Patterico's Pontifications

10/14/2008

More on Obama and the Plumber

Filed under: 2008 Election — DRJ @ 7:13 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

I posted recently on a discussion between Barack Obama and an Ohio plumber (he’s since been identified as Joe Wurzelbacher who lives outside Toledo, Ohio) regarding how Obama’s tax plan would increase taxes on a plumbing business Joe wants to buy.

Today, Jake Tapper at ABC News has an expanded transcript on their discussion. You can click on the link for the full discussion but I was interested in this part:

Obama said, “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off [sic] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

Hot Air has the video.

I feel for Mr. Wurzelbacher. He worked long hours to earn the money to buy a plumbing business and now Obama tells him he will be forced to help everyone who has less than he does. No doubt that includes a few poorer plumbers who will take their tax refunds, as well as special low-interest loans Congress will no doubt vote to give low-income workers, and use these benefits to compete with Mr. Wurzelbacher’s new business.

So while I agree that a good economy should be good for everyone, giving lower-income people money doesn’t translate into good economic times. It’s unfair and it doesn’t last. It’s the difference between giving people fish or teaching them to fish … except it’s even worse because Obama wants to give people someone else’s fish.

Or as Obama puts it: The government is going to make you “spread the wealth around.”

— DRJ

174 Responses to “More on Obama and the Plumber”

  1. Doesn’t Dear Leader Messiah know that this economic model is currently operating in the worker’s paradises of Cuba and North Korea? Half the people in these two countries probably don’t even have plumbing.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  2. Related to the fishing line, I saw these via LGF.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  3. If you really read Obama’s comment it is insanely stupid. It is like the chicken and the egg.

    According to Mr. Knowbama, how do things get “good” for Mr. Bottom-Up Bottom Feeder? Well, he gets $$ from Mr. Plumber courtesy of Mr. Knowbama. But, if Mr. Knowbama keeps taking money from Mr. Plumber to give to Mr. Bottom-Up Bottom Feeder, Mr. Plumber will no longer have a business for which Bottom Feeder can hire services.

    Never mind that Obama has it all bass-ackwards…If the economy and business is good for Mr. Plumber-Job-Creator, it will be good for everybody.

    Geez…this election season is frustrating!

    sharprightturn (43571e)

  4. It would be easier to take the right’s whining for smaller government more seriously if they hadn’t just spent the last 8 years adding $5 trillion to the national debt.

    snuffles (677ec2)

  5. Where to start, where to start…

    Maybe with drawing a distinction between customers who are able to afford a plumber because they have a paying job and those who are simply given money with which they can hire a plumber? And noting that someone who thinks the two are equal is by definition stupid?

    Or maybe pointing out the presumptuousness of Obama thinking that he can do a better job of spending the plumber’s money than the plumber can, of Obama thinking the only thing that stands in the way of a real good economy are the selfish stubborn folks who think that since they earned the money, they ought to be able to spend it as they see fit?

    Or maybe Obama’s inability to recognize that the plumber already has customers who can afford to hire him (which can be inferred by the plumber deciding to buy a business, something he probably wouldn’t do if there was a shortage of people able to afford a plumber.

    Or, my favorite, Obama thinking the economy benefits by taking money from the plumber, siphoning off 10% or so as a transaction cost (agency costs incurred by the government sticking its nose into the plumber’s pocket) and then giving it to other people who can then use it to pay the plumber? Just how does the plumber benefit? He’d be better off keeping his money and having none of these Obama-created customers.

    stevesturm (3b7833)

  6. SnuffFilm, you’ve been warned previously about attempting to hijack threads – either make a coherent point for once in your life, or abstain.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  7. #5 All good points. I think Obama is also thinking “price controls” so Americans can have access to “affordable” plumbers, doctors, rent, etc.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  8. Hell, I spread the wealth around now! I spread it at the store, at restaurants, at Amazon for sure, at the gas station, and if Obama doesn’t just GIVE it to some slob who offers nothing in return, I might give some to MY plumber.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  9. Obama has never done anything that required economic knowledge or business sense. He is not alone. This is typical of the political class.

    A friend of mine is a plumber from Germany; his wife is a midwife. They spent years waiting for a visa and finally emigrated two years ago. Initially, his English was rudimentary but he is pretty fluent now. He says that Germany has few poor people and few rich people. It would be impossible for him to have his own plumbing business in Germany so he and his wife waited years to come here and are now living in Tucson. The irony is that Obama will turn us into Germany, the country he emigrated from to build a business.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  10. One more thing…

    It occurred to me today that the Plumber may have asked the only substantive policy question of Obama in two years.

    Judging by Obama’s answer, if the MSM did their jobs, Obama would be toast.

    sharprightturn (43571e)

  11. By the way, have you ever noticed how some politicians define theft as “giving”?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  12. Obama, like so many of the political class who’ve never done anything useful in their life, have no knowledge of how the economy actually works in practice.

    It is just like Hillary Clinton’s line – when a pizza shop owner questioned her health care plan’s impact on his business – about not being responsible for “undercapitalized” business.

    They are parasites that think that they have a right to tap off all the blood they want, and like fleas they think it is limitless.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. The MSM can’t do their jobs if they wanted to regarding economics – they’re completely hopeless on the subject, as evidenced by their coverage over the past month.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  14. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.“

    Feel free to spread your own wealth.

    Dave Surls (957163)

  15. #10: and if McCain wasn’t such a total doofus when it comes to running a campaign, he’d make this a central theme of the last three weeks (heck, he ought to make it the ONLY theme). But, no, he goes and wastes time trying to get traction with Ayers and Palin goes off on abortion. Undecided voters and voters who aren’t totally enamored with Obama will respond more negatively to Obama’s plan to rob Peter to give to Paul, especially when Peter is a regular guy like the plumber and not some evil Wall Street exec. Some good commercials on this (ala Harry and Louise) will provoke more of a backlash against Obama than anything McCain and Palin could ever hope to do with Ayers.

    stevesturm (3b7833)

  16. It doesn’t sound like too many of you went beyond Econ 101 in college.

    Metacom (b8c7e2)

  17. “I feel for Mr. Wurzelbacher.”
    He’s a schmuck, but he’s doing just fine. I worry more about his workers.

    Nanker Phelge (139099)

  18. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.“

    Obama has a half brother living in poverty in a ghetto in Kenya.

    How much wealth has he spread to his relatives?

    Oh Silly me, Obama is a Liberal he means spread OUR wealth around not his own.

    Dan Kauffman (3d4a88)

  19. Spread the wealth around/blockquote>

    Iow, penalize those who are financially independent and self-reliant and give their hard earned money reward those who opt not to assume that responsibility and self-reliance.

    In the end, both of the above end up more tied in to governmental clutches, which is perhaps ultimately the plan. One by force (mandate, law), one through a sense of entitlement.

    Reward irresponsibility. Penalize responsibility.

    Its a brave new world.

    Dana (658c17)

  20. Metacom, actually I’ve taught it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  21. “and not some evil Wall Street exec.”

    Now they’re evil. After all these years of trickle down [sic] economics. And Bush is the one nationalizing the banks.
    Isn’t it hilarious? Only Nixon could go to China, and only George W Bush could bring socialism to the US. And I don’t think that subject has been mentioned here even once.
    And please no more about Fannie and Freddie. You lost that one, fair and square.

    But by the way, McCain’s transition chief was a lobbyist for Saddam Hussein

    Nanker Phelge (139099)

  22. I don’t care. I’ll be sipping wine from my own vineyard somewhere here if Obama gets more than 40% of the vote.

    nk (f2ee58)

  23. And please no more about Fannie and Freddie.

    You can always tell which arguments the Leftists really do not have a good answer for. They always declare them out-of-bounds.

    And you can tell that WankerFelcher and the Pilgrim Hating Metacom are …. never mind. I am going to be nice and not mention how they seem to always show up together, and have this propensity to bugger goats … Oops.

    JD (f7900a)

  24. Good post, but it would have been three times better if the ending was “spread the fish around.”

    Josh (f6ffef)

  25. sharprightturn @7:40:

    …if the MSM did their jobs, Obama would be toast.

    If the major news outlets had put even a tenth of the effort into “vetting” The One that they’ve currently allocated to dumpster-diving in Alaska, we would be talking about Hillary Clinton right now instead of the Glorious Teleprompter Reader.

    PCachu (e072b7)

  26. Econ 101?

    Obama hasn’t even run a lemonade stand.
    But let’s say he did.
    So he has to give 40% of his profits to the government who after they take their cut disburse the rest to people, some of whom return to buy lemonade.
    hmmmmm
    Nice economics.
    It’d be cheaper to just give 40% of the people who come to the stand free lemonade…

    Obama the lemonade stand guy now makes less than his employees, but has all the responsibilities to make payroll, pay rent, buy supplies, pay taxes and SS. He now needs to add healthcare… lemonade is now $4 for a small glass and no one wants to buy

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  27. It doesn’t sound like too many of you went beyond Econ 101 in college

    At least we took it, and didn’t sleep through it.

