Joe the Plumber

[ishkabibble]

Paying jobs, not staff member jobs that are voluntary

My bad. I figured at least the admins got paid.

[audtatious]

Nope. We all volunteer. What Greg gets via ads and sponsorships goes to pay for hosting and sponsor all the events and such.

[Jesda]

Sorry, I've been busy lately and havent had time to post here. Been trying to sell the 240 to flaky Craigslisters and rearranged my apartment.

Libertarianism asserts that government is a necessary evil, and it is morally wrong, therefore, to use it unless it is very necessary. Its modern origins are based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, and the like.

Like fire and war, government is there to serve a very limited purpose, and its use must be extremely careful. Anytime a government program is proposed, you are telling minority taxpayers, at gunpoint, that they must pay or they will be imprisoned.

You and I also have differing views of the human race. I am inclined to believe that a very large percentage of the population, even those toward the outer wings of the bell curve, have the ability to find some level of prosperity if they make the right decisions and put in the proper amount of time and effort.

There will, I agree, always be a segment of the population that cannot function without assistance. Before government, religious organizations voluntarily fulfilled this need. Local governments are also capable of responding to this if necessary, providing shelters for the homeless and statewide/local services to assist the disabled or mentally handicapped.

But at the federal level... NO.

Maybe its because I came to the US in diapers with two parents who didnt have a dime and raised themselves up, or maybe its because my entire extended family had the exact same experience. Maybe its because I live in a town where people are comfortable and I dont witness homicide and poverty. Maybe its because I have no guilt for enjoying what I've earned thus far.

There are no Bushes, Clintons, or Kennedy legacies in my universe. You either do what you have to do to get by and succeed, or you ride the failboat.

This is what shapes my view of humanity. This is where we fundamentally disagree.

I would disagree.

Insomuch as I am aware, Libertarianism advocates the maximization of individual liberties (so long as those don't infringe on the liberties of others) as well as the smallest government possible.

We're just disagreeing over the definition of "possible".

[themadscientist]

My bad. I figured at least the admins got paid.

I am paid in virgins. At this point cash would be nice

[HashiriyaS14]

You and I also have differing views of the human race. I am inclined to believe that a very large percentage of the population, even those toward the outer wings of the bell curve, have the ability to find some level of prosperity if they make the right decisions and put in the proper amount of time and effort.

^^Ok, fair enough. This is where I figured we disagreed. I'm a little more pessimistic on the human race than you may be and thus I see it as a larger problem than you probably do. I completely understand that if one were more optimistic and saw it as a much smaller potential problem, one would draw very different conclusions about the lengths justifiable to fix it.

I happen to think that it is a massive, paralyzing problem. I attribute many/most of our social problems to the fact that a good percentage of our citizenry lacks the wherewithal to succeed in a nation that so closely resembles a pure meritocracy. I am open to more Darwinian solutions, such as providing incentives for them to move elsewhere, but it seems to me that this would be a long shot.

There will, I agree, always be a segment of the population that cannot function without assistance. Before government, religious organizations voluntarily fulfilled this need. Local governments are also capable of responding to this if necessary, providing shelters for the homeless and statewide/local services to assist the disabled or mentally handicapped.

But at the federal level... NO.

I didn't necessarily mean to imply that the solution HAD to be at the federal level. I said that I was unhappy with the current solutions but I admit that I'm not all-knowing and thus I can't magically prescribe better solutions. Local government might be one, as might be private solutions or public-private partnerships. I didn't say it COULDN'T be at the federal level either, but I definitely wasn't trying to say that I thought it had to be.

Again, I agree with the idea of additional taxes/programs being something that requires very serious consideration because, as you said, those not in support have essentially no choice in the matter and majority mob rule is nasty business indeed.

That said, I believe that spending cuts must always occur before tax cuts, because despite the nasty nature of the business of taxing, running our nation into a paralyzing deficit is worse. I realize this is a tangent to the problem we've been discussing above, but I feel Libertarian-leaning Republicans often appear to rush to tax cuts while lacking the discipline to first cut spending.

I will cede that, perhaps, I am not a "true Libertarian". I believe that I am heavily Libertarian-leaning in many of my views, but I do not claim to sync up perfectly with any single ideology.

