’)And people wonder why McCain rally attendees feel free to embrace racism and call for Obama to be killed.
Among the images that greeted visitors to the John McCain campaign office in Pompano Beach this week was a sign headlined ‘Barrack Hussein Obama’ that compared the Democratic presidential candidate to Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro.
Shown a picture of the sign Thursday night, Broward Republican Chairman Chip LaMarca said he was ‘disgusted’ by it and would immediately go to the office and remove it.
‘I’m speechless at the ignorance,’ LaMarca said. ‘It’s not something we can condone.
I’m sure he had no idea. Just like McCain had no idea that people on stage before him would scream “Barack Hussein Obama”. They’re just shocked to find all this gambling going on.
Since when were Karl Marx and Fidel Castro considered racists? It’s clear that Obama subscribes to a similar ideaology as that of Marx and Castro. Just ask Joe the Plumber.
Obama’s statement that “I’m gonna spead it around” seems to be lost on Republican Chairman Chip LaMarca. Maybe Mr. LaMarca needs a history lesson.
Doesn’t surprise me. Theres a Broward County real estate gal who’s been doing the same thing (not as blatant but has used the word Hitler comparatively to Mccain) in her real estate blogs. Sounds like Broward county is a hotbed for this type of crud.
and call for Obama to be killed.
Except that they didn’t. But don’t let that inconvenient fact interfere with the whole “McCain is inciting hatred for Obama” lie that the Obama camp is pushing.
It’s clear that Obama subscribes to a similar ideaology(sic) as that of Marx and Castro.
I call. Back that shit up. Tell us all how that is clear.
And Obama’s Houston office had a couple pictures of Che Guevara on their walls…
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss
J.
LMAO! You’re fuckin whining about this?????
Have you not seen a million references to Bushitler?
Seriously, go fuck yourself you crybaby.
Hey OW, leave this girl alone! We all know you were there calling her racist!
LMAO!
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=3C253B1CA6A922ED8EF7FA75CA8E20F6?contentId=7664724&version=8&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1
So much BS here.
Let’s start with the idea that because Joe the Plumber believes progressive taxation to be socialism, that must actually be true. Joe thinks that it is punishing success for any citizen to pay more in taxes than any other citizen. If he is correct, we have been a socialist nation since the passage of the 16th Amendment, when the federal income tax was imposed only on people who make $100k a year.
If we’re not clear on what socialism actually is, let’s consult a Random House dictionary: “1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
“2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
“3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.”
Which part of Obama’s platform has advocated “vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution” in the community as a whole? And to which party belongs the administration that currently IS taking ownership in the means of production and distribution of the financial sector, by essentially FORCING banks to accept the government’s taking equity?
You guys are just the type to miss the creeping socialism that’s right under your nose because it’s being pushed by your own party, while screaming “SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST” at a guy whose policies don’t fit the definition.
If what you mean is that Obama advocates a REDISTRIBUTIVIST TAX POLICY, that’s a perfectly valid claim. It is quite correct that Obama’s tax plan works by taking money from the wealthiest 10% and sending checks to many folks who don’t even have federal income tax liability. However, REDISTRIBUTIVIST TAX POLICY appears to be too many syllables for Republicans to handle. Which is a pity, since it was again a Republican (Nixon) who originated the Earned Income Tax Credit, which was the first method of redistribution through the tax system itself (as opposed to redistribution through the federal government’s collection of tax revenues and spending on programs that directly benefited people who had not contributed to the revenues).
But hey, why learn anything about the actual history and mechanisms of taxation, or economics generally, when you can scream SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST all day long instead?
BWA HA HA HA HA! War is peace!
Let’s also not forget to mention that Obama’s lying about Mr. Wurzelbacher. He’s dismissing him as a “plumber who makes $250,000 a year.” No, he wants to buy a business that makes that amount of money.
Obama’s exact words: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
I don’t agree. I don’t think that it’s good for everybody, and I certainly don’t think it’s the role of government to do the spreading.