    Another Drew (767298)

  28. I believe Sen. Obama and his wife have made more money than I have by several orders of magnitude. If he thinks the rich should help those less fortunate, why doesn’t he start with me? Like he said, it would end up helping lawyers when I hire some to investigate his efforts to sue CitiBank and other ACORN related activities.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  29. I am amazed by what I just saw: Neil Cavuto talked to this very plumber today on his Fox show. The plumber’s impression is devastating! I agree that the McCain campaign MUST make this a commercial!! The interview is also being linked on other blogs, including Instapundit, I think.

    Lisa P. (7317bc)

  30. My answer to BHO’s Socialist income redistribution plan is this: You raise my taxes and I fire employees. PERIOD.
    I create jobs and I can take them away so don’t count on my either contributing one more penny in taxes to your pie, Barry, or to create a single new job.
    Capitalists believe that only by increasing the pie does EVERYONE get a bigger slice. Socialists believe that the pie can never be increased so everyone has to go on a diet!

    DMD in NOLA (da1103)

  31. Senator Obama often mentions “fairness” in his plans to tax the wealthy (or who he deems wealthy) to redistribute money to others. But, is the tax code in the United States based on fairness? I thought it was to fund programs that the people deem necessary for society.

    I don’t have a problem with federal taxes as far as providing infrastructure improvements or to assure defense or other reasons, but is it the government’s job to redistribute wealth? I have a real problem with that.

    Should we have “fair” tax code. Certainly. But I pay taxes to maintain a functioning government, not to take my money and give it to people I don’t know for reasons I don’t agree with.

    I donate money to help people who need it based on my experience and the needs of my community. I’m sorry, but “fairness” is a non-starter for me.

    ag80 (c29f44)

  32. Michelle told everyone a long time ago that they would be taking your pie. People did not pay attention.

    JD (f7900a)

  33. #30….
    Wasn’t this same screed posted on another thread here, by a different commenter?

    Another Drew (767298)

  34. She needs to take our pie, so as to put more fruit on the table, and arugula in the salad bowl.

    Another Drew (767298)

  35. “At least we took it, and didn’t sleep through it.”
    So I guess you’re in favor of the “Swedish plan” for Nationalizing the banks. Just like Bush is?

    I like this post. I makes it’s point clearly, but it won’t help make your case.

    Most people work for a living, that is they work for other people. They are not rich and are not trying to be, but nonetheless they deserve respect for being just what they are.. You seem to see the world as divided between entrepreneurs and failures. But entrepreneurs hire people to work for them.
    This post reads like it was written by an aging overweight couch-potato surrounded by empty McDonalds boxes watching a TV show where gorgeous young boys and girls make fun of fat people. And you’re laughing at them too.
    You’re worshipping the fantasy of what you’ll never be rather than trying to make the life you have better.
    Obama is right. With a more just tax scheme Wurzelbacher would have been where he is now a few years ago.

    You shouldn’t have to struggle in life. But if you chose to you should see some reward. That does not include the right to mock those who simply want a quiet but productive life.

    Nanker Phelge (139099)

  36. How about this: “I think when I spread your wealth around, it’s good for everybody.“ Alas, there are so many slackers and layabouts in this country who actually crave what BHO promises. Many see economic inequality as an “injustice,” most are just frickin lazy and have no idea how wealth is built. It’s depressing.

    gp (4db77f)

  37. If Hussein O belives in spreading the wealth why has he been so stingy with his charitable donations and why does he have millions in the bank? Hussein O should immediately donate $2 million or so the the Shriners who help needy children with 100% of the money they collect. Prove he’s a man and not a lying nut. (to be clear, I’m not a Shriner but do personally know of they’re good work)

    Scrapiron (6afa35)

  38. Comment by Nanker Phelge — 10/14/2008 @ 8:53 pm

    You need to see somebody competent to help you deal with your projection issues.

    Another Drew (767298)

  39. WankerFelcher has its memes and talking points of the day, and will not be distracted.

    Obama is right. With a more just tax scheme Wurzelbacher would have been where he is now a few years ago.

    Pure unadulterated BS.

    JD (f7900a)

  40. Not only is Obama a Marxist, he’s a dumb Marxist.

    He should recount his Soviet history, where the property-less peasants were given the land seized from the property-owning peasants in a true bottom-up model. It resulted in the land-owning class being eradicated and the landless causing it all to go to waste.

    Obama seeks to seize small business money and transfer their earnings to the business-less peasants through direct tax confiscation and indirect mandates (on health insurance, employment requirements, regulations, etc.).

    It’ll all end the same. Go out and demand that corn grow in January, Barry. Such a smart man.

    redherkey (9f5961)

  41. “…a more just tax…”

    Repeal the 16th-Amendment.
    That will be fair for everyone.

    Another Drew (767298)

  42. Comment by redherkey — 10/14/2008 @ 9:00 pm

    He doesn’t even have to think that far back.
    For a recent example, all he has to do is look at the scheme of agrarian reform in Zimbabwe.
    A country that used to export food for hard currency, is now forced to buy food from other countries just to feed their govt and army, the civilians are on their own (and starving).
    The inflation in Zimbabwe in July was 231 Million Per-cent.
    Compared to that, Weimar was a stable economy.

    Another Drew (767298)

  43. I’ve started asking every Obama supporter I know if they have:

    – a plasma big screen TV
    – an ATV
    – a Playstation 3 complete with games
    – sports team tickets
    – movie channels on cable/dish

    I noticed that while I’m paying for my family’s health insurance, my 401K and my kids 529 college savings (shocking, yea, I know!), many Obama supporters apparently are not and want me to pay for all three benefits for them along with mine.

    I understand their concerns. At the same time, they’re paying for lots of the above which we have none of. Indeed, I’ve been irresponsible. By taking their TV, ATV, toys, entertainment products, etc., I’m helping them do their part while they ask Obama to do the same to me. Better yet, I’m cutting out the nasty Government middle-man who seems to take $0.80 out of every income-transfer dollar as some sort of perverse fees. I’m EFFICIENT.

    So if you want to vote for Obama, I want your TV. Please let me know when I can come over and take them.

    redherkey (9f5961)

  44. I agree that McCain must make an issue of this. But he needs to define Obama as the socialist that he is. He has a track record of helping Bill Ayers “spread the wealth” and it isn’t good.

    Yes, of course he wants to punish success and redistribute wealth. That’s what his whole “tax break” ruse is designed to obscure. It’s not a tax break that he offers but redistribution of wealth. He has blatantly said exactly that with his Social Security proposal that would lift the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. Not the cap on benefits; that he’ll keep as he does not intend to return the money to the people he takes it from but “give” it to others. Now he’s giving us another hint about how he intends to govern by giving voice to his “mainstream” impulse that it’s always a good thing when government takes resources from people who worked for it to distribute it to those who didn’t. When he was talking about raising the marginal tax rate he was clear he doesn’t care that it actually lowers revenue. As far as he’s concerned it’s about “fairness.” Punishing success is the right thing to do in and of itself. It doesn’t matter if he takes the money or just influences the taxpayer that it just isn’t worth the effort to engage in any further economic activity. Just as long as the individual isn’t allowed to benefit from his own work, that’s what’s important.

    It’s a vote buying scheme. The fact that it’s so popular is a testament to the effectiveness of the kind of educational reforms he worked with Bill Ayers to effect. And all the other educational reforms brought about by Bill Ayers and his comrades in the war on capitalism they’ve been waging over the past 40 years.

    So yes of course hit him hard for being an unrepentant socialist who wants to take our money for his higher purposes. But his work with Ayers, ACORN, and Rev Wright tells you exactly what those higher purposes are.

    His track record on redistributing the wealth of one man is pretty instructive.

    Steve (d542b1)

  45. Nanker Phelge — 10/14/2008 @ 8:53 pm:

    This post reads like it was written by an aging overweight couch-potato surrounded by empty McDonalds boxes watching a TV show where gorgeous young boys and girls make fun of fat people.

    Phil — 10/8/2008 @ 6:57 pm:

    I will continue to picture you as a twenty-something, single intern for a prominent Republican California state senator.

    Interesting range of fantasies.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  46. It would be easier if all you just sat back, relaxed, and enjoyed the Barack Obama Presidency.

    abcdefg hijklmn (not a Soros minion) (f7900a)

  47. Well, someone was talking about you;
    and the other was written about the rest of us.

    Another Drew (767298)

  48. Dude, where’s my bailout?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  49. abcdefg hijklmn…

    I’m eager to enjoy a Barack Obama Presidency much more. Please send me my:

    – big screen plasma TV
    – ATV
    – gold coins
    – a meager 25% of Mr. Soros’s wealth

    Barack would be so proud of us, especially if we don’t have to use the Federal gov and the implied threat of force to help equalize our great nation.

    redherkey (9f5961)

  50. Barack also misrepresent the Bush tax cuts in the clip the way liberals typically have over the past eight years. He claims nothing was done for the middle class. Bullshit. The middle class reveived tax cuts along with everyone else. The average American family received a 6% cut. Why do liberals have to keep lying to make their policies sound good?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  51. “…Why do liberals have to keep lying to make their policies sound good?”

    Because, if they told the truth, no one would vote for them!

