Joe the Plumber

[nzmoman]

Ok, but lamenting how others have addressed this problem doesn't bring us any closer to solving it ourselves. Criticizing the methods of others isn't a methodology.

The fact remains that a pure meritocracy WILL create a marginalized underclass of "losers". Some people just aren't going to possess the faculties to compete and they're going to get trampled on.

The first question is whether or not you think this is a problem.

If you don't, then obviously you would endorse the pure meritocracy because it would appear to have no downsides. The winners and losers both get what they deserve and the fate of the losers doesn't impact the fate of the winners.

If you DO believe that the losers can, either intentionally or unintentionally, make life hard on the winners, then you admit that we have an issue to address. You have to figure out what needs to be done with these people and who (public or private) is going to do it and how. You appear to agree that it can be a problem worth addressing here:... Am I nuts?

So this statement (shortened for space) assumes that the wealthier people in america are not charitable. I think one thing that has definitely happened in this election is that Obama drew a line. he put people on two sides of a line based on how much they have. he picked a side with the majority of Americans and he made their employers, their families, and their friends, andtheir investors the enemy.

That's the problem I have. There is now an assumption that if you are on the wealthier side you are a rich money hugging snob and if you are on the other side you are poor and lazy. People are not thinking right because greed is poisonous. They are not realizing that when you pick teams you start a fight.

That is the big issue i have with many of these posts from the OP. They are all assumptive that the wealthy don't give enough now. Even though it is well proven that they give much more to lower income and to the world than the entire lower and upper middle class.

I believe we are a greedy people, all of us. And now we have some who have worked hard to get what they have, and we have a person who is telling us that he will help to "spread their wealth" and our greed kicks in and we have forgotten who was on the other side of the line. Our employers, investors, friends, family etc.

There are numerous studies that question and show the negative impacts of government programs on societies and how the quality of life and the satisfaction of how hard work and creativity are often destroyed by an artificial ceiling. When you tell people that they are going to be expected to support the nation when they hit a certain income then they lose some of the drive to work.

So where do we draw the line? I think there is no line. I believe that the natural hearts of people in the church and in different non-profits will continue to lead drives to help support, educate, and take care of those with less. And the one of us with more fund more of these programs now than government does. We forgot that there were times in this country where everyone had less and communities had to come together when it got hard, but they survived and they pulled through. And if you read any interviews or if you talk to anyone who can remember the last 60 years of America they will tell you how this country united, and those who had little came together to make something and they were happy, and they look back on those moments and they were pleased with their hard work and the rewards and failures of that hard work. Obama has made this about money and money does not denote a higher satisfaction in life and our constitution does not entitle people to money, but we are making people in the lower and middle class feel like they cannot be happy without more of it. So in my opinion there is no line. if you draw one based on money then you risk defining happiness by wealth. You increase the amount of poison in the system. when you give someone money once, you can often bet that they will return to your for more.

[themadscientist]

good stuff right there!

[smockers83]

WTF!!!are you serious!!!

...

And, so what if his pole numbers are rising. So did Hitlers. He was legally instated and look where they went. ...

You would be surprised how an orator with a good speech can brainwash people and make them lose the ability to listen to reason and logic. Its happened through out history and its happened now.

Exactly what I thought.

I've also made the connection to Hitler, but everyone got in my face about it then. Hitler was elected in a time of desperateness. The German economy was in the tank, national pride was low, etc. Hitler was a great speaker, was able to restore national pride, and as they say, the rest is history. This is why I've been saying, we can have change, just be careful on how you change it.

[telcoman]

Paying your fair share via a progressive scale to sustain the Govt is far different than being penalized another 10-30% in order to pay for socialistic programs.

3%

The increase proposed by Obama is to increase the tax rate on income over $250k from 36% to 39% which is what the tax rate was under President Clinton. Bush cut the tax rate 3% and Obama want to raise it back 3%

Telcoman

[telcoman]

you didn't answer the question, how much do you make?

It doesn't matter

Even Donald Trump is supporting Obama and calls Bush the worst president we've ever had.

When the super wealthy are opposed to McCain that is really telling you something.

