Oortcloud said:

Rather than blame the solutions, why not blame those that incurred the debt? I'd heartily agree with any solution that didn't involve more taxes to pay off our countries debts ... got any ideas to do that?

Firstly, the Bush administration (and congress of course) does heartily deserve some criticism for increased government spending. But that's not the topic at hand. Bush isn't running for president.

For Obama it's more about some twisted sense of "fairness" than being any sort of financial solution. It's straight up class warfare politics. A campaign of "hope". Just today I heard the new Obama ad poking at how McCain couldn't recall how many homes he o...

Oortcloud said:

Rather than blame the solutions, why not blame those that incurred the debt? I'd heartily agree with any solution that didn't involve more taxes to pay off our countries debts ... got any ideas to do that?

Firstly, the Bush administration (and congress of course) does heartily deserve some criticism for increased government spending. But that's not the topic at hand. Bush isn't running for president.

For Obama it's more about some twisted sense of "fairness" than being any sort of financial solution. It's straight up class warfare politics. A campaign of "hope". Just today I heard the new Obama ad poking at how McCain couldn't recall how many homes he owns. The message: it's unfair you have to live in one house...vote Obama, he'll stick it to the rich!

The solution is really quite simple: cut taxes and government spending. Cutting tax rates actually increases revenue, and as long as the spending doesn't increase with it, we'd actually make up some ground. And yet Obama has even more expansive roles and vast new programs in mind.

Probably the more important solution is to not give in to this wealth envy ideology from any source (McCain does it too at times). This is still the United States isn't it? There's plenty of opportunity to get rich too, and that's a great thing. That should be the goal, not punishing those who succeed.

But haven't we heard about the "cutting taxes increases revenue" explanation for the last 8 years? Doesn't seem to be working. In fact, we also got a stimulus package thrown in to help kick start things as well. It's a little disturbing that with this massive injection of money into our economic system we saw a pitiful GDP growth of 1.9% for the second quarter that should have reflected that stimulus injection. In the face of Okun's law 1.9% suggests an economy facing increasing unemployment.

Now I'll be the first to admit that understanding the finer points of "Okun's rule of thumb" or many economic models is a bit beyond my experience, but I can tell when we are told one thing will happen...

But haven't we heard about the "cutting taxes increases revenue" explanation for the last 8 years? Doesn't seem to be working. In fact, we also got a stimulus package thrown in to help kick start things as well. It's a little disturbing that with this massive injection of money into our economic system we saw a pitiful GDP growth of 1.9% for the second quarter that should have reflected that stimulus injection. In the face of Okun's law 1.9% suggests an economy facing increasing unemployment.

Now I'll be the first to admit that understanding the finer points of "Okun's rule of thumb" or many economic models is a bit beyond my experience, but I can tell when we are told one thing will happen and when it doesn't. The whole "lowering the tax for increased revenue" seems like it would be more effective in a stronger economy, not when the majority of people are struggling to survive day to day and any tax savings are immediatly gobbled up by debt. Over the last 8 years of tax breaks I can't say things have gotten better. In fact I feel they are worse.

Government spending has been an issue for as long as I can remember. Again, for the last 8 years Bush has put a killing on America with spending, especially considering he had a surplus from the previous administration.

McCain has shown good reason to get tagged as "McSame" as his policies very closely mimic that of Bush, so I think it is important to look at what Bush has done for the last 8 years and ask ourselves, do we want more of that?

Finally, capitalism has its benefits, but when you let the cooperation owners dictate law and policy then the common man suffers for it. I do begrudge them their profits when they come at the expense of safer products, monopolistic tactics, decreased working conditions, loss of industry to 3rd world countries, or environmental impact.

All I'm trying to do is understand, and statements like lowering taxes doesn't make sense, especially with the last 8 years as an example.

While Okun's law may arguably have some limited value for forecasting, there's many complex and varied factors that make up both the individual stats of GDP and unemployment, and even more factors for the economy as a whole. For most of last year the GDP was half it's previous value, yet unemployment still kept dropping, contrary to the "prediction". Perhaps more applicable to what you brought up would be the Laffer curve. Again, this doesn't produce a definitive optimum ratio of taxes to revenue (supporting either argument). Although stating "the majority of people are struggling to survive day to day", to me sounds like a network story, not an economic reality.

