Joe,

If you're out there, please tell me who you're voting for. I didn't realize Swing Vote was a documentary, and I need to know whether to apply for Canadian citizenship and get a moving truck on November 4th.

Thanks, bro.

Ha! I thought the exact same thing when I watched it. If I were him I think I'd be a little creeped out. They both reeeally wanted to make Joe happy.

I like Joe. He actually asked a good questions instead of just gushing – “Oh I’m so glad to meet you.”

Also equally surprised that the Obama actually answered his question with an oh so sugar coated - “Yep, you’ll be paying more.”

Yet Joe claimed that Obama tap-danced around the subject, which is totally untrue, and asked some stupid questions, like "what if I want to buy a new truck?". That's what we call a tax deduction, Joe.

There is a radio interview with Joe on the Fox website where Joe came off a lot better than most "Joe's."

I don't know how to link it here.

Agreed. But just because he's less stupid doesn't mean he's not stupid.

I think I read somewhere he wasn't even a licensed plumber. Hmmm.

And what you read would be correct.

Put-up job, methinks?

Not a licensed plumber... Only makes 40k a year (so would do much better under Obama)... Registered as a Republican since 1992... Has a judgement lien against his house for non-payment of taxes... In other words, yet another example of the many, many Americans who vote against their own self-interest.

Senators McCain and Obama attended a white tie dinner tonight and roasted each other pretty well. I thought the material was quite funny for anyone who's been following the campaign, and the delivery from both Senators was pretty solid.

Joe the Plumber was, of course, featured prominently in the routines.

McCain roasts Obama

Obama roasts McCain

Maybe not. Depends on how much the McCain campaign put in Joe's shiny new offshore account.

Obama and 'Joe the Plumber' talk directly

Breaking News!
Live!
Fox
M S N B C
Breaking News!

How can anyone stand to actually watch that much crap in motion on the screen beyond the actual item that is being covered. Hadn't really seen how bad it's gotten in recent years.

The roasts were quite amusing though.

Favorite observation from Jon Stewart: we've had more press interviews with Joe the Plumber than with Sarah Palin.

Are you referring to Detroit who has only elected Democrats for 40+ years while crime goes up, high school graduation rates fall to 37%, unemployment hovers at 15% and the Lions are 0 - 5?

I'm not going to try to change your opinion on any of this stuff. Rather, I'm just going to explain why we vote that way.

First of all, you'd have to assume that financial self-interests are the only thing that matter to most voters. Many of us consider it just plain wrong to demonize the rich and have a tax system that takes more of their money just because we can. We also have many social issues that we care about. For an average white person who clings to guns and religion because he is bitter about life, that issue may be the 2nd amendment. If you're like me and think that abortion is killing an unborn baby, it's hard to weigh ANY matters of the economy or war or whatever against 1,200,000 dead, dismembered babies in the US each year. That's the whole concept behind "Country First".

The whole "voting for financial self interest" thing has gotten us to the point where people who don't pay taxes get to vote on what the taxpayers pay. Right now, the top 5% of taxpayers pay 53.25% of the taxes and the top 50% of taxpayer pay a whopping 96.03% (year 2000 data). Where will it end?

While I completely understand why people may think Republican policies won't help the country, it always amazes me how Democrats are so shocked when they hear of someone who makes under $30k a year and votes Republican.

That's why a lot of us are disgusted with the whole "What are you going to give me??" questions at townhall meetings. "Free" college, "free" health care, "free" equity on mortgages I never should have gotten, etc. We just want as little government in our lives as possible. It's painful to see a debate where it looks like two car salesmen fighting over who is going to give me a better deal on that extended warranty.

Regarding Joe the Plumber, I don't know what you guys are talking about. I can't stand cable news and actually clicked in here to see what you guys thought about it. It's like talking about lipstick on pigs or something.

