Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Who’s angry now?
Why is the left—and Sen. Barack Obama himself—stripping a gear over Joe the Plumber? I thought hard-working middle America is who they are rooting for. I thought the modest, working-class neighborhood in Toledo, Ohio, where Joe Wurzelbacher had his now famous encounter with the Democratic presidential candidate was Obama territory? Isn’t that why Obama went there? So why instead of engaging the honest question raised by Joe is Obama ridiculing him and distorting what he said? (See the video below.)
Yesterday at a New Hampshire apple farm Obama said of Sen. John McCain, “He’s trying to suggest that plumber is the guy he’s fighting for,” and after extended laughter from the crowd added, “How many plumbers you know making a quarter million dollars a year?” to more laughter and hoots.
Joe never said he made $250,000 a year. He said he was interested in buying a business (with three employees) that makes $250,000 a year. And as the McCain campaign has rightly pointed out, small businesses making more than $250,000 a year employ 16 million Americans. Sounds something like middle America to me. For comparison’s sake, the Labor Department reports that experienced plumbers charge anywhere from $35 to $150 per hour, depending on where they work, while median income for plumbers in 2002 stood at just over $25 an hour. Auto workers make on average $28 an hour with benefits.
But instead of using this stir to investigate Obama’s definition of middle America or the tax policies of both candidates, MSM decides to investigate Joe. Thanks to AP and The New York Times we know that Joe is not a licensed plumber, that he owes back taxes, and probably before too long we’ll know whether he’s a regular churchgoer and circumcised. As Ed Morrissey points out, “How much longer before a certain blogger at The Atlantic demands a paternity test to see if Joe the Plumber fathered Sarah Palin’s baby — or Bristol’s, for that matter?”
Leaving me with my original question: What’s Obama got against a plumber from Toledo, Ohio? If he’s not the middle-class America Obama says he wants to rescue, then who exactly is?
UPDATE: Read Sen. McCain’s comeback speech about Joe the Plumber in Miami today here.
back to top109 Comments to “Who’s angry now?”
Spread, spread, spread. You know, all these proposals, Senator Government.
And he had an encounter with a guy . . . whose a plumber!
Report comment to moderator
who’s a plumber!
Report comment to moderator
I suppose if what came out of my mouth is the same as what goes into a toilet bowl, I might be averse to plumbers too.
Report comment to moderator
He said he was interested in buying a business (with three employees) that makes $250,000 a year.
No, the business makes $100k and Joe Wurzelbacher makes $40k and doesn’t have a license to do what he says he’s interested in doing in Toledo. He owes $1.2k in taxes, is the single father of a young son, and Joe definitely needs Social Security, health care, and the tax cut he’ll get from Obama but not McCain.
Before coming to our attention, Joe was a feature of right-wing talk radio. He’s an example of tax protest as a form of bragging. Joe needs to talk the way he does in order to do the kind of work he has to do. Joe needs to think that if it were not for the Federal Government blocking his way and picking money out of his pocket, he would be the richest plumber in Ohio.
Report comment to moderator
The words came out of McCain’s potty mouth at the debate.
Report comment to moderator
Joe never said he made $250,000 a year. He said he was interested in buying a business (with three employees) that makes $250,000 a year. And as the McCain campaign has rightly pointed out, small businesses making more than $250,000 a year employ 16 million Americans. Sounds something like middle America to me.
Sounds like a deliberate attempt to sow confusion to me.
Point One: If Joe currently makes less than $250,000 a year, Obama gives him a tax cut. So his question about having to pay more matters only if his income rises above that.
Point Two: His personal income tax is linked to his personal income, not his business’s profits. So judging the effect on a business by what Obama says about personal taxes is a false comparison.
Point Three: And small businesses earning more than $250,000 a year able to pay their taxes and employ those 16 million people.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not averse to toilet bowls or to what is supposed to go through them, nor to plumbers. I loved Fat Bob the Singing Plumber. What came out of his mouth! He sang good and he really was a plumber.
Report comment to moderator
The issue is that Obama has shown himself to be a Marxist idealist:
Joe Wurzelbacher: Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?
Barack Obama: It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Exchange between Barack Obama (presidential candidate) and Joe Wurzelbacher (plumber/businessman in Toledo, Ohio).
Let Joe spread the wealth he earns around.
Report comment to moderator
I say keep piling on Joe. No license? A tax lien? Shocking, absolutely shocking. He must be called to account. He must be stopped. He must be exposed. No expense should be spared in researching Joe’s past and present. Dig, dig, dig and dish the dirt.
End of sarcastic rant.
Really, the reaction to this is simply unbelievable to me. But kind of fun to watch as folks furiously dig themselves such a deep hole. Point is, no one really cares if Joe is flawed (gee, imagine that? A flawed human being. Well I’ve never…).
The more they kick Joe the Plumber around, the more we all identify and sympathy with the guy.
Meanwhile, I guess HE won’t be asking any more questions when candidates come strolling up his front yard from now on. Sad.
Report comment to moderator
Ever wonder what could be dug up on you and spun the wrong way? I guess since no one is perfect this is a great way to shut people you don’t like up.
Report comment to moderator
Economic justice is approached when a higher proportion of the people are able to keep a higher percentage of the fruit of their own honest labor.
___
Slavery is approached when the worker labors for others who get to control the fruit of his/her labor.
_______________
This point & principle is seen in the Bible:
* “The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.” (2 Timothy 2:6).
&&&&
* “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously.” (2 Corinthians 9:6-11).
&&&&
* “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.” 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
&&&&
* “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
&&&&
* “Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:12.
___________
We are rightly responsibile to work, but as free citizens and not as slaves.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know about his state, but I believe in my state, you don’t need a plumber’s license – and you cannot even get one until you have enough experience for it! You apprentice before you become a master plumber. So, Joe not having a license is neither here nor there. Leave the guy alone! Obama should be answer for his Socialist ideals, not making fun of Joe – the very type of person he’s supposedly going to help. Please. His elitism is showing.
Report comment to moderator
Since I believe I brought this up in WMB first.
Frist this is an example of a silly piece of misinformation.
Second, Joe is purely secondary to the discussion. McCain is the protagonist here.
Third: why did McCain create a misleading legence? Now the legend itself is pretty innocuous. But it was so simply checked out that McCain’s teams process for vetting information is seriously in question.
And this is not the first misleading legend during this campaign.
Report comment to moderator
Just because Joe works for a plumber, doesn’t mean that he talks straight, KBELLS. Joe engaged in a political conversation with Obama based on misrepresentations. I don’t blame him. There are lots of Joe’s out there who pretend they will be injured by Democratic policies while they really need them. My point is that Joe’s political notions are incidental to the power of positive thinking he needs to hustle jobs. What Joe needs Republicans for is the fiction that he would be rich if it wasn’t for government in his pocket and in his way.
It’s not condescending to go after Joe about his false pretenses — it’s the political argument.
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 8,
typically Marxist has a precise definition whcih includes the end of the historical dialectic. Virtualy no modern American poluiticians support Marxism.
If you are charging Obama with being Marxist, then produce the documentary evidence.
