comment #1

Abbey Normal says ...

On the other hand, he did counterpunch pretty well...check out the video from his speech today:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/obama-criticizes-debate-a_n_97258.html

comment #2

bb says ...

"Like all people of any standards... "

Jeff, I'm really curious why you would preface your comments like that. It is something I've noticed about your political commentary for a while, a presumption of holding an absolute truth rather than an opinion. The problem to me isn't the perception of arrogance or delusion, it is your insistence that anybody that would disagree must be deficient in some way.

Since you are such a strong supporter of Obama, I am doubly confused. His campaign is the one that rose on the promise of bringing all americans together and blurring the red/blue divisions. How can somebody who so adamantly supports that candidate be so opposed to his stated goals?

I tend to sit in the middle of the political spectrum which means that I tend to be to the right of my left wing friends and to the left of my right wing friends. Which of course means that I disagree with just about all of them on a lot of issues.

But it never occurs to me that people must be idiots to disagree with me. I know them to be good people that I happen to disagree with on some issues. Their character is never in question.

So I have to wonder if you agree on all issues in this race with all of your friends or have you decided that some are stupid, racist, angry, unethical etc?

Like a lot of people before me, I come here for the movie talk and so would prefer that you stick to that but it is your site and of course you can do what you want. But I do wonder why you would be so eager to not only disagree with some of us, but alienate a lot of people in the process? It really is possible to have civil disagreements or debate.

comment #3

christian says ...

That good speech highlights Obama's weakness. He's not a strong debater. Clinton gave far more forecful quick answers. Her answer on gas prices was pretty dead-on while Obama fumbled. He needs to be more prepared, especially if he goes up against McCain.

comment #4

D.Z. says ...

I'd rather have someone who takes time to answer questions than a candidate who gives pat answers.

comment #5

Mgmax says ...

"Like all people of any standards"

Okay, so a guy from the Alabama part of Pennsylvania gets into Harvard and he goes up to Phipps Moorehead Creighfish IV, Hasty Pudding Club member, and says, "Excuse me, could y'all tell me whar the Fogg Library is at?"

And Phipps looks at him and says, "At Hahvid we do not end a sentence with a preposition, you low-thread-count 88 Minutes moviegoer."

"Ah'm shore sorry," says the red-stater. "Let me try agin. Could y'all tell me whar the Fogg Library is at, asshole?"

comment #6

CMed1 says ...

Last night was truly a low point for the corporate media. It was almost comical to see Charlie Gibson get all riled up and debate Barack on capital gains taxes. Hillary did seem to enjoy the pile on quite a bit.

Jeff, I got to say you were right about Hillary. Although I did vote for Obama, I was ambivalent about the two of them earlier in the campaign, and I could have lived with either of them. Over the past month or two, I've been disgusted by her antics, and now I'm heavily supporting Obama.

comment #7

Zimmergirl says ...

I voted for Obama in the primary but I remain torn. Clinton WAS using seriously dirty tactics last night - but she had one shot, really, and she went right for the throat. Obama, I thought, mostly showed her up by not getting down and dirty with her. Still, it remains difficult to watch the two of them in a debate and not think Clinton has more going on in terms of being a decisive, albeit somewhat corrupt, leader.

Hillary takes a firm stand on No Child Left Behind (which should be scrapped) and is running on universal health care. I still don't know what Obama's platform is other than being smart and unique and offering us a chance to take our country in a different, more honorable direction.

It is all moot anyway because A) I'll vote for either of them and B) John McCain is going to win. So whatever.

It was clear the moderators didn't want to be accused of being too nice to him so they went too far in the other direction.

comment #8

lawrence20086 says ...

He is quite a guy!!! He was said to have a personal account on a Luxury online service Wealthy Kiss.c o m for successful and
celebs singles with his hot pictures and blog there. Quite a few hot girls and ladies wrote to him.

comment #9

Titus Pullo says ...

Of course Mgmax loved this debate, it's right up his alley, where patriotism is defined by lapel wear, and whether you believe in the flag. All a psychological ploy conservatives play on themselves to distract themselves from the fact that they have failed the true test of patriotism, namely, service to country in a time of war.

Last night was a good insight into the mindset of the MSM, who see elections as an amusement. Example:

These comments are from Margaret Carlson:

[Margaret] CARLSON (10/10/00): Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now…You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.

CARLSON: I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.

