Joe the Plumber

[telcoman]

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

[mtcookson]

Unbelievable... yet typical. Instead of reporting about the socialist idea of distribution of wealth that Obama talked about... they attack this random guy that asked about Obama's tax plan.

When will this worthless reporting end? Who ****ing cares that some random plumber doesn't have a license? The more important issue on hand is Obama's view on distribution of wealth... taking more money from the upper class and giving it to people who don't work for it.

[Jesda]

LOL, so instead of talking about tax policy, they go after a plumber.

OH THE SCANDAL!

[audtatious]

It helps telco sleep better at night. If you can't argue the point you destroy the person making it.

[telcoman]

Unbelievable... yet typical. Instead of reporting about the socialist idea of distribution of wealth that Obama talked about... they attack this random guy that asked about Obama's tax plan.

When will this worthless reporting end? Who ****ing cares that some random plumber doesn't have a license? The more important issue on hand is Obama's view on distribution of wealth... taking more money from the upper class and giving it to people who don't work for it.

Obama's tax plan is not distribution of wealth.

Income taxes are progressive. The more one earns the higher the tax rate.

Some states tax motor vehicles based on price and or weight. That is progressive also and not redistribution of wealth.

You are attempting to repeat the same misinformation that McCain keeps repeating.

Many Americans understand why taxes on those earning over $250k and the wealthest Americans need to be increased slightly in order to solve the financial mess that has resulted from the party in the White House over the past eight years.

Unfortunately some of those here still don't get it

Obama's numbers are still rising after last night's debate.

You may want to review your fuzzy math?

Telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

While I am not at odds with Obama's tax plan given assorted circumstances, I will say that I think that trying to vet out this guy's personal finances is irrelevant and moronic.

[Jesda]

You may want to review your fuzzy math?

Telcoman

Wow, there's so much WTF here its hard to know where to begin. Fortunately, I used to think like Telcoman and supported the Democratic party many years ago so I can at least navigate his thought processes.

When you take from those who have, and give it to the have-nots in the form of transfer payments or services, that is a redistribution of wealth. You take the wealth, and REDISTRIBUTE IT by government force. It *IS* wealth redistribution. The question at hand isn't what it is, the question is whether this is acceptable in a free society. From there, it comes down to ideology and economic theory.

[telcoman]

While I am not at odds with Obama's tax plan given assorted circumstances, I will say that I think that trying to vet out this guy's personal finances is irrelevant and moronic.

The guys finances misses the point.

Those fortunate enough living in this country becoming wealthy should be willing to give something back and not cry about paying reasonable taxes.It costs money to run this country.

Some are better writers than I so I will just add this because I agree 100%.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dailykos

Real Patriotism; or, my Conversation with an a$$ by Queen Alice Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 02:36:22 PM PDTJust wanted to share a conversation I had with an idiot today, and vent about one of my biggest pet peeves ever.

I was at a restaurant waiting in line to grab some late afternoon lunch, and the two guys in line behind me were having a loud conversation about--of all things--Joe the Plumber. They were talking about how they couldn't believe Barack Obama would have told Joe that he was going to "spread his wealth around." One said, "I mean, this guy's only making 250 thousand, and Obama says he's gonna raise his taxes?"

The other guy--a$$--says, "Yeah, I couldn't believe that. Everybody should get to keep what they make. That's what I hate about Democrats--they always want to punish success. It's unpatriotic." Now here's the part where I turn around and address the a$$...

Queen Alice's diary :: :: "You really think it's unpatriotic to pay taxes?" I ask.

He looks at me, surpised, a tall, middle-aged jerk in an ill-fitting suit that he probably paid way too much for at Brooks Brothers and a perma-smug look on his face--typical D.C. type. "I think it's unpatriotic to raise taxes on successful businessmen, just because they're successful."

