danivon wrote:The main way to avoid taxation would be to move to a tax haven. Those are being slowly eked out, and the US is pretty low-tax anyway. Besides, where else to do business, right? The problem is over-estimated (and under-enforced when it comes to tax loopholes) if you think it means an exodus or that people will cease to innovate.

How does the US corporate tax rate compare with others? Is this helping or hurting job creation in the US?

Btw, how about that brilliant speech by the President today? So bold, so brave, so thought-provoking . . . http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/0 ... peech.html

Okay, so it put Uncle Joe to sleep.

I know there is no way a 10% flat tax across the board (Which I would wholeheartedly support!) would be met with anything but derision from you, Danivon.

See? I was thinking of you...

That would also eliminate any state/local/sales taxes, just to make sure there is no confusion.

Doctor Fate wrote:

geojanes wrote: Deep down, Republicans know this, but the rank and file chose to believe something else based on their faith in the ideology.

Here's what we know:

1. Zero taxation means anarchy.

2. 100% taxation means less productivity.

3. Somewhere between the two is the ideal.

4. The two parties ought to never agree on where that is. Why? Because then, as Pelosi said, elections don't matter.

5. Liberals and progressives believe the government spends money more wisely than those who earn it. They also believe the government is generally trustworthy.

6. Conservatives believe the government wastes money more than it spends it efficiently. They believe those who earn it have first claim on it, not the government. They are inherently mistrustful of government.

Whew! I thought you were going to go up to 10.

How many poor people hire employees? How many poor people sign paychecks? Taxing the rich until they are not rich is no answer. Encouraging hard work is.

This part, however is so messed up, it's hard for me to keep my lid on. First, the richest of us pay some of the lowest tax rates. So how about taxing the rich until they pay as much as the average working man?

Try it. They will just go GE on you (you know, the company led by Barack's pal, Immelt, that makes billions and pays zero taxes).

Amen brother Steve. We need a system where people can't go GE on us. We need a system that is much more straight-forward and fair. I'm with you brother.

Give him credit, Warren Buffet disclosed the 17.7% net federal rate he paid in 2007, which is pretty freaking low when you consider at the time he was the richest person in America, and much less than what his secretary paid. In fact, our tax system encourages rich people NOT to work.

I give Buffet zero credit. Nothing stops him from giving to the government. Bust out the checkbook, Warren and put a sock in your yap. Show me you want to pay more! What he wants is to FORCE others to pay more.

Warren the Blasphemer! A traitor to his class. He's actually telling people that there is a class war that his class is winning. You want to pay more Mr. Buffett? Pay more, who's stopping ya? Amen! There is a cold, dark cell in Guantanamo for men like you Mr. Buffett.

Even though the whiff of class warfare in this discussion makes you uncomfortable, at a fundamental level, Steve, I think you and I agree. Reward work, have people pay their fair share. Who can argue with that? But when you relate those principles to reality, it's like we're living in two different worlds, your up is down, your black is white. And while I'm surprised, I shouldn't be. This is the difference between faith and reason.

Right. You have faith in government.

With reason, I understand it can't be trusted.

What is the objective of government? I say it is to stay out of the way, but be big enough to stop us from killing each other and protect our national borders. The federal government does a lot of things it was never designed or intended to do. This is where we disagree.

Amen brother. I completely agree with you, except the part that I have faith in government. I have no idea where you got that idea. I actually have a little faith in local gov't, but state and federal govt? Yeah, so not much.

i also don't begrudge wealthy people their money. My suggestion to you and other left-leaning folks would be to go for a "wealth tax." It would force people to use their money or lose it. My guess? They would send it overseas--just like they will if we start jacking up the individual rates.

Amen brother. I love rich people too!! Some of my favorite people are rich!!! Rich beyond their wildest dreams!!!! But a wealth tax? Yeah, you lost me there brother. Property taxes are as close to a wealth tax that I would be willing to see and even then, ick.

