General Question

robmandu's avatar

Should we be talking about the Plumber or Obama's position?

Asked by robmandu (21242points) October 16th, 2008

Well, the twitterverse is in a plumber frenzy. And so is the media.

All this investigation into the guy’s background seems awfully defensive when all Obama said was an explanation the socialist platform on which he’s running:

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

I mean, it wasn’t a trick question. Obama’s reply wasn’t taken out of context. So what’s the big deal with “exposing” Joe the Plumber?

Now how, you may wonder, will Obama “spread the wealth around”? Easy. By giving tax “refunds” to people who don’t pay income tax at all. From CNSNews

The heart of Obama’s tax cut proposal is in his use of refundable tax credits, which the Center describes as “credits available to eligible households even if they have no income tax liability”—in short, refunds available even to those who don’t pay taxes. These refunds are claimed on tax returns and are paid to all taxpayers who qualify for them, regardless of whether they owe taxes or not. These refunds have the ability of reducing a taxpayer’s liability below zero, meaning they can get a refund without actually paying taxes.

Shouldn’t the focus right now be on Obama’s Plan as compared to McCain’s Plan?

I think there are plenty of people who find a lot of merit in Obama’s Plan (a kind of Robin Hood, in essence taking from the rich to give to the poor). So why are folks all in a twist about the random guy who asked the question that brought out the answer?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

39 Answers

Harp's avatar

The “twist “is due to the fact that McCain chose this “random guy” in an effort to imply that Obama’s plan would hurt a broader segment of society (average working Joes) than Obama was letting on, when in fact it demonstrated nothing of the kind.

How is the fact that Obama’s plan could result in payments to some individuals any different in effect from the graduated tax scale in use already? Why is it so irksome to see someone at the bottom of the scale getting a check?

robmandu's avatar

@Harp, I get that… and you focus on the correct part: McCain’s interpretation and response.

I’m curious as to why there’s a full-court press to discredit the guy directly (he’s not a licensed plumber, he’s had tax problems in the past, etc.).

I mean, jiminy cricket, he held a press conference in his driveway. To what purpose? Why does it matter who this particular guy is? If Michelle Obama had asked her husband the same question at a press conference and he gave the same verbatim reply, would this all just have evaporated into nothing?

Harp's avatar

Agreed. Typical media feeding frenzy.

Bri_L's avatar

What I find interesting is that I still have not heard McCain or anyone connected to him show any concern for anyone making less than Joe Plumber.

Most everyone I know does.

watchman220's avatar

During my life as a husband and father for the last 15 years, I have been on the side of those who already get a “refund” check when we owed no taxes. SO this is not a new situation. Perhaps the only difference is the people will get more than they have been getting?

The main problem:
1. Those who do not make enough money to survive in a normal economy get these checks at the end of the year. This causes a pathetic cycle of dependence for the government money that will relieve the credit card debt or buy a used car that is desperatly needed.
These people also usually qualify for state Health Insurance, Food Stamps and Cash Assistance. The intention is that these families will eventually find a job and keep it long enough to start getting ahead financially.
Many families will depend on this income booster for much longer than they should. They let their work ethic languish and depression sets in.
What we truly need is a galvanizing event like a huge war to threaten the liberties that we enjoy. Nobody wants a war really…at least not if they have to fight in it…but this has galvanized the public in America in the past to really value and take action for the liberty they enjoy.
They care enough to defend it…to the death.

SImply put…people need to get off their butts and start working hard. And stop complaining.

2. Those who make slightly more money, do not qualify for these benefits…there is a huge gap in provision of services to this group of people.

3. Those who make plenty more are those who would benefit from some fierce instruction about how to live within their means and to give charitably to those less fortunante than themselves.

4. The government should not be responsible for legislating or enforcing financial equity on any population. That is the whole point of a capitalist society. The poor are poor because they do not move and exhibit determination when they come of age. Perhaps because they do not know better.
Programs that assist people to learn new skills are the best answer to a long term productive economy and society.

What we see now is the result of a failed moral, and work ethic.

