Joe "the Plumber" is a turd

So someone please flush him. Please!! He is just an ordinary Joe from Ohio trying to do right by his family. Fine, kudos to Joe! But, his claim to fame is that he is the one that Barack Obama told that "spreading the wealth around" is good. Now all I hear are words like: socialism, communism, marxism, redistribute and so on, so lets examine this all in further detail. So flush Joe and see if he can unclog himself - lets talk.



First, no more everyman first names paired with quasi blue-collar job last names, its lame. Tito "the Builder" is full of shit too. Nobody is calling McCain John "the POW / Senator" or Obama Barack "the Lawyer and community organizer". These clowns all have last names so lets start using them.



Secondly, when examining the validity of each candidate's economic policy lets stick to what they propose rather than what you think they conspire to do. We don't know for sure what actually will pass through congress so apples to apples is always the best comparison.



Lets look at the question from Joe; to paraphrase he asked why Obama's plan would tax him more if he bought a business that had annual revenues in excess of 250k. Obama said this and that about why he believes its good and then uttered something about spreading wealth. My problem with all of this is that the proposed tax rollback is on personal income tax in excess of 250k; so unless Joe making all of his business revenue and claiming it as personal income this argument would not apply. He would be talking about corporate and capital gains tax which, unless I am mistaken, both candidates are talking about relaxing those taxes. Even if it is his personal revenue the tax rate would go from 36% to 39.6% which is what is was in the 90's under Clinton. Joe has also lost all of his everyman credibility and appeal because he now has a publicist and a book deal in the works. I don't know any plumbers with such things. Also, he agreed with a statement that basically said that Barack Obama is an anti-semite and is in favor of the destruction of Isreal. He is now Joe "the Clown".



Lets also examine "spreading the wealth". First of all Obama has had the same tax plan for months now and only after his little exchange with Joe do people starting calling him a socialist. Where were all of these people during the primaries? Where were all the Joe "the McCarthys" in the past months? The package hasn't changed but the wrapping paper has. The phrase "spreading the wealth" is perfect fodder for conservative mouthpieces (yeah, you Hannity) to go on attack and start using scare words like: socialism and communism.

Socialism is the idea that the government collectively owns the means of production and distribution, let me reassure you an Obama administration will not come and take what is already yours (your wealth). In fact, I'll make the case that the recent nationalization of some of the largest banks by Secretary Paulson and President Bush is more socialist or communist than any parts of the Obama economic policy. There is no part of his tax policy that says the government will take ownership of private companies; for the most part private companies and lobbies have owned our government under Republican rule (a debate for another time). Anyway the plan Obama proposed is not spreading wealth, it has nothing to do with wealth, the plan is one that shifts the progressive tax burden. All income tax brackets will remain unchanged with the exception of the highest bracket. Barack will not sneak into your house at night and take your wallet or raid your bank account. Lets make sure that we properly identify everything before we attack it. Arguing the merits of his proposal are only good when the idea is correctly defined. When evaluated under the same terms the Bush tax cuts would be considered "spreading the wealth" too. The only difference is when you favor the richest few people call it capitalism and when the masses benefit from economic policy its called socialism.

I think that our entire tax system is up for debate - I'm not choosing a partisan view I'm just saying that we need call it what it is. There are two contrasting ideologies out there and neither is superior they have both worked with varying degrees of success. Top down or bottom up, it just depends on who you are. This whole thing is not about policy, its about Politics. Buzzwords are used to try and scare off or sway potential voters and these are being blasted through the media by a party that is behind in the polls. You know what, I don't really have a problem with that because it is how our system works. Propaganda is used by both red and blue politicos, I just like to look at the facts. You guys know me and know that I am fairly liberal but I am lukewarm about both of their economic policies. I truly believe that either of them could succeed or fall flat, but the reality is that both would probably struggle because we are in a deep hole and it is a steep climb out. I have my views but I will really root for whomever takes office in January because we will have no choice - the decision will already be made. So fight your fights til Tuesday and then applaud our new President-elect. We will have a chance reinforce or change what they do soon enough.

Fox News, Seriously?!?!?!

Fair and balanced is the tag line, so lets investigate.

