Lincoln was an outsider too. Pierce and Buchanan who preceded him and considered two of the worst presidents for their failure to deal with secessionist tensions were insiders. Carter the peanut farmer was probably one of the least inspiring American presidents in terms of showing power and consequently the downside to being too nice on the global stage. Republican success owes a lot to his "weak" example. It's probably similar to how Russians feel about Gorbachev and Yeltsin. That said in George W. Bush you see the other extreme. It's time the pendulum swung back. Do you consider Obama even more left-wing than Carter? Obama seems to talk tougher than Carter. His comments on possible operations in Pakistan for example. When it comes down to a choice between Obama and McCain the things that have started to tip the balance for Obama for me are (1) he is smarter (2) his personal integrity and conduct hasn't been called into question by people who have known him the way Ross Perot denounced McCain.
Sounds fair -- so that obviously brings up the question of how much is "too much" and how little is "too little" and how one can know if Obama's plan is good or bad. I can tell you that welfare payments, at least in this area, are not high. Well I look at historical data and in the 50's taxes were massive and production was high. Under Bush Capital gains was dropped drastically, and production is low.
Also, granola bars were introduced. Therefore higher birth rates were the result of granola bars. QED. The reality is far more complex than your simple sketch, involving a cultural shift in the sixties and seventies. No. The highest statistic I've found is for black mothers only, not minorities in general and it's not quite 70%. This is almost certainly related to the unpopularity of marriage and not payments to mothers. In fact, 30% now live without either public assistance or jobs. This gravy train you describe -- well let's take a look at Wisconsin: "Wisconsin's welfare provides unemployed single heads of households with children payments of up to $673 a month and the parent must participate in at least 40 hours of assigned work, work-related activities or training programs a week. That averages to about $4.20 an hour" $673 a month to support a child is not even a joke. I have to ask if you're pro-life.
That is because America isn't nearly the manufacturing economy it was then. It is more of a service economy. Want to see something interesting? Google capital gains tax changes and revenues. You will have to shuffle through several articles written by dry economists, but you will eventually find the charts. They show an immediate and significant rise in revenue after rates were dropped to 15%. The exact opposite occurred when they were raised to 28% before that. It was immediate, and significant. There are very few economists that believe that higher capital gains taxes actually raise revenue. Its a political thing.
You should cite your sources and not just paraphrase. From the evidence I see the best that can be said about your assertion is that it is debatable given certain conditions. But the preponderance seems to argue against . http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1692027,00.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/the-new-laffer.html
Its funny, but I actuall read the link you posted and its supports what the guy you quoted was saying. He said there was an immediate increase in receipts when Cap gains taxes were cut. He is right. Read the link you posted, there is even a chart that shows this.
Well that's great, except that if your theory was true (or relevant) where did the giant debt come from? In other words, even if you're right the tax cuts did not pay for themselves.
Oh sheesh. How dishonest. According to you graph tax receipts were rising in 1996 and 1995 already, and were already recovering in 2002, yet you ascribe the increase in revenue to capital gains reductions. In statistics what you've done there would be called "nonsense."
Obama is far more left wing than Carter. Carter was basically a reformer. He was a farmer and former Naval officer. Obama's "career" consisted of being a community organizer, whatever that is. Obama has proposed a series of breath taking lurches to the left, including socialized health care, enormous tax increases on those who produce jobs and economic growth, far-reaching changes in labor law, eg to give union bosses the ability to force unions on companies without a secret ballot, an open borders/amnesty immigration policy and opposition to reasonable steps to prevent fraudulent voting. He is an appealing fresh face, compared to Ted Kennedy and other aging socialist windbags, but he is pushing the same failed policies. Ross Perot broke with McCain when McCain divorced his first wife. Certainly it was not McCain's finest moment, but the man had been a POW for five years. Obama has far more to answer for. His mentor was the hate-filled Rev. Wright, a crazed racist who honored Louis Farrkhan and saw every issue as race-based. He was close to the equally crazed priest, Father Phleger, who made headlines mocking Hillary Clinton. His first campaign fund raiser was hosted by none other than William Ayers, former terrorist leader of the Weather Underground group. Obama's financial supporters include Tony Rezko and some dubious islamic radicals.
First, with the top 1% of income earners paying 40% of federal income taxes, almost twice their share of income, the rich certainly seem to be paying their fair share, and then some. Liberal politicians who say we need to raise taxes on the rich so they will pay their fair share are either abusively misleading the public, or hopelessly ignorant regarding federal tax policy. If 40% is not fair for the top 1%, what would be fair, 50%, 100%? http://atr.org/content/pdf/2008/August/081408ot-federalincometaxandwhattheypay.pdf