Slashdot Mirror
Gov't Computers Used to Find Info on "Joe the Plumber"
After Joe Wurzelbacher of Ohio gained fame as "Joe the Plumber" in the course of the current presidential campaign, it seems that he's drawn more than idle curiosity from people with access to what should probably be confidential information. An anonymous reader writes with a story from The Columbus Dispatch that "government insiders accessed Joe the Plumber's records soon after the McCain-Obama debate. 'Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate. Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.' Welcome to 1984."
This stuff isn't just happening in the UK.
Anybody? I'd think that the personal data of just about any news figure is combed over. This is certainly unfortunate but hardly surprising.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
....as JoeTheAnonymousCoward. Average Joe said over a cup of Joe today that he learnt about AC too late, but that maybe others could learn from his mistake.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Welcome to 1984, or welcome to a world (just like 2007, 2006, and 2005) where curious people with access to confidential information sometimes abuse it without meaning harm?
I don't think there's any reason to assume malice here, I think stupidity is good enough. This kind of thing happens all the time when famous people check into hospitals and medical residents think it would be clever to pull their file.
This seems more likely to be plain old stupidity than it does evil government influence.
Did they find Simon the Invisible Unicorn? (if you don't know the reference, watch the SNL spoof)
I think Linux isn't better than Windows hence in the slashdot realm I'm a troll
So, do you think that there are three people, quite rightly, trembling in their boots at the moment? Shouldn't be too hard to find. And if it is shame on the organisations.
.
Of course all that information that in that vast government database won't be abused by curious government workers. Whatever gave you the idea that it would?
The fact that it is people (who are always going to be curious, even if not malicious) who have access to these records means that they aren't going to be private. (Not to mention, I've got something to hide ("I like to watch") that I don't want the spooks to know about.)
I wank in the shower.
This is what happens when you "speak truth to power" to a Republican. Oh wait, never mind...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Did Joe the Plumber make over 250k last year? Will Obama be giving him a tax break, totally invalidating McCain's point about Obama raising JoeThePlumber's taxes?
That those who would have afforded the Bush administration total power would suddenly wince when that power is used against them.
This is my sig.
Something like seven people in the State Department were caught looking up passports of people without permission. I lost track what happend to them, though I recall some lost their jobs.
As interesting (and also not surprising at all) is the quote from the article,
The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch
Why anyone would trust any online system with anything that could cost them a job, impact their credit, prevent them from receiving health insurance, prevent them from being considered from a job, put-your-privacy-concern-here, etc.... is beyond me.
Sure it will be secure, sure it will....
Is your Internet Throttled? Install DD-Wrt, OpenWRT or Tomato to learn the truth! Google: 1Gbps/1Gbps: 5 Communities
The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.
I still don't understand why they keep bringing this guy up. He lied in his question to Obama about being in a position to buy his boss' company. His boss' company also doesn't make the level of income that would trigger a new tax under Obama's plan. Joe himself would get a tax cut under Obama's plan. Joe owes back taxes as it is. He's against Social Security. He's not a licensed plumber. Oh, and did I mention his first name isn't even Joe?
"Joe the Plumber" is kind of a lie on a lie. Joe has a fantasy about himself as Mr. Up-And-Coming-Businessman (he's not) being held down by the Man (he's not) who will get screwed by Obama (he won't). And that self-deception has been magnified by McCain into yet another mass Republican Cognitive Dissonance(TM)-- a national party lie standing on the shoulders of one small man's lie.
Good luck in November, guys.
What is Joe's problem? It seems he was worried about buying a company that would be making $250-300k a year. Well guess what Joe, I imagine at that size that $300k per year is not all profit. You have employees and material expenses which are going to put you well below $250k per year even if you made significantly more than that. Especially if you hire subcontractors which these types of operations typically do. So I don't know what he is worried about.
With that said, I'm not for McCain or Obama. I think they both have serious issues and this is going to be yet another in a long line of crappy presidential terms.
I can see several scenarios where these people would have brought up his information. Some legitimate, others not so.
1) "Hey, isn't that the guy that showed up in our top 20 deadbeats report last week?"
2) "Hey it's Randy from the Post-Ledger. Can you do me a favor and look up this guy Wurzelshnauzer for me?"
3) "See that guy on TV last night? I wonder what we've got on him..."
4) "This is dispatch. We've got a complaint about trespassers from a Joe the Plumber at..."
5) "Sir, do you know you just went through a stop sign without stopping? Hey, didn't I see you on TV last week?"
And so on. Personally, my bet is that at least two of those lookups are due to "helping a friend in the media". And depending on public records laws in Ohio, these queries may be perfectly legal. After all, you used to be able to buy tapes or printouts of the entire DMV database for marketing purposes in the old days.
If a small business owner employs people who make less than 250k a year, then tax breaks for his employees essentially translates into that the boss doesn't need to pay as much to keep them on board. So tax breaks for workers do help the small business owner.
God spoke to me.
Seriously, this insanely stupid "It's against our freedoms to be taxed" idea is insane.
You live in a country that has a government that provides services. Roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc.
These things need to be funded. The people who benefit from said things should fund them with some of their earnings because they are able to earn the money in the first place due to the services provided by said country.
And don't start that 'Well I don't use X or Y services, so why should I have to pay for it?' bullshit. If only the people who used X service paid for it when they used it, well... how the hell would social security work? You can't well pay for that when you need it, because you don't have the money in the first place.
People like you, and Joe the Plumber are either seriously selfish and don't see the common good in everyone being helped in a prosperous nation, or seriously dense in that you just don't get how it's fair, and instead just see the simpleton's equation of: I earn money, it's mine, not yours.
Or both.
Seriously, grow up, stop saying anything you don't like is 'Infringing on your freedoms', because it's not, you're just being selfish.
Government employees can pull your records for any purpose without any logs. It's not like a credit report.
If they do log that activity, it's not like you can sue the government like you can with creditors. I believe any non-permissible inquiry can result in a lawsuit.
They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected, ordinary citizens would have their private records accessed. And they were right!
Either 1984 has become so diffuse that all it means is badness+database, or the summary is badly confused. 1984 was all about a scenario where the state had ubiquitous control(with force of law) over information, which was used against everybody all the time. The state in 1984 was oppressive, and not one I would consider legitimate; but it ran "by the book" as it were. In this case, we have a much more prosaic example of certain individuals illegally accessing a celebrity's records, against policy, on an ad-hoc basis.
Such situations are bad, and I hope the perps will be punished, and they are (yet another) reason to oppose the creation of Giant Exploitable Databases(tm); but they have very little to do with 1984. If you simply must have a dystopian cultural reference, try Brazil.
Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.
Basically, they're harboring the same sort of dreams that keep hundreds of thousands of young men banging away at amateur sports, even though the odds of making the cut are similar. It's this sort of dream that has the positive result of driving working people to succeed, but also the mixed results from overwhelming supporting the national GOP, whose policy goals use - but do not help - these grassroots supporters.
Luke, help me take this mask off
because Mr. Wurzelbacher has his name misspelled in the Social Security database, it would be assumed that he misspelled his name on his voter registration form. In Ohio, people that misspell their names or addresses, or have lost their homes and failed to update, or list a place that does not qualify as a "legal residence" in legalese like a dormitory, may be sent provisional ballots. These usually are not counted in the general election.
The Supreme Court had ruled against Ohio GOP measures, but on technical grounds or something, and now the Attorney General of the Department of Justice is probing whether or not they should be sent those provisional ballots. It's sad that Mr. Wurzelbacher had his privacy invaded, but in reference to the Republican argument, he did have something to hide.
"A piece" misses the point. The assumption is that the government owns *all* of you, anything left to you is a gift from the depths of their heart.