"But don't you think that success is because those businessmen--and women--live in America? Don't you think that living here and working here has given them a pretty unique opportunity for success and that they owe something back to the country?" We're getting a few looks, now, but I'm pissed and I really don't care.

a$$ looks a little uncomfortable with all the attention. Probably more comfortable operating in smoke-filled backrooms. "You'll understand when you're older and you get paid more," he says to me patronizingly. "You'll want to keep the money that you earned. You'll want your kids to have it, not the government."

This is too much for me. I'm probably a good ten years old than he thinks I am, and I probably make a lot more than he thinks I do. "You know what I want for my kids?" I say. "I want good roads and bridges that don't collapse and public parks, and clean water, and decent schools to send them to. I want them to inherit a country that isn't so ****ed up by the Republicans' policy of letting everyone keep their own money that we no longer have any infrastructure and we no longer take care of our children or our old people or anybody at all. And for your information, I make a decent amount of money and I don't mind paying a decent portion of it to the government. In fact, I think paying taxes is the most patriotic thing I do all year. It sucks to give away money, sure, but I look at taxes as an investment in the future of my country, and that is what patriotism means to me."

The guy's friend looks super uncomfortable, and a$$ looks like he might explode, but, but he just shakes his head, condescending as John McCain. "You liberals are so naive." Yes, this is his only rejoinder. Bravo, a$$. Bravo. But I have a parting shot--maybe not very mature, but I can't resist.

"We may be naive, but we're going to be the ones in charge in a few months. And with Barack Obama, succesful people are going have to start giving back, whether they like it or not. So you conservatives had better get used to it."

Then I turn around and stand in line for another five minutes, totally embarrassed and pretending not to hear the guys talking about me and laughing, but also kind of proud. I don't normally engage people in public like this, but I cannot stand the Grover Norquist crowd. I think they're deeply, horribly unpatriotic. And they've done so much in the last eight years to ruin this country. They just make me see red when they get going.

Of course, what I really should have said was, "If you don't like this country enough to help maintain it, then maybe you should leave." You know, the verbal equivalent of sticking out my tongue. But then I would be no better than they are.

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

I'm Telcoman and I approve that message

BTW

The use of the term "asswipe" in the above post is not directed at anyone here.
Modified by telcoman at 3:33 PM 10/16/2008

[audtatious]

Obama's tax plan is not distribution of wealth.

Income taxes are progressive. The more one earns the higher the tax rate.

Some states tax motor vehicles based on price and or weight. That is progressive also and not redistribution of wealth.

You are attempting to repeat the same misinformation that McCain keeps repeating.

Many Americans understand why taxes on those earning over $250k and the wealthest Americans need to be increased slightly in order to solve the financial mess that has resulted from the party in the White House over the past eight years.

Unfortunately some of those here still don't get it

Obama's numbers are still rising after last night's debate.

You may want to review your fuzzy math?

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.

[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.

The correct increase as stated by Obama is a 3% increase over the Bush tax cuts.

On a 1 million income that is $30k dollars

Anyone fortunate enough living in this country earning 1 million dollars can certainly afford an additional thirty thousand dollars to help solve this fiscal crisis.

[smockers83]

Obama's tax plan is not distribution of wealth.

Income taxes are progressive. The more one earns the higher the tax rate.

Some states tax motor vehicles based on price and or weight. That is progressive also and not redistribution of wealth.

You are attempting to repeat the same misinformation that McCain keeps repeating.

Many Americans understand why taxes on those earning over $250k and the wealthest Americans need to be increased slightly in order to solve the financial mess that has resulted from the party in the White House over the past eight years.

Unfortunately some of those here still don't get it

Obama's numbers are still rising after last night's debate.

You may want to review your fuzzy math?

Telcoman

What in the world are you talking about? Seriously.

The tax plan Obama proposes is essentially a redistribution of wealth. Raise taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the middle class. What this does is narrow the income gap between the rich and poor, a redistribution of wealth.

Raising taxes on the rich isn't going to solve our financial mess either. LOL Good lord that was funny.

