Joe the Freakin Plumber, Why Does Anyone Care What This Guy Thinks?

[El_Machinae]

Too often we fall for survivorship bias. We state that the successful were successful because of what they did. While this is obviously true, we tend to focus on what they did inappropriately. You don't hear about the cases of the people who did the same thing as the successful people, but still failed.

 

[aelf]

Shh, don't spoil the Libertarian fantasy that your fate is (almost) entirely of your own making

 

[El_Machinae]

It is of your own making, at least mostly. Survivorship bias may exist, but there are still common threads to success that are vital. Dedication and a lack of laziness are essential.

If we can get the cost of litigation to reduce, then more and more of the onus will be on the individual. As well, increasing access to information means that information available to the consumer is increasing.

 

[aelf]

It is for us who are in fortunate social circumstances that our fate is largely of our own making. Can't say that for the majority of people, even in many developed countries.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

There's also a first-person bias. (I don't know the terms -- I just made that one up. Hear me out.) The person asserting that "if you're just virtuous enough, you can succeed" inevitably has already succeeded. So they're not only making a statement about America, but also about their own virtue. There's no "there but for the grace of God go I," it's "I must be better than those poor people."

Cleo

 

[Murky]

There are far too many variables for anyone to be in total control of their own fate. At best, your own decisions can increase the odds of things going in your favor. Sometimes, even having made all the right choices in life, you still end up with a losing hand.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Too often we fall for survivorship bias. We state that the successful were successful because of what they did. While this is obviously true, we tend to focus on what they did inappropriately. You don't hear about the cases of the people who did the same thing as the successful people, but still failed.

Of course not. They're the untermensch, and we should let the Darwinian processes that be weed them out.

 

[Cutlass]

There's also a first-person bias. (I don't know the terms -- I just made that one up. Hear me out.) The person asserting that "if you're just virtuous enough, you can succeed" inevitably has already succeeded. So they're not only making a statement about America, but also about their own virtue. There's no "there but for the grace of God go I," it's "I must be better than those poor people."

Cleo

It's true that a lot of people who succeed, even people who succeed with the aid of welfare or AA or some other assistance, often become the most vocal opponents of that assistance.

 

[JeffIllinois]

Dude, what are you talking about? The middle class has NOT shrunk. There are NOT more people going into poverty. The poverty rate is about 33% lower today than what it was when Reagan took office. And the poverty line is about TWICE AS HIGH!



Since when is a manufacturing job a good job? What on earth are you talking about? Is your dream to go toil in a freakin' dirty and dangerous factory? Medicine is good work. Pharmeceuticals is good work. Engineering is good work. IT is good work. Science is good work. Accounting and business management is good work. Manufacturing is NOT good work. Nobody WANTS to work in a freakin' factory. Americans should not be working in factories. We should be engineering technology here, and sending what we create to less educated areas of the world to be built.

I'm sorry you don't understand this because you're probably 12. But there is NO PLACE in American society for manufacturing jobs. None. And so long as there are idiots in this country that think we can actually compete with third world nations in regards to manufacturing, our economy will continue to languish thanks to people who think they are entitled to a silver spoon and giant pension plan for fastening widgets onto sprockets while an Indonesian will do it for a dollar a day.



This is how an efficient functioning economy works Jeff. The wealthy will always have the capacity, knowledge, and ability to accelerate their accumulation of wealth as opposed to people below them on the economic food-chain.

There's nothing wrong with that.



Do you even know what "my way" is? Why would I want my nation to look like a Latin American nation? But you go ahead and tell me what "my way" is, and why you think "my way" would result in America looking like a Latin American nation.



What war on the middle class is that? Over the last twenty years inflation has been low. People across all parts of our society have the capacity to own cell phones, computers, and DVD players. Median incomes have rose. The poverty line has risen drastically. The people we call poor, and you call poor, ARE NOT POOR! Bush and Reagan cut taxes for the middle class. And Reagan looked to stay out of the middle classes life. What war on the middle class are you talking about? I'm pretty sure it's merely a figment of your imagination.



Do you understand or even know what class warfare is? This is class warfare. This is mindless rhetoric that's fed into the ignorant of America to get them to vote for Democrats. But in the process, you have not in any way shape or form explained why the top 1% and corporations should pay more taxes than you. Explain that. Why should anybody have to pay more or less than anybody else? It's just a crying shame that Obama can go out there and demogogue the rich, and have the general ignorant, lazy, masses fall prey to his bullcrap.

