I love the Marx question and his shocked, SHOCKED!!! reaction. How do you present a completely socialist idea and then pull shocked when you're called on it? These two Dem. candidates would be a raging joke if they weren't so damn dangerous.

It's hard to tell who is the emptier suit, the bottom or the top of the ticket. Then again, the ability to unabashedly spout lies in a torrent must be some sort of skill. Ah yes, lawyers.

I'm sorry, but those were dumb questions. And Biden actually handled it very well. Fought back a little, but basically kept his humor. Biden's a blowhard, no doubt, but I don't see what everyone else seems to see here.

I'm appalled by Obama's desire to raise taxes, and I think it could send us into a deep recession, but it's no more Marxist than Sarah Palin levying a windfall tax on oil companies to go to Alaskan citizens, or McCain's desire to buy up mortgages. All awful -- none of it Marxist.

As for the notion that this is how the media has by and large treated McCain/Palin, I don't buy it. What made the Katie Couric interview remarkable wasn't that Palin stumbled over gotcha questions, but that she stumbled over tee-ball question, like "what Supreme Court decisions have you disagreed with?"

The same 'journalist' interviewed McCain the week before. Complete softball. No criticism, except that he hadn't been agressive enough with Obama. This post is a nonsense.
Eisenhower had a massively higher upper tax threshold, btw.
Every idea that is a little lefter of the status quo is immediately labelled communism/socialism/marxism by the reps. So has it been I suppose since the days of FDR.

I'm sure that it's possible, even likely, that one may obtain advanced degrees and slide into a comfortable self-image as an intellectual in America, and never know the basic tenants of Marxism. They were advanced in The Communist Manifesto, and mainly attributed to one Karl Marx. Central to all is his statement of aims, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Is Social Security socialist? Certainly, but one party has tried to reform it through privitization, so that it isn't destroyed on the rocks of economic reality, and one party uses reform to scare old people. It is not that conservatives are angels, and democrats are devils. It is that we seek the side of the angels, and they seek to be in league with the devil.

Joe, it's not the questions, it's the tone. She wanted to get him, just like most other media wants to get McCain/Palin. It's no secret, and not news, that media members are almost entirely liberal, that's why it's such a surprise when one isn't.

There is something up with the link as all I could hear was the echo laden sound of metal on wood - very much like a barrel being scraped.
Otherwise I would agree with Joe's first sentence.

"I'm sure that it's possible, even likely, that one may obtain advanced degrees and slide into a comfortable self-image as an intellectual in America, and never know the basic tenants of Marxism. They were advanced in The Communist Manifesto, and mainly attributed to one Karl Marx. Central to all is his statement of aims, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.""

Except that the phrase was coined, or at least first used by Louis Blanc about a century earlier and doesn't appear in the Communist Manifesto - although Marx does quote it in the "Critique of the Gotha Programme"
Fair do's though, it's usually Marxists who get that one wrong.
I prefer Groucho and Harpo myself.
Yours,

Urbane McVonBek

Casca, if the reps aren't angels, don't trust them with Social security. The recent freefall in the free markets lead me to the notion that the free markets would cock it up as well. Giving it to a corporation which needs to make money for doing it just doesn't seem quite right. Let's face it, one's medical insurance workers' jobs are there not so you get treatment, but more so they can profit from finding some get-out clause not to treat you, no?

Good gawd, such tedious quibblers. Clearly the "of and to" statement is the accepted encapsulation of Marxism, and there is no more failed government program of confiscation and fraud than the ponzi scheme of Social Security.

Eisenhower had a massively higher upper tax threshold, btw.

Bryan, the difference is that Obama and Biden, and Kerry had he won in 2004, would try for even higher than Eisenhower's rate -- once elected. If the Dems do get 60+ seats in the Senate, then anything goes.

"Rolling back the Bush tax cuts" is just a start. It's not extreme enough to doom their chances. But if they called for FDR's top rate of 70%, maybe enough people would realize, "Wait a minute, I need these rich people to invest in my business, to loan me money!"

