"Obama's concept of "market-oriented" works out to be that money is taken from some people at the point of a gun and then spent according to the free choice of those who are given the loot."

"[T]hese proposals, at least on their face, are not on the scale of the philosophically similar proposals imposed by Hugo Chavez... ut they are based on the same philosophy of law and economics, namely, that... such policies are of economic benefit to the poor."

"The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, the inheritance tax, and the capital-gains tax are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor"

"they deprive[b]...

"Obama's concept of "market-oriented" works out to be that money is taken from some people at the point of a gun and then spent according to the free choice of those who are given the loot."

"[T]hese proposals, at least on their face, are not on the scale of the philosophically similar proposals imposed by Hugo Chavez... [b]ut they are based on the same philosophy of law and economics, namely, that... such policies are of economic benefit to the poor."

"The progressive personal income tax, the corporate income tax, the inheritance tax, and the capital-gains tax are all paid with funds that otherwise would have been saved and invested. All of them reduce the demand for labor"

"they deprive business firms of the funds with which to buy capital goods."

"a reduction in the degree of capital intensiveness in the economic system and thus its ability to implement technological advances."

"The individual and corporate income taxes, and the capital-gains tax, of course, also powerfully reduce the incentive to introduce new products and improve methods of production. In all these ways, these taxes undermine... the rise in the productivity of labor and real wages, and thus the standard of living of everyone"

Okay, have all of you been living under rocks for the past decade? Or have you really not looked at McCain's record;
“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previo...

Okay, have all of you been living under rocks for the past decade? Or have you really not looked at McCain's record;
“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]

“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]

Many more are here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24421

McCain 2008 is playing you all! Very well I see.

Hey, wait! Then where can I find a fiscal conservative? You all seem to think (without much evidence to justify it) that Obama is going to spend spend spend on social projects. Even without evidence, I will grant you, that's always a possibility / temptation with democrats.

But then on the other hand, Republicans seem to be giving money away with both hands in their tax cuts. Sure its popular, sure it reels in the grateful big-dollar donors, but is it good for the government?

Is it really fiscally responsible to reduce taxes while increasing spending? And how can you fight two simultaneous wars and rebuild devastated countries without increasing spending?

Is it too much to say that, if Ir...

Hey, wait! Then where can I find a fiscal conservative? You all seem to think (without much evidence to justify it) that Obama is going to spend spend spend on social projects. Even without evidence, I will grant you, that's always a possibility / temptation with democrats.

But then on the other hand, Republicans seem to be giving money away with both hands in their tax cuts. Sure its popular, sure it reels in the grateful big-dollar donors, but is it good for the government?

Is it really fiscally responsible to reduce taxes while increasing spending? And how can you fight two simultaneous wars and rebuild devastated countries without increasing spending?

Is it too much to say that, if Iraq and Afghanistan are top priorities (and they should be) then we should pay what it costs? If the government needs more money, we should pay more taxes, and then reduce taxes when there aren't so many urgent spending needs.

That's why I liked 2000 McCain much better than 2008 McCain.

"Then where can I find a fiscal conservative?"

Two Words: Sarah Palin

"You all seem to think (without much evidence to justify it) that Obama is going to spend spend spend on social projects. Even without evidence...."

Obama has flatly stated that he would raise taxes on the rich ***even if it doesn't increase government revenues***. Because that's "fair".

"But then on the other hand, Republicans seem to be giving money away with both hands in their tax cuts. ...[Is that] good for the government?"

See, here's the huge gaping chasm between how leftists see the world, and the right see the world. Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "It's not the government's money." Giving excess...

"Then where can I find a fiscal conservative?"

Two Words: Sarah Palin

"You all seem to think (without much evidence to justify it) that Obama is going to spend spend spend on social projects. Even without evidence...."

Obama has flatly stated that he would raise taxes on the rich ***even if it doesn't increase government revenues***. Because that's "fair".

"But then on the other hand, Republicans seem to be giving money away with both hands in their tax cuts. ...[Is that] good for the government?"

See, here's the huge gaping chasm between how leftists see the world, and the right see the world. Take a deep breath and repeat after me: "It's not the government's money." Giving excess back to the people ***who paid it*** is not "giving it away", it's "giving it back" to the very people whose money it is in the first place.

Is that good for government? Well yes, actually, because it forces it to me smaller. It's bad for _big_ government, but I care not a whit for big government. The government that governs least governs best.

strider, do you have numbers to back that up?

Consider this: the cost of the Iraq war to date, is about 480 billion dollars. By striking coincidence the US debt to China incurred during the Bush administration is about 475 billion dollars. And the ammount of tax cuts Bush handed out is about 500 billion dollars.

As I see it, if we weren't handing out tax cuts, we wouldn't be in debt to the Chinese government. This SHOULD bother you if you love your country as much as you claim.

And what is more, Bush hasn't decreased government spending in other areas either. At least Clinton balanced the budget. Corruption, extravagance and war combined with pandering through tax cuts have meant Bush ban...

strider, do you have numbers to back that up?