CARLSON (page 150): Hillary, too, could talk anyone into the ground. One night very late in New Delhi, Joe Klein, then at Newsweek, and I got a joint interview with the First Lady. She used up our time with chatter about the Taj Mahal and the ambassador’s gardens—all about as newsworthy as someone showing you slides from their summer vacation. About midnight, an aide showed us the door, literally. Our time was up. Valiantly, Klein reeled her back in with a question about health-care reform. As we descended into the swamps of single-payer insurance and Klein’s very own plan for universal health care, I leaned against the open door—and fell asleep. I woke up when my notebook clattered to the floor, embarrassed that jet lag had struck so hard, but unworried that any news had been committed.

comment #10

Mgmax says ...

C;mon, I generate ten different ways of saying the same thing here every day, it's not fair that you get to cut and paste.

It also means no one's reading you, assuming they already have...

comment #11

Titus Pullo says ...

BTW Mgmax, every time Colin Powell says the military doesn't have enough troops, the baby Jesus cries. Why do you hate Jesus?

comment #12

kidkosmic says ...

Wells, I hope these candidates have more fortitude than yourself...one of them may end up President of the United States of America.

comment #13

Mgmax says ...

Because He does not smite mine enemies.

comment #14

kidkosmic says ...

"they have failed the true test of patriotism, namely, service to country in a time of war."

Like General "Betrayus" has failed to serve?

No, you and your kind = FAIL

comment #15

Walter Sobchak says ...

Damn I love this. I do love this so much. When former Clinton advisor George Stephanapolous gets the gig at ABC, Republicans are seen as paranoid and whiney for suggesting that he might have some sort of political bias. "Get over it, you loony right-wingers. He's a journalist, that's all."

Now that he's perceived to be "attacking" Obama, (current definition of a media attack: not blowing kisses), all the Obamites are screaming about his Clinton past. "Not Fair!"

And how DARE Gibson ask Obama why he would want to raise the capital gains tax!

comment #16

Walter Sobchak says ...

By the way, I too am sick of the way these rabid right-wingers like Stephanapolous, Tim Russert, Charlie Gibson, Brian Williams and the staff of MSNBC are constantly attacking Obama.

comment #17

roman says ...

"It is all moot anyway because A) I'll vote for either of them and B) John McCain is going to win. So whatever."

Barack had a rough night, this is true. But the Obama/Axelrod game has always been about getting to the general. Because if they can beat an "inevitable" candidate, one who brings with her the same machine that dominated the GOP for a decade, then they were right all along.

All I ask of the skeptics is to remember the Hillary of fifteen months ago, and then remember she's twice the candidate McCain is.

comment #18

Mgmax says ...

"All I ask of the skeptics is to remember the Hillary of fifteen months ago, and then remember she's twice the candidate McCain is."

Yeah, that fucking pussy McCain.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

Zimmergirl: "Hillary takes a firm stand on No Child Left Behind (which should be scrapped)"

Of course, she also voted for it.

"and is running on universal health care."

So was her husband, and what did that accomplish?

Walter: "When former Clinton advisor George Stephanapolous gets the gig at ABC, Republicans are seen as paranoid and whiney for suggesting that he might have some sort of political bias."

Well, that's because they conveniently ignore Bill Kristol and Karl Rove getting hired for cheer-leading for the war and outing CIA agents.

"And how DARE Gibson ask Obama why he would want to raise the capital gains tax!"

I'm guessing because it's misleading, since it would only affect the rich, and they don't need the money, anyway.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

On a related note:

The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute.

More at http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20080418/wl_mcclatchy/2913186

But Mgmax and Walter will continue to pretend the surge is "working".

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

Here, have apoplexy:

"Remember the culture wars? This week the Democrats sued for peace."

http://online.wsj.com/article/wonder_land.html

All I can say is, it looks good for Wild Hogs 2.

comment #22

lazespud says ...

To BB --

I'm responding late, but I wanted to say that your sentiments are right on. Wells threatened to ban me from the board once for my (repeated, I admit) questioning of his constant Obama coverage and the non-critical nature of it. I had the same exact thought you did about the elitist nature of the comments; they almost come across as a pre-emptive strike by someone who is scared of debate...

That said, the more I thought about it; Wells is an elitist and generally I love the guy for it in his movie coverage. Why should I be so upset when he offers similar sentiments in the context of politics? I decided to just not worry about it too much...