Bri_L's avatar

@ watchman220 – What you say seems to make sense but the trickle down theory just doesn’t work either. what is your proposal?

dalepetrie's avatar

The media is going to sieze upon anything that captures the public’s imagination. You can see that this has just by looking at Fluther, at least 2 or three threads popped up which mentioned “Joe the Plumber”. Whenever a candidate mentions a real person, you can expect there are going to be some “human interest” stories…just part of human curiousity.

What was not expected was that Joe wasn’t even who he said he was. They’ve found out his name is Samuel, he might be related to Charles Keating’s jailed son in law, he owes $1,800 in unpaid property taxes, he is not an undecided voter, but someone who always votes Republican and voted in the Republican primary, he doesn’t believe in social security, he thinks the Iraq war was both great and Jesus’ will, he is not a licensed plumber, he has no plan in place to buy the plumbing business he works for and indeed it was just mentioned in passing to him 6 years ago that maybe someday he could, and he’s not even concerned about paying more in taxes because he only makes 40 grand a year. That all points to him being a Republican plant who was deliberately put in front of Obama at a media event to try to get Obama to say something on video that would look like he was trying to tax the middle class. And if McCain knew this, he shouldn’t have been using a trumped up issue to try to go after his opponent, and if he didn’t know this, then why the hell not, can’t he control his own party? That’s why Joe (Samuel) the (not) Plumber matters.

Other than that, I agree with you, the issues are what we should be talking about, which is why McCain shouldn’t have invoked Joe in the first place.

watchman220's avatar


I wish I could say that I have a proposal. But I do know this.
When Sarah Palin took the podium to accept her nomination as a VP, people were ecstatic about the freshness and willingness on her part to reform the stagnation of government and briong in fresh ideas.
Would she really do this? Who knows.
Would Obama do this? I think no.

I don;t trust the lot of them. And the problem is moral and spiritual more than it is political. That is the main problem. Politicians can not legislate the moral backbone of a country.
My proposal? Spiritual revival! Our country was founded on christian principles which have slowly been removed from our country to appease the minority and not offend the “sensibilities” of loud mouthed atheists.

People are naturally afraid of God. Because they are accountable to God and they do not want to be.

robmandu's avatar

Y’know what’s getting to be irksome?

Apparently, plants are running amok everywhere. From The Times Leader:

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

Think these are all coordinated campaign tactics? Or just overzealous individuals?

dalepetrie's avatar

I’m thinking that both sides probably have plants, though I kind of doubt that any Obama supporter planted anyone at a McCain or Palin rally to shout out “kill him” or to say they heard it. The more that happens, the more people are likely to say it. The more people say it without anyone being descended upon by the secret service, the more the crazies who would actually attempt such a thing would have their confidence bolstered. In other words, every time we hear that, I think it becomes infinitessimally more likely that someone tries it. I don’t think Obama or any of his supporters (or to be fair, the vast majority of McCain supporters) would want that.

Bri_L's avatar

@watchman- my question with Palin was not so much would she but could she. I feel a hope with Obama that don’t feel with the old politics.

As for the spirituality and it’s place in our political system I guess my opinion is to be tolerant of all religions as most are based on the idea of loving others. I think as a nation we should try to focus on spirit or notion of “we are all in this together”.

robmandu's avatar

@dale, apparently, if the Secret Service investigation can be considered conclusive, the plant in that story would be the reporter who made up the whole thing. :-\

dalepetrie's avatar

Oh, I get you, Rob. Definitely plausible. The press will do anything for a story.

robmandu's avatar

And, to carry it to its evitable conclusion in the interest of fairness, this article was posted in time for his campaign staff to advise Obama to leave off that topic during last nite’s debate.

fireside's avatar

When you watch the video of Obama talking to “Joe” he seems to understand Obama’s position.

of course the Post has to play it off like treason, when it really was just a normal conversation.

dalepetrie's avatar

Also to be completely fair, the Secret Service said that “kill him” was not shouted at Tuesday’s Palin rally in Scranton, but they did NOT say that the “kill him” and “off with his head” which were shouted over a week ago were bogus claims, and as such, Obama did allude to them in the debate. The important thing here is that McCain did the right thing in Minnesota by tamping down on that kind of vitriol, because it had happened twice that week at Palin rallies. One would expect that the crowds would have toned it down after McCain put his foot down, and what seems to have happened is this week, some reporter wanted to make a story where there was none. One should not draw the conclusion though that this NEVER happened, nor should they draw the conclusion that this ALWAYS happens at McCain/Palin rallies. McCain was right when he said there will always be people at rallies who go too far. Obama was right when he said that certain things do cross the line.

robmandu's avatar

Right, but Obama’s charge was moreso that Palin did little to nothing to address the hateful outburst… when there was none for her to address.

