Now that the media has all but done a colonoscopy on Joe for daring to confront the Chosen One (and actually get people to start considering the tax aspect), we now know the story has a number of all-too-human wrinkles. As many investigations of Joe since ‘the question’ as Obama has faced in two years.
1) Joe does not have his licensing in order; for speaking up, he’ll end up getting the city to fine-tooth comb his employer. He’ll probably lose his job over this.
2) Joe owes $1,200 in state income taxes, which he is working on paying.
3) The business does not currently worth anywhere near $250K
On the first point, I find indignation on the Left laughable. These people consider it racist to see if one legally belongs in this country to work.
On the second, he isn’t walking away from his responsibility like so many others. And Obama’s camp can’t throw bricks in their glass house, since Obama’s treasurer owes even more.
On the last, the plumbing business my uncle bought wasn’t worth $250K per year either… until he built it up to that. Duh! When my plumber uncle passed on, he left- through his hard work- a business worth $20 million.
Joe has ambition, is well spoken and thoughtful. And he’s being crucified because of it. Is that what we face in the next administration? Does anybody else remember the ‘Trailer Trash’ response to the concerns expressed just before the election of the last democrat to sit in the White House and how that all turned out?
Bottom line: it was Obama’s answer to the question that is the issue (and his sanctimonious response about how many plumbers do you know that make $250K, which I’ve already addressed). And if a regular Joe like this can so easily cause Obama make a fool out of himself, what will Putin do?
In the meantime, here’s the first entry in the Legions of Plumber Joes.
UPDATE: And the Joe movement grows
Filed under: Election 2008, Joe the Plumber, Politics
“plumbing business my uncle”
So now he was a plumber. How convenient.
Charles (Chuck) Hiley, of Rochester, Minnesota; richest man in the family and the only male sibling without a college education. He was indeed a plumber. By the time he was done, his company was the second largest mechanical contracting outfit in Minnesota, primarily based on his excellent reputation with the Mayo Clinic for getting the job done right.
Possibly the Obama brown shirts would want to go after him too; of course, he passed away about a decade or so ago. His son took over and passed away himself 7 years ago. Maybe they can find a tax lien on them, too, while ignoring several on Obama’s treasurer.
[...] More on Joe « The Political Inquirer [...]
And it was shown that Joe the plumber would do better under Obama’s tax plan. How about them apples!
Is Obama’s campaign treasurer complaining about paying the taxes? Did he fabricate a story about buying a company which he cannot afford? Did John McCain say that he won the debate? Did John McCain mention him over 20 times during the debate?
People are more interested in Joe because he made up a question to ask Obama. McCain’s idiot strategists made him use the guy’s situation as a talking point during the debate, though they never verified Joe’s story. Of course, the fact that Joe owes back taxes (under the Bush tax plan) makes the news. No one cares about Obama’s campaign treasurer. Joe would have been an unknown if McCain hadn’t used him in the debate. No one cared about a guy asking a question in a rope line. Lots of people ask questions and we never hear about them. It was Mccain’s team that thought this was a godd idea. I blame lazy strategists who didn’t do their homework.
Nobody cared until Obama gave a clearly socialistic response. That piece of insight about Obama is what caught fire here. Barack is the one who stuck his own foot in his mouth, so it’s time to crucify he who dared show the Chosen One for who he is; an unrepentant socialist.
Mike the O ignores two salient points here:
1. Joe misrepresented his situation. Facts matter, and he tried to nail Obama with a remarkably false story. I have little sympathy, except for the sad spectacle of his self-loathing in supporting McCain.
2. We have already seen a redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years under Republicans. Investors now pay half the taxes of workers, so they can invest in factories in China. Not only is this unfair to working Americans, it is destroying the economy for everyone. The pendulum needs to swing back to restore fairness and prosperity.
Why does it seem that Republicans always have to invent “average Joes” who will be hurt by the Dems? In the same way, they had to invent examples of family farms and other businesses that would have to be broken up to pay estate taxes, since the real beneficiaries of repealing the estate tax are the ultra wealthy.
If you look for honest examples of who will pay more under Obama, they are not average Joes.
The one thing Joe isn’t, is ‘invented’. The issue arose because of the stupidity of how Obama handled the question of this guy, using a standard socialist mentality. And you think Obama can deal with Iran or Russia? With the vicious personal attacks on the messenger, take a look at the polls for the next couple of days and see if you think Joe or Barack won this one. Barack did this one to himself, and the GOP didn’t even have to follow the Democrat model of having actual campaign workers lie for them at Q&A sessions.
