Joe the Plumber Speaks

October 16th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags: , , ,

Joe Wurzelbacher explained to “Good Morning America”’s Diane Sawyer (you can watch the video here) why Barack Obama’s tax plans do not exactly make him a happy camper plumber.

Some important notes: Joe isn’t making $250,000 now. Rather, he hopes he’ll earn such an amount of money after he buys up the business he works for and works hard to improve it. His question was, therefore, with the future in mind: ‘If I work hard to become successful, are you going to tax me extra, and thereby punish my success?’

That was Joe’s point.

And Obama did not make him happy.

What I find most impressive about Joe, and I guess this is why the media focus on him right now, is that he comes across as a perfectly normal dude, who cares crap about politics normally. He’s only involved now, because he wants to know what the two candidates plan to do if they win, and what this might mean for himself and his family. The reasoning he uses, by the way, to criticize Obama, is one many Americans – and people everywhere for that matter – will agree with. That does not mean I agree with it – Obama’s not a socialist but more of a social democrat for instance (two distinctly different things).

It’s fascinating to see an average American, who truly believes in the American Dream and in the founding principles of his nation, talk about policies politicians would like to implement. Fascinating.

And that’s my last article, ever, about “Joe the Plumber,” from Holland, Ohio (yes, I also sympathize with those who live in a city or village called Holland. How couldn’t I, I’m Dutch after all).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. barbara the nurse
    October 16th, 2008 at 22:48
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Wonder if joe understands net and gross……………thats alot of money for a plumber………several in my family and they are all wondering what they are doing wrong!

  2. Canuck
    October 16th, 2008 at 23:54
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Firstly, Joe the plumber is not even a licensed plumber. Secondly, as it turns out he doesn’t want to pay taxes under the current republican administration either, as he has two liens against him for unpaid income tax on the public record. His alleged bipartisan position turned out to be a lie as well, as he is on record to have voted Republican in the primaries.

  3. C Stanley
    October 17th, 2008 at 00:04
    Reply | Quote | #3

    So, Canuck, I presume if some Democratic voter questions McCain about why he’s not pushing the same healthcare plan as Obama, for instance, that it’ll be fair game for right wing bloggers to search all records of that person, talk about how she had several abortions and that’s why she’s concerned about getting health care coverage, and show that she didn’t go to the doctor for routine healthcare visits and screenings when she did have coverage, and she smokes two packs a day?

    Always blows my mind how the people from the party that found a right to privacy in the Constitution can find it perfectly acceptable to drag their opponent’s dirty laundry out in public (cough, cough, Andrew “Why doesn’t Sarah Palin just release her medical records regarding the birth of her son, if she has nothing to hide- oh, but don’t you dare ask me to produce my medical records” Sullivan)
    The brouhaha over this particular plumber is pretty stupid, and those who are obsessing over the details of his personal and financial history are missing the fact that his question is one that applies to many entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs. It ain’t really about Joe, but about every other guy like him in every state of the union, who are considering taking a leap to invest in a business that can then grow and employ other people, but may not want to take on the added liability of higher tax rate…get it?

  4. Michael van der Galien
    October 17th, 2008 at 00:06
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Christine and Canuck see this article here at PoliGazette. Additionally, the man does not need a license according to Ohio law.

  5. C Stanley
    October 17th, 2008 at 00:07
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Barbara, I think it’s pretty apparent that Joe isn’t the one who doesn’t seem to understand net and gross- that’s the problem with Obama’s plan, it taxes small business owners who really don’t NET that much in salary, simply because of the way the tax code is structured so that they pay tax on the gross income from their business as though that’s really their salary. These are the people who are taking risks in order to grow jobs, yet Obama wants to tax them more heavily than a person earning far less in salary would have to pay (a salary that doesn’t come with the risks that self employment does.) How anyone could think that was a good plan in today’s economic situation is completely beyond me.

  6. Canuck
    October 17th, 2008 at 00:25
    Reply | Quote | #6

    CStanley spun:
    “So, Canuck, I presume if some Democratic voter questions McCain about why he’s not pushing the same healthcare plan as Obama, for instance, that it’ll be fair game for right wing bloggers to search all records of that person, talk about how she had several abortions and that’s why she’s concerned about getting health care coverage, and show that she didn’t go to the doctor for routine healthcare visits and screenings when she did have coverage, and she smokes two packs a day?”

    Wow. You left out the part where Obama then bases his campaign stumping around her after incessantly invoking her repeatedly during the debate, after which she does the talk show circuit repeating Obama bullet points like a robot. And what is your problem with people pointing out that this guy misrepresented himself from square one? The information, unlike in your medical scenario, is public record, including that he is related to Keating. When he decided to do the morning talk show circuit to parrot McCain talking points he made himself the subject of scrutiny. It’s a stunt. I’m sure that’s why you and your ilk are all waving your arms and saying that his “question” was the important thing. On top of which his assumptions have been proven to be wrong. Hell, his question was based on false presumptions in the first place. Just another launch pad for more fear mongering misinformation to befuddle the faithful.

    If Joe’s dream scenario were to come true under Obama, he would be a guy making over a quarter of a million personally from his business who ends up paying 3 per cent more tax. If he’s such an incompetent businessman that he pays himself that much. D’oh!

  7. gfggh
    October 17th, 2008 at 18:07
    Reply | Quote | #7

    Ohio law leaves licensing requirements up to local authorities. He does need a license according to his local laws. Neither he nor his business are licensed.

    He also lied on his facebook page about being a member of the local 189. That is also untrue.

    Does anyone know if his father is really the son-in-law of Charles keating?

  8. gfggh
    October 17th, 2008 at 18:08
    Reply | Quote | #8
  9. C Stanley
    October 17th, 2008 at 20:05
    Reply | Quote | #9

    Canuck, if in my hypothetical situation Obama did invoke a citizen who was as I described, and did all of the things you mentioned, I STILL do not think that would justify having her put on the public firing line.

    The information, unlike in your medical scenario, is public record, including that he is related to Keating.
    OK, I’ll bite- what exactly is that relationship? Like a bad game of telephone, one blogger reports a ‘close relationship’ simply because a DIFFERENT guy with the same last name happens to be Keating’s son in law, and that’s significant, how, exactly?  You do recall that Obama is ‘related’ to Dick Cheney, so does that mean anything in terms of their politics or is one responsible for the actions of the other?  Until someone produces ANY shred of evidence about a truly ‘close relationship’ between Joe the Plumber and Charles Keating, I’m not impressed by the reptition of this stupid claim.

    It’s also kind of telling that any stick is good enough to beat Joe with; on some blogs, people are harping on the fact that he doesn’t make anywhere near $200,000. On other blogs, they’re using records of an apparently different “Joe W.” to show how this guy is actually an owner of multiple businesses! (incidentally, my hunch is that it’s the other Joe W. who might be related to Keating’s son-in-law, but who knows and who cares?)

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.