When it happened at McCain’s rally, he cut them off and made complimentary, conciliatory remarks about his competitor (that were cheered way over the few boos in the background).

Much the same in last nite’s debate when Obama said it was “absolutely” true that “100%” of McCain’s ads were “negative.” He apparently forgot one big one.

Honestly don’t know what to think of either candidate when they jump so quickly to seize opportunity based on groundless charges and obvious misdirection.

dalepetrie's avatar

There was one for her to address…the first TWO times it happened a little over a week ago. Now, maybe she didn’t hear it, but I think it’s fair to say if your opponent holds a rally, and says you pal around with terrorists, and then someone in the audience shouts “terrorist” and someone else shouts “off with his head”, the decent human being thing to do would be to at minimum say, “OK, enough of that kind of talk, we can win this on the issues without threatening anyone’s life.”

fireside's avatar

Here is where someone in the crowd shouted, Treason during a Palin speech. said the following about the “All Negative” ads claim:
Obama incorrectly claimed all of McCain’s ads had been “negative.” That was true for one recent week, but not over the entire campaign. And at times Obama has run a higher percentage of attack ads than McCain.

robmandu's avatar

@dale, true that. I agree.

dalepetrie's avatar

fireside – true. Politics is ugly business.

fireside's avatar

Luckily we’re seeing that it doesn’t have to be.
My hope is that the trends towards rejecting the negative politicking will continue.

Look at how nicely you and rob are able to debate.

laureth's avatar

@watchman—if the country had been founded on Christian principles, why would those same Founding Fathers have said otherwise?

In the late 1700s, they signed a treaty with the country of Tripoli that said, ”As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” (Musselmen is what Muslims were called then.)

(That and more here for your perusal.)

watchman220's avatar

There are plenty of examples of early statesmen that were christians. But I will concede to the intention of your statement. As it was formed, our country rejected any official religion of the state. But the tenants of tolerance and freedom of religion found their well spring in those who were fleeing persecution from England. It was precisely what Christianity should be. A tolerance even to a fault, that no one would be penalized for worshipping a different way.

THis is what our country is about. No one can legislate morality, or religion. If they did it would not be sacred as a freedom to a free people. I the same breath I would insist that we must educate our people again about morality and holiness, to hold forth honor and dignity as the American way of life. It is here that we have lapsed and even inherited the lapse from our parents.

laureth's avatar

I agree that some of the Founders were Christian. Sam Adams and Patrick Henry especially spring to mind. However, others were not – just like in the country today. Yes, many early immigrants were fleeing religious persecution, and it was in their interest that the government built in protection for people of all – or no – religion.

However, to say that the country was built on Christian principles is misleading. Religious tolerance is found in many people, Christian and Not-Christian. However, if tolerance and non-judgementalism are distinctly Christian traits, one could wonder why so many Christians I meet display neither.

Instead of calling tolerance and non-judgementalism “Christian” traits, then saying that this country was founded on Christian traits, seems unwieldy at best. I think I (personally) would just say that the country was founded on tolerance for all religious views without naming that as a trait of any one religion – it just seems more honest. And one can be a “good, upstanding person” of any religion, or of no religion at all.

fireside's avatar

Tolerance for all religions is the basis of many faiths.

Hindu: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. – Mahabrata 5:1517

Judaic: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary – Talmud, Shabbat 31A

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. -Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. – Matthew 7:12

Muslim: None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself. – Number 13

Baha’i: Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself. – Baha’u’llah

laureth's avatar

Fireside, would that I had but more than one lurve-click for thee!

wundayatta's avatar

It is certainly possible that Joe the Plumber was a plant, but I suspect there was a different scenario. Joe and the videographer might have been hoping just to get some video they could put on Youtube. So they were successful. I’m sure Joe and the videographer had an agenda—the Republican agenda. But that’s all good. Nothing truly nefarious there. People are always trying to get videotape of themselves with a famous person.