Maybe you need to review your own fuzzy math and very fuzzy understanding of economics.

[Jesda]

The correct increase as stated by Obama is a 3% increase over the Bush tax cuts.

On a 1 million income that is $30k dollars

Anyone fortunate enough living in this country earning 1 million dollars can certainly afford an additional thirty thousand dollars to help solve this fiscal crisis.

Why are you entitled to someone else's earnings?Why should you reap the rewards of someone else's effort?

The government's primary duty is to protect property, physical and monetary, by offering military defense and police protection. When private property is protected from theft, a person is allowed to prosper. This gives individuals the motivation to earn more, create more, produce more, and invest more. This so-called "greed" results in economic activity that typically benefits the majority. But, even if it was to the benefit of the few, I believe it is morally wrong for the mob to rob.

I'm sure you've read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", a philosophical primer for anyone studying the basis of America's free market system. From there, if we can get some agreement, we can talk about how our tax system should be configured.

This is the core issue here. This is where, ideologically, we disagree, and it is what we should be discussing. Posting a wall of text doesn't address the philosophical question. Talk to me directly instead of playing the copy-paste game.

I've been down this road before. I've argued with people in the past who I once thought were selfish, greedy, and in opposition to "spreading the wealth" and "helping the poor." I've written thousands of pages of personal essays (which I wish I had saved) debating these concepts.

I know where you're coming from, but I think with some time and effort I can help you understand my perspective.

[themadscientist]

So you start digging in the guy's personal information rather than answering his question. And libs wonder why there is so much outrage at their activities. Thank you Tel for proving the stereotype.

How much do you make? If it is more than me I will expect a check in the mail to even us out. It's only fair as you say.

[telcoman]

So you start digging in the guy's personal information rather than answering his question. And libs wonder why there is so much outrage at their activities. Thank you Tel for proving the stereotype.

How much do you make? If it is more than me I will expect a check in the mail to even us out. It's only fair as you say.

Here is what Barack Obama said to Joe the Plumber

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

Unfortunately what the RNC and McCain and Palin do is take things out of context and attempt to mislead the American people.

They did it with tax policy, healthcare, Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayres, Troopergate, and Sarah Palin's qualifications

McCain had to answer David Letterman last night about his relationship and association with G Gorden Liddy who happens to be a convicted felon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ponse

The most important issue in this campaign is the economy and most Americans are beginning to get it.

Unfortunately some here still do not.


Modified by telcoman at 4:36 AM 10/17/2008

[themadscientist]

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

[HashiriyaS14]

Why are you entitled to someone else's earnings?Why should you reap the rewards of someone else's effort?

I will weigh in on this, as I'm not convinced that you're going to get a solid fight out of telco.

You know that generally, I have a lot of the same fiscal viewpoints that you do, and that generally, so long as we're not engaging in rampant deficit spending, I think that the citizenry should be taxed as little as possible and that we need to seriously cut down on the size of our government.

That said, I am somewhat unique among the libertarian-leaning in that I DO see the need for certain societal "safety nets". I do not advocate these because I am a "soft-hearted libby" but rather because I believe that the consequences of allowing whole swaths of American society to fall through the cracks will effect ALL Americans, not just those who fail.

A situation wherein the winners take all and the losers get nothing is absolutely fair, this is what we learned on the playground as kids, but the problem is that in real life, with all its complexities, "fair" doesn't mean much. Pragmatism trumps fairness every time. The pragmatic viewpoint tells us that allowing a huge US underclass to develop (via the elimination of all safety nets) would drastically increase crime, decrease national productivity, and potentially be the breeding ground for a political or even a violent revolution.

The current economic crash is this in microcosm. The less wealthy among us, largely by their own fault (i.e. subprimes) borrowed too much money to buy houses they couldn't afford. This created a ripple that has effected even the richest of Americans.

