The Palin-izing of Joe the Plumber

[iplaw]

quote:"Joe the Plumber" is yet another example of McCain's impetuous campaign. He sees a chance to make a "game changer" by throwing out this guy to the media wolves. McCain, without looking into anything about this guy, uses his name over and over again in a debate.

Do you think that these candidates run background checks and FBI blotter checks on every "Sally Muckenfutch who lost her job" story that they tell?  I doubt it.

No one cares about Joe.  The story that carries the day is the phrase "spread the wealth."  Joe was just lucky enough to get Obama to tell the truth for once about his tax plan.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:"Joe the Plumber" is yet another example of McCain's impetuous campaign. He sees a chance to make a "game changer" by throwing out this guy to the media wolves. McCain, without looking into anything about this guy, uses his name over and over again in a debate.

Do you think that these candidates run background checks and FBI blotter checks on every "Sally Muckenfutch who lost her job" story that they tell?  I doubt it.

No one cares about Joe.  The story that carries the day is the phrase "spread the wealth."  Joe was just lucky enough to get Obama to tell the truth for once about his tax plan.

Of course they do.  Before any of the candidates repeats a story about an individual, the candidates checks the story out before hand.  The fact that McCain didn't even contact Joe to check out his story just shows how incompetent his campaign is.  From Politico:

quote:John McCain hung his final presidential debate performance on an Ohio plumber who campaign aides never vetted.

A day after making Joseph Wurzelbacher famous, referencing him in the debate almost two dozen times as someone who would pay higher taxes under Barack Obama, McCain learned the fine print Thursday on the plumber's not-so-tidy personal story: He owes back taxes. He is not a licensed plumber. And it turns out that Wurzelbacher makes less than $250,000 a year, which means he would receive a tax cut if Obama were elected president.

McCain likes to say that he isn't George W. Bush – and in this case of bungled public relations, it is clear he is not. The famously-disciplined Bush campaign operation would likely have found the perfect anonymous citizen to illustrate a policy proposal, rather than spontaneously wrap itself around an unknown entity with so many asterisks.

While the arc of Wurzelbacher's breakneck trip through the news cycle – from private citizen to insta-celebrity to political target – offers a curious insight into the political media culture, it also appears to offer a glimpse into the McCain campaign's on-the-fly decisionmaking style.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14652.html

All politicians know--or should know--that you don't throw out the name of an individual without sufficiently ensuring that 1)the story is true, and 2) the individual will withstand media scrutiny.

Yeah, keep harping on the "spread the wealth" phrase.  The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
Of course they do.  Before any of the candidates repeats a story about an individual, the candidates checks the story out before hand.  The fact that McCain didn't even contact Joe to check out his story just shows how incompetent his campaign is.  From Politico:

Because McCain wasn't interested in the Joe the plumber story because of Joe himself. It was a seguay to present the "spread the wealth" comment.  

quote:
All politicians know--or should know--that you don't throw out the name of an individual without sufficiently ensuring that 1)the story is true, and 2) the individual will withstand media scrutiny.

Yeah, keep harping on the "spread the wealth" phrase.  The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.

Like when Obama wore a bracelet that he was asked not to wear?  Or like when Biden talks about a restaurant that doesn't exist?  Take off your blinders.

No candidate looks to see is Sally Muckenfutch is current on her taxes or anything else.  They don't run criminal background checks or credit reports on any of these people, period.

quote:The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.

Got any evidence to back this up?

Even if there is some rediculous poll out there that says something close to that, the rich ALREADY pay a higher share of taxes right now.  The top 10% pay 70% percent of the taxes collected.  Would it make you feel better if they paid 100%?

Why is it the government's business to decide when hard working Americans have made too much money and when the excess should be "spread around" to help the guy "coming up behind them?"

What incentive to I have to pursue excellence when I know that Obama is going to take from rich people and give it me as long as I'm behind the rich guy?

