Friday, October 17, 2008

Joe: The Plumber?

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." ~ Karl Marx

"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody" ~ Barack Hussein Obama

Once again, the Obama apologists in the media have released the hounds.

After some time spent overturning every stone, searching every closet, and poking under every bed in a vain attempt to find dirt on Ms. Sarah Palin, Republican Governor and candidate for Vice President, the thundering hordes of mass media have now set their sights upon a previously unknown and unassuming Mr. Average Working man, also known as "Joe the Plumber". For what vile seditious crime is Joe the Plumber guilty?

He asked a question.

From the many newspapers breaking this earth shattering news story across this great nation, The New York Slimes has this feature, entitled "Joe in the Spotlight".

This innocuous appearing headline belies the hatchet job that follows, which reads, in part:

Turns out that “Joe the Plumber,” as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, may run a plumbing business but he is not a licensed plumber. His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes a bit in back taxes.

Interestingly enough, I have seen parts of this exact paragraph posted in the comments of several Conservative blogs (posted by Liberal blog cruisers) with the theme, "The real winner of the debate was Joe the Plumber". I suppose Liberals feel they don't have the intelligence or expertise to form their own opinions, so they rip off the Slimes, which, as it happens, is probably the most leftist publication this side of Cuba.

But I digress.

Now, I don't have any reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of these charges against Mr. Wurzelbacher. Nor do I do rule out the possibility that some idiot, somewhere, at one of John McCain's many campaign rallies, may have shouted the phrase, "Kill him".

The fact is, neither of those two so-called "news worthy" events negatively reflect on the character or capabilities of the candidates themselves.

But, the suspect credentials of Joe the Plumber are irrelevant to the true issue.

Joe the Plumber, in reality, may be unlicensed, and delinquent on his taxes, and he may even be an ax murderer. He may be a welfare recipient, or a disgustingly filthy rich Corporate magnate. He could be a nearly perfect example of the typical hard working, church going, flag waving, gun toting, Conservative redneck, or he could be a God-hating, (or God-loving) Liberal yet "moderate", pro-choice, gay elitist. He could be a member of the John Birch Society, or a member of the Communist Party of America. He could be either Republican or Democrat.

What he is, in spite of all his faults, is irrelevant.

It really doesn't matter if he's Joe the Plumber or Joe the Mafioso.

Because the issue isn't who asked the question of Obama. It isn't even what question Joe the Plumber asked.

The issue is about the answer that Obama gave:

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

That statement is a paraphrase of a famous quotation, ripped right out of "The Communist Manifesto", by Karl Marx, which is the basis of Marxism, succinctly encapsulated into one sentence:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

But, instead of dealing with a statement that the majority of Americans would roundly reject as un-American, The Obama apologists in the media attack the man who's only crime was asking an honest question. A question that would help him understand Obama's policy on taxation.

It is frankly deplorable and dishonest. There appears to be no longer any honor in journalism.

This is the simply the typical Liberally biased media, also known as Obama apologists, doing what they do best.

Distract and obfuscate.

They are hoping that ordinary Americans like me will focus their attention of the dubious character of Joe the Plumber instead of focusing on Obama's answer to Joe's question. If they can distract the public's attention away from the real issue, an issue which goes to the heart of Obama's Marxist agenda, that we the public will allow Obama's answer to quietly slip away into obscurity, never to raise it's ugly head again.

I say again:

The story is not the personal character of the questioner. It is the political agenda of the questionee.


Feodor said...

Taxes, Mark, serve the principal of an obligation to spread the wealth for the common good. Not to put money in the other guy's pocket, but to build good roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, water pipes, sewage systems, etc. for all, almost.

Kind of like giving Caesar what is Caesar's, you know? Heard that before?

Bad company to defend though, Mark, "Joe," the "plumber." who owes back taxes, makes $40K, made up the story about "buying the business," doesn't understand that in Obama's tax plan, taxes apply only to profits above $250K (not revenue).

