BS: Joe the Plumber

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 11:03 AM

Documentation for the charge that Obama got more money from Soros?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 11:02 AM

I'll post this again, too, from Obama's announcement...


"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics – and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we've built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We've won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.

You've already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that's the only way we can truly change how Washington works. And that's the path we will continue in this general election. I'm asking you to try to do something that's never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far"

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 11:02 AM

The PAC's and 527's work for both sides. The reality is, Obama was able to get a lot more money through George Soros, so he reneged on his pledge.
                  But I guess it all depends on what your definition of "is," is!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 11:01 AM

McCain got just barely zero per cent of his funds from PAC's. Why should zero percent have been a dealbreaker from "yes?":

Individual contributions $193,991,664 54%
PAC contributions $1,375,110 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $84,103,800 24%
Other $162,406,443 45%


These from:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cid=N00006424&cycle=2008

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:59 AM

They could agree to do what Obama has done and tell all of their supporters to not give money to the PACs on their behalf. They could also tell the PACs to not do any campaigning or any advertising for them.

But the idea of accepting public money is really a sham as long as candidates are getting help from the PACs and 527s. As long as they're doing that, an agreement to opt into the public money is just a facade.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:50 AM

How would he stop PAC's and 527's?

http://www.powerpac.org/

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:41 AM

*any PACS or 527s

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:40 AM

McCain wasn't willing to forgo the help he was getting from PACs and 527 groups. Obama never said he would accept public money if McCain did. He said he would try to work out an agreement with McCain about the both of them accepting public money. The deal breaker was that McCain wasn't willing to give up the help he was getting from the PACs and the 527 groups.

Obama wasn't willing to be held just to the public money if McCain was going to be getting the outside help, and Obama did not want to be helped by PACs and 527 groups because he feels that they are a big part of the problem with campaign financing. He feels they are a part of what makes our system broken at this time. After he announced that he wouldn't be accepting public money, he instructed his supporters to not give any more money to any PACs of 527.

Obama's stance has been the far more principled one from start to finish on the subject of campaign finance.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:30 AM

But "yes" was an insufficient response from McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:24 AM

Let me just repeat that one more time in case anyone missed it the last time...

"aggressively pursue an agreement"

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:21 AM

aggressively pursue an agreement

He pursued an agreement, and the two candidates were not able to find common ground. He did not say he would accept public money if the other candidate would. He only said he would try to come to some kind of agreement about it with the other candidate if the other candidate said he would accept public money.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:13 AM

"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." --Barack Obama, answer to Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, September 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 10:11 AM

He agreed to take public financing if McCain did. McCain lived up to his promise, Obama did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 08:28 AM

Obama did not make a promise to accept public funding. The only thing he promised was to try to come to a mutually acceptable agreement with McCain for the both of them to accept public funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 08:26 AM

Obama also said this...

"If I am the nominee, then I will make sure that our people talk to John McCain's people to find out if we are willing to abide by the same rules and regulations in respect to the general election." But, he added, "it would be presumptuous of me to start saying now that I'm locking myself into something when I don't even know if the other side is going to agree to it, and I'm not the nominee."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021503639_pf.html

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 08:26 AM

The way I look at Obama's so-called promise to accept public financing is two-fold:

1. First, it was done early and both candidates were talking about accepting it... That was at a time when McCain had to borrow money from a band using public fiancing as security... Then he started raising lots of money... So did Obama... McCain tried to get out of his pledge, if you recall, also... He would have possibly been able to pull it off but the Federal Election Commission didn't have the sufficent numbers for a quarum and therefore was not able to release McCain... But...

