Contractor suspected in 'Joe the Plumber' privacy breach

You have person that has been made a political icon by the McCain campaign. It's only reasonable that his credibility would be called into question. Yet the McCain campaign didn't bother to investigate if he was actually a plumber? Or even if he was a plumber, how much such a plumber makes? It's reasonable to question whether or not this individual is capable of buying the business he stated he was planning on buying. It appears he's not.

I would expect McCain who says he's the most qualified to protect our security to thoroughly vet his sources for validity. Sloppy investigation like this would lead to worse than the intelligence mistakes the Bush administration has made.

 

It's just a case of elitist democrats attacking a workingman because they hate the working class, if this were 'Joe the bank President' I doubt the dems would have as much of a problem with him.

 

You do realize that it was Obama who visited Joe's town, went down Joe's street knocking on people's doors, and talked to Joe in his front yard. It was ABC that caught this discussion on tape. The discussion took place on October 11, four days before the debate that McCain made mention of JTP. ABC reported the story on October 12, three days before the debate.

In Working-Class Ohio, Obama Meets Amorous Dogs, Skeptical Plumber

October 12, 2008 5:58 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/in-working-clas.html

Whether he is licensed, what he makes a year, and how much he owes in taxes makes no difference to the validity of his question. Right?

Maybe because it doesn't matter. They had an excellent opportunity to capitalize on Obama's "socialist" ideology, and they did.

Whether or not he is capable of buying the business is irrelevant, as there are tens of thousands of business owners in the situation that JTP hypothetically suggested.

You really have a fucked up thought process. And if you want to talk about sloppy, take a look at your golden boy. He didn't know his pastor of 20 years, Rev. Wright, was a racist radical, didn't know Bill Ayers was a Weathermen terrorist, didn't know Tony Rezko was a corrupt businessman and political fixer. Either Obama is completely naive and has the worst judge of character, or he is full of shit. I suggest the latter.

 

The first thing I heard from liberals after this blew up was "he's not even a licensed plumber" and "he owes $1200 in back taxes". Not addressing the issues, just trying to discredit the guy and attacking his character.

The McCain camp presented him as some sort of expert. Now we know he's actually Joe Moron, a dumbass and racist with connections to numerous shady characters. When you guys trot out racist monsters as your spokespeople (though, to his credit, Joe Moron isn't nearly the racist monster that McCain has repeatedly proven himself to be), expect them to be smacked down.

Besides, what are you worried about? I'm sure someone in the conservative movement will assassinate him, and you can laugh.

 

Tens of millions of people support Obama. I'm sure one of them has murdered someone recently, just based on statistical probability. Why don't you find one who has and then tell us "murderers support obama, how can you vote for him"?

Its no different than what you are doing here.

 

Who are you addressing?

 

I don't care who anyone's minister is. We have freedom of religion in this country constitutionally.

Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime and now is a distinguished professor of education.

As to Tony Rezko, most republicans have found that it's a non issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/29/171056/015/838/445627

Try again?

 

Ah, classic Rovian strategy. Attack your enemy's strengths. If they are the party of the working man, make the working man turn against them. I wonder if we're going to miss this kind of stuff?

 

I know I won't miss it.

And kind of a hard sell that of Woodsman's that the dems are the party of bankers. Not much proof or facts to back it up, but a lot to cite that the republican's have traditionally been the protectors of big business and banking.

 

But if an average person asks a Presidential candidate a valid question, you care whether or not they have a plumbing license? Like I said......

So now you are taking the word of Republicans? Hahaha. They're just as crooked as the Dems. Rezko held a fundraiser for Bush back in 2003, but that doesn't make it okay. It was no secret who this guy was, as surprised as Obama seemed to be when he found out his pal was a career criminal.

 

What makes you think he asked a valid question? He spouted the same inane nonsense that has plagued our politics since Barry Goldwater. The cold war is over, man. Let's not start up again with the red-baiting.

Add to that, he invented a faulty, self-aggrandizing premise in order to ask his question. Had he told the truth in the first place, the answer would have been easy. As it is, we have to take his lying in account when we answer.

 

And yet, with ALL of the lies Obama has told, AND BEEN CAUGHT IN,

well, actually, YOU just described the best reason EVER to abandon Obama ~

"he invented a faulty, self-aggrandizing premise in order to state his positions on his policies. Had he told the truth in the first place, ... As it is, we have to take his lying in account..."

Y'all can't see how irrational and illogical that is ~ calling Joe the Plumber on a small bit of mis-information, and then just ignoring all of the BLATANT LIES OBAMA has told???

Amazing...

 

Are you joking? It is valid because Obama's tax proposals are a major issue in this campaign, and the effect that they will have on small businesses is something that is on MANY people's minds. I have several acqaintances that would be affected by Obama's tax increase, and it will determine how much capital they are able to reinvest back into their business.

What are you talking about? JTP asked a valid question, and Obama gave a valid answer. Labels aside, people need to disect each candidates issues and determine how they will affect their lives, and how they feel they will improve the country. Branding it "socialism" is a distraction from actually looking at the issue and understanding what the effects would be.

The answer was easy. Obama had no problem answering it. It seems to me that liberals are offended by the question because maybe they don't like the answer. If not, then why not make mention of the answer? Why attack the question? How do you feel about the answer that Obama gave, and how it will affect thousands of small business owners?

 

The answer is not so easy.