McCain rushed to use this (unscreened, unknown) person who only appears to represent normal Americans in order to make cheap and frequent innuendos. Just like the rush to Palin.

Mark said...

Yeah? So What? As I mentioned, The questioner is not the issue. Did you even read the post?

Obama's answer is the issue.

Obviously, since you are a Marxist yourself, you would have a problem understanding this simple concept:

If the Wealthy and the Corporations' taxes are raised, the only people it will benefit is the wealthy and the corporations. It goes like this. Try to follow:

1. Taxes are raised on people and companies making over $250,000 a year.

2. The companies, which are more than likely owned by the wealthy, raise their prices on goods and services to compensate for the added overhead. Additionally, if raising prices doesn't keep the profits where they want them to be, they will begin to lay off, or reduce the wages of their employees. I guarantee they won't keep their prices at pre-tax levels and take a loss or reduction in profit margin. If anything, they will take advantage of the opportunity to raise their prices over and above what they need to in order to compensate.

3. Consequently, ordinary working people, who make less than $250,000 a year, will find themselves with less income and unable to pay the increased prices of goods and service.

4. People will buy less, and many will be forced to go on Government support (welfare) because they can't find jobs in an ever decreasing job market.

5. Some companies will go out of business because their sales have gone down, and the rest will have to further reduce labor costs and often, the quality of their products. Not to mention, they will be forced to lower prices again to entice customers who can no longer afford their goods and services to buy said goods or services.

6 By being forced to lower their prices again, they will be forced to further reduce their workforce. or go out of business.

Thousands, if not millions of jobs lost. Thousands, if not millions of companies going bankrupt.The economy tanks. Stock market crashes. Depression. Bread lines. The middle class becomes the lower class. The lower class starves to death.

And the process continues to repeat itself over and over and over until the Conservatives are voted back in office to fix the mess Obama has created with his Marxist wealth re-distribution programs.

And you want to welcome Marxism! Sheeesh!

Feodor said...

Who said I was a Marxist? I'm just about meeting my civic responsibilities (like Edmund Burke) and paying taxes.

But you're right, I acted as if what you mentioned -- the questioner is not the issue -- shouldn't be acknowledged. Because it shouldn't!! Of course the questioner is part of the story. Goes to credibility. Too honest a thing for you to care about, I guess.

You are exactly right, a boisterous economy depends upon people having the money in their pocket and the confidence in their future to go ahead and buy now.

So why didn't tax cuts work?

Massive deregulation let financial institutions spin out of control and crash -- loss of confidence.

College tuition skyrocketed -- less cash in the pocket.

Fewer Americans going to graduate school, more foreign nationals -- loss of confidence, loss of money in pocket.

Healthcare skyrocketed -- less cash in the pocket and loss of confidence.

Gas skyrockets -- loss of cash.

Way too much credit (no cash in pocket) extended -- pocket falling further behind.

Way too much luxury spending -- loss of pocket.

Taxes -- wise taxes like under Clinton -- are a help to adjust a robust economy in order to ensure confidence in good management by government, good behavior by financial institutions, check on greed by corporations, and to keep consumers within reason all while rebuilding infrastructure which is needed for a robust economy and high quality of life.

You are talking about stringent taxes, not a wise increase in taxes.

You can't see Obama's wise increase in taxes because your paranoia has your pulse racing too fast.

Clinton left us with money in pocket, largest longest rise in economic strength AND a federal surplus. Bush with his tax cuts...

Moderation, Mark, like in all things

Feodor said...

Hey, Mark, I'll let you in a little secret.

Hedge Fund managers, Mark. Their salary is not taxed as salary. Oops. Did I say too much?

Due to non-regulation of the hedge fund world, a hedge fund manager can put his or her own money in the fund they manage along with his high net-worth clients.

As long as he or she does this (has to be around a million or more while clients may have 5, 10, 25 million in [a client can be a pension plan, say Virginia Power & Light pension plan]), then his or her salary AND his or her profits from their own investment (if the fund makes a profit) are both taxed at an investment rate, 15%.