I'll grant that tax cut...

While Okun's law may arguably have some limited value for forecasting, there's many complex and varied factors that make up both the individual stats of GDP and unemployment, and even more factors for the economy as a whole. For most of last year the GDP was half it's previous value, yet unemployment still kept dropping, contrary to the "prediction". Perhaps more applicable to what you brought up would be the Laffer curve. Again, this doesn't produce a definitive optimum ratio of taxes to revenue (supporting either argument). Although stating "the majority of people are struggling to survive day to day", to me sounds like a network story, not an economic reality.

I'll grant that tax cuts alone equaling increased revenues is not always a guarantee. And in some instances raising tax rates does in fact increase revenue. But one has to consider the mobility of the taxed capital. For instance, moderately raising income taxes won't keep people from working, but raising capital gains or corporate taxes will certainly discourage investment, and maybe even encourage the capital to just get sheltered, or even relocate the business altogether. But let's say that whatever hypothetical tax increases raised revenues...this brings to my mind yet another economic law: Parkinson's Law - "expenditures rise to meet income." So without the cuts in the federal budget, it only compounds the problem.

In response to your criticism of capitalism regarding corporations dictating law and policy - that is pretty much the definition of cronyism, more a feature of the regulation in mixed economies rather than capitalism, driving business to form relationships with authorities and using them to extract special favorabilty. So yet again I might offer that less regulation, not more, might remedy this to a degree.

Overall that is my perspective...less government involvement in the economy and our lives, not more! I'm no fan of McCain either, but the more rhetoric I hear from

My pleasure. I rather enjoy discussing differening perspectives...but not when the person is insultingly argumentative or it's obvious they're so entrenched in their position they're not even listening. That's when it's no fun, and futile to even respond.
I'm not presuming that I've won you over, but I do think we've identified at least some common ground here. A recent article explains much of my position better and in more depth than I did. It does in fact eventually support your statement that Bush's tax cuts did no good (and may have even done harm), yet the reason cited also supports part of what I said...no budget decrease and inflationary m...

My pleasure. I rather enjoy discussing differening perspectives...but not when the person is insultingly argumentative or it's obvious they're so entrenched in their position they're not even listening. That's when it's no fun, and futile to even respond.
I'm not presuming that I've won you over, but I do think we've identified at least some common ground here. A recent article explains much of my position better and in more depth than I did. It does in fact eventually support your statement that Bush's tax cuts did no good (and may have even done harm), yet the reason cited also supports part of what I said...no budget decrease and inflationary monetary policy. Their solution? You guessed it, tax cuts with budget cuts.

Actually, I would like to offer a liberal counterpoint to the definitions offered here of fairness, and one that also may explain the reality that lowering taxes on the rich damaged our economy (pretty clearly demonstrated over the last 10 years.)

What is fair? Coloradoright, in his infinite wisdom, believes that liberals think "fair is everything" and that "if Obama gets elected just get ready to start giving everything to the government." This is not true. Not only is it impossible to legislate, it has never even been the goal of any elected government in any country anywhere in the world, ever. Even communist governments didn't take everything. (Communists actually just took profits rath...

Actually, I would like to offer a liberal counterpoint to the definitions offered here of fairness, and one that also may explain the reality that lowering taxes on the rich damaged our economy (pretty clearly demonstrated over the last 10 years.)

What is fair? Coloradoright, in his infinite wisdom, believes that liberals think "fair is everything" and that "if Obama gets elected just get ready to start giving everything to the government." This is not true. Not only is it impossible to legislate, it has never even been the goal of any elected government in any country anywhere in the world, ever. Even communist governments didn't take everything. (Communists actually just took profits rather than taxes, so its kind of a different system altogether, in my experience.)

On the other hand, Rustee, your impression that some liberals think rich should pay more taxes out of "some twisted sense of fairness" does have some validity. You are right to point out that it is cronyism not capitalism that is the problem, but remember that as the ultra rich use their money and influence to shirk social responsibility, that will embitter some of the people on the bottom who get dropped through the cracks in order to give a free ride to the rich.

Although I don't think its a rational argument, or even a sound one, it is an emotional reaction I can sympathize with.

