You don’t have to raise taxes across the board. YOu just have to raise taxes enough to pay for your promises. If we’re talking more than $100 billion/yr, then you have to tax the middle class. Actually, if you’re talking ANY new spending, you need to tax the middle class, since in only a few years the deficit will start going up due to the entitlement explosion.
One could also get the money from cutting entitlements, of course.
How about, “What is the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?” The DNC chair seems to have a hard time explaining it (some critics say it’s because the Democrats are actually lite Republicans anymore, only Sanders really stands up for Democratic ideals). How would Hillary field it? Dunno, I’ll make some popcorn.
A perfectly framed Republican question, as only a Republican could ask it. It fully exploits the stigma of pathological fear and loathing that the word “socialism” has acquired in America. By obfuscating the enormous gap between the stigma and the reality, it legitimizes asking in polite company what is essentially a question of the form, “Could you please explain to us, sir, the difference, if any, between yourself and an unconscionable asshole who molests small children?” Well done, Republicans. It really adds to informed national discourse. The kind of political climate where you get Sarah Palin running for VP, and Donald Trump running for the actual presidency, and the public loves 'em. Well done, Republicans.
A Democratic Socialist believes in the economic programs of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, & Martin Luther King, or substantially similar. A “Democrat” of the Democratic Party might believe in these things, but a lot of them are just insurance salesmen.
It sounds like the set-up to a punch-line to me:
“One wants to hand the means of production over to the proletariat. The other is named Bernie Sanders.” /rimshot
FDR and LBJ would rise from the dead to object to being called socialists.
A perfectly framed Republican question, as only a Republican could ask it. It fully exploits the stigma of pathological fear and loathing that the word “socialism” has acquired in America. By obfuscating the enormous gap between the stigma and the reality, it legitimizes asking in polite company what is essentially a question of the form, “Could you please explain to us, sir, the difference, if any, between yourself and an unconscionable asshole who molests small children?”
[/QUOTE]
Wha-a-a-a-at?
If you’re asked to explain the difference between yourself and an unconscionable asshole who molests small children, you reply that you don’t molest children and you’re neither an asshole nor unconscionable; it’s not a ‘gotcha’ question, it’s a ‘gimme’ question. Ask me how I differ from a serial murderer, I’ll cheerfully explain that I’ve murdered nobody, since I’m such a darned nice guy. Ask me how I differ from Meryl Streep, I’ll quickly and easily note that I’m not female and have won no Oscars. Keep pitching me softballs, I’ll keep hitting them out of the park.
In a perfect, fair, and logical world where the questioner is genuinely seeking information, of course. Is that what you think Republicans are doing here – genuinely seeking clarification of Democratic policies? In the real world of politics the “Democrats and socialism” question is the same rhetorical technique classically typified by “have you stopped beating your wife?” – an intentional loaded question based on a false presumption that cannot be answered directly without acknowledging the false implication of guilt, yet at the same time may not be easily dismissed without raising accusations of “dodging the question”.
This is classic dirty politics, based on the fearsome caricatures that the word “socialism” has acquired in the American zeitgeist. It attempts to smear the candidate with innuendo, put him or her on the defensive against a baseless implied accusation, and tries to leave the lasting impression-- like a lingering stench – that the candidate is trying to deny something that may well be true.
The OP is specifically asking for “gotcha” questions. Your objection seems to be that it’s a gotcha question. 
Was that addressed to me? Yes, the socialism thing is totally a “gotcha” question, that’s my point. My objection is with Pepper who seems to think it’s a softball “gimme” question. It’s not. It’s right down there in the slime with the Swift Boaters and the birthers.
Yes, well, as I already said, you likened it to asking “Could you please explain to us, sir, the difference, if any, between yourself and an unconscionable asshole who molests small children?” And, as I already said, that’s a softball question par excellence; you reply that you aren’t any of those things, and you elaborate by going on and on about just how wonderful you are at being the opposite of all that.
You say it’s a have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife question? I disagree, because there’s no heads-I-win-tails-you-lose trick to it; ask me hey, what’s the difference between you and a guy who beats his wife?, and I’ll reply, well, the difference is that I’ve never beaten my wife, and find the very idea of domestic violence unconscionable – and, as a tireless advocate for the law in the service of justice and the rights of victims, I make no secret of my staunch opposition to spousal abuse.
And I think to myself, wow, thanks for the softball question; what a gimme!
To me that’s a terribly naive view of the real world, especially the world of dirty politics as practiced today.
Here’s how political mud-slinging and innuendo actually works. You ask politician “A” whether he’s stopped beating his wife, perhaps on the basis of some kernel of fact that he was mean to her once. You get other agenda-driven low-grade journalists to ask the same question. “A” continues to deny in the fashion that you suggest. But the media of course peddle all this in the most sensationalist way possible, and the most sensationalist way is not a way that is going to do any favors either for “A” or for the interests of truth.
Do you really doubt that the result is likely to be a national dialog about whether or not “A” really is or is not a wife-beater – with various idiotic pundits taking sides in TV debates and late-night radio – no matter what he denies or how vehemently he denies it? And when that happens, the objective has been achieved. Think “Swift Boaters”. Think “birthers”. Think “Benghazi”!
But what makes Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife a ‘gotcha’ question is that both answers are bad. What you’re saying is, there’s a question you can ask, which can be answered in a bad way or a good way – and would-be mudslingers will keep asking it even if you give the good answer. But that’s, like, any question.
“Senator, what’s the difference between you and a pacifist?”
“Well, if our country is attacked, I’d rain fiery death on our enemies.”
“Oh.”
“Attack our allies, same result.”
“Got it.”
“Our national interest is at stake? I’ll turn a city to rubble, a desert to glass.”
“But how do you square that with your opposition to capital punishment?”
“I don’t oppose capital punishment.”
“Excuse me?”
“Send me a bill to bring back firing squads, I’ll sign it.”
“Understood.”
“Heck, hand me a rifle and I’d serve on a firing squad myself.”
“Really?”
“Some folks need killing.”
“Huh. [pause] So, what’s the difference between you and a pacifist?”
You can always go back to the asked-and-answered well – but to the extent that you can do that with any question, no matter how crisp and brisk and cheerful and efficient the reply, then isn’t every ‘gimme’ question already also a ‘gotcha’ question?
I figured a ‘gotcha’ question is one where any answer you struggle with is awful, while a ‘gimme’ question – sure, you could fumble it with a bad answer, but you can instead say, well, shucks; I didn’t wanna brag, but if you’re asking then I guess I gotta be honest: you want to know what the difference is between me and X, so I’ll now regale you with the story of how I’m all about A and B and C and D…
The child molester question was a poorly constructed attempt to show an example of guilt by association. As phrased, you are correct, it’s a softball question. The intent of the question was more like the “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”, where you have to establish “Hold on, I never have beat my wife. You are mistaken or deliberately slandering me.” Or something like that. But you can’t answer with a simple “Yes” or “No”.
Same thing with the difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist. You have to point out how the word socialist is being used in a couple different ways, one referring to the ownership of production, the other associated with social networks and regulations and oversight to protect the poor.
But Republicans aren’t really looking for that distinction, they just want to tar the Democrats with the label of “Socialist”. Take Obamacare as a key example. The proposed underlying intent is a safety net of health care for everyone. It’s not socialist in the way that the USSR was socialist nor in the way that the NAZIs were socialist. But that distinction is glossed over by most conservatives.
Though I would think a smart politician and party member could come up with some decent explanation something along the above lines to drone out.