[telcoman]

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. "

Here is a little more on the distortions of Joe the Plumber by McCain

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...ml?em

Telcoman

[smockers83]

People say trickle-down economics doesn't work because it doesn't exist. Money actually flows the opposite way, from the bottom up. What you showed is just economic expansion and growth, that is all. Taxes can have an effect on how fast the economy grows, no doubt about that, but it isn't trickle-down economics. Trickle-down economics is a political theory, not an economic theory. It has never existed in actual economic thought.

While on the topic of economics and what not, if you get the chance, I encourage everyone to get a copy of the Oct 18 issue of The Economist and take a look it. In it, they talk about the candidates' health care plans, tax policies, and what not. I found it to be very good and interesting.

[HashiriyaS14]

Just in reference to the title of this thread:



Any other conservatives want to weigh in on my "born losers" theory above? I think I figured our Jesda and I's primary disagreement, but I'm not sure everyone here would agree. I know some of you guys are more pessimistic on humanity than he is.

[Jesda]

People say trickle-down economics doesn't work because it doesn't exist. Money actually flows the opposite way, from the bottom up.

It takes creativity and thinking to combine resources to create a profitable enterprise. That can happen anytime, from anyone, but those with wealth more often have the resources to do it successfully.

Households and firms share a role in the distribution of wealth/goods/services, and the less the government strangles households and firms, the more goes around.

Pollution kills ecosystems.Government kills economies.

[themadscientist]

Just in reference to the title of this thread:



Any other conservatives want to weigh in on my "born losers" theory above? I think I figured our Jesda and I's primary disagreement, but I'm not sure everyone here would agree. I know some of you guys are more pessimistic on humanity than he is.

THAT IS HYSTERICAL!

[Jesda]

LMFAO

[szh]

I am paid in virgins.

You are? Where are mine hiding out?



Z

[audtatious]

Interesting "report" about Joe the Plumber....http://www.dispatch.com/live/c...d=101

"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber.""

"Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department."

Nice.....Of course, it won't go anywhere as this will drag out through the election and forgotten. At least it may teach people to be careful of who they question.

[smockers83]

It takes creativity and thinking to combine resources to create a profitable enterprise. That can happen anytime, from anyone, but those with wealth more often have the resources to do it successfully.

However true, the notion that taxes have an effect called trickle-down economics just isn't true. Capital gains aren't going to be realized on such an investment, on average, for several years. Lets take an oil exploration project as an example. Rich man wants to explore for oil. He then needs to pay for geologists to study the area and do field tests. If it is determined there is actually oil and its profitable to get at, rich man then has to buy equipment, pay for contractors, employees, permits, and the likes. At this point, it would be about 8-9 years since the initial investment. By about the 10th year, production will begin. Once production begins, rich man still has to pay out, but the profits realized are then paid back for the investments. Who knows how long it will take for capital gains to be realized that would then be taxed. It no longer matters what the tax rate or policy was when the initial investment was made, so the idea of trickle down economics cannot even exist.

These types of investments in new businesses aren't a reflection of taxes, but the expected profitability due to supply/demand for product which would also have to figure in expected tax increases/decreases. New business is created based on the costs and profitability, and if revenue is greater than the costs, new business will be created, taxes are just an additional cost to that calculation. If one were to believe in trickle-down economics, it would work on a micro scale, but on a macro scale it just doesn't. A tax cut to the rich will only benefit the few who get the jobs and not the other millions of people. A country's policy on businesses affect the economy's growth. If a country is seen as having favorable business policies in the form of taxes, regulation, or other such topics, the economy will grow, no doubt about that. But a tax policy in the name of trickle-down economics is just a political theory because a tax break to the rich to start the trickle-down process doesn't benefit everyone.

[audtatious]

However true, the notion that taxes have an effect called trickle-down economics just isn't true.

With additional tax burden on the "rich" and the "poor" getting checks cut back to them (effective welfare), do you think that trickle-up economics work? Taking more from those who's money drives the economy and stimulates growth and giving it to those who only stimulate the economy via purchases (minus the huge chunks of money that will be lost in the Gov coffers)?

[smockers83]

With additional tax burden on the "rich" and the "poor" getting checks cut back to them (effective welfare), do you think that trickle-up economics work? Taking more from those who's money drives the economy and stimulates growth and giving it to those who only stimulate the economy via purchases (minus the huge chunks of money that will be lost in the Gov coffers)?