2. Secondly, and this takes us back to the run up to the invasion of Iraq... There were several weeks prior to Bush pulling the trigger where information was coming to the forefront questioning the assertions that had been laid out as a justification for the invasion... There were Scott Ritter, and Hans Blix and Joe Wilson's reports that Iraq wasn't really doing all the bad things that the Bush people had laid out... But Bush has allready huffed, puffed 'n bluffed so much that I guess he felt he couldn't turn back... I other words, Bush was inflexible to new information on the ground... And look where that got US??? So my thinking is that Obama showed in ***changing his mind*** a quality that had Goerge Bush possessed then might ahve avoided the worst foriegn policy decision since Vietnam... I want a president who is less concerned about his ego and more concerned about creating policies that work... Flexibility, in these difficult time, ain't a sin... It is a strenght...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 08:16 AM

I don't see the quote, "I, Barack Obama, will opt to take public financing." anywhere in that article. And the reason for that is because it doesn't exist. Not anywhere. Because Obama never said that. What I do see is this...

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would "aggressively pursue an agreement" with whoever was his opponent.

The charge that Obama pledged to take public financing is just one more of the many lies that McCain and his people have been spreading about Obama.

Obama and his people did agressively pursue an agreement, but Obama and the McCain people were not able to come to mutually satisfactory terms.


"The Obama campaign said it held one meeting with McCain's team to try to work out conditions under which Obama would agree to accept public financing, including efforts to curtail the influence of outside groups including so-called 527s."

'"It was immediately clear that McCain's campaign had no interest in the possibility of an agreement," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said.'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11202.html


Here's what Obama said about it at the time...

"Hi, this is Barack Obama.

I have an important announcement and I wanted all of you – the people who built this movement from the bottom-up – to hear it first. We've made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we'll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election.

It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections. But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics – and you have. Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we've built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. We've won the Democratic nomination by relying on ordinary people coming together to achieve extraordinary things.

You've already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that's the only way we can truly change how Washington works. And that's the path we will continue in this general election. I'm asking you to try to do something that's never been done before. Declare our independence from a broken system, and run the type of campaign that reflects the grassroots values that have already changed our politics and brought us this far.

If we don't stand together, the broken system we have now, a system where special interests drown out the voices of the American people will continue to erode our politics and prevent the possibility of real change. That's why we must act. The stakes are higher than ever, and people are counting on us.

Every American who is desperate for a fair economy and affordable healthcare, who wants to bring our troops back from Iraq. Who hopes for a better education and future for his or her child, these people are relying on us. You and me. This is our moment and our country is depending on us. So join me, and declare your independence from this broken system and let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people. With this decision this campaign is in your hands in a way that no campaign has ever been before. Now is the time to act. Thank you so much."


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gG5SPm

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 07:19 AM

RCP Home Latest Polls Videos Links Markets Sports    « Nat'l Poll: A Dead Heat | The RCP Blog Home Page | 40 Years Since RFK »
June 6, 2008
Public Financing for Obama?
Posted by BLAKE DVORAK | E-Mail This | Permalink | Email Author
For background on the public-financing debate, here's the NYT from March 2, 2007:

Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party's presidential nomination.
The promises by Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are an effort to resuscitate part of the ailing public financing system for presidential campaigns. ...

On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that he would take up Mr. Obama on a proposal for an accord between the two major party nominees to rely just on public financing for the general election.

Such a pact would eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to $85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return any private donations that they had raised for that period.

Mr. Obama laid out his proposal last month to the Federal Election Commission, seeking an opinion on its legality. The commissioners formally approved it on Thursday.

The manager of Mr. McCain's campaign, Terry Nelson, said he welcomed the decision.

"Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same," Mr. Nelson said.

A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, "We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same."

Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would "aggressively pursue an agreement" with whoever was his opponent.

Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have backed changing campaign finances.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 03:53 AM

If it exists, I'd like to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 02:54 AM

McCain and Obama both signed a pledge. Rig is correct on that one. I'm sure he'll substantiate that one!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:44 AM

(My guess is that no one will provide any source for Obama making such a pledge.)

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:22 AM

Will someone provide a source for that quote from Obama about public financing?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:14 AM

From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 12:11 AM

Holy shit you guys are still talking about Joe the Plumber.

I saw the thread title popping up over and over today and I wondered
.....

Hey, you just popped it up again!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 12:11 AM

Holy shit you guys are still talking about Joe the Plumber.

