Joe the Liar

[Malerin]

Because when someone says "I want to set the record straight" it is a correction to the original statement and/or a correction to misinterpretations of the original statement. It is not an admission of lying, but an attempt to clarify things (which may have gotten out of hand). Which is good.

Wrong. Having been caught in a lie, Joe backpedals furiously. You can dress it up with "clarifications" all you want, but Joe lied. He is NOT "getting ready" to buy ANY company (blatant lie) and he either doesn't know the revenue of the company he wants to "buy" (ignorance), or LIED about said company's revenue to try and put Obama on the spot.

The only question is whether Joe lied twice when he talked to Obama, or he's just a liar and an idiot.

 

[mhaze]

I think what everyone misses, is that who Joe the plumber really is doesn't matter. What mattered was Obama's answer. It would have been just another day on the campaign trail if Obama hadn't given a very marxist answer to him.

So now we're out to demonize a guy who asked a fair question because he got a bad answer.

Less brown shirts plz.

Oh, they don't miss it...

Perhaps what outrages smug JREF leftists is the unmitigated vision of a lowly plumber, that he might dare discuss actively constructing his future...

In which by his hard work, he earns a multiple of what they do.

Wrong. Having been caught in a lie, Joe backpedals furiously. You can dress it up with "clarifications" all you want, but Joe lied. He is NOT "getting ready" to buy ANY company (blatant lie) and he either doesn't know the revenue of the company he wants to "buy" (ignorance), or LIED about said company's revenue to try and put Obama on the spot.

The only question is whether Joe lied twice when he talked to Obama, or he's just a liar and an idiot.

Having been caught in a lie, Malerine backpedals furiously....

 

[geni]

I think what everyone misses, is that who Joe the plumber really is doesn't matter. What mattered was Obama's answer. It would have been just another day on the campaign trail if Obama hadn't given a very marxist answer to him.

Is that what you think or what republican part wants you to think. Either way it is completely absurd. The marxist answer would be far longer and would have used the term "Petite bourgeoisie" several times.

Not even hard socialism really where the answer would have been to suggest that the company should be run as a workers coperative (not a completely insane idea in some cases).

 

[Upchurch]

I think what everyone misses, is that who Joe the plumber really is doesn't matter. What mattered was Obama's answer.

{snip}

So now we're out to demonize a guy who asked a fair question because he got a bad answer.

I don't think anyone has argued that it wasn't a bad answer. It was a freakin' awful answer. He should have known better.

It was not, however, a fair question. The purchase price of a business is not taxable income and would not have been applicable to the $250K transition point. A business worth $250K+ does not make $250K annual net income and would not have met the $250K transition point.

It was a bad answer to a dumb question.

 

[mr rosewater]

Wrong. Having been caught in a lie, Joe backpedals furiously. You can dress it up with "clarifications" all you want, but Joe lied. He is NOT "getting ready" to buy ANY company (blatant lie) and he either doesn't know the revenue of the company he wants to "buy" (ignorance), or LIED about said company's revenue to try and put Obama on the spot.

The only question is whether Joe lied twice when he talked to Obama, or he's just a liar and an idiot.

I wish more people could read these post to see what kind of people support Senator Obama

 

[geni]

Oh, they don't miss it...

Perhaps what outrages smug JREF leftists is the unmitigated vision of a lowly plumber, that he might dare discuss actively constructing his future...

It's called realism. Unless he finds some way to play off his 15 mins of fame joe isn't going to have an income of $250K any time soon (unless inflation gets really problematical.

In which by his hard work, he earns a multiple of what they do.

Unlikely. Joe probably works hard yes but his earnings are likely to be typical for his profession (indeed he as already droped out of one method of professional progression back in 2003). Plumbers don't earn $250K a year.


Incerdentaly the hard working farmers of the US thankyou for keeping the bulk price of straw high.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

This weekend the NY Times had an article that without knowing the particular's of Joe's situation, but taking into account an average, small business making $250K per annum, Joe would actually pay less in taxes with Obama's plan than he would under the current tax scheme. Granted, he would pay more than he would with McCain's plan, but he'd still be better off than what is currently the situation.

The link: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/10/17/us/20081017_JOE_GRAPHIC.html

 

[geni]

I wish more people could read these post to see what kind of people support Senator Obama

Ones who belive that reality (with its admittedly well known liberal bias) is of some importance?

 

[mr rosewater]

Ones who belive that reality (with its admittedly well known liberal bias) is of some importance?

Your right the question should have been how he intents to pay off any of the current 10 - 11 trillion national debt without raising taxes on all of us? Or if he intends to address the problem? How will he address SS and medicare without raising taxes on all of us? And how he'll pay for all the new goodies he'll give us without raising taxes on all of us? The fact is he has to raise taxes on all of us. But this is a derail this thread is about beating up on some poor guy from Ohio.

 

[Meadmaker]

The problem with this whole 'Joe the Plumber' thing is that it is pretty much dishonest at every level. Even as a hypothetical scenario of a middle class small businessman, it is in no way realistic. The myth of Joe the Plumber is one of a very successful businessman who is a moron when it comes to running a business.

I don't think so. I think the myth of Everyman Joe is that there is someone who doesn't have much money now, and works at a trade, but has ambitions of one day owning a business and being wealthy running it.