The idea that your fate is not intertwined with the "losers" over the long term is folly of the highest order. It is a delusion that has been sold to conservatives by their leaders for too long. I am ALL FOR the smallest government possible, but this government will still need to provide services to keep those at the bottom of society from truly falling through the cracks. This isn't compassion for them, this is self-preservation for us.

The government can and should still be much smaller than it is today, we can provide these safety nets and contingencies in much more intelligent ways than we currently do, but the idea that the government can be only defense and infrastructure does not apply to a 21st century society.

[themadscientist]

I would be pleased to donate an assortment of top quality cardboard boxes. "low cost housing"

[audtatious]

I will weigh in on this, as I'm not convinced that you're going to get a solid fight out of telco.

You know that generally, I have a lot of the same fiscal viewpoints that you do, and that generally, so long as we're not engaging in rampant deficit spending, I think that the citizenry should be taxed as little as possible and that we need to seriously cut down on the size of our government.

That said, I am somewhat unique among the libertarian-leaning in that I DO see the need for certain societal "safety nets". I do not advocate these because I am a "soft-hearted libby" but rather because I believe that the consequences of allowing whole swaths of American society to fall through the cracks will effect ALL Americans, not just those who fail.

A situation wherein the winners take all and the losers get nothing is absolutely fair, this is what we learned on the playground as kids, but the problem is that in real life, with all its complexities, "fair" doesn't mean much. Pragmatism trumps fairness every time. The pragmatic viewpoint tells us that allowing a huge US underclass to develop (via the elimination of all safety nets) would drastically increase crime, decrease national productivity, and potentially be the breeding ground for a political or even a violent revolution.

The current economic crash is this in microcosm. The less wealthy among us, largely by their own fault (i.e. subprimes) borrowed too much money to buy houses they couldn't afford. This created a ripple that has effected even the richest of Americans.

The idea that your fate is not intertwined with the "losers" over the long term is folly of the highest order. It is a delusion that has been sold to conservatives by their leaders for too long. I am ALL FOR the smallest government possible, but this government will still need to provide services to keep those at the bottom of society from truly falling through the cracks. This isn't compassion for them, this is self-preservation for us.

The government can and should still be much smaller than it is today, we can provide these safety nets and contingencies in much more intelligent ways than we currently do, but the idea that the government can be only defense and infrastructure does not apply to a 21st century society.

And you seem to have fallen into the same routine of assuming Conservatives don't care about the poor nor those wanting to better themselves. Thus far, everything that has been done to combat poverty has been a failure. It's been a "throw money at it" solution set that has not worked. Those without seem to feel comfortable being without and looking to the Gov (thus, our pocketbooks) to keep them housed and fed. Social Security may have been a decent stop-gap method when it was introduced but it eventually led people to assume that they do not have to be as fiscally responsible with their money because the Gov would take care of them when they retire by giving them a check and Medicare. Food stamp programs are being used to feed whole families instead of being another stop-gap initiative.

I'm ALL FOR programs that give a hand-up to people. I'm NOT FOR programs that simply give a hand-out with no strings attached. I have a real problem with those who think it is up to everyone to keep handing out more and more to those who have learned to be apathetic to their own future just because they are a US citizen. History shows that increasing socialistic policy does not work.

Now, what is the answer? I don't know. I think a working solution that will start to shrink the percentage of those in poverty while increasing personal accountability is certainly possible in a non-partisan society but is simply not going to happen in ours as it would initially piss a whole lot of people off. Thus, politicians are not going to implement something that alienates people even if it's for the good of them AND us.

In general I feel giving the guy with the cell phone, iPod and other gadgets, who may or may not have a job, more money and Gov-provided benefits is NOT a solution. Now, adding additional services to help teach these people, etc. is a better investment and there should be a return on that investment as well in that the end result is they would no longer need to be a burden. Right now, there is NO requirement for this growing demography to do anything other than expand.

