Holy Crap! Listen to this

[BRHornet45]

Say it with me.

President Barack Obama.

false son. he will go by "The Almighty Lord Barack Hussein Obama"

[Findog]

What the do you all think a graduated income tax is? That's mother ing redistribution of wealth you ing morons.

Also, you do realize under George Bush the rich got RICHER and the poor got POORER because of his tax cuts and economic policies. That's redistribution of wealth. My God you people are ing dumb.

Exactly. Bush changed the tax code to partially shift the burden from the upper brackets to the middle class. Obama proposes to shift it back. That's it. All forms of taxation involve redistributing wealth. I doubt very few posters in here make in excess of $250K, so they would benefit from a TAX CUT under Obama's plan.

What the Republicans are really arguing against is progressive taxation. The arguments against PT mainly boil down to as follows:

1) It's not fair. Successful people should not be penalized for their success.

2) Soaking the rich in taxes and putting their money in govt coffers is inferior to letting them invest their money in the economy, which will lead to job creation.

That's a losing argument this election cycle, so therefore Obama is a scary Marxist, etc...

[sontinospurs]

son both McCain and Palin have been bombarded with biased BS questions for months now by the liberal media. Including irrelevant personal attacks against them .... but at least they don't choose to BOYCOTT a station for asking difficult (or BS) questions like the Obama camp does.

I dont see how these questions were biased. McCain can answer them according to his views. Palin, on the other hand, makes a fool of herself. Its not the medias fault she's a moron. I guess you didnt see Obama on O'reilly....

[Findog]

Because you ignorant sheep fall prey to the same bait and switch tactics of the Republican party year after year.

He says he voted for Obama, so I guess wedge issues and cultural war bull wasn't a luxury this time around.

[TheMadHatter]

Trickle-down economics has never worked in this country. Why you people think that giving the rich people money is going to translate into them investing in our economy is beyond me. That money is going straight into some off-shore bank account.

The rich don't care about you or the state of this economy as long as they can rape and pillage and make profits. The sooner you understand this the better.

[Damien]

Either way....you are are all going to get screwed.

[ElNono]

Trickle-down economics has never worked in this country. Why you people think that giving the rich people money is going to translate into them investing in our economy is beyond me. That money is going straight into some off-shore bank account.

The rich don't care about you or the state of this economy as long as they can rape and pillage and make profits. The sooner you understand this the better.

It worked for rich people...

[Findog]

http://gawker.com/5069194/the-socialist-menace

There is a spectre haunting the Conservative commentariat—the spectre of socialism! Barack Obama just might be the President, and should that happen, he will immediately redistribute all the wealth and hand over control of the means of production to the workers. Also the government will round up whitey and send him to reeducation camps run by the creepy YouTube singing children! We know all of this is true because Obama told a pretend plumber that he would "spread" the man's pretend "wealth around." Also he proposes some sort of "progressive income tax" policy and he said the words "redistribution of wealth" once on public radio. "Public" is code for Communist! This is seriously the dumbest attack yet in a season of incredibly dumb attacks.

Over the summer, the McCain campaign presented Barack Obama as "a celebrity," a neat, slightly po-mo attack on Obama's popularity. It was, at least, an argument with some resonance in our tabloid-y popular culture. It didn't destroy Obama's brand, but it hurt it. But the desperate and confused McCain campaign never again came up with a coherent attack line on Obama that pleased anyone but the truest of believers.

And that is how we got to "palling around with terrorists," a neat line that manages to incorporate 9/11 dread of four years ago and, more importantly, the culture wars of the 1960s, which make guest appearances in every American election. But this year, of course, no one gives a about the 1960s, at all. For the first time since the '60s ended, in 1972!

So the McCain camp has switched to an attack last used effectively in the 1920s. As Hendrik Hertzberg explains:

There hasn’t been so much talk of socialism in an American election since 1920, when Eugene Victor Debs, candidate of the Socialist Party, made his fifth run for President from a cell in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary, where he was serving a ten-year sentence for opposing the First World War. (Debs got a million votes and was freed the following year by the new Republican President, Warren G. Harding, who immediately invited him to the White House for a friendly visit.)

And of course JFK and LBJ were called socialists too, but they won. Perhaps soon McCain will accuse Obama of palling around with Italian Anarchists? Sympathizing with Sacco and Vanzetti? In this accelerated news cycle, we could be seeing attack ads accusing Obama of being a tool of the Whig interests by the weekend!

Senator McCain, no one is scared of Socialism anymore, except for members of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. Socialism today is friendly and Scandinavian. And honestly, with another Great Depression on the way, Americans are probably sympathetic to the kind of Socialism where the government gives you things.

[Findog]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...es-latest.html

Go read the original talk that Obama gave on NPR and see if it says anything even faintly similar to the truncated quotes about to be used by McCain. I mean: come on. Here's the headline:

"2001 Obama: Tragedy That 'Redistribution Of Wealth" Not Pursued By Supreme Court"

Here's what it's based on: the "tragedy," in Obama's telling, is that the civil rights movement was too court-focused. He was making a case against using courts to implement broad social goals - which is, last time I checked, the conservative position. The actual quote in full:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay."

"But," Obama said, "The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Cons ution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Cons ution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Obama said "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still stuffer from that."

So Obama was arguing that the Cons ution protects negative liberties and that the civil rights movement was too court-focused to make any difference in addressing income inequality, as opposed to formal cons utional rights. So it seems to me that this statement is actually a conservative one about the limits of judicial activism.

Is this really all McCain has left?

[BRHornet45]

LOL sons findog is such a cuckold

[101A]

What the do you all think a graduated income tax is? That's mother ing redistribution of wealth you ing morons.