In the meantime it appears from context that your term Marxist means “I disagree with you”.
Therefore in the spirit of you use of the word, please provide documentary evidence to support your Marxist post.
Report comment to moderator
But this is an interesting commentary on the election.
We have a clear and well documented misrepresentation of what has now beocme part of the election.
Instead of correcting the misrepresentation, the model is to attack those who identify the misrepresentation.
We can indeed see in this an excellent roschrch test for ones concern for truth. And this one is clean, simple and well documented: there is no ambiguity here at all.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone remember those old Comet cleanser TV commercials?
Josesphine – now she was a plumber!
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#14):
No matter how you try to spin it, Joe will probably not be voting for Obama because he has a real complaint about Obama’s Marxist economic plans. It is the same complaint that millions of honest, hard working Americans will register at the polls on Nov 4. Millions of other Americans will vote for Obama handouts—from pockets of other people into theirs.
Obama is a Marxist who wants to be the economic decision maker for every American. He and his gang will decide if you make too much or too little. Then he will take from those he deems make too much and give it to those he decides make too little, thus buying their votes and perpetuating his power.
Very simply, this is what it is all about for the Marxist/Demorat power machine: “If you give me power, I’ll get you money—lots of it.”
Report comment to moderator
Regarding “spreading the wealth” you should really read or listen to the whole conversation.
“For folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don’t mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who’s — things are slow and she can barely make the rent.
My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re going to be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Report comment to moderator
Coyoteblue,
That’s good when it’s my choice to spread my wealth. When it’s the government forcing me to spread my wealth it’s another thing entirely.
Musing,
Thanks for all you dear posts. They have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous today and I needed the laughs.
Report comment to moderator
Telling Joe that his wealth-to-be needs to be spread around s just one more example of Obama’s Marxist leanings.
Report comment to moderator
adio post 20,
perhaps because you have the opportunity to have any liquid wealth because government created this opportunity?
If this wasn’t true, why is government interventioon required to restart the credit markets?
You can measure fairly easily who benefits most form the economu: look at their incomes: those with higher incomes are by defintion benefitting more from an economy which at root is enabled by government.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 21,
and using the standard definition of Marxist in WMB (that is: I disagree with you), I challenge your Marxist statement.
Report comment to moderator
And of course what is interesting is that with the exception of definiton of plumber, no one is challenging the facts of the situation.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s clear the air here: even at $300,000, the plumbing business is nowhere near escaping the realm of small business (the limit is $14 M), so presumably the Obama proposals apply to the business:
Help with health care costs
Elimination of Capital Gains
Greater access to small business loans
And as being afraid on the taxes? Isn’t that what you pay an accountant for?
Off hand, I would say there are more practical benefits for Joe, our potential small business owner.
Report comment to moderator
Just a reminder, boring as it may be:
Top personal income tax rate in 1961–87.5%.
Today–31% give or take 1 or 2.
So there hasn’t been much “spreading” going on over the last 48 years. In fact, less and less of it just about every year.
The guys whose spread really needs to be evaluated are the ones making $25 million, many of whom, incidentally, just drove our economy into the ditch. Does anybody here think it would be a hardship for them to live on a mere $1 million per month. I think most of us could get by quite nicely with a weekly paycheck of $250,000.
As for Joe, he’s McCain’s baby. He chose to introduce him repeatedly into the debate, apparently without even checking out the truth of his claims or his background. He became a weapon in McCain’s hands and now, when the opposing party questions who this guy is, McCain and crowd stand around and shout “How Dare You!”
But McCain is much more interested in giving them and the corporations who paid them these obscene amounts cuts in capital gains and corporate income taxes.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, then attack McCain not Joe.
Report comment to moderator
Musing (#15) writes; “If you are charging Obama with being Marxist, then produce the documentary evidence.”
Okay. He a Democrat!
The main difference between most Democrats and Marxists is that Democrats do NOT want to be called Marxists and the Marxists are honest enough to claim the label.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, advocating the government managed (read, forced) re-distribution of wealth to benefit (in Obama’s words) “everybody who is behind you…” is Marxist.
Report comment to moderator
Who’s angry now?
Bitter white Republicans.
At least, I don’t hear any Democrats calling Joe the Plumber a traitor and terrorist and commie f*ggot who ought to be killed.
Are you trying to draw some false equivalence between all that and an insatiable media digging through Joe’s history?
As I’ve said on another post, Joe’s history is irrelevant to his question. His question was a good one. I find the media frenzy about Joe the Plumber ridiculous, from both angles. It was ridiculous when they were frantically seeking out his opinion as some paragon of middle concerns. It is even more ridiculous now that they’re spreading his private life across pages and pages of wasted paper.
Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment, in context, is not Marxist. Go watch the full exchange, not Fox’s 15 second soundbyte edited to jerk one comment out of context.
Report comment to moderator
(that should be “paragon of middle class concerns”)
Report comment to moderator
Joe claimed he was going to be harmed by Obama’s tax cuts. That he is not has been well demonstrated.
Joe chose to inject himself into the campaign and misrepresented himself and his situation.
Report comment to moderator
Who’s angry now?
Bitter white Republicans.
At least, I don’t hear any Democrats calling Joe the Plumber a traitor and terrorist and commie f*ggot who ought to be killed.
There you go, folks. That answers it. It’s the Republicans who do the screaming and cursing; the Democrats are the sensible ones who do the judging of the screaming and cursing ones. Simple.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN: Obama is a Marxist who wants to be the economic decision maker for every American.
TRANSLATION: Republicans tolerate trickling but oppose spreading as a sort of perverse rebellion against the laws of gravity.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I gotta say this has been an entertaining thread to read, with unintentional laugh lines like, “an economy which at root is enabled by government.”
Let me help all you Dems out here. Ready now? Your guy is going to win. Oh, sorry, let me slow it down. Your. Guy. Is. Going. To. Win. Maybe by a hair, maybe by more, I don’t know, but unless he’s caught on the beach in Dubai with George Bush or something, (and even then, the Only Media That Matters will probably write it as Bush and an unnamed accomplice) he’s gonna win. The Weekly Reader poll and that betting thing in Iowa and the bookmakers in Ireland are rarely wrong (and never all at the same time) so relax.
Accept your victory graciously, knowing that it consists in more people voting for your guy than voting for the other guy, and not, actually, in the success of your endless harangue of every last person in America to See the Light and realize that Joe The Plumber Is a Hapless (And Thieving) Ignoramus Who Doesn’t Know How Glorious Things Will Be Under Obama, But Yet Is Not 1/1000th As Bad As (And Only The Pawn Of, Anyway) The Dirty, Lying, Scheming, Desperate, Bush-Wannabe, Senile McCain.
Just a thought. Enjoy the next four years. Enjoy your (likely) filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Bush will be gone, and it will all be your show. Don’t worry about those dunderheads who cluck and fuss over The Anointed One saying things like “Give your money to me.” He didn’t really mean it, as all the enlightened people know! Or maybe he did, but it will still all work out wonderfully! What does it matter? You’re going to win! Don’t worry about us! Just sit back, relax, and dream of what new twist on “A Time of Healing” Barbra Streisand will come up with at the Inauguration!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah:
If it’s a judgmentalism contest, I’d call that an even split.
