To the person who said these policies basically screw later generations: I agree, but the problem is that Democrats think these are “optimal” policies and that any future generation shouldn’t want to change them (government intervention in the economy never goes down, only up). They completely discount the possibility that we might not want to be locked in to spending on entitlements in every possible future scenario, but would instead prefer some policy flexibility.

If we’re going to go for European styled socialism let’s go whole hog.

Hillary and Obama: Doing the job the Soviets just couldn’t do.

Personally, I want to see Ed’s face the first time he spends a tough, grueling hour writing a long, in-depth analysis of Pakistan’s leader and the changed headline here reads:

Dude!

Brace yourself, Ed. :)

RW Wacko on February 25, 2008 at 9:03 PM

obviously at 0% revenues stop, and there is most likely diminishing returns on the increase in tax revenues as you get closer to 0%, but effectively, decreasing tax rates from .02% to .01% still increases revenue because the majority of profits go directly back into the economy, rather than sheltered away from taxes. Decreasing tax rates increases tax revenues, plain and simple. It has been proven across 3 presidential tenures (JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43).

If anyone can get our federal budget back in balance…it’s a Clinton.

I doubt Hillary or Obama will manage to double the federal debt like Bush did.

$4,500,000,000,000.00 was tacked on to the debt under Bush…a few hundred billion a year won’t come close.

alphie on February 25, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Democrats now control Congress. This year is projected to possibly be the worst deficit in history. Plus add in the inevitably raided SS surplus and you’ll have Hillary or Obama start year one with about a $700B deficit. Then add in all their extra spending, which looks like it will be more than the promised tax hikes.

Working people can’t even afford to have children. Please don’t bring up that BS KINDERGELD (money for mothers) as its nothing.

Niether also understands that the world economy that would collaps if the US stopped buying other countries products. Part of the reason for the high taxes is to stop thir people from actually buying stuff. The high taxes here would do the same. It would stop the world economy in its tracks. The only thing the Euro’s get cheap is booze. Keep them drunk and they won’t complain to much.

You didn’t expect McCain to make the case for tax cuts in a debate with Obama.

Did you?

$4,500,000,000,000.00 was tacked on to the debt under Bush…a few hundred billion a year won’t come close.

Also, the impact of a hefty tax increase — which is the effect of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire — will be to take capital out of the market, resulting in decreasing revenues, not increasing revenues

That’s very debatable. When taxes are high enough to severely reduce investment then lowering taxes can increase revenues. It’s hard to say if we were at that point when the Bush tax cuts went into effect. At some point, decreasing taxes leads to less revenue. You get to 0% eventually, after all, so it is common sense. There is a “sweet spot” out there where you get the most revenue. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer the lowest spending and lowest taxes possible, but the argument that lower taxes = higher revenue is only correct in certain circumstances, namely when taxes are at a very punitive level.

The gaps are simply too large to be made up by hitting “the rich”, unless one defines “rich” significantly downwards.

I heard McCain say something today along the lines of Many of you will be very surprised to learn that you’re ‘rich’ according to Democrats who want to raise your taxes.

I thought it was the top one or two brackets and revert capital gains back to 28% and dividends back to top income bracket.
Chuck Schick on February 25, 2008 at 8:19 PM

Well, you’ll have to find your own quote for an Obama policy that specific for other than “the working poor” — because, well, he wouldn’t want to ruin all that “hope” by explaining who will be paying the bills. If you go to his campaign website, there’s nothing much more than the same nonsense he peddled in Houston.

And as far as dreams goes, this guy’s a very real potential nightmare.

Happy dreaming. There’s this hint: “we’re going to rollback the Bush tax cuts that went to all the wealthy people…” followed by the cutoff salary mark of those who are not wealthy: $75,000.

You can’t truly believe that those families/individuals making between $75K and $337K will be untouched — they who have historically been the unsheltered scapegoats for tax schemes — not “poor” enough to catch a break, and not “rich” enough to laugh up their sleeves as they protect their assets.

Oh believe me, Obama is no dream of mine.

Im just going on what he’s saying. I thought it was the top one or two brackets and revert capital gains back to 28% and dividends back to top income bracket.

Problem solved. We could pay for everything ;)

But he seems to just say he’s going to give tax breaks to those making less than $75,000, not raise them for those making more than $75,000.

Last I checked he and Hillary were only rolling back the top bracket’s cuts ($337k and above).

Chuck Schick on February 25, 2008 at 7:05 PM

Happy dreaming. There’s this hint: “we’re going to rollback the Bush tax cuts that went to all the wealthy people…” followed by the cutoff salary mark of those who are not wealthy: $75,000.

You can’t truly believe that those families/individuals making between $75K and $337K will be untouched — they who have historically been the unsheltered scapegoats for tax schemes — not “poor” enough to catch a break, and not “rich” enough to laugh up their sleeves as they protect their assets.

That’s what the USA Today wants to know, but, they never really do skewer Obama or Hillary. Not that that is unexpected.
An interesting point: A rollback of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans could generate perhaps $75 billion nex…

The Dems free health care is going to give me an ulcer.

ronsfi on February 25, 2008 at 7:33 PM

Well, lucky for you, you’ll only have to wait 2-3 years to get that ulcer treated! And the free care you’ll get (assuming you survive long enough to receive it) will only cost you $5,000-$10,000 more per year in taxes!

The Americans haven’t shown that they can control immigration even as matters stand; the likelihood of their ever doing so will dwindle if companies, parties, and generals come to have even greater need for workers, voters, and fighters.
Kralizec on February 25, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Wow, nice post.

Welcome Captain Ed!! We hope you enjoy your new home ;)