Say it aint so, Joe (the Plumber)

digster

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

Why do they care? The only thing he did was ask Barry a question. I guess if you support McCain you cannot ask him a question.

Come on, man. You really think this would be happening if McCain hadn't mentioned him two dozen times during the debate and made him a centerpiece to the argument? Don't give us the liberal media stuff. And I think anyone who can't at least appreciate the unintentional humor in a plumber becoming a centerpiece for the Republican candidate who is not a plumber, owes 2,000 bucks in back taxes, is not registered to vote in the election in which he has become a vital part and will be better off under the Democratic candidate needs to take a step back and take a breath.

melodious

stuckinline wrote:

joe the plumber is mccain's best friend

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-thursday-final-debate/768721/

paid best friend, i would imagine

CitizenRick

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

...if that is your real name. (It's not, actually.)

Looks like McCain's campaign did as good a job checking out this guy's background as they did checking out Palin...lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aejhxaNzMKM

This is exactly what I've been saying! This guy just jumps to decisions. He makes snap judgments and then is always proven off the mark in the long run.

Say goodbye to your fifteen minutes!

fugawzi

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So what he asked a legit question to Obama and the news jumped all over it. If this was a liberal and asked McCain a question to go against his proposals Keith Olberman would be all over it. My point is who cares about this plumber?

What are you talking about? Could you possibly be more incorrect? The news jumped all over it? I believe it was JOHN McCAIN who invoked this 'Joe the Plumber' 15 times or 21 times during the debate. No, that wasn't the first people had heard of him, he was actually on RIGHT-WING media before the last debate, but it was JOHN McCAIN who propelled this character into his 15 minutes of fame. So which "news" outlet are you talking about that "jumped all over it"? What the news jumped on was something else you're wrong about, HE'S NOT A PLUMBER and his name is not Joe. Also, he has no intention of buying any business. Looks like McCain needs to get the facts straight. When did it become a smear to get the facts right? Getting the facts right isn't a smear. It's the opposite.

Who cares about 'Joe the Plumber'? John McCain. It's his attempt to disguise his economic and tax policies that would benefit rich people. Joe the Plumber, Joe Sixpack, they're trying to make voters believe they care about average middle class people. Besides the fact that it's not working, 'Joe the plumber' would actually benefit more from Obama's tax plan than McCain's. It's hard to tell that to people who have been brainwashed by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh though.

P.S. Keith's last name is spelled Olbermann, and again it wasn't any media who shined the spotlight on 'Joe the Plumber' it was JOHN McCAIN so your analogy really doesn't make sense. Try again.

prytoj

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

...if that is your real name. (It's not, actually.)

Looks like McCain's campaign did as good a job checking out this guy's background as they did checking out Palin...lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aejhxaNzMKM

the fact that this is guy is getting so much scrutiny tells you alot about the left-wing media. Why are these guys not following bill ayers around like a pack of rabid dogs? Left wing elitists and their hypocrisy....

prytoj

fugawzi wrote:

What are you talking about? Could you possibly be more incorrect? The news jumped all over it? I believe it was JOHN McCAIN who invoked this 'Joe the Plumber' 15 times or 21 times during the debate. No, that wasn't the first people had heard of him, he was actually on RIGHT-WING media before the last debate, but it was JOHN McCAIN who propelled this character into his 15 minutes of fame. So which "news" outlet are you talking about that "jumped all over it"? What the news jumped on was something else you're wrong about, HE'S NOT A PLUMBER and his name is not Joe. Also, he has no intention of buying any business. Looks like McCain needs to get the facts straight. When did it become a smear to get the facts right? Getting the facts right isn't a smear. It's the opposite.

Who cares about 'Joe the Plumber'? John McCain. It's his attempt to disguise his economic and tax policies that would benefit rich people. Joe the Plumber, Joe Sixpack, they're trying to make voters believe they care about average middle class people. Besides the fact that it's not working, 'Joe the plumber' would actually benefit more from Obama's tax plan than McCain's. It's hard to tell that to people who have been brainwashed by Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh though.

P.S. Keith's last name is spelled Olbermann, and again it wasn't any media who shined the spotlight on 'Joe the Plumber' it was JOHN McCAIN so your analogy really doesn't make sense. Try again.

joe the plumber exposed Obama for the left-wing elitist that he is. listen very carefully to Obama's response. Carefully disguised socialism...

digster

I'm thinking of naming my band Joe and the Plumbers.

digster

I've looked at the two tax policies, but I had question regarding them that I hope someone can answer me without bias, cause I think it is important; I've heard Obama say often that his tax policy will have people making over 250,000 the amount of taxes they paid under Bill Clinton's tax policy. That sounds like a good argument, but my question is if it is a true argument. I mean, charges of a "socialism never before seen in this country" would be a little unfounded if that was the case, but I want to know if that's solid ground to stand on.

digster

chiefojibwa wrote:

sounds much better than "samuel and the tax evaders"!