My best friend today told me that he's "about 95% sure that he's voiting for McCain". This is a guy I actually convinced to vote for Nader in 96 (in retrospect was pretty stupid fuckin vote). But I'm doing everything I can to not be elitist myself because I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone with two brain cells would vote republican. Given that this is is my knee-jerk feeling; I'm gonna cut Wells some slack for feeling that way between Obama and Clinton.

comment #23

K. Bowen says ...

If John McCain had a "friendly relationship" and a political association with Eric Rudolph, would it be considered "trivial" for the press to ask him about it?

comment #24

Titus Pullo says ...

Pity poor kidkosmic , he's not even smart enough to realize I'm talking about HIM, not Petraeus, but you, Mgmax and your ilk do a lot mental gymnastics to assuage the deep down guilt you feel for not having the courage and patriotism to serve your country. Pitiful.

The girl who asked the idiotic flag pin question looks like she might have been planted:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/189807.php

DZ, they have to pretend the surge is working, the alternative is just to horrible.

comment #25

Mgmax says ...

"I am the civilization we're fighting for." --Lytton Strachey

comment #26

Walter Sobchak says ...

K. Bowen... I like the cut of your jib.

I hope like anything the surge doesn't work.... We HAVE to fail in Iraq, I tell you... we HAVE to fail... otherwise it may reflect favorably on Bush, and Bush failing miserably is THE most important thing right now... we CAN'T let anything he was for succeed... we just can't!

comment #27

Terry McCarty says ...

If Disney/ABC is going to go tabloid for their shot at televising a Presidential debate, wouldn't it be better to have had Cynthia McFadden, Martin Bashir or John Stossel as Charlie Gibson's wingperson?

comment #28

Terry McCarty says ...

Re Titus Pullo on Margaret Carlson:
Curious what Fred Thompson saw in her. And I remember her loyal water-carrying for the Clintons in TIME during the 90s.

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

Walter:That's what neo-cons want, so they can begin their war with Iran. The rest of us want to know our tax dollars are going to something which doesn't just line the pockets of Halliburton and Blackwater.

comment #30

truefaith says ...

I wish voters will remember that we are not voting for someone like the Pope or a super nice guy but someone who is aggressive and, yes, cut-throat, who domestic and international politicians will find intimidating. I personally feel people of all walks of life will walk all over Obama and take advatage of him much like Carter. I do not feel this way about Clinton. She is a "pushy" broad who will be able to stand up to the politicans, corporate honchos, etc. To all you Obama supporters: newsflash--the honeymoon is over.

comment #31

truefaith says ...

One more thing. By Obama proposing to raise the capital gains tax is a clear reflection that he doesn't know much about economics. If we are in a recession, we want to encourage stockholders to invest in the market. You're not going to achieve that goal by raising the capital gains tax. Even Clinton isn't planning to raise it like Obama.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

truefaith: "I wish voters will remember that we are not voting for someone like the Pope or a super nice guy but someone who is aggressive and, yes, cut-throat, who domestic and international politicians will find intimidating."

Yes, that's really worked for us so far, hasn't it?

"I personally feel people of all walks of life will walk all over Obama and take advatage of him much like Carter."

That might be the case, but I''m not voting for them.

"I do not feel this way about Clinton. She is a "pushy" broad who will be able to stand up to the politicans, corporate honchos, etc."

And yet she's backed down each time she had a chance to prove her mettle.

"One more thing. By Obama proposing to raise the capital gains tax is a clear reflection that he doesn't know much about economics. If we are in a recession, we want to encourage stockholders to invest in the market."

The last time we lowered taxes, stockholders chose to invest in the Chinese market. If they're not going to give back to America when we provide economic incentives, then I'd rather shake them down for all they're worth. Maybe it'll force them to think twice before they sell fatal pet food and drop bombs on civilians.

comment #33

SaveFarris says ...

"Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed"

Wrong again Gruver (and Shales). This was the first debate since the Wright, Bitter, and Sniper Fire stories broke Seems only natural they ask the candidates about those stories.

comment #34

kidkosmic says ...

Titus Pullo, can you name the party of the presidents who led the US into the Korean and Vietnam wars?

Thaaaat's right, Democrats, not flag pin wearing Republicans, conscripted young men to serve in "needless" foreign wars (Nixon actually campaigned on ending the draft).

Libs run around screeching about "chicken hawk" conservatives who love, love, love goin' to war...such irony.

comment #35

bill weber says ...

It's big news that corporate news shills are trivia-obsessed slimeballs?

