Hi Leauki,

Lets assume he is legit and is a real taxpayer.  This point I think was one that involved taxes and who should get tax relief.  Sen. Obama is pandering to the middle class.  He used the phrase about income redistribution.  I wouldn't have done so.  I would have, and do, stand on the principle of a balanced budget and good fiscal policy. 

Borrowing huge amounts of money from countries who really do not like us is not wise.  Borrowing huge amounts of money against a smaller income is not wise in any case.  So, who gets to pay the bill?  All I hear is that big business wants more and more tax relief.  Others think we can and should cut entitlements.  Really?  Like what?  I mean the conservatives have already given big business the deepest tax cuts ever.  We have had wave after wave of welfare reform.  Every social support system I know of is suffering: public health, mental health, education, housing, poverty programs.  

What we haven't done is gone after the two largest sacred cows: the military-industrial complex and social security, although the Republicans sure seemed to want to give that Social Security a shot in Bush's earlier term (remember that...lets put retirement in the hands of Wall Street?) while at the same time outspending every predecessor in military terms. While at the same time having an absolutely abysmal record in terms of supporting veteran's programs.

I think we need to get real and quit whining. Fat cats are going to have to go on a diet. They will have to figure out how to be creative with what they have: those who are slim will have to get to work and figure out how to get fat.  But in any case, we have got to deal with our fiscal policy.

And McCain has admitted he hasn't really got a clue about that.

Be well.

Two replies:  First, I am 62 years old and I became a priest after I retired from a very long career as a private practice therapist and CEO of a large mental health services corporation. I believe I have paid my fair share of corporate, federal, state and local taxes in my lifetime.  Second, I am a monk without a temple.  I have no tax exempt status.

Thanks for your attempt to undermine my credibility.

Actually, I think it is very wise. It forces those countries to like you. It's the countries you do like that you shouldn't owe money to.

I prefer owing money to people I don't care about over owing money to friends.

Hm...

Honestly---who cares, can't someone be mentioned "in the news" without someone else looking to immediately discredit him.  Joe never claimed to be a saint, model or anything else.  He's just an average guy who happened to ask a campaigning individual a question.

Thanks so much for the info----you and the matress police!

joa

It's not an attempt to undermine your credibility. You said you have paid your fair share of taxes. Sweet! I guess we all get to make that decision if you can. I decide that my 20+ years in the workforce is equal to my share of the taxes that are required of me. 

The truth is, you no longer pay taxes. Why do you care what the other suffering Joes are burdend with? You don't have to. As long as the Gubment has money to pay you in SS I am pretty sure you don't care. 

As a CEO in your working days: 1. Accounting for inflation, would you (or your company) have been effected by Obama's 250K floor on tax hikes? 2. Would you still agree with them if theproposed tax hikes forced you to lay off employees to keep your business profitable?

How about left elitist with a soap box?

LOL!

About money:

Actually, while not always possible,  I prefer not owing money at all on the one hand, and living within my means (almost always possible), on the other.

Be well.

John, I think you should quit making assumptions.  You indicated thsat as a priest I had not paid taxes but was/am willing to ask others to pay their fair share.   I simply ciorrected you.  The thing is, I was 70 percent disabled from wounds received in combat at 17 and still managed to get a high school GED, a BA, a masters and a Ph.D, grow a company and pay taxes.  At some point in life, I believe one should be able to retire, don't you?

As to my tax situation.  I still pay taxes.  I have two income producing properties and other investments.  While my disability income in not taxable, other income is.  Would I support paying more taxes?  Yes. I vote yes to most property tax incereases, school bond issues (I own four houses so I do pay substantial taxes on those properties, etc..  What I am REALLY tired of is pissy conservatives wanting less and less obligation for their country while they bloviate patriotism till they are blue in the face.

[quote]As a CEO in your working days: 1. Accounting for inflation, would you (or your company) have been effected by Obama's 250K floor on tax hikes? 2. Would you still agree with them if theproposed tax hikes forced you to lay off employees to keep your business profitable?[/quote

Yes.  We were netting about a million a year. I would still agree with tax hikes.  I have a deep sense of commitment to my country and want to see it financially solvent.

I am not sure how to make this happen without increasing taxes and decreasing spending.

About being an elitist.  An elitist is one who stands above or outside it all...at least in their mind...I am a monk who actually involves himself with people, real people, including those who come through our community soup kitchen.  Left leaning?  I think so.

Do you really see JU as a soap box?  I see it as a wonderful opportunity for dialogue.

Be well.

Be well.

JOA,

LOL...btw, what are matress police?

See ya.

The guy who asked the question is not even close to the issue here.  The issue is the answer that Obama gave--he knew absolutely nothing about the guy when he answered his question. Obama was caught in an accidental, unscripted moment of honesty, and he blurted out his real agenda.  That's what happened.  Joe's credentials are a hundred percent meaningless.