What I think happened next, is that some staffer at the McCain campaign saw the tape and thought it could be used as an illustration of McCain’s ideas. It’s one thing to hit Obama on taxes with abstract numbers; it’s another thing to have a person who illustrates the problem—particularly a person who is a good story.

Hey! What’s not to like? Working guy. Works with his hands. My god! His name is Joe. How more earthy can you get? And he’s a plumber! Oh my god. That must have given them a hardon.

But the debate is upon us. Shall we go with it? Ok. Let’s go with it. No time to do any further research. And of course, the McCain campaign has no sense of irony, and no idea how idiotically hokey the “Joe the Plumber” concept really is.

So he brings it up, and uses it several times in the debate. So of course the media are going to find out about this dude. I mean, Katie Couric wants him, Everyone wants to interview this paragon of entrepreneurship who wants to lift himself out of his circumstances, and make good, except that Obama’s tax proposal will kill his incentive, and thus keep him in his shackles of poverty.

So they dig into the guy, and it turns out that he is a chimera. First, his name isn’t really Joe. Joe is just his middle name. His first name is something different.

Second, he’s not even licensed to be a plumber. Technically, he’s not even a plumber. “Joe the scab fake plumber” is more accurate.

Third, it turns out that he doesn’t have a plumbing business, and isn’t even close to owning it. It’s just a dream, but he’s such a neer-do-well that it’s a pipe dream (don’t ask what he’s smoking, either). In addition, his business with the 250 k income is a gross number, not a net. Who knows what the net would be, but let’s say it’s 100 k. That’s all he pays taxes on, and under Obama’s proposal, he gets a tax cut! Irony of ironies. But wait. There’s more!

Finally, believe it or not, we come to the most delicious irony of all. It turns out that the hero of the McCain campaign is a scofflaw! He hasn’t even paid his taxes! What does he care about Obama’s proposal? It won’t affect him. He doesn’t pay his taxes anyway!

Oh wow, it doesn’t get any better than this. You know, when McCain picked Palin, my first reaction was that he was throwing the election. This woman is a joke. Then the initial reviews came in, and she became a star. How wrong I was!

But wait a minute, after investigation, she is not all she was presented to be. Well, the campaign keeps doing this. They apparently can’t research their way out of a paper bag. They shoot from the hip. Shooting first; asking question later.

Ok, and this is the guy, the big tough military leader that we want running the country? I mean, if he runs his campaign like this, what the hell is he going to do for the country? Take on Russia? Iran? Korea? Invade them all? Is he going to cluster-bomb Pakistan in order to take out bin-Laden?

I don’t know, and after the “Joe the Plumber” debacle, I am even more certain (if that is possible) that I don’t want to find out. Fortunately for me, this time, it seems that the rest of the country is also seeing through the Republican lies and obfuscations. The Republican toadies online throw out ever more desperate, and ever more outragious allegations about Obama.

It’s hard for me to imagine any way anyone would support McCain any more. But, as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. I just thank the gods of irony that McCain got nominated. Who knew how much fun this would be?

Indy_CC's avatar

I agree with some of Obama’s ideas and agree that taxes are a necessary evil but what scares me is this comment…“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody… I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

I see this in simple terms… “Let’s Spread the Grades Around”: 9 year old Alex, who’s parents work with her every night on her schooling, get straight A’s in school and little Johnny, who’s parents do next to nothing to work with him on his lessons, gets straight D’s across the board. Should we take away her points for getting A’s and give her B’s then give those points to Johnny so he can bump his D’s up to C’s so everyone has a chance to succeed? This won’t help little Johnny in the long run but it will hurt Alex when she tries to get into a good school and all she has is a 3.0. Little Johnny will still probably end up in juvenile hall by the time he is a teenager.

The government should not be dictating how much money they think we should be making. We should all pay the same in taxes and the government should learn to live within those means that just like we have live within ours. That’s why I think we need some form of the FairTax ( that Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul were pushing.

If this was simply an issue of taxing more to provide for continued education, new skills job training and other community projects to help lift the less fortunate on their feet then I would not have a problem with it but that is not what his plans are. He wants to redistribute the wealth among all households in the form of tax credits even if they don’t pay taxes. Most of that money will slip out of their hands faster than a greased hog at the state fair! They won’t save it for a rainy day when they really need it. We are not teaching anyone to have any work ethic or to be responsible people. Instead we are teaching them to be more dependent on government.