Part of the problem is that you live in a city that is predicated upon the principle that your money is their money. NYC blesses people with the opportunity to live there. The poor get all kinds of help. Everyone else gets all kinds of taxes.

This is true, but what part of the problem is that? (Other than my state and local taxes this year were within spitting distance of my my federal, :-( but I expect that's more important to me than you)

In my mind you and the Republican rank and file are stuck with this faith in a ideology that promises to get the country to a better place for all, but only creates a better place for the chosen few, and it's a tragedy that long-term hurts all of us.

I'm not rich and I'm not hurt. What "hurts" is the clown in the White House who is spending money that my great-grandchildren will be paying back and dragging the US through the mud across the globe. His vision is to "redistribute the wealth." That's sure helping the economy and the country, isn't it?

A good soldier doesn't complain. The quiet, uncomplaining dedication to the cause is truly touching. (By the way, your taxes are due in a few days, what was your effective tax rate? More or less than Mr. Buffett? Guessing more, but I know with clergy there are some wacky rules that may give you a benefit Mr. Buffett can't get.)

More seriously, I hope you don't mind my light tone. I know you like to classify people, but I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I can't vote in the primaries. When it comes to stuff like this I'm completely secular. There is no party platform or pundits that I follow, no good book for me to read, I just see what's going on and note where things are messed up. The regressive tax system in America is completely messed up and unfair. We tax working people more than people who don't work. We tax earned income higher than any other type of income. Earned income is the thing that should have the lowest tax rate, but it has the highest. We encourage business people who have built up a company to sell and retire as soon as they can by taxing their capital gains only 15%, but when they're working and getting a salary it is 2 or 2.5 times that. It's nuts. No democracy would design a system this way, oh wait a minute . . .

We actually agree on so many of the fundamentals, but up is not down, black is not white, and freedom is not slavery.

A few quick points about the "Laffer Curve". First, an explanation of the basic principle:

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget.

Laffer? No. Wanninski? No. The above was written by John Maynard Keynes. The idea that tax rates and receipts don't necessarily enjoy a simple linear relationship didn't begin with Laffer or D. Cheney or Jack Kemp. Try this one on for size:

In the early stages of the state, taxes are light in their incidence, but fetch in a large revenue...As time passes and kings succeed each other, they lose their tribal habits in favor of more civilized ones. Their needs and exigencies grow...owing to the luxury in which they have been brought up. Hence they impose fresh taxes on their subjects...and sharply raise the rate of old taxes to increase their yield...But the effects on business of this rise in taxation make themselves felt. For business men are soon discouraged by the comparison of their profits with the burden of their taxes...Consequently production falls off, and with it the yield of taxation.

That was written by an Islamic scholar before Ronald Reagan was even born! Not by much. It was written in the year 1377. Ronnie was just a gleam in his grandpa's eye.

So, if the idea that tax rate increases can be self-defeating has become an entrenched meme among some conservatives, criticizing Mr. Laffer in rebuttal is to some extent flawed forensics. That's even more obviously the case if I'm right in saying (based on my admittedly faulty memory) that no conservative at this or the old site has ever brought up the name Laffer when talking taxes, but Danivon is the first user of the word in a thread time after time. The forensic flaw here is that of the straw man. [A conservative mentions that higher taxes aren't going to have a simple linear effect of raising government revenues - Danivon substitutes an assertion regarding knowledge of the precise shape of the so-called Laffer Curve.]

Next: talking about the Laffer Curve is misleading. The curve is entirely theoretical and used only to graphically represent the simple phenomenon described by Keynes and Ibn Khaldun. Laffer himself explains it all HERE but I prefer this graphical depiction:



The reasons this is an "accurate" depiction are: 1) there isn't just one kind of tax and tax rate, there are many. 2) Even within one tax area there can be many different rates (i.e. in a progressive income tax). 3) Governments have non-tax sources of revenue. 4) Tax systems don't exist in a vacuum - the so-called curve fails to take into consideration the effect of different rates in other jurisdictions (i.e. corporate tax rate of 13% in Ireland vs. 34% in France*) And so on. The point: Laffer's curve, drawn on a napkin, only illustrates a simple point. It's not a "model" of economic behavior in any real sense.