Now, on the other hand, neither the liberal idea of fairness or a "great society", nor the conservative idea of supply side economics explains why our economy has been damaged by lowering taxes on the wealthy, so humor me while I hazard my 10 cents on the issue...

My fundamental argument is that shifting the tax burden off the wealthy and on to the working class will depress the economy because it is harder for the working class to support that burden. The reality that we can all agree on is that somebody has to pay taxes so that the government can function properly. Big or small, there will always be some taxes, and the proportion of which is to be paid by which demographics is very import...

Now, on the other hand, neither the liberal idea of fairness or a "great society", nor the conservative idea of supply side economics explains why our economy has been damaged by lowering taxes on the wealthy, so humor me while I hazard my 10 cents on the issue...

My fundamental argument is that shifting the tax burden off the wealthy and on to the working class will depress the economy because it is harder for the working class to support that burden. The reality that we can all agree on is that somebody has to pay taxes so that the government can function properly. Big or small, there will always be some taxes, and the proportion of which is to be paid by which demographics is very important.

We currently have a graduated tax system where we charge higher taxes to those with more money, and lower taxes to those with less money. Supply side economics shifts the burden, not just flattening taxes, but demanding that working class Americans support the majority of the governments spending, while the percentage of total tax revenue from the richest Americans becomes little, if nothing.

I would like to make the case that the reason for a graduated tax system that places the majority of the tax burden on the most affluent is a practical system, not an idealistic one. But before we go on, we should break this down into personal taxes and corporate taxes. Although I think supply side economics is wrong on both, it is for different reasons.

First: Personal Taxes...
Personal income taxes is not where most of the government revenue comes from. Personal taxes are small change compared to corporate taxation, if we presume all people pay their taxes in good faith without moving off shore or finding loopholes.

However, why should rich people pay more than poor people? And why should that help our economy? Why does it hurt when we ease the tax burden on the rich while transferring it to the middle class?

Simple: purchasing power. If I tax someone earning a million dollars a year at 80%, leaving them with "only" $200,000, they still have enough money left over to be a healthy consumer in our economy. They can still buy houses, cars, ...

First: Personal Taxes...
Personal income taxes is not where most of the government revenue comes from. Personal taxes are small change compared to corporate taxation, if we presume all people pay their taxes in good faith without moving off shore or finding loopholes.

However, why should rich people pay more than poor people? And why should that help our economy? Why does it hurt when we ease the tax burden on the rich while transferring it to the middle class?

Simple: purchasing power. If I tax someone earning a million dollars a year at 80%, leaving them with "only" $200,000, they still have enough money left over to be a healthy consumer in our economy. They can still buy houses, cars, invest in stocks and save for retirement.

Essentially, the impact on the free market is minimal because although they aren't as fabulously wealthy as they might have been, they are still wealthier than most Americans ever dream of, and they are still wealthy enough to make the kind of purchases that will fuel economic growth.

However, if a family making $50,000 per year is taxed even 10% or $5,000, that will effect their consumerism. That could be the down payment on a new car, or make the difference between their decision to treat themselves to a nice dinner or a new pair of shoes.

More importantly, wealthy people are not proportionally larger consumers.

Imagine I have a business selling $40 DVD players. The affluence of my customers does not make a difference - it's the quantity. A rich person does not need to buy more DVD players than a poor person, meaning their contribution to the economy is actually smaller. Even if you are a millionaire who pays no taxes, you will not buy more the three or four DVD players per year. This is not enough to sustain the company that makes them. On the other hand, if everyone in America making more than $20,000 per year buys a DVD player, that suddenly means record growth for the DVD player industry.

Second: Corporate Taxes...
This is the one that really bothers me, because I think providing tax relief to large, profitable companies is a particularly corrupt form of corporate welfare. This also has much deeper repercussions on the health of the free market.

Consider the difference between a free market and a free-for-all. What Bush and many republicans preach is actually what I would label Savage Capitalism. They misunderstood the philosophies of Austrian Capitalists like Mises and Hayek into thinking that laisez-faire economics meant no-holds-barred corporate profiteering.

To a savage capitalist, a monopoly is not a threat to the free market, but simply the result of someone who out-...

Second: Corporate Taxes...
This is the one that really bothers me, because I think providing tax relief to large, profitable companies is a particularly corrupt form of corporate welfare. This also has much deeper repercussions on the health of the free market.