Heh.

I think the funniest part of all this is (not that I wish anything bad on good ol' Joe), is that this guy was just going around living his life, hiding from the federal government so he wouldn't pay these taxes, and that the federal government found him due to all this exposure. So I guess he has John McCain to thank for the federal government being on his ass.

prytoj

chiefojibwa wrote:

look, genius. in case you didn't know this already, the people that obama is talking about raising taxes on ALREADY PAY TAXES. and that tax revenue is ALREADY BEING SPREAD AROUND. so don't play the socialism card...it's a tax hike for some, a tax cut for others. this is the way we do things in america, and it always has been.

i find it insulting that with 2 wars, the financial bailout, and all the other problems such as health care that people are bitching about taxes. how do you propose we pay for these things?

it isnt a tax cut for ANYONE. It is a check in the mail, from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster. All RARE exceptions aside. This is textbook socialism.

The tax cut Obama refers to applies to people who PAY NO FED INCOME TAX in the first place!

digster

prytoj wrote:

it isnt a tax cut for ANYONE. It is a check in the mail, from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster. All RARE exceptions aside. This is textbook socialism.

The tax cut Obama refers to applies to people who PAY NO FED INCOME TAX in the first place!

By this logic, any individual who makes under 250,000 dollars a year (those individuals who would receive a tax cut according to the Obama plan) pay no federal income tax at all, that everyone making under that amount is a "non-ass-buster." That's just blatantly false.

prytoj

My brother and his wife/kids live in Brea, CA. which is L.A. county.
they have a combined income of well over 100k.

Wanna know what that gets ya in brea?
about a 1bed/1bath rental, with 1 car payment for a Scion or maybe a Jetta if youre lucky.

They actually make enought to pay fed income tax
There will be no tax reduction (at best) for them under Obama's plan.

spread the wealth around my ass.

An Obama presidency is unacceptable.

prytoj

digster wrote:

By this logic, any individual who makes under 250,000 dollars a year (those individuals who would receive a tax cut according to the Obama plan) pay no federal income tax at all, that everyone making under that amount is a "non-ass-buster." That's just blatantly false.

your premise is incorrect. people making under 250k, allegedly under his plan, wil not see their taxes INCREASED. get your facts straight.

and i'll let all the other twisting of words pass...

digster

prytoj wrote:

your premise is incorrect. people making under 250k, allegedly under his plan, wil not see their taxes INCREASED. get your facts straight.

and i'll let all the other twisting of words pass...

False. According to the Tax Policy Center, check out page 2 and Figure 2...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

"The Obama plan will reduce taxes for low-income and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers."

So already your premise is wrong; Obama WILL cut taxes according to his proposal on low and moderate income families. You're telling me your friends which make a combined total of 100,000 fit solely into the top quintile? Figure 2 shows you they will benefit, and their income will increase, more significantly under Obama's plan then McCain's.

According to that chart, which measures projected cash income percentiles after the two proposals would be put into action, Obama's significantly benefits the middle-class, while McCain benefits the bottom four quintiles slightly and then benefits the top 1% significantly. No, if you believe in that type of economics and tax plan, fine, let's debate that, but don't misrepresent Obama's plan in doing so.

EDIT: I should say you are mostly wrong. You're right in saying that although no one under 250,000 will see their taxes increase, not everyone under that income will see a tax cut. You're wrong in making a blanket statement that people making under 250k will "not see their taxes increased", and that would be the only benefit. Most WILL see a tax cut.

prytoj

digster wrote:

False. According to the Tax Policy Center, check out page 2 and Figure 2...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

"The Obama plan will reduce taxes for low-income and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers."

So already your premise is wrong; Obama WILL cut taxes according to his proposal on low and moderate income families. You're telling me your friends which make a combined total of 100,000 fit solely into the top quintile? Figure 2 shows you they will benefit, and their income will increase, more significantly under Obama's plan then McCain's.

According to that chart, which measures projected cash income percentiles after the two proposals would be put into action, Obama's significantly benefits the middle-class, while McCain benefits the bottom four quintiles slightly and then benefits the top 1% significantly. No, if you believe in that type of economics and tax plan, fine, let's debate that, but don't misrepresent Obama's plan in doing so.

Yeah, this looks great for the middle class at first glance, but this is a detail oriented argument you present. Heres the big picture.

the bottom line is the top line, where it says:
McCain would cut taxes by 4.2 large, while Obama's plan cuts taxes by 2.9 tril.
1.3 more trillion free, undebased and uninflated currency in the market benefits everyone. Period. Sadly for some, it does benefit rich people as well. But they are the ones paying the bulk of the taxes, so they should receive the bulk of the relief.
If you want to bemoan the fact that the rich get richer, I'd say that's a sad reality of life. But that's a different argument. I'd say, rare exceptions aside, it's the choices you make...

digster

prytoj wrote:

Yeah, this looks great for the middle class at first glance, but this is a detail oriented argument you present. Heres the big picture.

We seem to run into this problem a lot. You're once again changing the argument to something other than what we were talking about in the first place. The claims you made were...

"It's a check from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster."
"The tax cut (with rare exceptions) applies to people who pay no FED INCOME TAX in the first place."

and of course...

"People making under 250K will not see their taxes increased." (i.e. there will be no tax cuts for those under that.")

None of these are true; you were misrepresenting Obama's tax plan, and now you want to say we were debating the validity of trickle-down economics. Different argument entirely. If you want to talk about how the tax plans will lead to cash in hand, it should be noted that Obama's tax plan will put more income in the hands of the middle-class, so they will not scrimp and save, not lower their confidence in investments, etc. etc. etc; they'll be willing to invest their income back into society. All cliches aside, if the financial confidence of the middle class is sacrificed to make sure the big pockets have available assets, then our system will be hurt.

However, none of that has to do with the argument you were making. I'm not a big fan when people try to frame the debate as something different than it was entirely in the first place. With that information, surely you'll have to admit that the Obama proposal means a tax cut for the majority of individuals, families and businesses that make under 250,000 a year.

prytoj

chiefojibwa wrote:

again, i would ask you...how are we going to pay for the wars we are in, the bailout, etc?

Thanks for keeping an open mind on that.
that's a whole separate issue.
My view, for what it's worth: Partisan reps passing legislation on a do-for-me basis. But solving that prob is another thread in my view.

prytoj

digster wrote:

We seem to run into this problem a lot. You're once again changing the argument to something other than what we were talking about in the first place. The claims you made were...

"It's a check from an ass-buster to a non-ass-buster."
"The tax cut (with rare exceptions) applies to people who pay no FED INCOME TAX in the first place."

and of course...

"People making under 250K will not see their taxes increased." (i.e. there will be no tax cuts for those under that.")

None of these are true; you were misrepresenting Obama's tax plan, and now you want to turn it into the validity of trickle-down economics. Different argument entirely. If you want to talk about how the tax plans will lead to cash in hand, it should be noted that Obama's tax plan will put more income in the hands of the middle-class, so they will not scrimp and save, lower investments, etc. etc. etc. All cliches aside, if the financial confidence of the middle class is sacrificed to make sure the big pockets have available assets, then our system will be hurt.

However, none of that has to do with the argument you were making. I'm not a big fan when people try to frame the debate as something different than it was entirely in the first place. With that information, surely you'll have to admit that the Obama proposal means a tax cut for the majority of individuals, families and businesses that make under 250,000 a year.

I took your report and showed you my big picture view. like it or not.

increasing the money supply without inflation is an overall benefit to our economy. that is the result of NET income tax relief, in this case. So I don't see how that's irrelevant.

And, more specifically, your charts do not adequately point out the imbalace of the tax system as it is. Meaning, these "wealthiest" pay all on those taxes, while the "lowest" pay very little, by reative comparison. your argument provides no relative comparison to the burden as it exists. We can throw graphs around all day long.

And back to the plumber. You make great debate, but if Obama could say what you are saying, he would have said it. that's what this thread is about.

I've read Obama's tax plan, his economy plan, AND his small business plan, for the record. On his website

McCain Palin '08.

flywallyfly

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

But Biden and news servies are smearing him. Why? Because he supports McCain?

I love how the Repubs look at the facts being brought to light as a "smear". Says alot about the state of the party. They tried that shit when the facts, i mean smear campaign, began on palin. What a bunch of whiner babies.

digster

prytoj wrote:

I took your report and showed you my big picture view. like it or not.

increasing the money supply without inflation is an overall benefit to our economy. that is the result of NET income tax relief, in this case. So I don't see how that's irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because it wasn't the argument you were making. The argument you were making was that there was not tax relief for people making incomes under 250,000 (i.e. your argument that Obama's plan only amounted to no tax 'increases' for those 250,000, with no cuts, and you told ME to get my facts straight). Your argument was that Obama's plan amounted to giving tax relief to those who don't pay income tax, which is false. Like I said, you're now trying to argue that trickle-down economics whereas earlier you were arguing that Obama's plan does not benefit the middle class by granting tax relief.

So if you were willing to objectively look at the facts, you would have to say that the majority of people under 250,000 WOULD get tax relief under Obama's plan. You would not try to change the argument because the facts contradicted your position.