But a screaming and cursing contest? Republican landslide.
Both sides can get heated, but in terms of both volume and vitriol, the Right wins by far. Unless you can show me some videos of Obama/Biden rallies that match the kind of rancor I’ve been seeing over the past week or two.
Report comment to moderator
Joe claimed he was going to be harmed by Obama’s tax cuts. That he is not has been well demonstrated.
My understanding of what he he claimed is that he would be harmed by Obama’s tax policies if he succeeds in his aspirations. Could you show me from what he said how I misunderstood him?
Report comment to moderator
“Point One: If Joe currently makes less than $250,000 a year, Obama gives him a tax cut. So his question about having to pay more matters only if his income rises above that.”
Precisely. Joe was complaining about the effects of Obama’s tax plans on his desire to get ahead by working hard and going into business for himself. Obama’s tax plans protect the currently rich, who can afford accountants and tax lawyers to look for all the loopholes, but hinder the upwardly mobile. Keep them poor, keep them humble, and keep them dependent on government largesse.
“Point Two: His personal income tax is linked to his personal income, not his business’s profits. So judging the effect on a business by what Obama says about personal taxes is a false comparison.”
Under current federal tax guidelines most owners of small businesses, being in partnerships or LLCs, derive their personal income from their business’s profits and file their tax returns as individuals.
Report comment to moderator
Obama/Biden rallies
I honestly just read that phrase, accidentally, to myself as Obama bin Laden rallies. Of course, everyone has noticed the similarity between Obama and Osama, but I never noticed or saw it pointed out the connection with Biden and Bi [n La] den.
Report comment to moderator
“The guys whose spread really needs to be evaluated are the ones making $25 million, many of whom, incidentally, just drove our economy into the ditch. Does anybody here think it would be a hardship for them to live on a mere $1 million per month. I think most of us could get by quite nicely with a weekly paycheck of $250,000.”
I’m all in favor, of taking every fraudelent CEO, Congressman, and the like, and prosecuting them. Maybe justice would be a good ole biblical idea of making them repay 5 times what they stole.
However, I think we need to be careful and not stereotype CEOs. There are many that have not run their companies into the ground, who stayed away from these high risk endeavors, and despite their large paychecks, they do run very large businesses that provide lots of jobs, and good products for us all. W. Buffet seems to be a good example, as he stayed out of this mess.
There are very very few people who make that much money and dont work their tails off responsibly to get there.
Its the ones that do it irresponsibly and criminally that we need to be sure to target.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN: No matter how you try to spin it, Joe will probably not be voting for Obama because he has a real complaint about Obama’s Marxist economic plans.
Then let’s talk about your moral objection to “socialism” instead of discussing false assertions about who will be taxed and who won’t be.
In fact, I don’t think you are making an economic argument at all, MICHAEL. Obama’s economic plans could make everybody more prosperous. from Joe the Plumber to T. Boone Pickens. His government spending could generate economic activity that provides individuals with additional revenue that equals or exceeds the size of the median tax increase. There is no metaphysical reason that government intervention, unlike some initiative of XYZ Corp., must be invariably bad.
Rather than an economic argument, I think you are making an ethical choice to organize society around a different plan, even at the cost of your own personal prosperity, and enormous income disparities, boom and bust economic cycles, and civic ruthlessness. You make this choice because you conclude it will make people morally better, even if it only makes very few a lot richer.
Report comment to moderator
The Dems ridicule Joe at their own peril. Talk about walking right into it.
This race is getting tighter.
Report comment to moderator
It’s amazing the liberal onslaught against this man. They must feel pretty threatened.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Donna, a couple polls have the race within a couple of percentage points, which is well within the margin of error. Whoo-hoo!
Report comment to moderator
Peter Leavitt’s favorite source of polling, inTrade.com, has it scored this way:
Obama: 83.9
McCain 16.7
woohoo!
Report comment to moderator
I’m inclined to go with Joel in #8.
OBama said what he meant and meant what he said.
To me then the fact that Joe the Plumber proved not to be what he depicted himself as is really irrelevant.
OBama is the most socialistic of any recent candidate for the Presidency barring Teddy K of course
Report comment to moderator
JJF at #36: To be clear, I think both sides, in style and (more significantly) content, are lousy. I also think it’s a joke in here that people from side A criticize those on side B for being too uncritical of the side B candidate. In *my opinion*, Obama supporters are far more often the side A’s, at least *on this site*. I don’t have any way of knowing whether that’s true in the broader public, but it’s no secret that conservatives aren’t thrilled with John McCain. I think McCain supporters on this site have plenty of shortcomings in their collective political rationale, but it’s the Obama-ites who are more Pollyann-ish about their guy, IMO (sorry to sound pompous but I don’t have time right now to nuance…or spellcheck). I think that attitude accounts for your “Republican lansdlide” comment (again, IMO).
So here are a couple links per your request at 36 (and please note I am by no means a big Michelle Malkin fan):
Obama Rallies Turn Ugly
and referenced within that post (the Malkin link):
Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”
I really don’t believe there’s any “landslide.”
Report comment to moderator
“No, the business makes $100k and Joe Wurzelbacher makes $40k and doesn’t have a license to do what he says he’s interested in doing in Toledo.”
Absolutely none of this is about Joe the Plumber or Mr. Wurzelbacher, and to single out a particular American and laugh at him is just plain stupid. His hypothetical is not, and that’s why they are afraid of Joe the Plumber. To trash Mr. Wurzelbacher in the meantime will backfire on Obama. Evidently, only his supporters are stupid enough to try to trash McCain by trashing a humble American. Wurzelbacher had not said who he will vote for, but if he is mocked, I doubt it will be Obama.
Report comment to moderator
If Republicans had their way, Joe Wurzelbacher might not get to vote!
Joe’s handwriting on his registration card makes it difficult for Ohio to tell whether the second letter of his last name is a “u” or an “o.” Republicans filed a lawsuit calling this potential fraud, and they’re making all kinds of impossible demands which could force Ohio to make Joe and hundreds of thousands of others vote provisionally, if at all.
Fortunately, for Joe, the Supreme Court this afternoon ruled against the Republican Party and in favor of Ohio officials who are perfectly willing to let Joe vote (he voted Republican last time).
Report comment to moderator
“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” —Milton Friedman
“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.” —Ayn Rand
“Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer.” —Ludwig von Mises
“The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else.” —Frederic Bastiat
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 48,
two questions:
1) will Joe pay more or less taxes under the Obama proposal?
- hint: Joe already answered this
2) what is the level of income at which statement 1 would not be true?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah:
There is little comparison between what I’m talking about and the links you provided.
First, none of those statements are made at Obama/Biden rallies. None of them have been endorsed by the candidates. You cannot compare a musician and a comedian with the candidates themselves stirring up angry shouts at a rally. When the candidates themselves do such things, they legitimize the poisonous and irrational anger.
