I'm not swift-boating anyone.  I'm just saying that his concerns about his taxes seem unfounded. 

I do think it is funny that he's gotten so much attention over his tax policy question, when he already owes back taxes.

In the story I read, it said he was covered because his employer was licensed. If he became the owner of the business, he'd have to get his own license.

Bruce:

This article I linked to (and was subsequenlt linked to by Tom) was what I read.  According to the union to which Joe claimed he belonged (which admittedly endorsed Obama) Toledo requires licensure as does other municipalities.  Thats why I said it was unclear to me (based on what I've read) that his employer being licensed was sufficent for the municipality.

Because either "Joe The Plumber" has the same last name as a family member of the Ketings, or because he doesn't have a plumbing liscense, this invalidates both his question to and the answer from Obama?

The question, in and of itself, is valid. Did anyone dispute that?  I think the questions surrounding Joe are whether or not he was a "plant."  But I don't have any issues with the question.  A question can be credible even if the questioner is not.

I'm sure he wouldn't want to pay more but let's remember this nugget from ABC News via Fact Check.org:

QUOTE: ABC News reported the morning after the debate that Wurzelbacher admitted to a reporter that he won't actually make enough from his new plumbing business to pay Obama's higher tax rates. ABC said his admission "would seem to indicate that he would be eligible for an Obama tax cut."

Let me get this straight.  Because either "Joe The Plumber" has the same last name as a family member of the Ketings, or because he doesn't have a plumbing liscense, this invalidates both his question to and the answer from Obama?

No.  You do misunderstand.  And I expect it's on purpose, but I'll explain for the benefit of those who want the truth:

Obama's quick soundbite answer is taken out of context - here's the full clip: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a4_1224166209

And here's the point - this plant (who doesn't pay taxes anyway - by the way - take a Randian stand all you want, but how is that fair?  You and I pay our taxes and people [mustn't call Joe what he really is or Bruce will be offended] like this get away with skipping on the bill.  Awesome) - this plant comes to Obama and asks FALSE questions.

That's the problem.  This man, and most people WON'T be paying more taxes.  They will NOT be taxed out of business.  And the 5% of small businesses that do?  They will only be paying 3% more - the same ammount they paid 10 years ago, under Clinton.

Look, folks - I know what's being played on the media can be misleading.  I know if you turn on FOX News or the Right Wing Radio you might start thinking that Obama's out to destroy small business.  But I have experience running a business.  A 3% tax difference isn't a big difference.   And as Obama says to the plant - He'd get a TAX CREDIT for being a small business.

A TAX CREDIT.

Someone tell me they see the frustration I'm having that people are ignoring facts and running with this wild boogey man story that now has a personification??

Obama's record in the Senate shows he's no champion of small business nor a supporter of lower taxes. He's voted in favor higher taxes nearly 90 times in his relatively short Senate career. You've got to consider track records, not just plans on paper.

I'm highly skeptical of his supposed tax cuts, given his plan to greatly increase federal spending.