Though Obama is certainly the least fraudulent of the remaining three, you people are reacting as if the next president will run America. wake up and smell the Ned Beatty "Network" monologue.

comment #36

Josh says ...

Apparently asking a Presidential candidate about their own comments, their personal assocations with domestic terrorists like Ayers and racists like Wright, and personal philosophies is out of bounds???

I guess we needed to hear for the 5000 time how much he wants out of Iraq, universal health care and "change".

comment #37

Josh says ...

Anyone else find it hilarious that we had a major candidate for President admit to blatantly lying during a debate?

Obviously the women covers it up with words or tries her best to. But the truth was clear for anyone.

My question is why cant these reporters ask yes or no questions. Did you lie about being under sniper fire. Yes or No.

Obama, do you renounce Rev Wright? Yes or No.

comment #38

J. Huff says ...

What concerns me is that world leaders with whom Obama will have to deal with on a daily basis are not going to hear him give speeches. He will have to deal with them in one-on-one conversations without the benefit of formally prepared remarks. Obama does strike me as a surprisingly effective master of rhetoric, but I do agree with Truefaith that he may be squishly like Carter and not be able to handle the difficulties of negotiation with some of the most notorious people on the planet (i.e. other world leaders).

comment #39

Josh says ...

When do we start calling Obama "Dukakis 2"? Or is it "McGovern the Sequel"?

comment #40

Josh says ...

Sorry I left out "Jimmy Carter the Return!"

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

kidskomic: Except that the Dems who were involved in Korea and Vietnam did in fact have combat experience. Nor did they pretend they were right about their decisions the minute they became unpopular. And they believed in those wars so much, that they required every American to do their part to fight in them, not just the National Guard. [I.E. a draft.] But anyway, this "He did it too" argument is childish and meaningless, because you all suffer the same loss of credibility, no matter which team you joined.

Josh: "Apparently asking a Presidential candidate about their own comments, their personal assocations with domestic terrorists like Ayers and racists like Wright, and personal philosophies is out of bounds???"

When Michael Moore does it with Bush and the Bin Laden family, it is for Republicans.

Huff: "He will have to deal with them in one-on-one conversations without the benefit of formally prepared remarks."

That should actually be easier for him, since he can focus on the issues, and not on what Wright said last week.

"squishly like Carter"

The same Carter who gave us peace between Israel and Egypt and refused to support U.S.-sponsored terrorist groups in Latin America?

comment #42

dinther says ...

"By Obama proposing to raise the capital gains tax is a clear reflection that he doesn't know much about economics. If we are in a recession, we want to encourage stockholders to invest in the market."

oo boy. Someone has been reading GOP talking points instead of studying economics. It's true that this idea has some appeal - in fact, I used to buy into this when I was young and naive, but serious economists would mock this statement.

The first mistake is your assumption that what benefits the stock market a fortiori benefits Americans and could rescue us from recession. This is fallacious: increases in the value of the stock market do not translate to increased value to most Americans suffering from a recession; rather, they primarily benefit those whose own controlling interests in corporations. Second, capital gains tax decreases do not spur investment, per se, they spur the sale of businesses that have appreciated in value, so that the controlling shareholder can realize more of the gains he or she gets from selling the stock to another company. And those gains are only realized if the value of those companies appreciates during the time the stock appreciates. Your mistake is assuming that the value of companies necessarily appreciate just by virtue of having lower tax rates, which is unfounded. For example, when Reagan cut capital gains taxes in the 80s, citing the same flawed Gilder-esque assumptions you adopt, empirical studies show that the effect on employment was negligible, and it did not positively effect growth or productivity. The effect it did have, other than making a few people very rich, was to balloon the deficit from less than 1% of the GDP to more than 5%. Deficits, in case you don't know, are baaaad over the long term, bcz they increase the cost of money and pressure interest rates to rise. And what happens when interest rates rise? Why, businesses are less likely to borrow and expand their operations! And finally, the Reagan deficit brought us the glorious economic prosperity of the early 90s.

Conversely, when Clinton raised taxes in the early 90s, the gloom-and-doom predictions of supply siders didn't come true. In fact, after the tax increases, the economy rebounded from a recession and experienced those woeful years of low unemployment and solid growth. And poverty levels decreased (which, I suppose, the Republicans could care less about, but some of us do).

So this idea that increases in the capital gains rate would impede economic development is both simplistic and quaint, and is debunked by both our recent history and empircal studies.

comment #43

bill weber says ...

hey Josh, we'll start when we call McNasty "corrupt, genocidal war hero who's Travis Bickle waiting to happen."

comment #44

Major Calloway says ...

dinther: The first mistake is your assumption that what benefits the stock market a fortiori benefits Americans...