For one, the government always makes sure it gets its cut before any spreading is done.
For another, Obama’s plan to “cut the taxes of 95% of all working Americans” is utterly impossible. A lot of working Americans don’t pay taxes — they don’t make enough. The only way he can do that is is he redefines “cutting taxes” below zero is in negative taxation — alias welfare and entitlement payments.
There are terms for that. “Ingenuous” is probably the politest.
“Lying” is probably the most accurate.
“Bullshit” would be the clearest.
J.
““plumber who makes $250,000 a year.” No, he wants to buy a business that makes that amount of money.”
OK, then why did Joe tell Obama that his taxes would go up under Obama’s plan? He certainly seems to think he will make $250k a year in taxable income. Either that, or he’s too ignorant to understand how taxes on businesses work. But turning people who are ignorant about policy yet will pontificate about it anyway into hero(in)es is the Republican way these days, which is why those who wish to uphold some standards — Buckley, Parker, Brooks, Frum — are disgusted with the GOP. There’s nothing wrong with not being knowledgeable on a subject — for example, I don’t know much about the differences among different types of firearms. But I wouldn’t get in front of a camera to challenge John McCain on his preferred policy for regulating the sale and transfer of different kinds of firearms, and I wouldn’t go on the morning talk shows to talk about it either. I believe in learning something about a subject before I put myself out there as someone who knows something about it.
I’m really tired of this idea being pushed by the current crop of Republicans that it doesn’t matter whether you actually know anything; what matters is what Regular Joe Six Pack the Plumber FEELS about it. If he FEELS like Obama is a socialist, it’s irrelevant that Obama isn’t promoting socialist policies. If he FEELS like buying a business with $250k in annual revenue will increase his tax burden, it’s irrelevant that it actually won’t.
“alias welfare and entitlement payments”
Actually, the name for that is the Earned Income Tax Credit. Originated by Nixon to encourage people to work even though they wouldn’t earn much in their low-paying jobs. But yeah, keep bringing up Teh Welfare.
Well done, PG.
PG,
Nobody is missing anything. You make the same point that Joe the Plumber and the rest of us make. Since a REDISTRIBUTIVIST TAX POLICY is a tennent of socialism, and Obama wants more of it, not less, then Obama is promoting a socialist agenda.
You’re point that republicans had a hand in redistribution through the tax system is irrelevant. The point is we don’t want any more of it.
Holy mackerel this is stupid.
A marginal tax rate of 39 percent is “socialist,” but a marginal tax rate of 36 percent is not? Where’s the dividing line for socialism? Thirty-seven percent? Thirty-six-and-a-half?
The fact is, either candidate, when elected, will preside over a progressive tax system. Either one will tax the income of high earners at a steeper rate than the income of people who earn less. Both candidates are promising to distribute new tax breaks to middle- and lower-income groups.
So how is it that one is a “socialist” and the other isn’t?
Silly me. One’s a Democrat!
It’s too early in the morning for even a Republican to be drunk. So someone please call the paramedics to check on mccann. He/She seems to have suffered a brain injury.
And Obama’s Houston office had a couple pictures of Che Guevara on their walls…
by an unpaid volunteer who was told to take it down when the ACTUAL campaign staffers got there.
Next.
Obama’s exact words: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
I don’t agree. I don’t think that it’s good for everybody, and I certainly don’t think it’s the role of government to do the spreading.
Isn’t that the whole raison d’etre of Trickle Down economics? And you don’t agree?
No, Duros. “Trickle Down” economics is based on the principle of getting the government out of the way of things, not imposing its own ideas of “fairness” and “enough” on people.
Economic policies based on the theory of enlightened self-interest work; those based on “we’re all really good people and will all do whatever is in the best interests of the most people, even if it hurts us individually, and the government is the most fair and just body to make these decisions” end up making most everyone equally miserable — except for those who run the government.
Look up “the tragedy of the commons” or the public restroom parable for more specifics.
J.