No, I do not. Trickle across economics, if that's possible, wouldn't work either. Economic growth is much bigger than tax policy. I feel that the theory of trickle down economics is created and used in order to start investment as a way to portray favorable economic policies. The only way trickle down economics would really work is investment in the stock market where capital gains can be realized within the tax policy's term whereas a business venture make take a decade to receive capital gains. But do those investments in stocks by the rich really benefit the not rich? No.

Economic growth is so much bigger than tax policies and involves things that aren't even under jurisdiction of a government or things like inflation and stable prices. Tax policy can be used in reflection of those outside happenings but it isn't the only thing that drives economic growth.

[audtatious]

I wholeheartedly agree that economics is far larger than simple tax code. There are also variables, as you mention, that are beyond anyone's direct control that effect growth. Investment is one variable that is known to increase job growth and only people with money (rich, not so rich and even poor) have that opportunity.

But do those investments in stocks by the rich really benefit the not rich? No.

Why do companies sell stock? Usually for additional capitol. This is to either cover operating costs or to allow for added growth. Growth can equal more jobs and in effect will benefit the non-rich by giving them more employment opportunity. The "non-rich" can also invest their pennies as well since there is nothing stopping them from this practice.

[smockers83]

This is true and this is why I said it "works" on a very micro scale because it can benefit the select few. In a macro sense, it doesn't work and cannot exist because it cannot reach everyone as the trickle-down theory hopes it would. The investment in stocks by the rich doesn't benefit the middle class as a whole. A case in point, all the years since 1990. Lots of investment was happening a lot of growth was occurring earlier, but the rich got all of the benefits while wages have remained almost exactly flat (1990 US national real wage average: $27286; 2000 US national real wage average: $27872; the same trend continues into this decade; real wages based on 2000). Part of the reason we're in the crisis we're in may be because wages have remained flat and have not kept up with inflation, diminishing the value of one's wage to the point where hardly anything is affordable without lines of credit. The Bush Tax Cut was a trickle-down policy and it barely trickled down.

[CakeDaddy]

MSNBC is now reporting that Joe the Plumber is unlicensed.

They are also reporting he has not paid all his taxes and has a lien against him.

I have to wonder if he has obtained all the necessary legal permits for the work that he does?

We'll have to see where this all leads but if true this could prove embarassing to John McCain and cause Obamas numbers to rise further.

Stay tuned

Telcoman

That seems to have been the case. Embassasment for McPalin and better numbers for Obama.

[smockers83]

Must've been Keith that said stuff like that. I don't understand how it would be an embarrassment to McCain. He talked with Obama and Obama embraced him, too. If the Democrats are for middle income America and the poor, there are a lot of people out there who are delinquent on their taxes, Obama should be embarrassed by them as well. If someone could elaborate on that...

[audtatious]

So, Obama is walking around a neighborhood and stops to shake the hand of some Joe Schmo (at his house) who happens to ask Obama a question where Obama screws up. The media is there to record it and it's now "out there" for the public. It was not shown much on the MSM and the majority found out about this via the debates. Once the debate was over, "some unknown people" performed some possible "illegal" queries through multiple state departments in order to dig dirt on Joe. Instead of addressing what Obama said, the Obama campaign and the MSM decided that it would be more appropriate to tear into 'ole Joe and smear his name based upon irrelevant information obtained through probable illegal means. Obama and Biden also proceeded to make fun of 'ole Joe and plumbers in general while at campaign stops.

Obama screwed up. He and his campaign knew it. Instead of addressing the issue they (or someone) dug into Joe in order to deflect the issue. They tried to discredit him as a person and laughed at blue collar workers who strive to better themselves financially.

I'm sorry, even if the person asking the question is a complete joke, the question itself nor it's answer from Obama is invalidated. People should have concerns over how the Obama camp handled this in the first place as well. What happens if he becomes Prez and people question him directly like this, they end up with the Secret Service up their butts and wind up in jail instead of simply discredited and humiliated?

[HashiriyaS14]

Obama screwed up. He and his campaign knew it. Instead of addressing the issue they (or someone) dug into Joe in order to deflect the issue. They tried to discredit him as a person and laughed at blue collar workers who strive to better themselves financially.

AFAIK, it wasn't a member of the campaign proper that dug up the dirt on Joe, it was some organization that is supporting Obama's candidacy.

The campaign knows that it would be counterproductive for them to be trashing the guy, they aren't stupid.

That said, Obama DID undeniably screw up. Any dirt on Joe is totally immaterial, Barack still said the wrong thing.

I don't think it's going to cost him the election, but I'm not going to argue that it wasn't a screwup when it quite plainly was.