Now "Joe" the "plumber," and myself, our income is taxed at an average of 30%.

Boy, what a difference.

Now, Mark, you would argue for less regulation like Senator McCain, I guess, huh? And not tax the Hedge Fund Manager for JP Morgan or Citadel who is making, I don't know six figures in salary plus whatever profit he or she can make like he or she is actually working?

Senator McCain and the S&L crisis lived in the same culture.

Lone Ranger said...

A few years back, I owed the IRS $15,000. I guess that made me a bad person.

ELAshley said...

Man! And I thought Mark was drinking the Kool-Aid! Apologies, Mark. I am truly sorry.

Feodor said...

Owing taxes does not make you a bad person.

But if you owe taxes, don't go before national news cameras and make up bad information about being unable to buy a $250K business because of additional taxes you'd have to pay all in order to smear a policy position.

One loses all credibility then.

Mark said...

Feodor, you seem to be a fairly intelligent person. That is why I cannot understand why you don't get it!

Pay Attention:


Anyone could have asked that question. It didn't have to be Joe the Plumber. It just so happened that it was.

Would Obama's leftist revealing answer been different if Joe were honest? Would his answer have been different if the question had been asked by a Democrat? Would his answer have been different if asked by John McCain himself?

No. No. And again I say, NO!

The issue is Obama's answer. Period.

Obama revealed to America that he is a Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx quoting Marxist with his answer to that question.

Eric, I resent the negative connotation that because I drink Kool-Ade I am somehow a bad person. I happen to like Kool-Ade! My favorite flavor is fruit punch.:)

Mark said...

"But if you owe taxes, don't go before national news cameras and make up bad information about being unable to buy a $250K business because of additional taxes you'd have to pay all in order to smear a policy position."

Actually, you can't know that Joe intentionally lied. Perhaps his plans for owning a business is an unpealistic pipe dream, but you don't know for a fact that he in fact made up anything.

A couple of months ago, I thought I had a realistic chance to start my own business. I even went to the trouble of printing up mailers. I made inquiries, asked questions, looked up legal provisions and licensing fees. I did all that before I came to the sad conclusion that I didn't have enough start up capital. But I haven't yet given up my dream. Perhaps that's the case with Joe. He is trying to ask questions relating to business expenses he may need to anticipate.

I certainly won't condemn someone else for trying to make things better for himself and his family. Especially when I know nothing about him except what has been insinuated by Liberal rags like the New York Slimes.

Feodor said...

All the "Joes" seriously intending to buy a business find no real hurdle in Obama's plan. The credit freeze is the real problem because it prevents them from covering payroll and insurance prior to revenue. What is understood is that Obama is smart enough to know how to get the credit market fluid again by stoking it. You don't think business owners understand the need to prime the pump?

This is why a fake Joe can't represent the real discussion at hand. All he wants to do, in concert with the McCain campaign is drive your paranoia up so you can't see sense and wont hear it.

I'm pleased though, Mark, that you finally found a name to call Obama that doesn't come from the nineteenth century.

By the way, where are you guys going to get your name calling if Michelle Malkin strokes out? Your just an echo of her site.

Feodor said...

And did you say your name was "Alf" as you went about your PR?

Feodor said...

And by the way, "priming the pump" is another public service action that the federal government -- and state governments for that matter -- does with our taxes.

The benefit returns to the public in the form of a revived economic engine.

Joe said...

Mark: Feodor is not about to be confused by facts: "...goes to credibility...?" Whose, Joe the Plumber's or BO's?

You are 127.89% right.

Feodor is 127.89% wrong.

He may not be bright enough to understand your point, so you may be forced to cut him some slack.

Talk about great minds...I wrote about the same thing!

Feodor said...

Why don't you spell it out for me Joe? Say something of substance instead of the fifth grade cheerleading.