« No jobs, no taxes | Main | Lawsuits cost consumers »

October 16, 2008

From drinking to plumbing

Did anyone else notice that in the final presidential debate, “Joe Six-Pack” had morphed into “Joe the Plumber?”

“Joe Six-Pack” was the moniker laid on common, working-class Americans. But I suspect Republicans dropped the six-pack reference after protests from groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving or other folks who don’t see boozing as a healthy lifestyle.

James Mercer
Kansas City



There is also a greater differential in the rates. Many were entirely taken off the list of "payers" under Bush. Also, when you have the influx of millions of unskilled, uneducated workers there is going to be a down trend on income averages.
And it doesn't matter what Joe the Plumber is or isn't. His question to Obama is still relevant. And Obama's answer was true to Obama's wealth redistribution theories.



Why is it when I say I don't like McCain people think I admire Obama? You know the two Ukranian brothers who rule the heayweight division in boxing? I disllike both of them.

My point in disputing the moron we know as boodyT/rogue, whatever, is that there are many people who think if a business makes 250k then that business owners is going to be affected under Obama's example. You and I both know that a business with 10 employees that grosses 250k means the owner is tetering on bk.


Sol - I think what you fail to understand as does Obama and most of those that believe in his annointment, is the general statement by Obama that 98% of ALL small businesses make less than $250k is bogus and simply untrue. I gurantee you he can not back that up with fact, it's simply more of his lawyer rhetoric.
I guess he does not realize whom determines the definitions of small business and the associated thresh holds they use in determining that status. It varies based on SIC and/or number of employees. Go see for yourself via the SBA. This whole "Obama knows everyhting because he is a Harvard lawyer" is getting old, they guy is nothign short of a used car salesman (and that is an insult to used car salesman).


"Under Bush the higher brackets pay a greater portion of the federal Income Tax than they did under Clinton."

Only because the higher brackets have seen healthy income growth under Bush while the rest of us have stagnated. I don't think that's something McCain should hang his hat on.

"Joe the plumber" is still a fraud.


Under Bush the higher brackets pay a greater portion of the federal Income Tax than they did under Clinton. We also have spent more so according to your logic we should be rolling in prosperity. Actually, if it were only an increase of 5% that is likely I would not be so concerned. But he has also talked of removing the cap on SS deducts. This would mean a tax hike of an additional 6.2% for those on salary or 12.4% on the self employed who make up a large share of high earners. So we are talking about a rate of 45.2% for the employed and 51.2% for the self employed. Of course many claim that the employee actually pays the employers 6.2% share of
SS taxes. Of course, if he does get the present cap on SS deductions removed, everyone making over $105K in salary will be paying increased taxes. Of course taking the cap off and spending the money would result in great increases in the National Debt. He seems to have backed off of the removal of the SS cap; at least he has said nothing about it lately. However, based on 2008 projections before the present financial problems, Obama's tax plan would produce less revenue than the current schedule. Where would the money come from for all of his promised programs? There really are few sources. Deep cuts in defense spending is one, higher taxes than presently proposed is a second and increased borrowing is a third. Which source so you favor or what is your alternative?


Obama is also planning to give tax breaks to those who do not even pay taxes. That's called socialism.



Your repeated distortion of Obama's comments is really silly when compared to what Obama actually said. Your problem is that you are perfectly fine taking a snippet and extrapolating whatever you want from it, as long as it fits your preconceived notions about Obama.

Obama responded to Joe's question by pointing out that taxes have been cut more for people who are doing well, and that the middle class is not doing well at all. In fact, their incomes have mostly gone down in the past eight years. Then he said this:

"For folks like me who have worked hard, but frankly also been lucky, I don't mind paying just a little bit more than the waitress that I just met over there who's -- things are slow and she can barely make the rent."

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're going to be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody's so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Obama said nothing about spreading Joe's wealth around. He's talking about having a tax code that is less skewed toward the wealthy. How radical.

If any change in people's proportionate tax burdens counts as expropriating the money of those who end up paying a greater share and giving it to those who pay a lower one, then any President who has ever enacted changes in the tax code has expropriated people's wealth and redistributed it. This would include George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, among others.