Dave,
How would Joe do better under Obama’s plan again?
The issue arose because the guy misrepresented his situation in order to nail Obama, then McCain used him for political advantage. Telling the truth about Joe does not constitute “vicious personal attacks”, just as bringing back fairness in taxation isn’t a “socialist mentality”. How will Obama deal with Iran or Russia? With the same cool, calm deliberation he bats down the attacks from the right. In each debate he has responded to the vicious personal attacks of McCain by calmly picking apart the lies and always coming back to the real issues that people care about. The American people have found the “steady hand on the tiller” McCain talked about.
ALL of you are missing the WHOLE point!!! It’s the STATE that is the problem. The STATE owns his house, he just rents it by paying property taxes. The STATE is the only one who can call him a plumber. The STATE, the STATE, the STATE. Worship the state.
“The one thing Joe isn’t, is ‘invented’. ”
Yes he was.
The persona he presented wasn’t the real Joe. It was a bit of guerrilla theater.
And then when Obama’s reply wasn’t what they wanted, they faked that too using cut and paste on the video.
There is neither honesty nor honor in these people.
Neillos,
bringing back fairness in taxation isn’t a “socialist mentality”.
The whole notion that if you make more money then it’s only ‘fair’ that you pay more taxes is a ‘socialist mentality’. So is the idea that making ‘rich’ people ‘less rich’ is the best way to help ‘poor’ people…
How will Obama deal with Iran or Russia?
He won’t, he’ll be too busy currying favor for himself with other nations by apologizing for being an American…
The American people have found the “steady hand on the tiller” McCain talked about.
I suppose doing nothing would be somewhat advisable to anyone who would seek to keep their hands ‘steady’.
Telling the truth about Joe does not constitute “vicious personal attacks”
I actually don’t have a problem with them telling the truth about Joe. The fact they are trying vet a private citizen but won’t vet Obama only shows their true colors.
They should know, however, none of It changes the fact that Obama’s quest for income redistribution has been expose- not by any question Joe could ask, but by Obama’s response… So I guess they are mad at Joe for putting Obama in the position where he would slip and be so candid about the true intent of his tax plan.
Benjamin, actually if Joe is like most of us, it’s the bank that owns the house. Conservatives and libertarians generally talk about limited government, but then ignore the expanded control of corporations over our lives. This can be far more intrusive than government.
We cannot live in splendid isolation from each other. There will always be a social structure that governs us. This can be provided by government, corporations, or churches, but there must social order. We at least can exercise some control over government.
Neilos said:
Conservatives and libertarians generally talk about limited government, but then ignore the expanded control of corporations over our lives. This can be far more intrusive than government.
Corporations rise and fall based upon whether or not ‘the people’ invest in their stocks, and the investment is determined by whether or not ‘the people’ will buy whatever they are selling. The government makes and enforces laws (usually with a gun at it side).
We cannot live in splendid isolation from each other. There will always be a social structure that governs us. This can be provided by government, corporations, or churches, but there must social order. We at least can exercise some control over government.
At least that what the socialist thinks! “Power corrupts”, but hey when you got the guns who’s going to run up an tell you how ‘corrupt’ you are?
netlosh,
I am just a real average Joe who wants fair taxes. I don’t want to soak the rich, but I can’t figure out why money I make on investments should be taxed at half the rate of my work income. Especially when so many of those investments are being made in China and other countries. We are subsidizing the export of our children’s future.
As I noted earlier, there has already been a redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years – from workers to the already rich – and the economy is now in ruins. The rich are now less rich as a result of these policies. The radical conservative ideology hasn’t worked. To continue down the path of the last 8 years – even with the minor course corrections McCain might make – is to continue to dismantle our future.
Your rhetoric sounds almost like that of an anarchist – no government is good government? The reality of this world is that there will be “government”, either by the people or by some other institution. We have elections in this country. I did not elect the CEOs of Exxon or Halliburton, nor did I choose the pope, but I can choose McCain or Obama.
Of course, elections can be stolen. That is why the DOJ scandals were so dangerous. The party in power was determined to use governmental power – with a gun at its side, of course – to selectively prosecute their opponents and prevent people from voting. So if you really dislike abuse of power, there is no way you could vote for the same party that for the last 8 years has produced the greatest abuses in our country’s history.