    Another Drew (767298)

  52. _________________________________

    Comment by SPQR: It is just like Hillary Clinton’s line – when a pizza shop owner questioned her health care plan’s impact on his business – about not being responsible for “undercapitalized” business.

    I believe her response — typical of those those on the left — was even worse. She implied that if an owner of a business didn’t have enough money to fund his or her employees’ healthcare, he likely was undercapitalized and shouldn’t be in business to begin with. IOW, it was sort of a shakedown mentality, of, hey you, sucker, you either pay as we say, or we’ll shut you down!

    No more than a variation of the left wanting some form of welfare, probably to ease their guilty conscience and superficial or hollow compassion (see below). Except instead of the government picking up the check, the left wants to force businesses to do it.

    Well, maybe that’s a step in the right direction, since at least the latter concept won’t further the entrenchment of an even bigger welfare-state bureacracy.

    Dan Kauffman wrote: Oh Silly me, Obama is a Liberal he means spread OUR wealth around not his own.
    Scrapiron wrote: If Hussein O belives in spreading the wealth why has he been so stingy with his charitable donations and why does he have millions in the bank?

    Mark (b7d9d9)

  53. Two on Albert C. Brooks.

    http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-really-cares-about-arthur-brooks.html

    http://www.volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml

    And the other obvious point is this: how many self identified consevatives work in education? child care? nursing? social services? and on and on.

    Nanker Phelge (139099)

  54. Telling people they don’t deserve the money they’ve earned seems like a really awesome idea.

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  55. From each according to his ability
    to each according to his need.

    doesn’t get simpler to understand than that.

    communism

    Curtis (e21caf)

  56. Jim @53 – I think there’s a really big upside to that approach. It could be test marketed with some door to door campaigning by glassy-eyed Obamatards at dinner time in high income zip codes around the country.

    “You don’t need your money, the country does.”

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  57. I hope McCain places this guy strategically in the audience tomorrow and then gives a well timed shout-out.

    fat tony (f86b83)

  58. It’s interesting to visit the comments of blogs across the spectrum. As an independent, an Obama supporter this time around, the tone of various blog comments is markedly different.

    I’m curious why people think that taxation under a Dem administration would be worse? I make under 250k and I’m getting a bigger tax break under an Obama administration. That tax break doesn’t help pay down our debt.

    Taxes always redistribute wealth. Look at historical tax rates to get some perspective. Then look at national debt.

    Our country is in a hole and we need to get out of it. I don’t want to give more money to the government, but I also don’t want to pass the bill onto my kids.

    Maybe we are past the tipping point. God help us if that’s the case.

    PC (b4b303)

  59. So I guess you’re in favor of the “Swedish plan” for Nationalizing the banks. Just like Bush is?

    Straw man argument. Please restate premise in such a way that does not ignore the fact that 95% of the posters/commenters on this blog loath the bailout plan.

    But entrepreneurs hire people to work for them.

    Only when they make money. If you take away too much of their income, you leave them with very little to use to pay someone else (or the required healthcare/FICA payments by the employer)

    You’re worshipping the fantasy of what you’ll never be rather than trying to make the life you have better.

    See, this is exactly our premise. The PERSON should work to make it better, not wait for a government handout. I suspect you fail to see the difference.

    Obama is right. With a more just tax scheme Wurzelbacher would have been where he is now a few years ago.

    Yes, because taking money from the guy will make it so much easier for him. Are you even reading what you write here?

    Obama’s idea is more fair? His plan is to take what this man has worked to acquired, and give it to people who have not. Wherein is the equity in that idea?

    You shouldn’t have to struggle in life.

    I hate to be the guy to tell you, since apparently no one bothered to mention it when you were growing up (actually, I should say “when you were young”, since it is fairly obvious that “growing up” is something you have yet to accomplish), but life isn’t supposed to be easy. You have to work hard for a comfy life, 99.9% of the time. Even Bill Gates worked his butt off to get where he is today.

    You should have to work for what you want. It is meaningless if you don’t have to put forth any effort.

    It is on that idea that we found our disgust towards Sen. Obama’s plan, and it is the antithesis of what your typical liberal/socialist believes.

    But if you chose to you should see some reward. That does not include the right to mock those who simply want a quiet but productive life.

    We aren’t mocking him. We are praising him and his desire to gain control of a business which will employ others. It is Obama that mocks him, by suggesting that it is ok to succeed, so long as you don’t succeed too much.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  60. Interesting range of fantasies.

    Comment by DRJ — 10/14/2008 @ 9:16 pm

    Wanna hear mine? *waggles eyebrows*

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  61. I make under 250k and I’m getting a bigger tax break under an Obama administration. That tax break doesn’t help pay down our debt.

    First off, you keep thinking that the Obama cuts will stack with your current rates. They won’t. With the intended elimination of the Bush cuts, and the increase in the Capital Gains tax, your tax burden will actually increase, assuming you are “average”. I’m sure some of the outliers in the bell curve of the Tax Brackets will see a reduction (or at best no change), but for the actual majority, their will see an increase.

    Second, depending where we are on the Laffer Curve, a reduction in taxes increases federal revenue. Most specificly, a decrease in Capital Gains taxes encourages people to more broadly invest, increasing revenue for companies, increasing their personal income from investments, and growing the economy.

    There is no instance I can think of where an increase in Cap Gains taxes has spurred economic growth.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  62. 60, Scott, don’t forget Obama wants to drop the increase in Dependent deduction from the Bush Tax cuts. McCain wants to increase those deductions.

    PCD (7fe637)

  63. Yeah, most (if not all) tax credits go away under the obama plan, or at least for any incomes that may find them useful.

    Hope you didn’t need that Earned Income credit, PC…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  64. PC, you are ignoring that Obama will increase deficit spending, not reduce it. And most independant analyses of Obama’s tax plan show that the stuff about less tax if under 250K is false.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. If McCain had any political cojones, he’d focus on the immorality of taxing labor through the Federal Income Tax and compare it to slavery – yeah, he’d be called a racist, but then according to some he’s a racist because he’s melanin-deficient.

    Horatio (55069c)

  66. SPQR – But PC is an independent, that just happens to spew the Baracky talking points du jour. It need not be bothered with the actual facts.

    JD (f7900a)

  67. The McCain campaign has to be aware of this, what with all the attention this is getting in right wing circles. The question: what, if anything, does the McCain campaign do with it? Do they recognize this as a game changer, along the lines of Obama’s ‘bitter’ comment back in the primaries? Or do they think of it as no big deal?

    If the former, how do they capitalize? Do they put out some inept press statement that will never get past the biased media gatekeepers? Do they buy TV spots to hammer home what Obama’s ‘Change’ is going to mean (imagine the 2008 version of Harry and Louise)? Do they, like Fat Tony (56) suggested, spring this on Obama at the debate so America can see him try to squirm his way out of this, and then follow it up with a barrage of commercials starting tomorrow morning?

    Personally, I think the only thing Obama could have done to give McCain a gift would have been to call the plumber ‘bitter’. It would be the height of incompetence to not run with this as fast and as far as one can… unfortunately, the McCain campaign hasn’t done too much to impress me with the tactical skills.

    steve sturm (369bc6)

  68. I want my right to a plumber!

    Highwayman (61ed53)

  69. Comment by Scott Jacobs — 10/15/2008 @ 5:27 am

    Nicely done. Thanks!

    You shouldn’t have to struggle in life.

    That comment alone would be worth giggling over if it weren’t so damn sad.

    X_LA_Native (8d67a3)

  70. Former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Herman Cain, just gave a great interview on why Baracky’s policies would be so horrible for the economy. Why can’t McCain do this?

    Highwayman – In Baracky’s world, you will not have a right to the plumber, but you will have a right to their services, and if he makes more money than you, some of his income.

    JD (f7900a)

  71. You shouldn’t have to struggle in life.

    That utopian pie-in-the-sky thinking is amusing, no? I missed that one completely. Good catch.

    JD (f7900a)

  72. “Life has meaning only in the struggle. Triumph or defeat is in the hands of God… So let us celebrate the struggle!” –Swahili warrior song

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  73. Baracky will alleviate all of your struggles for you and your family, as well as your paycheck.

    JD (f7900a)

  74. This thread is so beautiful! Illustrating the Republican war on the middle and lower class at the expense of, as President bush called them, his base. The problem with this country is not stagnant real wages (they have actually decreased in real terms in the last 6 years). No, the problem is all the peasants who keep asking you guys for cash.

    You guys need to get rid of your fancy home theaters and second (third?) car until you can afford to live in the gated community. Then, you keep all the dirty hippies and evil poor out of your sight!

    The last time the income gap between rich and poor in this country was so high was 1928…keep it up, ’cause if history teaches me anything, it’s that conservatives whining about how poor people always ask for money leads to a New Deal. Now, that’s change I can believe in.

    timb (a83d56)

  75. This thread is beautiful. The Leftists and their fellow travelers like timmah so proudly display their redistributionist theories, and trample all over the American dream.

    JD (f7900a)

  76. Illustrating the Republican war on the middle and lower class at the expense of, as President bush called them, his base. The problem with this country is not stagnant real wages (they have actually decreased in real terms in the last 6 years). No, the problem is all the peasants who keep asking you guys for cash.

