with convincing white lies, just long enough to drag those voters to the place which Democrats know is really better for those rubes.
On one hand claiming that their policies really don't hurt the middle class but on the other hand demonstrating their loathing and contempt for the middle class.
It doesn't matter whether "Joe the Plumber" is lower class, middle class, upper class, or object-oriented class. The question is, what is he "scared" of? Obama's plan would likely cut his taxes; is he afraid of that? Or is he afraid to pay the taxes that he owes right now under Bush's tax plan?
Thomas Joseph, the business manager of the plumber's union local, is just as middle class as Joe Worzelbacher. He says that Worzelbacher is playing games. By extension, so is McCain.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/joe-in-the-spotlight/
Um, maybe he knows that it is immoral to vote yourself free of pain at the expense of another's greater pain.
But I don't expect a liberal to understand that...
Um, maybe he knows that it is immoral to vote yourself free of pain at the expense of another's greater pain.
Yes, there was terror in Joe the Plumber's heart when he realized that Obama's tax cut for him would be covered by a tax increase for someone else who makes five times as much. It was in that grip of fear that Joe decided that Obama is just like Sammy Davis Jr: Good at tap dancing and not much else.
Tax delinquency, on the other hand, is just fine.
First, Joe read the tax plan, and according to both Joe and Barack (based on what Joe told him about his income), Joe's taxes would be raised by Barack Obama. So the suggestion that he is scared that Obama would lower his taxes is a total fabrication, but then consider the source.
Second, if Joe owes back taxes, and his complaint is potentially getting taxed more, then exactly how is claiming "he owes back taxes" an example of how something is wrong with Joe's argument? Ok, Joe hasn't paid his taxes, but his point is that he can't afford to, and wants relief. Obama's response, "I want to spread the wealth". How does spreading Joe's wealth, that he can't afford, providing Joe relief?
Jim Harris wrote:
As for Rand's question, the difference between Bill Ayers and Joe Worzelbacher is that Worzelbacher wants the attention. Reporters can't force people to be interviewed. [...]
Since Worzelbacher went out of his way to ask Obama about his taxes, he deserves the correct answer.
Oh really? You have a very odd idea about what constitutes going out of one's way:
"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."
Saying he wanted the attention ranks up there with "Pardon me, sir, but is my eye hurting your elbow?"
Or was Joe was an operative planted there by the nefarious Karl Rove?! Waiting to accost the innocent, unsuspecting Senator Obama with his evil, twisted questions!
Perhaps if our nation's competent, professional journalists showed as much zeal in approaching Bill Ayers as the did in tracking down Joe the Plumber, we'd know a bit more about Senator Obama's associates:
"Reporters camped out by his house overnight and by midmorning there were 21 people on his driveway surrounding him, holding cameras and notebooks."
First, Joe read the tax plan, and according to both Joe and Barack (based on what Joe told him about his income), Joe's taxes would be raised by Barack Obama.
Except that Joe didn't give Obama his expected income; he gave his expected company revenue. Obviously expected revenue is much greater than expected income. Obama did not have time in the middle of a rope line to sort through a false premise in the question. He might have time to obtain the correct answer before the debate, and if so, it was his mistake for not saying in the debate what is getting documented now, that his tax plan would probably cut Joe's taxes.
How does spreading Joe's wealth, that he can't afford, providing Joe relief?
The point is that given the actual facts of Joe's taxes, the wealth would spread to him and not away from him. Which is more important, a zinger question on a rope line, or reality?
Well, for a lot of tax delinquents, zinger questions are more important because reality has a liberal bias. Maybe Joe doesn't really care that Obama would cut his likely taxes if what he really wants is someone to blame.
You have a very odd idea about what constitutes going out of one's way
Here is a photo of Obama talking to Worzelbacher:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00415/JOEPLUMBER_PIXEL_SI_415361a.JPG
It's true that Joe is a little taller than the 30 other people standing there, but if he really hadn't wanted attention, he could have blended into the crowd.
Besides, how did Neil Cavuto manage to interview him too? Was Cavuto in the same caravan as Obama, running after this guy? If maybe he only wanted a little attention in that first exchange, he has certainly accepted a whole lot of it by now.
"How does spreading Joe's wealth, that he can't afford, providing Joe relief?"
The point is that given the actual facts of Joe's taxes, the wealth would spread to him and not away from him.
Oh, so Joe should vote for Obama because Obama would take someone else's money and give it to him? Perhaps if you understood the concept of integrity you'd realize that not everyone is impressed by this philosophy. And perhaps Joe wasn't persuaded by what amounted to a claim that Obama would take the water from the other side of the bucket, not his.
Which is more important, a zinger question on a rope line, or reality?
Obama was confronted with a guy who said he was a blue-collar worker who wanted to run a small business but was woried about getting hurt by Obama's taxes ... and Obama responded, not by saying they wouldn't hurt him, but by telling the guy we need to "spread the wealth around."
Obama's response wasn't forced -- he pulled the classic politician's gaffe of accidentally saying what he really meant. And a lot of people don't like what he said.
You can give us all the rationalizations you like about what Obama's tax plan will "really" do. You might even believe them yourself. Hey, it's not as if there's any economic uncertainty floating around these days, is it? But most of the rest of us know that the "plan" of a politician trying to get elected usually bears bloody little resemblance to the reality of the results, even when his intentions are good.
Glenn Reynolds knows as well as anyone that it's fun to make smart-aleck comments that still sound clever even if they are plainly false. Maybe especially when they are plainly false.
Al Capp used to give Li'l Abner a line at applies here: "As any fool can plainly see, I can plainly see ...
When I lived in Sweden a common description of the distribution of businesses was an hour glass. That is, at the top there are the handful of giant and ancient firms like Volvo and Ericsson and at the bottom are lots of really small firms, maybe with just 2 or 3 people. (You can probably even get a subsidy to start one.) In between, however, there are relatively few medium sized businesses. Of Sweden's 50 biggest firms, only a couple were formed after 1970 and the majority go back before WWII. So clearly medium size firms in Sweden get stymied somewhere. As often noted, in the US the fast growing small/medium sized firms are the ones that create most new jobs.
The official Swedish unemployment rate is around 6% but the country spends a lot on training, make-work programs, etc. to keep people off the roles. (See this item.) The true rate, which some believe is as high as 15%, is disputed but the public apparently considered it bad enough to put a Center-Right coalition into power, pushing the Social Democrats out for, I believe, only the second time since the 1930s.
The problem is that as soon as a business starts to grow, it get hits with all sorts of taxes, union employment restrictions (e.g. there are big penalties for firing employees so you try to avoid hiring if at all possible), mandates, heavy regulations, etc.
This general hour glass problem is true across much of Europe. France has had unemployment hovering around 10 +/- 2% since the 1980s. For much of this decade, Germany had double digit unemployment.
My point is that Joe is serving as a warning that similar policies could produce similar results in the US. Not only will higher taxes be a problem, but a filibuster proof Congress for Obama is going to enact policies such as the union card check that will just add more and more sand to the track on which firms try to run.
I don't think it is a gross generalization to claim that most liberal Democrats believe that the US should move to a Euro-style welfare state and that if it weren't for those goofy Republicans we would have done so long ago. However, I wish that they would explain exactly how the US will avoid the high unemployment, slow growth problems that such economies endure. We must find jobs to deal with a much higher population growth and a high influx of poor (legal) immigrants.
Someone pointed out that if Labor loses in the UK in the next election (they are 10% behind in the polls at the moment), then at the next G7 meeting a President Obama would be the only leader who comes from the party of the left in his or her country. It's not an accident that center right coalitions are ruling in those countries. Ironically, it appears that due to an accident of circumstances, the US, which is still basically center-right in political orientation, will have the most left wing government in its history.
And perhaps Joe wasn't persuaded by what amounted to a claim that Obama would take the water from the other side of the bucket, not his.
He certainly wasn't. In fact he was set against Obama a long time ago. And that's his honest opinion, just like his opinion that Obama is a socialist and that he tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr. What is not honest is his story that makes him the victim. If his sense of victimhood has any factual basis at all, it comes from his tax deliquency in the state of Ohio, and not from anything in Obama's stated plans.
If he or any of you want to argue that it's an intolerable cruelty to ever raise anyone's taxes in order to cut your taxes, then fine. But it's foolish to buy into the bait and switch, where the Republicans warn you that your taxes will go up, but it's not actually you. And an even worse bait and switch is when they cut taxes and raise spending at the same time, especially when the economy is doing well, knowing full well that the bills will come due under some future president.
Rand, why do you allow these morons to post? He's not adding to the debate, he's just trying to control the blog content.
Because without "these morons", it isn't a debate. It's pretty clear that you would prefer a nice, friendly circle jerk here, Leland, but that approach hardly qualifies as "debate".
Leave it to the malignant hemorrhoid to join the other fascists who are attacking a private citizen for having the temerity to question The One.
Well, at least he hasn't (yet) published his home address, as they did over at Kos.
It doesn't matter whether "Joe the Plumber" is lower class, middle class, upper class, or object-oriented class. The question is, what is he "scared" of? Obama's plan would likely cut his taxes; is he afraid of that? Or is he afraid to pay the taxes that he owes right now under Bush's tax plan?
Obama's tax plan is a fraud just like the man himself. He claims that taxes will go down for 95% of Americans but that's also a lie. First of all, the bottom 40% pays no income taxes at all. Obama's "tax cuts" are basically in the form of checks for various credits to buy votes. That's how he intends to "spread the wealth around."
In the meantime, they're going to let the Bush tax cuts expire. That means the actual tax bills of most of us who really do pay taxes will go up - often by thousands of dollars a year.
Does anyone else get tired of hearing how Obama is going to buy this election with other peoples money? How is this not theft?
In the US, 50% of the population pays 3% of the taxes. So a majority feels no ill effects from spending. That is why socialism will be voted in - the majority is enslaving the minority, as eventually happens in every democracy.
And you know this will end in war... while liberals can just move to Europe, conservatives are up against a wall...
It appears the attacks on Joe is backfiring. Using liberal polling, Obama was up 14pts before the debate, and now the spread is 2pts.
Also, we have stories about Obama's campaign treasurer with tax liens on his own home and businesses.
Also I learned today; there is more to the Barack/Joe conversation; which includes the great O saying that he can't support a Flat Tax because it would require a sales tax with a rate of around 40%. That's just wrong on so many levels.
It is funny how the media hasn't prodded Obama with any of these kinds of questions like Joe did. One lone guy playing toss with his kid moseys over and asks one question and Obama's campaign starts to fray at the edges.
The thing that we all take exception to is not found in the technicalities of what Joe does with his taxes. It is the response that Obama had. He essentially proclaims class warfare and 'spreading the wealth' without even batting an eye.
If any of you Obamabots had actually watched the video you'd understand what Joe was asking. He said something to the effect that 'if he'd saved up enough to think about buying his own business would his taxes go up?'. To which Obama said, more or less, "Oh, hell yea!" This symbolizes how people in a position to move upward, to go up from middle income on their way to upper middle income, are going to be penalized. This is going to set a ceiling on economic mobility. Why would someone move into a tax bracket if they know they will end up losing out on the net end? Also, Joe does have to be concerned at the present. Despite the fact that he may potentially get a tax cut, if he happens to qualify for one of the tax credits, he might get laid off. Which at that point I guess he will become thankful for those handouts -- no more job but thanks for the welfare. Or, his boss might not be able to supply the tools he needs to do his job to the utmost productivity which will impact customer satisfaction and hurt the business.
Upward mobility should be rewarded not derided.
fascists who are attacking a private citizen for having the temerity to question The One.
Maybe the easiest way to sling mud mixed with glue in an election is to have a special theory of sainthood or victimhood for "The Average Joe". Whatever the Average Joe says is gospel, no matter how dubious or even offensive it sounds. This is an entirely bipartisan point: In a 1992 debate, Denton Walthall, a.k.a. "Ponytail Guy", leaped up to bash George H. W. Bush for his negative campaigning. This wasn't particularly fair, because, first, both Bush and Clinton had too much negative campaigning; and second, because Walthall was an Average Joe, Bush had his hands tied in the face of a hostile rant.
So here we are again with Samuel J. Worzelbacher. Worzelbacher says that Obama tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr, which sounds about as middle-of-the-road as Archie Bunker. And his tax question had a false premise. Well, I'm just as much an Average Joe as Worzelbacher is, so what I say thus carries equal weight according to the Average Joe Theory; it certainly isn't fascism. Worzelbacher is entitled to his hardline partisan opinions, but he's no victim.
Whatever the Average Joe says is gospel, no matter how dubious or even offensive it sounds.
