clawback, couldn’t agree more. Left vs right or rats vs the pubies, that’s the game for the masses.

You stole my thunder. Since my last post I have been thinking the same way. Juts didn’t know how to put in words. Seriously, if pubies gonna behave like the democrats of yesteryear, how does it serve the populace?

Also doesn’t it pretty much guarantee dems to act and behave socialists? People like Bartlett and his bosses like Bush have ruined the conservatives ( I am L btw) for a long time to come.

Barry,

I’m surprised you weren’t all over this idiotic non sequitor. But as someone said above, it’s not about taxes, it’s about spending. People like Bruce Bartlett have ruined the Republican party, because what do they stand for again? Slightly smaller govt. than Democrats want? And their principles are…what? Hair-splitting arguments about the effects of tax rates are a waste of time. Are the Republicans going to stave off fiscal disaster? Are the Democrats? Of course not, and it’s not about marginal tax rates. It’s about spending, spending, and spending. Mostly on things that do harm rather than good (Iraq war, Haliburton, ACORN, Dept. of Ed….etc.).

We love ya, BR, but I’m parting ways on this one.

George Bush never was a fiscal conservative (as well as most Rs in congress) and real conservatives have been pointing that out over the past 9 years, but people like Leonardt have apparently been living in a cave.

Leonardt also presumes everyone (including Bartlett) agrees with his liberal philosophy: “As societies become more affluent, people demand more services that governments tend to provide, like health care, education and a strong military”

I have a more logical law for Leonardt…let’s call it Tom K’s law: When a majority of voters discover they can vote themselves goods and services without immediate cost, either by raising taxes on a minority of citizens and/or having the government borrow the money, they will tend to increase their demand for services.

As such, the majority of politicians recognize the only way to obtain and hold office is to increasingly propose more and more services to voters. The theory being that any negative consequences will be A) far into the future or B) won’t have my fingerprints on them (people will be too dumb to recognize the cause was their own desire for services they saw as low cost if not free)

I agree with Bartlett’s on both economic principles, however a VAT would be disastrous way to goods and services.

This is what bothers me about a lot of so called pundits. They still have an outdated world view.

The world is much more competitive than before for resources/capitals/talents and all.

How will America and Americans will compete with rest of the world?

1. You have to lower the cost of doing business (low corporate tax).
2. Low salaries for US workers ( can’t tax high on low salaries)
3. Saving will be more important in the future (Government is wasteful)

“just as it was a problem when Democrats were saying that welfare was working, teachers’ unions were always right and stagflation couldn’t happen.”

Could David Leonhardt please quote the major Democratic politico that held this position. Why do so many in the press feel obligated to “balance” their article with a BIG lie?

Not to mention him wanting all the goodies from the government. How can you say you want to reduce the Government while want more goodies.

Oh, is that why he is an “honest” conservative liberals love?

I think that’s why.

there are two things which if taken care….can take care of 80% of problems in lawmaking.

1. Remove religion from politics
2. Campaign finance reform.

else we just keep talking about these issues with no consequences whatsoever….since 70% of the pople are polarised based on religion and the politicians listen to lobbyist since they need money for elections.