You say you'd like a flat/consumer type tax and I'm on board, but Bruce Bartlett, who I mention in other posts, lays out the problems with the FairTax and flat taxes that most people espouse. He does that in The Benefit and the Burden, but he goes on to advocate a type of tax on consumption, called a Value-Added Tax, that many other countries already have in place. I support moving in that direction eventually, but Bartlett makes the case that we have to have a healthy economy first and I don't think there are many out there who think our economy is healthy right now.

You say that the tax on short-term debt would lead to less credit and maybe it would, but not for the general public. I think he's talking about the money that banks lend to each other.

You're on the fence about Cap and Trade, but it is the compromise, right. In the past, the left wanted CAP and the right wanted, um, NOTHING, so they settled on Cap and Trade to regulate sulphur dioxide and it worked. Now the left wants Cap and Trade and the right seems to want, um, NOTHING. The compromise I see us getting at this point is a Cap and Trade bill that is littered with loopholes and ineffective. A system that costs money and doesn't regulate $%!^. Cap and Trade is good.

...It could be good, but with the current political system, where candidates move to the extremes to avoid being beaten by a primary challenger, a system where politicians depend on "monied interests" to fund campaigns, a congress that doesn't play by the same rules we do, writes laws with loopholes ON PURPOSE, and has a filibuster that legislating difficult/impossible, we're boned. We know how to fix those things. Sadness. :-(

Ancient Aliens is on RIGHT NOW! I don't know how it can be coincidence.

I know who Bruce Bartlett is. There is another key member of the Reagan Administration who now preaches hard against the policies of the time. As Bill Cosby once said, "He's just an old my trying to get into heaven now." He bailed on the administration to work for a college. I'm not going to mention his name because I don't want to promote the man. We can all look back from 30 years up the road and look brilliant when we speak of past policies. That's what they say about hindsight.

Don't you find it odd that these men are for what's hip and hot right now? You're intelligent and thoughtful. I can see that.

The whole economic debate comes down to which side of the fence you're arguing from. If you're a small player in the gas industry, for example, you want less government. You want less regulations. You want less interference in general. I know this first hand.

If you're the part of the democrat base you want more. That's just true. That party markets itself to the poor by telling them what they want to hear, and they buy it hook, line, and sinker. That's why all those people who'd never pulled a lever in their lives came out from under the woodwork to Vote for Obama. They didn't know what you and I know. Obama, as a candidate, didn't reinvent the wheel. He just marketed to ignorant people who didn't know any better. Half of them have turned on him because he didn't give them the free ride he promised. Sadly that isn't enough and he will likely get reelected.

Government invades our lives in ways it was never supposed to. I'm NOT saying the government shouldn't regulate and create laws and so on. Of course it should, but by agreeing with Danno's post my point is the ONLY plan that will work is a plan that gets government back to where it was intended, because that's what made American great once, and it can never be great again unless and until the business of politics is changed.

Economists can and will argue over what's right. That's what they do. None of it is accurate, because it's all based on somebody's agenda. You don't find the Economists educated at Berkeley disagreeing with one another though. Go figure. I am a disciple for none of them.

You're looking for specific answers to specific problems. I'm telling you that I'm looking at the bigger picture.

True Dat! As long as there are enough "Moochers" (for those in Rio Linda, those abusing the system to undeservedly improperly reap personal benefit) around to re-elect "Looters" (for those in Rio Linda, the representatives who pass legislation, many times by mischaracterizations and deceit, benefiting those Moochers solely to remain in power), not much will change, sadly.

Not too much I can disagree with here. But, I think, the great thing about hindsight is that it is 20/20 and we can evaluate and re-evaluate what worked and what didn't. The economists that I've read, seemingly regardless of the side they come down on, don't come down very far apart. I think...no, I know that most people listen to politicians and pundits (who don't even hide their agendas, they're flaunted) when we want to learn about how the economy works and that's a huge mistake.

My argument IS for less government spending and IS for less government intrusion in our personal lives, but, I think, when people see that the plan DOES require government to do something, they tune out or slap the big government tag on it. It's disappointing.

I guess the thing I'm most disappointed about, is that Gov. Buddy Roemer was completely shut out of the Republican debates despite polling as well as some of the candidates that made the cut. His main focus is Lessig-style campaign finance reform. A Republican I could vote for, despite many disagreements, and someone, I think, we could have been proud of.

Lawrence Lessig, who I mention frequently, wrote "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and a Plan to Stop It." It's incredible (incredible meaning it's awesome and not meaning it lacks credibility)! If Lawrence Lessig were to run for president in 2016, which is less than likely, it would prove the existence of a higher power. I don't trust most politicians, and he isn't a politician, but I'd trust him completely. If it turned out that he disagreed with me on something, I guess I'd just have to assume I was wrong. He's like a balding half-human half-angel hybrid with glasses.

Thanks for the response.

The truth is that Danno and I are cut, essentially, from the same mold on these topics. He and I are both Conservative. He and I both loved Reagan.

I loved Reagan not because he was conservative. Not because he was an actor. Not because my grandpa (a card carrying Dem by the way) met with him in New Orleans while he was Governor of California. It is because, in my humble opinion, he was a true leader of men. In my opinion he was the last true leader of men to live in the white house, and maybe before him you have to get all the way back to Kennedy.

Let me say this about trickle down: I'm not smart enough nor am I well read enough to comment intelligently - I think I was in the 6th grade at the time. What's funny to me is the people who DESIGNED it are now preaching against it. I guess that's a large part of my point.

I have an uber-liberal co-worker/friend. He and I are alike in many ways. We both love music, appreciate art, and have many other similar beliefs. We talk and typically disagree a lot, but it's healthy. I see his point clearly. He is extremely articulate. Sometimes he's wrong. Sometimes he falls too far on the side of PC in the face of common sense. But common sense doesn't always cut it either, in a country as dynamic as ours. The answers are almost never as clear as I might want them to be, and he calls me on that. What's interesting is that he's a black man from Baltimore and I'm a white Conservative from the deep South. Go figure.

Why our politicians can't interact with one another similarly hacks me off. I mean, I know why. I get the reasoning behind why they do what they do. The ONE thing I'd like from my government is to regulate the politicians, because if you do that, 70 percent of your problems go away overnight.

This is the crux of everything that is wrong with our current government.

Once elected they look at opposing party members as lepers. No bi-partisan work gets done, and if a bill does get through to a vote, it rarely passes unless there is a true majority, or there is some compromise where the other party adds two three items in exchange for the vote.

Sad that the 11th hours negotiations are as close to compromise and unity that our can accomplish. Can you imagine a Fortune 500 company being successful if everyone only agreed on their individual ideas?

It's truly scary, what things in Washington have become. Our nation is more diverse than ever, and that is a contributing factor, but those politicians aren't there to serve anything other than their own backsides. It's maddening.

We need a leader. Not a good marketer. Not a good speech writer. Not a guy that looks good on TV. We are desperate for one. Where is he/she?

... that pretty much sums it up for me & I especially like the 'regulate politicians' viewpoint ... some kind of term-limits would work wonders at unclogging the log jam you see daily in Congress ... serve your country to the best of your ability, then go home! ... they make the military retire after 20yrs, why not Senators or Representatives?