    The amusing part is:

    Can you explain WHY wages are stagnant? And can you explain for me how increasing the money you take from the successful improves those jobs-created numbers or wages?

    No, the problem is all the peasants who keep asking you guys for cash.

    Well, that certainly is a problem, yes.

    See, we (especially those peasants like myself) tend to think those begging for cash should go try and work themselves up the ladder. It’s why I’m working towards a degree.

    Because I don’t want to live on the dole, subject to the whims of those in power.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  77. On Baracky’s world you can point and it shall be yours.

    The government will provide.

    He will take money from people who struggled to achieve so that you don’t have to.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  78. “This thread is beautiful. The Leftists and their fellow travelers like timmah so proudly display their redistributionist theories, ”

    No I’m sorry, it’s the republicans who’ve given us redistribution, on a massive scale. And of course if the original Paulson plan had gone through it would have been astronomical. The people of the United States giving 700 Billion dollars to the rich to make everything alright again. That’s what the plan was. And we would have gotten nothing in return.

    “The last time the income gap between rich and poor in this country was so high was 1928″

    “We lost a trillion dollars can we have some more?”

    Nanker Phelge (82bcfd)

  79. I want my neighbor’s HD projector. And, his walk-in humidor.

    JD (f7900a)

  80. Can someone point me to a tax calculator they trust that represents each candidates plan? Taxes are not my single issue, but I’m curious to see what I would be paying under each candidate.

    Scott Jacobs, I’m out of the market so cap gains isn’t an issue for me. I’m not going back into the market until it settles down, but even then I go long.

    JD, call it what you want. I’m registered as an independent and I don’t vote along party lines. I don’t think McCain would be a bad president, I just think Obama would be better right now.

    SPQR, I’ve lived through Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush. Deficit spending became a major issue under Reagan. Of those presidents, only one tried to reduce the deficit from the numbers I’ve seen. If you have different numbers please share them. One thing I respect about Republicans as a minority party is they try to keep the other side honest. If a democratic president tried to shovel bailout money to Wall Street, Republicans would be raising holy hell.

    PC (b4b303)

  81. WankerFelcher drops by and drops this little turdlet …

    No I’m sorry, it’s the republicans who’ve given us redistribution, on a massive scale

    An aggressive lie.

    How is it that it is Republicans that are into redistribution when San Fran Nan runs the House, Reid the Senate, and Baracky supported the plan?

    JD (f7900a)

  82. PC – Were you the one that claimed that you had supported Bush, but their uncontrolled spending pushed you towards Obama?

    You do not have to be in the market for capital gains taxes to effect you. When Baracky increases them, watch the ensuing job loss.

    JD (f7900a)

  83. Then, you keep all the dirty hippies out of your sight!

    Comment by timb — 10/15/2008 @ 7:34 am

    I _knew_ there was an incentive to being productive. Thanks!

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  84. JD, no.

    PC (b4b303)

  85. If a democratic president tried to shovel bailout money to Wall Street, Republicans would be raising holy hell.

    You conveniently forget that the Dems hold a currently majority in both houses, and it’s a good bet that they’ll retain (or even increase) those numbers, despite who wins the WH. So in effect, an Obama Presidency’s spending plans would have minimal checks on their full implementation.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  86. PC – It must have been another “independent” or “lifelong Republican” that used that one. My bad.

    Dmac – The growth in spending and government will be measured in degrees.

    Baracky – I propose $1,000,000,000,000 in new spending.
    Senate – Let’s not be rash. $800,000,000,000 will do.
    House – $2,000,000,000,000 is a good starting point.

    JD (f7900a)

  87. Being in a dark mood, I can truthfully say that I think that the gov’t should have let Wall Street crash into the abyss, and take Main Street with it.
    The pampered ninnies who only know “mememememe” deserve to be thrown into that abyss, and learn what the real world is like.

    I note that the intervention into the bank sector has provoked such a strong reaction that the WH has had to go on record that they will only be a “passive” investor, without any representation on the BoD’s.
    If they can hold Congress to that standard, then there will be no “nationalization”.

    Holding Congress to a “passive” status is like trying to caress an aligator –
    no matter how benign your intentions, you’ll still be eaten.

    Full “socialization” (h/t Maxine Waters) of the economy will come via the tax code – that is where the dragons lurk.
    The changes to that code proposed by “The One” will hurtle this country down that chute where we well just become wage-slaves for the gov’t, innovation will suffer, and entrepreneurship will dry up; leaving us to look like the stagnant economies that we see in the EU.

    Well, at least a large part of SCOTUS will be happy with that association.

    Another Drew (d4165f)

  88. Johnny Allen, leave me alone.

    timb (a83d56)

  89. timmah – Go fuck yourself. I was not talking to you, I was talking about you.

    JD (f7900a)

  90. Folks, again, so you know. Timmah has followed me around here and at other sites. As you can tell, he gets a little tingle up his leg by placing my name out there. At another site, he attempted to disclose the location of my home, and got fairly close. He stalks me.

    JD (f7900a)

  91. JD…
    Isn’t Internet Stalking a crime?
    IIRC there was a case discussed on Volokh on this yesterday?

    Another Drew (d4165f)

  92. Comment by JD — 10/15/2008 @ 8:50 am

    When will Patterico do something about all these blog-polluters? Civility should continue to be the hallmark of this reputable blog.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  93. “The people of the United States giving 700 Billion dollars to the rich to make everything alright again. ”

    Nanker – Name those “rich” please.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  94. lovie – I feel no need to be civil to stalkers. Or liars.

    JD (f7900a)

  95. The chief executives of the nine largest banks in the United States trooped into a gilded conference room at the Treasury Department at 3 p.m. Monday. To their astonishment, they were each handed a one-page document that said they agreed to sell shares to the government, then Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said they must sign it before they left.
    The chairman of JPMorgan Chase, Jamie Dimon, was receptive, saying he thought the deal looked pretty good once he ran the numbers through his head. The chairman of Wells Fargo, Richard M. Kovacevich, protested strongly that, unlike his New York rivals, his bank was not in trouble because of investments in exotic mortgages, and did not need a bailout, according to people briefed on the meeting.

    But by 6:30, all nine chief executives had signed — setting in motion the largest government intervention in the American banking system since the Depression and retreating from the rescue plan Mr. Paulson had fought so hard to get through Congress only two weeks earlier.

    I wish at least some of you had the guts to be honest with yourselves, and with the rest of us.

    Nanker Phelge (82bcfd)

  96. AD – I sincerely doubt what timmah does is criminal. It is just a bit unsettling that a twatwaffle like it has become fixated on me.

    JD (f7900a)

  97. WankerFelcher – Forgive me if I doubt the nature and tenor of your assertions.

    JD (f7900a)

  98. But I have to admit, it is nice to see moonbats complaining about the growth and scope of government intervention. Were their despair over this anything but a manifestation of their BDS, it would be encouraging.

    JD (f7900a)

  99. Nanker – The names of the “rich” please.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  100. Holding Congress to a “passive” status is like trying to caress an aligator –
    no matter how benign your intentions, you’ll still be eaten.

    Or as another analogy goes – “sometimes you eat the bear; sometimes the bear eats you.” Under this scenario, expect the latter.

    At another site, he attempted to disclose the location of my home, and got fairly close. He stalks me.

    I’m not a lawyer, but this reeks of harrassment to these ears. Way out of line.

    Civility should continue to be the hallmark of this reputable blog.

    So sayeth The Bobo, who continually makes all manner of character assassinations, yet makes no effort to condemn clear evidence of cyber – stalking. The Bobo’s not to be reasoned with, for it can only repeat dialogue it’s heard from other inanimate objects.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  101. Nanker – The names of the “rich” please.

    Definition via Wanker – everyone who makes more than me.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  102. JD,,,
    You do not know his intent, only what he has done.
    Let the law deal with it before it becomes a “criminal” matter.

    Another Drew (d4165f)

  103. JD, you are incapable of being civil. You are incapable of ANY discussion which is not ad hominem and which does not call people who disagree you “liars.” I have no interest in talking to you and have asked you not to talk to me.

    Secondly, asshole, YOU are the one who put your name and email address on the internet when you got all weepy about Gold*tein retiring for the fourth time. I call you by your name and I posted your execrable prose, because you refuse to leave me alone. I did not follow you here; I followed Karl (because I like his posts and because he can handle an argument/discussion in the myriad of ways you are incapable of).

    Any info I know about you is because you placed it on the internet, moron. Why you fear the folks of Patterico and not the folks at *rotein *sidom is beyond me, but, then again I don’t brag about being Kendall Gill’s towel boy or Nick Anderson’s stretching partner, so your decisions have always surprised me.

    This is, however, my final nice warning.