Oh and did I mention Howard Stern.

His tax rate will rise under Obama and he is ok with that.

I don't earn anywhere near those but I'm old enough to know BS when I hear it.

[themadscientist]

No it does matter. You claim the redistribution from rich people to poor is ok with you. Walk the walk son, gimme my money. It is easy to be generous with someone else's money, put up or shut up. You want to feel good about yourself, help me help you. I'll buy lapdances with it. It will mean nothing to me because you worked for it.

[telcoman]

...... You "my friend" are a funking idiot. Check all the facts before you report something.

Who whould have guessed that at your age you knew so much?

Perhaps when you gain some maturity we can have an intelligent discussion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

Telcoman

Modified by telcoman at 6:42 AM 10/18/2008

Modified by telcoman at 6:46 AM 10/18/2008
Modified by telcoman at 7:02 AM 10/18/2008

[Cold_Zero]

My first thought when I heard about Joe the Plumber was, I hope to God he is not a Union Member.

[themadscientist]

don't think he said quite that, but its good enough for a laugh!

look at 4.40 http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA

[telcoman]

No it does matter. You claim the redistribution from rich people to poor is ok with you. Walk the walk son, gimme my money. It is easy to be generous with someone else's money, put up or shut up. You want to feel good about yourself, help me help you. I'll buy lapdances with it. It will mean nothing to me because you worked for it.

I don't recall anyone claiming Bush's tax cut was a redistribution of wealth for his tax cut.

Speaking of lap dances, Alan Abelson writing in the latest issue of Barrons mentions Louanna a Las Vegas stripper whose monthly income of $30k fell to just $6k in September. Talk about bare markets.

Looks like she will now qualify for a tax cut too. under Obama.

Telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

So this statement (shortened for space) assumes that the wealthier people in america are not charitable. I think one thing that has definitely happened in this election is that Obama drew a line. he put people on two sides of a line based on how much they have. he picked a side with the majority of Americans and he made their employers, their families, and their friends, andtheir investors the enemy.

That's the problem I have. There is now an assumption that if you are on the wealthier side you are a rich money hugging snob and if you are on the other side you are poor and lazy. People are not thinking right because greed is poisonous. They are not realizing that when you pick teams you start a fight.

That is the big issue i have with many of these posts from the OP. They are all assumptive that the wealthy don't give enough now. Even though it is well proven that they give much more to lower income and to the world than the entire lower and upper middle class.

I believe we are a greedy people, all of us. And now we have some who have worked hard to get what they have, and we have a person who is telling us that he will help to "spread their wealth" and our greed kicks in and we have forgotten who was on the other side of the line. Our employers, investors, friends, family etc.

There are numerous studies that question and show the negative impacts of government programs on societies and how the quality of life and the satisfaction of how hard work and creativity are often destroyed by an artificial ceiling. When you tell people that they are going to be expected to support the nation when they hit a certain income then they lose some of the drive to work.

So where do we draw the line? I think there is no line. I believe that the natural hearts of people in the church and in different non-profits will continue to lead drives to help support, educate, and take care of those with less. And the one of us with more fund more of these programs now than government does. We forgot that there were times in this country where everyone had less and communities had to come together when it got hard, but they survived and they pulled through. And if you read any interviews or if you talk to anyone who can remember the last 60 years of America they will tell you how this country united, and those who had little came together to make something and they were happy, and they look back on those moments and they were pleased with their hard work and the rewards and failures of that hard work. Obama has made this about money and money does not denote a higher satisfaction in life and our constitution does not entitle people to money, but we are making people in the lower and middle class feel like they cannot be happy without more of it. So in my opinion there is no line. if you draw one based on money then you risk defining happiness by wealth. You increase the amount of poison in the system. when you give someone money once, you can often bet that they will return to your for more.

You're making a class warfare issue where there isn't one.

No one is saying that private giving among America's wealthy "isn't enough", I didn't even mention the subject.

I'm saying that regardless of what's being done privately or publicly, we still quite plainly have a problem. Thus, you can either say that the problem isn't an issue and ignore it or you can try to do something about it. If the latter, it begs the question "what to do" and "who to do it".