“A marginal tax rate of 39 percent is “socialist,” but a marginal tax rate of 36 percent is not?”
They both are, when 50% of the population pay no taxes.
When is the bottom 50% going to pay their “fair share”?
Economic policies based on the theory of enlightened self-interest work;
And yet you continue to rail against them. And defend the Uber-wealthy.
I’m no expert on economics (obviously). Talking about economics works better than Lunestra for me. But even I can see that Obama’s tax plan is not a “Socialist agenda.”
They both are, when 50% of the population pay no taxes.
When is the bottom 50% going to pay their “fair share”?
If they don’t make enough to be taxed, what is their “fair share”, Oh great compassionate conservative?
jay Tea: Economic policies based on the theory of enlightened self-interest work;
Prove it.
People do not act with “enlightened self interest”. When left to their own devices people will tend to act out of a very narrow view of what is best for them. They don’t step back and ask what is best for all and realize that they then derive some benefit for it.
You’ve got $100. You can spend it on yourself, or you can give to the effort to build a new road. That you would derive a less-tangible benefit from the road (access to goods, support services have easier access to my house should you have an emergency, etc) which would have a worth of over $100. What would you do?
When it actually comes down to it, most people will want to keep they money for themselves.
I wonder if mccann goes about in his/her daily life saying things like “go fuck yourself.” Because, where I come from, if you say “fuck you” to someone in real life, those are the LAST two words you say before you either take an asswhuppin’, or give one.
Which do you guys think would happen to mccann?
You make the same point that Joe the Plumber and the rest of us make. Since a REDISTRIBUTIVIST TAX POLICY is a tennent of socialism, and Obama wants more of it, not less, then Obama is promoting a socialist agenda.
Please do not say that I am making the same point that you and Joe are making. I am saying that Obama advocates a redistributivist tax policy, which actually began under a Republican administration. Now, point to the passage in Marx-Engels about redistributivist tax policy. I’m sorry, but “socialism” is a concept with a history and a meaning, and that meaning is not “any policy that Republicans consider too left-wing.” I had this same discussion with the folks at Althouse after they all screamed at her for daring to say that Obama is not actually a socialist, and none of them could explain how any part of Obama’s platform fits the definition of socialism.
State ownership of major businesses is socialist. The earned income tax credit is redistributivist tax policy. Welfare is a redistributivist government program. Please try to employ that beautiful creature, the English language, with some accuracy instead of plucking whatever word sounds appropriately negative to you.
Incidentally, I am married to a Republican and have several Republicans in my family. They at least have the sense to say that they base their sense of Obama’s veering toward socialism on what they consider to be dubious associations. That is, they concede that none of his stated policies for the campaign are socialist, but they are concerned that once in the White House and with a Democratic Congress, he will lead a government that is far more controlling of the private sector than the policies he currently advocates. I find this slightly paranoid, but it’s not as silly as claiming that any increase in the federal taxes on income or capital gains is itself socialist. Some of them have lived in actually socialist countries, such as the UK pre-Thatcher and India pre-BJP, and recognize that what was socialist in those countries was the state ownership of industry, not the levels of income taxation.
OW really needs to get a better class of Republican commenter on this blog.
William:
Please, please get the McCain campaign to say that they are going to raise federal income taxes on the bottom 50% in the name of having those folks pay their “fair share.” Please.
I love the fact that despite conservatives’ supposed fondness for federalism, the only taxes that they recognize being paid are federal corporate income taxes, federal household income taxes, federal capital gains and dividend taxes and the federal “death tax.” People in the bottom 50% are paying taxes on everything they buy (it’s called a sales tax) and any real property they own (it’s called a property tax and it pays for schools). I know folks who live in trailers in East Texas on land they own, and they pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than a first year associate at a BigLaw firm in Delaware.
They both are, when 50% of the population pay no taxes.
So you’re saying Mr. McCain is a “socialist” too?
Careful, PG, you’re making them all slink away with their tails between their legs. What fun will that be?
