Joe the plumber

[dragonrider]

Yep.. Obama makes fun of Joe the plumber in the link below; if you'd like I can find at least 3-4 other videos involving Obama and Biden also bringing him up JUST to make fun of him. "Who is John McCain fighting for? A plumber. <obama and crowd laughs>"

YouTube - Obama Mocks Joe the Plumber, Crowd Laughs

IS that really something funny? Is it funny to stand up for the people who have aspirations? Is it cool for Obama to make fun of people who want to make something out of themselves?

I think you are missing the point of that comment. It is not to make fun of Joe the Plumber the person, it is to make fun of the idea that McCain is fighting to help ordinary people as represented by Joe the Plumber. That is why Obama doesn't use his name --- he is repsonding to the idea not the person.

The point is that the question he posed, which is a valid question to MANY Americans regardless of the legality of the company of which Joe works for, is very real and needs a real answer.

I think the answer is already out there and has been hashed over many many times already. If you make over $250k, your taxes go up under Obama's plan. He didn't try to say anything different from that.

The point of Joe the Plumber is to imply that he is a real ordinary person who is going to be HURT by additional taxes on a person making over $250k a year. That part is the important lie (not the part about his not being licensed). He doesn't make that kind of money, has no immediate prospects of doing so, and would benefit from Obama's tax plan. For McCain, Joe was a way to fight the idea that higher taxes on people making over $250k a year would not hurt ordinary people. The problem is that the story is not true. If they want an example of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.

So I pose this question to you again, was Joe's question Valid in relation to Obama spreading the wealth. Who get's hurt worse here? Who's in the wrong here? The average working class who stands to gain a pitiful amount per month that is likely not going to cover much of anything (when looked at from a paycheck to paycheck basis) or this guy who asked a serious question to a Presidential Candidate?

Joe's question is valid if it is asked in a hypothetical way, but when he says, *I* am a plumber, *I* am looking to buy a business making $250k - $270k a year, *I* will be hurt by your plan, he introduces lies into his question to make a point that is not valid in his case.

And regrdoing the "spreading the wealth" answer, I think that was a bad answer, and did not state the case well at all. It was a dumb way to put it, and I'm sure he regrets it.

But to your question about the small amount each ordinary person is going to recieve from Obama's tax cuts, and whether that is enough benefit to justify the tax increases for those making over $250k, I don't think that is what the tax increases for those making over $250k are about. Those are to pay for the healthcare plan, energy plans, infrastructure plans, etc. Not to give everyone $40 bucks a month.

That was rhetorical.. I know what your round about answer will be.

That's kind of a condescending thing to say.

You miss the point. He uses Joe as an analogy for "the average joe". Joe was an average working class guy who aspired to be more; a feeling that many Americans can relate to. He can use the story all day long, what is really disturbing is how easily the media dismisses him and attacks him for something that was not the point of bringing him up.

You like many others miss the point of the question posed and I doubt that you will ever get it. The masses are too hung up on Joe himself instead of what the IDEA of joe represents. This is something that transcends Joe as a person. It's just unfortunate that he has to catch flack for this.

So yes, I do blame the media and democrats for being so blind and obtuse that they cannot realize what the true issue which IS IMPORTANT to many Americans and is and focusing on something irrelevant instead.

No. Wrong. YOU are the one missing the point. Joe is not being used as an ANALOGY, he is being used as an EXAMPLE. That is why it matters that his story does not add up --- and not the part about the legality of his business, which is an amusing side note ---I'm talking about the part about his income and his taxes. He is supposed to be an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who will be hurt by Obama's tax plan. Turns out he is actaully an example of an ordianry person who will BENEFIT from Obama's tax plan. If they want an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.

There is nothing wrong with debunking a bogus example.

[daihashi]

I think you are missing the point of that comment. It is not to make fun of Joe the Plumber the person, it is to make fun of the idea that McCain is fighting to help ordinary people as represented by Joe the Plumber. That is why Obama doesn't use his name --- he is repsonding to the idea not the person.




I think the answer is already out there and has been hashed over many many times already. If you make over $250k, your taxes go up under Obama's plan. He didn't try to say anything different from that.