Perry, I think Ike's was even higher, and yet business prospered. The Clinton Years, the Nixon years there was money to be made. I'm sure you're gonna know the company whose motto is 'Good business is where you find it', but obviously I'd stop short of some of the things they did.
Perry, to be fair, I'm just pointing out that these things have been said before, and have not been true; this journo is a right-wing hack, and it's the nonsense surrounding people's claims that annoys me. Maybe Obama will suck, maybe McCain will suck, but call them on real things, not just button words for the rubes.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist here, but we're all pretty much whistling past the graveyard as far as debating any economic choices.

I wouldn't quite say it's an iron triangle, but the following conditions are pretty firm:

1.) Social Security was based on the premise that future generations would be the same size as the ones before them. Given that the birth rate is just barely above replacement for the United States and legal immigration is not running at a rate that redresses the difference between plan and reality, Soc. Security is pretty much doomed as it is right now.

2.) I won't even get into Medicaid. Let's just say Soc. Security was the iceberg that opened up the starboard side--Medicaid is the narrow spread of Long Lances that's about to break the keel, open the port side like a can opener, and make the Carl Gustav seem like a minor fender bender.

3.) So, given #1, #2, and the fact that we're going so far into debt that the only reason people still lend us money is so our economy won't implode and theirs with it, I'd say that taxes are going to have to be raised sometime in the next 3 election cycles _regardless_ of whose in charge.

4.) The only question is, how much? Oh, and what else is going to happen that makes people upset at the government?

Yeah, ponder through some of the scenarios for #4 and you'll basically see why I'm laughing maniacally at both sides of the political spectrum right now. We're more screwed than a hot high school chick who just passed out at a college frat party, and neither party has a clue on how to fix it.

An Open Letter to Paul Krugman

Dear Paul:

Forgive my rudeness in calling you by your first name. I have been reading your writings in New York Times, Slate and other fine publications for years. I even read your book "The Conscience of a Liberal." I have gotten to know you so well that, I feel, we could be on a first name basis. Besides, if we are to create a class-less, hierarchy-free society, calling you Professor Krugman would instantly create a deplorable hierarchy — perhaps falsely indicating that you might know more about economics than I do. We simply cannot encourage such elitist hubris.

Now that we have established that in our class-less Utopian society everybody's opinion is equally valid, I am compelled to offer you mine about what you should do about that Nobel Prize thingie. Hopefully, you will take my advise a bit more seriously than that damnable Bush-Cheney administration has taken yours.

Paul, as a matter of principle, you should reject that Nobel Prize.

That's right. You should just flat-out tell those Swedes that you don't want that prize. It just wouldn't be the right thing to do, considering your progressive ideals.

First of all, it's just not fair that only you should get this prize this year when there are hundreds of thousands of other economists in this world. Honoring only one person in this way is a totally non-egalitarian thing to do. Either we should honor them all or none at all. We are fighting for equality and justice in this society; not giving Nobel Prize to everyone creates Haves and Have-nots, and we just can't tolerate that.

Second of all, a white man like you getting the prize — again! — is racist and sexist to the max. I just checked out the list of laureates in economics since 1969 and almost all of them are white men!! (There were two names — Amartya Sen and Arthur Lewis — who appeared to be non-white, but that just proves tokenism, you know! It has never been awarded to a woman.) Why do we see heterosexual, white men chosen so often? Why don't we ever see any black lesbians getting this prize? Paul, I want you to make a statement against this institutional racism and sexism; and reject this symbol of discrimination and marginalization.

Third of all, the amount of money — $1.4 million — that Riksbank is offering is obscene. Who deserves that kind of money anyway, when coal miners in third world countries — many of them barely 14 years old — don't make even $30 per month — and they are the ones risking their lives every day! As you have pointed out in your writings, the gap between the rich and the poor is rapidly widening. You getting that $1.4 million will only make the situation worse. I know you are a man of principles. If you wanted to make millions you could have easily chosen a crass and tasteless career, something like a Wall Street CDO structurer. I mean, you certainly had the brains. And the right pigmentation. And the right pair of chromosomes. But, no. You instead chose the noble profession of teaching. You have worked long and hard to build your moral authority; don't destroy it in a nano-second by succumbing to the temptation of money. Love of money is the root of all evil. If you accept this monstrously large sum of money, you will forever lose all moral authority to talk about the unfairness and inequality in the society. If you lose that moral authority, who will rail against all the greed and injustice in this increasingly oligarchic society? Who will stand up to corporate plutocrats? Those damnable conservatives tried to drag your name through mud when the news came out that your worked as a consultant for an advisory board for Enron. I am pretty sure that you handled the conflicts of interest in the Enron affair adequately, but why hand your critics further fuel now to blow-torch your reputation? Should your reputation get tarnished, who, pray tell, will be our champion? Who will battle evil media-types like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh?

Fourth of all, the selection process employed by Riksbank was neither transparent nor democratic. I mean, I never got to vote on that decision! What right does Riksbank have to hand out this prize without getting the people involved? It might be Riksbank's money, but we the people should have the final say in how it gets doled out. But no. Riksbank doesn't want to do the morally correct thing. They want to exclude everybody but their pals from the decision-making process. This is just like Dick Cheney and his buddies cutting back-room deals to divvy-up Iraq spoils. It smells of favoritism; it smells of cronyism; it just stinks. Paul, would you ever go hunting with Cheney and his buddies? If the answer is no, then please don't accept the prize that was bestowed by this elitist and exclusionary committee.

Fifth of all, the prize sends a wrong message to the society. We agree that you worked hard all your life. You went to MIT, you got your Ph.D. You didn't drop acid like some bozos in the 70s. (At least, a quick googling on your name didn't turn up any such dirt.) You were studying your ass off while others were partying like crazy. Now you got the Nobel Prize and they don't. That's just not fair. Do you know what message it sends? That if you work hard in life, you can achieve things that others can't! That's a nasty and brutish message to send. Conservatives say things like that, not liberals like you! Radicals of the right believe in this "every man to himself" bullshit (and they don't even apologize for the non-PC nature of the phrase), not enlightened progressives like you!! Defenders of inequality believe in this myth about individualistic bootstrapping, not a seasoned class warrior like you!!!

Sixth of all, the prize perpetuates the shameful legacy of colonization and imperialism. Almost all of the laureates have been from the first-world countries. Don't you know that the vast majority of humanity lives in third-world countries. To systematically exclude people from poor countries from participating in the intellectual dialogue means further polarization. If people from third-world countries don't win such prizes often enough, what kind of role models will kids there have growing up? Won't they fall prey to false prophets? No wonder religious radicalization is rampant in countries from Somalia to Afghanistan. Paul, by the mere act of accepting this prize you will be promoting global terrorism. And many of these terrorists also subjugate women. So you will be participating in women's subjugation too.

Seventh of all, you accepting this prize will lead to global warming. You and your loved ones will be traveling to Stockholm in an airplane that will be consuming hydrocarbons — yes the same hydrocarbons that pollute the environment and prop up the dictatorial regimes. Now, you could ask Al Gore about how many carbon offsets that you will need to buy for your flight to Stockholm — and he should know for sure — but that still won't make it morally acceptable in the current economic environment. Just when millions of people worldwide are losing their jobs due to the worsening credit crunch, Nobel prize-winners feasting on a sumptuous dinner makes for a sad spectacle. Why don't we just take the money that will be spent on your travel and spend it on installing solar panels in Sub-Saharan Africa instead? That will allow the disadvantaged African children to power up their One-Laptop-Per-Child laptops and that should go a long way towards bridging the digital divide. Isn't that what we liberals should want, after all?

To summarize, by accepting this Nobel Prize you will promote racism, sexism and inequality; suppress democracy; encourage terrorism; subjugate women; and cause global warming. Paul, I want you to stand up for your liberal values and reject this prize. If you do that, you will be a bigger hero for your liberal fans who read your newspaper columns so lovingly. With one act of sacrifice, you will enhance the moral authority of the liberal philosophy that puts people first and money last. Liberals will rejoice and celebrate. Given your passion for reducing inequality, you will be a shoo-in for the newly created post of the Wealth Redistribution Czar under the Obama administration.

Paul, after all my exhortations against doing so, it's still your decision to make. If you decide to go ahead and accept the prize, I will understand. I mean, $1.4 million is a lot of dough to walk away from. Besides, aren't moral principles all relative to begin with? And since when has hypocrisy become such a big crime?

If you accept the prize, you will be richer by several hundred thousand dollars even after paying taxes at the top marginal rate. I know you have often said that the rich don't pay enough in taxes. Paul, this will be your shining moment to do things differently. Unlike other rich people, I am sure, you will write an extra check to the US Treasury because you believe, in the heart of your hearts, that the marginal tax rate on the rich should be higher. You will show your critics that you are a man of principles who puts his money where is mouth is — even though you came up somewhat short of your ideals in accepting the prize in the first place. A couple of hundred thousand dollars that you would voluntarily contribute to the US Treasury, in addition to your obligatory taxes, would go a long way towards paying for the universal health-care program. We are the only rich country in the world that doesn't have that health-care safety net. While we are on the topic of single payer universal health-care system, let me tell you how eagerly I am awaiting the arrival of such a system. It wouldn't come a day sooner for me. Recently, my immoral and greedy insurance company refused to pay for my bariatric surgery — they want me to exercise instead. Imagine their gall in holding me responsible for my own health! I don't like to exercise and, frankly, I shouldn't have to. I would rather watch Oprah in my free time — which I have a lot of since I don't like to work much either. Paul, don't you agree that it's my fundamental right to get a free bariatric surgery? And all those rich people should be taxed more to pay for it. Furthermore, the cost of my bariatric surgery is such an infinitesimally small fraction of the funds that go to the military-industrial complex. Rather than wasting money on propping up dictators and tyrants around the world, it's time we started investing in America and my bariatric surgery is a fine place to start as any other.

Now we come to the topic that is near and dear to your heart. You have talked passionately about a need to promote a broadly shared prosperity. You will be happy to know that there are others who agree with you whole-heartedly and would love to share in your new-found prosperity. Even after paying for all the taxes and whatnot, you will still be left with a lot of money. Please take a look around — there are others in the society who will have much less. They certainly deserve your help. The case in point - your's truly. I bought a house in New Jersey — not that far from yours — at the height of the housing bubble. My real estate agent told me that housing prices always go up and I believed him. Then the evil bank people lent me the money when they knew I will never be able to make the mortgage payments once the teaser rate expires. That's what I call predatory lending and the regulators did nothing to protect me from these greedy and evil bankers. I am truly a victim of this lending fraud. Unlike Senator Chris Dodd I was never invited to be part of "Friends of Angelo" VIP clientele program and therefore never got a sweetheart deal on my mortgage. Paul, I am asking you — no I am begging you — to help out your fellow being who is down on his luck. I will drive my hybrid car to your house to collect the cash. Even a little bit would help. I am upside down on my home for $100,000. If you could just take care of that little deficit, I can start building equity in my home. After all, I too deserve to live the American Dream.

Love and peace!

Sincerely,

Joe "The New Jersey Plumber"
joe-the-plumber [at] gmx.com

"Good gawd, such tedious quibblers."
That's as maybe, but as my dear departed Grandfather never once said "if you are going to toss around the quotes of long dead philosophers, at least attribute them properly"

Interesting that you should bring up Ponzi schemes however. Recent events events in the market have thrown up some large scale modern parallels.

Tedious quibbling just about sums it up however. James is on the right track with his last sentence.
All this "private good/public bad or public good private bad" mantras are just dumb.

It's not the words of long dead philosophers (be it Smith or Marx) that are going clean up the mess but rather some 21st century imaginative thinking.

James, you forgot the two wars which are also haemorraging money from the US economy. Settle one or both of them, and you can save a few bucks.

Bryan:

Settle? Or drop like a hot potato and run? Because what is settle, it's win or lose, there is no settle option. But if you think there is, tell me, what constitutes settling?

the media is in the tank for obama?...no way...I hadn't noticed

Of course you can settle a war, and it is a ridiculous notion that you can't. Peace treaties have been signed by people unable to 'win'(or lose)a war.

Ari,

I agree with you in theory. However, it seems as if "in practice" that everyone in Washington has lost stomach for one or both wars, to include the current President. Which means, alas, we're going to "settle" whether we the people like it or not.
Now, all that settlement is going to buy us is more pain, heartache, and destruction--but hey, pay no attention to the radical Islamists behind the curtain.

No, bryan, peace treaties are signed after one of the parties (or alliances) had won. And then they are in the position to offer conditions of peace to the side that lost.

bryan, it's useless to settle a war when one side will never stop fighting. And you forget, or ignore, that Arab culture for centuries has used "peace" and "truces" to reorganize for future fighting.

Perry, I think Ike's was even higher, and yet business prospered.

In fact, if you look at the hard data, it was very inconsistent. One year even saw recession.

Any "prosperity" was because the U.S. economy was exporting a lot of profitable manufactured goods to recovering postwar Europe, but it really wasn't a Golden Age like so many remember.

The Clinton Years,

Prosperity in part from NAFTA, for which I give Clinton credit, but most of it was not Clinton's doing. The technological expansion came spontaneously, not as a result of government planning. (If you're familiar with Friedrich Hayek, you know where I'm coming from.)

the Nixon years there was money to be made.

Actually, only if you were involved in military production (just like in the LBJ years), and otherwise, only if the government let you. Wage-price controls, you know.

Maybe Obama will suck, maybe McCain will suck, but call them on real things, not just button words for the rubes.

Oh, I do much more than spout GOP lines, as correct as they might be. I'm a libertarian, remember. I've criticized McCain for his own socialism, namely proposing another $300 billion to bail out irresponsible borrowers at my expense. His lines about freezing government spending and not raising taxes sound nice, but his own plans are contradictory as a whole. And whoever wins, he'll have to sign probably the largest tax increase in American history. Not within a few years, but next year. I can't see how the Treasury will be able to borrow enough. And then what will happen in 2017 when Social Security needs to start redeeming the bonds in pilfered "lockbox"?

But as bad as McCain could be, Obama will be far, far worse. Hoover hiked taxes to sustain tax revenues for the sake of "make work" social programs. FDR followed suit. Obama will do the same, just when the economy cannot afford it, and he's not even doing it for the sake of "revenue." He's doing it based on this warped idea of economic "equality."

Don't disagree with you Perry, and I didn't mean even to suggest you are a party-line-spouter-dude. Quite plainly you are not. As far as technology during the Clinton years, he was lucky. The internet did him no harm at all. A bit of luck may help the next in line. I think the production of energy will be the next big bang, and it is in Silicon Valley (again) where this technology will come from. It may even turn the USA's fiscal frown upside-down, as it were.

Bryan,

I don't think counting on an economic breakthrough to counterbalance a tax increase is necessarily a good idea. Moreover, with the economy in the crapper, Mr. "Spread the Wealth Around" is going to face a very, very negative response should he raise taxes.

While I think a tax increase _is_ going to be nominally (oh the cuts that we could make if sanity reigned) necessary, if Obama doesn't want to face a Congress that will make 1994's seem downright congenial he'd better build some political capital first.

One underestimates the zeal of the righteous. Much like the Clintons, their spin cycle is peerless, but when it comes to actual productive thought and action... I mean c'mon, they're trotting out Laura Tyson again, lmao. Yes, the midterm elections will be fun.

Anyone see this quote from an Iraqi government spokesmen, makes me think the US has a chance with that country yet. I was 100% certain Iraq's gov't would vehemently condemn the incident:

An Iraqi government spokesman told CNN the Iraqi government was aware of the reports of the U.S. raid and was checking "with the American side to get the full details of the operation."

The spokesman, Ali Dabbagh, added, "We don't want for these isolated acts to affect our relations with Syria. We want good relations, but we must remember that 13 Iraqi policemen from the Ministry of Interior were killed in an Iraqi bordering village near that region by a terrorist group that was operating from the Syrian territories.

"We asked the Syrian government to hand us this group and we definitely need to work closely on controlling the borders, because this is a very important issue to Iraq and Syria. We are ready to negotiate these issues with the Syrian government to guarantee everyone full security."

Oh, Casca, the "righteous" will be zealous. They'll also be outnumbered by the number of people going "WHAT THE F*CK JUST HAPPENED TO MY PAYCHECK?!" Add in the fact that they're talking about wages stagnating for the next 26-52 weeks and, yeah, I want to see whomever the poor schmuck is who won try and raise taxes. That'll lead to the following:

"Excuse me, but who are you?"

"I am Saburo."

"Okay, Sab...whatever, what are you doing in the Lincoln bedroom with a rice mat, tanto knife, samurai sword, quill pen, and parchment?"

"I was told that someone was about to commit ritual political seppuku and needed a second. I assure you, my forehand stroke is strong--you will not feel anything."

This is part of the reason I'm chuckling at all the talking heads who think that electing Obama means the death of the GOP. Um, no.