There are no legal limits on taxes, only political and phyical.
Low level enlisted personel reported listening in on superiors private conversations through the warrantless wire tapping laws. Who knows how many other fucked up bureaucrats spend their days getting themselves off listening to conversations that citizens of the US should have the expectation to be private. And before we say if you don't have anything to hide, remember that Sarah Palin cried like a little girl when her account was hacked and wasted huge amounts of federal dollars looking for the person who did it. If you don't have anything to hide...
In fact I wonder how much of this economic meltdown is caused by the realization that there are no more corporate secrets. Every communique can be intercepted by some disgruntled government worker and be sold to the highest bidder. How much of the meltdown is caused by the realization that Obama might become president, and therefore all the good old boys who were used to breakin' the law, might now be on the ass end of warrentless wire tap. Such abuse of power was OK when a drunk frat boy had the keys.
And let's look a old Joe. The most that will happen to these government worker bees is that they get fired, on assumes, which is OK because this is not the worst that these government workers did to old Joe. Reportedly, someone typed in his name wrong. If the Republican party had their way, Old Joe would not have been able to vote because he drivers license would not have matched his voter registration card . This disenfranchise is reportedly due to a "clerical error". We are now giving low level bureaucrats the power to at least attempt to disenfranchise voters. Can you imagine what would happen if a bunch of voter registration cards came in from a republican area, and the clerk decided to misspell every few names, knowing that a law such as the republicans want to curb voter fraud might at least disenfranchise a few of them?
We really need get back to the constructionist ideals of this country, where those that will trade freedom for security deserve neither.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
And someone leaked the access logs!
Because someone made a wild guess that Joe owed a bunch of child support, and this would have been very fun to discover that and leak it to the press to be splashed all over front pages everywhere. Child Support Enforcement Agency obvious knows things in some cases that aren't part of the public record. This is frightening.
One would do well to actually read 1984 (as opposed to just scream its title every time the Right does something you don't like).
1984 was an comment by Orwell on the Communists. Orwell, himself a socilaist, learned to hate and fear the Communists after the Spanish Civil War.
Big Brother was an obvious stand-in for "Uncle Joe" Stalin.
In 1984 you will see: ... with a life penalty?) and University speech codes (University "Free Speech Zones" are a wonderful example of NewSpeak, DoubleThink, and ThoughtCrime wrapped into one)
* The Ministry of Truth, the media manipulation of news and history (ala the recent Reugter's Photoshopping of pictures from the Israel/Lebanon war; Dan Rather's falsification of documents)
* NewSpeak, the changing of language to make certain thoughts impossible (ala the politically correct language redefinition we experienced in the 70s/80s e.g. "differently abled" for "handicapped", in Sweden "husmor" replaced by "hemmafru" or their English cognates "housewife" with "stay-at-home-mom")
* DoubleThink, the simultaneous holding of two or more mutually exclusive ideas (e.g. "homosexuality is something you are born with" and "homosexuality is a personal and private decision"; or "racism is always wrong" and "affirmative action is the right thing to do")
* ThoughtCrime, making the mere ability of thinking something a crime. You see this all the time in Hate Crime legislation (what murder wasn't already a crime
* also the breakdown of the family and sexual relationships (which has less obvious parallels but "PolPot & the child turns their parents in" (like Winston's neighbor) would be an example)
* furthermore the mild anti-semitism, the hatred of Goldsteinism, today you see this all the time however this is mostly thinly veiled as an attack on "Zionism"
We really shouldn't be surprised by the EU and The Left's fascination with this kind of behaviour. Orwell saw and predicted it nearly 50 years ago.
Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.
Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.
"IT Test account". Shared by a bunch of different offices. Looks like whoever did the search was smart enough to muddy the waters a bit.
This is clearly the work of the union, posing as a government employee. They found out he wasn't a member and have initiated a smear campaign against him. The most insidious thing is that they're blaming the democrats for it!
Fact: The plumber unions secretly run the stonecutters guild, which in turn secretly runs the world.
My toilet is overflowing, they're onto me...
..."Joe the plumber" accesses YOU!
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
You realise this is talking about things that happened in the past, while George W. Bush was still president, right?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So if the party in power have access to private information on those who are campaigning, doesn't that give them an unfair advantage and raise the bar unfairly to those who are not friendly with those in power? Is it not also illegal to access private information of an individual without a warrant? Why does the public not have access to this information if the current power has access, if the information does not require secrecy insofar as the scope of information kept secret because it would put the country at risk?
Twinstiq, game news
Oh gee. You got dinged down by moderators. I sure didn't see that one coming.
They've probably already added your email address to a special list for when Inauguration Day rolls around.
It's reasonable to assume the purpose of these unauthorized accesses were to try and dig up dirt on Joe. Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe. Joe supports McCain, thus I don't expect any public outcry at all over this at all.
Now if the tables were turned and it was an Obama supporter who was having his/her info illegally accessed...well, I don't have to describe the media orgy that would occur, do I?
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Had a colorado dem gov. candidate who had his record as state attorney pulled and the pubs literally went through LOADS of gov. records that was illegal and then released it to the press. Fortunately, ppl saw it for what it was; total BS. Sadly, the pubs that did this got off scot free.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Welcome to 2008.
The point wasn't the question - however dishonest the man who asked it.
It was the answer. And, by proxy, how those who dare to ask a question can expect to be treated by the press and, apparently, the government, under an Obama administration.
Hope and change indeed.
I've always been a believer in opt-in economy. Just mark huge swaths of land as "government-free" counties. No government means: no roads, bridges, water treatment, fire stations, EMTs, hospitals, or regulated utilities. You buy the land, you move there, you're on your own.
Then, all of the libertarians declaring that government is intrinsically evil can negotiate with utility companies to run power lines, open restaurants without any health inspections, and do their work without OSHA or fire regulations. After a few decades you would find that they had done something remarkable, and that is formed their own government with exactly the same rules.
A kid dies from salmonella poisoning from the burger joint - now health inspections are mandatory. Four men die in a fire in a building that had no fire suppression system, and now that's a requirement. The company firehouse is done away with because they bungled their badging system, and let someone's business burn to the ground who was actually a member. A local court system developed after blood feuds threatened to throw the whole county into chaos, and it's now illegal to conceal firearms after a judge was assassinated. Voting regulations have been established after the banker buys four consecutive elections, which resulted in all road construction projects benefitting his new housing development... I could elaborate, but you probably get the point.
Government is a necessary evil, but not all governments are evil. The only thing that turns a state into a negative entity is when concentrated power, economic chaos, or external military invasion takes the power away from the population, which does occur much of the time. The solution is not to take the resources of the nation place it outside the grasp of it's population, but exactly the opposite. In my experience, I've had much better relationships with local (albeit small) government utilities than I have with AT&T or any other large corporation, mainly because the top of the chain ends within a few miles of my business - I can go talk to (or berate) the person in charge. The top of the chain of any large corporation is simply unreachable, and the AT&T rep doesn't really care if my phone service is reliable or not - where else am I going to go? And if we have four phone companies running lines, how long before three are swallowed by the one with the most money? And if you regulate the monopolies, what's the difference between local governmental control (notice I didn't say federal) besides greasing the pockets of useless executive boards?
People like Joe the Plumber don't understand that part of the infrastructure of the united states is the working population. If those workers have a safe neighborhood, reasonable pay, and voluntarily pay extra taxes to socialize industries that perform poorly under free markets, the whole economy is better for it. Not only because the basics of the western world will be less expensive, but because entrepreneurs will be incentivized to tackle new ideas, instead of swindling money out of decades old problems that have already been solved. If corporations weren't busy creating inefficient markets for the sake of making more money, we'd still have many things that europe has kept - functioning mass transit systems, lots of investment in education, low poverty rates, more equal distribution of wealth -- that is a measure of the health of an economy, by the way -- and the right to organize in unions.