Consider the difference between a free market and a free-for-all. What Bush and many republicans preach is actually what I would label Savage Capitalism. They misunderstood the philosophies of Austrian Capitalists like Mises and Hayek into thinking that laisez-faire economics meant no-holds-barred corporate profiteering.

To a savage capitalist, a monopoly is not a threat to the free market, but simply the result of someone who out-competed everyone else, as if there were some sort of capitalist endgame. This philosophy is embraced most aggressively by Wallmart, who uses their size to out-compete local businesses until they monopolize a particular town and can raise their prices.

This is not actually a free market, you may notice, because Wallmart has been given a competitive advantage by a government who's tax system favors large and established conglomerates over a plurality of smaller businesses.

In his final work "Economic Freedom" F.A. Hayek writes about economic coercion and the threat to individual liberties. In my opinion, giving tax breaks to the wealthy is government collusion with corporate elietes, and leads to economic coercion.

The tax burden is shifted onto smaller businesses already struggling to compete with the established giants who are favored by the supply-side system of taxation. This government interference makes it easier for one company or corporate entity to consolidate control over the whole market.

As a result, diversity in the American market place has declined, and thus, so too has competition. Giving a tax advantage to the wealthy is anti-competitive on face value. It discourages new companies or small companies from attempting to compete with the dominate ones.

So the result of decreasing taxes for the wealthy is that the tax burden is then shifted to the working class and small businesses. Over the past eight years, this increasing burden has had a uniformly bad effect on our economy.

Consumption has declined, as have diversity and competition. This has led to stagnation that undermined the presumed growth on which many questionable loans were made, which precipitated the on going banking collapse.

To make the problem worse, to stimulate purchasing, the government reduced interest rates on borrowing money. Rather than focusing on wealth creation they encouraged Americans to follow the same credo that they used to guide the government: spend toda...

So the result of decreasing taxes for the wealthy is that the tax burden is then shifted to the working class and small businesses. Over the past eight years, this increasing burden has had a uniformly bad effect on our economy.

Consumption has declined, as have diversity and competition. This has led to stagnation that undermined the presumed growth on which many questionable loans were made, which precipitated the on going banking collapse.

To make the problem worse, to stimulate purchasing, the government reduced interest rates on borrowing money. Rather than focusing on wealth creation they encouraged Americans to follow the same credo that they used to guide the government: spend today, earn tomorrow.

The result was, when the house of cards finally fell, that thousands of working class Americans lost their homes, and thousands of small businesses went bankrupt.

Supply side economics was a brazen attempt to justify government intervention in the free market, and resulted in large corporations, with the aid of sympathetic politicians, stifling competition rather than increasing it.

Fair taxes aren't about a moral sense of duty, they are about answering the practical question: who can best afford to support the government? Ideally, there would be no need for taxation, but given that there is, its distribution should not be schemed. All the theories and calculations and predictions of the supply-side economists failed because they forgot the classic Austrian adage:

The economy is to complex to calculate or manipulate effectively. You must allow it to evolve naturally.

Thinking that they could stimulate growth through selective tax cuts and redistribution upset the delicate balance of a system that, though not perfect, was working better in 1958 than it is today.

As usual, you covered quite a bit there. I will not respond to every single point, just suffice it to say some I do agree with and some I don't. In the interest of time (and I'm getting sleepy), here's a few that will give you some change on your 10 cents.

My fundamental argument is that shifting the tax burden off the wealthy and on to the working class will depress the economy because it is harder for the working class to support that burden.

Perhaps so, but only assuming the tax revenue and subsequent spending remain neutral, while I've clearly advocated for lowering taxes and less spending. Continuing...

The reality that we can all agree on is that somebody h...

read more»

As usual, you covered quite a bit there. I will not respond to every single point, just suffice it to say some I do agree with and some I don't. In the interest of time (and I'm getting sleepy), here's a few that will give you some change on your 10 cents.

My fundamental argument is that shifting the tax burden off the wealthy and on to the working class will depress the economy because it is harder for the working class to support that burden.

Perhaps so, but only assuming the tax revenue and subsequent spending remain neutral, while I've clearly advocated for lowering taxes and less spending. Continuing...

The reality that we can all agree on is that somebody has to pay taxes so that the government can function properly. Big or small, there will always be some taxes, and the proportion of which is to be paid by which demographics is very important.