Except to the media wolves who have no interest whatsoever in Bill Ayers.  Their lack of curiosity about all things Obama is so blatant.  And of course the topic of discussion on the MSM evening news shows is not 'What did Obama mean by that?' but 'Who the hell is Joe Plumber?'  The media sycophants' playbook consists entirely of one play - the misdirection play.

The matress police?  I thought everone knew about them.  They are the one's who come after you if you take the big floppy tag off your matress that says 'Do Not Remove Under Penalty of Law.       I have never actually seen them as I am a good, law abiding citizen but I Know they are out there.  

Joa

Perhaps not technically a smear, but revealing, overblown and misleading.  How can you call yourself an Obama supporter when you insist Joe Plumber be held to a higher standard than an illegal alien?

You have adopted the tried and true method of the demagogue - shoot the messenger, shoot the exposer.  Joe never got into a discussion with Obama about his (Joe's) qualifications and tax history.  The only reason Joe got any attention in the first place was the comment BO made, which no BO supporter wants to address and is certainly not the topic of your article.  No, they've all gotten a sudden attack of 'Joe curiosity syndrome' as a diversionary maneuver.  Rather pathetic, in my opinion, and rather unbecoming of you.

Not quite right.  To smear (according to the dictionary) is to bring into disrepute, tarnish, discredit, or disgrace.  I believe the communication of this particular information at this particular time does in fact constitute what would be considered, according to the dictionary, a smear

joa

hello Sodaiho

perhaps the real issue here is one of equitability. Assuming that joe the plummer is a symbolic everyman, do you think there is a case to be made in changing the current taxation system to one that 'spread's the wealth around'?  is obama's proposal justifiable? is obama's proposal really more equitable?

If so, it was/is unintentional.  Yet, I think Joe has done this all by himself.

My only point in bringing this whole thing up is that McCain made such a deal out of the average Joe the plumber as a prototypical hero of the potentially upwardly mobile middle class in the debate, yet the man misrepresents himself as a plumber (ask any bonafide plumber who has apprenticed, paid his dues, and obtained his masters license) and is (in fact) a person who does not pay at least some of his taxes...something I hear conservatives all the time whining about. 

It was McCain's campaign's lack of vetting that created this problem, not Joe the plumber who probably should have kept his mouth shut.  As I said earlier, its the same as McCain's lack of judgement regards Gov. Palin.  

I admit and noted I think Sen. Obama pandered to the middle class and his comment about wealth redistribution was unwise, but clearly telling.  Personally, I don't think its about wealth redistribution. Its about a sensible fiscal policy.

Listen everyone, this is a down and dirty campaign, coming to the last days...lets hope everyone tries to stay more honorable. And for God's sake, if your going to pick someone out of an audience to make into a hero do your homework first!

Be well.

McCain has the right idea.  Cut the spending.  I say start at the top first.  No pay raises for the House and Sentate and so on and close the loopholes they all seem to enjoy. 

One of the questions during the debate had to do with education.  The moderator said we spend more money on education than any other country yet we're not the best and the brightest.   Obama wants to throw more money at this broken system instead of reforming it.  That's ridiculous.  We need to cut spending period. 

I've run a household for almost 30 years now.  When the credit cards and bills get out of hand we put on a spending freeze.  Simple.  Pay off what have already incurred and cut spending until things get paid off.   We're actually enjoying that mode right now.  No more spending has been the mantra around here.  Why can't the government do the same on a larger scale?  

I don't go out and get more credit cards so I can spend more.  That's the mentality today.  It's wrong.  Cutting spending is the only thing that makes sense. 

And as for this new fancy "wealth distribution" it's nothing but a modern word for welfare.  If you're taking from some to give to others it's forcing them to pay welfare. 

Our church has been going out monthly and clothing and feeding the homeless.  We bring brand new blankets, clothes, goody bags and such to them.  Give the money back to the people and let them choose how to "redistribute" it.  Just think how much we could do if we had more money to do it with instead of forking it over to the government so they can do it for us (but you know how that works). 

I have no problem "sharing the wealth" but I am quite capable to do this myself.  I don't need to be forced into it. 

Hello Mr Roberts,

I am uncertain.  I believe that the deep cuts for the wealthiest of our nation have served to undermine our budget deficit, as did relentless spending by the Bush administration on war and our war machine. I do think a more fair tax structure is necessary. You can call it a wealth redistribution if you wish, but I don't really see additional income to the federal government going back to the less well off except in the case of butressing social programs that enable people to sustain themselves and get on their feet.  I think we should all have to pay increased taxes and cut our spending. Right now, its the patriotic thing to do. I am for a balanced budget. Period.

Be well. 