Now it's true that conservatives have argued that we're past the point where increasing rates can yield more revenue. In effect, they are saying that they have at least a vague idea about the shape of the curve and think we're on the wrong side of the peak. If you disagree with this assertion you should argue the matter on its merits, or even criticize the credentials of those making the assertion, but it's silly to cast aspersions upon the basic concept as set forth by Keynes and Ibn Khaldun or the curve Laffer used to illustrate it. The curve, contrary to many reports, has not been discredited. Assertions about our place on it, however, are never very credible. Since conservatives at Redscape never mention Laffer, assertions they make about taxes should be rebutted without trying to taint them by false association with the false meme that Laffer's curve has been discredited. Or, at the very least, call them mindless proponents of that notorious supply-sider Ibn Khaldun!


* source for those specific rates - almost assuredly outdated. Doesn't matter.

geojanes wrote:More seriously, I hope you don't mind my light tone. I know you like to classify people, but I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I can't vote in the primaries.

I am a Republican, but only because there may be a moment when a primary vote matters. I don't blame you for not being a Democrat--in NY, CA, MA, MD and other states, the Democratic Party is out of its collective mind. In my state, the GOP is virtually non-existent. At its "best" it can offer Scott Brown, whom I will reluctantly vote for, but never contribute to again (once bitten, etc.).

I don't need to "classify" you. I am confident you voted for Obama and would put the odds at about 1:4 that you will do so again.

When it comes to stuff like this I'm completely secular. There is no party platform or pundits that I follow, no good book for me to read, I just see what's going on and note where things are messed up.

Believe it or not, brother, I tend to agree. I'd love to see your notebook--must be jammed full these days.

The regressive tax system in America is completely messed up and unfair. We tax working people more than people who don't work. We tax earned income higher than any other type of income. Earned income is the thing that should have the lowest tax rate, but it has the highest. We encourage business people who have built up a company to sell and retire as soon as they can by taxing their capital gains only 15%, but when they're working and getting a salary it is 2 or 2.5 times that. It's nuts. No democracy would design a system this way, oh wait a minute . . .

Here's the problem: the system was not "designed" so much as it was cobbled together over time. It does not cohere because there was never any intent that it would. It's a bit like when my Mom used to make stew--there was no telling how it was going to turn out.

Imagine for a moment that Brad gets his way and a flat-tax (of sorts) takes hold with no deductions. Great--until people start realizing the value of home ownership just went down. Wouldn't that be keen right now, given the decline in home values???

The system is such a maze and so convoluted, entire companies do nothing but guide people through it. Setting fairness aside, it seems exceedingly foolish.

We actually agree on so many of the fundamentals, but up is not down, black is not white, and freedom is not slavery.

Yes, but I'm hopeful you'll give up your game of self-deception.

Love this quote from Paul Ryan--referencing Obama's speech: “He’s basically a pyromaniac in a field of straw men”

Btw, I'm not a prophet, but . . . I did predict demagoguery. The President did not disappoint:

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which "starts," he said, "by being honest about what's causing our deficit." The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards. . . .

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on "the rich." Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts "for the wealthiest 2%," conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own "series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs." Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the "cost" of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that's three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.

Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt "failsafe," which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else "making government smarter, leaner and more effective." Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting "waste and abuse."

Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors "a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history." Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President's political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.

The President is a political hack who is in way over his head. His response to a cogent plan from Ryan (not perfect, but a decent starting point)? Attack, lie, and throw massive quantities of cotton candy (lines that seem nice but have no substance--as his figures were all made up, and none of his proposals are serious) at the audience.

danivon wrote:Steve, you mention corporation tax. What is the rate of corporation tax in the US? I thought Delaware had an effective rate of zero?