Second, there is a lot of false equivalence going on in those links. Here’s what I mean:
These are completely absurd. One candidate “attacking” another and a protester shouting “You’re a liar” are nothing like suggesting your opponent has dangerous terrorist connections that he’s hiding from the public, stoking fears that he might in fact be in league with America’s enemies.
In fact, the great irony is that the poster sees something wrong with protesting vocally but peacefully, but apparently sees nothing wrong with grabbing a woman’s sign away from her and ripping it up. The evidence he raised to show that Obama supporters are the angry ones (for protesting with a sign) in fact further confirms the opposite (they took and ripped up her sign).
Here’s one more bit of evidence for your “anger and rage” file:
The Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for President for the first time in a century and a half.
We are proud to add Barack Obama’s name to Lincoln’s in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.
The Tribune emphasized their praise for Obama’s character. He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. In proud Illinois fashion, the editorial calls him grounded (perhaps an allusion to wonderful black earth). The Tribune also says Obama is intelligent and “understands.” The Tribune predicts Obama will succeed in his worthy aspiration to measure himself against Lincoln. . . . he will prove it wasn’t so audacious after all.
Congratulations, Senator Obama!
Report comment to moderator
Oh good, I see that RPN is still reading this thread. I’m waiting for a response to my post #37. Thanks in advance.
Report comment to moderator
RRE 37 “My understanding of what he he claimed is that he would be harmed by Obama’s tax policies if he succeeds in his aspirations. Could you show me from what he said how I misunderstood him?”
What I have read is that the business only makes about 100k a year. He would still get a tax cut under Obama if he hits the trifecta: gets a license, becomes a plumber, and buys the business.
I hope to buy Microsoft from Bill Gates next year….
Report comment to moderator
“Congratulations, Senator Obama!”
Indeed! This is great news. Congratulations to Senator Obama!
Report comment to moderator
The Los Angeles Times has just endorsed their first ever Democratic Presidential Candidate too!
Amazing!
Endorsement
Barack Obama for president
He is the competent, confident leader who represents the aspirations of the United States.
11:01 AM PDT, October 17, 2008
Report comment to moderator
Ken at #38: Precisely. Joe was complaining about the effects of Obama’s tax plans on his desire to get ahead by working hard and going into business for himself. Obama’s tax plans protect the currently rich, who can afford accountants and tax lawyers to look for all the loopholes, but hinder the upwardly mobile. Keep them poor, keep them humble, and keep them dependent on government largesse.
Umm … someone making $199,000 as an individual is not poor or dependent on government largesse. Nor is someone making $150,000, or $100,000 or $80,000 or even less.
Asking people who are in the top ranks of earners to contribute a greater percentage to the good of their country than those making less is not an inherently unfair idea.
Ree in #37 described it as being “harmed.” Explain to me how somebody who makes five times what I do even after a tax increase is “harmed” in any way.
Are you familiar with small business contracting programs? Small businesses, and particularly small businesses in certain defined categories, get advantages in federal contracting. But when they succeed and grow beyond the threshhold, they lose those advantages. Are they being “punished” for being successful, or should they be glad they had the help to become successful?
Report comment to moderator
Not what he says he is and owes back taxes? Joe should be running for Congress or something. He would fit right in!
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Explain to me how somebody who makes five times what I do even after a tax increase is “harmed” in any way.
By being punished for his success.
Asking people who are in the top ranks of earners to contribute a greater percentage to the good of their country than those making less is not an inherently unfair idea.
No, but “asking” them isn’t what people object to.
And the idea that the money that’s taken from us by the government necessarily goes to “the good of the country” is the other problem. What in the world has the government done that would cause you to trust them so innately with your money?
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Lumpy, the liberal MSM has endorsed the most socialist presidential candidate ever. So much for your claim of being a conservative Christian . . .
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, who knows what he believes.
Report comment to moderator
OK, being in newspapers, it almost makes me sad to say this …. but
those endorsements? people really don’t pay them much heed.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, get off you high horse and look at your own people. There is some serious scary hate on those sites on post 47. It goes way beyond one guy out of thousands who may or may not have yelled “kill him”.
Report comment to moderator
#27
attack McCain not Joe.
When McCain invoked Joe the Plumber and Obama’s position on taxes, his opponents and the media needed to fact check McCain’s statement on Joe. Hence, his actual name needed to be clarified, his occupation needed to be checked, and his liability on taxes under Obama’s plan needed to be checked. In order to attack McCain, these facets of Joe’s life also became important. His lien and natural law party affiliations are side shows, although the former puts into play how much he actually worries about taxes as he doesn’t pay what he owes anyway.
However, his 15 minutes will hopefully expire soon.
Report comment to moderator
As for labelling, Obama doesn’t come close to a Marxists or socialist. According to
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008 Obama is still on the right side of the political spectrum. The only leftist in the Democratic Party is Dennis Kucinich.
Now this is a socialist party
http://www.nwtndp.ca/principles.html#top
although that was slightly moderate in comparison to their first founding document;
http://www.economics.uwaterloo.ca/needhdata/Regina_Manifesto.html
Report comment to moderator
Who is most likely to cheat?
Obama or McCain?
Report comment to moderator
JJF: You’re not being objective here. Here’s what you’ve said (any emphasis is added by me):
Just that, huh? The set of things that are angry is: Bitter white Republicans. After 8 years of ‘Bush is Hitler’ and HuffPo and ‘He betrayed us!,’* Democrats do not have, nor do they display, anger. Okay.
You say:
You don’t hear…ANY…Democrats saying things like that? You still hold to that after checking the links I posted? Your casual dismissal of those links is pathetic. On that subject, how did you first come to conclude that ‘being angry’ is the thing white Republicans do? What source fed you that info, and did that source ever mention angry Democrats?
and later, you write:
The most you admit is that Democrats get “heated”? C’mon, JJF, just click around the links in 47, or do a relevant Google search. Or you could do this: admit there’s plenty of anger and vitriol from the left, too. And what calculus did you use to quantify the anger and conclude the Republicans have the greater “by far”?
You go on to ask for video specifically from Obama/Biden rallies. I admit the links I posted did not provide video from those rallies, specifically. I should have challenged that meaningless stipulation of yours when I responded. You were the one who said you hadn’t seen any Democrats expressing a certain level of anger. Why restrict evidence to Obama rallies, only? And later you request that I show where Obama/Biden has endorsed any over-the-top rhetoric. So if I’m unable to do that, it proves Democrats aren’t over-the-top angry? (I’d also like to see where McCain or Palin has “endorsed” the kind of vitriol we’re talking about, even though their doing so wouldn’t be proof that “anger and rage” is an exclusively white Republican thing. As if.)
*P.S. Gore was right about Bush betraying us, but Wow could Al get angry.
Report comment to moderator
Sassy-Kassy 62-
Neither of those news outlets have EVER endorsed a Democratic candidate for President until now. NEVER BEFORE.
William F. Buckley’s son has been forced out of National Review for being reasonable and endorsing Obama.
Wick Allison, former publisher and board member of National Review has also endorsed Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Whoa, imagine if all these posts had voices? Talk about cacophonony! Listen up Obama’s lovers, you guys so easily stray from the thesis statement!
