Great Gibson clip. Thanks, Johnny.

lol that cracked me up,

And Gibson's right, it is the end of journalism. That chick who drowned her 5 kids got more sympathy than Joe will ever get. And all he did was ask a question.

How dare he question the messiah.

"That chick who drowned her 5 kids got more sympathy than Joe will ever get. An all he did was ask a question. How dare he question the messiah."

Why is it that the following FACTS are never important to Joe's defenders?

1) - He said he was a plumber, but he isn't even licensed. A plumber's assistant is not a plumber and would not be planning to purchase a business he could not even legally manage.

2) - He said he was about to buy a plumbing business, but that wasn't true.

3) - He said he was planning to buy the specific business he works for, but that isn't true either.

4) - He inferred that the plumbing business he was planning to buy was making over $250,000 a year, but that wasn't true either.

5) - He and McCain later implied that Obama's tax plan would somehow hurt either him or his boss's business....neither of which is true.

According to Joe's defenders, we were supposed to simply accept the narrative as it was presented without question, even though it could potentially have determine the presidency. If THAT is an example of poor journalism, then I am defintely in favor or poor journalism.

I find it rather astonishing that a presidential candidate would stubbornly continue to hold up someone who was less than truthfull as an example of who he says he represents. I find it equally astonishing that McCain would also continue to focus on a man who in actuality, would personally benefit more from his opponent's tax plan than his own. It's as if he thinks the American people are so stupid that they wouldn't notice such decrepancies.

Somehow, I've always had the impression that truthfullness is a virtue, and therefore I never would have thought it possible that a proven liar could be hailed as a hero in MY America......But republicans keep telling me I'm somehow wrong about that.

But it all seems to fit perfectly with all the other campaign lies of the republicans. I could fill up a garbage can with all the negative and misleading trash that they have sent to my mailbox alone.

MikeH-
I don't defend Joe the actual person, as he has revealed himself to be an uninformed buffoon. But the IDEA of Joe- the average guy with concerns about tax brackets, who wants to take the next step towards financial security- is important, and worth defending. It's astonishing to hear Obama supporters who are ostensibly all about the working man do everything in their power to tear down the first real working man who asked Obama a question.

Put aside Joe W. and his $40,000 a year and look at his actual questions. Were they not valid concerns? Joe doesn't actually make 250k and isn't actually about to buy a business, but were his questions not worth asking?

More importantly, is the figure $250,000 in individual income or is it $250,000 in family income? I have now heard both versions numerous times, and they are two very different things. 250k in individual income? I think we can all agree that that's a nice salary to bring home. I have no problem using this as the line between middle and upper class. If you have to draw an arbitrary line, that seems like a fair place to draw it.
But to say that a family making $250,000 is upper class? No way. That's absurd. You're talking about a married couple and probably at least one kid here, and the after-tax income is $152,500. That's solidly middle-class where I come from. If the idea of the Obama tax plan is "tax breaks for all but the wealthiest Americans" how can you say that this is fair? Middle class families are not the wealthiest Americans.

Good old Mike H was in high dungeon when he thought Uncle Sam was listening to the phone calls of Mohammad the school bus bomber, but Mike doesn't seem to care that the democrats are going through the personal life of average Joe citizen. Mike H doesn't mind that his hero Keith Olbermann has started a full scale smear campaign against Joe the Plumber because he dared to ask fearless leader a question. Mike H is now a proven intellectual coward. Mike H now smears Joe the plumber because he committed a thought crime. Mike H will make a good SS storm trooper for Obama. Stop calling yourself an American Mike H. Call yourself a member of the Obamanation.

Read this article and weep http://tinyurl.com/5qzthu

The corruption goes to the top in Ohio.

John_Foley: "It's astonishing to hear Obama supporters who are ostensibly all about the working man do everything in their power to tear down the first real working man who asked Obama a question."

What is "astonishing" to me is that neither you or Factor chose to address ANY of the concerns I mentioned above.

Why is that?

You CANNOT use a liar as your spokesman and role model and hope to retain any credibility. Now here is a few more points to consider:

1) - If "Joe the Plumber" had told the truth to Obama, this conversation would not be happening....and McCain's (or Joe's) credibility would not be undergoing the scrutiny it is over the subject now.

2) - When you examine the tax argunment honestly, and then apply it to the ACTUAL income of "Joe the Plumber", then Obama WILL win that argument every time......no matter what "Joe" says.