Again, you are trying to turn this into a question of fairness when it isn't one. Fairness is irrelevant. If a problem is acknowledged, all that matters is what it takes to fix it, not what may or may not be fair.

This is drawing my point off on a tangent. What happened to Jesda?

[Sentientbydesign]

I find it interesting that I don't make millions. Hell, I'm barely in the middle class range based on my income, but I still can't for the life of me accept the idea of paying large sums of MY hard earned money to the government so that they can GIVE it to some loser who refuses to work and who overpopulates their already poverty stricken family.

I don't want to hear all of the BS about how they can't help themselves. I don't want to hear how it's sooo much harder for them because of their "special" situation.

When it comes down to it, there are people like my friend's sister who is quadrapalegic and has issues keeping her SSI money coming in. Then there are drug addicted losers who haven't worked in years (if ever) popping out their 8th kid and STILL asking grandma for help at the end of the month despite getting large amounts of goverment money.

I recently saw a begger whip out a cell phone while holding his sign. I'll

My wife did an "emersion" project for her psychology class where she pretended to be homeless and made an average of $18/hr.

I used to work for a sign spinning company as a supervisor and our "employee pool" was derived from Labor Ready.

I had two basic types of workers:

1) They were barely making ends meet, but they worked hard and were willing to deal with whatever was thrown at them (including wind, rain, dust, and middle fingers) to get their bill paid and provide for their families.

2) The lazy group. They complained about every little thing. They usually had some sort of government assistance (living off of their gf who gets wellfare, sober living...etc). On quite a few occasions, I hear them talking about buying a couple of 40s with their check instead of trying to better themselves.

These were the ones who took extra "extended" breaks. The ones who showed up late and wanted to leave early.

Why should I be responsible for them? At the time, I was working a minimum of 54 hours a week to make sure that my wife and I could pay our bills and have a roof over our heads.

One day, I hope to be done with school and make 6 or 7 figures a year and I STILL don't want to be shelling my money to one of those losers with their larger more dysfunctional family.

There are hundreds of thousands if not millions who TRULY need help. I would give them money out of my own pocket. For the rest. GO **** YOURSELVES!!!

[ishkabibble]

I don't think that many people on this forum disagree with your perspective. The difference is in our beliefs on how to address the problem.

Some of us feel that the elimination of the safety net is the solution.

Others feel that the safety net needs to exist, but needs to be pared down/implemented better/managed better.

I'm pretty tired about hearing about Joe the Plumber, who strangely is going to be buying a business which profits $250k+ a year on the work of two people, despite Joe apparently not having much money or credit. If we want to talk about who is going to benefit under each candidate's plans, let's at least use some real world examples.

[Broadfield]

I tend to look at things in a very simplistic way. I work over 300 days a year and sometimes 100 hour weeks or more. When someone comes up to me bitching about how Obama is going to raise their taxes because of their $250k salary..... I tell them that I'll take their salary and they can take my $50k salary and only pay 25% in taxes. A lot of people push for across the board taxes. So the person that makes $40k is only left with $30k after 25%. However a guy that makes $400k even with a 40% tax hit is still left with $260k...... I'm pretty sure he'll survive. I feel the middle class is what runs the economy..... not the notion of rich companies hiring more employees or paying higher salaries. In my business I get a nasty load of customers that spent their tax refunds and stimulus checks at my store. Proof that when middle class have money, they put it back in the economy. Hell, I get high salary making State Farm employees that ask if I have a State Farm discount...... give me a break.

[rmezz13]

Bottome line is, Joe the plumber asked about Obama's tax plan and completely unveiled it to america... Now everyone understands that people working hard to live the american dream have to pay for the bottom feeders too. We're going back to the old welfare days under Obama, which is exactly what the Liberals want. They need those people depending on the government to depend on them, thats how they get votes. Obama as president is bad news for this country. I my self plan to be successful and work my way up, as i am sure many of you do. I am 23 years old and would like to make a lot of money and make better for my future and have a family and not have the worries my parents had. But i'll be damned if i gotta pay more for the scum bags that are too funking lazy to work.... Create jobs not robin hood everything. Drill for oil in america, build more nuclear power plants, thus reducing energy costs and creating jobs, thats what really boosts the economy, not taking from the hard working - trying to become wealthy and give it to the poor. My sister just married a plumber thats taking over his dads plumbing business and they would be higher taxed in Obama's plan, and they work really hard for that money.... Obama is bad news, Joe only exposed him, McCain will win anyway. I'm done i need to stay out of politics.