[USRufnex]

I think Thomas Frank's book, "What's the Matter With Kansas" could easily be updated as:

"What's the Matter With Joe the Plumber"

A few of my favorite quotes:

"Their grandstanding leaders never deliver, their fury mounts and mounts, and nevertheless they turn out every two years to return their right-wing heroes to office for a second, a third, a twentieth try. The trick never ages; the illusion never wears off. Vote to stop abortion; receive a rollback in capital gains taxes. Vote to make our country strong again; receive deindustrialization. Vote to screw those politically correct college professors; receive electricity deregulation. Vote to get government off our backs; receive conglomeration and monopoly everywhere from media to meat- packing. Vote to stand tall against terrorists; receive Social Security privatization. Vote to strike a blow against elitism; receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our lifetimes, in which workers have been stripped of power and CEOs are rewarded in a manner beyond imagining."

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

"For decades Americans have experienced a populist uprising that only benefits the people it is supposed to be targeting. In Kansas we merely see an extreme verion of this mysterious situation. The angry workers, mighty in their numbers, are marching irreverently against the arrogant. They are laughing at the dainty affectations of the Leawood toffs. They are massing at the gates of Mission Hills, hoisting the black flag, and while the millionaires tremble in their mansions, they are bellowing out their terrifying demands. "We are here," they scream, "to cut your taxes."

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

"Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, farther to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics . Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower."

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

"The ills described here-depopulation, the rise of the food trust, the general reorganization of life to favor the wealthy- have been going on for ten to twenty years now. Nobody denies that they have happened, that they're still happening. Yet Kansas, that famous warrior for justice, how does it react? Why, Kansas looks its problems straight in the eye, sets its jaw, rolls up its sleeves-and charges off in exactly the wrong direction..."

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

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

 The top 10% pay 70% percent of the taxes collected.  Would it make you feel better if they paid 100%?

Why is it the government's business to decide when hard working Americans have made too much money and when the excess should be "spread around" to help the guy "coming up behind them?"

What incentive to I have to pursue excellence when I know that Obama is going to take from rich people and give it me as long as I'm behind the rich guy?

Oh, good lord.  You have "incentive" because you will make a TON more money.... and your MONEY will make more money than I do.... I suppose I could go back to the job I used to have, but I certainly wouldn't go back to that job because of lower taxes...

http://mamorico.blogspot.com/2007/11/us-distribution-of-wealth.html

In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%).

However, if the federal taxation rate ("Individual Income Tax Rates and Shares, 2004." (2006) published by IRS) is compared with the wealth distribution rate the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (earning 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

Keep in mind though that in the above paragraph we are talking about INCOME TAX only - not total tax load. Once you add in the myriad of other taxes to the mix, it becomes clear that people of less means are paying a disproportionately large amount of the total taxes collected.

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

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex
Oh, good lord.  You have "incentive" because you will make a TON more money.... and your MONEY will make more money than I do.... I suppose I could go back to the job I used to have, but I certainly wouldn't go back to that job because of lower taxes...

How exactly will I make more money if I'm taxed more?  What evidence do you have to back this up? Lowering taxes on small businesses frees capital to invest in expansion and aquisition of employees.  Business taxation is a MYTH.  When you increase taxes on a business the cost is passed on to the consumer, most often the middle class.

Taxes are a liability, just like fuel, it's considered as overhead and passed on.

quote:In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation, paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%).

However, if the federal taxation rate ("Individual Income Tax Rates and Shares, 2004." (2006) published by IRS) is compared with the wealth distribution rate the net wealth (not only income but also including real estate, cars, house, stocks, etc) distribution of the United States does almost coincide with the share of income tax - the top 1% pay 36.9% of federal tax (wealth 32.7%), the top 5% pay 57.1% (earning 57.2%), top 10% pay 68% (wealth 69.8%), and the bottom 50% pay 3.3% (wealth 2.8%).

It is NOT the job of the government to ensure that people like you get their share of the wealth.

If you'd like more wealth, go out and create it. You have no right to take it from anyone else.

You remind me of my 24 year old cousin.  He was extoling the virtues of rasing taxes so that the system would be more fair.  Those who don't pay taxes ALWAYS think it's a wonderful thing to raise taxes on everyone else, just don't try raising their's.  Furthermore, people who make outrageous amounts of money like Buffett also don't have a problem with raising taxes, but a tax increase won't affect him in the least.