[HashiriyaS14]

And you seem to have fallen into the same routine of assuming Conservatives don't care about the poor nor those wanting to better themselves. Thus far, everything that has been done to combat poverty has been a failure. It's been a "throw money at it" solution set that has not worked. Those without seem to feel comfortable being without and looking to the Gov (thus, our pocketbooks) to keep them housed and fed. Social Security may have been a decent stop-gap method when it was introduced but it eventually led people to assume that they do not have to be as fiscally responsible with their money because the Gov would take care of them when they retire by giving them a check and Medicare. Food stamp programs are being used to feed whole families instead of being another stop-gap initiative.

I'm ALL FOR programs that give a hand-up to people. I'm NOT FOR programs that simply give a hand-out with no strings attached. I have a real problem with those who think it is up to everyone to keep handing out more and more to those who have learned to be apathetic to their own future just because they are a US citizen. History shows that increasing socialistic policy does not work.

Now, what is the answer? I don't know. I think a working solution that will start to shrink the percentage of those in poverty while increasing personal accountability is certainly possible in a non-partisan society but is simply not going to happen in ours as it would initially piss a whole lot of people off. Thus, politicians are not going to implement something that alienates people even if it's for the good of them AND us.

In general I feel giving the guy with the cell phone, iPod and other gadgets, who may or may not have a job, more money and Gov-provided benefits is NOT a solution. Now, adding additional services to help teach these people, etc. is a better investment and there should be a return on that investment as well in that the end result is they would no longer need to be a burden. Right now, there is NO requirement for this growing demography to do anything other than expand.

Well, it would seem that our outlooks on this issue are in fact quite similar.

I share almost all of your critiques of the current system and I also agree with much of what you prescribe in regards to philosophies for solutions.

As I said, I think these goals need to be accomplished (and you appear to agree), but I also said that the current means of accomplishing them are less than idea (and you also appear to agree).

[Jesda]

The current economic crash is this in microcosm. The less wealthy among us, largely by their own fault (i.e. subprimes) borrowed too much money to buy houses they couldn't afford. This created a ripple that has effected even the richest of Americans.

The idea that your fate is not intertwined with the "losers" over the long term is folly of the highest order. It is a delusion that has been sold to conservatives by their leaders for too long. I am ALL FOR the smallest government possible, but this government will still need to provide services to keep those at the bottom of society from truly falling through the cracks. This isn't compassion for them, this is self-preservation for us.

The government can and should still be much smaller than it is today, we can provide these safety nets and contingencies in much more intelligent ways than we currently do, but the idea that the government can be only defense and infrastructure does not apply to a 21st century society.

This entire crisis was caused BY government.

1 -- Low prime interest rates and excess money supply, a product of a loose and irresponsible monetary policy.2 -- Writing mortgages for people who didn't qualify.

By definition, explicitly supporting constitutionally-optional entitlement programs makes you the complete opposite of a libertarian. I know "libertarian" is a fashionable buzzword, but I suggest not using it unless you are defining it beyond "oh, I favor legal abortion, and gays should marry." Be careful with how you throw the word around, as it means the opposite of how you are actually using it.

A lot of mild socialists like to veil their policy agendas in what they call 'pragmatism' and 'necessity.' Like civil freedoms lost during government the war on terror, we lose our economic freedoms during the government's war on recession.

In the end, we learn that like FDR's reign of socialism, government intervention only prolongs an economic slump. We learn that unless we get government out of the business of business, business loses its incentive to function.

Keynesians sell themselves as "practical". I fear them more than ideological socialists.

[HashiriyaS14]

By definition, explicitly supporting constitutionally-optional entitlement programs makes you the complete opposite of a libertarian. I know "libertarian" is a fashionable buzzword, but I suggest not using it unless you are defining it beyond "oh, I favor legal abortion, and gays should marry." Be careful with how you throw the word around, as it means the opposite of how you are actually using it.

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".

I also want to clarify that I'm not explicitly supporting entitlement programs, I'm just pointing out that it's to our detriment not to address the problem. I am advocating NO specific means of addressing said problem nor am I approving of the ways in which the problem is addressed presently (i.e. all our current entitlement programs).