    PS I should have known your weird insanity would not let you honor an agreement. For all the accusations of “mendacity” you throw at everyone with a different opinion, I think I’ve seen (again!) who cannot keep his word.

    timb (a83d56)

  104. “But I have to admit, it is nice to see moonbats complaining about the growth and scope of government intervention. ”

    I’m not complaining about the government buying into the banking system. In doing that Bush and Paulson following the model of what Sweden did in 92, and what Krugman and others have said they should have done from the start. Instead two weeks ago rather than buy in, they opted for a give-away and that was of course to the rich A give-away = getting nothing in return. But the democrats and others blocked it, if for various and conflicting reasons so the deal was changed. But at this point, Bush/Paulson has gone even farther in the opposite direction. They are doing close to everything Krugman and others screamed for. They are doing what any other business would do:
    “You want my money I want something in return”
    The USG, representing the American people as a whole is now in the banking business.

    It’s clear you really don’t follow any of this.
    You just pretend to.

    Nanker Phelge (82bcfd)

  105. Daley, it would be to name the rich people, since the govt hasn’t even completed naming the TARP board yet.

    Jeez, did you learn that gotcha style of argument from Sean Hannity?

    Meanwhile, I think one would be safe concluding that by any definition of rich originating outside a Harvard alumni club, the CEO’s, CFO’s, COO’s, and major stockholders in Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are rich and will benefit from the government buying their earlier mistakes.

    timb (a83d56)

  106. 91, Lovey, I see nothing civil about a serial liar such as yourself. I would like nothing better than for Patterico, et. al. to blow you and your lying fellow travellers out to Internet Hell.

    It is not civil to lie constantly in the face of incontrovertable facts.

    PCD (7fe637)

  107. See what I mean, folks? It is creepy.

    JD (f7900a)

  108. Timb – It is Nanker’s claim that the $700 billion is going to rich people not mine. I am only asking him to back up his assertion. Do you agree with his claim?

    Purchasimg preferred stock in big banks does not put money in the pockets of rich people unless I’m missing something. Maybe you and he can connect the dots for everyone.

    O think it’s another worthless assertion on his part, among many.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  109. This is, however, my final nice warning.

    So, you are going to get worse? Is that a threat?

    JD (f7900a)

  110. And I think you are conflating the original bail-out with the new plan. The original bail-out was for bad investments made by rich people.

    Defending, love, though, it is hard, I will concede, for anyone of us to know the names of all the 1% of Americans who own 45% of the country and take home 20% of the economy’s cash, but I think it’s safe to assume some of them own banks or the controlling interest therein.

    But, I’m pretty sure the owners of major banks would qualify as rich. I mean, unless you’re aware of a bank owned by a bunch of poor people?

    At any rate I find this story more indicative of the plumber narrative. If Michael is successful enough, his corporate plumbing business can arrange to pay NO Federal taxes. Now that’s capitalism!

    timb (a83d56)

  111. This is, however, my final nice warning.

    Good. Then maybe you’ll shut the hell up then…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  112. Secondly, asshole, YOU are the one who put your name and email address

    You got my name when I sent you an email to invite you and your family to a 4th of July party that we were hosting. I should have known better than to have done so. Going out of my way to be kind and gracious has resulted in you posting information about me. It is fucking creepy that you cling to, and have collected all of these tidbits of information about me. Really creepy. Get a life.

    JD (f7900a)

  113. I would like to ask you folks, as you have a disinterested perspective. Were you in my shoes, would timmah creep you out?

    JD (f7900a)

  114. If Michael is successful enough, his corporate plumbing business can arrange to pay NO Federal taxes

    Which is Timmah’s way of saying “I have no Goddamn clue how taxes actually work in this country, and only say what I’m told by my handlers”.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  115. Comment by PCD — 10/15/2008 @ 9:46 am
    Another angry Republicant.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  116. So the plumber, who was interviewed here, is the same as a big corporation. I’m getting a picture of Obama supporters from the trolls here. They know no economics in a practical sense or they would understand why corporations don’t pay income tax. Most corporations, including mine, are smart enough to avoid double taxation by distributing all profit at the year end. That zeros out the corporation and the owners pay personal tax on the dividends. If the corporation pays corporate tax, actually an income tax on the corporation’s net income, then pays out dividends to owners, the owners then pay tax again on the same revenue. It is taxed twice. That’s why we are one of the very few countries that have a corporate tax on income. Congressmen are just as stupid as the trolls here.

    I suspect anyone who has ever run a business knows this but, of course, that eliminates Obama supporters. It’s amusing to see people pretend to discuss Swedish banking nationalization when they probably need help to balance their own checkbook.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  117. 112, JD, Personally, I’d send the Police, if local, the FBI, if not local, to have a talk with the boy to calm him down and to let him know that anything happens to you and yours, he’d be the first one down town being fingerprinted.

    PCD (7fe637)

  118. 114, not angry, the latest meme of the O-Bots, just fed up with liars, such as yourself. You waste bandwidth, and would not acknowledge the truth if beaten over the head.

    Ta Gahennah with ye.

    PCD (7fe637)

  119. JD – as I mentioned previously, there is no justifiable reason for posting someone’s home address and name unless the aforementioned individual gave consent to do so previously.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  120. Ta Gahennah with ye.

    They’re takin’ the piss on.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  121. Were you in my shoes, would timmah creep you out?

    Comment by JD — 10/15/2008 @ 10:10 am

    Um, yes.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  122. My only objection to paying 175bucks in capitol gains on my meager investments (assuming they actually start making money again any time soon) instead if 140 bucks is that the tax money goes to the “We lost a trillion dollars can we have some more?” guys.

    Hyping O into Carl Marx is just silly, especially since the Republicans, with 6 years to do it, not only didn’t fix the current financial problem but also didn’t get rid of Social Security, Farm Subsidies, Earmarks, or any other “socialist” cancers that some of them go on about. So we are all a little socialist. So what?

    Isn’t the plumber’s real problem that he owns his business that pays his salary so he gets taxed TWICE on the same income? If O or John McCain could fix that, now that would be government helping out the “small businessman”.

    If O wins it’s not the end of the world. PC is right
    “One thing I respect about Republicans as a minority party is they try to keep the other side honest.”
    Republicans will regroup, come up with some new ideas (we all hope) and come back smarter and stronger. Too many years of easy picking has made them too fat and happy.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  123. 112, JD, Personally, I’d send the Police, if local, the FBI, if not local, to have a talk with the boy to calm him

    It would appear that the stalker in question is using the same playbook that another nutbag stalker used in harassing Goldstein’s family.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  124. Yes, JD, your constant fascination with slandering me DOES creep me out. Secondly, to receive an email from you, I would have to give you my email address, which I would never do. I got your email address when you posted it on Jeff’s site.

    You are unstable and a bit weird. For the good of the macho Scotsman here, who seems to be even a little more unsettling than even you, I’m gonna ignore your breaking of your word. But, do not address me unless you have a point (i.e. not just one of your silly victimization whines or accusations).

    timb (a83d56)

  125. Until you explain why you felt the need to post his name on this site, you doth creepeth the hell outta many of us here.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  126. Please, I’ve had my name, address, a link to google-maps, and a threat to had that info used to come “visit” posted on a forum before…

    And I post under my name. I’m hardly what you’d consider a decent control group with those kinda questions, JD.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  127. This is, however, my final nice warning.

    So first you post his name, then issue a threat. Now explain again whom is the more “unsettled” among us here?

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  128. Mike K, if you could click a link you would find that I linked to a Reuters article discussing the fact that 57% of American corporations did not pay any Federal tax for at least one year as context for the remark regarding the new conservative hero.

    But, there are two additional points: First, unless Mike from Toledo is dragging home $250,000 in net earnings from his business, then his taxes are not going up (according to Obama).

    Secondly, conservatives lecturing ANYONE on the economy is rather rich at present. Oh, I know the standard argument is that it was the bad evil minorities who borrowed too much (a story disproved in a hundred places). Must be hard to argue it was those poor minorities who wrote 62 trillion in bad credit default swaps!

    However, I’m sure with your great understanding of economics, you can work on how ACORN wrote those CDS’s.

    We await your epistle on the subject.

    timb (a83d56)

  129. Dmac,

    You tiny little man-child, posting his name is so terrible? I didn’t EVEN know his name until he posted it.

    Besides, as I showed JD earlier, what I meant by “final, nice warning” was that I would harass him like he does me. He does not like it and neither do I, which why I’ve asked him not to.

    Why don’t you take JD back to the insane cesspool of PW and leave me alone (unless you have an important argument to make…in that case, I’d be glad to read it.)

    Scott Jacobs, someone did that to you? That is a nasty thing.

    timb (a83d56)

  130. I didn’t EVEN know his name until he posted it.

    Yet you posted it again, for no apparent reason other than to intimidate him into silence, then repeated an earlier threat. Now tell us, whom among us is the “little man child?”

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  131. For the good of the macho Scotsman here

    You tiny little man-child,

    You are unstable and a bit weird.

    Your projection is indeed quite unsettling.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  132. “Isn’t the plumber’s real problem that he owns his business that pays his salary so he gets taxed TWICE on the same income?”

    EdWood – Do you have any evidence at all for this assertion or are you just talking out of your ass?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  133. Timb:

    From a brief scan of postings you are threatening, stupid, unaware and out of touch. The rich you describe are folks like Streisand, Arianna, Pelosi, Geffen, Speilberg, Feinstein, Burkle, Affleck, Madonna, Baldwin, Tina Fey, Sean Combs…. each one security-gated and propped up by servants at their mega-estates while deftly avoiding any lowly minorities or sweaty civilians within a 20-mile radius.