So go ahead and call me a socialist if you want to. Hell, call me a communist, I don’t care. Your right wing hate machine isn’t working this time.
I can’t figure out why money I make on investments should be taxed at half the rate of my work income.
Let me help you then: To invest money, you have to already have the money. When you invest your taking the risk that you will lose every penny. If you decided that you’ll just keep your money under your couch, then there is no risk of you losing it (other that someone simply hitting you over the head and taking it), but if we get enough people doing that (e.g. like they did during the great depression), the whole financial market grinds to a halt. Why? Because it is the investor who provides the capital which is used for so many venture (e.g. to start a business, buy a home, car, whatever). Have you notice they keep talking about a credit crunch? That’s because investors are heading for the hills with their money.
Given that it’s far more in the interest of the system (and politicians who like to take credit and assign blame for the economy to one another, though most of them have never ran any business) that investors invest, rather than simply buiding a fortress and hiring arms guards (some do that anyhow), and keeping their money in a safe at their home (i.e. away from the market), I find it a fair trade to tax less on investment profits (in addition to the fact that proir to investment the money has already been taxed)…
As I noted earlier, there has already been a redistribution of wealth over the last 30 years – from workers to the already rich – and the economy is now in ruins.
So the rhetoric goes, but the fact is that the economy is in ruins because of the redistribution of wealth to the poor. The poison that has the global market killed over is called ‘sub prime lending’. Tax cut’s and deregulation didn’t do this, lending money to people who couldn’t pay it back is the problem… IF you want to try to connect those dots though I’m always up for a good laugh…
Your rhetoric sounds almost like that of an anarchist – no government is good government?
Seeing as I’m not actually an ‘anarchist’, I’d love to know what rhetoric your referring to. Perhaps I can help you.
The reality of this world is that there will be “government”, either by the people or by some other institution. We have elections in this country. I did not elect the CEOs of Exxon or Halliburton, nor did I choose the pope, but I can choose McCain or Obama.
Talk about rhetoric! FTR, I don’t deny the necessity of government per se. However you and I clearly don’t agree on what the role of government should be. The fact is though, when it gets beyond fighting wars, enforcing contracts, and protecting the personal property of citizens (which incidentally greatest it’s greatest threat from the government itself), governments have consistently been shown to be quite counter productive…
CEOs of Exxon and Haliburton don’t have the ability to to make laws and enforce them (and its been a few centuries since the pope did). You want to shut them down, then don’t buy whatever they are selling. You don’t have the same luxury when it comes to government. You’ll be fined or even jailed for non compliance…
No amount of not-so-well crafted bullshit rhetoric can change that reality.
Of course, elections can be stolen. That is why the DOJ scandals were so dangerous. The party in power was determined to use governmental power – with a gun at its side, of course – to selectively prosecute their opponents and prevent people from voting.
I thought they said that was about prosecutors who refused to seek out and act on illegal immigration. :^P
So if you really dislike abuse of power, there is no way you could vote for the same party that for the last 8 years has produced the greatest abuses in our country’s history.
*SCOFF*
Uh sir, I’m Black. If this is the criteria by which you think we should determine our vote, then no African American (or any minority) in their right mind should EVER vote Democrat (let alone be the nominee of the party). You obviously have access to the internet see if you can google ‘slavery’, ‘jim crow’, ‘segregation’, ‘kkk’, ‘lynched black folks’, and ‘subprime lending’
So go ahead and call me a socialist if you want to. Hell, call me a communist, I don’t care.
It’s not any names I could call you which you need to be concerned about, but socialist policies themselves – while your at it you might want to get a little concerned about communism too. They are just really bad ideas, NOT because of the stated intent os them, but because of their untenable nature. They’re pretty good for mere rhetoric though. If only people could eat, drive, or live in rhetoric.
Your right wing hate machine isn’t working this time.
Your projecting communism boy…
Neillos; China’s capital gains tax is 10%. You really want to drive that much more capital to China with Obama’s plan? Do you want the next round of outsourcing to China and India to be corporate management and the actual corporations?
Prevent people from voting? Possible if they are in the second grade, dead or have voted in the election already. The amount of preparatory work for massive multi-vote efforts is absolutely breathtaking this time. Indianapolis and at least six counties in Alabama have more people registered than they have living adults.