Also, you do realize under George Bush the rich got RICHER and the poor got POORER because of his tax cuts and economic policies. That's redistribution of wealth. My God you people are ing dumb.

O.K.

Here's an income distribution graph from '63:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...7-2003.svg.png

Now, it's not "Wealth" per se, but that has remained pretty constant.

Please point out to me the dramatic change with Bush's policies; or link the site where you are getting your information.

[JoeChalupa]

Will McCain and Palin milk this for all it is worth?

[101A]

Trickle-down economics has never worked in this country. Why you people think that giving the rich people money is going to translate into them investing in our economy is beyond me. That money is going straight into some off-shore bank account.

The rich don't care about you or the state of this economy as long as they can rape and pillage and make profits. The sooner you understand this the better.

Yes. It's all the richers fault!!!!

What tax rate is high enough? What is ideal? What is TOOOO high?

50, 60 70?; or is it, naturally, 100%?

Is it only about money? Does what the people DO to earn that money not matter? If it does not, why don't we all just stop working - and the Fed can print money and distribute it? Wouldn't that work? Why or why not?

Nevermind, just call names, claim OTHER people are the greedy ones (while you vote for someone who is going to put someone elses money into YOUR pocket).

[101A]

Will McCain and Palin milk this for all it is worth?

If Barrack says something that is questionable, or that many Americans might cringe at; should they not?

Are his actual, stated, words on the economy, civil rights movement, etc. not fair game? Damn, some of you REALLY don't think anyone should be able to level criticism at the man, do you?

Kind of surreal.

[Findog]

LOL sons findog is such a cuckold

Great analysis there, daughter. Way to refute the pro-PT arguments.

[Findog]

Yes. It's all the richers fault!!!!

What tax rate is high enough? What is ideal? What is TOOOO high?

50, 60 70?; or is it, naturally, 100%?

Is it only about money? Does what the people DO to earn that money not matter? If it does not, why don't we all just stop working - and the Fed can print money and distribute it? Wouldn't that work? Why or why not?

Nevermind, just call names, claim OTHER people are the greedy ones (while you vote for someone who is going to put someone elses money into YOUR pocket).

So going from 36% to 39% will plunge our country into Marxist . Thank you.

[BRHornet45]

Great analysis there, daughter. Way to refute the pro-PT arguments.

son I don't mean to judge you, but I don't understand what you get out of the cuckold lifestyle letting your wife sleep with other men. do you fantasize about seeing her with Obama?

[Findog]

son I don't mean to judge you, but I don't understand what you get out of the cuckold lifestyle letting your wife sleep with other men. do you fantasize about seeing her with Obama?

Sex insults. Awesome! So you're conceding that you can't mount a logical or coherent argument against progressive taxation.

[101A]

So going from 36% to 39% will plunge our country into Marxist . Thank you.

No. I didn't say that.

In fact, I'm on record saying that 36 to 39 in nearly irrelevant. However, it is ironic as that the smallest (% wise) of the Bush tax cuts is the only one based on "greed". It's the class warfare language I have a problem with. The rate was over 70% when Reagan took office; and over 90 when Kennedy did; I am not so naive as to believe that politicians can't get it there again; especially in this atmosphere, where blaming the rich is so prevalent.

[clambake]

mccains economic policies aren't even his.

i think it's simple. vote for the smart guy. clinton is smart and times were good. bush is dumb and that's what happens when you choose dumb guys.

this cycle should be about the smart guy, again.

[Findog]

No. I didn't say that.

In fact, I'm on record saying that 36 to 39 in nearly irrelevant. However, it is ironic as that the smallest (% wise) of the Bush tax cuts is the only one based on "greed". It's the class warfare language I have a problem with. The rate was over 70% when Reagan took office; and over 90 when Kennedy did; I am not so naive as to believe that politicians can't get it there again; especially in this atmosphere, where blaming the rich is so prevalent.

Yes, but that class warfare language cuts both ways. McCain is clearly delving deep into hyperbole territory describing Obama's tax policies the way that he has.

[101A]

So going from 36% to 39% will plunge our country into Marxist . Thank you.

Also, if going from 36 to 39 isn't a big deal; why was it SUCH a big deal in the other direction?

[BRHornet45]

Sex insults. Awesome! So you're conceding that you can't mount a logical or coherent argument against progressive taxation.

no son because arguing with die hard liberal trash like yourself (or die hard conservatives) is pointless. I have tried taking that route with one track minded people like you but I may as well be talking to a wall because your bent that your opinions are the ONLY "right" ones.

[xrayzebra]

I know. I heard it on the radio about 1/2 hour ago. It's some pretty scary , isn't it?

Tell me he's not a marxist...

If he got any further left he would be walking in circles.

He learned well under Ayers, didn't he? But I see all the Obama
apologist are out in droves to defend him.

More than likely Ayers will be his new Secretary of Education. And
how to blow up government buildings will then be a part of the
curriculum. Along with wealth re-distribution as part of the
Cons ution.

[101A]

Yes, but that class warfare language cuts both ways. McCain is clearly delving deep into hyperbole territory describing Obama's tax policies the way that he has.

Yeah, I've pointed that out to some conservative friends; Obama and McCain's economic policies are close enough together to be from slightly different wings of the SAME party; nothing a committee couldn't get together and make identical.

Then to hear McCain's policies labeled as "Only for the Wealthy"; while Obama's are classified, now, as "Marxist"; is pure comedy. It makes me beleive, more than ever, that we are simply pawns in a big old s game.

I voted already.

Wrote in: "Joe the Plumber".

Really.