The Entire “Joe The Plumber” Clip

The Entire “Joe The Plumber” Clip


You’ve just seen the part where Obama talks about spreading the wealth around.

What you didn’t see was the entire 5 minute exchange…

I wonder if the McCain camp saw the entire clip before he made Joe a star.

Also, I wonder who “Joe The Plumber” is voting for.

  • Mike

    I think it’s pretty clear he’ll be voting for McCain:

    I actually think this debate about taxes is clarifying. McCain has made it clear he is for tax cuts for the sole purpose of stimulating the economy. He hits home with me when he says “Why would you raise taxes on anyone in an economy like this?”

    On the other hand, Obama has made clear that he favors tax cuts not only to stimulate the economy, but also to give more money to those who are struggling the most. Like it or not, that’s wealth redistribution. I’m not trying to inject inflammatory phrases, but it’s true that an element of Obama’s motivation is “spreading the wealth” around.

    So that’s a huge contrast, and we can see how the differing motivations of the two candidates might inspire their presidencies. I, for one, am glad we’re back talking about a fundamental issue difference here.

  • RPC

    I am a little skeptical of this exchange. It seems just a little too convenient that Obama should bump into a small business owner who’s revenue is just a little bit more than $250,000 per year, the threshhold over which Obama’s higher taxes kick in, when a camera is on the scene. From what I can tell, Fox News was one of the first networks to pick up this story. Something smells fishy.

    This said, Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment is worrisome.

  • James

    Say it ain’t so, Joe! Looks like Joey is a) not even in the tax bracket he claims and b) isn’t even registered to vote.

  • Andy

    I agree with both of you. It does seem pretty clear that JTP is voting McCain and I also thought McCain was able to dominate the first half of the debate with his taxes/spending focus.

    And RPC, I thought the circumstances of the encounter were a little fishy too. Legit or not, I’m certain that Sean Hannity has a JTP man crush already.

  • Vlad

    In another interview with Katie Couric (after the debate), Joe has the usual to say about Obama (we don’t know what he’s going to do, etc), so more than likely he will not be swayed away from McCain.

  • Avinash_Tyagi

    Mike Taxing the rich to fund a tax cut to the middle and lower class can actually be quite beneficial, remember, GDP is the sum of private consumption, government expenditure, investment and net exports, this supposed wealth redistribution into the hands of the middle class and lower class will result in short term stimulus, instead of deferring the money into long term investments as the rich are likely to do. Basically the idea is to stimulate demand, demand which will drive companies to make more product and higher more workers.

  • Mike


    I was not trying to pick a side in my comment, only to point out that there is a clear distinction in their positions. Obama clearly believes in “Bubble-up” and McCain believes in “Trickle-down”. I think the graphs here ( make that point quite clearly, as well as comments they’ve made.

    So the voters have a clear choice.

    The only opinion I’ll state is that if you are cutting taxes on people who don’t pay taxes (ie. writing them a check) I don’t see how you can not call that wealth redistribution, or welfare, or whatever buzzword you want to attach to it, but it’s not a tax cut. I’ve heard it argued that they do pay taxes in the form of sales tax and state taxes, but I think that’s pretty weak–I don’t think the federal government should be in the business of offsetting our other tax liabilities–I can see the slogan now: “Vote for Obama, he’ll pay your sales tax for you.”

    But seriously, other than the issue of whether Obama’s plan should be called a tax cut or not, I’m not trying to say it wouldn’t be a good idea. I can see the argument that Bubble-Up would help the economy also, since it would give more people money to spend. It would be great if we could do both Bubble-up and Trickle-down, but of course that would leave the government with no money.

  • BenG


    You’re making good points and drawing a fair comparisons btw the candidates on their tax issues, although they seem to be over simplified. But more importantly, take a look at how Fox News is playing the Joe the plummer story, and I think you’ll see what frustrates so many ‘normal’ people. If good people that call themselves Republicans can only obtain their information from places like Fox News and Rush, and they keep voting Republican based on the misinformation and extremist ideology that these sources propagate, then, as the saying goes, how could they keep doing the same things and expect different results?

    That, I believe, is the definition of being a fool! If you look at the explanation Obama gives for his tax proposal and how it would effect Joe Plumber, you’ll see that it is not spreading the wealth, or socialization. Joe’s business would have to make revenues of millions of dollars for him to take home income of $250K after expenses and write-offs, and the point Obama makes about keeping more of his income under his plan is somehow ignored by people with an agenda or an opposing point to make.

  • John

    Well, and it can’t be ignored that truthfully, Joe is getting a tax cut under Obama. Joe doesn’t actually own any business at all. He admits that he doesn’t make anywhere near 250,000.

  • Jimmy the Dhimmi

    “Obama’s proposal scares me because it’s just one more step towards socialism”

    -Joe the Plumber.

  • kaseyd

    andy, vlad, rpc:
    obama has his own a staff cameraman with him basically all the time to document stuff for his website, youtube, etc., so it’s actually not that far out to think that this happened somewhat naturally.

  • L

    Most things are in one way or another a form of wealth redistribution. Public education, police fire and rescue, defense spending. These are all institution where the wealthiest pay the most but all enjoy (or should enjoy) equal access to the benefits. Why do we accept this? Because we believe that our society is better when everyone has access to these sorts of basic services.

    Do Obama or his economists presume to say that we are all better off when we give a tax cut to the bottom 95% because it is more fair? I doubt it. I think he’d say, we are all better off because our economic theory (which is well-founded in intellectual economic discourse) says that this sort of stimulus is what it takes to get people spending and grow the economy. At the same time, we have to in some way reduce the drag on the economy as a result of the crowding out effect. If we can tax the wealthiest and reduce the national deficit, we’ll actually encourage investment because the government will be holding onto fewer of the available loanable funds and interest rates will drop according to the law of supply and demand.