So first Obama bashes McCain because he says he's for the rich.. and now he bashes McCain because he's trying to represent the working man.. Which is it.. You can't have it both ways.

And I never argued Obama's 250k tax plan. I understand that if you make over 250k that you won't be taxed. Joe never said he makes 250k, watch the video again.

The point of Joe the Plumber is to imply that he is a real ordinary person who is going to be HURT by additional taxes on a person making over $250k a year. That part is the important lie (not the part about his not being licensed). He doesn't make that kind of money, has no immediate prospects of doing so, and would benefit from Obama's tax plan. For McCain, Joe was a way to fight the idea that higher taxes on people making over $250k a year would not hurt ordinary people. The problem is that the story is not true. If they want an example of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.

No, the point of Joe the plumber is to express someone who may want to buy a business that generates 250k of net income per year. It will hurt his businesses if it makes over 250k. That was the point of the question. Watch the video again and you'll see Joe never said that HE made over 250k; something that Obama does imply when he's making fun of him.

Pay attention to the words that say. Again you missed the point of the question and your rebuttal exemplifies this.

Joe's question is valid if it is asked in a hypothetical way, but when he says, *I* am a plumber, *I* am looking to buy a business making $250k - $270k a year, *I* will be hurt by your plan, he introduces lies into his question to make a point that is not valid in his case.

If it is his business.. and his salary comes from that business.. Then yes; as a business owner he will be hurt because he can't grow HIS business as much as he would be able to under CURRENT tax laws.

Regardless of if his question is hypothetical or real.. it is still applicable to many Americans. I don't understand why you can't move past Joe the plumber and realize how this applies to other citizens.

And regrdoing the "spreading the wealth" answer, I think that was a bad answer, and did not state the case well at all. It was a dumb way to put it, and I'm sure he regrets it.

I'm sure he does too. Otherwise they wouldn't be lashing out at Joe so hard. Although if you would ask Obama he would probably say that he wouldn't retract that statement; but in retrospect I'm sure he wishes he just answered it in a more socially acceptable way.

But to your question about the small amount each ordinary person is going to recieve from Obama's tax cuts, and whether that is enough benefit to justify the tax increases for those making over $250k, I don't think that is what the tax increases for those making over $250k are about. Those are to pay for the healthcare plan, energy plans, infrastructure plans, etc. Not to give everyone $40 bucks a month.

61% of Americans currently receive employer based insurance. 19% of Americans do not have insurance at all, I forget the number but the rest of the percentage were people not polled or people on medicare/medicaid ( I have to find my sources to be able to post an actual figure.) but effectively you are punishing 61% of Americans for 19% of the population that is confirmed without health care. That hardly seems like a good solution. I would rather see Social Security, medicare and medicaid restructured so Medicare and Medicaid became a TRUE healthcare support system for those in times of Need. Not something for people to permanently be on. We already have problems with abuse in the healthcare system and this will just amplify it in addition to hurting employers who in turn will have that effect fall down onto it's consumers and employees.

And spreading the wealth indicates money. He even indicates that in the first video where Joe asked the question.

That's kind of a condescending thing to say.

Is it? You just rebuttal'd the exact same way I thought you would. I'm sorry that I have decent foresight, but that is not condescending.

No. Wrong. YOU are the one missing the point. Joe is not being used as an ANALOGY, he is being used as an EXAMPLE. That is why it matters that his story does not add up --- and not the part about the legality of his business, which is an amusing side note ---I'm talking about the part about his income and his taxes. He is supposed to be an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who will be hurt by Obama's tax plan. Turns out he is actaully an example of an ordianry person who will BENEFIT from Obama's tax plan. If they want an EXAMPLE of an ordinary person who would be hurt by taxes over $250k, they should find a REAL one.

Again, you don't get it. Joe was referring to the business making that much; which if true or not is irrelevant because the question still applies to many Americans whom are business owners. Why can you not acknowledge this?

You still don't get it and are stuck on Joe making 250k himself which is not something he ever said.

There is nothing wrong with debunking a bogus example.

Sad that you still think the example of Joe; whether true or not, is bogus.