    There’s a serious disconnect in your head if politics is based on income rather than ideology. You also write like stalker. Get help.

    Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe)

  134. “Oh, I know the standard argument is that it was the bad evil minorities who borrowed too much (a story disproved in a hundred places). Must be hard to argue it was those poor minorities who wrote 62 trillion in bad credit default swaps!”

    timb – Could you please point to where the racist Republicans are saying it was the evil minorities who are responsible for this crisis? I believe that is purely the left’s spin on what conservatives are saying, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. Also, wtf are you trying to say about credit default swaps? Do you even understand what they are? Are you even aware that you usually need underlying securities, such as bad mortgages to write them against? You have not gotten any smarter since you started commenting on this blog.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  135. Scott Jacobs, someone did that to you? That is a nasty thing.

    Indeed it was quite unpleasant.

    Thankfully, I have long been convinced as to the cowardice of the general population, and never worried much about it.

    However, for those who chose not to announce their names, I can understand why they might chose to do so, and I thus consider such things as – to use but one example – announcing someone’s name on a blog to be rather rude.

    How about you do us all a big favor, and go the hell away. You add little, detract much, and annoy all.

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  136. “And I think you are conflating the original bail-out with the new plan. The original bail-out was for bad investments made by rich people.

    Defending, love, though, it is hard, I will concede, for anyone of us to know the names of all the 1% of Americans who own 45% of the country and take home 20% of the economy’s cash, but I think it’s safe to assume some of them own banks or the controlling interest therein.”

    timb – Are you and Alex Jones collaborating? Is this shit you’re talking about part of the Bilderberg conspiracy? What original versus later bailout proposal? Can you elaborate? I think you and Nanker are just blowing smoke with standard socialist/lefty ralking points and don’t like getting called on your shit because you have nothing to back up your assertions.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  137. How about you do us all a big favor, and go the hell away. You add little, detract much, and annoy all.

    Kind of succinct and nicely said.

    Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe)

  138. timb – It’s easy to go to a proxy statement and find out the largest holders of a public company’s stock if they are over 5% or insiders or to a Bloomberg machine or other source. I’m sure you don’t want to go to that effort to test your hypothesis though. Unproved conspiracies about “rich” people, maybe Joooos, controlling the economy are so much more fun. That we everybody else can pretend they are victims.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  139. Strange, I was thinking the same thing about you. Did the CRA allow investment banks to hold a 40 to 1 ratio of debt to cash?

    Oh, and further, Daley, read this blog regarding Fannie and Freddie to see places where people allege minority lending is the cause of the current problem. Or Hot Air. Or Protein Wisdom

    And, please refrain from your silly “gotcha” questions. I’m not Colmes and you’re not buying a ten million dollar house in Long Island. Leave Hannity to Hanntiy.

    vermont neighbor, scan again and be a better neighbor. Being accused of being out of touch by a wingnut is truly hysterical. Look, Vermont, is that Bill Ayers hiding under a rock? Go get him!

    And then, shockingly, Vermont Neighbor engages in class warfare Apparently you disdain the rich too, VN, or do you respect it only when it’s made by people who subscribe to your…ideology! Plank meet speck.

    Limousine liberal…showing your age again, my friend. Running a 1980 campaign in 2008. How gauche.

    PS. Dmac, I noted the silence regarding the substance of my rebuke of you.

    But accusing me of projection!?! Wow, I bet you are the one millionth poster on any blog today who said that! Cheer up, it may be trite and the product of a simpleton, but there may be some sort of prize for the millionth person who did it today. Kudos to you.

    You should end your next post “eleventy one” to keep up your nomination for most unoriginal chimp.

    timb (a83d56)

  140. “And, please refrain from your silly “gotcha” questions. I’m not Colmes and you’re not buying a ten million dollar house in Long Island. Leave Hannity to Hanntiy.”

    timb – What does this mean? You can’t or won’t answer questions about the things you post?

    Subprime does not automatically equal minority you braindead twit. Google it!

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  141. ” I’m not Colmes and you’re not buying a ten million dollar house in Long Island.”

    Hon, you’re not God either. That role’s taken. Although I hear Rezko can get you a deal on a house. With a strip of grass! And don’t say no… you can throw him under the bus later. That’s what God does. (But you know that.)

    Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe)

  142. timb – You are like Obama, though. You’ve got more shit coming out of your mouth than your ass.

    When Obama has more shit coming out his ass than his mouth, maybe I’ll trust him.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  143. When Obama has more shit coming out his ass than his mouth, maybe I’ll trust him.

    Daley, newsflash, you’re a wingnut Republican. You won’t EVER trust liberal Democrats.

    As for subprime, tell Michelle Malkin and Pablo and Limbaugh. I’m already aware of it.

    but to spoof you: Daley, name on person who got a subprime loan who was not a minority. Name a name of the poor.

    See, that’s how dumb gotcha questions are.

    timb (a83d56)

  144. Mike K, if you could click a link you would find that I linked to a Reuters article discussing the fact that 57% of American corporations did not pay any Federal tax for at least one year as context for the remark regarding the new conservative hero.

    Guess what, troll ? I did click the link saw what you were trying to say and responded. My bad for thinking you were serious.

    Once more, do you understand what corporations do with net income ? Do you understand that corporations are owned by shareholders ? Do you understand that shareholders would like some compensation for owning the stock in a corporation ?

    But, there are two additional points: First, unless Mike from Toledo is dragging home $250,000 in net earnings from his business, then his taxes are not going up (according to Obama).

    Nothing Obama says about taxes can be trusted.

    For example, today he said that lowering the capital gains tax rate(a McCain proposal) would have no effect because nobody has any capital gains now. If Obama knew anything about taxes and incentives, he would know that McCain suggested that plan (no doubt suggested by an economist) as an incentive for people who do have cash to buy up distressed assets, thereby creating a market for them.

    If your house is in foreclosure, or your bank is in trouble, and I have money, I have a greater incentive to buy it if I know that the capital gain I see in three or five years when the market recovers, will be taxed at a lower rate. It’s not that I am going to SELL NOW. I am going to BUY. Obama doesn’t understand that.

    And neither do you.

    Secondly, conservatives lecturing ANYONE on the economy is rather rich at present. Oh, I know the standard argument is that it was the bad evil minorities who borrowed too much (a story disproved in a hundred places). Must be hard to argue it was those poor minorities who wrote 62 trillion in bad credit default swaps!

    I doubt you know any standard argument in economics. The people who borrowed too much were minorities in some cases but there were lots of non-minorities, too. They were flipping houses and speculating in condos in Vegas and all sorts of activities that should not have been allowed. The reason why they were allowed was the moral hazard created by Fannie Mae, which began accepting NINJA loans in a misguided effort to get more minorities buying homes.

    A NINJA loan is a “No Income, Job or Assets”, loan.

    However, I’m sure with your great understanding of economics, you can work on how ACORN wrote those CDS’s.

    We await your epistle on the subject.

    See above but I don’t believe for a moment you understand it. I suspect you are one more junior college dropout with Axelrod talking points.

    Comment by timb

    Mike K (f89cb3)

  145. Did the CRA allow investment banks to hold a 40 to 1 ratio of debt to cash?

    Not the one from Carter, but I do believe the one under Clinton did…

    Scott Jacobs (a1c284)

  146. “but to spoof you: Daley, name on person who got a subprime loan who was not a minority. Name a name of the poor.”

    timb – Newly minted doctors coming out medical school are a good example in this group timb. They tend to be loaded up with debt, have checkered credit histories, but good income prospects. A lot of subprime loans were made to new doctors. A lot of subprime loans and Alt A loans were also made to people buying second homes or investment property with little money down. These were the loans that typically went into default first because they weren’t primary residences and people didn’t have to hang onto them.

    More questions timmah?

    So back to the questions I asked you. How does buying preferred stock of big banks get cash in the pockets of rich people?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  147. “Did the CRA allow investment banks to hold a 40 to 1 ratio of debt to cash?”

    timmah – Why did Congressional Democrats stymie Republican efforts to regulate Fannie and Freddie leverage ratios below these levels to prevent this crisis?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  148. If Obama’s big money backers (I’m confining myself to the legitimate ones)–Soros, Oprah, the Hollywood Left (by which I mean, pretyy much, “Hollywood”), the Park Avenue Pinkos and the Beverly Hills Bolshies–took all that money they’re giving to the Chosen One, they could put in a big pile that would probably keep every poor American citizen (sorry, illegals) in a fair amount of comfort, with adequate health insurance, for at least a couple of years. We could call it, in honor of Larry David, “The Human Fund: Money for People.” In fact, if they were really serious about equality and spreading the wealth, Obama’s wealthy pals could agree to live on whatever the median income is in the US, and donate the excess to the poor. But what fun is that? Using the coercive power of the State is where these people get their rocks off.

    “I remember when ‘liberal’ meant being generous with your own money.”–Will Rogers.

    Bilwick1 (798ac9)

  149. Yeah, mike, I’ll let the doctorate go unmentioned for awhile as I try to stop laughing.

    How to sum you up on one sentence: “When Obama says stuff about taxes, he’s lying, except when he says things that fit into my pre-conceived notions. So, you can believe Obama when he says something I already think is true, and not believe him when he’s says something I’ve decided is untrue.”

    Nice work

    Of course, the CBO says your analysis of NINJ loans is bunk. That Fannie and Freddie did not authorize such loans, but they were authorized by private lenders and mortgage brokers. Again, that doesn’t fit with your conception of reality, so you’ll ignore it.

    PS If I worked for the Obama campaign, waht would be the point of arguing with you people? None of you are voting for Obama, hell, most of you consider McCain too liberal. Personally, I’d love to get paid to comment on politics, but sadly all I get is the ramblings of some business school graduate telling how the world works, when his ideas have caused a ten trillion debt and a financial meltdown.

    Ash bin of history, meet Mike K and his “free” market philosophy of capital.

    timb (a83d56)

  150. “If your house is in foreclosure…and I have money, I have a greater incentive to buy it”
    I’d rather help people to stay in their own homes, if possible, rather than help speculators kick them out. But some homeowners are speculators too, I know. Check the last link below.

    “I doubt you know any standard argument in economics. The people who borrowed too much were minorities in some cases but there were lots of non-minorities, too. They were flipping houses and speculating in condos in Vegas and all sorts of activities that should not have been allowed. The reason why they were allowed was the moral hazard created by Fannie Mae,”
    Here we go with Fannie and Freddie, data be damned. it wasn’t Fannie and Freddie and it wasn’t the CRA I could link to more essays and articles that made the same point, but then again I have and you keep coming back with this shit

    And speaking of Moral Hazard, what was the original Paulson plan but reward for failure?
    Republicans, party of the rich and the self-hating middle class. vs Democrats, party of the somewhat chagrined rich and the rest of us.
    Good enough for me.

    “40-1″ 2004 SEC rule change for the 5 biggest houses

    Here more fun Irvinehousingblog

    Nanker Phelge (b97fb6)

  151. So back to the questions I asked you. How does buying preferred stock of big banks get cash in the pockets of rich people?

    I answered that.

    Now, you answer my question! Name a doctor who got a subprime loan. Why can’t you answer the question?*

    *Is it because this style of argument is stupid?
    The answer is yes, so please stop doing it.

    timb (a83d56)

  152. For Mike K and Daley

    Matt Taibbi and Byron York Butt Heads Over Whether McCain Deserves Blame for the Wall Street Meltdown

    MT…I mean, his onetime campaign co-chair and top economic adviser, Phil Gramm, basically created the credit-default-swap market back in 2000. Why shouldn’t he [McCain] get hammered on the financial crisis?

    B.Y.: Did I suggest that headwinds are unfair? But on the financial meltdown in particular, if you’re suggesting that that is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you’re on pretty shaky ground.

    M.T.: You don’t think the unregulated CDS market was a major factor in the current crisis? Were you watching when AIG almost went under? Were you watching the Lehman collapse?

    B.Y.: I think that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were also major factors. And I believe that many of the problems in the mortgage area can be attributed to the confluence of Democratic and Republican priorities: the Democrats’ desire to give mortgages to people, particularly minorities, who could not afford them, and the Republicans’ desire to achieve an “ownership society,” in part by giving mortgages to people who could not afford them. Again, I believe that if you are suggesting that the financial crisis is a Republican creation, or even more specifically a McCain creation, I think you’re on pretty shaky ground.

    M.T.: Oh, come on. Tell me you’re not ashamed to put this gigantic international financial Krakatoa at the feet of a bunch of poor black people who missed their mortgage payments. The CDS market, this market for credit default swaps that was created in 2000 by Phil Gramm’s Commodities Future Modernization Act, this is now a $62 trillion market, up from $900 billion in 2000. That’s like five times the size of the holdings in the NYSE. And it’s all speculation by Wall Street traders. It’s a classic bubble/Ponzi scheme. The effort of people like you to pin this whole thing on minorities, when in fact this whole thing has been caused by greedy traders dealing in unregulated markets, is despicable.

    B.Y.: I was struck by the recent Senate testimony of James Lockhart, who is head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, about the sheer recklessness of Fannie in recent years. Despite “repeated warnings about credit risk,” Lockhart testified, Fannie became more reckless in 2006 and 2007 than they had been in the scandal-ridden tenure of Franklin Raines (who departed in 2004). In 2005, Lockhart said, 14 percent of Fannie’s new business was in risky loans. In the first half of 2007, it was 33 percent. So something terribly wrong was going on there, and it became a significant part of the present problem.

    M.T.: What a surprise that you mention Franklin Raines. Do you even know how a CDS works? Can you explain your conception of how these derivatives work? Because I get the feeling you don’t understand. Or do you actually think that it was a few tiny homeowner defaults that sank gigantic companies like AIG and Lehman and Bear Stearns? Explain to me how these default swaps work, I’m interested to hear.

    Because what we’re talking about here is the difference between one homeowner defaulting and forty, four hundred, four thousand traders betting back and forth on the viability of his loan. Which do you think has a bigger effect on the economy?

    B.Y.: Are you suggesting that critics of Fannie and Freddie are talking about the default of a single homeowner?

    M.T.: No. That is what you call a figure of speech. I’m saying that you’re talking about individual homeowners defaulting. But these massive companies aren’t going under because of individual homeowner defaults. They’re going under because of the myriad derivatives trades that go on in connection with each piece of debt, whether it be a homeowner loan or a corporate bond. I’m still waiting to hear what your idea is of how these trades work. I’m guessing you’ve never even heard of them.

    I mean really. You honestly think a company like AIG tanks because a bunch of minorities couldn’t pay off their mortgages?

    B.Y.: When you refer to “Phil Gramm’s Commodities Future Modernization Act,” are you referring to S.3283, co-sponsored by Gramm, along with Senators Tom Harkin and Tim Johnson?

    M.T.: In point of fact I’m talking about the 262-page amendment Gramm tacked on to that bill that deregulated the trade of credit default swaps.

    Tick tick tick. Hilarious sitting here while you frantically search the Internet to learn about the cause of the financial crisis — in the middle of a live chat interview.

    B.Y.: Look, you can keep trying to make this a specifically partisan and specifically Gramm-McCain thing, but it simply isn’t. We’ve gone on for fifteen minutes longer than scheduled, and that’s enough. Thanks.

    M.T.: Thanks. Note, folks, that the esteemed representative of the New Republic has no idea what the hell a credit default swap is. But he sure knows what a minority homeowner looks like.

    B.Y.: It’s National Review.

    timb (a83d56)

  153. Personally, I’d love to get paid to comment on politics, but sadly all I get is the ramblings of some business school graduate

    Tim B, you certainly show your hand. Obama supporters all spew the same elite, vague, empty rhetoric. Good work on the morning talking points..

    Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe)

  154. PS. Dmac, I noted the silence regarding the substance of my rebuke of you.

    When someone’s backside has already been torn clean off, there’s really nothing left to respond to.

    Dmac (cc81d9)

  155. I answered that.

    timmah – No you didn’t, you punted. The cash goes into the banking corporation. You made an assumption that the people who own the bank are rich with no proof, that 1% of the people own 45% of the country, and the Bilderberg conspiracy is going to take over the world from the evil Joooos.

    You’re spouting the same “get Phil Gramm” mantra about credit default swaps that hasn’t stuck yet. In the absence of the bill you refer to would the market have grown the same way. My answer is yes. The AIG sub that wrote the swaps was a London based unregulated operation. Why would it otherwise have been regulated here?

    timmah – You just don’t understand the mortgge market or the capital markets, but I’m here to help. Spout your talking points. Full meme ahead!

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  156. I got this from the linked article:
    “The GAO said corporations escaped paying federal income taxes for a variety of reasons including operating losses, tax credits and an ability to use transactions within the company to shift income to low tax countries.”

    Wow. That plumber’s gonna need a heck of a creative accountant to get to the last two of those.
    The first one will be all too certain under the Obama plan.

    Someone else wrote that the plumber might be facing a scenario where he gets taxed twice, which is possible. If the plumber’s company is incorporated and if he is the sole shareholder, “his” corporation will be taxed.
    He will also be paying himself a salary, and will pay taxes on that too.

    Obama’s plan is a disaster for employers.
    Most people don’t understand that many corporations operate on razor thin margins.
    If every fast food chain, gave all their employees a $2HR raise without any price increases, they’d go out of business. If they pass that increase onto the consumer, some will not buy and then employees will be fired.
    Any cost that cannot be passed along to the consumer; keeping sales equal will result in a loss of jobs. Increased taxes work the same way.

