Oooooh, the "hard economic times" of a Democratic presidency. Like the Second Great Depression conservatives predicted would follow from the Democratic tax increases of 1990 and 1993. Americans will remember the Second Great Depression as the catastrophic decade in which employment and the economy grew while inflation and the federal deficit shrank and family earning finally started going back up after a twenty-year decline and crime and abortion rates all fell faster than any previous modern era. Truly, God have mercy on the United States if we ever again face such an economic situation. Good thing we have so many conservatives on hand to warn us against doing such foolish things as creating sustained prosperity.

Gentle mocking aside, I'm baffled by this statement: "From Woodrow Wilson, to FDR, to George W. Bush, they all said one thing as candidates and did exactly the opposite once they got elected."

Huh? George W. Bush is the acme of doing as president exactly what he promised as a candidate. The only meaningful exception is on foreign policy, where Bush promised a smaller military than his 2000 opponent and a "humble" international presence. Aside from that, Bush delivered on his promises to a greater degree than any modern president, including Reagan. You have to go back to Grover Cleveland, or maybe James Polk, to find a president who so steadfastly governed as promised in his election platform. Name the issue other than the War on Terror, and you can find Bush promising to do as he did as early as spring 1999.

Many of the questions seem to be [or incorporate] different ways of saying: Why do you think it's ok to tax people and spend the money on other people?

I don't know anything about Larry Hunter, but I know something of the point of view of fiscal conservatives who like balanced budgets and for the gummint to keep its paws out of their pockets as much as possible. I understand and respect these sentiments, but on the tax thing its always a matter of how much, and what are you spending it on? Kind of like when your kid asks you for money. So I can't understand the questions that don't get into those details.

Unless he just thinks that there should be no tax, and everything should be paid for by charities, or for-profit corporations. Does he? I think some people might. I don't know if he's one of them. If not, he needs to specify which expenditures are not justified. Or else the question is unanswerable.

Hunter sounds like a patriot. Obamacon. What a stupid word. By the way, any update on the love affair between Lindsay Graham and Joe Lieberman. They're like the new "Odd Couple"...which one does the dishes?

I like it when ideology is substituted for actual argument or policy proposals.  "Raising taxes on the rich is always bad."  Whatever.

Larry Hunter laments his Quixotic adventures in Government reductivism for the sake of Government reductivism. Maybe if one only looks through the tax-free tinted glasses of non-earned income sources does one really "think"  that a progressive tax system punitively punishes risk-taking, entrepreneurs and takes from the more fortunate to "give" to the less fortunate.

Usually the supply-side arguments are made under the premise that any tax on the upper 1% or even the top 5% of wealth holders is counterproductive to wealth generation and discourages investment. But historically this has not been the case. Entrepreneurs invest in risky ventures not based on the tax rate of that investment but on the market return of the product profit. Couching non-income earning (aka investments, stocks and bonds) as entrepreneurial gives a false face to the actualities of the top income earners' investment strategies and incentives.

Taxing people who actually do work at a higher rate than those whose living is "earned" from interest and dividends is not the fiscally responsible as it taxes actual work. The only thing that Mr. Hunter's preferred economic policies achieve is further erosion of a lower and middle wage-earning income class and a greater divide between the upper percentile of income earners. Sure I own an IRA and my savings make a modest interest but the taxes on those pale in comparison to my actual taxes. Yet I'm keenly aware that as a citizen of a republic I have a moral and ethical obligation to pay a share of the burden for the services that are provided at the state and federal level for the entire country. What galls me are those at the upper levels who claim a moral authority to paying less tax off their earnings because they don't want to.

Might I recommend Mr. Hunter read or re-read Kevin Phillips' 'Wealth and Democracy' as a refresher on how the historical nature of unchecked market capitalism and supply-side, laissez faire economics in America has "benefited" the privileged few.

Innovations, entrepreneurial spirit and individual drive to do better have nothing to do with a progressive tax and economic policy.

It is good of TNR to allow him to write these questions, even though they are written in a way that begs the answer he wants.

Do you really, truly, deep in your heart believe that raising the tax on the returns people enjoy from saving, investing, and taking entrepreneurial risks will lead to more investing and entrepreneurial risk-taking and improve the economy? (love that really, truly, deeply crap)

Um..yes, if it is then possible to give that money back to people who are taxed at a higher rate from labor. Middle class people are far more likely to use that money on consumer items which represent a large segment of the economy. Call it demand side economics.