3) - McCain is the one who chose to USE "Joe the Plumber" after seeing the tape of the incident. Obama has nothing to do with making that choice.

4) - Once McCain chose to use this man as an instrument of propaganda for his campaign, it then became the RESPONSIBILITY of the media to check out the story. If "Joe" had represented himself honestly, there would have been NO issue whatsoever.

5) - McCain once AGAIN made a pivotal snap decision without properly vetting the person involved. This is an indictment on the man's JUDGEMENT. I believe he will constantly make these kind of snap decisions if we let him in the White House....and the next four years would be extremely chaotic!

SO please stop whining about how this dishonest man has been treated, and tell us WHY his lies should have been ignored? Especially when a presidency is potentially at stake.

I REALLY want to know why your side think this isn't important?

THEN, I'll be happy to discuss the relative merits of the proposed tax policies.

"Put aside Joe W. and his $40,000 a year and look at his actual questions. Were they not valid concerns? Joe doen't make $250,000 a year and isn't about to buy a business, but were his question worth asking."

It's hard to answer that question as long as a fraud is the one who asked it.

'Joe" is indeed an average working man in terms of income (but hopefully not in terms of honesty). "Joe" is allowed to believe what he wishes to believe, but to represent his beliefs as typical of someone in his boots is a bad assumption, because that cannot be proven by quoting "Joe".

However, what CAN be proven is that someone making $40,000 a year would fair better under Obama's tax plan than McCains.

What can also be proven is that the $250,000 cut off figure for BO's tax plan is only where the tax increase BEGINS. In other words, a $250,000 + earner would only pay a higher tax rate for the amount OVER $250,000, and NOT his entire income.

MikeH-
Please take the "your side" stuff and stow it. I'm voting for Obama. That doesn't mean I can't still question his policies. Voting for the guy doesn't mean I have to be blind to inconsistencies in his narrative.
Also, and again, is it individual income or family income? I have heard both. Only one is acceptable to me. This isn't Joe the plumber asking the question, it's me.

This last post is not true. BO is raising the two highest marginal rates. 33% to 36% and 36% to 39%. So well below $250K there will be a 10% increase in taxes.

As I said before BO also states essentially that he will work with the Department of Treasury to make sure married couples under $250K do not get hurt. He needs a CIVICS lesson. The Treasury Department cannot fix this. Only Congress can fix it. Only Congress can make changes to what otherwise is called The Federal Tax Code. Perhaps BO should stay in Congress awhile longer until he learns the basics of how the goverment operates.

As to some of the other stuff said.

You do not have to be a licensed plumber to run a plumbing business. You have to be a licensed plumber to plumb. There is nothing in the UCC (otherwise known as the Uniform Commercial Code or words to that effect) nor in most states regulation and licensing rules that say you have to be licensed to own and operate a business such as this. Those who personally provide the service must be licensed or must be working as an assistant, etc. under a licensed supervisor when on a project.

This whole thing about soaking the rich is hooey anyway. The true rich work this stuff out. Not people with taxable income of $250K. Really not even people with taxable income of say $1,000,000. The ones who do it are the really rich. Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, etc. Perhaps an example will be in order. We have a very rich U.S. Senator in the state of Wisconsin. The last time he published his stuff on taxes it was a "wonderment" and was not at all questioned by the liberal media that dominate this state because he is a Dem. His AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) was in excess of $11,000,000. There is very little activity that can go on between AGI and TI (Taxable Income). But he found it because the total taxes (Federal and State) that he paid were some $795,000. That is an effective CASH tax rate of 7%. This is at a time when the marginal rate for most of his income is 36%. Even if he had a lot of capital gains, he would have been affected by the AMT (the Alternative Minimum Tax). That should have put him somewhere in the 28% rate. That didn't happen either. Now do you think Herb Kohl cares what BO does with tax rates. Nope. He will still be at maybe 10%. I happen to know Herbie. Did a lot of work for him when he was just in business and not in politics. He would rather cut his wrists than pay taxes.

So. BO will hammer away at the supposedly rich and make life more miserable for them, but he will not even muss Herbies hair. What little he still has. It is the way it is. The rich do not get poorer unless they become stupid and do it to themselves.