Dear KFC, 

I cannot believe we are on pretty much the same page except perhaps who we are calling those on top.  I agree we should reduce spending and balance our budget. Neither side wants to just throw money at education.  Both sides want to reform it.  Mr. Bush had a terrible idea: no child left behind has been a dismal failure forcing even good schools to teach to tests and limit a willingness for critical thinking skill development.   I trust we need a smart, well educated person to come to the table regarding education with fresh ideas.  I frankly see nothing but  the same old stuff with Sen. McCain.  Many conservatives and liberals as well have bailed out on the public school system, choosing to go the private or parochial route.  Their choice, unwise as I believe it is. We need to support education, real education, not the three "r"s, but the critical thinking, hard core math and science, engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, sort of thing.

I got really tired of moronic parents telling me it was their kids choice to drop out and get a job at Mickey Ds.  Bull. We have a nation of the lowest common denominator and its getting worse.  Yet, in this very thread, someone thought they were digging at me by referring to me as an elitist. 

Goodness gracious, shouldn't we all aspire to the top?

Cutting the salaries of our legislature may seem a good place to start, but I think its hard enough now to get good people to run for office.  Clearly, spending caps might be wise.

 I see a serious cut in defense spending as absolutely necessary: too long have unwarranted defense contracts driven up costs.  Wars are costly, long tern affairs, even when they are in short duration (which our two current wars are NOT).  We must pay for all the service connected disabilities, long term medical and psychiatric care, etc.  I commented on these costs years ago and all the hawks came down on me as I recall. Yet, when I looked up the voting records of McCain and my own Republican representatives in NM, I see they have consistently voted against spending bills in service to veterans. I see this as "Lets send them off to war, but to heck with them when they come home."

It seems everyone wants a part of their action, but nobody is willing to pull out their wallets to pay for it.

Be well.

How honorable is it to keep trying to confuse the issue with all this crap about Joe? He asked a question, one that a whole lot of people, not just him, wanted to hear answered.

And Obama answered it. That is the issue here.

Joe doesn't matter.  Joe is meanignless.  There is no Joe.

And I have addressed that issue several times in several ways. 

You think the news article pointing out the truth behind Joe was dishonorable?  Or was placing it for comment here on JU the dishonorable thing?  Or perhaps trying to answer questions about it, that was the dishonorable thing?

I don't know.  What I do know is that people should address the issues and not use Joe as a model.  You say Obama answered the issue.  OK, What do you think of the issue?

Be well. 

Sodaiho, I appreciate your apology.  Hypocrisy is a big pet peeve of mine.

My problem with your article and the whole deal of the media pouncing on "Joe" is this, does this really encourage free speech?  Does this encourage or discourage people from asking candidates questions when they get the chance?  To me it totally discourages.  Why would you open your mouth if you know you are going to get persecuted as a result?

"Joe" said he is "hoping" to buy the company.  He didn't say he bought it.  As far as his tax issues, I've had my share of IRS screwing up only to get a letter months or years later essentially say "sorry, our bad".  So referring to him as a "tax deadbeat" might in fact be misrepresentation.

Everyone's eagerness to discredit a guy who merely asked a question at a campaign spot and had him unwillingly thrust into the national debate is troubling.  Is the McCain camp going to be all over the waitress or restaurant owner Obama referred to on his campaign stop?  Do you have to be vetted before asking a question?

The question should stand on its own.  The way Obama answered should be judged by his words not by what all of his handlers' and supporters' interpretations of what he "meant".

There was no 'misrepresentation' - he didn't say 'licensed' plumber, he just said what trade he was in, truthfully.  As if the distinction was relevant, anyway.

All we know is that a tax lien exists, not how or why, not whether it is in dispute; all of which is completely irrelevant and a spurious diversion in any event.

What 'problem'?  The only 'problem' is one people like you have attempted to invent with articles like this.  This is just insane - McCain's supposed to 'vet' ordinary people who confront Obama & ask a tough question?  It boggles that you think this is more important than what was revealed/confirmed about Obama's economic philosophy.

I don't mind saying it again, this misdirection silliness is pathetic.

What the hell, Senator McCain in a presidential debate mentions this guys name 23 times. The first words coming out of the debate commentators mouths were "the real real story of this debate is Joe the plumber", of course the media would be clambering over themselves to find out who "Joe the plumber" was. McCain through this guy to the wolves, Is that what he means by "I'll make em famous? If he wins he better make Joe the official White House plumber

Meanwhile, the DailyKos kids have posted Joe's home address..

http://jimtreacher.com/archives/001723.html

Yea, left wingers are really classy.

No, I think Joe never had any idea how his minimal interaction would be used and abused by both contenders for the the advancement of their political campaign.  I also don't think he had any idea how his privacy would be invaded by the media or that he would become the topic of discussions all over the US.

Tonight, I am glad I am not Joe, the" idiot", "half baked", "not really a"," tax evading", plumber.  I am sure that I would buckle under the scrutiny. 

How sad that in our beloved democracy, a person can't open his mouth at a public gathering without wondering if he should have his lawyer present.

joa