One thing's for sure: Coulter may be a lock to vote for the GOP, but she's not the GOP talking points Mortimer Snerd that Hannity and Rush are. Her talking points are her own, more or less. And you're right, I haven't seen her on the tube for awhile - maybe it's because she tends to insult stupid questioners, even if it's people like Hannity or O'Reilly.
I agree with most of this. I disagree about the bush tax cuts for a couple of reasons. First, in 2000 when the campaign was in full swing, everyone was trying to get their hands on the surplus. Bush's big argument was to return it to the people in the form of tax cuts that would, in theory, bring us back to a balanced budget. I was on record at the time saying that surpluses don't last and shouldn't be planned into the future or spent. To the extent that our government ran surpluses, the only legitimate use was to pay down exisiting debt. I also felt like we had achieved a pretty nice tax balance at the time. Our tax structure was not an impediment to wealth creation or investment and there was a sense -- it seemed to me -- that most parties believed the system was pretty fair. Second, I never think tax cuts are a good idea without corresponding spending cuts. Reagan got his tax cuts but then buckled on the spending side creating (at the time) record deficits but not deficits that weren't manageable and fixable. It seems clear to me now that bush never intended to reduce spending in any meaningful way. That was not sound policy. Had we continued with revenues so that, indeed, we were brought into balance by the tax cuts, then I would not necessarily agree with them but I wouldn't bitch too much either. When the surpluses vanished and we went to war and the cuts continued, and domestic spending increased, I thought that we could not have been more irresponsible. Regardless of the new deficit spending, we also saw an increased gap between the haves and the have nots. The haves weren't bitching too much under Clinton about taxes or anything else. Fast forward. Obama wants to return to the Clinton rates at the end of his second term. Even though that alone will not put us in balance, I do think it will bring back some fairness and it won't stunt wealth creation or investment.
If you want to try something new, check out Armstrong and Getty - they do a Sacramento-based show from 6-10am pacific time, I think you can get a webcast over the net. They can be hilarious.
Not bad. Definitely worth another listen. I liked the bit they did late in the show about the difference between gardening and landscaping.
Back on topic. I guess the wealth will get spread regardless of who is elected: [youtube]d8EyGpOU3qM[/youtube]
But under Obama, the bourgeoisie will be imprisoned and the proletariat will own the means of production.