High Noon

Speaking of Josh...
His Race to the Bottom post at 11:58 is correct to the nth power.

The days of the "MaCain has no honor" posts and comments are passe pacifism. We are way past that. The next two weeks are trench warfare. Read his post. And then: Ante up. Pony up. Giddy up.

It's crunch time folks...

What genius on McCain's staff came up with that idea?

Umm...probably the same genius who thought Sarah Palin would make a great running mate. The same genius who thought linking Obama to Ayers was a good idea. The same genius who...

I could do this all day, but I've got some house painting to do.

The Republicans were able to recover from Hoover by using the Red Scare. That has always been a very useful "Get out of jail free" card for the GOP. Now, apparently it doesn't work anymore. You see, younger Americans can see with their own eyes that the Europeans live better than we do. Who wouldn't want guaranteed health care, guaranteed college tuition, and August off ? So yelling "socialist" and "communist" only works with those Sarah Palin segments of the GOP base who pride themselves on knowing nothing about the rest of the world. And they are a dying breed.

The McCain campaign doesn't employ geniuses (that would be too elitist and off-putting to the idiot Republicans), just plain old party hacks using the same old worn out scare tactics.

In a sense, it works for McCain because he's also out there telling everyone that Obama is going to raise their taxes. So when he starts hitting Obama for "spreading the wealth," what the average GOP'er hears is that Obama is going to raise their taxes and distribute it to lower income folks (like all those minorities who shouldn't have gotten loans from Freddie/Fannie). From that frame of reference, the attack makes sense - but it doesn't necessarily mean that it comports with reality. Just typical GOP victim complex.

In a sense, it works for McCain because he's also out there telling everyone that Obama is going to raise their taxes. So when he starts hitting Obama for "spreading the wealth," what the average GOP'er hears is that Obama is going to raise their taxes and distribute it to lower income folks (like all those minorities who shouldn't have gotten loans from Freddie/Fannie). From that frame of reference, the attack makes sense - but it doesn't necessarily mean that it comports with reality. Just typical GOP victim complex.

Kudos to Colin Powell for also pushing back against the McCain tax cut "socialism" nonsense in his presser after the MTP appearance (scroll down the page; video is in the left hand column right above the vid for MTP).

The easiest way to put McCain on the spot with this ridiculous claim would be for some enterprising media figure to just ask, "how come it's socialism when workers get a tax cut, but it's not socialism when CEOs get one?"

What bullshit.

Ooops. I see the video of Powell's presser is posted right on the WM homepage, two posts down. My bad for not looking at all the recent posts before commenting.

The McCain campaign doesn't employ geniuses (that would be too elitist and off-putting to the idiot Republicans), just plain old party hacks using the same old worn out scare tactics. - Lew Scannon

That is so unfair! It's not easy selling policies that make no sense, a candidate who doesn't believe what he says, a VP candidate who can't even name a periodical she's read, and an illusion of success after eight years of Bush. If it weren't for these guys and the "free media" (TV, newspapers, talk radio and church pulpits), Obama would be ahead 95% to 5%.

The notion that McCain/Palin are somehow the polar opposite of Obama's "socialism" is a slippery slope that I fervently---MOST fervently, as a matter of fact---hope they continue to throw at the American public, because the polar opposite of Socialism is Fascism---and Godwin's Law has been so played to death during the Bush years that it is now unworthy of even mentioning.

It is a discussion that America is now more than ready to have, and it is a debate that will do incredibly-irreversible damage to the GOP, should they wish to continue the scary-thing scenario of "socialism...."

Josh Marshall noted, accurately, that the "welfare" talk is almost certainly driven by racial animus.

I've supported Obama all through the primaries, but one of the things that has most discomfited me most about the behavior of my side is how quickly, not Obama, but the supporters of Obama have imputed racist motives on his opponents, whether they be Hillary Clinton's camp or the John McCain campaign.