Just checked. Your federal rates are between 15% and 35% with escalating bands, which amount to a 34-35% rate for profits over $335,000. States add up to about 10%, although several are at zero and most seem to have a top rate of about 6-7%

The UK rate (not particularly high by EU standards) is 26%, with a lower 20% rate for small companies (which is under £300,000).

So yeah, yours are higher. Yet your economy seems to be doing very well. Mind you, corporation tax is on profit, not activity (and one way to reduce profits is to pay higher wages, so what you do with income tax may have an effect on it).

By the way, Ireland has the lowest corporation tax around these parts (excepting the havens), and it did them no real good - the recession has led to the government needing to be bailed out by the rest of us. The companies that moved there to benefit are now moving elsewhere.

bbauska wrote:That would also eliminate any state/local/sales taxes, just to make sure there is no confusion.

Ah, now, I can see that being a problem. A Federally mandated tax rate, removing the freedom of the States to set their own levels of other taxes? I think that would need at the very least a huge amount of convincing power, if not an Amendment.

That you felt the need to self-censor over my account is sweet, but unnecessary. If you favour a flat tax, propose it and stand by it. If you want a simpler system (with lower rates) propose that. Don't propose one and call it the other, or we'll think you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

By the way, the UK income tax system has the same number of bands as you proposed, with an additional zero-tax allowance. Our rates are higher though (20% being the basic rate, 40% the higher rate over about £40,000 and 50% for income over £150,000).

Min X - pedantry aside, I was not claiming Laffer to be 'discredited'. I was pointing out that the curve actually shows that reducing taxes can reduce tax income. Perhaps I am wring to assume that people who argue for tax cuts every refer to Laffer. I agree that your graph could be representative - although for a particular tax at a particular time (and perhaps for a subset of the population) it will likely be a more simple curve

steve

Also, before taxes are raised, there ought to be a consideration of the impact of those taxes. It is simplistic to pretend the government simply takes money out of the economy and there are no reverberations.

It is simplistic to think that taxation takes money out of the economy. If the government is spending tax reciepts on goods and services it is putting that money back into the economy.And thats local investment.
Right now American corporations and individuals are sitting on trillions of dolars that they've received through reduced taxation rates. Rather then invest them in growing their businesses or US investments they are sitting on the cash OR choosing to invest outside of the country. In effect taxing these people would actually put more money into the US economy. You make the mistake of believing that Multinational and American corporations act in the best interests of the nation as a whole when they act in their own self interest. Time and time again this has proven to be wrong. Often they act entirely against the national interest.

What Obama seems to have done over the last few days is put himself up as a defender of medicare and social security and willing to cut every where else and tax the very rich at levels that they were taxed at 10 years ago when things were going well.
I think thats fairly politically adept. Even tea party supporters wanted medicare protected . (Get your government hands off my medicare!)

The republican position is now viewed simplistically as attacking medicare and social security and defending tax breaks for the uber wealthy.
Whatever the eventual budget that gets hammered out, I think Obama seems to have struck a pretty powerful strategic position.
More importantly, everyone is saying cuts will be necessary. So when he signs a bill making them happen it won't be imposing them on an unwilling populace but making them with a populace resigned to their importance.
He also seems to have outsourced to the House and Congress the specificity of the cuts" Now, thats going to co-opt both sides of the congress in taking responsibility for the hard choices...
Could it be that the disastrous mid-terms simply set the stage for this eventuality?
If the economy also continues to improve, things are looking up for Obama 12.