While I get that many, perhaps most, Republican voters aren't voting that way for economic reasons, I think there's some mileage in the idea that, if you're solely voting on the economy (which perhaps happens more in the UK than the US, as there are fewer other differences between the two parties), it's undemocratic to vote based on anything other than self-interest. If you're voting based on somebody else's self-interest, that's like those people are getting two votes each.

Peter

I'll use a small quick example to explain why the percentages used here aren't the best way to try and represent the situation.

Lets say there is a flat tax of 10% of income. Bob has an income of $100,000. Joe has an income of $1,000,000. So, at 10%, Bob pays $10,000, and Joe pays $100,000. Using your stats above, indeed this can slant things to make it seem like Joe is getting really screwed over, when both are paying an equal portion of their income. Because in this situation, Joe is paying close to 90% of all tax income of the example, and Bob is only paying around 10%.

Of course the citizens who make more money are going to be putting more money into the tax system then the poorer citizens. The question is, at the end of the day, is it fair what either group is paying? And is that money going towards improving the country as a whole, allowing for greater chance of success for all? While Republican values may be for smaller government and Democrats may be for bigger government, there is a balance in there somewhere. Too little, and those highways vital to the trucks moving your widgets around to sell fall apart, thus impacting your business. Too much government, and too much of peoples income goes into the tax system, not allowing people to justify buying those widgets.

I agree with Drakino that it's important not to twist the statistics around too much. At the end of the day, there are lots of things that we ask our government to do that we cannot reasonably do, even with private industrial help. That includes things like maintaining a standing military force. It also includes police, fire, roads, and so forth, never mind future priorities that are too far out or too risky for companies to tackle (canonical example: ARPA support for what grew into the Internet).

Where's all that money supposed to come from? If you're in Saudi Arabia, the answer is that it comes from oil revenues. If you're in the U.S., you've got to look elsewhere. That means corporate taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, and so forth. All of those represent a bunch of knobs that you can twist around to incentivize or disincentive behavior, all while trying to raise enough money to do what you need to do.

About those knobs: sure, you can go ahead and lower taxes on rich people, but where are you planning to increase taxes to compensate? Poor people? Unprofitable companies? The money has to come from somebody with the capacity to pay. And that is where rich people come into play, because they can afford it.

While Republican values may be for smaller government and Democrats may be for bigger government, there is a balance in there somewhere.

And then there are the practices which don't always seem to match the values.

Except when the government supports what you want, like banning abortion.

And you seem to be opposed to the financial bailout. At this point, the only outcomes I see are do the bailout in hopes that we can prevent the fallout from affecting those who are not responsible for it, or don't do it and let the chips fall where they may, most likely affecting people who were, again, not responsible.

I think we can all agree that both of those situations are non-optimal, so it would most likely be preferable to avoid the situation, right? Well, the only way we can really guarantee that is by government regulation. Unless you can tell me why that's not the case, I'm going to have to argue that you're cherry-picking your data for why you're opposed to governmental interference.


I obviously cannot speak for everyone, but, just so you understand my point of view better, I'm not in favor of those things because I'm out to get something for free. I'm in favor of those things because I feel that it promotes the infrastructure of the country. Those of us who are doing well can afford to provide some services for those who aren't, and helping those people get a leg up should help all of us. At the same time, I don't believe that those services should be available only to a certain class of people, so the government should offer those services to everyone. Some may choose not to partake of those services for whatever reason, but it should be a right, not a handout.

This can't be true, otherwise why on earth did Labour a) get in, and b) stay in? I can't think of any group of people who actually believed they would be richer with labour in power?

Hear, hear.

My only issue with social welfare programs are that they are run by the government. Don't forget, I work for the government. I SEE how things are handled. While it SEEMS like a good idea to hand out free shit all over the place, The reality I see every day is quite different.

The way I see it, my tax dollars are being spent supporting an entire class of people who would rather not work. Not can't, just won't. It's bred an entire sub-culture of people that do nothing all day but try and beat the system.