I watched the second presidential debate on Tuesday night and I thought what the majority of Americans thought, that there wasn't a whole lot of excitement and neither candidate really shined. I thought that Obama won simply because he is already ahead in the polls and I don't think he did anything to hurt his position and I don't think McCain made up any ground. Advantage Barack. So I am watching CNN and they have a panel of close to a dozen analysts (of all political affiliations) and they all seemed to be in agreement with my perspective as well as those who were polled immediately after watching. Actually voters gave Obama a 54% to 30% advantage but lets just say he won for simplicity of argument. Well I like to get all opinions so I check out Fox "News" because I have heard that they can be conservative on occasion. Drum roll please!

McCain over Obama 86% to 12%. Excuse me, what? Yeah 86-12.

People we have just left planet Earth and somehow landed on The Ronald Reagan moon, where Ann Coulter is the town hooker and the Bush Monarchy reigns forever. I know that last statement was just for dramatic effect but I am feeling snappy today. This was the last piece of information that I needed to fully discredit Fox "News" from the ranks of television journalism. I turned the channel on just in time to catch the Hannity and Colmes show; it is supposed to be set up as a conservative vs. liberal point and counter point show but to be that they actually have to debate. Sean "Hannitizes" Colmes so hard that the only talking Alan does is to segue them to a commercial break. Their poll numbers weren't even is the same solar system as every other poll out there, its ludicrous. I have no problem with taking the conservative position, many of my best friends lean that way, but you can't call yourself a news network and blatantly blast that shit on the air.

The only way I will allow this network to continue is if every time someone on the channel says "Fox News, Fair and Balanced" they say it in a whispering voices and make really demonstrative finger-quotes. Or they can change the name to something like "Fox Ultra-Conservative Propaganda Machine, Fair and Balanced, all hail Queen Sarah Palin". Lets just make sure that the slogan fits the substance.

Personally I would borrow a line from everyone's favorite Fox nut-job Bill O'Reilly: "Fox News, we'll do it live - fucking thing sucks"

Nowhere to go

Good news everyone, this last 8 years has essentially been a disaster and we approaching rock fucking bottom! How is this good news? Well we have no place to go but up and I hope we can start in about a month. I will make it short and I wont get partisan b/c everyone "reached across the aisle " and basically gave each other a hand job while we spending like some spoiled brat on her sweet sixteen. I think that the historical attributes of Dems and Repubs are going to start fading at least a little and the people are gonna get medieval on our government's ass. No one is gonna win on social issues - those only matter when we arent at war and everyone has cash on hand, its gonna be about the big stuff. War, Money, Healthcare, and Energy are it and I think no matter who wins they have to improve our current position. So here is what I am saying, its always darkest before dawn. If the dawn never comes well then thats another discussion, but I dont think that the powerful few at the top will be able to escape alive if things dont improve and if they ever try this again, we will go after their families too!

Death or Taxes

Alright everyone, I know what I am going to say will not be popular but someone has gotta say it. Everyone bitches about taxes, whos gonna raise em and whos gonna lower them but just know this... You will be taxed!!! You will continue to pay taxes!!! There's no secret way out as an individual, taxes are a part of your life. If you want to continue this life in a sovereign USA then you better hope that no one cuts taxes too much or else we will get re-poed by China, Japan, etc. I will clarify...

We all (hopefully) have jobs and we all (unfortunately) have bills. You take the income and subtract the bills and then you have a (ideally) surplus. Every month and every year you essentially have a budget of income less expenditures equals drinking money right? For the big ticket items you finance with a monthly payment or use a credit card these are called loans. SO you pay the loans down and you pay your fixed costs and you pay for variables like food and the drinking I was talking about, right? How many of you want to keep or improve your standard of living while simultaneously taking a pay cut? I don't and I can't, can you? These items need to be in balanced to stay above water. Well our federal government has an income that mainly comes from of taxes but we also have a unbalanced budget that draws us further and further into debt, eventually our debtors, like credit card companies will say that we need to pay up. We have to have the money to pay up. Right now we don't.