I saw the thread title popping up over and over today and I wondered "hmm, what could they be talking about on that thread?"

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: John O'L
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:51 PM

"I, Barack Obama, will opt to take public financing."

So you're suggesting that when he said that he was fully intending not to do so?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:33 PM

..Come to think of it, he was lying right out of the gate!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:31 PM

Thank you, Rig! Now watch the idiots either deny that one, or attack you!...BTW, there's more, too!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:24 PM

"So Ohio requirements are exactly what counts. And that's what Alice has told us about through her link."


               Obviously the link is wrong, I looked up the Ohio state statute and posted it about. Joe does not need a license if he is simply working for somebody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:22 PM

"'I too would like to know a "whopper" Obama has told'"


             I, Barack Obama, will opt to take public financing.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 11:18 PM

If you've not been watching the news, or reading this forum, listing them all would just get into an endless, 'No he didn't...yes he did'...they're all over the place. Ask Rig or Sawzaw...you've (generically) been, ignoring, smearing, and trashing them out, no matter what they say...and not all that they have brought up is false. Instead of addressing the issues, they just get called names, without anyone really looking into it. As I said before, seek out the truth, and let the chips fall where they may....instead of,'Hey! That's my candidate! He walks on water, and his shit don't stink! Say ANYTHING bad about him, and YOU must be crazy!'...Sorta stupid, don't you think?

When I went, and asked about the 'rally', I went with no pre-conceptions, just to find the facts...not color them to suit me. That way, a more accurate and objective opinion could be formed, for MY information. I said it like it came down. I didn't post it sway any one toward, or away from anyone. I wanted to find out, for myself.

If information you gather, can't get past some mental blockage you've erected for yourself, you end up dealing with less information...and, after all, intelligence is the ability to process information. Do I like Obama? NO! Do I trust Obama? NO! Do I like McCain? Not particularly! Do I trust McCain? Absolutely not! Would I like to like a candidate? When I think of all the people who this country has to draw from, and these are the two that got dredged up, I think, there is something seriously wrong!

Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: John O'L
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:29 PM

"whoppers Obama has told in Ohio"--without one example.


I thought the "whoppers" must have been dealt with in a thread or a post that I missed.

I too would like to know a "whopper" Obama has told.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:19 PM

Couldn't resist that one!!

Ka-flump Ka-flump Ka-flump....

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:16 PM

Ron, Both Obama and McCain have been smearing each other with lies, innuendos and misleading statements, and twisting of quotes. Do I trust them??...Not with our constitution, I don't!!! Now put your head back up into your ass, and somersault down the street, till you disappear.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:11 PM

Are you, Inanity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Smears R Us?-- "whoppers Obama has told in Ohio"--without one example. Typical.

But it appears that you finally do realize that "Joe" told a totally false story to Obama---on purpose.

At least that means you may possibly be able to read. So that's progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 10:06 PM

From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 09:59 PM


It matters since Ohio is where "Joe" operates and where he told his totally false story to Obama.

Obama has told a few whoppers in Ohio, himself! What goes around, comes around.

BTW, I'm not one of the daily Obama attackers. I think their BOTH full of shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 09:59 PM

"perhaps in Ohio".

Why does it matter?   Like most who attack Obama, you don't read very carefully, do you, Inanity?

It matters since Ohio is where "Joe" operates and where he told his totally false story to Obama.

So Ohio requirements are exactly what counts. And that's what Alice has told us about through her link.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 09:48 PM

Not everywhere, Alice..perhaps in Ohio...why?...you looking for a plumber?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Alice
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 08:47 PM

Joe does need a license, even though he works for someone else.

"Wurzelbacher said he works under owner Al Newell's license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work. State records show that Wurzelbacher does not have that license, but is currently working on obtaining it."

full article here

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 08:41 PM

I'd be a lot more interested in what other people might have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 08:36 PM

Agree!...........................................................Either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 08:27 PM

I agree McGrath, what Joe says doesn't really matter, and one can explain over and over to some of these people how a plumber's license works, and they'll never get it. Joe doesn't need one, it's that simple.