[telcoman]

....McCain will win anyway. I'm done i need to stay out of politics.

Don't be so sure about a McCain win?

Don't give up on politics. You just need to listen to both sides and make a decision.

This article in fairness mentions a few facts that McCain seems to leave out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/....html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Sen. Obama has said he would raise taxes on individuals earning over $200,000 and families who make more than $250,000. Most others, he said, would see a tax cut.

Sen. McCain's radio address was even sharper, invoking the notion of socialism, a economic theory that typically refers to government ownership of what is now private enterprise.

"You see, [Obama] believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it," Sen. McCain said. "Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism." He added: "In other words, Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."

He did not mention that his health care plan also uses refundable tax credits—$2,500 per person or $5,000 per family toward the purchase of health insurance. It, too, would be available to people who don't owe income taxes."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So isn't giving health care tax credits by McCain to low income wage earners that do not currently pay income taxes on their income the same thing as giving a small income tax refund to the same folks by Obama?

Low income wage earners pay the same for fuel, rent, food etc that everyone else pays. The difference is that they pay a greater percentage of their income.

One of the main reasons the depression in the 1930's was so severe is that there was no safety net.

Remove the safety net and you'll see fighting in the streets and cities across the US burning. It happened not so long ago in Watts in LA and Newark New Jersey.

Be careful what you wish for.

Telcoman

Modified by telcoman at 2:12 PM 10/18/2008

Modified by telcoman at 2:13 PM 10/18/2008
Modified by telcoman at 2:14 PM 10/18/2008

[smockers83]

Holy crap, that was actually sensible and made sense...

Although, the two aren't necessarily the same. Obama wants to do that but at the expense of the rich, a redistribution. McCain, as far as I know, essentially does the same, but doesn't raise taxes on the rich.

[APEXi240]

Wait...so there is a plumber out there that doesn't complete every aspect of his job legitimately? I'm shocked.

[telcoman]

Holy crap, that was actually sensible and made sense...

Although, the two aren't necessarily the same. Obama wants to do that but at the expense of the rich, a redistribution. McCain, as far as I know, essentially does the same, but doesn't raise taxes on the rich.

The highest tax rate was up around 90% during WWll to pay for the war. Restoring the 39% tax rate which is what is was under President Clinton from the present 36% on those earning over $250k is not a redistribution of wealth.Obama used a poor choice of words and the right is hammering him over it.

Obama screwed up using those words.

If John McCain had never mentioned Obama's encounter with Joe the Plumber during the last debate we would never have learned anything about him. He was shown in a brief clip on CNN and esentially forgotten about until he was mentioned by McCain during the debate.

McCain screwed up mentioning Joe the Plumber.

A free press is what keeps our government officials honest.

Telcoman

[themadscientist]

I don't recall anyone claiming Bush's tax cut was a redistribution of wealth for his tax cut.

Speaking of lap dances, Alan Abelson writing in the latest issue of Barrons mentions Louanna a Las Vegas stripper whose monthly income of $30k fell to just $6k in September. Talk about bare markets.

Looks like she will now qualify for a tax cut too. under Obama.

Telcoman

You still didn't answer the question tel. How much will my redistribution check from you be? Walk the walk son or admit you don't want the same rules applied to your bank account. Fair weather socialist.

[smockers83]

telco, he didn't misspeak and what does the tax rate during WWII have to do with anything? His plan is this. He wants to cut taxes for people making under $250k. To pay for that tax cut, he's going to impose more tax on those above $250k. This is a redistribution of wealth. Think of it in the opposite way that I just explained it. He's going to raise taxes on the rich, then to be revenue neutral he will lower them on the not rich. It is pure economics in that it is a redistribution of wealth and will narrow the income gap. Trust me, I've heard our top economists speak on the subject of the income gap and the dual economy we live in 3 rows from the podium. For your sake I'll explain the income gap problem we face in this country for umpteenth time.