Whatever happened to the idea of a flat tax? Wait, Republicans are in favor of a flat tax, except on investing in which case there should be no tax. Of course, that doesn't mean the money will be invested in America, but hey, Chinese workers have the right to be exploited like everyone else.

Might I suggest this fellow stay home as a protest.

A few points.  First, as to that "rising tide raises all boats" idea, it's actually historically been realized far more under Democratic Presidents that Republicans.  See rodrik.typepad.com/.../american-politi.html

Now, even without making causative claims about those numbers (and they aren't so straightforward to interpret), one can at least say that there is little historical reason to think that having a Democratic President pursuing the types of economic policies that Democrats have pursued will result in the "economic suffering" that Hunter warns of.

Second, Hunter poses his questions as if Obama wants to increase taxes on those with the highest incomes simply out of spite.  You don't tax the rich because you hate rich people; you tax the rich for the same reason that Jesse James robbed banks: that's where the money is.  The point is to *do something* with the money, and if the question is something like, "Does Obama really think we can help the economy by taxing the rich and investing that money into things like our nation's infrastructure and research?" then the answer is probably "yes."  Maybe Hunter disagrees (in fact, Hunter almost certainly disagrees), but he presents his case as if Obama's policies are just a way to hurt rich people with no benefit to anybody else.

Here I thought 'Obamacon' was a misspelled 'Obamacan' (Republican for Obama).  Nice to know it's another group joining.  Hunter certainly does mix ideology and rhetoric with fiscal conservativeness.  I'm all for spending within our means and having a balanced budget.  Getting there after Georgie blew up our surpluses and showed he can't balance even his own checkbook means we'll HAVE to belly up to the tax bar and pay for the mess he got us into.  Republicans can't have it both ways, nor can ideology freaks.  The social aspects of where money is spent is another topic entirely, and the wealthy continuing to have it all at the expense of those financially beneath them can't continue.

Uh... thanks for your support?

A vote is a vote, I suppose. I'm glad this guy has apparently never heard of Ron Paul.

There are effectively two factors of production: capital and labor. A fundamental question I have to ask for all the people who claim taxing capital gains distorts investment decisions is why should labor and capital be taxed differently? Isn't that distorting?  Now, I know, there's a whole lot of history in the idea, but really what supports it? Taxes fundamentally are a way to transfer wealth. The ratio that rich pay is only a component of that transfer, other components are public education, infrastructure, military defense, etc. If we preference capital investment over labor, then isn't our tax code fundmentally favoring the use of automation over the use of... what are they called? Oh yes, employees.

As for the overall level of taxation, Lindert shows that in fact for a broad range of taxation levels, there is NO effect of economic growth. The Laffer curve is flat, but not the debt curve or the misery curve. www.sciencemag.org/.../1906  Too little or too much and there are negative effects. The best way to tell? A massive exodus of economic activity to toher lower tax areas. Don't see that happening here...

In the absence of a Plank post from the Obama campaign, allow me to respond on the Senator's behalf:

1. & 2. Not in so many words. These taxes will lead to deficit reduction, universal health care, and other government initiatives which will then lead to a healthier overall economy that benefits poor, middle-class AND wealthy Americans. Close your eyes and picture the late 1990s.

3. No to the first but we're not talking about "handouts." Yes to the second, except replace "managing" with "regulating."

4. Windfall profit taxes will reduce oil producers' incentives to price gouge their customers.

5. Um...actually, let's move on!

6. Let's put a lock on those Social Security funds so they can't be spent. Agreed, Congressional Republicans? Of course not, because how could they advocate gutting Social Security if it wasn't in financial peril?

7. There's nothing wrong with being wealthy. What's wrong is government policy that specifically aids that tiny minority at the expense of everyone else. Government policy is the problem, not wealthy people.

8. See the answer to 1. & 2.

9. See the answer to 8. Really, a lot of these questions could have been combined.

10. Deficit reduction, sir. Or do you think it is a coincidence that the deficit has exploded at the same time as the dollar has tanked?

Now a question for Mr. Hunter: Barack Obama is basically advocating a return to the tax policies in place under Bill Clinton. Tell me, how did wealthy Americans make out during the 1990's?

Mr. Hunter, do you think you could use some more loaded phrases in your questions? Why not ask Obama why he hates puppies? Ask him why he's a Muslim, why don't you? Some supporter.

Agree with rozenson.  The best response to Hunter is one question:

"What makes you think that a long list of fuzzy, repetitive, and loaded questions is some kind of proof that you have a subtle political mind and a streak of independence, when it shows nothing of the sort?"