The malignant hemorrhoid is either being obtuse or disingenuous (as always). The point is not what Joe said. So these vile attempts to smear and discredit him are meaningless.
The point is what Senator Obama said, using the language of the late fascist Huey Long. "Spread the wealth around." Every man a king, too?
The point is what Senator Obama said, using the language of the late fascist Huey Long. "Spread the wealth around." Every man a king, too?
The phrase is "40 acres and a mule".
Look, I know that you will never believe that the government should never, ever spread the wealth around. You believe that it's always a slippery slope with Mao and Stalin at the bottom. But the fact is that politicians have done too much in the past 25 years to keep wealth from spreading around. Regressive tax tricks have canceled out a progressive base tax schedule. They have done such a good job of it that the median Canadian is wealthier than the median American, even though Americans make 20% more on average than Canadians. So it would be good for America to take a few steps in the opposite direction.
Again, I know that you'll never believe it. But I will say this: You have also claimed that you aren't counting on the wealth to spread to you through Medicare and Social Security. But unless your employment record turns around dramatically in the next ten years, you sure will be counting on it. You will just plain need the money no matter how larcenous you claim it is.
Josh,
You're right. Joe's questions were no more offensive then what a candidate could expect in a town hall debate. He asked, "I looked at both tax plans, and it looks my taxes would go up under your plan more than McCain." What conservatives are crying foul about is what Obama said in response. And the response wasn't, I'm sorry you are going to get impacted, perhaps I should check my plan. What Obama said was "you didn't get me 4 years ago, or you would have gotten a break then" (paraphrased), so now that you made it on your own without government's assistance, "I'm going to spread your wealth around".
Joe didn't say, "what the hell! I'm going to go vote McCain!" Instead, Joe questioned if there was anything better such as a Flat Tax which would ease his burden and many others as well. Obama then gave him an answer that showed Obama doesn't know what the Flat Tax is. It also suggested Obama would use a Flat Tax to raise taxes higher. And finally, he dismissed Joe with a "I got to prepare for the debate".
What Joe did was ask a question. Apparently what Joe is suppose to do when meeting a Democrat Candidate is bow down, kiss their foot, and thank them for not taking more money. If Joe dares stand up and say, "hey, you are taking too much", then he is to be vetted to determine his real allegiance.
And the response wasn't, I'm sorry you are going to get impacted
That's right, the idea is to make Obama apologize for something that he didn't do. Obama's stated tax plan won't impact Worzelbacher, it will benefit him.
To be sure, there are a few people whose taxes will go up under Obama's tax plan. If you think that it's a sin to ever raise anyone else's taxes in order to cut your taxes, then you're honestly opposed. But he's not raising the Joe the Plumber's taxes. Bait and switch.
The phrase is "40 acres and a mule".
Learn a little history:
Why do you persist in beclowning yourself at my web site?
"The phrase is "40 acres and a mule"."
Its a real phrase but has nothing to do with Huey Long. It was a term for what the freed slaves could be promised after the Civil War.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40_acres_and_a_mule
Its a real phrase but has nothing to do with Huey Long. It was a term for what the freed slaves could be promised after the Civil War.
That's right. Back then it was "40 acres and a mule"; now it's "tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr."
"That's right. Back then it was "40 acres and a mule"; now it's "tap dances like Sammy Davis Jr.""
Um... The saying has had no racial connotations other then to reference what blacks weren't giving for reparations. Oh and Spike Lee named his production company "40 Acres & A Mule Filmworks".
Joe the plumber could be an axe murderer and his question is still valid. This tactic of discrediting Joe when it's Obama's answer that should be the topic is classic fascism. I expect it from Jim et al but the MSM is just proving their bias with every story they produce about this guy.
...and Spike is now rumored to be changing his studio's name to "40 Acres and a Jim Harris Filmworks" after his positively *stellar* accounting of himself here.
> In fact he was set against Obama a long time ago.
Since you concluded that by looking into Joe's background, surely you'll have no objection to looking into the background of other folks who question Obama and McCain, so we can find out about them.
Yes, I'm talking about reporters. Surely their bias and positions are at least as relevant as Joe's.
It's interesting that tell other people "money isn't important" folks are also the folks who demand more of it for govt and think that other people should put them in power for financial reasons.