I hate to say this but I sort of see this as the government’s plan to actually keep the small man down. Throw him a little something (money) here and there and they’ll keep quiet.

dalepetrie's avatar

Indy CC. I find your simple terms to be overly simplistic. That’s not what spreading the wealth and creating prosperity from the bottom up is about. Listen to what Obama said in 2004 about people realizing that they don’t expect the government to solve all their problems, but they sense that with just a slight change in our priorities, we can do MUCH better.

It’s not about giving everyone in the country a handout to make them all equal, it’s about giving those who have the deck stacked against them a hand up to create their own prosperity. Obama at his core is a believer in the capitalist system that rewards hard work with a greater reward. It has nothing to do with effort, it’s an acknowledgement that Bob the Janitor who works 80 hours a week for 6 bucks an hour and can barely afford both food and shelter for his family and risks bankruptcy if anyone in his family gets sick because they have no health insurance, is being left behind when the companies he works for pay their CEOs 10 figure salaries.

The whole point of a progressive tax system which Obama espouses is to say that you are still being rewarded relative to your efforts, but we acknowledge that Federal Income taxes are not the only taxes you pay. You have to pay taxes when you get a driver’s license or license your car. You pay sales taxes when you buy anything in the store. You pay property taxes whether you rent or own. You pay tolls to drive on roads. You pay taxes built into certain things you buy like gasoline. And these taxes by and large don’t go up in a one to one relation to how much money you make….a person making $10,000 a year might spend $2,000 of that on these taxes built into everything, taxes they can’t avoid and need to spend just to survive…that’s 20% of their already meager salary that they can’t afford to give up. They certainly shouldn’t pay the same percentage income tax at the Federal level as everyone else. I’ve read the Fair Tax plan, so I’m sure you understand what I’m saying. Because the person making 10 million, well maybe he spends 20,000 on these taxes because his homes and cars are more expensive and he buys more things, but that’s not 20% of his income, that’s .2% of his income…the little guy is paying taxes at 100 times the rate of the wealthy individual. Correcting our Federal tax code so some more of that money comes from people who have it and who aren’t being taxed elsehwere relative to their propserity is only fair.

I don’t think Obama’s plan is perfect, but it’s a damn sight better than McCain’s or than anyone who has in my lifetime had a shot at the job. But it’s certainly not the kind of Socialism/Communism you point to with your grades analogy which is on it’s surface positively ridiculous.

Indy_CC's avatar

Dalepetrie – I appreciate your thoughts on my comment. I agree my analogy was very simplistic. I wrote it to provoke conversation on other people’s insight into all of this because none of us have all the answers. Your comments are definitely food for thought.


watchman220's avatar

I despise socialism in America. Lets just call it what it is shall we? It has no place here. I think it is socialism. It’s big government proposals.
I don’t like McCain’s ideas either. I think no one can fix this problem honestly. This is a problem of lazy, spoiled America.
Until we get the rug pulled out from under us, we will not wake up I am afraid. Look what happened with 9/11, even if it was Islamic terrorists and not some secret conspiracy to start a war with Middle East…we were attacked…and America has largely forgotten and despised the war we are in. Apparently we need a bigger war to get our attention.
Perhaps if Jesus showed up…people would pay attention.

Have no doubt this time is coming closer. Obama will usher in some more equalizing proponents that will try to make us a more of a global follower rather than the leader.

It has to happen…it will happen. I could honestly care less because I know where it will end up.

Matthew 24 ——Read It.


Judi's avatar

We already have socialism for teh very wealth watchman, lets just call it like it is.

dalepetrie's avatar

No one seems to complain about socialism when they go to their libraries or their post offices. Personally, that’s all I have to say about the positions of anyone who takes their policy from the bible.

watchman220's avatar

I have been meaning to mention this point of view regarding our country and politics.

I do not care anymore who gets into office. The only reason I will vote for McCain / Palin is because they are pro-life. In a country where money is more important than life, I have not other choice.

So you could say I am Republican because of how I registered…but perhaps they should create a pro-life party. I would register for that.

