Wednesday's debate, seemingly, was all about Joe the Plumber, some guy I assumed was just a hypothetical that John McCain threw out to question Obama's tax plan. Turns out that Joe was a "real" guy (you'll understand the quotes soon enough), and the media's been all over him ever since.
Joe apparently braced Obama at one of his campaign stops, telling him about the business he's worked for and wants to buy, but that he's concerned that, since the company makes more than $250,000 a year, he'll have to pay more taxes. Obama answered his question and moved on. McCain took that answer and ran it up the flagpole at the debate to see who'd salute. Turns out, judging from the polls after the debate that people were only slightly less interested in McCain's Bill Ayers jabs than they were Joe the Plumber, which meant Joe came in somewhere around second to the last in important issues raised at the debate.
Media politics being what they are these days, scores of reporters were turned loose on Joe, digging into who he is, asking him who he's voting for (as if it's not a foregone conclusion already) and generally making a nuisance of themselves, and boring the rest of us senseless. For the record, from what I can glean from the myriad reports I've been subjected to, Joe is his middle name, he's an unlicensed plumber that makes somewhere in the vicinity of $40,000 a year, the business he was asking about is not for sale, nor does it make anywhere near $250,000 a year, and Joe's got a lien for some back taxes — marking him as some kind of tax-dodging villain, if I'm getting the gist of what's being said here.
What that means is that this guy saw an opportunity to ask a candidate a question, built up a hypothetical situation that would address the question he wanted answered, and got shoved into the media spotlight because of it. Understand, I've got no sympathy either way for Joe. Frankly, couldn't care less about the guy, but he seems to have gone from some kind of folk hero to fraud in an astonishing amount of time and, much like most of what's being said today, the truth is somewhere buried in between those two extremes. (On the Daily Show on Friday, their report on Joe the Plumber concluded with "they tell you that everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame. What they don't tell you is that twelve of those are a rectal exam." Which, I guess, pretty well sums this whole charade up.)
But what's really interesting to me in this whole mess is that somehow John McCain mistook a guy who's looking to buy his boss' quarter-million dollar business as representing the average working-class hero. Say what you want about aspirations, but I'm pretty sure I can count the number of people I know that can consider buying a $250,000 business on the fingers of my third hand. More indication that John McCain is really out of touch with that 'average Joe' he likes to talk so much about? You think?
Joe apparently braced Obama at one of his campaign stops, telling him about the business he's worked for and wants to buy, but that he's concerned that, since the company makes more than $250,000 a year, he'll have to pay more taxes. Obama answered his question and moved on. McCain took that answer and ran it up the flagpole at the debate to see who'd salute. Turns out, judging from the polls after the debate that people were only slightly less interested in McCain's Bill Ayers jabs than they were Joe the Plumber, which meant Joe came in somewhere around second to the last in important issues raised at the debate.
Media politics being what they are these days, scores of reporters were turned loose on Joe, digging into who he is, asking him who he's voting for (as if it's not a foregone conclusion already) and generally making a nuisance of themselves, and boring the rest of us senseless. For the record, from what I can glean from the myriad reports I've been subjected to, Joe is his middle name, he's an unlicensed plumber that makes somewhere in the vicinity of $40,000 a year, the business he was asking about is not for sale, nor does it make anywhere near $250,000 a year, and Joe's got a lien for some back taxes — marking him as some kind of tax-dodging villain, if I'm getting the gist of what's being said here.
What that means is that this guy saw an opportunity to ask a candidate a question, built up a hypothetical situation that would address the question he wanted answered, and got shoved into the media spotlight because of it. Understand, I've got no sympathy either way for Joe. Frankly, couldn't care less about the guy, but he seems to have gone from some kind of folk hero to fraud in an astonishing amount of time and, much like most of what's being said today, the truth is somewhere buried in between those two extremes. (On the Daily Show on Friday, their report on Joe the Plumber concluded with "they tell you that everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame. What they don't tell you is that twelve of those are a rectal exam." Which, I guess, pretty well sums this whole charade up.)
But what's really interesting to me in this whole mess is that somehow John McCain mistook a guy who's looking to buy his boss' quarter-million dollar business as representing the average working-class hero. Say what you want about aspirations, but I'm pretty sure I can count the number of people I know that can consider buying a $250,000 business on the fingers of my third hand. More indication that John McCain is really out of touch with that 'average Joe' he likes to talk so much about? You think?
Comments
No, I don't think. I was recently looking to either start my own firm or buy a franchise. $250k a year for a small business is NOT a lot. If you think it is, welcome to the Biden school of economics (he claimed 98% of small businesses don't make this...he is dead wrong).
See that 7-11? They make a lot more than 250k. Every restaurant you go to makes more. Hell, my local donut shop makes 250k a year. My mom's clothing store made 160k and she went out of business.
Joe looks pretty average to me.
What kills me - and should have killed you and every other person in America - is the way the press went after Joe. Horrible. Indefensible. Why don't the networks just wear Obama gear? And, while I'm on it, how about they follow the REAL story - Obama's answer. The reason this moment was a big deal is becaus Obama's answer - his economic 'plan' - is called socialism. It's offensive and anti-capitalist. It's anti-American dream.
Why am I not surprised the press didn't get it and neither did you? Obama-mania is blinding.
As for Joe himself, I'd feel sorry for him if I had the sense he wasn't enjoying all the attention. He's got national attention, appearing on all the networks (cable and broadcast), getting to hit the talking points of his agenda. It's been a couple of days since the last clip I saw, so if you show me clips of him frustrated by it all, or trying to dodge the media, then I'll start sympathizing. But for now, he looks like he's enjoying his 15 minutes.
And that $250k amount? I guess this speaks to John McCain knowing his base. It may not be a lot for a small business, I don't have that frame of reference. I don't know that many people looking to buy or own their own businesses. They're more worried about making their mortgage, or hoping to own their own home in California or things like that. You know, the 98% Obama says will see a tax cut from his plan.
But Obama's plan is socialism? I really expected better from you than hitting McCain panic-button points. Obama's plan sounds pretty much like traditional Democrat/Liberal tax plans. Tax the wealthy and give the middle and lower class tax brackets a break. Disagree with it all you want (and I'm not about to argue the economic plusses and minuses of such a plan) but calling it socialism is a bit Chicken Little, don’t you think?
Socialism, according to Webster's:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
You've gotta go to #3, and start discussing Marxist theories and the transition to communism to get close to a definition that applies to what Obama's proposing. Frankly, what's apparently galling here is that he's not sugar-coating things. People ask if they're going to get their taxes raised over $250k and he says yes. Shame on him for being honest. But then, I suffer from Obama-blindness, don't I?
In fact, while we're at it, I just received an email from FactCheck.org that touches on this (Search for the header Those Regular-Guy Small-Business Owners):
Would any small-business owners pay more? It's likely. Obama plans to return the top two income tax brackets to their rates before the Bush tax cuts. There's no clear agreed-upon definition of "small business." But the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center projects that 663,000 taxpayers who report business income, or business losses, in 2009 will fall into the top two brackets, including 457,000 who are projected to fall into the top bracket. That's 1.3 percent of all tax filers who are expected to report business income or losses, including lawyers and other professionals who get partnership distributions, those who are passive investors in deals such as real estate, farmers and others with freelance or outside consulting income. Those who could legitimately be called "small-business owners" would be even less than that.
1.3 percent. Yeah, we're really killing the American Dream there. According to what I've been reading, the tax increase portion of his plan amounts to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Which sounds to me like he's returning things to where they were 8 years ago. That hardly seems draconian.
(While we're doing all this yelling about who gets hit with the tax increase, how about this for a thought. According to estimates I've heard bandied about the past couple of weeks, the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, behind Japan. But thanks to tax loopholes and corporate tax breaks, over 50% of US corporations don't pay ANY taxes. How about we reform corporate taxes to bring the tax rate down to something reasonable and get rid of some of those loopholes, so the corporations that have been riding on yours and my dime start ponying up some taxes. Maybe everyone gets a tax break then. Of course, no one's discussing that idea.)
I know we disagree on taxes. Hell, you may even be right. I don't pretend towards the kind of fundamental understanding of economics that would allow me to debate that (as my parenthetical rant above may, sadly, display). But to hit the panic button and start yelling socialism is just absurd.
Since you agreed you wouldn't be able to debate the economics, I'll agree using 'socialism' is hyperbole. :)
That said, your 1.3% number is skewed, as is your 50% of corporations number.
Hey...even I'll get a 'tax cut' under Obama. So, why wouldn't I be in favor of that?
In simple terms, I'll tell you why: because 1% of taxpayers (I'm mixing individuals, corps, etc) pay over 40% of the total tax bill. They also supply all the jobs. If you tax them more, where do you think that goes? Nothing is free. It goes toward higher prices and fewer jobs. Companies and business owners WILL meet their bottom line. You and I and all of the people getting the Obama 'tax break' are expendable.
I'll leave you with this little tidbit:
Exxon Mobil last year had a tax bill of $23 billion dollars. That's one serious fucking number. Assuming they make the same amount of money (which is actually unlikely considering the state of the economy and how the tax hikes will flow through the economy) under Obama, that bill would increase to over $30 billion. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. This means, in order to make up for the $7-$9 billion they must: cut jobs, increase prices, cut capital spending (read: resarch into alternative fuels, etc.), close factories. All of those things are BAD for the economy.
Under McCain, they would pay $19 billion in taxes. What will they do with the extra $4 billion? Invest in research, open new facilities, hire people. In short, they will GROW.
I know you don't want to debat this stuff. That's cool. But, I did want to leave you with that.
So, having said that… your example makes sense and, as far as I'm concerned, is far more relevant and resonates better than all the Joe the Plumber stuff McCain wants to throw out. I also understand why no one's using arguments like that in their campaigns (Too dry, too 'technical', too off-putting to that average Joe who doesn't want it pointed out just how small a cog he really IS in the grand scheme of things, etc.)
And, having acknowledged that your argument makes sense, and accepting that 'little cog in a great big wheel' concept, you've got to admit it's difficult to sit there and listen to talk of millionaires getting more tax cuts as we end up paying the same or more each year. It's tough to listen to discussions of the shifting of the tax burden to the middle class, as is traditional under Republican administrations, and not cringe each time McCain opens his mouth.
And, as is obvious and been commented on (to death), it's doubly so as we sit here faced with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, with its implied repudiation of the past 8 years of Bush economics. (I may go to hell for using that phrase. It probably needs to be relegated to that list of things that can't actually exist, like military intelligence and jumbo shrimp.)
Of course, these are all Liberal/Democrat responses to this argument, but hey, you gotta write what you know.