               But when Obama tells whoppers, it should mean something to the press, but it doesn't. They simply look the other way. They're going to get the fellow elected, and the entire country will end up paying for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:27 PM

From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:09 PM

So "Joe" bigged himself up when talking to Obama. Once again, so what?

Obama has been doing some 'bigging up' of his own self, as well!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:09 PM

So "Joe" bigged himself up when talking to Obama. Once again, so what?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:53 PM

That's not as much the point, GtS, as Joes origional suspec t statements that he made in questioning Obama... Here a guy who says he is considering buying a plumbing company... That, unless there us more to the story, was more than likely false...

(Well, Bobert, it might have been true...)

Unlikely... Here's a guy with no license, a $40,000 year job as a plumber's assistant (laborer), tax leins and for him to buy a plumbing company he would have to foot the bill to also hire a licensed plumber to run it... The Wes Ginny Slide Rule has worked on this scenero and says that Joe is full of bull...

And now we have McCain having put his future and perhaps the immediate future of the Republican Party in the hands of this guy???

What am I missing here, folks???

Fact is stranger than fiction...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:14 PM

Sounds like a lot of 'straining on a gnat, and swallowing a camel', to me!

A person can work for a plumber, electrician, carpenter, or any of the trades, and NOT have a license, if he is working for a licensed contractor, then the contractor can 'sign off' the work, under his license, so it can be inspected. I suppose if many of you would have worked in the trades, you would have known this. It's a complete no brainer! If that same person, wants to take over, or start his own company, then getting his own license will allow him to carry his own contracts, be bonded, and sign off the work, himself. The next stupid argument, countering this will be posted by an ignoramus!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:41 PM

And I still say that anyone netting a quarter mil per year is a pretty feeble example of the middle class. Which is what this bullshit is all about.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:47 PM

Rig said:

A plumbing license wouldn't normally allow you to work on boilers, that's a whole different thing that requires a special license.

Yes, the boiler work would require a steamfitter, with appropriate license.

Plumbing is simply not that way in any state I've worked in, and it isn't that way in Ohio. (*)

If that statement is true, it's clear you have not worked in Indiana, then, Rig, (and I doubt your statement, even as to the other states).   I'm a court reporter, and I am called from time to time to report hearings before the Indiana plumbing commission. One of the most frequent situations is where someone is hauled in for practicing plumbing without a license, or acting as a plumbing contractor without that license, or where he's failed the plumber's examination and wants them to regrade certain questions, or where he doesn't have the requisite experience working for a licensed contractor to be qualified to take the exam, or is practicing with an expired or even a revoked license.

(*) It looks to me as if you just make these things up as you go along.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:40 PM

McGrath, It wouldn't be of interest if the left wing looneys hadn't made an issue of it. Anytime anyone says anything, instead of debating the point made, they want to go after the source. In this case, Joe was the source.

               They've done this to anyone who has anything negative to say about Barack Obama. That's probably because Barack Obama never says anything himself, so there's nothing else to talk about.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:33 PM

But why on earth is any of that of any interest, except to someone who is thinking of calling in "Joe" to do some plumbing?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe the Plumber
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:28 PM

Riginslinger's statute excerpt is of interest, but doesn't establish what he cites it for

The statute Rig quotes is merely a definitions statute, which does not purport to lay out qualifications or licensing requirements, or procedures for licensing.   In effect that statute merely says, "When we refer to 'X', this is what it means."

I remember reading, perhaps in this thread (and I've referred to that post earlier in this thread, myself), perhaps in some other thread, a quote of an Ohio statute which set out those plumbing operations which may ONLY be done by a licensed plumber or licensed plumbing contractor.

Incidentally, I also recall reading (probably in this thread) that J the P's employer is not a licensed contractor in Ohio. And perhaps it was also that the employer is not a licensed plumber himself.

Dave Oesterreich