Or, you can be concerned by paying an extra 4% of tax, only on money earned over 250,000 per year.
By the way, where is Fred the Accountant, asking McCain why he supported Roe v. Wade in 2000? Or why he wants the Federal Government to legislate what marriage is? Or why Falwell was no longer an agent of intolerance? Or why he said in 04 that taxing the wealthy a bit more was okay? The truth is, Joe the Plumber wouldn't be able to get close enough to ask McCain or Palin a question. Anyone perceived as someone other than a die hard supporter is turned away, or threatened with arrest for carrying signs that say: "McCain = Bush."
Wow, Slashdot is getting slow in its old age. I put this out in my vast right wing conspiracy email on Friday. Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber From: Xxxxx Xxxxx To: Undisclosed.Recipients: Date: Friday 08:19:03 pm
I was working on a project where I had to be given access to a state's law enforcement computer system, which was the access point for their Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the US National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and several other systems. I had to watch a videotape and read and sign a document promising all sorts of hell if I ever abused my access by, say, running someone without cause. One real-life example was a cop who would notice an attractive woman go by on the road and run her license plate to get her home address, where he would subsequently show up. I was glad to see that they had such strict policies. Anyone who uses their access privileges to stalk or attempt to dig up info on someone should be prosecuted.
Big friggen YES to your comment.
This should be the topmost comment for all of the 'Stop taking away MY FREEDOM' type people.
Just wonderfully stated and spot on. The selfishness and narrow mindedness of people continues to amaze and infuriate me. I'm indeed glad to read great comments like yours to even out somewhat the arguments.
And of course, yours is a lot more insightful and better thought out than 'This here country was dangit founded on 'Freedom' and taxes ain't free... so I want me some more money'.
Bravo sir.
FTFA:
"We're trying to pinpoint where it came from," she said. The investigation could become "criminal in nature," she said. Brindisi would not identify the account that pulled the information on Oct. 16.
Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.
Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.
"Welcome to 1984"? Where have you been? 1984 has been with us for quite a while already.
Liberal: A conservative who has been falsely arrested...
from the fact that Obama gave away a little too much of his *real* opinions in answering the question (poorly, I might add).
There have been several mis-statements that get repeated about "Joe", but my least favorite is "He doesn't even make 250K / year!". First of all, he never said he did. He said he was going to buy out the plumbing business he worked for and that business makes 250k/year. Assuming that like many small businesses you are a S corp, that shows as personal income. To an extent, it can be reduced by expenses that are deductible. Of course, since Joe is single, that means he only has to bring in 200K / year.
The reason they say "he only makes 40-something K" is not because they misheard him, but because they want to deflate the argument by deflating the man. These sorts of ad hominem attacks are common when you want to win an argument but can't given the scenario presented.
The fact is that Obama is waging his campaign on a platform of class warfare. You are poor because someone else is rich. You drive a Toyota because someone else has a Mercedes. You don't have health care because someone else makes too much money.
These premises are inherently false, and that is why the media and Obama supporters immediately went on an attack mission with "Joe". He asked Obama why he would punish his success. Now, taking the particulars out, we can ask the same question. Why would Obama want someone making 200-250k per year pay more money than they already do? How many days/week should someone work for the government?
His answer was just as illogical as his answer to raising the Capital gains tax. And the media focused just as little on it. He said he wanted to give those people under Joe a break, to make it more fair.
When asked in the primary debate with Clinton (by Charlie Gibson) about his cap gains tax plan (from NY Times transcript):
Gibson: You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent."
It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that *100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?*
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax *for purposes of fairness*. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair *and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools*.
And you can't do that for free, and you can't take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren and then say that you're cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about. And that is irresponsible.
You know, I believe in the principle that you pay as you go, and you don't propose tax cuts unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don't increase spending unless yo
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
I'll grant that sole proprietors get dicked in a variety of ways, caused by your individual inability to pony up for the sort of lobbying the big boys can afford. However, I don't think the Self Employment Tax is one of them. I'm employed by a big-ass corporation, and my wages are shaved by about the same amount, and for the same purpose:
Self-employment tax (SE tax) is a social security and Medicare tax primarily for individuals who work for themselves. It is similar to the social security and Medicare taxes withheld from the pay of most wage earners.
The difference is that my total contribution is "hidden" by the match from my employer. That's just an accounting fiction, since the 50% + 50% is still justified by the value of my labor. So, while you're feeling the squeeze because you see the entire deduction in the tax bill, in the end the freight is still the same.
Luke, help me take this mask off
You can use "Gov't computers" to find out all kinds of stuff once you know that "Joe" is actually "Sam".
http://apps.co.lucas.oh.us/onlinedockets/DocketDR.aspx?STYPE=1&PAR=DR19970476&STARTDATE=01/01/1900&ENDDATE=01/01/2100&PARTY=D,1
I wonder what this is all about?
OBAL 3/28/1997 COST APPLIED TO : BATTERED WOMEN (3%) - COUNTY (10000230)
How dare Joe the Plumber ask the Messiah a real question! I'm outraged that he didn't get this question cleared with MSNBC first! How are we supposed to elect the first black president if people keep pointing out that he's the most left-wing, partisan career politician ever to run for the office? Next thing you know, someone will try to point out that Obama wants unions to be able to demand that their members' votes be identifiable. Uh oh... Someone's at the door. Hang on...
Yeah, uh...is it just me, or is George W. Bush not still the president? I mean, maybe I've accidently time-travelled into the future again, but last I checked the current administration is still the Bush Administration, and therefore it's employees are the ones doing the checking.
I seriously doubt that it's anything but individual curiousity, but blaming some potential future administration for stuff happening under the current administration? Wow. Just...wow.
I find that impressive, that they're keeping an audit trail of everybody who accesses a record in the DMV database.
we know more about joe the plumber than we know about sarah palin
We have this thing called the Data Protection Act, which the US does not have.
In fact, not only does the US have data privacy laws, it has had them since the 1970's. It took the UK nearly a quarter of a century to catch up.
Class warfare HAS been going on already and when you complain or point out that the emperor has no clothes you get accused of having no clothes yourself!
Big Oil TOOK our money from us by force and one way to get that back is to have government do something about it. During a CRISIS they exploited us being the scum that they are and I don't see why we can't use OUR public institutions to get some justice. Its not like other markets, oil is a necessity.
Exon had ALL TIME RECORD PROFITS-- for the whole history of the stock market (as I heard multiple times.)
The biggest welfare is CORPORATE welfare and that was before the blackmail bailout. You have to be pretty ignorant to think they don't burden the system; its probably quite proportional-- they benefit and use the system the most they should pay for what they use and benefit from. Corporate socialism with increasing corporatism has been the direction of the USA for generations now.
% tax means it hurts as much for everybody; its relative to the individual
TODAY your dollar is being fundamentally screwed over and at a GREATER rate than the interest rates your bank gives you. Republicans talk about taxes while undermining the dollar and shifting shortfalls to others (including bridges collapsing.) New Democrats are not much different; it reflects the populace's irresponsibility. (Which is what leads to despotism, ask Ben Franklin.)
Much of the infrastructure in the USA was build during the new deal while going into debt jump starting the economy. People refuse to deal with the reality that it cost tax dollars to maintain their expectations. Politicians have to play childish games because they are dammed if they fund stuff and dammed when stuff doesn't work. FYI: highways cost MORE the faster the driving speed is for them (and for the weight loads put on them!)
Furthermore, much of the tax hike is to undo Bush's voodoo economic tax cut that helped contribute to the mess.
BTW, parent is using a slippery slope fallacy on the last sentence.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Where questioning The One is flamebait.