[psychocat]

I often start threads to get a better insight into things I have only a glimpse of , I now have a reasonable idea because of the discussion you folks have been having.
US politics sometimes seems to be a question of who can make up the most shit about each other..
But it doesn't seem all that different here in the UK .. :wtf:

[daihashi]

I often start threads to get a better insight into things I have only a glimpse of , I now have a reasonable idea because of the discussion you folks have been having.
US politics sometimes seems to be a question of who can make up the most shit about each other..
But it doesn't seem all that different here in the UK .. :wtf:

Even if 500k of small businesses fit into this bracket.. Let's say each small business employs 4-5 people not including the business owners, that comes out to be an indirect effect on 2 million Americans... slightly less than 1% of our population; which may not sound like much but that number is significant. In reality the number of businesses effected by this employ more than 4 - 5 people.

A small business is defined by a business that employs 500 or less employee's.

If generating income for Obama's health plan is the true purpose of this tax then the exact same thing can be accomplished by lowering taxes. Through this businesses can do a number of things to increase the VOLUME of which they do business. Which in turn would equal the same amount of taxes or more while at the same time not taking a hit on small or large business.

I simply don't understand why raise or lower taxes at all. The real problem is the spending problem that both republicans and democrats have a like. Our politicians love to spend crap loads of money that don't need to be spent; this should be the real issue that is being discussed.

Simply by reducing spending by 100 billion a year we could reduce our debt by nearly half a trillion dollars by the end of any candidates first term.

I don't see the need to either raise or lower taxes. Raising taxes always hurts the little man in the end; lowering taxes generally never hurts anyone and can be good.. Spending more than your income allows; or in this case the government spending more money than the productivity of the country allows, always results in massive problems. AKA living above your means. Something that a number of Americans are guilty of doing.

[dragonrider]

Daihashi, we have a completely different understanding of what Joe the Plumber is meant to represent and the purpose of trying to use a specific person to make an example.

Say Obama repeatedly cited the example of a real person he called Suzy the Store Clerk, and Suzy was on MSNBC telling John McCain, "I am a single mom making $30k a year. I work for a store that gives me a health plan. which is a good thing, because I have cancer, and my four kids all have diabetes. If your health plan is enacted and my employer gets taxed on the cost of my haealth care plan, he is going to drop my plan. I'll have to get health insurance on my own, which I probably cannot do with my pre-existing conditions. And if I do it will probably cost $12k a year. You are onoy going to give me a $5k tax credit to pay for the $12k plan I'll have to buy, if i can even get in a plan. You are going to put me $7k in the hole. I migth even die, and then who'll take care of my kids?"

That's a compelling example, because it is a real person confronting McCain with her real problems, right? Now if it came out that this Suzy was not waht she claimed and was actually a marketing executive making $300k a year, who was in perfect health, was married, had one healthy kid, had a great health plan, and would benefit by $70k a year under McCain's plan instead of Obama's, I think her example would not be as compelling, becasue her story was all a lie. Maybe you would disagree becasue her story COULD be true..

I don't think these kinds of examples work just because they COULD be true for a hypothetical person. There are a million hypothetical examples used al the time. The impact of real-life examples of real-life people is greater because they are authentic. If they are found to be based on a lie, they lose their value.

[daihashi]

Daihashi, we have a completely different understanding of what Joe the Plumber is meant to represent and the purpose of trying to use a specific person to make an example.

Say Obama repeatedly cited the example of a real person he called Suzy the Store Clerk, and Suzy was on MSNBC telling John McCain, "I am a single mom making $30k a year. I work for a store that gives me a health plan. which is a good thing, because I have cancer, and my four kids all have diabetes. If your health plan is enacted and my employer gets taxed on the cost of my haealth care plan, he is going to drop my plan. I'll have to get health insurance on my own, which I probably cannot do with my pre-existing conditions. And if I do it will probably cost $12k a year. You are onoy going to give me a $5k tax credit to pay for the $12k plan I'll have to buy, if i can even get in a plan. You are going to put me $7k in the hole. I migth even die, and then who'll take care of my kids?"

That's a compelling example, because it is a real person confronting McCain with her real problems, right? Now if it came out that this Suzy was not waht she claimed and was actually a marketing executive making $300k a year, who was in perfect health, was married, had one healthy kid, had a great health plan, and would benefit by $70k a year under McCain's plan instead of Obama's, I think her example would not be as compelling, becasue her story was all a lie. Maybe you would disagree becasue her story COULD be true..