Consider this: the cost of the Iraq war to date, is about 480 billion dollars. By striking coincidence the US debt to China incurred during the Bush administration is about 475 billion dollars. And the ammount of tax cuts Bush handed out is about 500 billion dollars.

As I see it, if we weren't handing out tax cuts, we wouldn't be in debt to the Chinese government. This SHOULD bother you if you love your country as much as you claim.

And what is more, Bush hasn't decreased government spending in other areas either. At least Clinton balanced the budget. Corruption, extravagance and war combined with pandering through tax cuts have meant Bush bankrupt the country worse than any liberal ever did. The proof is in the legers.

The next President, liberal or conservative, will NEED to address how our country proposes to pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, because the money isn't falling from the sky.

Isn't it totally absurd that I'm having to explain to conservatives that wars don't pay for themselves and that in order to spend money, you have to earn money, not just borrow it from China? Would you run your household the way the GOP runs America?

Is it really conservative to spend beyond your means using credit and then give away the cash you do have just to make your friends like you better?

Sarah Palin is not a fiscal conservative. She gave away millions in subsidies to a foreign oil company. She initially supported the "Bridge to No-Where" but flip-flopped on it once it became a liberal rallying cry against GOP earmarks. Even the democrat who she defeated complains that her economi...

Isn't it totally absurd that I'm having to explain to conservatives that wars don't pay for themselves and that in order to spend money, you have to earn money, not just borrow it from China? Would you run your household the way the GOP runs America?

Is it really conservative to spend beyond your means using credit and then give away the cash you do have just to make your friends like you better?

Sarah Palin is not a fiscal conservative. She gave away millions in subsidies to a foreign oil company. She initially supported the "Bridge to No-Where" but flip-flopped on it once it became a liberal rallying cry against GOP earmarks. Even the democrat who she defeated complains that her economic policies are "too liberal" although that could mean anything, considering this is Alaska.

Uhhh, ouyangwulong, it might be absurd that your explaining as the article that has been quoted and recommended reading by all those who chose to pop...

Several times, I've referred to tax reductions on the rich being accompanied by equivalent reductions in government spending. It should be clear that reducing taxes without reducing government spending cannot promote saving and capital formation, but must undermine them further, even if the funds no longer claimed by taxes are overwhelmingly saved.

Tax cuts to promote saving and capital formation which are financed by deficit increases are thus simply contrary to purpose.

So we're on common ground there, however the overwhel...

Uhhh, ouyangwulong, it might be absurd that your explaining as the article that has been quoted and recommended reading by all those who chose to pop...

Several times, I've referred to tax reductions on the rich being accompanied by equivalent reductions in government spending. It should be clear that reducing taxes without reducing government spending cannot promote saving and capital formation, but must undermine them further, even if the funds no longer claimed by taxes are overwhelmingly saved.

Tax cuts to promote saving and capital formation which are financed by deficit increases are thus simply contrary to purpose.

So we're on common ground there, however the overwhelming theme was this:

By the same token, balancing the budget by means of raising taxes is destructive of saving and capital formation to the degree that the additional taxes fall on saving and the productive expenditure of business firms for labor and capital goods. Ironically, it is precisely taxes that fall heavily on saving and productive expenditure that today's advocates of balancing the budget through tax increases favor. This is because the taxes they wish to increase are precisely those which land on corporations and the so-called rich.

We have some common ground, for sure, Rustee... but my criticism is at the lack of practical responsibility. There are two parts to this problem: the first is the question of whether reducing taxes on the rich will stimulate the economy, which it doesn't, that's an empirically demonstrable fact.

I've laid out my arguments as to why reducing taxes on the rich hurts the economy on Rustee's very interesting clip about the notion of "fairness" in taxation, which I think raises some very interesting questions.

On this clip I want to focus on fiscal responsibility, the fact that we have an enormous deficit, and that isn't just debt, that...

We have some common ground, for sure, Rustee... but my criticism is at the lack of practical responsibility. There are two parts to this problem: the first is the question of whether reducing taxes on the rich will stimulate the economy, which it doesn't, that's an empirically demonstrable fact.

I've laid out my arguments as to why reducing taxes on the rich hurts the economy on Rustee's very interesting clip about the notion of "fairness" in taxation, which I think raises some very interesting questions.

On this clip I want to focus on fiscal responsibility, the fact that we have an enormous deficit, and that isn't just debt, that means we are spending more than we are taking in.

The author of the article agrees we should eliminate debt and balance the budget, but he doesn't say how. The presumption is that the ship will finally come in for supply side economics, and that while they have failed to stimulate genuine growth for years, that somehow things will change and the money will finally start rolling in if we just keep up cutting taxes.

Pardon me if I say that after 8 years of increasingly dire economic signs, I'm not quite ready to presume established trends will reverse themselves, and make no mistake: the established trend is that supply side economics does not help the economy.

That would be like me borrowing money on the presumption that I will get a big raise at work and be able to pay it back. Try selling that one to your bookie - I did and he still broke my legs!

So if we can't safely presume revenue will magically increase, then that means we have only two other options: raise taxes or cut spending.