But the overarching theme that is overwhelmingly ignored is the subtle shift that is happening and will happen in this country if Obama is elected. Obama is a global player. There is no doubt about it. McCain is not much better.
Both of them will follow the trend of the world to move toward a global economy.

This is the first step towards a new world order. For that matter, how many of our presidents in recent history have not been moving towards this goal? None. They all seek to create a more global economy.

The step after global economy will be global leadership. I will not be surprised when it happens. So socialism is really just one more step towards globalism.

If I had my druthers, I would prefer to live again in the 1980’s when I was a young teenager and my biggest worry was if there would be swell at the beach today. WOuld I be able to go surfing? or would it suck today at the beach. Back in that day, we had our problems, but nothing like we are seeing now.

The propensity to go global increases more everyday. And it is the only way that humanity can go. It is the logical goal of humankind to try and overcome and champion the ideals of peace and prosperity. But it is also the depravity of humankind that fails this goal every time.

The USA was a model of a democratic republic, sporting a capitalist society that worked for a time, until human nature took over and the greed led to ultimate corruption in the financial markets. I would prefer the old capitalism, rather than the new socialism/globalism that is coming our way.

What people fail to realize is that there is an even deeper, more sure plan, that predicts that our world will go global and that it will end up in the hands of a slick willy dictator who promises peace and change for all the world. The plan is foretold in the prophetical books of the bible.

The plan talks about the importance of Israel and how it will become the centerpiece of global war. And look at it now. The middle easy peace problem has plagued us since 1948 when Israel again became a country. This in itself was a fulfillment of prophecy, for Israel to return after being extinguished for 1900 years. What other nation has fulfilled this mandate? How is it possible? Simple. The Jews are GOd’s people, no matter how much you disagree with them, or hate them, or blame them for the world’s problems (as many do).
God will take care of this people and he has promised them the land He gave them. That is the land of Israel which they re-inherited after World War 2.

What America as a people does with Israel will largely affect the prosperity of our own nation. God said to Abraham, the father of Israel, “I will bless those who bless you. I will curse those who curse you.” So with that in mind, keep an eye on what our leaders do, and how it relates to Israel, and then watch what happens as we move away from supporting Israel.

Then you will see that what I speak is God’s plan. Not mine.

wundayatta's avatar

If we ever do have a unified global government, it’ll be formed either by a religion, or by businesses. Most likely by religion, since they already have international organizations, and are working on gaining significant political power. And business can’t be bothered. They can have their current government stooges do what they need, anyway.

Otherwise, not a chance. People are too fractious. The European Union can barely hold itself together. Large organizations are hard to maintain without massive amounts of bureacracy. A world organization could get nothing done, because every paper clip purchase would have to be vetted by every national subhead in the organization.

But then if you believe in miracles, then I suppose it’s much easier to believe in a fantasy like a new world order.

fireside's avatar

I think it is inevitable that global cooperation will take hold at some point in the future of mankind, but I doubt that it would look anything like the forms of government that we see today.

As humans have progressed in their exploration and understanding of the world, we have gone from tribal to regional to national bodies. The continental organizations are already forming and there are already global institutions in place, effectiveness aside.

I think that the more interconnected we become, it will become obvious that we need global cooperation. Look at the current financial crisis, it is now obvious that the world’s fortunes are no longer safely held behind national borders. You can’t go to war with another powerful country anymore because they help keep your economy going.

it may take 100 years, it may take 1000 years, but I am sure that, barring some major calamity that sets us back technologically, there will be some sort of world governing body someday. I don’t see that happening in our lifetimes, for sure. But who knows, aliens or asteroids could create a huge panic on Earth that would result in a united desire for world peace. Anything is possible, or so I’ve been told.

laureth's avatar

We already HAVE a global economy. If you don’t believe me, keep doing your shopping at WalMart and ignore the “made in China” that is stamped on all the cheap plastic crap, and the Bangalore accent next time you call tech support.

What we DON’T have in the U.S. is pure Socialism OR pure Capitalism. I wouldn’t want either of those. To go wholly Socialist would make us like Cuba. The closest thing to pure Capitalism I’ve heard of is the economy of Somalia. Neither one of these is considered by Americans to be a fun place to live.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther