Do you know who Joe the Plumber is? If you don't, in three minutes, you will. Here he is...
I love that Joe doesn't back down... but Joe could have gone one step further... I know, easy for me to say. I probably would have stepped on my own face in the same situation, and Joe handled himself honorably. I doubt if half of our representatives in DC would have been willing to go toe to toe with Barrack in a crowd.
But here is what Joe could have said...
"Yo, Skipper (insert name of employee), I was hoping that I would be able to buy a couple more trucks to put out on the road, but if Barrack here wins, I'm going to have to lay you off."
Yes, it is that simple. Instead of rolling profits into investment for the future of the company, his small plumbing company would have the honor (according to Biden) of being patriots and paying more in taxes.
That is why it is so simple. If Barrack Obama becomes President, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid over on the hill, jobs will be lost. Tax revenue will go DOWN. Foreclosures will continue. The economy will not grow. Game over.
Unless otherwise noted, all content of this blog is the property of Lane Bailey, ©2012 Lane Bailey.
I'd love to hear from you...
Obama's view of redistributing wealth is scary...
Whenever any politician tries to pit one group of Americans against another it is not good.
That said, it is an ugly old tactic that unfortunately works: rich against poor, blacks against whites, immigrants against the working class, Jews against ... and so on and, so on.
lane - It's a shame that they didn't let the video play so that we could hear what Barack was trying to spread.
Larry - Here is the most uncut version I could find...
Gary - His view is no more scary than any of the others that have promoted it through the years. The part that scares me is that he gets such a pass.
Bill - That is the way of politics. But I thought Obama was a uniter???
Lane - Here's a print article about this, with a video in it, and its 3:41 of Obama, in his own words, talking with the plumber - it's more disturbing than anything I've seen reported on this so far - anybody who doesn't see that he's a full-blown Socialist just isn't paying attention.
OBAMA FIRES 'ROBIN HOOD' WARNING SHOT...
GO Joe GO! Thanks for posting this, Lane. McCain is scary, but Obama is way scarier. I'm curious how much of his OWN wealth obama will be willing to "redistribute." Maybe he could take a salary cut, for the good of the country you know.
uh huh.
Lane - I posted this strory the other day - Cavuto has since interviewed Joe. He asked Joe if obama persuaded him. Joe saidno, he made it worse and said he was a socialist. Joe is my hero....
Lane, I agree with the premiss that Obama's tax cuts are very scary and will create more problems than it will solve. Joe's trucks will be missed if Obama wins.
You think that is scary? Even scarier is what he would do to larger businesses indiscriminately. As if "large" is somehow correlated with deep pockets. Because Obama is ahead - this is probably one reason why the Dow is tanking. Large companies.... forced to become less profitable - and therefore - perhaps reduce their workforce or go offshore instead of using American workers... For more - http://activerain.com/blogsview/742498/Obama-Will-Kill-Business-in-the-US-and-Be-the-Next-Herbert-Hoover
What each candidate says and what they will be able to do are two diffrent things. I am convinced that they say what they think the majority of their supports want us to hear and when they get into office they are advised by the people around them and the special interest groups but seldom can implement much change.
Congratulations this post is now featured in the Blatant Politics Group of Active Rain.
Jeff - Obama has made his intentions clear. He is going to buy the votes from half of the electorate with money from the other half.
Karen - There is an IRS form that allows one to "donate to the national debt"... and yet the Clinton, Warren Buffett and Barack Obama have all failed to use it while saying that they aren't taxed enough.
Susan - The Cavuto interview is on that clip.
Don - They will be... and the millions of other small business folks like him.
Cherimie - I am sure there are. And I would bet the guy could do a franchise if he moves fast enough...
Rick - I think that the VAST majority of Obama's supporters have no idea that they will be shooting those that actually create jobs... not a great way to make them create more jobs.
Terry - I know that is the Obama standard. He has campaigned as a tax cutter, yet has never cut taxes.
Simon - Thanks.
I watched the uncut version. If only folks would watch this, and not just go with the interpretation of it. I heard today, Joe Plummer still has not decided who he will vote for. Gee, amazing isn't it?