Gone are the days when dissent was the highest form of patriotism, I assume.
Has anything private been released? If not, I don't see a problem. Yes, if you make yourself a public figure, you'll get scrutinized, but so what?
If this guy had had outstanding warrants or was behind on his child support, of course, the responsible agencies should find out about it and do something about it. Can you imagine what kind of headlines they'd get otherwise? "Deadbeat Dad on TV--Bureaucrats Asleep".
OMG government officials abuse their powers to learn more about a new public figure! We're all gonna die!! Not like anything like this would have ever happened ever in the distant glorious, innocent, worry-free mysterious past.
Because back then they didn't have computers, they had file cabinets, and no one would have opened a file cabinet without a legitimate reason. Translation for the sarcasm impaired : the difference between then and now is that now you know who looks at what. 40 years ago you would have never heard of it, because file cabs don't keep logs.
You just got troll'd!
Welcome to 1984
If this were 1984, then there wouldn't have been much of an election for him so speak out in.
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Joe was basically a miracle for McCain, resurrecting his campaign in a way McCain's people couldn't have done, putting a face on the people Obama's higher taxes would hurt.
Obama's already dismissed Joe ("I don't know any plumbers who make $250K"), trying to make people forget Joe's whole point (he wants to make $250K but is afraid of doing it because of how he'll be taxed). It isn't working.
I think Obama's minions are trying to get some dirt on Joe to discredit him, just like they tried with Sarah Palin's emails, and failed.
Those making $250K pay taxes at about 2/3 the rate of those making $50K on the average. Yes the rates are higher, but they have a lot more ways to escape taxation on their income than those making less. So Joe the Plumber is just another more-for-me-now ass holes who will always be with us. (And, it sounds like he has a lot of other delusions as well.)
"Joe" was a plant. I have little sympathy for him. He was brought up by McCain to try to be the example he couldn't actually find for some 'small guy' being screwed over by Obama's plan.
He was not a plant. Obama showed up at his house for crissakes. How dare Joe walk outside to see what all the fuss is about, and ask questions about Obama's tax plans, that the media should, but isn't asking. Like, how can you give a tax cut to 95% of Americans when nowhere near 95% of Americans actually pay net taxes?
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit strange that the one person McCain uses as an example in the last presidential campaign, someone he brings up over and over, lied about everything about his situation?
I think it's strange that the media has done more digging on a plumber (oh my, he doesn't have a permit to be a plumber - oh noes!) than on the presidential candidate the plumber asked a question of. Every fucking story reporting this - other than Fox News, of course - was attacking Joe for not having a permit/license (a revenue-raising device by greedy cities), for owing taxes, rather than actually addressing the merits of the question Joe had the temerity to ask. Real journalism there, don't ask Obama, "yeah, what about your tax plan hurting small businesses?" Instead, the media defends Obama and shoots the messenger!
Obama has been running for president for two years, and some plumber asks a more digging question than any mainstream media reporter has asked the whole time. No wonder you got suspicious. After all, this is supposed to be a coronation, not an actual election.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Nothin' but crack, baby. Nothin' but crack.
Sig this!
Centrists are part of the problem. They call themselves "moderate" and "independent" but proceed to whore their votes out the guy who promises them the most pampering and coddling. Just evaluate the issues and pick a side already! "Left" and "Right" are just metaphors. There is nothing intrinsically good or bad about directions. On the other hand, there are things that are good and bad about the positions that people take. Oh, but taking a position would violate the centrist creed!
What Obama supporters (of which I count myself one) don't seem to get is that this Joe guy is the issue. He's not. Tear him down as much as you want, it doesn't help your case one bit.
The thing is, the only reason why the Right grabbed onto this was not Joe's question, but Obama's answer. That "Spread the wealth around" soundbite has been a goldmine republicans trying to invoke scary images of Karl Marx. And to be fair I think this was a major gaffe on Obama's part. Personally, I don't want to spread the wealth just for the sake of it. People that work hard to acquire their wealth under a fair system shouldn't be punished for being wealthy. But it needs to be a fair system.
Obviously Obama misspoke - I don't think he intends to implement marxism. But that's the perception that some people had and that perception is what needs to be attacted by the Obama camp.
This effort to vilify and discredit "Joe the Plumber" is disgraceful. The man asked a damn question. Obama should have done a better job answering it. Period.
Hate to break it to you, but that's not redistributing wealth. That's basically known as paying one's fair share, The wealthy pay more in taxes yes, but they also get more benefit as well. They stand to lose far more than I do were civil disorder to break out and all possessions be smashed.
Silly argument. Yes, this is the reason government was formed - to protect one's shit. But obviously the role of government has evolved into much different role - an opposite role, to be exact - actually taking your shit away and giving it to someone else. This would be called stealing, but not when the government does it. This is now the government's chief function, considering that of its $3T budget, 60% of its expenditures are on entitlements. So the US government's chief role is now redistribution of wealth. Obama just wants to make it worse.
So while hypothetically government "protects" the wealthy, I'd imagine they'd lose a lot less money by taking their chances with no government stealing from them and building a moat. Meanwhile, the "working poor" take $8 in services for every dollar paid (Heritage Foundation - you want a source, you Google it). So no, the wealthy do not get more for their tax dollar. They get a lot less.
"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes, there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?
At some point, a huge portion of the country doesn't pay taxes, and becomes a "gimme" class instead of a "do something for your country class." Too many in the wagon, not enough pulling. I think all citizens, unless *temporarily* out of work, need to be invested enough in the country that they are outside if the wagon, pulling, and being contributing citizens to the state. Otherwise, they are not fully participating in being citizens.
If you've got more wealth, property etc., you're getting more for your tax dollars and as such should be paying more.
You're getting more because you earned it, not because the government took it from someone else and gave it to you. That's like saying rapists get more sex than married guys. Yeah, technically true, but...
And it would be nice if you didn't go mischaracterizing mr. Buffett's comment. He's well known to oppose the sort of careless tax policies you're advocating. He has definitively stated that he doesn't believe he should be paying a lower tax rate than his employees do.
Buffett might be a good investor, but he is being foolish for his clients and being dishonest about his income. First off, doubling the capital gains rate, as Obama wants to do, would dramatically hurt his clients (both by stifling economic growth, and thus hurting BH's share price, and personally for his clients on tax day). If I owned Berkshire Hathaway at $30K+ per share, I'd be furious Buffett said this.
Secondly, Buffett is rich because he holds stock in his own investment fund. In other words, he doesn't even pay himself a salary. So while it is unlikely, it is possible he could pay less income taxes than his secretary - even while he likely paid tens or hundreds of millions in capital gains taxes. And his income tax rate is higher than his secretary. He just doesn't earn income - he earns capital gains. Nice subterfuge though.
The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Absolutely true. But most employees genuinely think that their employer pays the "matching contributions" to SS/Medicare. Similarly, when they advocate "progressive taxation" on "rich people" and "evil corporations", they don't think those who write the checks to Uncle pass the costs through to customers and employees.
All of my high school classmates received the exact same education as I did. THEY chose to spend their time getting high, getting knocked up, not studying, and generally making sure that high school would be the best years of their lives. People make choices, and those choices have consequences. I have no problem with the STATE government providing a standard education to all children of U.S. citizens and foreigners here LEGALLY. What I do have a problem with is the government trying to force equal outcomes for everyone, regardless of their irresponsible choices.
...Like it's a bad thing.
Americans seem to like learning things the hard way. If your taxes had not been so successfully funneled into private hands (the major purpose of the Iraq war and most other Bush-Cheney initiatives) then you might now be enjoying the healthcare, education and infrastructure that the rest of the world buys with their taxes.