So that government can function properly...that is a crucial distinction striking to the heart of the matter. The proper role of government is a topic one could devote a lifetime to (which I haven't, nor really desire to), yet I can still say with confidence that a big government will spread into improper functions, or at the least, less efficient functions than could be implemented otherwise. Thus, regardless of which demographic you choose to burden, it should be the least amount capable of still providing the (again, arguable) functions of government not as easily provided in the free market. So to me, "big or small" government is not something to gloss over. Consider what is commonly called Tax Freedom Day - the first day after New Year's that taxpayers aren't paying their money to government. This year that day was April 23rd, and we paid more in taxes than we spent on food, housing and clothing combined. Ok, shifting that burden from the rich to the poor would hurt...my emphasis is not shifting the burden so much as to eliminate the "burden" altogether.

Why does it hurt when we ease the tax burden on the rich while transferring it to the middle class?

Simple: purchasing power...Essentially, the impact on the free market is minimal because although they aren't as fabulously wealthy as they might have been, they are still wealthier than most Americans ever dream of, and they are still wealthy enough to make the kind of purchases that will fuel economic growth.

Putting aside my above rejection of neutral tax revenue transfers...what if that hypothetical rich person had kept that money and instead bought yet another house, yacht, or car...how many workers benefit from that? Or if they invested it in profit making ventures (bus...

Why does it hurt when we ease the tax burden on the rich while transferring it to the middle class?

Simple: purchasing power...Essentially, the impact on the free market is minimal because although they aren't as fabulously wealthy as they might have been, they are still wealthier than most Americans ever dream of, and they are still wealthy enough to make the kind of purchases that will fuel economic growth.

Putting aside my above rejection of neutral tax revenue transfers...what if that hypothetical rich person had kept that money and instead bought yet another house, yacht, or car...how many workers benefit from that? Or if they invested it in profit making ventures (business start-up, stock-market, product development, etc.)? How much more might they have donated to charity?

If I tax someone earning a million dollars a year at 80%, leaving them with "only" $200,000...

One word is key to me. They earned it, and redistributing their earnings proportionally more just because many more didn't earn as much, I see as essentially rationale for that argument you already rejected...that it's fair.

A rich person does not need to buy more DVD players than a poor person, meaning their contribution to the economy is actually smaller.

What? It's the rich buying (and investing in the companies that made) the 1st DVD players on the market at $500 that provided the capital for the market to progress and innovate enough to offer DVD players at $40 for everyone! That was the record growth of the DVD player industry. Go back through history...a/c, automobiles, you name it. Today's luxury for the few is tomorrow's necessity for the many.

The fact that most of the people who advocate tax cuts for the wealthy think of themselves as potential beneficiaries of these tax cuts also says to me that this is a dangerous case of "what the heart desires the mind can justify."

Perhaps, but couldn't be further from the trut

I agree with you that government should be as small as possible, reduced down to necessary functions. The main way I think the size of the government can be reduced, as well as its efficency increased, is if it functions from a "negative" model rather than a "positive" one. The positive model tries to acheive things. A law saying "you must be a good person" is attempting to effect positive change. It normally fails, and it is predicated on all sorts of dangerous subjective presumptions. This is normally what underlies the worst of big government.

On the other hand, a negative model tries to simply prevent certain transgressions, like "you can't kill me." That means rather than telling you w...

I agree with you that government should be as small as possible, reduced down to necessary functions. The main way I think the size of the government can be reduced, as well as its efficency increased, is if it functions from a "negative" model rather than a "positive" one. The positive model tries to acheive things. A law saying "you must be a good person" is attempting to effect positive change. It normally fails, and it is predicated on all sorts of dangerous subjective presumptions. This is normally what underlies the worst of big government.

On the other hand, a negative model tries to simply prevent certain transgressions, like "you can't kill me." That means rather than telling you what kind of person you should be, it establishes certain basic minimal standards that are much easier to enforce, while giving you freedom to do what you want beyond that.

A similar approach can be taken with the economy. Government intervention should be made to keep the market free. Thus, although anti-trust laws may seem like government interference, I think of them as just making sure everyone plays by the rules and nobody cheats to start inhibiting competition.