Catherine - I would expect that nobody would be more connected to reality in America than a 106 year old Nun living in Rome voting for the first time in 56 years... Choosing Obama is fine. Just remember that Obama's economic policies are going to destroy private sector jobs and lead to BIGGER deficits.
Bob - I think that there are people that need help. But I don't think the government is the most efficient mechanism to deliver that help. In fact, I think there is VERY little that the government does more efficiently than the private sector.
Missy - Obama is a great speaker. Too bad his nose doesn't grow when he lies... he would be putting eyes out with that thing.
What we need is someone who is not only a great speaker but will be a great President too. But alas, Ronald Reagan has left this earth.
Yeah Lane if only Joe the plummer had a license maybe we would think that he was honest about making the kind of money he was talking about?!
Karen - I have to say I was never really a Reagan fan. He did some great things, but I have never been in the tank for him. Fred Thompson has the delivery ability... Ron Paul has many of the ideas. Mike Huckabee has some more of the right ideas. Throw in some Newt Gingrich and some Joe Lieberman...
Stephen - Is that the newest talking point from Obama? Discredit Joe the PlumBer? Is that really how you think you can best help YOUR guy out of this. He says he wants to take money from small businesses across the country and give it to the people THEY choose instead of leaving it with the businesses so they can hire people and expand their businesses... and in reply you want to cast doubts on his license?
That is pretty weak...
And just so you know, I have a contact that is a plumber. He has 10 trucks and 28 employees. His wife does the books, and he is on a truck most days. He has an office and scheduling staff. He has months where they pull down a 6 figure PROFIT. His employees are well paid. The lead guy on a truck generally makes about $90k... and the assistant can make $50k... or a little more. The girl that does appointments in the office makes almost $50k. The increase in taxes that they will see from an Obama Presidency will be about the same as a full worker, including all taxes and paid medical. In two years it would be enough to put an additional truck on the road, with a plumber, assistant and tools.
Instead of letting the small businesses of the country hire people and turn them into tax payers, Obama would rather take the money and send it to people that AREN'T paying taxes.
Remember, 40% of the income earners don't pay taxes... but Obama is going to give them a TAX CUT... WTF!. There is only one way to interpret that... he is going to give away money to people NOT paying taxes as a refundable tax credit. Redistribute wealth. From each according to ability, to each according to need. Class warfare. Obama is a Socialist... and that is the nicest thing I can say about that.
In two years there might very well be a GOP majority in Congress. In four years, Obama will be toast, Hillary won't be able to SEE the White House and there will be a Republican in the White House... The problem is that Obama will screw things up so much with his redistributional policies that it might take a generation to fix.
But I don't expect you to listen to anything negative about Obama...
Sorry Ed... you weren't even CLOSE to being on topic. Deleted.
S'okay Lane....you can try to keep the truth from your readers, but only on your own blog...
10/16/2008 02:00
Ed, all your stuff that you posted SHOULD have been deleted simply because the comments section of a blog is nowhere to write four blogs worth of stuff. Posting it on your own blog, with a link back in your comments would have been much more appropriate - if you ask the author's permission of course.
Lane, I'm sorry you didn't like The Gipper. He is one I have admired for many years and just what this country needed after Carter.
I did root for Ron Paul myself, with my second backing toward Huckabee - but I had some misgivings about Huck...even though I consider myself a concervative evangelical type Christian, I do not trust politicians or prominent "preachers."
Karen - I didn't mind Ed's preaching as much as I was annoyed that it wasn't on topic. I didn't kill the soliloquy he did on one of my other posts... That one was less off topic... Not on topic, just not quite as off.
I can't really call myself a Ron Paul supporter either. He is a little wacky for me, but at least he knows what the limits are to the Constitution... apparently Obam (Constitutional Law Professor) doesn't. I'm not really worried about Huckabee's religious predilections... he also knows the legal limits.
As much as it would pain Ed and Stephen, I would love to see the country cut programs that aren't specifically called for in the Constitution. About 40% of the budget would evaporate overnight. There would be some VERY disaffected campers, though. Imagine no welfare, social security, farm supports, public funding of candidates, unemployment insurance, food stamps... you get the idea.
On the face, it has become apparent that people need to take responsibility for themselves. The liberals (like Ed and Stephen) think that the government is responsible for taking care of people. I would counter that as the government has gotten more involved, more people are content to let the government handle it for them.
Both of them need to read Democracy in America by Alexis DeTocqueville. We are fast approaching the point where more than half of the people that can vote do NOT have to pay taxes. At that point, there will be enough votes for the non-payers to control the game. In a generation, this country will cease to be what it has been.
Ed - Follow the link above. Go to Amazon and get the book. Read it. What do you think will happen when fewer than 50% of the voters will be in the tax-paying class? As it stands now, the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the taxes. Almost 45% don't pay income taxes AT ALL.
Stephen - It is immaterial... So what, he uses his middle name (I use my middle name, as does my wife). And that has no bearing on whether he can own the company...
The deeper question remains. What will happen to small businesses under Obamas increased taxation? It doesn't matter if it is Joe the Plumber, Sam the Insurance Agent or Stacy the Real Estate Agent. Increasing taxes on small businesses will decrease jobs.
Fighting over the identity of Joe the Plumber is like fighting over the font on a termination letter...
Maybe we should start talking about the "Hero of Chappaquiddick"...
Barack said again that small businesses that make less than $250K will not have an increase in taxes. Obviously people and businesses who make more money should pay more taxes. He said that 95% of americans wont have a tax increase under his plan.
Actually, Lane, Joe the Plumber has been outed (well he outed himself, I guess.) He's not the company owner, he's not a licensed plumber; he's just an employee for a plumbing and heating company.
I doubt he was a plant (as some obama supporters are suggesting.) I think he was just an ordinary guy trying to make a point and he had no idea how viral this thing would get.
Here's one story.
Obama has changed the song of if I had a hammer, I hammer in the morning, I will hammer in the noontime, I will hammer in the evening!
Well, he'll tax us in the morning, he'll increase our taxes in the noontime, and increase our taxes in the evening, and even tax you more when you are dead!
Stephen - What happens when you increase taxes on a business? Where does the money for the increase in taxes come from? Answer that, and then I will tell you why 100% of American WILL have a tax increase under Obama's plan.
Karen - He said he was out in the yard playing football with his kid when Obama came strolling through and he thought it was time that someone asked the man a hard question... since the press doesn't seem willing to.
Nicholas - You've read my predictions...
Stephen - The last comment was a personal attack... that one is gone.
So McCain doesnt want big government running our lives- they already do- more now that theyve going to have ownership in our Banks! He doesnt want to regulate big business (which has gotten us into the wall street/subprime mess) or increase anybody's taxes even if we do have one of the largest trillions of dollars deficit ever!? McCain doesnt want to do anything but attack Obama?! He beat Hillary's negative attacks and now John is just figuring that out. But its too late!
William - I think I have the rundown so far...
And he is the one saying that McCain has poor judgement... At least with McCain the story doesn't change every time a new detail emerges. What will we find out when the next shoe drops?
Stephen - Nicholas hasn't attacked anyone here on my blog. If he does, I will delete the comment. Deal with it.
You might try reading the comment above...
And, for the record, the Bush Administration tried to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but they were blocked by one of MA's own, Barney Frank. Perhaps he shouldn't have been in the position since he was involved in a relationship with a Fannie Mae executive at the time... And John McCain co-sponsored legislation to TIGHTEN REGULATION on Fannie and Freddie... but it was killed in committee with a party line vote, headed by Christopher Dodd (#1 in donations from Fannie and Freddie for the last 20 years).
He has been fighting against pork for his entire career... and Obama took more earmarks this year than McCain has in the last 20. Obama votes the Dem line 97% of the time... and McCain was at 90% recently, but in 2005, he was at 77%. In 2001 he was at 67% of his votes lining up with the GOP.
And as evil as Bush is, Obama chose to vote with him on the "rescue" package. I think McCain would have been smarter to vote against it...