They're not just for guns and bombs. Imagine if even a fraction of that colossal waste on weapons, and corporate thievery, was actually spent on improving life for Americans...
you had me at #!
Many people thought that:
http://www.nowpublic.com/culture/joe-plumber-michael-chiklis
http://lookslikehim.blogspot.com/2008/10/joe-plumber-looks-like-michael-chiklis.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1141942/michael_chiklis_and_joe_the_plumber.html?cat=39
I'll admit I'm not intimately familiar with either 'side's tax plans, but...
Obamas's tax plans would hurt 'small businesses'. Oh noes - how UNamerican and against the american dream and yawn.
But wouldn't it also 'hurt' essentially ANY business making over 250k/year (for the portion over the 250k - from 36% to 39%?) - including BIG businesses?
I, too, would love - for my own personal finances - to have a candidate that would say "tax breaks for EVERYONE!" (like McCain). In fact.. "NO TAXES for private individuals" would be YAY! ROAR! WOOP WOOP!-material.
Except then I'd have to ask the other tricky question... "so uhm.. where's the government going to get its money to spend for the benefit of, well, pretty much everyone?".. and right now the gov't isn't looking too shiny for -having- money as it is.
Obviously these matters are more complex than they are usually spelled out - thus leading exactly to such 'outraged' people like Mr. Wurzelbacher, acting more on what they think applies than what actually applies.
Now if you're just against the notion of higher taxes for 'small business' (whatever the definition of that would be), then more power to you - but don't forget to be pissed off at all the previous governments who raised it from ~5% (iirc) to the 36% it is now.
Nobody likes taxes being raised, but as long as you get something of equal value in return, it's all fine by me. If, say, 2% increase in tax means they fix all the damn bicycle lanes around here, I'd be very happy. If they instead use it on main road work.. well poo on that - but I realize roads are getting more crowded, accidents happen due to the bad state some roads are in, and everything I get, from fruit to computer parts, is going to be traveling on those roads... so I wouldn't mind that either. .. lovely people. ( That's not to say that there -are- things taxes are used on where I feel it could have been spent on better things... or spent better by myself, but they tend to be a minority of things. )
Some people would rather just have the money themselves, though. "Potholes? So what.. just swerve around them, and if you do break something, you can pay for repairs from the money you're saving! Why should stupid people who can't deal with potholes get to benefit from MY money!?"
Yeah I know it's off topic, but your sig is priceless!
Since Joe's comments have noticeably harmed Obama and/or helped McCain, it's reasonable to assume those doing so were Obama supporters or surrogates hoping to find evidence with which to smear Joe
Reasonable if you're a moron, maybe.
Let's think about it. When Joe made his comments he was just some shmoe. It was McCain's campaign, not Obama's, that decided to make this guy into a walking symbol of tax justice. They've literally been calling their campaign the "Joe the Plumber" tour for a week or two. So prior to this all happening (1) Obama had no reason to think the guy mattered much (2) of course McCain's campaign checked the guy out, they'd be nuts not to.
To elaborate on the second point: imagine the McCain campaign didn't check the guy out before they built a campaign around him. And then, god forbid, he turned out to be a tax evader/child molester/check kiter/whatever. Two weeks before the election the negative press could very well have ended the entire campaign. None of those campaign workers would ever get a job again. So yes, they did check him out. They may not have done it this way (illegally)--- perhaps they hired a PI or did a standard criminal background check. But I give them enough credit to assume that they're not total idiots.
On the other hand, I have to admit there is a legitimate counterpoint to this argument. After all, McCain didn't check Sarah Palin out at all before they built a campaign around her. So maybe they are that stupid.
"We won't misuse this information. It's for your protection ONLY. No worries." Damn, why do people fall for this shit?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Funny, revealing the truth, history, and motivations of public figures used to be called "good journalism". Of course this was back when journalists didn't have to reveal their sources.
But now it's easy to track down where a source of info comes from.
Hmm forgive me i cant seem to get this thought to come out right.
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
The parent making an accurate point is moded down.
The response, which completely misses the point, is moded up.
The difference? The accurate one is from the right. The inaccurate from the left.
Slashkos. Welcome.
The guy lives is a suburb of Toledo - Holland (Ohio - where this guys lives) is basically Toledo (I believe the limits abut the Toledo City limits). Odds are good he was driving through the city and got his tag ran for some reason - hasn't updated his expiration sticker, for example.
It happened all the time when I worked the Fayette Ohio Police Department (in Fulton County, the next county over from Lucas which is where Toledo and Holland are both located). Once it gets later in the year, often times tags will be run checking for an expired tag. I usually could see the month on the tag (Ohio's expiration tags change color each year, FL, where I work now does not - they're always yellow) but not everyone could. If the expiration sticker was dirty or otherwise obscured - often times a check for expiration happens simply by running the tag. Nothing 'Black Helicopter' or sinister about it. The others I cannot speak for - the Child Support folks? Maybe he owes back CS, I don't know and don't want to conjecture about his personal life when I have no idea.
Just sharing my insight on why TPD might have ran the tag. The other two - well, I won't try and justify their reasoning.
Illiterate? Write for free help!
Anybody? I'd think that the personal data of just about any news figure is combed over. This is certainly unfortunate but hardly surprising.
So, this may come as a shock to the average Slashdotter, but when your name is mentioned on national TV, you tend to get pretty famous pretty fast with the press, and they (and the nutjobs) come out of the woodwork. Start parking their satellite ENG trucks on people's lawns, knocking on his door at all hours of the night trying to get interviews, pissing off the neighbors with bright lights at 11PM in the evening, etc. Seriously- if you've ever been around news media, especially TV news media, they act like they own the fucking place no matter where they go. They don't give a damn about anything except putting up a pretty moving picture for the viewers at home.
Maybe, just maybe, the cops looked up his address so that they could send a detail over in ADVANCE of the ensuing chaos to try and manage it, and protect him and his neighbors.
Please help metamoderate.
The GOP only wanted to challenge new registrations. So Joe Wurzelbacher or Werzelbacker or Wuzilbacker would still be able to vote, because he was already a registered Republican. In other words, it would be the new Grandfather Clause.
I don't know about you, but that's an awful lot of money for most of Ohio, forget about what is essentially a blue collar job.
From the looks of the agencies who investigated him, it could very well be that at least some of those agencies(child support for instance) might be looking to see if he's declared all that income he's supposedly earning appropriately.
That's not to say they might not have just been sticky beaks, but I'd want to take a closer look at a plumber in Ohio earning that kind of dosh, and at least verify that he's paying the correct amount of child support if applicable.
While I agree with your first point, you missed the OP's point.
There are two points being made and they aren't in conflict.
In 1984 they campaigned against sex for fun and campaigned for sex as child bearing. You are correct there.
But also in 1984, and this was the OP's point, they worked to break down the bonds between the family and the chain of tradition (what little of it existed in the world of the book from the pre-Party days).
Children often accused their parents of ThoughtCrime. As a result you could never fully love or trust your children.
Likewise, since marriage was about procreation, not love, your relationship with your spouse was eroded. Because loyalty to your spouse would have competed with your loyalty to the state.
That is the PolPot part, your children turning against you. Loyalty to the state over family.
You could also through in modern day erosion of traditional marriage (co-habitation, baby mamas, gay marriage, etc.) as an attempt to break down the family unit and make the individual less tied to family and more tied to the state's welfare programs. But as the OP says the parallels are less obvious.
Pool is closed due to fake plumbers.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
This is bullshit. Thousands of man-hours are spent investigating the lives and pasts of those who seek the Presidency. Not only the media but also the political opposition. The truth is there is nothing glaringly negative in Obama's past.
Say what? Here's a guy with a very brief resume, so we have to look into his past (less so that with McCain or Biden, since they have extensive record in public). So let's see the things the mainstream media has not dug into:
1) Obama rose to prominence through the Chicago Machine, a system so notoriously dirty it's a cliche. Where is the Palin-like digging into that?
2) Obama wears this community organizer thing on his sleeve as if it really means something other than partisan rabble-rouser. WTF did he accomplish?
3) What were and are his ties to ACORN, the wildly partisan and corrupt get-out-the-dead-vote organization?
4) What about his ties to William Ayers, in whose living room he essentially launched his political career. The Ayers who tried to blow up the Pentagon and only didn't get life in prison due to a botched investigation that got evidence thrown out. Rather than deny it, Ayers said on 9/11 his only regret was "not doing more."
5) Tony Rezko, slumlord, Obama buddy, and general scumbag. Where is the story investigating their ties?
6) Reverend Wright. Where is the penetrating investigation as to why Obama had his children going to this nutty racist's church. The guy he called his "spiritual mentor" who called 9/11 "the chickens coming home to roost." Already covered? Not quite. Obama gives one speech lecturing us on race, and the media nods in approval and drops it. Meanwhile, 25 years later we are still hearing about the "Keating Five" about McCain, something McCain has long since explained away as non-criminal error in judgment. That's fair?
7) Obama's advocacy for the CRA in pressuring and suing banks to make bad home loans. Relevant?
8) Obama's "I sent a letter" nonsense about the mortgage mess, while opposing McCain's reform bill in 2005. Sent a letter? My grandma could have done that. Where's the media scrutiny?
9) Obama's admitted drug use, likely a felony. Apparently off-limits, unlike Bush's supposed DUI two weeks before the election.
I could go on, but it doesn't matter. if you can't see that the media is so far in the tank for Obama for it's scandalous, I can't help you. Never before have I had lower respect for the media. To me, journalism is now up there with phrenology and astrology, a total, absolute scam. They are partisan hacks. 85% of the reporters cover Gore-Bush 2000 voted for Gore. I'll bet this year it's closer to 95%.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Just read the guy's entry on wikipedia, seemed to ask sensible questions and got sensible answers (from a politician of all people!). So what's the big deal? What did this guy do that the man wants to come down on him for...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
"Big government: bad!"...
Right? Ok, so next time one of your banks keels over due to greedy fingers of their 'managers', don't beg for government intervention. Let's see what you'll say after the economy collapses big time, eh?
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
It's so intriguing to read through this article and hear all the finger pointing from the different agencies. Basically, after the debates some people got nosey and abused their privilege to confidential information. Were any of the results that these people found useful? Does it really matter? The point here is that anyone with access to our confidential information could just happen to take a quick peek, without consequence, or so it would seem. The problem is, these agencies aren't monitoring themselves don't really know what their people are doing with all that information. We hear of the "Patriot Act" or other notions to justify why we can check someone out. This is unacceptable.
Exposure to Fox News can be hazardous to your intelligence.
As opposed to your deep-thinking response.
I guess you oh-so-smart libs can just make ad hominem attacks instead of actually debating. How exactly are those 9 points not relevant? Or is it that only Republicans deserve media scrutiny?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
In reality, they are.
The reality of the situation is that both represent authoritarian ideologies. The real goal is simply power. The same goal it has always been.
Watch what the DO, not what they say.
Deleted
Affirmative action is wrong, but still right. So it might fit doublethink. I still believe affirmative action is sometimes justified. Because if we accept the fact that racism exists and that it does play in role in employment and that we won't get rid of that for another hundred years affirmative action is less wrong than no affirmative action.
Now you could argue that racism is not widespread anymore. But I hate to point out the fact that for example the number of blacks and hispanics in top jobs is still very, very low. And then we could argue that that is because the don't get the same education because of where they are raised and grow up. And that is what needs to be changed first. I suppose it is, but I still think that affirmative action while being wrong is still less wrong than the alternative.
They give summer jobs to 18 year old students at the local Bank.
I know some of them were kindly asked not to return the next summer. Since they searched how much money famous football players had on their bank accounts...
Any cop can access your general info.
Any bank clerq can access basic bankaccount info.
Computers are evil!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If he hadn't felt the need to question the popular candidate, he wouldn't have had to worry about his life getting turned inside out. It is his own fault. Let this be a lesson to the rest of you.
Your points regarding "Joe's" outright lies and inaccuracies born of his daydreams are to my experience very common among the self employed. They see the most successful among their business acquaintances, and see that as a realistic goal... if only were the local/state/government to stop regulating/taxing them at whatever level they're currently regulated/taxed.
How many self-employed people do you actually know? I am self-employed, and I attend meeting at my local Chamber of Commerce, and local Apartment Owners Association, so I have met hundreds of self-employed people.
Personally, I do not recall meeting even one self-employed person who complained about an inability to achieve their business goals due to excessive regulation or taxes. I have had countless conversations and attended countless presentations about regulatory compliance, and these types of organizations are great in that capacity. They allow like-minded businesspeople to combine efforts and help each other out.
That said, there are very real effects of excessive taxation and excessive regulation. There are certain jurisdictions where I refuse to do business because the local governments make it less profitable. For instance, I would never purchase a building in NJ or MA or MD or CA because it's just too much of a headache for me. This is why apartments in those states cost way more than in states next door.
Taking this to the macro level, the United States has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world (second only to Japan). If you are an international corporation, are you going to set up shop in the US and employ US workers if you have to pay high US corporate taxes? Probably not, unless it is absolutely necessary.
There are politicians who complain about US firms shipping jobs overseas while simultaneously ensuring that corporate tax burdens remain excessive. What they don't realize, is that they could induce a lot of business activity into the US if they simply lowered corporate income taxes to be in line with the rest of the world, to take the tax code out of the business decision regarding where to operate.
If that's what you call daydreaming, that's fine. Personally, I think it's just educating those who don't realize that there are undesirable consequences to excessive regulation and taxation. We all have to pay the price in terms of jobs getting shipped overseas, and higher cost of goods and services paid locally. Hopefully others will see the humor in the fact that the very people whose jobs are getting shipped overseas are calling for more of the failed policies that caused the offshoring to occur. Ahh, but people do like to listen to a pleasant-sounding voice.
I've already come to terms with the fact that Obama is going to tax the ever-loving hell out of me (yes, I am part of the unlucky 5%). I'll be smiling, however, when people like you realize that you're next. Obama's writing checks that "the wealthy" simply can't cash.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
For the record, his name is not Joe -- it's Sam.
That matters as a bellwether to the fact that pretty much everything he said was a lie.
Tom Geller
This story illustrates the unprecedented transparency that technology is bringing to society. Just as (allegedly) Plumber Joe's privacy was breached, access logs in Ohio's information systems show when his data was accessed and from which particular government offices. That's powerful stuff. Data logs can probably enable a deeper investigation into precisely who made the access and whether it was legal. If people acted illegally, the digital evidence can lead to their punishment. Such transparency represents a big trend in society http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2007/12/people-in-authority-sometimes-abuse.html --Ben
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
I so wish I had mod points right now...
If there was a legitimate reason to be accessing these records, you'd certainly think they wouldn't use a test account for it. . . .
Translation: Thre isn't really any benefit to taking less money from those that are rich. The mugger doesn't give you money by only taking half of what's in your wallet instead of all of it.
It's like when you hear a politician say a tax cut will "cost the government money." Uh, no, it will cost the taxpayers less money. Back to the mugger, we apparently cost him money when we protect ourselves from him.
We agree here, comparisons to drunken sailors' spending habits is not fair to the sailors.
But if that's your view then you want to run, not walk, away from Obama. This is the porkmeister himself, and he has plans to spend a whole lot more of our money. With a Democratic-run Congress there will be nothing to stop him. And he won't have the luck of a dot-com bubble to provide the money for his spending lust.
First, why should he have to do creative accounting? Why not just not tax him so much in the first place? This system might as well be called the "accountant's welfare scheme."
In any case, it doesn't matter. Joe has struck a chord, put a regular-guy face on the "evil rich" that Obama wants to punish in his little class-warfare game. If he hadn't, Obama and Biden wouldn't be trying to hard to dismiss him, his minions wouldn't be doing illegal record searches on him, they wouldn't be smearing him as they've been trying. They're even digging up things like he doesn't have a plumber's license so he's "not a real plumber" (license not required if you work for someone who has one).
Most of my friends and acquaintances are self-employed. I'm in HI, so I'm familiar with the scene in a heavily regulated and taxed state.
Your claim that the US Federal corporate tax is "second only to Japan" doesn't hold water. Obviously, if you pick the right State, you can really pay through the nose. Taxes may or may not be lower in China, India, or Bangladesh, but many 3rd world locations introduce issues and uncertainties that go 'way beyond a quarterly tax bill.
Luke, help me take this mask off
"Fair share" is everyone paying the same flat rate (the poor and middle class would still pay less, but the same proportion). But when the bottom 50% of wage earners only pay 3.6% of the taxes [taxfoundation.org], there is something very unfair about that. At some point, people in the bottom third not only pay no taxes, but get net checks from the government. Is this still fair by your world view? At what point does it get unfair?
You're playing the same game we've seen a million times from pro-corporate people of all stripes: "The percentages aren't even!" It's a mathematician's trick that partly enables corporations to pay the majority of their workers incomes below poverty level, and come out with egregious profits for their share holders.
The truth of the matter is that the barriers to entry into higher tax brackets for families that have historically paid no taxes or have been on the bottom bracket for more than one generation are ONLY mitigated by spreading the wealth downward. Federal grants have income caps, and are used for education, which in turn will increase the tax bracket of the recipient. (Presuming he's not an IT engineer working nights at Circle-K because of competition and/or knowing too much to be in other positions) The end result, and what people like those in the lowest bracket and below get heated over is not the percentages, but the amounts resulting from the applied percentages. Not everyone will understand that 1.1 billion in revenue might be offset by 1.0 billion in costs, but when the word profit is used to describe such numbers, people know what that means. A large corporation may have to pay 35% tax or its equivalent in donations to approved parties, but billions in profits is post-tax, where dividends are decided and the rest goes to profit sharers, and those involved still reap many more dollars than the minimum-wage workers who enabled their profits. That's where the little guy gets pissed at big business, but that just sets the stage for my point here.
So what happens if the percentages are even? Tax revenues would go down, those federal grants may be in jeopardy, and many social programs that benefit corporate enablers (those minimum-wagers that corps love to treat like dirt) would also fail from lack of funding. Eventually the company itself may run into a labor shortage for anyone with a clue because you're having to fight over all those candidates who didn't need grants with other companies who weren't paying higher taxes either. Then a situation similar to the Boomer retirement wave comes, and the company could really be in trouble.
Long story short, higher taxes on increasing incomes helps enable those incomes indirectly. You can spout off all of your individual responsibility BS all you want, but the fact of the matter is that today's environment is different than the days when most business tycoons of today were growing up. Opportunity to do what they did is limited much more by IP threats. You can't start from nothing because someone else probably thought of it first. Education about what came first is the key to those opportunities, and for the lower-class, your taxes are one of the few ways they can have a chance. Those tax dollars will also help the future survival of the company as generations march on.
The reality is that businesses are flocking to Ireland, which has a corporate tax rate one half that as the US. Now that's a careless tax policy.
And finally, that's an incomplete view. The most you could relocate to Ireland over the US is headquarters. Manufacturing, services, and retail will likely remain established where they are, and have their own tax responsibility and impacts. And that loophole of funneling all income out of country to avoid taxes on the corporate level may not remain for long now that it's in the commoner's spotlight.
It's always good fun toying with my favorite slashdot stalker plasmacutter. He has such a cute passive aggressive name.
Let's see if we can get to the core here:
He has no standing to talk about the 'issues' he raised.
First of all, allow me to thank you for adding much needed, albeit unintentional humor to this election season.
Now, what the hell do you mean by "no standing"? Since when does a person required to have "standing" to ask a politician a question in public? I mean, what the hell do you expect? Should Obama have pulled out the FRCP and cited 12(b)(6) and said, "I'm sorry, Joe, it appears that you have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as you are not, in fact, in possession of a small business nor capable of buying one at this time. As such, your question is dismissed with prejudice until such time as you own a business which has an income over $250k"? I mean, is this what you're talking about when it comes to "standing"?
Should we require the same of reporters? "I'm sorry, it looks like you, a male reporter, asked a question about abortion. I refuse to answer on the grounds that you lack standing as you are not a female. Come back to me after the sex change or whatever." Or, "that's a fascinating question about my healthcare plan, but it looks like you're an able-bodied person. So don't ask me any questions on this because you lack standing."
Joe - or Sam, or whatever - has "standing" by being a human being. Period. Perhaps he though too highly of himself. Perhaps he embellished. But it doesn't matter. If this complaint were going forth in a courtroom, of course it would be tossed out - standing actually, you know, matters there. But it is in the interest of every person to be able to ask a question of a politician in the United States even if there is no direct impact on the questioner. Why? Because maybe, just maybe, the person asking the question does not believe, as a matter of principle, that X should be done because it conflicts with his ideology Y on the matter.
And that's where the firearms question comes from above. It appears to have flown over your head - and boy, was that a shocker. Even a person who does not own firearms retains the right to question Obama about his firearms policies. Hell, even a convicted felon who is legally prohibited from owning a firearm and would never be directly affected (legally, at least) by a ban on high-capacity magazines can ask a question about these policies. Why? Because he has a right to hear an answer from his government or someone who wants to be a leader in the government on this issue.
I can claim that I'm the Queen of Sheba in a political question. It doesn't matter. It's the answer that deserves focus. And shifting the blame on the questioner is a sick, stupid tactic. Now, if you'd like to go through the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Code - or, why not, have some fun and go through the FRCP - and find the place where we are required to have proper "standing" to dare ask a politician a question, please, be my guest. (Let me save you some time, though - you won't find it because it's not there.)
The guy asked a fair question. Obama, an unseasoned and untested politician, answered off the cuff in a way that a lot of people didn't like. That's what you get when you bring a minor league politician on board in a major national election. Deal.
standing, n. A party's right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right - Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, 2004
Okay, "The Dispatch" requested public records (they themselves were snooping on poor Joe) and found out someone else had checked on Joe Plumber's driving and motor vehicle info. They got an investigation stirred up about it. Then "The Dispatch" wrote up a nice juicy article about their discovery, the investigation and tossed in some speculations about who was snooping around, with a sprinkling of implied political scandal and finger-pointing.
What I'd *really* like to know is who's been looking into my records, and why! And who is going to protect me if an unknown third party is snooping in my info?
Mod parent up! This is the right aspect.
Lots of people don't register to vote, and there is no legal requirement to do so - although there should be.
Why? If someone wants to relinquish their tiny bit of political power to the hands of those who care more than they do, why shouldn't they be able to?
Every person who chooses not to vote just makes YOUR vote stronger. It isn't like the decisions won't get made...it just means that the people who do not want to be heard will not be heard.
Why should that be illegal?
9 points worth of insinuations and no substance. Try again.
I'm sorry, I thought it was the media's jobs to dig. Frankly, I don't have the resources to investigate Barack Obama. The point is, this shit hasn't even been looked at. It's gotten so bad, some journalists are too embarrassed to even tell people they work in the press. As James Taranto has pointed out, even the liberal SNL is asking tougher questions than the media.
why haven't they smeared McCain's character as being a spoiled brat who had to pull strings to get into the naval academy, an then barely managed to pass (5th from the bottom of his class of 900 students)? Why haven't we heard about how he crashed several of our planes? Why haven't we heard all about his confessions?
Actually, McCain wrote about his being a bad student in his biography. But he finished and served his country with distinction. Apparently serving your country as a cadet while not graduating at the top of your class as a young person 40+ years ago is newsworthy, but doing cocaine as a young person is not newsworthy. Right, McCain is the one with the misspent youth. Obama partying with coke, that's the real good character guy. Unbelievable.
But I think even the MSM liberal reporters know you can't attack McCain's character. Nobody has ever alleged he has been a dirty politician (except by the guilty-by-association attacks that you say are unfair to do to Obama). Yet the LA Times just did a cheap hit piece on McCain's plane accidents (again, a soldier serving his country in wartime gets in an accident, he's bad, but some guy not serving his country does coke on purpose, he's the good guy). Talk about a cheap shot. How can you be such a heartless SOB to a serviceman who, in one of those "crashes" caused by a SAM, ended up in Haiphong Harbor with broken arms and a leg and spend 4+ years in a prison camp being beaten? And he spent an extra two years as a POW because the "spoiled" McCain turned down early release that was offered precisely because he was the son of the CINC. This is the vaunted liberal compassion? You sound like a vicious, heartless person to talk like this.
If only Obama and other liberals were as honest about their contempt for military service as you are.
That said, he's still a privileged piece of shit.
McCain spoiled? The guy lived on military bases and communities in modest homes. He did not come from money. His family lived on a paltry naval salary. He saw his father very rarely, since his dad was in the Navy. Everyone has to pull strings to get into the US Naval Academy. You need to be recommended by a senator to get in. So McCain married a hot rich chick when he was middle-aged. Don't be a hater. Kerry (you know, the guy who had three draft deferments before he went to Vietnam, and split after four months by getting some chickenshit purple heart because some rice exploded on him) married an ugly rich chick, and it worked for him.
How is being a Navy brat who served his country in wartime as a soldier and POW a "spoiled" upbringing, as opposed to Obama partying and not serving his country? If McCain was so "spoiled," why didn't he avoid the rigors of Annapolis and Vietnam and go to Harvard, like his party-like-a-rockstar opponent did? How does a brain think like this?
As far as criticizing someone who breaks under years of torture, that is so beyond the pale I am not even going to address it, especially to the type of liberal who likely criticizes the Bush administration for doing brief waterboarding as cruel and unreliable. Not to mention, liberals like yourself were so brave they ran to Canada when they faced being drafted. Yes, you, anyone who would say anything like that is an absolute coward, and a disgrace for someone of a the political persuasion that claims to have a monopoly on compassion.
You really don't even know what the words "fair" or "objective" mean do you?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Well I'm assuming you are not a journalist and you learned these things through the media which disproves your argument.
Uh, no, I am referring to mainstream media bias , like ABC CBS NBC/MSNBC Newsweek Time AP Reuters Wash Post LA Times NY Times USA Today NPR, get it? None of them are reporting this stuff, and unfortunately, most people still get their news from these sources.. I get it from alternative sources like blogs, and yes, the dreaded Fox News (can we get away from this nonsenseical idea that anything Fox says is somehow illegitimate? The question should be why other "journalists" are not asking these things). But on its best night, FNC gets 4M viewers in a country of roughly 100M voters. You do the math as to why this is a problem.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"If you are participating in public discourse, you should be required to have a minimal understanding of what you are talking about."
I expect you to remove yourself from this site entirely, then.
Look, son, let me take things really slow for you.
First, let's discuss reasoning by analogy - also known as argument by analogy, argument from analogy, etc.
Now, in the first case, I used abortion abortion among other subjects to draw analogies from. But - now, let's put on our thinking caps! - I could have used anything. The non-existent issue of Transexual Leprechaun Succession Rights would have worked just as well. Here, let's try it out:
Reporter: Mr. Obama, I would like to know what you think of Transexual Leprechaun Succession Rights.
Obama: Well, reporter, seeing as you are not a Leprechaun undergoing a severe identity crisis who could be considered a possible probate heir of your companion's belongings, I do not have to answer your question.
Now, in this entirely made up sequence, did Obama answer the question? No. He refused to answer the question. Why? Well, his response would indicate that he seems to think the questioner lacks "standing" to dare to even ask a question on the matter. And what does he base his decision on a lack of "standing" on? The class the reporter belongs to - a non-Leprechaun, non-transexual who has no concerns regarding probate.
The attack is on the reasoning used by the fictional Obama in this sequence (of course Obama did not attack the reasoning here - but you would prefer that he did).
This is called "reasoning". Or logic. Or just thinking. It is a new concept for many, and I do recommend you try it some day. In the grownup world, it comes in handy. In law school, we use it all the time.
Now, if you have learned something from the above (and the tragedy is that you have not), you may be able to extricate your cranium from your posterior and get to the point:
Whether or not "Joe" was capable of doing what he said he could do is irrelevant, just as it would be irrelevant if I asked Obama a question about gun control while I did not own a firearm. You do not need "standing" to ask a question to a politician. The person asking the question is entirely immaterial - the question matters. People can be concerned about things that do not affect them directly and even - shock - ask questions about these issues that will never concern them in the slightest.
Now, you may post yet another fuming "this is apples and oranges!" response. Please do. My Monday nights are always a bit boring. And do keep this talk of "standing" up. It's a good laugh. I look forward to a "why, it's ridiculous, where did Leprechauns enter into this conversation!" post.
Yes, do keep responding!
Do!
So, do you now agree with the statement that "Joe" had standing to ask the question?
It's about running a business instead of being an employee, taking on all the uncertainties, responsibility and risk, and then getting penalized for doing so.
If corporations don't pay taxes, then they shouldn't have the rights of entities that do pay taxes.
Your attack on government bureaucracy is actually funny. Consider that we spend twice as much on health care as any other industrialized nation, because we are the only industrialized nation with a private health care system. Despite all the anecdotes to the contrary, according to things called "polls," which have a well known reality bias, Americans are the least satisfied with their health care.
So why would the establishment be against social medicine? Because it's repulsively profitable for pharmaceutical industries, and all the layers of corporate mess designed not to heal anyone, but to extend their suffering in order to make more profit.
This is of course plainly obvious to any person who wishes to think rationally: corporations have no incentive to deliver a product efficiently when it's something that every human requires. They have the choice of a guaranteed sale at a decent profit, or a guaranteed sale at a huge profit. Which one would you choose? That's why all utilities are heavily regulated, and water is always a public utility. Health care should be no different, and there is zero evidence that shows that private medical systems are more effective than socialized ones.
Joe the plumber got sucked in to thinking he would pay more tax because he didn't understand the different between gross income and net profit.
The tax change being proposed by Obama is calculated on net profit, not gross income.
A plumbing business makes about $6000 profit on $100,000 of income, after you take into account operational expenses that include wages.
For a plumbing business to make $250,000 profit (and thus be subject to Obama's tax), it needs to have an annual turn over in the $millions - far above anything "Joe the plumber" was considering.
So the truth of the matter is that Obama's tax plan did not impact Joe at all, but instead of trying to point this out, Obama played with the guy by talking about "spreading the wealth."
btw, I've watched Fox News once during the election - it was a joke. The news reporting and commentary was so biased towards the Republican party that it is hard to believe they could pretend to be an independant news organisation.
Umm....ok I came in on a bad time. Can somebody tell me who the heck this Joe the Plumber guy is and his story?
-Steve "The Geek" Hencye