I think I am for the suggested (sort of) flat tax proposed
However, like all good intentions, there are plenty of unforeseen problems, one pointed out was the possible decline in ones house value but don't forget how municipalities and states fund so many projects, they offer municipal bonds because they are a good value for an investor of such a project. They make some interest while avoiding some taxes. To suddenly pull that rug out could really harm these sorts of projects. The big question is how do you split the costs coming in so each section gets his fair share, far easier said than done!
But overall I do like the simplistic and fair approach

danivon wrote:[By the way, Ireland has the lowest corporation tax around these parts (excepting the havens), and it did them no real good - the recession has led to the government needing to be bailed out by the rest of us. The companies that moved there to benefit are now moving elsewhere.

Was Ireland's financial collapse due to a low corporate rate or too much spending?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:[By the way, Ireland has the lowest corporation tax around these parts (excepting the havens), and it did them no real good - the recession has led to the government needing to be bailed out by the rest of us. The companies that moved there to benefit are now moving elsewhere.

Was Ireland's financial collapse due to a low corporate rate or too much spending?

Neither. The one sentence version: The bad decision by the gov't to back up giant banks that took tremendous risks in a speculative real estate bubble has, largely, bankrupted the country.

GMTom wrote:I think I am for the suggested (sort of) flat tax proposed
However, like all good intentions, there are plenty of unforeseen problems, one pointed out was the possible decline in ones house value but don't forget how municipalities and states fund so many projects, they offer municipal bonds because they are a good value for an investor of such a project. They make some interest while avoiding some taxes. To suddenly pull that rug out could really harm these sorts of projects. The big question is how do you split the costs coming in so each section gets his fair share, far easier said than done!
But overall I do like the simplistic and fair approach

Agreed! Tax free munis, local tax deduction, foreign tax credit, charitable deductions, 529 gains, IRAs deferrals, Roth gains, mortgage interest deduction, crazy dividends and long-term capital gains rates, on and on and on. Untangling that mess will take a bold Gordian type of action, because everyone who benefits is going to be hollering.

rickyp wrote:steve

Also, before taxes are raised, there ought to be a consideration of the impact of those taxes. It is simplistic to pretend the government simply takes money out of the economy and there are no reverberations.

It is simplistic to think that taxation takes money out of the economy. If the government is spending tax reciepts on goods and services it is putting that money back into the economy.And thats local investment.

Uh-huh. It does this so well! Why, just look at the massive benefits of the stimulus!

One thing we know for sure: no entity is more efficient in spending money than the government! They know how to get bang for the buck! I mean, just look at the brilliance of the government in making sure programs don't overlap:

GAO’s 345-page report (PDF) was initiated more than a year ago when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) forced a 94-0 Senate vote on the issue. Now, each year GAO must identify federal programs, agencies, offices and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. It’s up to Congress to act, but given the recent desire to cut spending, there is no shortage of waste — at least $100 billion, according to Coburn’s estimate.

“This report also shows we could save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every year without cutting services,” Coburn said. “And, in many cases, smart consolidations will improve service.”

Maybe Obama should adopt your mantra: "We spend money better than you do, give it to the government!"

Oh wait. That's what he said yesterday. Would you take some time off (please) and run his campaign? Thanks!

Right now American corporations and individuals are sitting on trillions of dolars that they've received through reduced taxation rates. Rather then invest them in growing their businesses or US investments they are sitting on the cash OR choosing to invest outside of the country.

Hmm, sitting on trillions of dollars? Unusual behavior for capitalist pigs. Maybe they don't think they can make a profit? Why would that be? Increased regulations? Higher medical insurance costs and requirements because of Obamacare? Overall economic uncertainty because of QE2?

In effect taxing these people would actually put more money into the US economy. You make the mistake of believing that Multinational and American corporations act in the best interests of the nation as a whole when they act in their own self interest.

No, I understand this perfectly. If YOU understood it, you would get that there is something holding them back. You may see some nefarious motive. I see the simple truth: this government has created uncertainty, which discourages investment and hiring.