It's simple - our government is just a big over sized version of joe sixpack (thanks Sarah) and he is running up some crazy credit card debt, even when he make the minimum monthly payment he still owes the remaining balance plus interest. So understand that our revenue consist of taxes we need to supplement that with exports (like green energy technology) to make more to pay down the debt. The government also needs to cut spending programs that don't do what they are supposed to to lessen our variable costs, (10 bil in Iraq). Point is that we will have to fund this government no matter what, take a look at the budget if you want, but we also have to stay on of our leaders to make sure that they don't continue the spending spree of the last decade no matter who is elected.

We are NOT the most wealthy country on earth, we are one of the greatest debtors and we are broke. So as I explained earlier it is death or taxes. I'll pay some to stay in America, not the American Province of China - you get what I mean.

Squeal like a pig!!

An abc news article that includes all of the earmarks on the 700 billion dollar bailout, oh and they are outsourcing the management of the remaining assets to private firms. Werent they the one who screwed the pooch originally. Thanks for the article Steve!

Motorsports Racetrack Property Aid? Puerto Rico Rum Taxes? In the Economic Rescue Bill?
October 02, 2008 12:22 PMJulia Hoppock-->
The Senate Finance Committee has published a summary of some of the additions to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act.
There are many provisions in the bill that will directly benefit millions of Americans -- what's called the "AMT patch," for instance, which will protect 20 million middle class Americans from seeing a tax increase in 2009.
Or tax deductions for tuition, and for teacher expenses.
Corporations will see extensions of popular tax cuts -- for research and development, or renewable energies.
But there's also some other stuff.
My colleague Z. Bryon Wolf points out that it bears mentioning that all of the following provisions were in the "tax extender" package the Senate (and the House) had already voted on, but were arguing over whether or not to "pay for."
But what's in here also bears mentioning:
* Rum Excise Taxes to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands -- Cost: $192 million over 10 years
Current law imposes a $13.50 per proof gallon excise tax on distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States -- of which $13.25 per proof gallon was made as a payment to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands until the end of 2007, after which it was lowered to $10.50 per proof gallon. This retroactively extends that provision from Dec. 31, 2007, through the end of 2009.
* American Samoa Economic Development Credit -- Cost: $33 million over 10 years
Certain domestic corporations operating in American Samoa were eligible for a possessions tax credit, which offsets their U.S. tax liability on income earned in American Samoa from active business operations, sales of assets used in a business, or certain investments in American Samoa. The tax credit expired on Dec. 31, 2007. This retroactively restores it and extends it until the end of 2009.
* Extend and Expand 50% Tax Credit for Certain Expenditures for Maintaining Railroad Tracks -- Cost: $331 million over ten years
Restores to certain railroads a tax credit equal to 50% of gross expenditures for maintaining railroad tracks that they own or lease.
* 7-Year Recovery Period for Certain Motorsports Racetrack Property -- Cost: $100 million over 10 years
Extends a special 7-year cost recovery period or property used for land improvement and support facilities at motorsports entertainment complexes.
* The Wool Trust Fund -- Cost: $148 million over ten years
Extends a provision that reduces import duties on a limited quantity of imported wool fabrics and places duties otherwise collected on the import of certain wool products into the Wool Trust Fund, which promotes the competitiveness of American wool.
* Special Expensing Rules for Certain Film and Television Productions -- Cost: $81 million over 10 years
Under current law, a producer can elect to take a single-year deduction of up to $15 million in production costs incurred in the U.S. If the production costs are over $15 million, this deduction does not apply. The maximum deduction is increased to $20 million if the costs are significantly incurred in economically depressed areas. No other depreciation or amortization is allowed for a production for which this deduction is taken. The provision expires Dec. 31, 2008. The proposal would extend the provision to the end of 2009.
* Provisions Related to Film and Television Productions -- Cost: $397 million over ten years
Under current law, many film and television show production companies are unable to take advantage of the domestic production deduction. The proposal allows more film and television show production companies to use the domestic production deduction, which will encourage more production of films and television productions.
* Excise Tax Exemption for Wooden Practice Arrows Used by Children -- Cost: $2 million over 10 years
Current law imposes an excise tax of 39 cents, adjusted for inflation, on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used to produce certain types of arrows. This proposal would exempt from the excise tax any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means to enhance the spine of the shaft used in the manufacture of an arrow that measures 5/16 of an inch or less and is unsuited for use with a bow with a peak draw weight of 30 pounds or more.
* Income Averaging for Exxon Valdez Litigation Amounts -- Cost: $49 million over 10 years
Allowing commercial fishermen and other individuals whose livelihoods were negatively impacted by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill to average any settlement or judgment-related income that they receive in connection with pending litigation in the federal courts over three years for federal tax purposes. The bill would also allow these individuals to use these funds to make contributions to retirement accounts.
The Senate Finance Committee issued a statement saying that these are not "'earmarks.' According to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, a tax earmark or limited tax benefit means any revenue provision that (A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, or preference to a particular beneficiary or limited group of beneficiaries under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and (B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such provision."