Finally, raising taxes DOES NOT increase revenues. It increases the percentage of GDP that goes to the governemt, but decreases the GDP. Revenue has NOT been an issue since Bush's tax cuts took effect. The problem was Bush forgetting where he left the veto pen. The GOP went out of control...
Oddly, much of that was trying to "Out-Democrat" the Democrats. Things like Medicare part D, expected now to cost over $1trillion... and only half as big as what the Democrats wanted.
The GOP certainly needs to learn how get the size of the government back in line with Constitutional mandates... but are you seriously going to try to argue that the Democrats are going to do that?
And you didn't answer the question...
Stephen - Still not willing to answer the question?
And McCain lied about a few things during the campaign... and the media nailed him EVERY time. Obama changes the story constantly. Did you know that he changed his resume on his website a few days ago after a reporter turned up records that Obama did do work for ACORN... which he previously denied?
So, since you are not in the mood to answer questions...
What will be the next thing that we will find out about Obama?
What don't we know about McCain?
And McCain has been pushing for changes for 20+ years... that is why he used to be the media's favorite Republican. He didn't take that from Obama... and Obama doesn't want change any more than changing his address to Pennsylvania Ave...
The Congressional Democrats CAN be blamed from blocking things in the last few years that could have recreased the severity... and they sure are laying all of the blame on Bush (while STILL being willing to follow his lead).
Stephen - Didn't mean to ask such tough questions...
Again, tax increases do NOT increase government revenue. The problem is spending. Obama simply will NOT control spending. He wants to add another $1trillion in spending.
And the media on McCain's side... not since the primary.
Maybe you could answer the few simple questions I asked...
Forget about politics. Just note and never forget that one single person can make a major change in our country in a moments notice. Anyone of us can be that next Joe plumber.
God bless America. You gotta love it..........
We didn't have an income tax prior to 1913... and the government ran a surplus. The original income tax was 1% and only applied to a few rich families.
So, now we have 4 questions...
What makes you think that Obama will cut spending? He ran for his seat promising a middle class tax cut, yet never wrote, sponsored, co-sponsored or vote for a tax cut...
Let me refresh your memory of the other questions...
What happens when you increase taxes on a business? where does the money to pay the increased taxes come from?
What will be the next thing that we will find out about Obama? even his own website has had to change its information about Obama because third parties have proven his assertions wrong.
What don't we know about McCain? the point here is that McCain has been combed by the media for decades. The toughest thing they can pin on him is a rebuke for having contacts with Charles Keating (same for John Glenn)... but they couldn't connect him with any unethical behavior (as they DID with three Democrats). And there is that cell tower that some reports say the Secret Service wanted, and others say they didn't ask for...
Tim - It is wonderful that a guy in a working class neighborhood can be the most famous guy in the country for a few days because he doesn't get cowed by a politician...
Lane -
Did you happen to catch that in the video you referred to in your comment to Larry (4th comment from the top), where you said, "Larry - Here is the most uncut version I could find...", Obama clearly uses the word, "REVENUE", as opposed to income, when referring to his $250,000 dividing line? Check that video, about 39 seconds into it - he clearly says, "If your revenue is above 250..."
Obama needs to be hammered on this for clarification - I'm sure the typical voter just hears, "$250,000", and thinks, "Yep, that's rich!", having no idea that in business and accounting circles, REVENUE = GROSS INCOME. There have to be millions of small businesses out there whose gross is well over $250,000, but whose net, or personal income to the owner(s) is far, far less - like 10%, or 20% of gross. He needs to be pressed for more info on his plans!
Jeff - As much as I would like to nail Obama with that, I think it was a (non-Freudian) slip. I think he just mis-spoke.
What is getting me though is the Obama camp just trying to discredit Joe. Instead of talking about the issues that he raised, they want to make it about him. Weak.
Lane, (or anyone else...) if you are interested, I will be happy to post reliable sources to support any point I make in this post-
In response to your first question,
"What makes you think that Obama will cut spending?"
The democratic administration of Bill Clinton was the only one in recent (before Nixon) history, to aignificantly cut the numbers of non-defense federal departments employee numbers. Clinton inherited a one year, $399 billion increase in the national debt, as a result of the last GHW Bush budget, in fiscal year end 9/30/93.