I am asserting that an unrestricted meritocracy only works if you kill or deport the losers, which I'm pretty sure we're not going to do. Thus, we need to figure out WHAT to do with them and find a way to keep them "in the game". If there is a private solution to this, that's great, but I'm not positive that there is. If there is not, then it is a public problem, and I'd argue that it's every bit as important as providing for the national defense as, in the long run, the stability and very existence of the state is at risk.

EDIT: This view of mine above might be caused by my strong belief that not all people are truly capable of "winning". Meritocracies ignore the differences in people that exist from birth, and I believe that these differences can be enormous. The gene pool produces born winners and born losers and some people who can go either way. The issue is what to do with the born losers, the marginalized, etc. You can't very well just ignore them, as they will get disgruntled and cause problems for everyone soon enough.

Or maybe you don't believe in the "born loser" thing, maybe you believe everyone really does have the capability to seriously succeed. I can see how this viewpoint would look much more favorably on a pure meritocracy, maybe that's our difference.

[szh]

The problem with Social Engineering efforts of redistribution of wealth (like failed Communism in Russia and Albania, or the massively enforced one in China and Cuba) is that it fundamentally leads to a mediocrity in people and government ... and that is seriously detrimental to a country.

Back in 1991, I visited high-tech industries in Russia - in Moscow and Kiev. This was just before the complete collapse of Communism, when Gorbie was still trying to make Perestroika happen.

What I saw was a complete eye-opener. Just one example (of many that I saw): a software company with over 600 software developers, where the person showing us around estimated that less than 50 of the developers were doing any real work - the rest were guaranteed a salary simply by showing up and sitting at their desk for 6 to 7 hours!

They could read a newspaper all day and would still get paid. Could not be fired. Government employment requirements and goals were being met.

Redistribution of wealth at its finest!

Fact is that people need to help themselves - except in the most disastrous of personal problems (yes, let's help the truly poor). Otherwise, with free government moneys and no incentive to do any better, we will end up with mediocre performance that eventually leads to an "average" mentality and malaise.

Finally, when we claim that the rich somehow "owe" it to the rest of the country to fix things, then we are being no less than thieves. Except, we dress it up pretty with false justifications to make it palatable:

"oh, it is just a progressive tax" "oh, the rich can afford it" "oh, an extra 3 percent on a millionaire is just $30k" (just that marginal payment alone is more absolute tax dollars than others pay!)

We use percentages to absolve ourselves of any guilt that the actual amounts are many FACTORS higher for certain individual tax-payers.

Utter B.S.

Let's call it as it is: robbery of the "rich" in the name of government.

Z

[audtatious]

Well, it would seem that our outlooks on this issue are in fact quite similar.

I share almost all of your critiques of the current system and I also agree with much of what you prescribe in regards to philosophies for solutions.

As I said, I think these goals need to be accomplished (and you appear to agree), but I also said that the current means of accomplishing them are less than idea (and you also appear to agree).

That is correct. I also feel Obama is not offering any form of solution other than lumping more projects on top of the broken ones we already have while taking the money from the "rich" to pay for policy that has no hope of being successful. McCain is not that much better but it's not as bad as what I see the Democrats forcing down our throats instead of at least trying to fix things.

[HashiriyaS14]

The problem with Social Engineering efforts of redistribution of wealth (like failed Communism in Russia and Albania, or the massively enforced one in China and Cuba) is that it fundamentally leads to a mediocrity in people and government ... and that is seriously detrimental to a country.

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:

Fact is that people need to help themselves - except in the most disastrous of personal problems (yes, let's help the truly poor).

Where, then, do we draw this line? You are, in effect, endorsing government intervention and safety nets but only for the "truly poor".

Does this include the person with no health insurance who cannot pay for emergency room services when they're struck accidentally in a shooting?

Does this include a senior citizen incapable of working who has neglected to save any money? It is their own fault, surely, but do you let them starve?