First of all, you can't read minds. You have no idea what the motives of other people are, so why see the worst one just to score a political point?

Secondly, seeing racism everywhere is like the boy that cried wolf. Resentments are stoked unnecessarily, and the accusation is cheapened for the times when it truly is deserved.

Steve... why not take Obama's lead and quit playing the race card?

Warren Buffet, the second richest man on the plant, supports Barack Obama.

Why would Buffet support a socialist? Conservatives are such delusional morons.

What's sad is that the Republican Party has now made socialism an appealing proposition anyway.

After eight years of Corporatism and Fascism lite, anything that might possibly be focused on actually improving living conditions within this country is a f**king no-brainer.

Hell, at this point I'd take the f**king French parliament over that band of greedy ass-clowns the republicans call leaders.

It appears to me that this must be linked to the Bachman diatribe that had us returning to the McCarthy era. All Red Scare all the time.

It seems peculiar that McCain is running a purely base-oriented campaign now: red meat for the yahoos and nothing else. But what choice does he really have? It's a campaign that resonates strongly in the audio trenches of talk radio. It magnifies the Us vs Them paranoia that animates low-information wingnuts. Mix in some abortion chat and xenophobia, and you have right-wing nitro glycerin.

This formula is not without its successes and we'd be unforgivably smug if we didn't respect its power. It seems dated but we can' be completely sure. I keep waiting for that blessed demographic dawn when Republicans becomes a permanent minority party.

Secondly, seeing racism everywhere is like the boy that cried wolf. - Wagster

I tend to agree with you, though I would argue that the media actually did far more to portray the Clintons as racists than Obama's paid supporters. But the other side of this coin is that there are sophisticated ad men in charge of these campaigns who, like Frank Luntz, are very clever about creating subconscious perceptions. I don't think the socialism argument is one of them necessarily, but I think there is plenty of evidence of racial suggestion in this campaign. And I would bet that if you asked 100 people at random whether Bill Ayers is black or white, at least 60% would be wrong. That, in itself, is rather astonishing, considering the importance McCain has put on Obama's relationship with him.

Yeah, my mom told me yesterday that the new McCain line was that Obama was a socialist. My answer was "then he's the right man for the job because thanks to George W. Bush, we're a socialist country now."

Live television: What is with the swing state stump stop of McCain--talking about taxed, but not admitting he'd tax health benefits, wiht this blonde chick, standing behind with the usual geezers--all sexed out, on CNN, as McCain speaks to the "friends" he has left....4:05 PM east coast

yes, it's all good and makes sense, but the press has been waiting for something to drive the McCain comeback narrative, and this is it, so it might be a while before the facts catch up with the narrative, or perhaps they won't.

Sorta disgusting to watch a political campaign turn into a school yard rant. It'll get dumber as McCain finds his inner six year old.

Not that he has to look very hard.

You are, as usual, full of crap.

Obama has already hedged on his campaign promises but has not stopped promising money for votes.

....LAUER: You've laid out an ambitious plan. You want to improve health care, you want to improve education, the infrastructure...
Obama: Right. LAUER: ... investment in energy. And, oh boy, here comes this $700 billion bill that wasn't a part of your thinking when you laid out this plan.
OBAMA: Right.
LAUER: If I'm a voter and I'm trying to decide whether I want to vote for you or Senator McCain, don't I have a right to know right now from you which of those things are going to get hit by the budget axe before I vote for you?
OBAMA: Although we are potentially providing $700 billion in available money to the Treasury, we don't anticipate that all that money gets spent right away and we don't anticipate that all that money is lost.
How we're going to structure that in budget terms, it still has to be decided.
Does that mean that I can do everything that I've called for in this campaign...
LAUER: Probably not.
OBAMA: ... right away? Probably not. I think we're going to have to phase it in. And a lot of it's going to depend on what our tax revenues look like.....

The national debt rose by over a trillion last year. Next will be worse. There will be major retrenchments of the policies for people.