Diversion

Just a quickie, I have read that the republicans and McCain are going to now shift the focus of the campaign to Barack Obama's associations and question the character of Obama and these people. This is politics at it's worst. It is understood by most that McCain's weakness right now is the economy but for most people it is the number one issue, it is unbelievable to me that this tactic is going to be used solely for political gain.

The statement being made here is that McCain doesn't care about the people he cares about winning the election at all costs. It is the same as this war we are in, he just wants to "win" but everyone else loses. It is truly disheartening.

By the way, McCain's big help with the financial bailout is now legendary but he did drop the ball in one area. Both candidates had about the same concerns for the bailout package like no "golden parachutes" and better oversight but McCain added that there should be absolutely no earmarks attached. Well guess what the bill went from 3 pages to 450, I wonder what was in there.

Veepstakes

Alright - last night was the one and only VP debate and according most of the news media and pundits out there both candidates essentially did no harm to themselves or their running mates. I agree in principle but the problem is that there were different objectives for both. Biden was required not provide the stupid sound byte for the Republicans to hammer on and Palin was supposed to just be able to last the entire night without falling flat on her face. Both did that, but aren't we setting a low bar for Biden and essentially putting the bar on the ground for Palin to just walk over. This debate wasn't for a treasurer of the touchdown club it was for the second most powerful person in the country!!!!! Just don't screw up???

In my assessment (I am unqualified like most) I feel that on the important items and the issues, Biden made a strong showing. He was informed, specific, confident, and most importantly - for the most part he answered the questions asked. When the night was done I felt confident that Biden could be our commander in chief if necessary. As an aside, I personally think any of the four candidates would have mopped the floor with GWB in these debates. That brings us to Palin, she has got some fire and some spunk and that resonates with a lot of people but is that all we want? I take nothing away from her record in Alaska and the executive experience she had in that market but this is the national and international stage. She has to sharp and ready for anything not just be a cheerleader for "regular people", John McCain, and the social conservatives. She needs to answer the questions asked and not divert back to the topics that are in her wheelhouse. Remember that John McCain is the oldest candidate ever seeking office for his first term, more than Biden, she literally is a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the free world. Darn right she got cheers from all the moms out there. Did she get love from pro-life people, you betcha! But really who is ready to assume office?

I know that not everyone votes on the issues (I don't like this but its a fact) and Sarah Palin is easier to identify with then Joe Biden. Biden has been in the public sector over 35 years now but he was once a regular guy with real problems albeit further in his past than Palin's. The problem I have is that Palin's appeal attracts the same type of voter that put Bush in office. The whole crowd that likes their personalities, saying that they are everyday regular people. Everyday regular people are not supposed to be president or vice president, the liquor store clerk is not going to be able to set up a budget and head an appropriations committee. We've got to draw a line between likability and electability. Sarah Palin is wonderful for a state government with the local speak and kitchy appeal, but this is an international job that I don't feel she is ready for. I think that she was selected at least partially to take some of the focus off of McCain but it stands to reason that there would have been more real competition in last night's debate if Biden had to face off with Mitt Romney.

The same job should require the same aptitude from it's candidates.

Two is a party, Three is a crowd

At least that is what partisan politics and the mainstream media want you to think. It irks me that we can't hear more from our third party candidates on a national level. There is the occasional national exposure from guys like Perot in 92 and Nader in most elections since but c'mon do we have to choose brand A or B every four years. It is in the best interests of Democrats and Republicans and their financial supporters (major television networks) that we don't hear fresh ideas from "political outsiders" - the people may just like what they hear.

Why are people like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader not allowed to debate the issues and present their case for the presidency just like McCain and Obama. They obviously have followers, Nader has been around forever and Paul's "Revolution" is a best seller. Who are these people that throw independant thinking out the window and subscribe to either red or blue ideas. How can someone go on record as agreeing 100% with their party, you have to mindless or spineless and I don't want to hear your opinion if you are either of those.

This country is changing though, we are getting smarter and access to information is getting better (thank you Al Gore for inventing the internet). We will know more and more every cycle and one day the people will truly speak for what they want and not just have to choose Coke or Pepsi. One day we will all be able to drink Diet-Chocolate-Cherry-Dr.Pepper (or maybe just see some more candidates in the debate.) The election is one of the last places where choice is relagated to "either / or" if I can order 50 different colors, textures and styles of underwear from my home computer in my underwear then I should be able to have more choices for the leader of the "free" world!

Posting Bail

All the talk of an impending "bailout" of wall street is making me a tad uneasy. Last time I checked the map Wall St. was located on Manhattan Island and not Rikers Island. Wall St. lives in penthouses not jail cells but our congress insists that we need to bailout the largest banks in order to restore the credit markets. In some ways I understand and at first I kind of agreed with the idea.

BUT...

The idea was basically slapped together by the Bush appointed treasury secretary Henry Paulson, formerly of Goldman-Sachs, the original plan was three pages long and consisted of 700 billion dollars for Paulson to have the exclusive ability to distribute. It was packaged and marketed as a last ditch effort to save the american economy before certain collapse thus creating the fear. The urgency at which the executive office pushed this plan further fueled the fear - causing the erratic behavior of the market. This is a scare tactic that the Bush administration has used in the past (see Iraq war 2003). Scare the people and congress into a rushed judgement decision and act aggressively and irresponsibly. 5 years later and that plan is still a failure. My point is that congress and the people of this country should not be scared into following the ideas of the precious few. Credibility is an issue at this point.

While I don't doubt that we need to do something about this crisis I do want to step back and see some other options. Shop around a little, don't buy the first thing you see. I don't want to impulse buy at the checkout. I liken this whole situation to shopping at Wal-Mart - you get some groceries, some home goods, maybe a toy for the kids and then you get to the register and there is some high pressure salesman there trying to sell you a house to put it all in but you have to use a high interest Wal-Mart credit card. He says that there is no other way to store and use your stuff except to go along with his idea. (I know that this is a ridiculous example but the bailout maybe a ridiculous idea) Well I'm not buying it - I'm shopping around.

I need to hear the other smartest people around throw out ideas, Paulson and Bush are not the only guys with a thought on the matter. Considering the fact that they didn't seem to see this coming makes me question how bright they really are. The details to this plan are still scarce but every day this drags on I hear more and more that make me uneasy. I hear a lot of the money will bailout foreign investors, I hear that there are ways around capping the executives "golden parachutes". What I don't hear is how Jim is going to pay the mortgage with just 30 hrs a week at work much less feed his family and be a good American by buying a lot of shit he doesn't need so that corporate execs can get big bonuses and hedge the company's future on extremely risky investments!!!! You see what I did there

Bottom line - no to the bailout, not like it is now. I need and want more research and I want to hear alternatives. I need oversight, I need consumer protection (Nader), I need to know where the money is going so lets open up the books and read these proposals line by line. The American people are becoming quite serious investors - we own 80% of AIG and who knows what else we will be buying, are we appointing board members????? I don't want to give the blank check to to a lame-duck president and cabinet - the election is in just 34 days. Talk about the 11th hour - they are putting this together at 11:58, I'm not ready to pull out the credit card on the future of this nation and my future just yet.

Your thoughts and donations are appreciated!

BTW 700 billion $ is approx $2300 per person (that would be a nice stimulus)