[USRufnex]

And you remind me of all the college republicans who lectured me on Reaganomics and personal responsibility while simultaneously running up mumsy-and-dadsy's credit cards... kinda like what George W. Bush has done with the national debt....

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wealthy_teen_nearly_experiences

Once again, this is not the kind of 70s style progressive taxation that goes up to 70% and beyond... with loopholes you could drive a truck through...

The Clinton Tax Code was reasonable... a flat tax is not and a national sales tax would be a national disgrace...

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

And you remind me of all the college republicans who lectured me on Reaganomics and personal responsibility while simultaneously running up mumsy-and-dadsy's credit cards...

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/wealthy_teen_nearly_experiences

Once again, this is not the kind of 70s style progressive taxation that goes up to 70% and beyond... with loopholes you could drive a truck through...

The Clinton Tax Code was reasonable... a flat tax is not and a national sales tax would be a national disgrace...

How do you know if I even own a credit card?  FYI, I don't and never have.  Credit card debit is for fools.  You should do some research before you accuse me of something.

Why was the Clinton taxe code "reasonable?" And I don't know anyone running this year that is running on a flat tax or national sales tax platform.

The purpose of taxation is NOT to rectify what you call "unfairness" in how wealth is distributed in the US.

I'll say it again, if someone wants more wealth, go out and create it.  That's what's great about America.  You'd don't need a slice of my pie.  If you really want more, you can go out and make your own.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

when you go out and LIE you should take responsibility for what you say...

(Emphasis added.)

What was your real name and address, Mr. Pseudonymous Soccer Fan? We need to properly "vet" your comments.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:

When you increase taxes on a business the cost is passed on to the consumer, most often the middle class.

Or, like Wal Mart, the business can make itself more efficient and increase its profit margins  that way while keeping prices low.  There's no law that says higher taxes = increased consumer prices.  Taxes are just one more cost of doing business among many.  

And, of course -- at least if your government is competent -- you should be seeing return on your taxes in the form of improved infrastructure, better education for your workforce, and prompt law enforcement, etc. You know, all that stuff you take for granted that government provides business.  

But really, the kicker is you have to believe that government, if run correctly, can be a partner to business.  But it's kind of hard to improve the business atmosphere in the country when you're being drowned ideologically in the bathtub.

[Hometown]

We just want you Republicans to carry your share of the load and stop shirking your responsibility and pushing it off onto the rest of us.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
Of course they do.  Before any of the candidates repeats a story about an individual, the candidates checks the story out before hand.  The fact that McCain didn't even contact Joe to check out his story just shows how incompetent his campaign is.  From Politico:

Because McCain wasn't interested in the Joe the plumber story because of Joe himself. It was a seguay to present the "spread the wealth" comment.  

Then why did he mention his name some 2 dozen times?  Why is running an ad with "Joe the Plumber?"

quote:

quote:
All politicians know--or should know--that you don't throw out the name of an individual without sufficiently ensuring that 1)the story is true, and 2) the individual will withstand media scrutiny.

Yeah, keep harping on the "spread the wealth" phrase.  The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.

Like when Obama wore a bracelet that he was asked not to wear?  Or like when Biden talks about a restaurant that doesn't exist?  Take off your blinders.

No candidate looks to see is Sally Muckenfutch is current on her taxes or anything else.  They don't run criminal background checks or credit reports on any of these people, period.

Been watching some Fox news lately?  The man who didn't want Obama to wear the bracelet was the divorced husband.  The mother of the fallen soldiers asked Obama to wear it.  A restaurant is not a person.  By the way, it still exists, just with a different name.  Smart politicians know that when they use a person in a story, the media is going to check it out.  Period.  You make sure that whatever story you use isn't going to come back to bite you.  

quote:

quote:The fact is most Americans agree that the rich should pay a higher share of taxes.

Got any evidence to back this up?

Even if there is some rediculous poll out there that says something close to that, the rich ALREADY pay a higher share of taxes right now.  The top 10% pay 70% percent of the taxes collected.  Would it make you feel better if they paid 100%?

Why is it the government's business to decide when hard working Americans have made too much money and when the excess should be "spread around" to help the guy "coming up behind them?"

What incentive to I have to pursue excellence when I know that Obama is going to take from rich people and give it me as long as I'm behind the rich guy?

The best summary I have found on attitudes towards taxes comes from AEI:  http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16838/pub_detail.asp.  You can download the summary there.  It incorporates various studies, but suffice it to say that several studies have found that the majority of Americans support a progressive tax (eg, AP/Ipsos found 57% support in 2005).  Of course, there is some difference depending on how you word it, but even when asked specifically whether the government should "redistribute wealth" by taxing the wealthy, you find a plurality of support.  

Like it or not, we all have to pay taxes to run our country.  Those who can afford more should pay more.

Unless you are an idiot when it comes to finance, your motiviation for making more money still exists.  You pay X amount of taxes on the first 250,000 of your earnings.  If you earn $1 more, that dollar is taxed at a 35% rate, not 33%.  So instead of earning .67 more cents you will make an extra .65 cents.  Why would anyone not want to earn more .65 cents--just because they wanted to full .67?  Talk about shooting your nose off to spite your face.

[Townsend]

Per CNN headline news Joe just admitted Obama's tax plan would not effect him.

Not sure how he came to that but there it is.

[Wrinkle]

But, Obama WILL allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without renewal, thus RAISING EVERYONE'S TAX (whether or not his 'PLAN' will then lower some, increase others).

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk
Then why did he mention his name some 2 dozen times?  Why is running an ad with "Joe the Plumber?"

Because it under-girds the story of Obama's claims of "spread the wealth."

quote:Been watching some Fox news lately?

No.  I've been smoking cigars all day.

quote:
The man who didn't want Obama to wear the bracelet was the divorced husband.  The mother of the fallen soldiers asked Obama to wear it.  A restaurant is not a person.  By the way, it still exists, just with a different name.  Smart politicians know that when they use a person in a story, the media is going to check it out.  Period.  You make sure that whatever story you use isn't going to come back to bite you.  

Well. Obama has the advantage that no matter what he says, it doesn't get challenged, so your claims that everything is scrutinized by the media is junk.

As per the restaurant, details, details.  I guess accuracy isn't required from your side either.  Just as long as we all get the gist.

Let me get this straight.  Because the father was divorced from the mother, his wishes should be ignored?  Bottom line, they didn't "vet" that story either, whatever the hell that means.

quote:
The best summary I have found on attitudes towards taxes comes from AEI:  http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.16838/pub_detail.asp.  You can download the summary there.  It incorporates various studies, but suffice it to say that several studies have found that the majority of Americans support a progressive tax (eg, AP/Ipsos found 57% support in 2005).  Of course, there is some difference depending on how you word it, but even when asked specifically whether the government should "redistribute wealth" by taxing the wealthy, you find a plurality of support.  

Like it or not, we all have to pay taxes to run our country.  Those who can afford more should pay more.

Unless you are an idiot when it comes to finance, your motiviation for making more money still exists.  You pay X amount of taxes on the first 250,000 of your earnings.  If you earn $1 more, that dollar is taxed at a 35% rate, not 33%.  So instead of earning .67 more cents you will make an extra .65 cents.  Why would anyone not want to earn more .65 cents--just because they wanted to full .67?  Talk about shooting your nose off to spite your face.

Of course people want to tax the rich.  It sounds really good, like fighting the man, but it's ignorant.  People who support higher taxes fall into two general groups. 1) are the  people that don't pay any to begin with and won't be affected and 2) people that make gigantic incomes, like Buffett. Increasing taxes on them is like stealing a thimble of water from the sea.

The people it affects are small business owners and corporations.  When a company makes two cents less per unit, they pass that onto the customer or invest less. No one wins.  The middle income may pay less taxes percentage wise, but they give it back in the end with higher prices on commodities and goods.

I have no problem paying taxes to run our government.  Taxation was created to run essential government activities. They were not sanctioned to redistribute wealth.  Taxes are not a vehicle for social justice and curing inequalities and they were NEVER meant to be.

If a person wants more wealth, go out and create it.