I'll second that mistake then. This seems to me like saying the price of oil doesn't really have an impact on "Americans", just those particular Americans who own cars. (This is not true, of course.) Have an IRA? Own shares of a mutual fund? Work for someone else? Shop at a grocery store? Things like this sure do make separating "us" from "them" more complicated when looking for someone to stick it to.

...rather, they primarily benefit those whose own controlling interests in corporations.

Interesting to see the word "primarily" inserted here, changing the argument somewhat. And I personally have no "controlling interests in corporations" (possibly related to the fact that we make less than 50K), but I do know our IRAs and mutual funds have not had a good year so far.

Second, capital gains tax decreases do not spur investment...

I wouldn't say that decreases "spur" investment as much as increases tend to reign them in. I think we can safely say that low mortgage rates haven't exactly spurred a flurry of home purchases, but do you think things wouldn't be a lot worse if rates went back up to 9%? (insert DZ reply here)

...they spur the sale of businesses that have appreciated in value, so that the controlling shareholder can realize more of the gains he or she gets from selling the stock to another company.

Are you insisting on equivalence between selling shares of stock (or of mutual funds) with controlling interests selling off the whole company?

And those gains are only realized if the value of those companies appreciates during the time the stock appreciates.

True, any gains I get from from selling shares of stock (or mutual funds) are only realized if the value of my stock appreciates, er, during the time my stock appreciates.

Your mistake is assuming that the value of companies necessarily appreciate just by virtue of having lower tax rates.

Hedging the argument again with the insertion of the words "necessarily" and "just". So guess what....I will agree that anyone who has this assumption is making a mistake. Common ground!

Latest polling shows McCain, Obama and Clinton in a three-way tie at $9.97:
http://tinyurl.com/65prdk

comment #45

bb says ...

Dinther, all congrats on your detailed comments concerning the capital gains tax issue. Unfortunately you miss the point of the issue. Historically an increase in such taxes has resulted in an decrease of tax revenues. I'll leave it to you to explain how that works in your formula.

Of course the issue then becomes whether our goal is to increase revenues or simply increase taxes. Mr. Obama seemed to choose the later and that is a problem for certain people, especially those that consider taxes primarily as a revenue source for the government.

comment #46

Terry McCarty says ...

Walter Sobchak wrote:
Damn I love this. I do love this so much. When former Clinton advisor George Stephanapolous gets the gig at ABC, Republicans are seen as paranoid and whiney for suggesting that he might have some sort of political bias. "Get over it, you loony right-wingers. He's a journalist, that's all."

Now that he's perceived to be "attacking" Obama, (current definition of a media attack: not blowing kisses), all the Obamites are screaming about his Clinton past. "Not Fair!"

If Wednesday's mess had been a general-election debate between Hillary and McCain, I still would have wanted George S. to recuse himself from participation.

comment #47

dinther says ...

Well, I dunno that it "misses the point" bb. The point made earlier was that raising capital gains taxes couldn't get us out of recession. I explained why this wasn't true, and also explained why there was no correlation btwn the capital gains tax rate had economic growth. I'm not sure how you conclude that it missed the point.

And to your point. "Historically an increase in such taxes has resulted in an decrease of tax revenues."

I'm not sure where you're getting your info, so I don't know how to respond specifically. But if you're referring to the early 90s, your comment is a classic example of the fallacy "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." You assume that because an increase in taxes proceeds a fall in revenues, the fall in revenues was caused by the increase in taxes. Yes, an old Republican wives tale, an attempt to explain away how Clinton raised taxes and yet still brought about economic prosperity. (Note also that this conclusion relies on selective data, as revenues INCREASED from 91 to 93, and that incomes from 93 were shifted to 92 in anticipation of tax raises). So attribution of a decline in revenues to raising taxes truly glosses over the cosmetic and temporary nature of the decline. And it ignores the prosperity and continuous growth experienced in the 90s (which was my "point"). But until you provide some data to support your claim, or specifics, I'm afraid I can't comment further.

As for your statement "the issue then becomes whether our goal is to increase revenues or simply increase taxes." - if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that this is an either-or proposition, and this assumption is plainly incorrect. For 20 years Republicans have peddled the fantasy that if you cut taxes, you can increase tax revenues and overcome budget deficits. This is a laughable, non-sensical myth -- Reagan and Bush II both proved that if you cut taxes, you get... bigger deficits. This is simple: you increase revenues by INCREASING taxes or DECREASING spending. Whomever is the next president, he or she will have to do both.

comment #48

Major Calloway says ...