Now go answer my "States Rights Paradox" question, lol.

[Jesda]

I have a poster of Robin Hood on my wall. I throw darts at him.

[audtatious]

AFAIK, it wasn't a member of the campaign proper that dug up the dirt on Joe, it was some organization that is supporting Obama's candidacy.

You are correct. Ohio's Head of Job and Family Services, Helen Jones-Kelley, is who authorized the search directly after the debate that night. Her Excuse? "Oh, We Always Do That"....

Yes, she is a confirmed contributor to Barack Obama (maximum $2300).

This is not surprising at all. Of course, who cares because Obama did not directly call for it. Same as all the voter fraud going on, it's fine as long as it helps get him elected.

This and all the fraud and crap going on really confirms what I feel is the truth about a large number of liberals, they will do anything they can to force their opinion and direction on you regardless. They are 1000x more apt to try and force their views on you than the far-right religious fanatics.

[smockers83]

This is not surprising at all. Of course, who cares because Obama did not directly call for it. Same as all the voter fraud going on, it's fine as long as it helps get him elected.

This and all the fraud and crap going on really confirms what I feel is the truth about a large number of liberals, they will do anything they can to force their opinion and direction on you regardless. They are 1000x more apt to try and force their views on you than the far-right religious fanatics.

W. would be getting blamed for lack of oversight, deregulation, and incompetent leadership if this happened to him even though it really had nothing to do with him.

[smockers83]

Must've been Keith that said stuff like that. I don't understand how it would be an embarrassment to McCain. He talked with Obama and Obama embraced him, too. If the Democrats are for middle income America and the poor, there are a lot of people out there who are delinquent on their taxes, Obama should be embarrassed by them as well. If someone could elaborate on that...

As some like to say, quoted for thought...

But really, if someone could really elaborate on that, particularly an Obama supporter, that would be fantastic. Why is it an embarrassment to McCain? Why isn't it an embarrassment to Obama? Obama was the first to talk to him, he screwed up, he embraced him during the debate as well, has gone on to make fun of him, and his supporters are conducting illegal operations to dig up dirt on this guy and others. And voter fraud. Sounds pretty embarrassing to me. To put it into like terms for you guys, this is like blaming Bush for the lack of oversight on banks by his office.

[audtatious]

As I've said before, anything is OK as long as they win. They know what is right for this country and they take it upon themselves to save us all from ourselves....

[Cold_Zero]

I keep seeing McCain's comercials where average people say, "I am Joe the Plumber" on TV here in Indiana. It's a pretty effective Commercial until I get the David Chappelle Show stuck in my head. Then I think, "I am Rick James, *****!"

[nzmoman]

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?

Sorry, I've not been here in a while,

The question is definitely a question of fairness as entitlement and wealth exchange from the government is usually about equaling the playing field (fairness). The class warfare that I mention is what I see creeping in. It is a very common mindset, that people on one side think, "they don't understand where this effects me" and Obama's tax and health care plan are platforms that heavily mirror the essence of social liberalism. Under the idea of social liberalism you start to get really close to marxist type platforms(not communistic), which will state that the premise for change in societies is the separation and battle of the classes.

When you have someone like Obama who stands and touts McCain and mocks at Joe making 250k (supposedly) then you can see that the line being drawn in this race is a law based on class warfare.

Keep in mind that just because there is a class struggle it doesn't mean that everyone who makes 250k plus is on the wealthy side of the struggle, just like during the civil rights marches there were just as many whites in many rallies as there were blacks, and it is common to find people on one side of the other choosing to side with the other side.

Now fixing a problem is definitely a need, but you have to consider the effects of fixing a problem. There is a documentary called what black men think. In this documentary, many myths about black men are brought to rest. One of the things they talk about is how the aid of the government in providing certain things for black communities actually aided (not completely caused) in the separation and problems that exist today in black communities.

So I say yes, take care of the problem, but don't make a deal with the devil because something sounds good and fulfilling for the time being. I don't want the government to get even more control over the well being of a lower class of americans with respect to welfare and healthcare, than they already have. Our government has prove time and time again that social programs run by a corrupt group of politician in one of the most entitled nations on this planet, are doomed to fail so I dont believe ignoring the concept of fairness, which spurs social agenda, is wise because it makes you make bad long term decisions.

my what to do's and who to do its are going to be very different and because we can't go into religion then you will have to email me if you would like to hear it. [email protected]