Let’s look at Mindy Belz original question again: “What’s Obama got against a plumber from Toledo, Ohio? If he’s not the middle-class America Obama says he wants to rescue, then who exactly is?”
Can any one see that B.O. really has nothing against the plumber from Toledo, OH, except that the poor man makes good distraction. The more non sense B.O. piles up on the plumber the less people pay attention to or even remember his slip of the tongue of “spread your wealth”, or so he hopes. The only problem is that not everyone’s so easily distracted; there are still those who had the right mind to ask “what Joe’s private life has to do w/t your answer, which may reflect your hidden political agenda, Mr. Obama. Let’s hear you talk more about it!” Of course B.O. would not want to divulge that now.
We don’t need to be sophisticated in defining those terms Marxist, socialist or communist. Ask those who’d fled Fidel Castro or Ho Chi Minh’s regime or many other dictators they WILL tell us what “spread your wealth” means.
Capitalist says what’s yours is yours; what’s mine is mine. All the others (Marxist, socialist, communist..) say what’s yours is mine; what’s mine is mine.
Wake up America! Take this from someone who got kicked out from her country b/c a large group of people (wide is the road that leads to destruction) were so enamored w/t the change the communist promised. It was change all right, for the worse! Why hundred thousands of Viet. or of Cuban flooded this country? and still tried to come? There are still time for you (those’re bashing Joe the plumber) to locate a Cuban or Viet & ask what they think of Obama’s policy.
BTW, do you (Obama’s adorers) know that most older people in VN now (yes, those whom he dropped bombs on) would vote for Senator McCain? They hope he’ll win. I hope so too. McCain had spilled blood for this country; not only Obama hasn’t, he’s been so busy covering his hide!
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER 48, I think you’re right. Obama will lose Joe’s vote for sure now. But that’s just ONE vote. B.O. won’t sweat small stuffs. He knows some where, with the help of acorn, someone can register to vote 73 times, or maybe just 42. So, what is but one vote w/t Mr. Wurzelbacher!
Report comment to moderator
Let’s look at Mindy Belz original question again: “What’s Obama got against a plumber from Toledo, Ohio? If he’s not the middle-class America Obama says he wants to rescue, then who exactly is?”
In case you’ve been stuck on Fox News or Drudge all day, Obama aims to help “Joe” just like the rest of us who earn less than a quarter million dollars a year:
Here is video of “Joe” (who hopes to become) the Plumber reluctantly acknowledging he will receive a tax cut under Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Tparsons 71 – 72
Great post – you never know who might be reading what you write.
It might be a whole lot more than one vote, it might be a tidal wave of votes!
Report comment to moderator
Vicky is right.
The more people who know they will be getting a tax cut under Obama, the better.
How many people here earn less than $250,000.00 a year? I bet it’s the majority.
Report comment to moderator
Joe’s hypothetical said the income of the business was $280k, not 250. I heard him say that myself. So yes, if he really had a $280k business, he would pay more. This is NOT about Joe, though our lefty friends seek to diss this guy and mock him, hoping to throw others off the scent. Joe is not a politician, just an ordinary American like you or me. While the non-thinking Obama supporters will buy into the mocking, moe thoughtful ones won’t.
These small businesses employ people, and if he can’t manage to keep his own family going, the owner will work longer hours himself and employ less people. Multiply that business by business. This may appeal to people who are uneducated and don’t know how things work, but they’ll learn when the end result puts them on the unemployment line. And they’re bosses right now are figuring this out and probably speaking their minds. So be careful when you keep dissing Joe the Small Business Owner, because he has a family to feed, too. A lot of people identify with Joe the Plumber.
And to really set you leftys off: what’s this about Minister Farrakhan saying the Nation of Islam is about to get a new start? What’s that about?
Report comment to moderator
TParsons #71- Right on, girl!
RPN- Yes, I earn far less than $250k/year, but there is no way I would ever vote for Barack Obama or any other candidate with socialistic policies, even if he were the only one on the ballot. I would like to earn that much and more, some day, but think it a deterrent to do so if I knew I would get hit with confiscatory taxes just for succeeding. In fact, I am even thinking of voting Bob Barr, just to say I voted for someone I like instead of against someone I do not trust.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t bother about how much Joe makes or whether he’s licensed or all the other irrelevant stuffs.
Just remember the memoriable answer: Spread the wealth, spread the wealth, spread the wealth!
It’s fun & easy to be generous w/t other people’s pocketbook.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you Victoria & Peter L.
But Peter L 77, if you think “right on” for what I wrote, would you please pretty please w/t cherry on top cast your precious vote for McCain/Palin. I’m not too proud to beg. I don’t even know who Bob Barr is (will have to ask my hubby), real or fictional; or you were being faceteous. Just don’t squander your vote.
Remember any vote for anyone else but McCain has the consequence of voting for SOCIALIST in covered up Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Cringe
Too late for voting non-socialist, at least if we’re restricting ourselves to Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Talk about the differences between McBama and O’Cain, and some disagreements may arise. Talk about Ron Paul and you get funny looks. Which one of those guys isn’t a socialist? Which one isn’t already melded into ‘the system’ the way chocolate gets into chewing gum?
If you’re riding a bus destined for a steep cliff, does it matter all that much whether it’s going 90 mph or 100?
Report comment to moderator
“If you’re riding a bus destined for a steep cliff, does it matter all that much whether it’s going 90 mph or 100?”
90 MPH gives you little more time to stop the bus.
Report comment to moderator
#66, HRW,
And when all the fact checking is done, it is still cyrystal clear that Barack Obama has publicly declared his Marxist/socialist leanings and his mission to redistribute the wealth that honest workers have earned. Obama said, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Joe the Plumber just asked a question. Deal with Obama’s answer.
Report comment to moderator
In talking about the quasi-nationalization of banking, George Bush praises our economic system as “democratic capitalism.” Nevertheless, you have to wonder how this crisis-driven effort differs from “democratic socialism” a.k.a. “social democracy.”
The difference is negation and obfuscation. Bush protests that his plan may be dirty, but it’s quick and temporary, and for a good purpose. Bush will take warrants instead of common stock. Warrants lack the naked pornography of command and control you get with common stock. On the other hand, warrants won’t work as well in restoring discipline, and ironically, they may be harder to liquidate when the government wants to get back out.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: The point is, our vote may affect the speed, but not the direction of the bus. Voting *for* 90 mph doesn’t do anything to avert the cliff. A 3rd party vote is wasted? No, a conventional vote is wasted; doesn’t matter if you’re plugging your nose while doing it.
Report comment to moderator
“Spreading the wealth around” means a civic ethic that discourages income maldistribution such as we had in the 1920’s and during the last eight years. Much of this has to do with restoring expectations that economic growth will lift all boats instead of going to the rich while employment and median income decline. Enormous compensation packages at the top end of the economy are a product of a culture of greed that we can stop simply by saying no, by registering our disapproval.