We have a progressive tax system. It is redistributive by nature. Coming out with oversimplifications of the problems currently facing our economy, which cannot be fixed by cutting taxes for the highest earning entities, and couching it in the black and white language of cold war politics is just silly. McCain is not proposing ending the redistributive nature of income tax. He is proposing to continue the trend of redistributing the wealth upwards by lowering the highest rates.


The number of small businesses neting over 250k is overstated. Notice I say net, not gross.

Notice McCain's very specific language. Obama's plan would not eliminate the tax cut we can't afford on 50% of small businesses, although that is what he wants you to think. it will allow to die the tax cuts we can't afford on 50% of small business INCOME. A tiny fraction of america's small businesses net more than 250k.

To those who don't run a business or sole proprietorship, the net is what you have left after paying expenses INCLUDING EMPLOYEES.

I don't know what kind of small business owners you are talking to (I doubt you actually are), but they are either fictitious, uninformed, underinformed, or neting way over 250k. In which case I can only counsel them to hire some more employees.

 

You are the one complicating it. McCain this, McCain that. Joe asked a hypothetical question, Obama answered. The specifics of Joe's hypothetical situation and the specifics of Obama's proposed tax plan can be evaluated. Involving McCain's "very specific language" really doesn't have anything to do with Obama's proposed plan. Stop trying to cloud the issue.

That doesn't make sense. Redistribute the wealth upwards? You are suggesting that the wealth is being taken from the poor, and given to the rich? McCain wants to continue Bush's across the board tax cuts, which is known as trickle down. You seem to be advocating trickle up (which is not what McCain is proposing).

Perhaps they are uninformed, and that is what makes JTP's question valid. Let Obama explain how his tax policy is going to affect their class of business. As far as the business owners I know, I do not know the dynamics of their business enough to speak on behalf of them.

Quit bringing up how Obama's tax plan is considered socialist and explain how it is going to positively or negatively affect small business. How is Obama's tax plan going to help stimulate economic growth?

Just so we know we are talking about the same thing, here is the COMPLETE conversation between Obama and JTP, which is what this discussion we are having is about. Given the information that was put forth in Obama's answer to JTP's question, how do you feel it is going to affect businesses in the bracket that JTP suggested?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a4_1224166209

 

Has Obama RE-readjusted the cut-off amount? Last i heard, it was $150K...

 

And for those of you who actually heard or read what Obama actually SAID,

REVENUE IS ALL monies earned by a company, including interest, dividends, etc.

That's right, folks, THAT's what Obama actually said.

And, MJ? If you can't use the english language properly, i would suggest that you DO use a dictionary. <sheesh>

Oh, hey, and do you wonder why i changed my font face/size/color? Another poster asked me to, politely, in a PM. Imagine that!

 

The reason I bring up McCain should be obvious: Joe the Plumber was contrasting Obama's plan with John McCain's, despite the fact that he was clueless about both. Really what he wanted to do, and he made up a story about himself to do it- was to get Obama to say he was going to raise his taxes.

You have not yet figured out how wealth is redistributed upwards? Really? Why don't you do a little research on payroll taxes?

And as I stated before, the value gained from government protection is much greater in proportion when you have more to lose in anarchy. A flat tax would require the lowest neting members of the system to pay for a proportionally larger share for less value (it's easy to protect a small pile of assets by yourself - the rich need help). I really fail to see how any serious and mildly curious person would fail to see beyond the black and white world you seem to live in, but then again I was there not 5 years ago. Here's a hint: don't follow the dollars, follow the value. Wealth is more than a dollar amount. It is value.

When we cut taxes for those at the top, and not for the middle class, we redistribute wealth to those at the top, because the overall value represented by the total taxation does not change. When we borrow against our currency to fund the giveaway, we take just a bit from every dollar in every man's pocket.

As for "JTP" a business grossing 250k a year would not pay any additional taxes under Obama. Period. A business neting 250k a year more would see the bush tax cuts rescinded, and pay the same rates it did under Clinton, back when the economy was fine.

Is Obama's plan going to fix the economy? No. He and McCain have that in common. The difference is that Obama is not committed to the failed notion of trickle down economics. I am more confident in a man who clearly knows how to pick his advisors than I am in a man who thinks you can fix any problem with a one time gambit.

As for job creation? Public works. We are in a deflationary cycle. Defecit spending is the answer, to put it on terms simple enough for you to argue. We got here through lax enforcement of banking regulation. We need to step up enforcement and turn on the spigots until the deflationary cycle ends. No, this will not fix the economy, but it will keep food on many peoples' tables, give us some dignity, and hopefully leave a lasting legacy of useful infrastructure. We can avoid hoovervilles. There is no cure that works for every disease. There is no solution that works for every economic problem. Sometimes we need to reduce defecits, sometimes we need spend like crazy.

 

Who is proposing to cut taxes for those at the top and not for the middle class?

Stated more clearly, if Joes revenue was $250k or greater, his tax would rise to 39% under Obama, and stay at the 36% rate under McCain.

In exchange, from what I understand, small businesses making less than $250k will not pay capital gains tax. Is this correct?

I agree.

 

Just for the record, I am not defending JTP. I do think his question was valid, as it is a "real world" situation that will affect small business owners. But, in the actual case of JTP, I think Obama's answer put him in his place. Under Obama's proposed plan, JTP would benefit greater. This video in short form has been taken out of context, and I don't think that people understand what policy is actually being proposed.