So the government, rather than actively trying to achieve something, should simply maintain the conditions that allow for a free market by preventing collusion an coercion.

The role that taxes play in all this is a little more complex...

As I see it, taxes are a burden that our society has to bear. Thus, we should find a way to insert them that will have minimal impact on the freedom of the mark...

A similar approach can be taken with the economy. Government intervention should be made to keep the market free. Thus, although anti-trust laws may seem like government interference, I think of them as just making sure everyone plays by the rules and nobody cheats to start inhibiting competition.

So the government, rather than actively trying to achieve something, should simply maintain the conditions that allow for a free market by preventing collusion an coercion.

The role that taxes play in all this is a little more complex...

As I see it, taxes are a burden that our society has to bear. Thus, we should find a way to insert them that will have minimal impact on the freedom of the market. In this way, a rich person who has more cash to spare can both pay taxes and participate in the market competitively. On the other hand, it is much harder for a middle class person to both pay taxes and particpate in the market at the same time.

Thus the fairness is that the taxes being paid by the rich have a smaller impact on the economy because the burden is smaller for someone who is wealthy. (Although, we should go so far as to impoverish the wealthy).

I don't think it's social engineering - its just asking who has the best ability to support the government, and not placing burdens on consumers who can't support them. Although they did earn the money, they are also taking advantage of the service provided by the government: namely a stable and orderly society. This is not a service that can be provided gratis.

To be clear, we should not tax the rich just for the sake of taxing them. But in so far as someone needs to be taxed, I think it makes better economic sense to tax the wealthy rather than the middle or working class.

Finally, I'd like to revisit my DVD player argument. The rich certainly did fund R&D by buying one DVD player, but they didn't buy enough of them to change the overall economy. As already stated, I think it is against free market principles to use government taxation to try to promote production - that's socialism.

But I'd also like to expand on why it doesn't work:

Because the rich don't always spend more. Sometimes they just save it or hid it off shore. Sometimes they spend more on luxury items, but that doesn't effect consumer purchasing on bread and butter items, such as bread an butter. Sometimes they just shop like normal people.

I'm from Seattle. We've got Bill Gates. He's fabulous...

Finally, I'd like to revisit my DVD player argument. The rich certainly did fund R&D by buying one DVD player, but they didn't buy enough of them to change the overall economy. As already stated, I think it is against free market principles to use government taxation to try to promote production - that's socialism.

But I'd also like to expand on why it doesn't work:

Because the rich don't always spend more. Sometimes they just save it or hid it off shore. Sometimes they spend more on luxury items, but that doesn't effect consumer purchasing on bread and butter items, such as bread an butter. Sometimes they just shop like normal people.

I'm from Seattle. We've got Bill Gates. He's fabulously wealthy. But how much more does he spend than me? Even his house, which cost $30 million to build, didn't effect the economy of the city.

Consider this, my wealth is z (let's say $20,000 per year), while my spending is y. Someone' who's wealthy is 100 times z ($2,000,000 per year - not unheard of...) will not spend 100 times y because the bulk of our expenditures are fixed. I pay $10 to eat a steak at a local diner. You probably won't find a steak that costs more than $100, but that's only an increase of 10. So for the wealth to start trickling down, we would have to see rich people eating 10 $100 steaks every time I ate one $10 steak.

What is more, supply side economics kinda presumes everyone in the top tax bracket is an inventor and industrialist. Not everyone, or even the majority of the people who get supply-side tax cuts has an idea for starting a company, or the expertise. Many companies started simply on account of the availability of capital end up wasting it and going bankrupt.

You don't need money to start a successful company, you need a good idea. If you've got a good idea the money is always around. If you've got no ideas but lots of money, then, as they say, a fool and his money is easily parted.

The final, most important thing, is that I am trying to develop a model that explains the current economic conditions: dropping revenues, sagging consumerism, massive consumer debt, and decline in production.

Your argument would be a lot stronger if it weren't for the fact that we have been practicing the taxation model you propose since 1986, that's 22 years. I'm not speculating about how taxes will effect the economy in the future, I'm looking at the tax cuts and seeing the effect they had.

Tax cuts for the wealthy did not increase revenue or promote growth. The after two decades of government following the supply-side model, the result has been the mess you see today, which is really th...