I started in that business when the highest individual marginal tax rate was 70%. That was another soak the rich/redistribute period. It didn't work then either. What it did do was promote a lot of borrowed investing in stupid business deals that just about broke the banks then also. Why not? The government lets you deduct interest. They are going to pay for 70% of it. The real after-tax rate of interest was lower than, than it is today even though nominal rates were much higher.

Trust me, BO is not alone in this supidity. He is just the current proponent of it. Most politicians have no clue of what the outcomes will be when they start tinkering with this stuff. Then when the outcomes are bad they call hearings and drag people in front of them and make a big set of holy pictures for themselves in front of the media. Makes a person sick.

I am pretty satisfied that we could have a tax law which would exempt certain levels of income from taxes for singles and marrieds which would be satisfactory to them while at the same time having the so-called rich and the really rich pay reasonable progressive rates and businesses pay reasonabl progressive rates without adversely affecting them. That would not be the way politicians operate. They need to use the Tax Code to be a gun to use against whomever their political sway detemines it should be used.

Maybe that is my issue with His Highness. Somehow he is the knew God/King who will save us. Forget it. If it looks, talks and acts like a politician that is all it is.

The "last point" IS absolutely true. Let me give you an example although I didn't think that should be necessary.

If someone makes $250,000, they do not pay the top marginal rates. They pay what they paid before.

If they make $350,000, they will only be charged the higher rate on the additional $100,000. The initial $250,00 will still be taxed at the lower rate.

And despite your patronizing, I'm quite certain that BO fully understands that implementation of his plan will require a change in the tax law and will involve Congree, and not just an order to the Treasury Department.

Since you have acknowledged that you, unlike many others, know that the marginal rates have been as high as 70% (and even higher), then you would have to acknowledge the silliness regarding this "Socialism" charge. If what Obama is proposing is "Socialism", then what in the hell did you call it when the rate was 70%?.

MikeH, you take your Union Status too serious.
You said "He said he was a plumber, but he isn't even licensed. A plumber's assistant is not a plumber and would not be planning to purchase a business he could not even legally manage.

Come on now, if the guys wrenching pipes, he's a plumber.
And for your second part of the sentence where you say that he could not legally manage the business, are you kidding me? I personally have a brother in law up in Lake Tahoe that does not know diddilly squat about plumbing, but owns the business and does an average of around $425,000.00 a year. Dude, you"re living in your own little world there, because if someone wants to own something and even though they don't know anything about that particular business, they still can own it and run it. In this particular case, even though Joe isn't a licensed plumber, he could hire either a master plumber or a regular licensed one.
Again you state "2) - He said he was about to buy a plumbing business, but that wasn't true.

3) - He said he was planning to buy the specific business he works for, but that isn't true either.
Show us where you get your info that refutes Joe's claims because I have not heard or seen any to date contridicting him.
Just so you know where i'm coming from with all of this, I retired from Southern Cal in Jan. of 2003, moved to Northern Kentucky, went back to work for public utilities and Greater Cincinnati Water Works and Duke Energy Gas & Electric. I have my Master License in ALL utilities and Construction, along with a Masters in Engineering for Aerospace and Machining.

SoCal, while you and yours keep parsing words regarding "Joe", why won't ANY of you guys tell me why it is OK that the guy LIED to a major party presidential nominee.

We can talk about the details of the plumbing business all you want, but that DOESN'T change the FACT that your new folk hero LIED to Barrack Obama.

So WHY do you think LYING isn't important?

By the way SoCal, I "Union Member" I'm not. I'm actually a self employed businessman (a REAL "Joe the plumber", although I'm not a plumber).

Show me here, what it was that YOU say he lied to BO about. I andmany others still do not see where he lied to BO. What was it that Joe said?

MikeH-
Does the 250k refer to individual income or family income? Please respond.

john-foley, I did not respond because I am not 100% certain about the answer to your question. The last information I got was that it would be $250,000 for a married individual and $200,000 for a single individual, but again, I am not 100% certain if that is accurate?

Regarding family status, I would assume that the $250,000 threshold would be reached AFTER any and all exemptions and deductions are included, which would raise the before tax threshold.

Unsuccessful troll was unsuccessful. lol

I do not recall suggesting Socialism. Please do not put words in my mouth. I did say soaking the rich is a fruitless effort and simply punishes those who are percieved as rich because they make more than most but much less than the really rich.