Again, in my opinion, this is causing drag on the national economy, not moving it forward, as my tax dollars are being poured into non-producing "members of society". And don't try and feed me bullshit about how there simply aren't enough jobs to go around either. Our public works department is currently running at 40% capacity. High school diploma not required. All people have to do is get off their lazy asses and work for a living. Working here provides full health benefits, retirement, annual raises, etc. but still we aren't even getting applications. It's sickening, really.

So to close, I totally understand the utopian view that helping the lower classes reach higher benefits us all, but it simply doesn't jive with how I see things work in reality. And as to the abortion debate, that's an extremely easy call for me. See, I'm adopted. My bio-mom was 15 and bio-dad was 16 when I was born. I could have very easily been aborted. I dare say that most people here wouldn't have blamed a 15 year old for taking the easy way out. I'm sure as hell glad she didn't, though.

The adoption process takes from 3-5 years currently due to a lack of babies that are born to mothers that choose to put them up for adoption. Babies are being SOLD on the black market. For me, there is no excuse for this. Personally, I take offense at the whole "it's my body" crap. We're talking about a human being, for god's sake. I cannot imagine killing my child for convenience.

Sorry about that. Like I said, it's a very personal subject to me.

At any rate, flame away.

I'm genuinely surprised to hear that. The experience of friends in the UK who've adopted has been completely the opposite: there's a lack of potential adoptive parents, and couples who apply to adopt are being SOLD on the open market (from one local authority to another). It still takes from 3-5 years, though, mostly because the authorities try so very hard to make sure the parents aren't nutters before placing a child with them.

Peter

The facts would seem to be at odds with your allegation.

FWIW, my wife was also adopted, but both she and I are in support of the availability of abortion.

I don't want to jump into the middle of this, but I think it's necessary to point out that "children in foster care" != "babies available for adoption."

Many adoptive parents may not feel capable of taking on children with a troubled past or may wish to raise a child from infancy.

To be fair, there were also numbers for "children in foster care waiting to be adopted" distinct from simply "children in foster care", but you're right that there wasn't a separate number for infants.

My Mom was a career Foster Mom for pre-adoptive infants. I've seen, first hand, how the social mores have changed the process over the last 40 years.

Late 60's - There was still a social stigma associated with out of wedlock births. Most babies then were clean, healthy and cleared for adoption in well under 6mos. Identities of everyone involved were protected from each other.

Late 80's - The expectation became that it was wrong to voluntarily give an infant up for adoption. Infants then entering foster care are mostly involuntarily taken by the court for cause. Of those many are born with severe drug addictions and other related health problems.

The process having become adversarial, now takes much longer. With little effort, the mother, can tie up the release of a child well past the infant stage. 6mos becomes the minimum, and can take much longer. A year or more.

Not only do the welfare agencies have to clear the adoption with the mother, but they also have to secure releases from just about every close relative available. Then the father, if he comes forward, can at the last minuet, reset the whole process, or even wind up battling the mother.

Truly "children in foster care" != "babies up of adoption".

Yet I will disagree. There is a definite preference for the adaption of infants over children.

Yeah, I should have been more clear. I was absolutely talking about infants. Not children.

Not meaning to skew the topic further off course, but I am also a total fan of closed adoptions. I rather think that the idea that a child or birth-parent popping up out of the blue 18 years later is a bit of a turn-off for a lot of prospective people putting their babies up for adoption. My adoption is a closed one. The only way for me to meet my birth-parents is to write a letter and send it to the adoption agency. They have to do the same. In other words, we both have to decide that we want to meet each other. If either one of us wishes to remain unknown to the other, we never meet. I can't imagine how weird it must be for those kids who grow up seeing their birth parents a few times a year on special occasions. I wouldn't mind dropping them a note to let them know how much I appreciate the decision they made, but I have no interest in actually meeting them. I am quite pleased with my "real" mom and dad.

At any rate, that's only one facet of my rational for being pro-life. Another reason is religious in nature, and that's a dead horse we don't need to kick again. Neither side is changing it's mind.

