> The 2008 election's obsession with Joe the Plumber, and his concern for taxes on people making over $250,000/year. He didn't make anywhere close to $250,000.

You've entirely missed the point of the Joe the Plumber exchange. He was, yes, concerned about taxes, but he was also concerned that the most powerful man in the country would fundamentally see him as an enemy. Look at Obama's response: "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 at success, too..." [1]

At some point between then and now, the Democratic Party abandoned even the pretense of fair-handedness and made establishment of an other (the 1%, corporations, etc.) a core part of their party culture.

What concerns me is that this is happening on both sides of the aisle. Trump is a demagogue. Full stop. He probably doesn't have much more than 30% support of the Republican Party, but he's definitely affecting the tone and topics of the debate.

And we're not talking about vilifying individuals ("Nixon is a sonovabitch!"), we're talking about the rise of all sorts of bigotry against entire demographics on all sides of the political spectrum. Civility is eroding quickly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber#Encounter_with...

> but he was also concerned that the most powerful man in the country would fundamentally see him as an enemy

Would see which version of him? The barely-middle-class $40,000/year reality of himself, or the make-believe millionaire dream of himself? (Which, in my excuse, is the narrative that the media spun for the next two weeks.)

I have a hard time placing this, but that maybe because I fundamentally disagree with respect to progressive taxation being a declaration of hostilities against the wealthy.

Read the link. He was about to buy a business that, theoretically, would put the business in the greater than $250k range. Depending on the tax code, it wouldn't matter if his take-home was much lower.

The whole exercise of figuring out which class this guy is in is part of the point I was trying to make, really. Do I have to know his income to figure out how I feel about the guy?

"Regarding his statement to Barack Obama about intending to buy the plumbing firm that employed him, Wurzelbacher later said that the idea of buying the company was discussed during his job interview six years prior.[9] According to MSNBC and Fox News, court records show that Wurzelbacher made $40,000 in 2006.[19] Dun & Bradstreet's report estimated that A. W. Newell Corporation, the full corporate name, had $510,000 in annual sales and eight employees."

He discussed the idea of buying the company once. Given the state of his finances, the likely situation is that either he was betting on winning the Powerball, or he was just dreaming about buying the company.

He is the poster child for this phenomena!

> Do I have to know his income to figure out how I feel about the guy?

You're missing my point, which is pointing out the need to find an 'other'.

I'm not sure it's important if Joe the Plumber has identity issues. It is absolutely important if it's normal to treat others like they're crazy, evil, alien, stupid, or nefarious.

So because not everyone will become a cosmonaut, nobody should try? Think for a second about what you're saying. Would you honestly tell a child "sorry kid, the chances of you going into space are pretty slim, so why don't you aim a bit lower.".

The great thing about big dreams and lofty goals is that even if you don't reach them you often end up in a better situation. So sure, Joe the Plumber may not have made anywhere close to $250,000, but he made a hell of a lot more than someone not working at all, right? And yeah, little Sally may not become a cosmonaut, but she may land a gig working at SpaceX as an engineer and be on the team that eventually successfully executes a manned mission to Mars.

I'm sorry, but this is what's so great about America. When I hear people, especially foreigners, make fun of the American Dream I can't help but think it's just sour grapes.

Let's say that you make $50,000 a year. There's a bill that cuts taxes by 5% for anyone making under $1,000,000 and 50% for anyone making over that. Do you vote yes on this because "I'm going to be a millionaire soon anyway" or do you vote no, because while both people benefit, one tier benefits a disproportionate amount?

Nobody is telling children "don't have dreams". They are saying "Hey you middle-aged Americans who have lost their retirement savings to Enron, WorldCom, 2008, etc, maybe you are getting the short of end of the stick here."

"especially foreigners"

You realize most foreigners come here for the American dream, right? I don't know about you but look around. Many Americans, including myself, don't believe in that made up non-sense.

It was a period in world history where everything lined up. In the 50s to 70s, there was enough population but not too much, great economic expansion, and opportunity to be found.

As a generation that grew up with 9/11, two wars, an economic crash unseen in decades, unemployment, and now college debt, don't tell me that I'm not optimistic because that's the only thing I'm running on these days. The dream is dead (never probably existed), but doesn't mean we need to flush all our hopes into the toilet either.

"especially foreigners"

I should have been more specific, but I'm obviously not talking about foreigners who come to America for the American Dream. I'm talking about foreigners who criticize the American Dream despite having never came here to try to pursue it themselves.

And I happen to know a lot of foreigners who came here for the American Dream and actually attained it. They are its staunchest defenders, in fact.

Dream and try to become a cosmonaut, or a rock star, or a Princess of Wales all you want!

But this is counting your chickens before they hatch. Make $250,000 first... Then advocate for tax cuts to that bracket.

Doing otherwise just makes the advocate a Useful Idiot. [1] You're expending your money and energy to make someone far better off then the majority of the electorate even better off - at theirs, and your expense. I would understand if this is done for selfish reasons - but when you're a pauper, Rockefeller doesn't need your charity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

> But this is counting your chickens before they hatch. Make $250,000 first... Then advocate for tax cuts to that bracket.

So by that logic nobody living above the poverty line should ever advocate for policies that benefit those living below it.

No, the poster you are responding to didn't say that at all, or even imply it. Presumably the reason these cases are different, despite being symmetrical, is that if you're already pretty well off you can probably spare some benefits to yourself for benefits to others. In other words, maybe you don't need that tax break because you were already doing pretty well anyways, so help somebody else out.

It's much easier to slide into poverty, then to slide into wealth. For many Americans, six months of unemployment... Or getting sick will do it.

The point of that quote attributed to Steinbeck wasn't that it is bad to have personal dreams and goals. Nobody thinks that.

Whether you agree with it or not, the quote is saying that poor people aren't recognizing what is in their own interests and aren't sympathizing with poverty because they do not recognize their poverty as something real.

It is not making fun of the American Dream to point out that many people in the US are poor and will remain poor despite their hopes, dreams and efforts. Limitations on class mobility are real.

Not sure Joe specifically was likely to attain this, but I think a plumber is a lot more likely then most to hit this benchmark. He can start his own business, hire employees, etc. and he's reasonably well protected from competition. No reason he can't exceed $250K.