It is not paternalistic to suggest that Barry needs a CIVICS lesson. It is a reference to demonstrate he is no more than any other political hack using language effectively to defray criticism and dismiss serious questions about his intent. This is the man who says very directly, I will end this war quick and bring everybody home. I will punish those who export jobs. Then he says I will CONSIDER offshore drilling and I will WORK WITH the Treasury Department to protect married couples from the tax increase. If you are serious about CHANGE, if you are serious about HOPE then you either say you will do something or not. When you really don't intend to do it, you say things like I will CONSIDER or I will WORK WITH. He is the patronizer. I have been BSSSSSD by some of the best in my lifetime. I know it when I see it.

Sorry Calvalry, if I painted you with too broad of a brush with my "socialism" comment, but you cannot be blind to the silly charges of "socialism" that are being leveled each and every day at Obama by the Republicans. I never thought they would stoop to that level in mass.

I lived through a time in which America's policies were far more progrssive than they are today, including it's tax policies, and no one called them "socialist" at the time, even though aggressive socialism in the form of communism was out biggest enemy at the time. Therefore, it was fundamentally IMMORAL to label an opponent with with such a historically inflammatory moniker, when ALL they are doing is reccomending making slight adjustments to basic policies that are already in place, and HAVE been in place throughout our recent history.

Going beyond that, I think it is rather silly to think that someone who thinks a slightly increased 39% marginal tax rate for the wealthy is the same thing as 'soaking the rich'. At most, this is nothing other than a difference in perception when the REAL problem that needs to be solved is an insolvent Federal treasury that is SUPPOSED to be supported by taxes. Since I am 57 years old, I recalled when most Americans believed that paying taxes were patriotic....NOW, many republicans keep telling us that it isn't....The irony is stunning!

It also hasn't escaped my notice that the years in which Ameicans believed that paying taxes were patriotic corresponded directly with the years in which the marginal tax rates were higher.....and this was ALSO during the same general time period in which America's power, economy, and greatness were growing exponentially. Conversely, it shouldn't escape anyone's notice that in the years leading up to this crisis, our economy was fueled primarily with speculation and debt. Everyone who has ever crashed and burned by living on credit cards knows that this kind of false prosperity cannot continue indefintely.

Regarding your criticism of Obama's stance on drilling, it should not have escaped your notice that McCain and most republicans were against expanded drilling policies prior to the recent spike in gas prices. I'm sorry if I don't think it is particularly important which candidate jumped on the bandwagon first during a political campaign. The trend of a gradual increase in oil prices are no spring chicken. This has been happening gradually for the last 36 years. Anyone with a vision should have seen this coming. Anyone with a vision also understands that we can't drill our way out of this trouble without also incorporating a corresponding sea change in attitudes in addition to the implementation of a mult-faceted plan for a permanent solution.....This means that more drilling would only play a small PART in the total solution. Additional drilling without other changes is a prescription for disaster.

I guess I don't explain myself very well. Soak the rich is my term. That is what they imply. They are going to get the rich. They have been trying to do that since dirt. It never works. It didn't work when the rates were 70%. It hasn't worked at the current rates. It will not work with His Hignesse's rates.

When Herb Kohl can make $11,000,000 after deductions and pay $795,000 in taxes which is some 26 percentage points (not percent) below the statutory rate something is wrong. When Billie Jean Gate's company or the GEEENOME from Nebrask's company can pay corporate taxes at the rate of 8 to 10 percentage points (not percent) below the statutory rate something is wrong. In the meantime those people who have generated some success in life and make a few hundred thousan (let's say $400,00) a year get pounded. They will wind up paying at the full statutory rate. The tax world has worked that way for years. Obama isn't the first guy to say lets redistibute. That has been an economic hallmark of many politicians and many presidents over the years. But is doesn't work. It won't work this time. Billie Jean and Herbie and the GEEEEEEEEEEEEENOME will march along there way to continued and increased billionaire status. I cannot find anything fair about that. Same with the death tax. How many years has it been since a Rockefeller was anyone in business? That estate started like 80 some years ago. How many generations is that? Should have been eaten up by now in the death tax redistribution process. See any Rockefellers selling apples on the street? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. This shit doesn't work except to penalize those who have worked hard and built something up. The maximum death tax starts at some $2.2million if you are married. After that, 1/2 goes to Uncle Sam. Does that bother the Rockefellers 80 years later? No way. Will it bother you some day when your estate from being successful in you small business pays those taxes but they don't? Apparently not. No one gets this stuff. It only penalizes the small but successful people. Why?