The final, most important thing, is that I am trying to develop a model that explains the current economic conditions: dropping revenues, sagging consumerism, massive consumer debt, and decline in production.

Your argument would be a lot stronger if it weren't for the fact that we have been practicing the taxation model you propose since 1986, that's 22 years. I'm not speculating about how taxes will effect the economy in the future, I'm looking at the tax cuts and seeing the effect they had.

Tax cuts for the wealthy did not increase revenue or promote growth. The after two decades of government following the supply-side model, the result has been the mess you see today, which is really the same mess that caused minor recessions in the Regan and G.H.W. Bush presidencies. Clinton and the current Bush tried to hide this by encouraging spending on bubble markets, which allowed partisans to present positive numbers, but it didn't mean that supply-side theory was working, it just meant we had postponed the consequences until after the bubble burst.

Investment bubbles and consumer debt are exactly the kind of dangerous thinking that the government promotes when it tries to use taxes and interest rates to manipulate the economy. It almost always goes bad, because as Mises observed, it's too complicated to solve with an easy answer.

But so, in summary:

Smaller Government? Agreed.
Reduce overall taxation? Agreed.
Reduce government intervention in the free market? Agreed.

Where we seem to disagree is that you see Obama as saying "we should tax the rich because they shouldn't have so much money and we need to redistribute the wealth." If he was actually saying that, I would agree with you as well.

But what I hear him saying is "The rich need to pay their part, rather than asking the poor to pay it for them." Since somebody has to pay to support the government, the best idea is to ask for money from those who have the most to spare. In the end, government waste isn't as much as you think. Most of our discretionary spendi...

But so, in summary:

Smaller Government? Agreed.
Reduce overall taxation? Agreed.
Reduce government intervention in the free market? Agreed.

Where we seem to disagree is that you see Obama as saying "we should tax the rich because they shouldn't have so much money and we need to redistribute the wealth." If he was actually saying that, I would agree with you as well.

But what I hear him saying is "The rich need to pay their part, rather than asking the poor to pay it for them." Since somebody has to pay to support the government, the best idea is to ask for money from those who have the most to spare. In the end, government waste isn't as much as you think. Most of our discretionary spending is on the military, which conservatives don't want to cut. In order to maintain the government at a minimal level without a deficit, we will still probably need to pay more taxes or cut back on the foreign wars.

This means taxes will have to be paid, and if the rich don't pay them, the poor will, because realistically we can't keep borrowing money from China, they are already losing enthusiasm for the devaluating dollar. Given this scenario, I think it is fair, and sound to have the rich pay more than the poor, which seems to be the strategy Obama is advocating.

McCain used to also have this ammount of common sense back in 2000, but he has back-tracked (flip-flopped?) and started supporting Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, and right now shows no sign of acknowledging or even understanding the economic disaster that this caused.

Ah, but there is one key difference. Marx was talking about redistribution of wealth. Most communist countries achieved this not through subtle taxation schemes, but through directly confiscating material wealth and giving it directly to poor people.

If Obama were saying "We should take away the extra houses of a rich person and give them to homeless people." That would be communism, plain and simple. That's what they did in China and the USSR. The communist ideology does literally try to solve social problems with government hand-outs.

But Obama is discussing a different question. He is trying to discuss what is the best way to raise the capital needed to operate our government without bu...

Ah, but there is one key difference. Marx was talking about redistribution of wealth. Most communist countries achieved this not through subtle taxation schemes, but through directly confiscating material wealth and giving it directly to poor people.

If Obama were saying "We should take away the extra houses of a rich person and give them to homeless people." That would be communism, plain and simple. That's what they did in China and the USSR. The communist ideology does literally try to solve social problems with government hand-outs.

But Obama is discussing a different question. He is trying to discuss what is the best way to raise the capital needed to operate our government without burdening our citizens.

The important difference between Obama and a communist would be this question: How do you get stuff?

Obama, and just about every other American, left or right, would say: Get a job, work hard, save up, and buy it.

A communist in a communist system would say: The government will alot it to you.

A communist in a non-communist system would say: Attack the rich and take what you need!

So in a sense, perhaps the riots and looting following the acquital of the officers in the Rodney King case in 1993 could be seen as reflecting communist values, but I don't think many people agree with those actions.

Actually, under communism there is no real need for taxation because the government already controls all the money and commodities.