That isn't dishonest. It may not be realistic for most people, but it is not a lie. Of all the people who have such aspirations, few will ever achieve them, but the ones who achieve them are real people, and the ones that have the aspirations are real people.

The press is questioning the validity of that straw man and it is being perceived as attacking 'everyman Joe'.

I think they are perceived as attacking Joe the Plumber when they say that he owes back taxes. The fact that this particular plumber owes back taxes, or doesn't have a license, or doesn't make much money, is in no way an attack on "everyman Joe". It is an attack on this particular example of Joe the Plumber. It's quite personal as applying to this one guy who asked the question.

What then is the proper method of exposing this fallacy?

I think the proper thing to do is to point out that the Obama plan does not tax business revenue. If people, like the hypothetical future successful Joe, do indeed become wealthy, Obama will indeed raise their taxes. However, they have to become extremely wealthy before this kicks in, and Democrats, which includes me, are perfectly ok with making wealthy people pay more taxes.

In other words, the error behind Joe's question was that Obama would tax him as he struggled to build his business. That's not true. Obama won't tax him while he's growing, and Obama won't tax the revenue that he pumps back into the business. However, if he builds it to the point that he is actually bringing money in by the bucketload, then Obama will rais his taxes.


Meanwhile, leave the real Joe alone. He's just some plumber with a dream. Probably not a realistic dream, but most dreams aren't realistic.

 

[DavidJames]

The fact is he has to raise taxes on all of us.

Don't forget socialist and terrorist. You wouldn't want to misrepresent your parties campaign talking points.

 

[geni]

Your right the question should have been how he intents to pay off any of the current 10 - 11 trillion national debt without raising taxes on all of us?

I understand that the concept of raiseing taxes on sections of the population is well established. Britian used it to pay for the construction of most of it's lighthouses for example.

Or if he intends to address the problem? How will he address SS and medicare without raising taxes on all of us? And how he'll pay for all the new goodies he'll give us without raising taxes on all of us? The fact is he has to raise taxes on all of us.

No he can raise taxes on some of you, he can cut spending in certian areas, he can wait for things to improve before doing stuff.

 

[mr rosewater]

Don't forget socialist and terrorist. You wouldn't want to misrepresent your parties campaign talking points.

I have no interest in seeing either of these gentleman elected, nor the rest, thanks for the jab I've come to expect it here.

 

[DavidJames]

I have no interest in seeing either of these gentleman elected, nor the rest, thanks for the jab I've come to expect it here.

I apologize for lumping you in as I did.

 

[Peephole]

And yet, following the debate, Zogby reports that Obama's poll lead has shrunk. It's down to three points today. What happened? Well, the only thing to come out of the debate was "Joe the Plumber". So what could it have been to sway the polls?

Obama's lead in Zogby's poll before the debate was 5%. Today it's 5,4%.

Nothing changed. Zogby is a horrible pollster by the way.

 

[applecorped]

Meanwhile, leave the real Joe alone. He's just some plumber with a dream. Probably not a realistic dream, but most dreams aren't realistic.

Most dreams are realistice.

 

[Cicero]

So, I plan to not worry. Colin Powell, and, more significant, the Chicago Tribune have endorsed in the last couple of days.

***.."We endorsed McCain in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq."..***
The Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story

Now The Tribune is for Obama because he shares McCain's Iraq War policy?

 

[Malerin]

***.."We endorsed McCain in the Republican primary in Illinois. In part because of his persuasion and resolve, the U.S. stands to win an unconditional victory in Iraq."..***
The Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story

Now The Tribune is for Obama because he shares McCain's Iraq War policy?

That was before the economy imploded. The Tribune, like nearly everyone else in the country, is probably more worried about the economy than Iraq. Mccain acquitted himself very poorly during the economic crisis.

 

[Cicero]

That was before the economy imploded. The Tribune, like nearly everyone else in the country, is probably more worried about the economy than Iraq. Mccain acquitted himself very poorly during the economic crisis.

Both McCain and Obama voted for the government bailout. I guess the Tribune was for that? Is the "crisis" over? Gas prices are falling. The stock market is climbing again. It sure seems the Tribune has a mercurial editorial ideology. They supported T.R only when he was a Bull Moose Party candidate. Strange.

 

[Upchurch]

Before we get too derailed...

I think they are perceived as attacking Joe the Plumber when they say that he owes back taxes.

I concede that point. That is not at all relevant.

However:

The fact that this particular plumber owes back taxes, or doesn't have a license, or doesn't make much money, is in no way an attack on "everyman Joe".

All this, plus his obvious lack of understanding of how businesses and taxes work, undercut the plausibility of the situation he presented.

As I said earlier, even a hypothetical "Joe the Plumber" who does have a license, who makes a lot of money, and is preparing to purchase an existing plumbing business, Obama's personal income tax plan would not be a concern. (except for, perhaps, ideological reasons should he lean that way)

It would be the equivalent of presenting "Steve the Homeless Guy" who makes $250K a year. Steve will have higher taxes under Obama. That's right! Obama wants to raise taxes on the homeless!

ETA: On second thought, that's not quite good enough because it would be true that Steve's taxes would raise. Rephrase that as "Steve the Homeless Guy" who has $250K in savings.

Meanwhile, leave the real Joe alone. He's just some plumber with a dream. Probably not a realistic dream, but most dreams aren't realistic.

The problem is that McCain has presented, and continues to present, the real Joe as being a real example of the "Joe The Plumber" myth.