The national debt increase in fisal year end 9/30/00 was just $18 billion. In the fiscal year end 9/30/08, the national debt increase was
Historical Debt Outstanding
$1,117 billion. My point is...how could Obama do any worse than the cumulative increase in national debt results of the past 7 years?
"What happens when you increase taxes on a business?"
Why levy tax on business profits or on income, at all, if less is better? My point is that either spending must be reduced....and unless there is health care reform driven spending reduction, the increased costs of servicing the interest expense on our now $10 trillion national debt, and the expense of the consequences of two front war and rebuilding military and national guard "rolling stock", as opposed to servicing only the interest expense of the $5.85 trillion national debt level of 9/30/01, and the condition of military resources and operations (There was also no Department of Homeland Security to fund in 2001), indicates there is no realistic possiblity of appreciable spending reduction. The unpredictable costs of the government's new commitments related to "freeing up the credit freeze" and aiding the states in providing rising unemployment insurance payments...California unemployment just rose to 7.7 percent and the rate is still rising everywhere....further aggravates spending levels.
Taxes on the top five percent of individual incomes and on the top 700,000 businesses either must rise, or more borrowing will further increase the national debt level and risk the US Treasury's AAA credit rating, IMO.
(The New York Times cites Small Business Administration data:
"...So will Americans who are in business for themselves have to pay more taxes if Mr. Obama is elected, as Mr. McCain asserted?)
If you believe "spending cuts" have a potential significant borrowing stabalization impact...where would you make cuts, and by how much? I believe in increasing taxes on those I just described, and/or withdrawing our military, by 90 percent of present troop levels, from Iraq by next July 1, or by insisting that the Iraqi government pay all costs of continued US military presence above ten percent of current US troop levels. With oil selling at $70 instead of at $130, the Iraqi's will not agree,,,,so our troops and their equipment get pulled....
If the taxes on the 700,000 most profitable businesses and on the five percent highest income earners are increased, I expect a "level" impact on those entities, resulting from a higher tax levy. I agree that it is not a nice thing....to tax those at the top more, but it wasn't in 1913, either, and it took a constitutional amendment to make it happen, then. The effect after 1913, and the taxing escalated to a much greater percentage in the years that followed, and involved a dramatically higher number of individuals and businesses, yet the US boomed from 1922 until 1929, in spite of the "high" taxes on the most prosperous.
"What will be the next thing that we will find out about Obama?" Obama's home purchase "help" from Tony Rezko, helps persuade me that he is probably as corrupt in this sense of entitlement and lack of ethics and personal honor, as John McCain's decisions and associations convince me that he is also burdened with....
"What don't we know about McCain? "
I wrote and documented the background that has shaped my description of flaws common to McCain and Obama, at the activerain blog discussion at this link:
10/05/2008 10:50 PM
...and this link...
10/10/2008 03:29 AM
>"I spent some years without a kitchen table, without a chair, and I know what it's like to be blessed by the opportunities of this great nation,” McCain said.
“Cindy's father barely finished high school, went off and distinguished himself in World War II in a B-17, and he came back with practically nothing and realized the American dream. And I am proud and grateful for that. And I think he is a role model to many young Americans who serve in the military and come back and succeed.”
“So the fact is that we have homes and I'm grateful for it,” continued McCain."<
Ed - Look closer at the cuts in anything (except defense) under Clinton. Check the years. You will find that he didn't grow responsibility until after 1994...
Can't cut anything in the federal budget? Even though it has risen more than 50% in the last 8 years? Seriously? I would bet that 20% of the budget COULD be cut. Since you like the Clinton era so much, adjust for inflation and go back to Clinton's last budget... What has been added?
The next thing here... you don't want to compare the US to Ireland, but you think that the culture and situations of 1922 to 1929 are similar to today? What was the tax rate in 1929 that applied to most of the producers? What percentage of the GDP was the government seize? Was the culture one of opportunity and self-reliance, or more of entitlement and "what's in it for me?"
Finally... there are two things here.