Today's income gap between the top earners in the country compared to everyone else is near historic levels, levels seen in the early 1900s before the Great Depression. This gap has bee allowed to grow due to the lowering of taxes on top earners. When their top tax rate is lowered, their gross incomes will grow. When its raised, they want to lower their tax burden so their gross incomes fall. This goes to show that tax policy is the easiest way to take care of this problem and will redistribute the wealth. I'm not jumping on Obama's words, I'm just simply stating the facts from an economic perspective that is independent and nonpartisan. I said this months ago before it even came under scrutiny from the right. This is the only thing I like about Obama's tax policy, but I still don't like it. If he lowered taxes on the not rich and left the rich tax rates alone, I would be okay with the basic policy.

[audtatious]

This is largely a fair criticism that I share of Obama. I think he is indeed too predisposed to lump in new programs, although I generally respect his tendancy to take the political lumps for paying for them with today's dollars rather than tomorrow's.

History has shown us that once programs like this are put in place they simply become huge money pits that can never be removed. It's the “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime” scenario we are faced with. We are not teaching thus they become dependent or they simply refuse to be taught because they know someone will give them a handout eventually.

That said, I guess I feel as if he is the one trying to "solve things", albeit in perhaps a misguided fashion, as opposed to McCain who asserts that the problem doesn't need solving and that the potential to create this underclass can be ignored.

Am I nuts?

You have a house with a bad foundation. Do you keep throwing money each month at fixing cracked walls and leveling the house or do you fix what the core problem is? He's simply throwing money at keeping the house looking like the foundation is not bad. Not only that, he can't afford the increasing bill each month to fix the problems so he is forcing people to help pay for it. If he is not willing to fix the core problem then what else will he simply piss away?

[HashiriyaS14]

^^These seem like valid points.

It sounds like both of us acknowledge that there is a problem with the idea of a "permanent underclass", and it also sounds like we both disagree with how it's currently handled.

The whole idea should be to motivate people to work and to participate in the system. This can be tougher with the bottom few percent who aren't really equipped to ever succeed, but I agree that the solution is to find SOME niche for them rather than let them starve, as they're not going to just start leaving the country voluntarily and they *are* everybody's problem.

The only issue then is that it seems apparent that the private sector doesn't really provide a solution (primarily, I suspect, because the private sector tends to think micro rather than macro). Is the solution then a public solution or a public motivation of private interests to create a solution?

[audtatious]

^^These seem like valid points.

It sounds like both of us acknowledge that there is a problem with the idea of a "permanent underclass", and it also sounds like we both disagree with how it's currently handled.

Nobody that I know of wants a "permanent underclass" although I feel Democrats like Pelosi and such want everyone to be subservient to the Gov as a whole which I find to be Stalinistic.

The whole idea should be to motivate people to work and to participate in the system. This can be tougher with the bottom few percent who aren't really equipped to ever succeed, but I agree that the solution is to find SOME niche for them rather than let them starve, as they're not going to just start leaving the country voluntarily and they *are* everybody's problem.[/quote[

Are you talking about illegals? I'm not talking about illegals in the least but US citizens. Throwing more money at a problem and continually giving more and more is not a solution. We have had Gov't provided welfare since the New Deal and it has continually grown and is full of glut. What was once thought of as a need due to desperation has turned into an entitlement which has probably done more harm to some communities that not having it at all. I've stood behind people using food stamps in which they used food stamps for the majority of their food and then used cash to pay for electronics, alcohol, etc. and have seen them loading their goods into new SUV's and such. The other day the persons 13-ish yo daughter was standing in line talking on what seemed to be her own cell phone. It's retarded. Welfare programs need to be changed to a hand up instead of an abused hand out program that they are today. But, who am I to say anything as I have money which I have busted my azz these last 25 years to achieve and if I want to keep the same lifestyle after the Obama tax increases I just should work more hours or get a 2nd job. As Toby mentioned above, I should easily be able to live off a diminished income in order to provide more money to those who are poor. My response is that "fairness" goes both ways and I feel I should not be penalized for hard work and neither should my family be penalized either. I've lived in a car, I've lived in quite a few mobile homes. I've raised two kids as a single father. I didn't expect people who had more than me to be forced to give me money so I can afford what they have. To me it's ridiculous and adding more and more "off the top" has not done a damn thing to help anyone including those receiving the funds.

The only issue then is that it seems apparent that the private sector doesn't really provide a solution (primarily, I suspect, because the private sector tends to think micro rather than macro). Is the solution then a public solution or a public motivation of private interests to create a solution?

In a capitalistic society it is not the private sectors responsibility. They are responsible to make money for the owner(s), the board or the shareholders. When making money they grow the business in order to make more money. It's at this point that people will say "Oh, trickle down economics does not work". It doesn't? Let's look at just one company as an example:

This company started out with one store which was opened after the founder mortgaged his house. The owner hired employees and ran his business while also doing things like sweeping the parking lot. With success, he was able to open a couple more stores and eventually go public with shares to open more and more. Each store required tradesmen to build it, suppliers to supply the materials and people to supply the goods that it sold. Think of each store as a pyramid within a larger pyramid with each impacting more and more people as employees and those who supply goods and services to them. Stores became franchises where individuals would open one or multiple of these stores in their areas which would impact more and more people.

Now, the people who were involved in growing this company are rich. They hung it out on the line with their finances and are providing 1.5 million individuals with employment directly. Indirectly they have a large number of companies and individuals who have employment simply to provide their stores with the materials they need. This IS trickle down economics in action. Would this company have been able to grow as large as they are if the founder was penalized with additional taxes due to his success? They would have eventually grown but would they be as big as they are today? Probably not. If the amount of growth was stagnated by even 20% in this case it would have impacted the growth of 6200 stores.

Penalizing the successful in order to redistribute their wealth to the poor will have an impact on economic growth to some standpoint. If we assumed 50 employees per 6200 stores alone you have 310,000 people who would directly not have employment along with lower need throughout the supply line.

Yeah, a bit off topic but it does somewhat show what I think an impact can be to growth as impacted by over-taxation of "rich corporations". The company, BTW, is McDonald's.

[Vista Sucks!]

I find it interesting that I don't make millions. Hell, I'm barely in the middle class range based on my income, but I still can't for the life of me accept the idea of paying large sums of MY hard earned money to the government so that they can GIVE it to some loser who refuses to work and who overpopulates their already poverty stricken family.

As far as I understand Obama's Tax Plan, he is only going to tax those who make +250k. If you're barely in the middle class like you said, you don't have to worry about the tax hike. I think he may even give you a tax cut but I'm not sure.

[audtatious]

To most of us on here there is more to it than that. I will "supposedly" get a tax break as well but find it to be repulsive to implement socialistic policy here. In general you are penalizing those who directly provide employment to citizens or who's investments do the same. Show me a poor person who creates jobs (other than Gov't sponsored jobs due to additional management of the growing welfare state) and I may change my mind.

[Vista Sucks!]

Powell seems to disagree with you. Here is what he thinks about Obama's Tax plan:

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate. "

[ishkabibble]

Show me a poor person who creates jobs (other than Gov't sponsored jobs due to additional management of the growing welfare state) and I may change my mind.

Greg.

[audtatious]

Powell seems to disagree with you. Here is what he thinks about Obama's Tax plan:

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who paid them, in roads and airports and hospitals and schools. And taxes are necessary for the common good. And there is nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less. And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate. "

They are a redistribution of wealth in some aspect and the code as it currently stands can be considered that. Does that make it OK to say "screw it" and penalize them more?

Increasing taxation itself it not what I mean by socialistic. Using the additional income to add more Gov glut and making more people rely on the Gov to provide for their livelyhood IS socialistic. Why put forth any effort when Big Brother is out there to save you from yourself? No accountability.

[audtatious]

Greg.

Paying jobs, not staff member jobs that are voluntary