“Spreading” is not a zero-sum game. It means spending tax money to promote economic activity that increases GNP. Since higher incomes always benefit high-end taxpayers, the boost can provide the wealthy with enough money to offset the increase in their taxes. The bottom line is that “spreading” benefits everyone fairly.
Despite efforts of ideological Republicans to pejorate “spreading,” most hard-working Americans think it’s a good idea.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, greed. Brand new phenomenon.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#41), in support of Obama’s socialism/Marxism, writes:
”Obama’s economic plans could make everybody more prosperous. from Joe the Plumber to T. Boone Pickens. His government spending could generate economic activity that provides individuals with additional revenue that equals or exceeds the size of the median tax increase.”
At least it’s marginally truthful that you use the word “could,” because his plans are by no means a sure thing to accomplish the results you hope for. In fact the odds are very much against it. Even a cursory examination of the history of socialism in the last century reveals a dismal economic history. Far more countries have tried and rejected socialism than those who still today limp along in its shackles.
The only ostensible success that socialism enjoys is in its pursuit of its goal of creating an egalitarian society. That is, a society in which everyone is roughly equal in material possessions. Socialism appeals to the worst elements of human nature: envy, covetousness, and greed—disguised as justice. It rides to power on these sentiments as it promises to bring down and punish the rich while giving to the poor. Invariably this is done by government force. In its mildest form it is through forced redistribution of wealth; the government decides who has too much and who has too little and then, by force, takes money from one individual and gives it to someone else (the initial Obama plan). Socialism then often continues in its worst forms by actually confiscating (stealing) all capital and virtually enslaving the entire populace.
Note that I said socialism’s “only ostensible success.” What actually happens in its efforts to create an egalitarian society by force is to bring everyone down to an equal level of misery and poverty. The initial promises and successes of punishing the wealthy rapidly fade to the reality that, rather than creating equal wealth, socialism creates equal poverty. Socialism destroys the incentives of capitalism for personal advancement and creativity. The human spirit is crushed into a mold dictated by the government and the entire society declines into mediocrity at best, or poverty and enslavement at the worst. The ONLY ones who ultimately profit from socialism are the government bureaucrats who run the system, living high off the hog like the Mafia style kingpins of Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc.
America won’t decline into full-fledged socialism overnight, but with Obama’s planned spending increases of $1,000,000,000,000 (that’s $ONE TRILLION), higher taxes for everyone are an absolute certainty. With his usual sophistry he denies this, but such a claim is as believable as his tale that he never knew what his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, had been screeching at 100 decibels for 20 years.
Drastically increasing taxes will not bring about prosperity. Such a move will destroy prosperity. Governments, with the taxes they confiscate don’t create truly productive jobs. They just steal capital from the truly efficient producers and then mismanage it to bring about lousy results. The history of socialism around the world unmistakably confirms this. American capitalism, on the other hand, has raised the standard of living of everyone in this country far more than what socialism could ever dream of doing. People around the world literally risk their lives to come here for those benefits. The socialists, on the other hand, have to build walls and shoot people to keep them from fleeing their “benevolent” rule.
Another disturbing factor about Obama’s march to socialism, is what this is going to do to our military and national security. Both will suffer tremendously under a potential Obama administration. But, this is just fine with the Marxist/socialist left.
There are many of Obama’s friends on the left who truly hate America. They are more than willing to use violence and physical destruction in order to punish us and bring about the change they desire. Just how many of his friends are in that camp is hard to tell. Certainly, one who screams out, “G** D*** America,” is reasonably suspect. Obama’s friend William Ayers is, without a doubt, solidly in that violent camp. He has already participated in the bombing and killing of Americans he hates and he still wishes he had done more. These people love Obama because he promises the change they desire. The only difference between them is Obama’s deceitful smile and rhetoric vs. their guns and bombs. They seek the same change, just by different methods.
Another group who would like to see Obama become President is the terrorist group Hamas and others of their ilk in the Islamic world. Hamas has publicly endorsed him for President, and for good reason. Just as Hamas desires, Obama will surrender in the war on terrorism as soon as possible. His rhetoric that he will pursue Osama in Afghanistan and Pakistan is as deceitful as his claim that he opposes abortion and supports the right to choose at the same time. What he says (for political support) is entirely different from what he actually does. Those Americans who stupidly believe that he has any genuine concern for infant children will also stupidly believe that he actually intends to seriously oppose our terrorist enemies.
Obama will do as every Democratic administration since Jimmy Carter has done. Our military force will be cut to the bone to provide more money for his vote-buying domestic spending programs. This will be the first and highest priority for an Obama administration. Not only will our active forces be slashed, but funds for research and development, and weapon acquisition will be decimated. With the extremely long lead times required for the development and acquisition of modern weapons, our enemies will be assured that any future confrontation will find our military understaffed, ill-equipped, and far less effective in opposing them. Perhaps we won’t even have the will or the capacity to fight. Again, this will be just fine with the America-hating left.
Musing, your assertion that Obama’s socialistic economic plans “could” make everyone more prosperous is pure fantasy. Besides the realities that I have already mentioned, the probability is that his tax sledge hammer will turn a normal recession into a full-blown, 1930’s type DEPRESSION.
But then again, that may well be what the left wants. With the complicity of the media they control, they will masquerade as our saviors and, like FDR, march in on their black horse to save us all. Obama’s messiah mystique will serve that purpose very well. Be prepared for giant pictures of our messiah plastered on billboards and building walls, just as we see of the “glorious leaders” of other socialist gulags around the world. Time magazine is already well into that propaganda technique: seven out of ten of it covers so far in 2008 have been devoted to praising Obamessiah.
Report comment to moderator
Obama=Socialist Democrat; McCain=Semi-socialist Republican. I cannot really see much difference. Either way the government spends us into oblivion and we all learn Chinese.
TParsons- Bob Barr is a former Republican conservative who was a congressman from Georgia. He is running for President on the Libertarian ticket. While I do not agree with some of the Libertarian platform, I like Bob Barr. If only those far right conservatives and conservative democrats who are fed up with the poor choices the two parties give would vote for a third party, then perhaps both parties would open their eyes and give us better candidates. Jimmy Carter was bad, Bill Clinton was tolerable, but either was better than Obama looks to be. GHW Bush was bad, GW Bush has been tolerable, but McCain just looks to be a little better than the two. Give us a Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan. If the Republicans would get rid of open primaries and stick to Republican only voters in the primaries, then we would have Romney or Huckabee right now, and Obama would be way behind.
The only thing that will get me to vote for McCain is the fact that there are probably going to be two or three SCOTUS appointments in the next few years. I cannot imagine how far left appointees by Obama would be. I am afraid McCain would pick another O’Conner, Souter or Kennedy, Republican appointees who turned out to be closet leftists. He has said he would appoint justices like Thomas, Roberts or Alito, so he has that going for him. But his weak answer to the question at the last “debate” had me scratching my head.
Well, this post has gottene much longer than it needs to be, so I’ll close it. God is in control, so vote for whomever you fell is best for the country, and pray that GOd has mercy on us either way.
Report comment to moderator
Dittos to what Peter wrote in post #88.