What Obama seems to have done over the last few days is put himself up as a defender of medicare and social security and willing to cut every where else and tax the very rich at levels that they were taxed at 10 years ago when things were going well.
I think thats fairly politically adept. Even tea party supporters wanted medicare protected . (Get your government hands off my medicare!)

He didn't protect anything. He demagogued and posed. Please, cite the substance of his proposals. Dig deep in the shallow soil. He had NO numbers other than numbers he pulled out of the ether. Krauthammer:

“I thought it was a disgrace,” he said. “I rarely heard a speech by a president so shallow, so hyper-partisan and so intellectually dishonest, outside the last couple of weeks of a presidential election where you are allowed to call your opponent anything short of a traitor. But, we’re a year-and-a-half away from Election Day and it was supposed to be a speech about policy. He didn’t even get to his own alternative until more than halfway through the speech. And when he did, he threw out numbers suspended in mid-air with nothing under them with all kinds of goals and guidelines and triggers that mean nothing. The speech was really about and entirely an attack on the [Rep. Paul] Ryan plan.”

Krauthammer offered up an example and showed in one scenario, the tax rates in Ryan’s plan were higher than what Obama’s own deficit commission had recommended.

“I’m going to give you one example of how dishonest it was – he went on and on how the Republicans want to steal from your grandma to lower taxes on the rich,” Krauthammer continued. “And he talked about the Bush tax cuts and how much he is going to stand on the bridge and oppose any extension which is what he knows how to do. He has done it over and over for the last six years. The Ryan plan is not about the Bush tax cuts. It transcends them. It’s what the deficit — what Obama’s own commission recommended, strip out loopholes and lower rates for everyone. It’s not about whether it’s the Bush rates or Clinton rates. It’s a whole new approach by which the Simpson-Bowles Commission recommended itself. In fact, Bowles had recommended in one of its scenarios of a high rate of 23 percent. Ryan is at 25 percent. Obama did this knowing that this is a way to play to his base. It was a speech that was quite remarkable in how demagogic it was and I say that with all due respect.”

The republican position is now viewed simplistically as attacking medicare and social security and defending tax breaks for the uber wealthy.
Whatever the eventual budget that gets hammered out, I think Obama seems to have struck a pretty powerful strategic position.
More importantly, everyone is saying cuts will be necessary. So when he signs a bill making them happen it won't be imposing them on an unwilling populace but making them with a populace resigned to their importance.

Trust me. I hope the White House thinks like you--that people will be fooled by the President's charade of a speech.

You know what I would pay to see? Ryan debate the President on the budget. It would be Muhammad Ali in his prime (Ryan) against Willie Shoemaker (look him up). Obama speaks in generalities and makes stuff up. He has no clue what he's talking about.

He actually said he was going to reduce spending in "tax expenditures." That is so funny! In other words, he's going to raise taxes, but he won't say that. There has never been a more dishonest and more political speech that masqueraded as a "new policy" than what the President did yesterday.

He also seems to have outsourced to the House and Congress the specificity of the cuts" Now, thats going to co-opt both sides of the congress in taking responsibility for the hard choices...
Could it be that the disastrous mid-terms simply set the stage for this eventuality?
If the economy also continues to improve, things are looking up for Obama 12.

Oh brother! Put down the Kool-Aid for just a minute, will you? From the AP:

Should taxes be raised to eat into huge federal deficits? Among the public, 62 percent say they favor cutting government services to sop up the red ink. Just 29 percent say raise taxes.

That's sure to be a major issue as Congress takes up budget legislation for next year and the 2012 presidential campaign gets under way in earnest. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama revived his proposal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to help reduce government borrowing.

That's a poll of Adults, which is bound to be less conservative than the actual electorate.

Given unemployment claims went up this last week, gas prices are at record (for pre-Memorial Day) levels, overall food prices are up (strange how official inflation rates don't measure fuel and food, isn't it?), and our debt and deficit are at unprecedented levels, and we are now in three wars, I don't know that Obama is quite the lead-pipe cinch you think he is.