There are terms for that. “Ingenuous” is probably the politest.
Not sure what you were going for here, Mr. Tea, but I don’t think “ingenuous” is what you intended.
m-w.com is your friend!
Jay Tea: No, Duros. “Trickle Down” economics is based on the principle of getting the government out of the way of things, not imposing its own ideas of “fairness” and “enough” on people.
No, Jay. “Trickle Down” economics is based on the idea that if the rich get more than they already are some of that will trickle down to the less wealthy. And those who support it are as interested in using the government to impose their ideas of what is fair as anyone else.
(“Fairness” is, of course, a term that can be used equally legitimately by either side (“It isn’t fair that you take more of my money just because I make more.” “It isn’t fair that I pay a larger portion of my income in taxes than the wealthy because I feel the burden more.”) so really provides little support for making a case.)
Careful, PG, you’re making them all slink away with their tails between their legs. What fun will that be?
Sorry, it’s just that between my informed, intelligent Republican relatives and the intelligent, informed folks in Federalist Society chapters, my expectation for dialogue with conservatives/ libertarians has gotten too high to be entertained by the kind of folks who throw out the word “socialist” like its a synonym for “dickhead.”
It’s the disconnect between real life and the internet: in real life, in a majority-liberal environment, the conservatives have to get good at defending their positions in order to survive. Someone who gets through Brown University and is still a Republican, like Bobby Jindal, probably can make an intellectual case for Republican policies that I have to concede is plausible even if I disagree with its premises. Online, conservatives can show up to comment on a liberal blog without cracking open a dictionary, much less Das Kapital.
If someone finds redistributivist tax policy to be immoral or merely bad policy, he ought to be able to criticize it without reaching for a “bad word” that doesn’t actually fit. I suppose I get aggravated when I start thinking, “I can defend this position better than you guys who actually believe in it — what’s wrong with you?”
But as I’ve said, I’m pretending that the remnants of the old GOP are still setting the standards for the party. They’re not. Under the proudly Know-Nothing regime exemplified by Palin, intellectual is a dirty word, our envy-of-the-world universities are just bastions of leftist political correctness, and socialism isn’t an economic theory to study but a four-letter-word to scare children and the ignorant. It makes me nostalgic for the first generation of neocons; at least Irving Kristol knew the difference between Trotskyism and Stalinism.
I had this same discussion with the folks at Althouse after they all screamed at her for daring to say that Obama is not actually a socialist, and none of them could explain how any part of Obama’s platform fits the definition of socialism.
Wait, whoa…what? Althouse said what?
Wow. Everything’s upside-down now. Dogs and cats living together! Althouse making sense!
AAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!
OW really needs to get a better class of Republican commenter on this blog.
If there is such a thing, then I cordially invite your friends and relatives to join this conversation, PG. If they are half as reasonable as you are, I’m sure they’d be more than welcome.
“Trickle Down” economics is based on the idea that if the rich get more than they already are some of that will trickle down to the less wealthy.
Exactly. It’s still supposed to be “redistribution of wealth”, just on a voluntary basis by the haves and the want-mores to the have-not-so-much.
Kind of like big banks policing themselves.
Wow. Everything’s upside-down now. Dogs and cats living together! Althouse making sense!
Before you get too excited, let me add that Althouse updated the post to ask her readers’ pity because she was stuck in a liberal town that had led her to the heresy of saying that not everyone on the left advocates socialism.
Apparently Republicans now believe that not only homosexuality, but also liberalism, is catching.
Lips and legs,
hate-filled speeches breeding riots,
they’re not winning.
The problem is the media is 99% left-owned, therefore they use this as their war-machine to “pump out the goods.”
Obama already stated he disliked the conservative 1% of the media when he addressed FOX News.
“Have you not seen a million references to Bushitler”?
Were those references on signs posted in Obama (2008), Kerry (2004) or Gore (2000) campaign offices (I answer my own question: no)? Swing and a miss, but you’re free to try again.