I agree that any sort of spending deficit (that has no end in sight) moves the balance sheet in the wrong direction. My idea, instead of heaping the spending bill on the shoulders of those who already shoulder the load, is to cut the spending.

I think that the economic tactic that was used in South American countries (I can’t remember what it was called, exactly) where the gov’t doesn’t spend more money than it takes in in taxes (shock therapy?) is the way to go here, too.

Also, the “poor judgement” mud sticks to Obama just a bit better. The guy’s been on the political scene for a handful of years and has more skeletons than Ted Kennedy and more gaffes than Don Imus could dream of. I’m not crazy about McCain. He wasn’t my first, second, or even my third choice. But he’s a whole sight better than Barry’s socialism, defeatism, and blame America philosophy.

When we are running a fiscal deficit (with no end in sight), I have no problem whatsoever with increasing the capital gains tax on wealthy individuals. They aren’t laboring for their wealth, and I won’t lose any sleep if they can’t afford to maintain their fourth home in the Caymans. Sorry to disappoint you Aubrey, but I would rather have rich folk kick in and pay rather than passing the debt on to our children.

But hey, that’s just me. I’m not a huge admirer of those who game the financial system to amass wealth, usually at the expense of others (taxpayers).

“McCain was absolved by the prosecutor of that scandal, by the way.”

McCain was criticized by the Senate Ethics Committee for exercising “poor judgment” when he met with the federal regulators on Keating’s behalf.

Yeah, that sounds like a great endorsement for president.

Republicans in ‘08, “poor judgement” is our middle name!

Goes to prove that even top CEOs make bad investments.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Aubrey

Taxation is indeed used to modify behavior, usually unintentionally.

Low taxes on gasoline, for example, encourage people to drive silly SUVs in America, whereas higher taxes on “petrol” in Europe and elsewhere encourage people to conserve scarce resources, and the environment.

.

Why tax? Because there are some services that we, as a society, decided should best be provided by the public sector. We all use police, so we all pay for it.

.

Why tax business? Because it is a very easy target. Businesses don’t vote; people vote (occasionally).

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Regarding Tony “Resco” (Rezko, actually), didn’t you get the memo?
Here’s the up-shot:

“At the point where he was engaging in alleged wrongdoing, it had nothing to do with me, and nobody has made that allegation.” (Sen. Obama, Jan 23, 2008)

And

“Well, my relationship is he was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years. He was somebody who had supported a wide range of candidates all throughout Illinois. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered, we returned money from him that had been contributed. And what is true is that I also purchased a piece of land from him. Everything was above board, and there’s been no allegations that there wasn’t.” (Sen. Obama, Jan 23, 2008)

Oh, and there is ample proof that the real estate deal was completely above board. All you have to do is look at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Rezko), rather than try to smear someone.

That said, why would we ever want to tax those who own businesses and create wealth? It makes no sense, when the goal is to generate greater tax revenue, to tax the cogs of the commercial machine into a state of inoperation!

McCain was absolved by the prosecutor of that scandal, by the way. Don’t know if you got the memo. Oh, by the bye, what’s the deal with Tony Resco?

McCain is one of the Keating Five.

He’s already demonstrated that he will cost the taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in financial scams.

Of course this probably elevates him in your esteem. Sometimes I forget the nature of the Republican party.

BTW, our debt burden isn’t going to pay for itself. Someone needs to kick in, and I have no problem putting the majority of that burden on those who benefitted disproportionately over that last 8 years.

How much more blind can you be? If candidate A wants to tax people who grow apples and candidate B doesn’t, apples growers probably won’t vote for candidate A. I know it’s easy to villify the haves and pity the have-nots, but come on.

That rich folk would prefer a criminal in the White House.

Question: Does that 71% of larger corporations not paying taxes include, say, General Motors ($10.6 billion loss)?

Answer: Yes.

Its just pay off to continue the corruption, at the expense of the US citizen.

I would rather a politician pander to the poor or underemployed than the corrupt.