[econjack]

As an econ major, she either slept through her classes or never got the degree in the first place. Her statements imply that gov't tax policy is impact-neutral. That is, gov't tax policies have no effect on economic activity or growth. Given that stance, I'd like to see her explain the huge jump in economic activity, lower unemployment rates despite increased labor force participation rates which occurred as soon as the repressive economic policies of Obama were peeled back.

"The rich need to pay their fair share." I agree, but since the top 10% of income earners in the US foot 72% of total tax receipts, I'd argue for tax cuts on the rich. Like it or not, they provide jobs which leads to economic growth. And here's the part liberals miss: If the pie is growing at 4% per year, even if your share of that pie doesn't change, you disposable income is also rising. Cut taxes, and it rises even more.

"But that creates a deficit!" No...spending creates a deficit. Buffet proposed a simple solution to the "elect-me" spending Congress engages in: Anyone in Congress who votes for a budget that increases the deficit by 3% or more, cannot run for reelection. You'd see the Free-Cell-Phones-for-Deadbeats program die in a heartbeat.

Cortex is a very, very, bad joke.

[AndyJackson]

Look, the real effect is the damper on small business, and by small business I mean mom and pop startups and not some $1B per year plumbing supply house. When well over 50% of any company profit for a sole-proprietor goes to taxes and fees, and when it involves piles of paper to file the paper to pay those taxes and fees, there is no incentive to start up a profitable business if you already have income elsewhere. It just isn’t worth it.

[upchuck]

Cortex is a very, very, bad joke.

Cortex? What's your definition?

I did a search and found Cortex used in accounting software, medical devices, PC performance booster, FM radio program...