Will somebody please remind McCain and friends that Adam Smith advocated for a progressive tax structure in the Wealth of Nations a century before Marx came along?

To Wagster

I think the Obama team has been very careful not to the race card because they really can't effectively use it. It, therefore, falls to others to be vigilant and speak up when needed. Many independent voters are turned off by this talk, however, you would do well to know how McCain's base operates. Plenty of his supporters are proudly racist and really do have a "code" speak which lets them communicate in the open.

Bill Clinton left America in decent shape with a balanced budget, peace and respected everywhere in the world.

George Bush has made a mess of things.

John McCain voted about 90% of the time to support George Bush's policies and the war in Iraq.

We need to change direction and John McCain doesn't appear to be the one to do that.

Democrats are the party of ideas this year. It's time to repair a lot of things and Democrats have ideas to do that. But, Republicans have been obstructing those changes. Barack Obama has a record of crossing party lines to find bi-partisan solutions. It's time to elect Barack Obama.

The McCain campaign has been scaring people about Obama. They call him unAmerican, a socialist and other things.

Some people disagree.

Warren Buffet the billionaire doesn't think Obama is a socialist. He supports and advises Obama.

Colin Powell the former Army general, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State under George Bush doesn't think Obama is unAmerican. He supports Obama.

The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune don't endorse candidates, but this year they endorsed Barack Obama.

There are a lot of patriotic powerful experienced people who think Barack Obama is our best choice.

Vote for Barack Obama -- he offers Change we need

[...] what McCain wants to do with his own economic plan -- keep as much wealth as possible at the top, and wait for it to trickle down. -- Steve Benen

The trouble with that model, of course, lies in the system itself. The head (top) drinks champagne but what trickles down resembles it only in colour (and even then not always).

Barack Obama's tax plan must be pretty good, because the only attacks John McCain has come up with are fanciful nonsense.

That doesn't follow. There is no evidence that John McCain is capable of coming up with attacks other than fanciful nonsense regardless of the soundness of the thing he is attacking.

I will say this, its a great day when John McCain has to acknowledge that Barack Obama is in fact giving the middle class a tax break. He has backed himself in a corner with that one. Obama needs to hammer home that first John McCain claimed all Obama would do is raise taxes, NOW he admits Obama will give a tax cut. Flip flop much?

**ASK OBAMA IF HE FAVORS NORWAY”S SOCIALISM LAWS—-

Twelve percent of the land in the county is set aside as nature conservation areas, but backpacking and camping isn’t limited to park lands. Hikers roaming Nordland’s countryside take advantage of Norway’s lack of “trespassing” laws - one may walk or camp on any land which is not cultivated.

http://www.eksportnettverk.siriusmanagement.no/NordlandEnglish.htm

LOVE SOCIALSIM —-SHALL WE CAMP ON HIS PROPERTY???

Nobody in our 'MSM' is talking about THIS scandal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking

Those same banks that we just bailed out with taxpayers $$$ are giving themselves HUGE bonuses - to the likes of $70 BILLION!!!

Give Palin a break, she doesn't know what the word "socialism" means.

“Barack Obama calls it spreading the wealth,” she said. “Joe Biden calls higher taxes patriotic. But Joe the plumber and Ed the dairy man, I believe that they think that it sounds more like socialism. Friends, now is no time to experiment with socialism.”

Gov. Palin might want to explain that to the Bush Administration, which seems to think now is the perfect time to engage in government ownership of a major sector of the economy, i.e. the financial sector.

Obama says he's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and raise taxes on the wealthiest.

Grumpy, on this blog, smartly said the other day: "Obama is saying the bottom 95% are being taxed too much and the top 5% not enough -- which is not the same as saying that the bottom 95% deserve a share of the top 5%'s wealth."

McCain says it's welfare and redistribution of wealth (or income)... "raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut it's jut another government giveaway." ie "give checks" means free money/they never paid it in the first place?