"This is where the democrats played it smart. They changed the focus from Obama's comments to the man he made them". In other words the Democrats don't feel that Obama's position is acceptable to the people as a whole. On that basis they are attempting to hide his ideas on income and wealth redistribution or at least divert attention from them. They, and this includes some on this blog, will not openly support his openly stated position. On the other hand they will gladly foist the results of his ideas onto a public that they have done their best to insure doesn't understand them or even know that he has them.


if you owned a small business that made over $250,000 of profit, couldn't you just adjust your own salary cost to be higher so the profit of the company falls under 250k and is exempt from the tax hike? You own the business anyways so you would be basically giving the money to yourself


Actually BBT, I'm in a great mood. We are finishing up a weeks vacation with friends in Alaska and it has been truly inspiring.

One needs not be in a bad mood to take issue with your flipflopping misinformed and bigotted daily BS.

Anyway, I'm heading to the airport in a bit so this is my last post of the day. Have a good day and don't take any wooden nickels, Rush says the Democrats are issuing them now.


OH Race Card you are so snarky today, whats the matter she say no last night?

What you say is mute, whether a guy is a Sub S owner, or C employee, ove $250K he is going to get hurt. And those guys employee the rest of us. I never got a job from a poor man. Obama's plan is stupid.


Not defending Obamas plan BBT, but there is a difference between a small business making 250k and the owner making 250k. Quit listening to Rush, he mixes poorly with your scotch.


Rogue - The statement Obama made about 98% of all small businesses make < $250k is bogus. What determines whether a business is deemed small, depends on their SIC and/or number of employees. It varies depending on the industry. Obama is smart about one thing, catering to the misinformed and well indoctrinated.


Sol I agree that pliticians in general tell half truths and McCain is equally guilty.
The annoying part is that Obama can do no wrong, everything he says is golden. he not held accoutable for his bogus fantasyland proposals. While he is intelligent, he does not know everything like he contends.


I heard a report that 70% of small business's with over ten employees make $250K or better.

In times of an economic downturn raising the taxes and penalizing the people who keep the economy going is stupid.

You want four more years of Jimma Carter, vote for Osama Yomama.


Good morning NE,

Both these guys deal in half truths, thats the way politicians get people to follow them. If you think John McCain is being any more honest I've got a profitable light rail plan for KC i'd like to sell you.


Good morning my dearest Kate,

I don't think Joe should ever stop dreaming of doing better. I had aspirations to do better and thanks to hard work and good employees have had a record year. Joe, though, is not the good template for the arguement the way Sen McCain hoped he would be.


First of all JOe does not have to be licensed to own a plumbing company. Plumbers do more than just light residential work, industrial contracts are robust and plentyful. As for the $1000 supposedly in reduced taxation, that will hardly see any positive affect compared to the increase of taxation in other areas that will reduce middle class earnings.
Again, Obama is only stating half truths, what will happen is those that pay no or very little in taxtaion will receiev eyt more free handouts while the middle class and above finance it.


Would Obama’s answer have been different if the question had been posed as a hypothetical?

The good news is the media’s finally starting to vet one of The Prince’s acquaintances.

Sol is right, Joe’s boss’ business probably doesn’t bring in anywhere near $250K, so Joe should stop dreaming about doing better. And thanks to all the media attention, it looks like he’ll soon be out of work anyway. Serves him right for asking questions when he has issues of his own.

I disagree, Marctants. Frankly, this whole thing smacks of desperation on the part of the left, and it makes me wonder what would happen to someone who would dare question a President Obama.


mike d,

You seem to have some insight here. Though it is true that anyone can own any type of business, aren't plumbers licensed like contractors with fees going to their locale?

I do not fault Joe the Plumber for having aspirations, I just see him as campaign BS. Whats a plumber make, $30 an hour? At that rate working full time (2080 hours) a plumber would earn $62,400 anually. If Joe employed 4 real plumbers his company would probably have to gross over 650k for him to take a 250k income for himself after expenses. I doubt there is that type of market for an unlicensed plumbing company, or many small licensed companies that are starting out.

Joe,IMO, is a cartoon character.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright