McCain was more naturally funny, and more at ease with humor.

Obama oscillated between jokes and thinly veiled anger. He clearly is not comfortable enough in his own skin to exhibit a sense of humor.

Hmm. Three videos, but it looks like the same McCain segment got posted twice. Is there a middle portion that is not a duplicate, or should I delete #2 of 3, there?

There are three -- 2 McCain (just because his segment got broken up into two pieces) and one Obama. I think it's right now.

Had this McCain shown up at the debates, he might have won people over instead of losing them.

I'm flabbergasted by this.

Why does the kid from Mad Magazine get a memorial dinner? Was he sick?

Ahhh, the lighter side of political discourse.

If there is anything that speaks to the total bankrupcy of Rovian politics, it is this tape of John McCain.

How horrendously misguided is what passes for strategy in the eyes of Steve Schmitt? He absolutely killed this candidate by caging him. Looking at this makes me feel very sorry for McCain and certainly points to the veracity of McCain's brother's criticism of the campaign.

Schmitt absolutely killed this guy.

The Smith dinner McCain would have been buried in the GOP primary.

#7 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 5:29 pm on Oct 17, 2008
The Smith dinner McCain would have been buried in the GOP primary.

You are right AJL and this only backs up what I have been saying about Rovian politics. All-in-all, it will be remembered as the very pathetic and destructive politics of a particularly smug, political jock sniffing bully.

Today was the best speech i've ever seen McCain give (or read the transcript of anyway).

This race would be a tossup if he focused and hammered like this all the way through. Here is the long and the short of the argument:

"The question Joe asked about our economy is important, because Senator Obama's plan would raise taxes on small businesses that employ 16 million Americans. Senator Obama's plan will kill those jobs at just the time when we need to be creating more jobs. My plan will create jobs, and that's what America needs."

Senator Obama says that he wanted to spread your wealth around. When politicians talk about taking your money and spreading it around, you'd better hold onto your wallet. Senator Obama claims that wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes.

That's not a tax cut, that's welfare. America didn't become the greatest nation on earth by redistributing wealth; we became the greatest nation by creating new wealth."

Thats it. Thats all that should be coming out of McCain's mouth for the next month. Thats the winning argument, because its a true argument.

In my opinion, the only reason the Republican party has been able to compete nationally in the past two decades is because they are running against redistribution of wealth. Obama is openly advocating it (with disingenuous terminology). McCain is finally hammering at that little detail. A 'tax break' for those that don't pay income tax is welfare. KEEP SAYING THAT MCCAIN.

McCain needs to dig up some doctors to put next to the plumber. Maybe Obama can explain to the guy saving lives that just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their education and years of their life learning the trade that the government needs to spread their wealth around when they finally start earning some of that investment back.

Mark B.,

The only problem with that is that McCain also wants to tax people. In fact, the only basic difference between Obama and McCain on this issue is that Obama wants to tax about 5% of the country about 4% more than McCain does. All Obama needs to do is point out that the $ has to come from somewhere (earmarks take up about a week's worth of Iraq war spending) and if we don't raise it by taxing then we have to borrow it.

I don't understand the rationale that extending the Bush tax cuts will increase jobs. We've had the Bush tax cuts in effect for 6 years now and we are losing jobs quickly. That seems sufficient evidence that the theory is flawed.

"I don't understand the rationale that extending the Bush tax cuts will increase jobs. We've had the Bush tax cuts in effect for 6 years now and we are losing jobs quickly. That seems sufficient evidence that the theory is flawed."

We are? 6.1% unemployment are we've got a jobs crisis? And thats with the current credit and housing crisis. It was 6.1% in September as well... I think the hemoraghing jobs theory is whats flawed. Heck, it was over 6% in 1994 when the Republicans took over Congress.

The last time the tax rates were as high as Obama wants them inflation and interest rates were in the double digits and unemployment was up around 9%.

Bush may have done things wrong, that doesnt mean everything he did was wrong. The idea that you can raise taxes on the wealthy and they wont change their economic activity and hence affect jobs is just silly.

"In fact, the only basic difference between Obama and McCain on this issue is that Obama wants to tax about 5% of the country about 4% more than McCain does"

Thats just not the case. Tax policy that directly affects families in the $250K dollar range (doctors, lawyers, small business people, succesful tradesmen): Capital gains go up to 20%, personal and itemized exemptions get phased out, tax brackets of 36 and 39% return, require small business to provide healthcare, AND payroll tax?

Anyone making in the neighborhood of 250K$ is going to take a massive hit- and there are a lot of employers in that group that cant afford it.

Just take a look at the social security increase: thats a 12.4% increase on FICA alone! IF you make 250K, you will start paying 12.4% more on everything above 200K$- thats $6000 (50K*12.4%)immediately out of your pocket. Bang, just payroll tax. Every dollar you earn from then on is going to be taxes at 12.4% payroll, + 36%-39% federal, medicare, plus state, plus local, capital gains, property tax, alternative minimum, etc.

Thats a huge amount. Worse- every dollar you seek to earn gets hit with that rate. Which MUST affect whether you, say, start a new business or expand your own. Every percent the government grabs makes it that much less profitable and hence attractive.

And a quick something else to chew on:

Only 3% of Americans make 250$ or more right?

Thats 9 MILLION people. You kinda think 9 million people out thousands and thousands of dollars could affect how they spend a bit?

Just take the FICA tax, even IF all those people made only 250$K AND that was the only new tax they faced (both patently absurdly underestimating the actual affect), thats an instant $6000 out of 9 MILLION people's pockets. Think if you made 250K wouldnt mean anything to you? IF you made 25K would $600 affect your lifestyle? You bet.

If 9 million americans, just, say, cancelled a $6000 vacation, what do you think would happen? Would some hospitality people be out of work? Some airlines suffer?

And mind you thats a tiny fraction of teh actual economic impact.

Mark B.,

in no particular order:

Thats a huge amount perhaps so. My point is that it is only marginally larger than what it would be under McCain's plan. Also, it is a huge amount on every dollar earned after your first $250,000. So someone after taxes making, say $500,000, under McCain, would only make $460,000 under Obama. Not a strong political sell to most of us. According to your theory, we simply shouldn't tax anyone at all since the government shouldn't come in and take anyone's hard earned money to use it for the common good.

We are? 6.1% unemployment are we've got a jobs crisis I never said that. I said we are losing jobs despite the Bush tax cuts. We are losing jobs. Unemployment is rising. My point is that these tax cuts do not create jobs. The amount of tax we are talking about, a few percent on income over $250,000 doesn't have any demonstrated affect on the creation or loss of jobs.

Anyone making in the neighborhood of 250K$ is going to take a massive hit- and there are a lot of employers in that group that cant afford it I think you, like McCain, are confusing personal income (what an owner might give himself as a salary) and business revenues. If a business makes $250,000K that doesn't mean it will get taxed in the same way as an individual who gets paid $250,000K. I think you are misreading Obama's economic plan.

Mark, FYI: you're going to have the last word on this as I will be out of computer touch for the next 2 weeks. See you around election time.

mark

hey take care mark!

But- i will take the last word. Obama's plan is significantly different than McCains for all the reasons i showed. JUST the social security hit alone blows the difference out of the water.

Im not confusing personal and corparate incomes- a lot of people in that tax range employ people directly. Help around the house, nannies, mechanics, and/or are self-employed. Afer all is said and done, we know a 250K household is going to lose around 10,000$ including all the different taxes being levied (6000 social security plus 2% increase in federal is about that after deductions). Thats could easily be the difference between hiring an assistant in a dental office or not. Or hiring a gardner. And again, thats bare minimum.

Mark

According to Wikipedia (and it's taken from USG sources), just under 1.7 million households had total household income of over $250,000. That is 1.5 percent of total households. Mark Buehner's numbers would appear to be substantially too high.

. It was good to see both candidates show smiles tonight. I guess the mainstream media illuminati couldn’t paint the non-liberal candidate as angry at the dinner. It just goes to show that the elitist aren’t the only ones who can get along with other party members.

Where's THIS John McCain been? This John McCain would have trounced Obama in all three faux debates.

" just under 1.7 million households had total household income of over $250,000. That is 1.5 percent of total households. Mark Buehner's numbers would appear to be substantially too high"

Wikipedia, amazingly, appears to be innacurate... even according to its own cite. According to The Census its 2,240,000 households. And of course Obama's plan actually hits individuals starting at $200,000 (there are 1.8 million additional households in that range), so its going to be more than 2.24 million households.

I got the 3% from media sources, who were apparently quoting the Obama campaign:
"In the vein of taxing the rich more, Obama also supports making some higher wage-earners pay Social Security taxes on more of their income. He has called for higher payroll taxes on wage-earners making more than $250,000 annually, a step that would affect the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans. " link

"COLUMBUS, Ohio — Democrat Barack Obama said today he would apply the Social Security payroll tax to annual incomes above $250,000, which would affect the wealthiest 3% of Americans"
USAToday