"Joe the Plumber"

A Can of Man

A Can of Man

Je suis aware
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE56N65J20090725

His name isn't Joe.
He was never a plumber.

It was a character he created.

Poses a question, with so many politicians not being who they claim to be such as the Republicans who turned out to be gay (http://www.badmouth.net/top-five-republican-gay-sex-scandals/), Rick Duncan (not a politician but similar enough) who pretended to be a former US Marine Officer (http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2...protestor-exposed-as-mental-case-and-a-fraud/) and even Barack Obama who isn't actually African American in the traditional sense but really pushed it to gain "the Black Vote. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/19/MNG3AO7BT41.DTL) ... is it a reflection of drama/fiction playing a role in power?
Is a regular person, who is who he or she claims to be, simply not interesting or amazing enough to have real influence?

Theater Kingdoms come to mind...
May even explain why actors and actresses seem to have so much power. It's all an act.
 
Joe who?????

JOE WHO???

You are correct as far as you went ... Joe [The Plumber], was a story that should NEVER have rated more than a footnote in the news. It was the mainstream media who made this 'never was' character a star on the airwaves and on every forum and blog I visited during that time.

HE was EVERYWHERE.

Was it his fault??? The answer was and is .. YES!

He created the character .. but .. if the mainstream media wouldn't have made such a big thing of it, most people wouldn't even remember he was a political story - he would have been just another footnote to the political season.

When we hear about these bigger than life characters, they are sometimes an invention of the character .. but .. end up being lionized by the mainstream media and end up as another of the public stories that just don't go away .....

JUST LIKE JOE THE PLUMBER.
 
I was sick of "Joe the Plumber" before Election Day. He has definitely outlasted his 15 minutes of fame.

However, from everything I heard/knew about him he was a real plumber working under his bosses' license. Not being "licensed" does not make you a fraud as "licensing" is difficult and expensive depending on where you live.

I have a friend who is a union electrician who is not licensed/certified ... as it is only good in one city at a time ... so he works for others who have the license/certification ... which is legit/legal.
 
I still don't understand what McCain was hoping to gain by bringing this guy up. Later reports showed that he would actually save more money under Obama's plan than under McCain's.
 
TOG, it was the idea that if he Joe/Sam took over his bosses business, and became very successful, Obama's tax increases would punish him.

But Obama's plan of raining no one's taxes below $250,000 was a sham ... and obvious one the media chose to help him sell. If you want to grow government by leaps and bounds, you are going to have to pay for it ... so most people's taxes are going to have to increase.
 
Yeah, if I win the lottery tomorrow I'll be better off under a McCain Administration, but that's not likely to happen, is it? $250,000 is an incredible amount of money, more than some lawyers make, much less the average plumber.

Obama's plan to not raise taxes for those making under a quarter million initially has been followed. I accept that we have a deficit to try and fix and that eventually it will cost us money, which is why Obama's claim rings a little empty to me. But his plans to tax the upper class appear to be reasonable. The concept that lower taxes for the rich equals better conditions for all has obviously not worked.
 
The Other Guy said:
Yeah, if I win the lottery tomorrow I'll be better off under a McCain Administration, but that's not likely to happen, is it? $250,000 is an incredible amount of money, more than some lawyers make, much less the average plumber.

Obama's plan to not raise taxes for those making under a quarter million initially has been followed. I accept that we have a deficit to try and fix and that eventually it will cost us money, which is why Obama's claim rings a little empty to me. But his plans to tax the upper class appear to be reasonable. The concept that lower taxes for the rich equals better conditions for all has obviously not worked.
Click to expand...
Only if you're talking Income Taxes, but there Cap-N-Trade that'll nail everybody and that's just one.
 
"Obama's plan to not raise taxes for those making under a quarter million initially has been followed."

C'mon TOG, are you still buying that? As George pointed out, cap-and-trade raised taxes on anyone who consumes energy, consumes products that require energy to produce and must be transported ... that's everyone.

And he's only just begun.

Everyone's taxes are going up ... BIG TIME. :-?
 
Bror Jace said:
"Obama's plan to not raise taxes for those making under a quarter million initially has been followed."

C'mon TOG, are you still buying that? As George pointed out, cap-and-trade raised taxes on anyone who consumes energy, consumes products that require energy to produce and must be transported ... that's everyone.

And he's only just begun.

Everyone's taxes are going up ... BIG TIME. :-?
Click to expand...

No Bror, hes right. It does exactly what it says it does. There is even (a up to) $1000 tax credit to those under the $250,000. Under his plan the Middle Class gets a bigger tax break than the Bush Plan did. All this bill really does it reverse the tax policies of the previous administration, policies that were disasterous I might add.

I would also point out that thanks the the brilliant economic policies of the previous administration the Federal Deficiet which was at $0 is now back to a astronomical $482 Billion. There are only two ways to curb a deficiet, cut costs and raise tax revenue.

What you are doing is trying to blame the fireman for trying to put out the fire.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
No Bror, hes right. It does exactly what it says it does. There is even (a up to) $1000 tax credit to those under the $250,000. Under his plan the Middle Class gets a bigger tax break than the Bush Plan did. All this bill really does it reverse the tax policies of the previous administration, policies that were disasterous I might add.

I would also point out that thanks the the brilliant economic policies of the previous administration the Federal Deficiet which was at $0 is now back to a astronomical $482 Billion. There are only two ways to curb a deficiet, cut costs and raise tax revenue.

What you are doing is trying to blame the fireman for trying to put out the fire.
Click to expand...
Clinton claimed a balanced budget, but Federal borrowing rose continuosly through his Admin. Bush, who is NOT a fiscal Conservative, doubled the National Debt. Obama is going to double it again if he gets all the Programs he wants. While some of it is to "fix Bush's problems" most is just Big Govt spending that the Dems couldn't get implemented the last 15 years, resulting in an orgy of spending.
 
mmarsh said:
I would also point out that thanks the the brilliant economic policies of the previous administration the Federal Deficiet which was at $0 is now back to a astronomical $482 Billion. There are only two ways to curb a deficit, cut costs and raise tax revenue.
Click to expand...
Please provide sources for your claim that the Federal deficit was $0 prior to the previous administration?
 
The Other Guy said:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

There you go.
Click to expand...

Thanks TOG but it doesn't let mmarsh of the hook, I guess he can copy yours if he can't find his own.

And from your sources it is clear that misinformation knows no limits. The implication mmarsh made was that Clinton spent less than the government made during Clinton's administration, and it is not true.

Surplus or deficit?
Congress and the president are able to report a lower deficit mostly because they don't count the growing burden of future pensions and medical care for federal retirees and military personnel. These obligations are so large and are growing so fast that budget surpluses of the late 1990s actually were deficits when the costs are included.
The Clinton administration reported a surplus of $559 billion in its final four budget years. The audited numbers showed a deficit of $484 billion.

source:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm

I will grant that Clinton's administration was more fiscally responsible than Bush. Not like or current Presidential administration. I can easily support President Obama's health-care goals as I have no children that will have to pay for them.

Short term deficits can be good for the economy, but a high National debt is not. Sooner or later it has to be paid. At 58 years old I will probably enjoy the fruit and not pay the piper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top