I don't think these kinds of examples work just because they COULD be true for a hypothetical person. There are a million hypothetical examples used al the time. The impact of real-life examples of real-life people is greater because they are authentic. If they are found to be based on a lie, they lose their value.

Her question would still be valid because there are many other people in her situation.

I feel that these are questions that the media and others should be asking the candidates but for whatever reason they are not throwing any hardballs; more so at Obama but even McCain hasn't really been pressed.. if it takes a make believe person to ask these serious question then I am all for it and I want to see what these candidates have to say when they are put on the spot.

I place value in the question regardless of who asks it.

So while you are placing value in the person whom asks the question and who they really are.. I place value in the question because I realize that the question that is being asked applies to many other people out there not just the individual who asked it and it is a question worthy of an answer.

[veggii]

! fuk joe the plumber tell him too pay his taxes! its been reported he owes $1200 :wtf:

[dragonrider]

Her question would still be valid because there are many other people in her situation.

I can't believe I have spent as much time on this thread as I have --- it makes me feel like I've been sucked into the pettiness, shallowness, and irrelevance of the McCain campaign itself.

To respond to your point: Yes, the question in and of iteslf is a valid question. But posing as someone who you are not and claiming that your question applies to yourself directly is not a valid way of making a political point. And when that person is exposed to be a liar, it overshadows the value of the point they were tryng to make.

Frankly, I am amazed that the McCain people did not check Joe out first before they decided to make such a big deal out of him. They should have at least checked if the story was even true before they had McCain mention it over 20 times in the debate.

If the circumstances that Joe described really did apply to someone real (not Joe, obviously), doesn't it seem like the McCain campaign could have found a real person to use as an example? Not some made-up story? My feeling is that there are probably far fewer people who are really in the circumstances Joe described than the McCain campaign would like you to believe. Very few people will be hurt in any significant way by the Obama tax plan, and most of them are not the kind of people that voters would relate to the way they did to Joe. They could not find a real person as an example. That's why they glommed on to Joe, he was willing to SAY the Obama plan would hurt him, even if it is not true.

On a side note, a few posts ago I asked if there were any examples of Obama ever bringing Joe up in a speach by name. Today I heard the first example. Today Obama was saying something like, "I just LOVE Joe the Plumber. I love him so much I want to give him a tax break!" Then he goes on to make the case that the real Joe the Plumber, with his real income, not his fantasy income, would receive a larger tax break under Obama's plan than he would under McCain's plan. See how that works? That's how you use a real person to make a political point!

[Immolation]

Just because the Mccain Camp mentions Joe the Plumber Often is no reason to go after a Guy for Asking a Legit. question.An ordinary citizen should be allowed to ask a question with the Media Camping out at his house looking for Dirt.

[psychocat]

To respond to your point: Yes, the question in and of iteslf is a valid question. But posing as someone who you are not and claiming that your question applies to yourself directly is not a valid way of making a political point. And when that person is exposed to be a liar, it overshadows the value of the point they were tryng to make.

Frankly, I am amazed that the McCain people did not check Joe out first before they decided to make such a big deal out of him. They should have at least checked if the story was even true before they had McCain mention it over 20 times in the debate.

That's why they glommed on to Joe, he was willing to SAY the Obama plan would hurt him, even if it is not true.

On a side note, a few posts ago I asked if there were any examples of Obama ever bringing Joe up in a speach by name. Today I heard the first example. Today Obama was saying something like, "I just LOVE Joe the Plumber. I love him so much I want to give him a tax break!" Then he goes on to make the case that the real Joe the Plumber, with his real income, not his fantasy income, would receive a larger tax break under Obama's plan than he would under McCain's plan. See how that works? That's how you use a real person to make a political point!

I have to agree with the points you make , anyone misrepresenting themselves is going to lose any validity if and when they are exposed.
I am sure that if this question had been posed in a way that made it clear that the asker was speaking rhetoricaly then there would have been no problem , by implying that he himself would suffer when it isn't true just destroys any credence the question has.