There is no good reason that a rich person should have to pay a higher marginal tax rate than a poor person. If you don't want to feel the pinch of taxes when you're poor, then go out, work harder, get an education, and EARN your money like a rich person does.



So why don't you do it? Why don't you do it as it is? If paying taxes is patriotic, then why aren't you forking over an extra 10%? That'll help the common man. Ya know, the government does take donations right? You can give a little more if you want. Give your money away to a bunch of rotten scum bags, the animals of DC who cannot read, write, or perform basic math. Give it to the welfare moms of America. Give it to the nations drug addicts and alcoholics. It's the patriotic thing to do. I don't understand why you hold on to anything other than $20,000 of your own income. There's other people out there that need that money more than you and it's patriotic to support them. What's stopping you from doing that? What's stopping Obama supporters in general from doing that?

I don't believe you anyway. I don't think there's any way in hell you've even graduated a public high school.



Yes, because they'll all move their assets out of America. Just like all the rich people have moved their assets out of California and have summarily bankrupted the entire state.



There may be a shred of truth to this, but don't think for a moment that shoe doesn't fall on the other foot as well. I would also like to see some links on this information.



The tax rate will not be essentially the same if all of these spending policies and budget balancing initiatives are to be put into fruition. There ALREADY is an estimated 1.5 trillion to be added to the budget. There's a 300 billion dollar spending package proposed. Then you have to implement Obama's plans on top of it. There is NO WAY that Obama will be able to balance the budget, pay for this years proposed spending increases, and pay for his own propositions by cutting taxes on "95%" of Americans, and only raising taxes on the rich by 3%.

You people are living in a pipe-dream.

There are three scenario's that will unfold.

- Obama will not be able give what he has promised.
- Obama will not be able to balance the budget as he promised.
- Obama will have to fudge his taxes in order to pay for his promises and balance the budget.

You fella's take your pick.



Clinton inhereted a recovering economy. Clinton faced no major domestic issues (such as 9-11.) Clinton faced no major wars. Clinton left office as the tech-bubble burst.

The main reason why we will probably not see a massive creation of wealth under ANY president or leadership in the next generation is because our education system is not the same as the education system that produced the people that created all that wealth.

If you don't educate people, you will not create wealth in a global economy. America is not educating enough of our people to the level that they need to educated at. Jeff's notion and philosophy that we should all be working in factories is proof positive of that.

Mark my words. We will not see a prolonged burst of economic prosperity if our education system is not drastically reformed. If it stays like it is, we're going to continue to produce young adults that are largely inept at functioning independently in our society. And those types of asshats do nothing more than leach off of society, and drag the rest of us down.



I'm pretty sure that this really isn't wealth creation...



You know what the jab of this is though? Obama is doing everything he can take away peoples need to be responsible. You wanna talk about mixed messages? Try telling people to be responsible, but then say they're gonna spread the wealth around in the same breath.

Only idiots fall for this crap.

Obama is going to INCREASE dependence in America. He's going to do nothing to reform our education system.

I'll bet you a grand that Obama's four years will be worse than Bush's four years. And Bush inhereted a recession, and as you've pointed out, Obama is inhereting a recovery (which in my opinion is up for debate. I happen to believe that no matter who is president, that we're in for at least another bad year and a half. Just wait until America enters a hyper-inflationary period.)

I risk earning a flaming infraction if I respond to this.

 

[Merkinball]

Merky. You know that for every success story fo someone living the American dream, there are people who fail to do so. Because making it career wise means taking risks. What if you fall on the fail side of taking that risk? Sorry mate, thanks for playing better luck next time? Sensible, responsible, hard working truly independent Americans can have bad luck as well. They can make the wrong decision because they based it on flawed information. Not every failure means the person failing was not responsible. Not every failure can be prevented. When playing on the free market, a lot of the failure can't be prevented by sensible foresight.

If you remove every bit of security net you increase the results of risking it on the free market and failing. So less people will be tempted to try innovative ideas if they realise absolute poverty is the price of failure.

Taking risks to make a career? It takes risk to become really rich, or rich any level I suppose. But it doesn't take any sort of risk to become successful in America today. The only thing it takes to attain any sort of career in any middle class job environment in America are the following traits.

- Do your work.
- Don't call into work.
- Come to work on time.

If you can do these three things, then you're set in America and there's no reason you shouldn't be able to make $50,000 a year. Employers LOVE people who simply do those three things. If you do those three things, then you are above at least half of the population in this country.

