If you up my tax rate and give it to Rudi, the only thing that happens is capital investing goes down and spending for fast women and slow horses goes up. A minus 1 and a plus 1 always nets to zero.

I'm just amazed that the utter foolishness of this hasn't been noted. Capital investment? Where? In the U.S.? Not if it can possibly be avoided. In fact people who are unemployed or underemployed are more likely to be spent in ways that help the country's economy than the modern wealthy class are likely to invest their money in a way that will provide stimulus to the economy of the United States.

The comments in this thread show a real paucity of understanding about the modern world. They all are the exact same arguments made decades ago in defense of tax cuts by conservatives. In spite of massive changes in the nature of our economy and that of the world the justifications for tax cuts and against any social program spending remain the exact same. I can't help but believe that if every bit of domestic investment by well-off Americans were to stop the arguments by conservatives would still stay the same.

The spending is, in the very best of circumstances for proponents, arguably stimulative (and it certainly buys votes the way the money is redistributed), but the taxes to support most (when not all) of the spending obviously are not, but the opposite.

It depends on public sentiment and how she gauges it. She's putting up the “centrist” front now in order not to repel voters by appearing too likely to engage in “progressive” [sic] acts; if she's learned a lesson after 1994, she may take it easy the first two years and wait and gauge and perhaps test public sentiment before lunging farther left once more.

Since a few of these losers are in the senate, perhaps work on something besides their campaigns to keep us out of or lessen the impact of the coming/present recession. There is no need to wait until 2009 before doing something, the time is now. None of these people deserve our time, attention and most certainly not our votes.

When they speak on matters of capitalism, however, it is downright intellectually painful to read.

Since the inception of the New Deal, no rationale mind has ever concluded transfer payments result in “economic improvement” or even “economic stimulus” when the subject is the actual economy (all elements of it…all in).

If you up my tax rate and give it to Rudi, the only thing that happens is capital investing goes down and spending for fast women and slow horses goes up. A minus 1 and a plus 1 always nets to zero.

This is her policy now because she needs to woo liberal voters. Once she gets the nomination, she will never need to woo them again.

Say what you will about Edward and Obama … they will actually do what they say (and believe). Hillary was just say whatever she needs to say to get elected.

The stimulus plans are open, transparent programs of vote-buying, appealing to those willing to sell their votes as well as their souls.

A Stimulus plan should be avoided because all it does is create more entitlements that never seem to end. It is obvious that the Democrats are not really serious about helping local governments while they support open borders, unlimited immigration, and giving government entitlements to illegal aliens.

Why not try to do what was done during the Clinton Administration and stop changing the rules every year or two.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/20...