This is a laughable, non-sensical myth -- Reagan and Bush II both proved that if you cut taxes, you get... bigger deficits.

I would hazard a guess that the current state of the deficit has more to do with unrestrained federal spending than with lower tax rates:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8116&type=0

You do know that rate increases do not automatically produce revenue increases, right? If you start charging $20 for movie tickets, your theater's revenue will probably not go up.

comment #49

dinther says ...

Maj. Calloway; i agree that spending has something to do with the deficit, tho not "more." My critique has been of the cartoonish view that any tax increase on any segment of the population is necessarily a bad idea.

And as for the rate increases, I would agree to a point; but it's a point that we rarely reach. During the 60s, when we had an exorbitant upper tax rate, business still grew, and there was near full employment. People will still do business if they believe they can profit from it, no matter what the rate. Capital gains taxes only affect the sale of a business, not the money made while one owns a business.

Have a nice wknd.

comment #50

Major Calloway says ...

dinther: My critique has been of the cartoonish view that any tax increase on any segment of the population is necessarily a bad idea.

And my critique would be of the equally cartoonish view (not that I'm asserting it's your particular view) that any tax increase on a certain segment of the population is necessarily a good idea.

People will still do business if they believe they can profit from it, no matter what the rate. Capital gains taxes only affect the sale of a business, not the money made while one owns a business.

If by "a business" you also mean "shares of a business", it's obviously true. But shares are bought and sold every day, not just when the entire business is sold. I don't even necessarily know when the funds I hold are going to produce capital gains due to portfolio turnover. Much like the environment, it's a complex and inter-related system where small changes can have significant impact.

But there are people here much smarter than I on either side of this issue (obviously, I'm sure), so maybe I should get out while the gettin's good.

Have a nice wknd.

comment #51

bb says ...

dinther,

I don't speak latin so you lose me when you use it. Blame my liberal arts degree I guess.

To me, the most striking point of this is the position Obama takes as he stated in the recent debate, that in spite of the assertion by the Charlie Gibson that capital gains tax rates have an inverse relationship to revenues, he would still choose to raise them. His argument was that it was an issue of fairness, not revenue to the government. I truly don't understand that logic.

For a graphic illustration of the relationships between rates and revenues you can check here.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH376_1capga_20080417205212.gif

This comes from here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

A good weekend to everybody as well.

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

bb: "Historically an increase in such taxes has resulted in an decrease of tax revenues."

Except for that surplus under Clinton...

Calloway: "I would hazard a guess that the current state of the deficit has more to do with unrestrained federal spending than with lower tax rates"

Unrestrained federal spending coupled with less money to spend.

"If you start charging $20 for movie tickets, your theater's revenue will probably not go up."

Tell that to the Arclight.

"And my critique would be of the equally cartoonish view (not that I'm asserting it's your particular view) that any tax increase on a certain segment of the population is necessarily a good idea."

It hasn't impacted the Euro, anyway.

"Much like the environment, it's a complex and inter-related system where small changes can have significant impact."

Thus supporting our side.

comment #53

Jay T. says ...

Man, Obama's town meeting response was just awesome... gotta love how he gets all Jay-Z and starts to "brush that dirt of your shoulder." Not too mention the not-too-subtle middle finger nose scratch...

comment #54

BusterD says ...

Do we thank Bill or Hill for another 8 yrs of conservative rule?

Bceause there is no chance Obama beats McCain.

comment #55

BusterD says ...

Typical Liberals.

Raise taxes.
Enlarge gov't.
Gov't can cure all your ills.
Weak on security.

Thats not a mix that wins elections.

comment #56

SpinDozer says ...

sneak peek of Stephanopolous/McCain interview tomorrow...

http://therealmccain.com/interview/?utm_source=rgemail

comment #57

christian says ...

Raise taxes.
Enlarge gov't.
Gov't can cure all your ills.
Weak on security.

And who pays for the war?
Oh, GOVERNMENT. The biggest now in hisatory.
And they'll protect us too?
Except on 9/11 and post Iraq War.

Nice try tho.

comment #58

SpinDozer says ...

'Thats not a mix that wins elections'

Yup, those particular strawmen didn't help the GOP win in 2006.