I have an...EXTREMELY hard time believing what you say. I mean, I know right now, without a doubt, that I could go out and get at LEAST a $17 dollar an hour job that requires no previous skill set. And its simply because I have solid resume (education, skills, and veterans status aside), and good references from my previous bosses. I show up to work, I work hard, I have ambition to learn, I don't call in to work. (12 years on the job force and I've never called into work for any reason.) That in and of itself will get me a good paying job. I see no evidence as to why anybody else would be any different.

Not every failure means the person failing was not responsible. Not every failure can be prevented. When playing on the free market, a lot of the failure can't be prevented by sensible foresight. - Ziggy

That's fine, but we don't need anything other than a sound system of Unemployment benefits for these issues. People who have businesses fail generally have sound work ethics. They will be able to find jobs and find them quickly. These people by and large have many admirable traits that employers look for. We don't need to spend 2 trillion dollars a year on people that take risky business decisions and fail. Furthermore, we're not spending 1,5 trillion, or 2 trillion, or however much it is to prop up and temporarily assist these individuals. We are spending the vast majority of our money on social welfare spending on LAZY PEOPLE! 20%+ of America consists of high school drop outs. An inordinate number of people commit very bad crimes in this country and end up in prison or jails for prolonged lengths of time. Our nation has pragmatic issues concerning alcoholism and drug addiction. There is a dearth of quality employment to be had at in this nation right now. We're not supporting hard working everyday Joes. We're supporting slovenly, lazy, ignorant individuals who think that rich successful people are entitled to pay for their "right" to healthcare. Don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

And so far as supporting people who take risks but fail. I have no problem temporarily supporting those individuals. But I think it would be far better for society as a whole if that was done privately between ourselves.

Please, don't be disengenous. I'm not advocating that we get rid of social security and social..."welfare" programs altogether. I'm just suggesting that we need to clamp down on who we pass our money out to. We're never going to reform the problems we have in this country by giving away rich peoples money to lazy individuals. Giving out tens of thousands of dollars per person in the lower class in the form of welfare checks, food stamps, and free healthcare is in no way shape or form going to promote independence and education within our lower class. In fact, it's a proven failure.

Barack says that he's gonna make sure that every able bodied person that can work will have a job. Rhetoric aside, it's probably got about 30,000,000 people in this country quaking because they might actually have to hold down a full time job.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Merk, I was talking about Joe I-want-to-buy-a-company-but-obamas-socialist-taxes-make-me-cry the plumber. Running a company means taking risks. You know, you can do your work, come in on time but when the company goes tits up it won't do you much good.

At least I'm glad you recognise there is need for some sort of security net. Wanting the rules more strict to apply for it is indeed debatable. I guess I misread this sentence:

The bottom line is that if everyone was personally responsible and truly independent, then there is no need for Democrats, Barack Obama, and liberal policies or principles to begin with. If you properly educate people, you have no need for government handouts.

Which still is bull, but just not the kind of bull I suspected

 

[Ecofarm]

So you're saying the plumber should just suck it up?

The bottom line is that if LIBERALS were personally responsible and truly independent, then there is no need for Democrats, Barack Obama, and liberal policies or principles to begin with. If you properly educate people, you have no need for government handouts.

Enough of the liberal education system, let's privatize it. No more Dept. of Education. It's a big fail. At least downsize it so some cheaper private schools can compete, don't put more money into it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So you're saying the plumber should just suck it up?

The way you interpret words fills me with awe. You find meanings where others would be unable to.

I do think Joe is a planted hack. Sent to play the average concerned undecided American.

But he said Mr. Obama’s health-care plan scares him.

“It’s just one step closer to socialism,” he said.

Apart from that, I couldn't care less about Joe.

By the way: http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/15/smallbusiness/small_biz_taxes_factcheck.smb/index.htm?cnn=yes

Who pays?

Second, even using the broad definition of small business that McCain likes, very few owners would see their own taxes rise.

That's because the lion's share of taxable income comes from a small number of wealthy businesses. Out of 34.7 million filers with business income on Schedules C, E or F, 479,000 filers fall into the top two brackets, according to an analysis of projected 2009 filings by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

The other 34.3 million - or 98.6% - would be unaffected by Obama's proposed rate hike.

That includes Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher, whom McCain invoked nearly two dozen times at the debate Wednesday night to illustrate the plight of the average worker and small business owner.

"Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years ... he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes," McCain said.