O'Lielly on his Sept 8 show said that people making under $45K don't pay any federal income tax.

Scarborough on MTP today said, in reference to Obama's plan, "...income redistribution... taking from the most productive members of society and giving tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes."

IOW, the Rs say Obama wants "socialism".

Where in the heck are the Republicans getting this notion that so many people in this country pay no income tax??? Why are these remarks not being challenged (Scarborough's should have been on MTP). Yesterday I gave an example whereby my son who made a mere $983 in taxable income a few years ago still had a federal tax liability of $99. I don't get it. Can someone here elaborate??? I really want this challenged!

Perhaps everyone making under $45K should write zero on their tax returns on the "Tax" line and write in "Bill O'Reilly says I don't pay income tax".

Talk about promoting class warfare.

Ever notice how all of the ass-hats proclaiming the "socialist redistribution of wealth" aren't smart enough to put 2 and 2 together to come to the conclusion that just about every dollar in the form of a tax cut for the middle-to-lower-classes is then spent at an American business. It's taking idle money and putting it into play, and especially at a time when there is a real lack of productive investment opportunities with good returns and low risk. This is capitalism 101, folks, and Obama knows it. It's the same reason that those in the past that have witnessed extreme inequalities in wealth have constantly warned of the the inherent dangers of such situations, and advocated for high-to-confiscatory rates on concentrated wealth. Extreme wealth and income inequality is the fastest way to kill capitalism stone dead.

40% of americans pay no income tax.

Barack Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of americans.

Do the math.

What do you call tax cuts for people who pay no taxes? You call it welfare.

A progressive tax structure is not welfare. Welfare is given to people who do not have any means of other support but that is not a tax cut. Taxes are paid by workers so a tax cut is a return of money they would have paid from wages. But it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of "low information" voters can't figure this out.

40% of americans pay no income tax.[...]
What do you call tax cuts for people who pay no taxes? You call it welfare. -- bestweather, @ 22:10

If *all* you're paying in taxes is income taxes, then you must be the only person in US doing so. Ever heard of "sales taxes"? Ever heard of "property taxes"? Not to mention "payroll taxes"?

By some standards, Alaskans pay "no taxes", either. Then what do you call those checks that Scarahcuda Palin' cut them recently? Welfare?

bestweather here's a tip for you:

1) Why don't you learn your talking points before attempting to troll.
2) Then write something that makes a little bit of sense.
3) Since typing is obviously hard work for you, cut and past your topic into the thread.

BTW 95% tax cuts on WORKING AMERICANS amounts to tax cuts for nearly 129,000,000 people (95% x 136,000,000 filers) . That's math I can do.

a tax cut to 95% of American workers.

If only it were so.

Is that before or after the repeal of the Bush tax cuts raises the tax rates of all income tax payers?

Whether you call it "socialism" or not, Obama will raise the tax rates on successful small businesses and their entrepreneurs. That will slow the growth of the economy.

Or maybe not. Perhaps someone can explain how increasing the taxes on successful companies and transferring the money to the poor (or to unsuccessful companies) will raise the growth rate. The poor might have more nominal purchasing power, but the capital to increase the production of goods will have been reduced (or transferred to unsuccessful companies.) So you'll probably have inflation and stagnation. We might have that now, but it is hard to see Obama's plan as an improvement.

Ask a conservative to define "socialism" sometime. You will be amazed. They don't have the slightest fucking idea what it means.

MatthewRMarler, Ayn Rand called. She wants her crackpot ideas sent back 30 years.

Jackass.

Jonathan Cohn asked, "Or is he (Adam Smith) a socialist, too?"

No. but he was a professor of Moral Philosophy - which is a combination of words alien to the lizard brains of most Rethuglicans.

We have the most progressive tax system in the world. Does that make us socialists or just smart? Do they mean to say that since we are the most economically powerful country in the world that socialism is the best form of government?

No, I think they will have to admit that a progressive tax system promotes growth and stability in market-based economies.