Predictably, Republicans want to cut spending while Liberals want to raise taxes. I want to do both until our country is out of the red. I have the basic belief that if a country opperates on sound fiscal policy, then its economy will be stable, and might even grow again. When the government, the bed rock of our society, bankrupts itself through extravagant and irresponsible spending, it jeopardizes our whole social order.

The reason I feel the need to explain sound fiscal policy to a bunch of self professed conservatives is that you don't actually wan...

So if we can't safely presume revenue will magically increase, then that means we have only two other options: raise taxes or cut spending.

Predictably, Republicans want to cut spending while Liberals want to raise taxes. I want to do both until our country is out of the red. I have the basic belief that if a country opperates on sound fiscal policy, then its economy will be stable, and might even grow again. When the government, the bed rock of our society, bankrupts itself through extravagant and irresponsible spending, it jeopardizes our whole social order.

The reason I feel the need to explain sound fiscal policy to a bunch of self professed conservatives is that you don't actually want to reduce spending. Conservatives advocate cutting money to welfare or education, but reducing the military budget is off-limits.

The mentality goes like this: as long as we don't waste any money on things like education or wellfare, then we can still spend however much we need on the military. Although it would be nice if it were true, spending is spending, and thus requires revenue.

Republicans say that defense spending is just a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money allocated to social security, medicare, or education, and reform of these should allow for tax relief and increased military spending.

The problem with this is that these people either don't understand the way the government works, or they don't know the numbers.

First: There are two different kinds of federal taxes, as you may have noticed if you've ever had a job. There is income tax and then there are payroll taxes.

The taxes that pay for Medicare and Social Security are "pay roll" FICA taxes. Bush didn't cut them. As FICA taxes, they are also "mandatory entitlements" not "appropriated entitlements." There are structural problems with the fact that we use current taxes to pay current benifits, thus an aging population depends on a smaller number of tax-paying workers, but this is not the same as "appropriated entitlements" which are subject to debate and can be cut by the president.

The pay roll taxes are pretty flat, and the expenditures on ben...

First: There are two different kinds of federal taxes, as you may have noticed if you've ever had a job. There is income tax and then there are payroll taxes.

The taxes that pay for Medicare and Social Security are "pay roll" FICA taxes. Bush didn't cut them. As FICA taxes, they are also "mandatory entitlements" not "appropriated entitlements." There are structural problems with the fact that we use current taxes to pay current benifits, thus an aging population depends on a smaller number of tax-paying workers, but this is not the same as "appropriated entitlements" which are subject to debate and can be cut by the president.

The pay roll taxes are pretty flat, and the expenditures on benefits of mandatory entitlements are determined by a cold arithmetic calculation of how many Americans are over 64. This is pretty much the same for all Americans, and these are NOT the taxes you are complaining about. In the case of social security, your half is about 6.2% per year.

What you are complaining about is your "Marginal Tax Rate" which is graduated based on your income, ranging from about 10% to 35% these days. In case you are interested, historically, this is pretty low. Under the Eisenhower administration, the bottom bracket was taxed 20% while the top bracket was taxed a wopping 90%! Even under Regan, until 1986 the top bracket was between 70 and 50%.

Our low marginal tax rate is also why we are in debt right now, because discretionary spending has increased. Cutting social security and medicare should not change your marginal tax rate, they only change your payroll taxes, which are insignificant compared to your marginal taxes.

Second:
If we want to balance the budget by decreasing spending, to match our tax rates - since it was the marginal taxes that get reduced or raised, then it's the discretionary spending that we need to adjust.

The current deficit is about $240 Billion per year. That means we need to reduce discretionary spending from its current $1.114 trillion to about $874 billion.

But the lion's share of discretionary spending is for the Department of Defense, at $481.4 billion dollars, and the next largest expenditure is the Global War on Terror at $145.2 billion dollars. Between these two, the spending total is $626.6 billion dollars, or 56% of all discretionary spending.

Federal education spending,...

Second:
If we want to balance the budget by decreasing spending, to match our tax rates - since it was the marginal taxes that get reduced or raised, then it's the discretionary spending that we need to adjust.

The current deficit is about $240 Billion per year. That means we need to reduce discretionary spending from its current $1.114 trillion to about $874 billion.

But the lion's share of discretionary spending is for the Department of Defense, at $481.4 billion dollars, and the next largest expenditure is the Global War on Terror at $145.2 billion dollars. Between these two, the spending total is $626.6 billion dollars, or 56% of all discretionary spending.

Federal education spending, however, is only $56 billion, less than a quarter of the deficit, less than 10% of military spending, and about 5% of total discretionary spending. If the federal Department of Education was eliminated entirely, we would still be running a deficit. If the budget for Education doubled, you wouldn't even notice it.

So basically, our problem is: we need to either reduce military spending, or increase taxes. Period. The GOP has already slashed all that it can out of humanistic programs in our government. It's time to face the music. If you want to keep taxes this low, you will have to lower military spending, which may mean giving up one or both of your wars.

Me personally, I say: you break it you buy it. We can not and should not leave Iraq or Afghanistan in the conditions they are in, so I'll gladly see my taxes doubled to make sure the job is done right.