Cry a river for Joe who can happily chase his dream, but got scared by McCain's representation of Obama's taxprogram.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's amazing about this 15 minutes of fame. Joe IS a planted hack. That's all he is. He needed to lie to get his point across. I could like to personalise any of the issues I wanted to, too, but it's just less valuable.

And Joe clearly doesn't understand either candidate's healthcare plan if he's calling Obama's socialism.

As far as Joe being a stereotype, Obama was correct in that his plan dealt better with any "Joe of Five Years ago". Yes, the fake Joe was able to be just be at the brink of being disadvantaged by Obama's plan (amazing what lies do), but the real Joes, intending to be successes in the future, are better off under Obama.

Palin would like to privatize education too "Why do you care about banned books in the library? Just buy the books you want on eBay. At a profit!"

 

[Ecofarm]

Joe the Hack?

C'mon. The guy was playing football outside his own house with his own, real son when the Obama campaign strolled down the street and he figured he might as well ask a question. That's his story, from his mouth (I saw him on TV).

I know some hack websites have invented wild stories, but the above is by far the most plausable explaination.

The ONLY reason he is famous is:

"Spreading the wealth" came out of Obama's mouth in response to his question. If Obama does not say "SPREADING THE WEALTH", there is no Joe the Plumber. The idea that he is a hack is absurd, he is a creation of Obama's.

On the third day, he said "let there be Joe the Plumber".

Palin would like to privatize education too "Why do you care about banned books in the library? Just buy the books you want on eBay. At a profit!"

Ok. What books did she want banned, exactly? Is there a list? Or did she just ask about library policy.

You might not be aware but plenty of books are "banned" from various libraries, especially those in schools.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, I did see the encounter as well. And the point that Obama raised was: when you were working hard, saving up to buy that company, you were taxed heavier, so you had to save more to get to the point of buying the company. If Obama's tax cuts would have been in place Joe would have been able to buy that company sooner.

Also he pointed out that under Bush, the higher incomes got bigger cuts than the lower incomes. making Joe wait longer to save enough money. How was that fair?

 

[Ecofarm]

What does any of that have to do with him being a planted hack? The average citizen doesn't know crap about tax plans except democrat = more taxes and republican = less, right?

the higher incomes got bigger cuts than the lower incomes.

Depends how you look at it.

making Joe wait longer to save enough money

That doesn't make sense.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's my suspicion which I cannot prove. This is why I said: "I think", instead of "he clearly is". Your "spreading the wealth" and "by far the most plausible explanation" doesn't convince me one bit. You think different. So ... what next? I do a "He is!" and you go: "Is not!"?

Okay I guess.

Is!

 

[Ecofarm]

I didn't only say "is not".

I said

Joe was just at his house playing football (don't even think about it, frenchies).

Ok, that's the "is not" part.

Then I said

Obama talked to a hundred people that day and the only reason Joe is famous is what Obama said, not what Joe said.

Now, unless you can give me a reason that Joe is a hack besides "no american could be that ignorant", Ima figure he's still Joe the Plumber. If he becomes Joe the Professional Planted Hack, that would be funny but I really doubt that's gonna happen.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I didn't only say "is not".

I said

Joe was just at his house playing football (don't even think about it, frenchies).

Ok, that's the "is not" part.

Then I said

Obama talked to a hundred people that day and the only reason Joe is famous is what Obama said, not what Joe said.

So we agree that was the "is not"-part. But we disagree why that conversation got famous.

Now, unless you can give me a reason that Joe is a hack besides "no american could be that ignorant", Ima figure he's still Joe the Plumber. If he becomes Joe the Professional Planted Hack, that would be funny but I really doubt that's gonna happen.

My reasoning is not: no American could be that ignorant, it's the fact that his worry and McCain's comments in the debate were so perfectly matched. Too perfect for my suspicion. The tax program talks about "above 250.000" and here's Joe, about to live the American dream (national anthem starts playing softly in the background) of buying the company just over 250.000 and starting out for himself, and there comes Obama (sound needle scratching on record) and he ruins it all!

Bloody socialism!

That's all. He got hyped just because of that. This is actually the first time I heard the redistribution of wealth comment. As I said, I have no proof, it just fits a little too neatly for my taste.

And now, although the tax increase for Joe myth has been debunked, the campaign strategy already paid off, and everyone thinks that honest, hardworking, proud Americans can't live the American dream because of Obama's socialist program. Score!

Depends how you look at it.

I see.

That doesn't make sense.

Depends how you look at it.