Quote Originally Posted by dragonrider
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.