I DO find it fascinating how polar opposite the views on abortion are. It's one of those questions I am glad I am not in charge of solving. It's just one of those things where there is no compromise on either side possible.

The downside to this is that it's much more difficult to know about genetic health factors. Does diabetes or heart disease run in your family? Breast cancer? Cystic Fibrosis?


IMHO, abortion isn't a problem that will ever be "solved". Personally, I find the practice vile, but I have a pro-choice stance for a few reasons -- a) it's un-bannable (we already know how well bans work, it just drives things underground), and b) it's not my place to force you to abide by my beliefs. I think the only compromise that will ever be possible is to reduce the need for abortions, through education and better access to family planning. I think that's a far more viable, and effective strategy for the anti-choice/pro-life folks to pursue than government regulation.

The anti-choice/pro-life folks seem not to care about all the zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos that are destroyed by in-vitro clinics, or are dumped after patients have decided that to no longer continue cryopreservation. That suggests to me that a) there's some wiggle room on where they really think life begins, and/or b) they're really more concerned about controlling women's reproduction rights, than they are about saving life (which I think is closer to the truth, given the number of pro-life folks who are also pro-death penalty).

Is that actually true? I'd think that people who were picketing abortion clinics would also be equally upset about the above. I wonder if it's simply because they don't know about it.

I'd also include the fact that they're also usually opposed to sex education.

I believe that "purist" anti-abortion activists would be perfectly happy with a definition that says any fertilized egg gains legal protections. If that effective bans several forms of birth control like the pill or IUDs, they'd have no problem with that. In terms of broad-based public opinions, a purist stance would never gain traction, even among otherwise anti-abortion activists. Thus, that side of the aisle is all about compromise.

On the flip side of the aisle, the pro-choice "purists" would be perfectly happy with a definition that says that legal protections don't start until the baby is born, and anything before that is between a woman and her doctor. This argument would similarly fail to gain a majority of public opinion, and thus we see concessions with regard to third trimester abortions.

Ultimately, like everything, the abortion issue boils down to politics. "Right" and "wrong" are all relative to what sort of a compromise can achieve sufficient political traction.

I thought the standard "pill" prevents the egg's release. So then there would be no "egg + sperm" thus no life.

I know the "morning after pill" is a different story.

I'm no expert, but I was always told that the egg was still released, could still be fertilized, but just wouldn't take hold on the uterine wall. I'll look it up...

And apparently I was told wrong. That'll teach me for listening to my parents and teachers.

You were correct, the drug prevents ovulation.

Agreed, for all of the reasons you point out.

Around 1970, I was harassed on a daily basis by 3 or 4 women at my work who demanded to know why I wasn't fleeing to Canada...and how could I take the chance that I could be compelled to go far away and kill innocent, full-sized people. I made a deal to stop their harassment. I promised never to harass them about certain choices that I, as a guy, would never have to confront, if they, as women, would return the favor.

I can't say that they don't care... that's why I used the phrase "seem not to" -- when's the last time you've heard of an in-vitro place being picketed, or heard the "life begins at conception" argument applied outside the immediate scope of abortion (and maybe stem-cell harvesting)?

There are many, many dimensions to the abortion issue, but for me, it reduces to one simple question.

From the pro-life perspective, abortion is a case of a mother paying a doctor to murder her child. However, most state anti-abortion laws, even in relatively conservative states, punish the doctor who performs the abortion, but not the mother who pays for it.

This is the equivalent of prosecuting the hitman but letting the one who plots and pays for the murder go free. The reason why the states are doing this (even conservative states like South Dakota) is a no-brainer: most of the moderate pro-life constituency would melt away if the mother were held criminally liable for the so-called murder.

If you don't believe me, watch this video of pro-life activists when confronted with the question of what to to the mothers.

Either abortion is murder or it isn't. If it's murder, then every anti-abortion voter must reconcile the concept of what to do (legally) to the mothers.

It's an interesting coincidence that Friday's Straight Dope article was about this topic...