I'm not presenting the cases above in an attempt to get you to say "yes, let's help those people". I have no interest in tugging at heartstrings, I'm just illustrating that if you indeed admit that there ARE certain people worthy of government intervention than it becomes very difficult to classify precisely who those people are. It is not, for a number of reasons, really feasible to simplify the situation by saying "we'll just help no one, you're on your own".

Do I still just sound like a bleeding heart or are people grasping the logical conundrum that I'm getting at here?

I feel like the right's answer of "every man for themselves" makes great sense in terms of fairness, and I used to totally buy into it, but I am starting to believe that it doesn't really work on a macro scale, and there are few sins greater than clinging to an idea for ideological reasons when it doesn't work in practice. This is what got the Soviets in trouble.

Thoughts?

EDIT:

That is correct. I also feel Obama is not offering any form of solution other than lumping more projects on top of the broken ones we already have while taking the money from the "rich" to pay for policy that has no hope of being successful. McCain is not that much better but it's not as bad as what I see the Democrats forcing down our throats instead of at least trying to fix things.

^^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.

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?

[rmezz13]

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

You throw up words a lot... This is because the Obama campaign and supporters have nothing better to do but pick on a guy who asked a simple question. You "my friend" are a funking idiot. Check all the facts before you report something.

Ironically my uncle Joe is a plumber and owns a company called Joe's Plumbing but its not the same Joe. He also works as a Fire Fighter and probably makes more than $250,000 a year which would be a legitimate question for someone like him... That was a perfectly legitimate question on Obama's tax plan and Obama had no answer for it, there fore his supporters and campaign attacked this guy that made "the one" look effing retarded and inexperienced (which he is) on live TV. Sorry but i firmly believe this is going to back fire on Obama, but besides that he won't win this election anyway. These are crucial weeks and he won't be able to hold up. He lacks the experience and the strength.

[themadscientist]

Did everybody see the video of the interaction between Obama and Joe. When the camera panned and that guy in the crowd mouthed the word "a s s h o l e" I spit soda all over my computer monitor.

[rmezz13]

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

edit: I did watch the video over and over again and i could see a s s h o l e but it really looks like he's saying something else.

[themadscientist]

watch the vid, when they pan to the left away from Obama and Joe, a guy in I beleive a white shirt leans towards the camera and mouths the word.

[nzmoman]

Obama's tax plan is not distribution of wealth.

Income taxes are progressive. The more one earns the higher the tax rate.

Some states tax motor vehicles based on price and or weight. That is progressive also and not redistribution of wealth....Unfortunately some of those here still don't get it

Obama's numbers are still rising after last night's debate.

You may want to review your fuzzy math?

Telcoman

WTF!!!are you serious!!!

...I just wrote this really long post telling you how many things were wrong with what you wrote, but then I realized it was pointless. I just hope you can jump off the bandwagon for a little bit to see what exactly this joker has said out of his own mouth. This man has BS flags flying around him all the time. The idea for some is that the people with the money should just throw there hands up and say oh well. They have been the ones who have taken risks, made sacrifices, made good decisions, and worked hard for what they have, but its okay to take a little more from them, yeah, they earned it, but its not gonna hurt them.

How about this. how about you and your girlfriend are walking down the street and some guy who has less than you comes and takes your wallet and pulls out a $20 bill. Is it okay...I mean its only 20 bucks you got plenty and he really needs it. You are obligated to give it to him. is that right?

And, so what if his pole numbers are rising. So did Hitlers. He was legally instated and look where they went. I am not surprised that Obama is in the lead, and I fully expect him to win the election. With our crappy education system and the way a large number of our 20 something generation is completely molded and moved by entertainers and the media, like sheep following a goat off a cliff, of course he is going to be ahead...he is more MTV, reality TV friendly. Then you have people who are mesmerized by the things that he promises, even though studies show that those things are not likely to be delivered even in 2 terms of Obama.

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.

[themadscientist]

It's time for personal power.