    At 250K per year, Mr. Plumber would be making $125HR X 40HR week X 50 weeks per year.
    Nice. Good for him
    He’ll probably have to work more like 10-12 hour days and will likely need a lot of employees to realize that $125 because no one is paying that for an individual construction plumber.
    I’ve seen them billed out at $77HR here and the employee usually gets about 50% of that as wage.
    SSI, UI, DI, Workers Comp, Liability Ins. etc eat up about 30% of the rest which leaves the plumbing contractor about $15Hr per employee.
    Out of that $15HR the plumbing contractor needs to pay for an office, someone to answer the phones, do the billing, schedule, estimate, etc. (usually these persons are called “wife and husband”, but often she declines the job and it goes out of house)
    The plumber also has to pay for trucks, repair, fuel, phones etc to keep the company moving.
    And ta da… accountants.
    In the end the plumbing contractor gets to keep about $6-12HR per production employee depending on the variables within the category of overhead and the number of production employees.
    That is a lot of work for a decent return. That type of an employer should be given a big sloppy wet kiss by government, not a buggering.
    That employer does the Federal and States jobs for free:
    He/She collects witheld taxes and forwards the money twice monthly to the state and feds at no charge to the government for the service.
    Same goes for collection and forwarding of SSI, UI, DI, child support, tax liens… all done free to the taxpayer.
    The cost of doing this is a hidden tax on employers, since the employer has to pay someone a good wage just to do the governments job.
    The also employer matches 6.2 cents on the dollar to SSI which is a 6.2% tax on almost every dollar of payroll.
    Small business is burdened enough with government… success should be encouraged and applauded, not punished.

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  157. SteveG – Thanks, you reminded me I forgot a few things.

    timmah and Wanker – How do you believe the secondary market for subprime mortgages evolved? Before Fannie and Freddie began purchasing them under government pressure, what was the size of the market? You focus on the past couple of years, ignoring open market purchases by the GSE’s, but you need to look to the role of the GSEs in creating the entire secondary market itself.

    That Reuters article is nothing special. I agree with it that showing no federal tax liability in one out of seven years is not unusual for a corporation. I’m not sure why timmah or wanker linked it. Perhaps they can explain.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  158. So how much did Obama and Michelle pay on his book income? You know there’s some shelter, some trust, some loophole somewhere.

    If you’re self employed, you’re screwed. I figure I’ll just stop working, come Nov.

    Kate (3dabb5)

  159. An outsiders view of the American Financial Crisis:
    From “A Capitalist Manifesto“, WSJ-Online, 10/13/2008, by Judy Shelton…

    The financial crisis is not the crisis of captialism. It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism.”.

    Nicolas Sarkozy, President, FRANCE

    Another Drew (99fec2)

  160. Oh, whoa is Joe the Plumber! The poor guy is personally earning a bottom line of over $250,000! I say he SHOULD ante up a little more – and so should McCain and Obama – and me. A huge, HUGE problem is that the republicans have decoupled spending from taxes – as VP Cheney famously said, “deficits don’t matter.” That has given the republicans the right to cut, cut, cut taxes while they continue to spend, spend spend! Let’s get real here: if we cut EVERYTHING in the budget except interest on the debt, defense, social security and Medicare, the budget STILL isn’t balanced. The revenue side of this equation needs a boost.

    Moose (e31117)

  161. Hmm. I think there is nothing wrong with having to pay more taxes if you are making so much money. I also think that Joe won’t get much business in the near future if John McCain is president because people will go to the library and get a self help book to fix the plumbing problem themselves; that’s all most people will be able to afford.

    Kimberly Nogueira (9c302e)

  162. Kimberly, that’s a pretty silly thing to say. The idea that John McCain’s policies would impoverish people when it is in fact Obama who would increase taxation is just nonsense.

    In fact, the idea that Obama has the slightest clue about the US economy is nonsense – and the original post shows just how clueless Obama is about actual economics.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  163. The poor guy is personally earning a bottom line of over $250,000

    Yes, because of 10-12 hour work days in a skilled trade.

    He wants to buy the business he works for, and Obama basicly wants to punish him for that.

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  164. Yeah, mike, I’ll let the doctorate go unmentioned for awhile as I try to stop laughing.

    How to sum you up on one sentence: “When Obama says stuff about taxes, he’s lying, except when he says things that fit into my pre-conceived notions. So, you can believe Obama when he says something I already think is true, and not believe him when he’s says something I’ve decided is untrue.”

    Nice work

    I had the feeling that it was a waste of my time. You have never met a payroll and never will. You will be a disgruntled employee all your life.

    I thought that, for all McCain’s clumsiness in explaining his plans, Obama doesn’t ring true to people. The Luntz focus group all said Obama won the debate but only four of 23 were swayed to support him.

    My friend, the German plumber, may not be paying attention to this election. I’l have to ask him this weekend if we see him in Tucson, but I suspect he knows which is the better future.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  165. Kimberly Nogueira — When practical, middle-class people SHOULD “go to the library and get a self help book to fix the plumbing problem themselves,” regardless of how good or bad the economy is doing at a particular point in time.

    Icy Truth (1468e4)

  166. Plumber wants to buy a business… and common sense tells him that in an Obama administration that wouldn’t pencil out.
    But some genius here says “no, it is a good investment in an Obama administration” but said genius should initiate a CDS on Joe Plumbers note if they believe that to be true.
    In other words are you so sure that Joe Plumber won’t default on any loan issued due to Obama’s economic policy?
    I’m willing to create some debt instruments that let you Obama people put real money where your mouths are…

    SteveG (71dc6f)

  167. Oh, whoa is Joe the Plumber! The poor guy is personally earning a bottom line of over $250,000!

    No, he isn’t.

    I say he SHOULD ante up a little more – and so should McCain and Obama – and me.

    Comment by Moose — 10/15/2008 @ 6:21 pm

    So do it. Put your money where your mouth is or contribute the amount you think you should pay to charity.

    CW Desiato (614aa7)

  168. Hey, Mike, I actually have work to do today…..a sad fact, so I won’t be able to read the rantings of the Club for Growth crowd. But, I learned something: government can spends more than it earns and conservatives refuse to pay for it, the greatest virtue known to man is “to meet a payroll” (soon enough, grasshopper), and the greatest sin a politician can commit is to raise taxes, despite the massive budget deficits you hand to my kids and your lack of knowledge of public policy. all you know (or think you know) is what is good for you.

    And that’s not conservative, it’s wingnuttia.

    Adios, Mike, I’ll be back to read your “business uber alles” and “employees (like 80+% of Americans) are worthless” tomorrow. But, after reading you paean to higher deficits and disdain for the working class, I must say it’s surprising to me your side is going to experience a 1964. You people are so out of touch of how normal people live (not including me, just the people I know)

    timb (a83d56)

  169. I don’t think you’ve ever set foot on this planet, timb.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  170. Daleyrocks 132 Well, this is gone to the next page now but anyway, When I was a teenager in the 80’s that was my dad’s biggest tax complaint, that his business which he owned had to pay tax and then he had to pay tax on his salary. Maybe he was complaining about state tax one way and fed tax the other or maybe Regan fixed that problem but it always stuck in my head. Didn’t seem quite right somehow.

    EdWood (c2268a)

  171. Oh, whoa is Joe the Plumber! The poor guy is personally earning a bottom line of over $250,000!

    I would say, as the owner of a services company that deals in a skilled trade, that if Joe (who does not yet own this company he wants to buy) is GROSSING $1/4M, his bottom line (after all expenses not including his own labor) will be more likely in the neighborhood of $60-75K.
    Now, if he’s putting in the avg number of hours of a small-business owner (60-70 hrs/wk) what is he making?
    $60-75K / 50 weeks (have to have time off to take the kids to DisneyWorld, afterall) = $1200-1500/wk / 60 hrs = $20-25/hr.
    That doesn’t seem like such a lot of money, does it?

    Another Drew (6ac001)

  172. Curse the ACLU for suing to empty the insane asylums. The Democrat party would be leaderless and there wouldn’t be so many liberal idiots posting if the insane were incarcerated for their own protection.

    Hell, look at them here demanding that the sane and productive fund their insanity.

    PCD (7fe637)

  173. The angry children like timb know so much that sometimes I just sit and learn.

    He is “working class” and I’m not, I guess. He did ferret out my secret that I am a retired doctor. I also teach medical students and have observed elsewhere that doctors were Republicans when I was young because they were almost all small business men. Or women but mostly men. They had employees, hopefully with better attitudes than timb, but the employees got paid first. Now, most medical students are Democrats and will be employees of HMOs or large group practices run by some MBA type.

    There is a large segment of the US population, disproportionately men but with many women, who choose to work for themselves and run small businesses. Many of the young men have given up on college degrees, I think because colleges are less practical sources of information than they once were. The feminization of college, plus the explosion of tuition charges, has led to a college population about 60% female. I think some of that may relate to the way women in college treat each other.

    There are lots of young college graduates, many like timb, who make fifteen dollars an hour and look down on “blue collar” workers who may be making 150 thousand a year. The book, The Millionaire Next Door is about that.

    Anyway, I think it is this angry young group who will forever be employees that are planning to vote for Obama. I’m not anti-employee. My employees were the best paid in the medical community. And they knew it. But not everyone understands that jobs don’t come from the government.

    Obama’s problem may be that, like at work, these low motivation workers who support him may not make it to the polls. Too much trouble.

    Mike K (531ff4)

  174. Here’s some footage of Joe the plumber that will make some of you say “F YEAH!” and others, “F OFF!”

    CW Desiato (614aa7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7279 secs.