Report comment to moderator
When social democrats such as Obama talk about “spreading the wealth” they are talking about fair income distribution, not about wealth redistribution nor about taking away the assets of some persons and giving them to others.
Assets are wealth that we hold more or less by ourselves. Social democrats don’t touch this. Income is different. Income is our share of the products of social endeavor, and it is determined by circumstances and the efforts of others as well as by our own efforts. Subsistence hunter-gatherer-farmer-artisans pay nada. But for the rest of us worker bees, government like a queen bee properly collects a franchise fee in the form of income tax on people’s participation in the hive, because of society’s fundamental role in creating and sustaining the organized economy.
Report comment to moderator
Even a cursory examination of the history of socialism in the last century reveals a dismal economic history.
In the whole world as well as within the western countries more or less organized around the principles of social democracy, high levels of personal income and good quality of life are directly correlated with taxation.
Report comment to moderator
Obama said, “It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Joel#82 read the middle line; “I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success. ” Its quite clear that Obama is talking about equal opportunity not equal wealth. When you spread the ability to earn income and generate wealth, it is better for everyone. When opportunity is given out in unequal amounts, democracy suffers and in the long term capitalism collapses.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin
Socialism appeals to the worst elements of human nature: envy, covetousness, and greed—disguised as justice.
or you could say it appeals to best elements of human nature: compassion, fairness, and justice.
he initial promises and successes of punishing the wealthy rapidly fade to the reality that, rather than creating equal wealth, socialism creates equal poverty.
Yes, Sweden is such a poor country.
Socialism destroys the incentives of capitalism for personal advancement and creativity.
Since the majority of today’s research and development is done in publicly funded universities, I’d say state directed incentives are doing a fair job. For example; the US military continues to invent new ways to kill efficiently.
The human spirit is crushed into a mold dictated by the government and the entire society declines into mediocrity at best, or poverty and enslavement at the worst.
As in any form of gov’t the result produced by gov’t directions depends on the gov’t itself not the economic system it intends to employ.
Governments, with the taxes they confiscate don’t create truly productive jobs. They just steal capital from the truly efficient producers and then mismanage it to bring about lousy results.
And the Bush tax cuts have produced how many jobs? Taxes allow gov’ts to create the infrastructure and regulation needed for any economic system to succeed. The “night watchmen” state is a nice theory but in reality it produces economic chaos.
American capitalism, on the other hand, has raised the standard of living of everyone in this country far more than what socialism could ever dream of doing.
Actually, the greatest rise in America standard of living and the expansion of the middle class occurred in the 1950s due to the expanssion of the federal gov’t as the result of the New Deal and war time economic intervention.
The socialists, on the other hand, have to build walls and shoot people to keep them from fleeing their “benevolent” rule.
– right — just yesterday I heard that the Swedes are laying even more mines along their coast line to stop the flow of ships leaving.
After typing Venezuela refugee crisis in Google the first hit was a news story ab refugees crossing into Venezuela from Columbia — America’s best friend in South America.
William Ayers … has already participated in the bombing and killing of Americans he hates and he still wishes he had done more
Actually Ayers had dropped out of the Weather Underground prior to their shoot out with the police. Ayers is not responsible for any deaths.
Hamas has publicly endorsed him for President, and for good reason.
If Hamas had endorsed McCain, you would claim it was a tactic designed to scare voters away from McCain and to Obama.
our enemies will be assured that any future confrontation will find our military understaffed, ill-equipped, and far less effective in opposing them.
I think the Bush administration already did that.
Besides the realities that I have already mentioned, the probability is that his tax sledge hammer will turn a normal recession into a full-blown, 1930’s type DEPRESSION.
except the Depression developed from a period of unregulated casino capitalism combined with an inactive gov’t response. Although the first part has been repeated, we can avoid the second mistake.
Time magazine is already well into that propaganda technique: seven out of ten of it covers so far in 2008
Time is a weekly so its had more than 10 covers
Report comment to moderator
After 8 craptastic years, I’m quite willing to try something else. I guess if you can’t defend your own guy’s economic record, you label the opponent’s as “socialism” and start an academic debate on the merits of an abstract economic theory.
But since we want to talk about socialism, lets. Spending 700 billion dollars to bail out Wall Street is socialism for the rich. It’s even worse than socialism — they get to keep the profits, but we all get stuck with the losses. Nationalizing banks (Sec. Paulson’s new plan) is socialism. McCain’s hastily announced plan to buy bad mortgages is socialism. If you want the non-socialist candidate, vote Bob Barr.
But while you fret about socialism ruining our country, people who really ought to know — economists, secretaries of state, diplomats — overwhelmingly endorse Barack Obama. I’ll trust them over someone who still insists that George W. Bush has done a stand-up job that will be vindicated by history.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah:
I stand by my comments.
There’s an effort by some on the Right to minimize Republican anger and dismiss McCain’s reprehensible appeal to his angry base by creating a false equivalence between Right and Left. This post on WMB is one thrust in that attack. Here’s the subtext:
I don’t dispute that each party has an angry fringe. But the Republican’s is wider, is angrier, and is being intentionally appealed to by the McCain-Palin campaign.
That last point is the most significant, and not at all a “meaningless stipulation.” If it were just the loonies of each party being loony, that would be one thing. But it’s something entirely different for the McCain campaign to intentionally appeal to the angry wing of its base. Palin’s rallies would be the equivalent of Barack Obama appearing before an all black crowd and shouting about how white folks oppress them.
I do not mean to say that all Republicans are angry, or that no Democrats are angry. But this year, the Republicans are angrier and their campaign is more willing to use that as political tool. I’m not alone in recognizing this.
Report comment to moderator
Further evidence of the unprecedented anger the McCain campaign is stoking this season:
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin, conservatives since Reagan have persuaded may people like you with the argument that government cannot “solve every problem.” Nothing wrong with that, so far as it goes. Your mistake is to jump from a reasonable insight to the conclusion that government cannot make anything better and by necessity can only make everything worse. This expresses a metaphysical belief that the quality of government is fixed. I think you are drawing on theology rather than history, and what you are really doing is trying to give the gospel an assist, like the unfortunate fellow who reached out his hand to steady the toppling ark of the covenant. `
Consider this recent history, from Friedman’s NYTimes column:
Around 2002, Iceland began to free its banks from state ownership. According to The Wall Street Journal, the three banks that make up almost the entire banking system in Iceland “grew quickly on easy credit” and “their combined assets rose tenfold in five years.” The Icelandic banks, while not invested in U.S. subprime mortgages, had gone on their own borrowing and lending binges, wooing savers from across Europe with 5.45 percent interest savings accounts. In a flat world, money can easily seek out the highest returns, and when word got around about Iceland, deposits poured in from Britain — some $1.8 billion. Unfortunately, though, when global credit markets closed up, and the krona fell, “the Icelandic banks were unable to finance their debts, many of which were denominated in foreign currencies,” The Times reported. When depositors rushed to get their money out, the Icelandic banking system had too little reserves to cover withdrawals, so all three banks melted down and were nationalized.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, we could play this tit for tat all day. Like I could send you to a site where the RNC had to redirected funds previously allocated for get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts — totaling at least two millions dollars — for 24-hour security at volunteer centers across the country.
But the real difference is that I don’t expect Sen. Obama to back off on what he believes in because some nut might use it to justify doing something nutty. I believe in personal responsibility and the nut is responsible for his own actions.
Report comment to moderator
JJF, what Kbells said. Also, it’s hard to follow you all over the map. Didn’t you write, “I don’t hear any Democrats calling Joe the Plumber a traitor and terrorist and commie f*ggot who ought to be killed”? Is that one of the comments you’re standing by? You haven’t heard ANY Democrat equivalent of that stuff? If the alleged McCain/Palin *support* of such statements is what you were basing your indignation on, why didn’t you include that in the comment? And for a guy who’s hung up on “false equivalence,” your charge that “Palin’s rallies would be the equivalent of Barack Obama appearing before an all black crowd and shouting about how white folks oppress them” is a bit of a stinker. How the “evidence” you provide in 96 is supposed to support that charge, I have no idea.
Unfortunately you don’t recognize it, but your chauvinistic view of things is precisely what’s wrong with political debate in this country now. You probably also don’t recognize that in that regard, you fit right in with many of your WMB counterparts on the other side of the spectrum. I used to think differently of you, but now I have a tear rolling slowly down my cheek.
Report comment to moderator
Ever wonder what could be dug up on you and spun the wrong way?
I’m always worried someone will found out I post on WMB.
MIM: Socialism appeals to the worst elements of human nature: envy, covetousness, and greed—disguised as justice.
Then why did the early church practice?
Acts 2:44-45
44And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Obama is certainly not socialist by biblical standards!
Report comment to moderator
KBells:
I don’t expect John McCain to back off of any issue he believes in because it might send some crazy off the deep end. I do expect John McCain and Sarah Palin to back off suggesting that Obama has terrorist sympathies. This is not an “issue,” it is a planned (and even announced) character assault that they both know is false.
When America is fighting communism, it is a grave accusation to suggest that an opponent is a communist. When America is fighting terrorism, it is a grave accusation to suggest that an opponent is a terrorist (or has ties, inclination, or secret plans in that direction). The accusation is even more incendiary when made in front of a crowd of people that largely believes your opponent is secret a radical Muslim.
Yeah:
I’ll dispense with any haughty above-the-fray act and admit that of course I want people to think well of me. But I’m not going to change my posts in order to be better liked, and frankly I think it manipulative of you to use your lost regard for me as a weapon in a debate. I do hope that I will win back that regard in some future post.
“I don’t hear any Democrats” was a bit of hyperbole. I clearly acknowledged that some Democrats say hateful things.
Do McCain and Palin support those comments? (1) They stoke the angry fringe by questioning Obama’s loyalties at their rallies, then (2) they do not repudiate the angry shouts from the crowd. I am sure John McCain does not believe Barack Obama is a terrorist, and I know that he has since taken the microphone from a lady at one of his rallies and told her, “No, ma’am, he is a decent family man.” He was booed for it by his own crowd (yet one more evidence of the seething undercurrent of rage in the Republican party), and I credit him for doing it.
Finally, I’m not sure what kind of evidence one could offer in support of a hypothetical analogy (that McCain/Palin’s rallies would be like Obama stoking a black crowd to race rage). I offer it by way of comparison. They both seem to me cases of manipulating the distrust, fear, and stereotypes of a crowd for your own political gain. If you see significant differences, I’d be glad to hear them.
Report comment to moderator
There is no comparable “tit for tat” between the Democratic campaign and the Republican campaign. The anger is coming from the Republican side. The outrageous charges and name-calling is coming from the Republican side. Just today Obama went into a restaurant to shake hands and a McCain backer started shouting “Socialist! Socialist!”. Where did she learn that? From John McCain and Sarah Palin. I heard a conservative talk show host screaming into the mic “He’s a traitor! He’s a Communist! America will be totally destroyed if Obama is elected!”. The Republicans are coming unhinged. I don’t think the American people are going to fall for it.
Report comment to moderator
101 and 102. There is a tit for tat. Clearly nothing will dissuade youse of that, but we have the internet now; we can research these things. So, best of luck in your future endeavors.
Report comment to moderator
SPIN, – 100
Spin, the early church is NOT our government – The Church in Acts were ALL Believers in Jesus Christ, they weren’t a government, they were a “CHURCH” – Because they were all Believers they wanted to share what they had.
Many un-Believers read this verse, most likely on a website, or a blog and are thrilled toot-plus over the possibility that we can take that Scripture which you posted above and apply it to this country and embrace socialism as though its Scriptural, but that is not the case.
Report comment to moderator
I appreciated Michael Martin’s post at #87 enough to quote him a few more times:
___________
“Socialism appeals to the worst elements of human nature: envy, covetousness, and greed—disguised as justice.”
___________
“What actually happens in [socialism's] efforts to create an egalitarian society by force is to bring everyone down to an equal level of misery and poverty.”
___________
“The ONLY ones who ultimately profit from socialism are the government bureaucrats who run the system…”
___________
“Be prepared for giant pictures of our messiah plastered on billboards and building walls, just as we see of the “glorious leaders” of other socialist gulags around the world.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel
As I rebutted most of his statements, repeating them doesn’t make it true unless you can offer more more logical rationale for his premises than he did.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Your rebuttals fell short. I repeated those quotes because I think they are insightful and accurate, and they speak for themselves and don’t need a lot of verbage from me.
Report comment to moderator
How quickly the argument from authority degenerates into the argument by repetition.
Report comment to moderator
HRW (#93):
Having described yourself as an “anarchist socialist” in the “Meet the Regulars” section of this blog, your delusional nonsense is a little more understandable, in sort of a clinical, psychiatric sense, that is.
You offer the delusion that Obama’s pursuit of socialism is based on positive appeals to fairness, compassion and justice. On the contrary, Obama’s acknowledged political tutor during his days as a community organizer in the sewers of Chicago politics was a rabble-rouser by the name of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky’s tactics centered upon appeals to the base elements of human nature such as envy and greed:
Alinsky’s only appeal to justice was to stir up anger—the traditional Marxist and Democrat class warfare tactic. Socialism has envy, greed and hate in its very DNA, from the French Revolution, to the Communist Revolution, to Obama and his friends Alinsky, Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright.
As for the compassion you claim for your socialist/Marxist comrades, consider these revealing figures:
Barack Obama’s “compassion” is not much better. In 2007 his personal income was $4.13 million with a charitable giving of a meager 5.8%.
In 2007 John McCain’s adjusted gross income was $386,527 with charitable givings of $105,467, or 27.3% of income. His wife Cindy files separately and we have no way of knowing how much she gives. However, considering her worldwide charitable medical work, the McCain’s adoption of a child from Mother Theresa’s Bangladesh orphanage, her giving is probably substantial. Their compassion is quiet and genuine.
Compare that to the bloviated rhetoric of Obama and Biden whose stingy actions do not match their deceitful words. The compassion and generosity they demand is what they can plunder from the American people with their Marxist/socialist taxation schemes.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!