I started by pointing out that the tax cuts Mr. Bush asked for have been in place for a number of years, which should be enough time to have produced some tangible results. I then asked for examples of the tangible results. The campaign representative I was speaking to was unable to cite a single tangible benefit that could be attributed to Mr. Bush's tax cuts. He begged ignorance of economic matters and suggested that I look elsewhere for the information I sought.

I have looked elsewhere, and all I have been able to find are hand-waving claims of hypothetical benefits from proponents of tax cuts. I have not found any evidence that Mr. Bush's tax cuts have produced any tangible benefits for anyone other than people who already had more money than they could spend.

When Republicans cut taxes, the hyper-wealthy get immediate huge benefits and the rest of us get empty promises that are never realized.

Physics has theories (such as quantum mechanics) that people don't like and don't understand, but at least the theories make useful predictions about the outcomes of real experiments.

Economics has theories that people like and claim to understand, but the theories are useless for predicting the outcomes of real situations.

Methinks the economists are misusing the word "theory".

... is that they eventually realize there's no point in tuning in because they already know what you're going to say.

... at least not for Yahoo's users.

Think about it. A large fraction of desktop computers are running Microsoft's Windows. What happens if Microsoft pushes out an update to Internet Explorer to give Yahoo a "back door" to access information about Yahoo users that other sites cannot get?

Would this give Yahoo an advantage in the advertising marketplace? Probably. Would it be beneficial to Yahoo's users? I don't think so.

I'm trying to understand something.

Year ago, our president declared that tax cuts were needed to ensure our continued prosperity, particularly tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. The Republican-controlled congress at the time agreed and so it happened.

Today our economy is in awful shape and our government has decided to give billions of dollars of spending money to low and middle income people.

My questions are:

1) If tax cuts for the wealthy were such a great idea, how did we end up in this predicament?

2) Why is the government giving money to low and middle income people? Wouldn't it be more consistent with the logic behind our tax policy to give (for example) $1 billion to each of the 170 wealthiest people? Wouldn't that stimulate the economy more effectively?

They tune in to hear their cherished misconceptions reinforced. They need this because real facts from the real world do not support their beliefs.

This clumsy attempt at censorship will attract more attention than the story they tried to suppress would have even gotten.

The Republicans constantly harp on "patriotism" when they want something from the American people, but the companies the Republicans cater to don't give a rat's patootie about patriotism. Obama introduced a bill that might encourage companies to care a little more about the folks at home and the Republicans are going ballistic.

It's pretty damned obvious exactly who and what the Republicans care about, and it ain't the American people.

Microsoft's most important innovation has been to treat fines, judgements and settlements as costs of doing business. They have yet to suffer any penalty that has really hurt, and they have always made more money from their illegal activities than they have paid in penalties. They won't change their behavior because they have no reason to.

I suspect the EU fines will just end up being paid by Microsoft's EU customers in the form of higher prices, and nothing will change.

"In early 2001, inflation was 3.7 percent. Now, it's 4.3 percent."

That is a load of hogwash. The so-called "core inflation rate" is a useless number that is deliberately contrived to make inflation sound less serious than it really is.

That food and energy prices are volatile is a poor excuse for omitting these items from consideration. People need these things, they are part of the cost of living.

Also, the decline of the dollar's value is a significant factor in the high price of oil. It boggles the mind that our government excludes an inflation-driven price increase when calculating the inflation rate. The same goes for food because our food production is very dependant on oil.

... by suggesting that religion is a formalized process that deliberately creates artificial certainty.

... that Hillary is really just a closet Republican?

There is a quote that has been attributed to various people, including Albert Einstein and Benjamin Franklin: "Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results".

It has been years since the tax cuts Mr. Bush wanted were put into effect, but we don't see any of the promised results. We don't have prosperity. Our economy is worse today that it has been in quite some time, and it continues to get worse with each passing day. John McCain says we need to make these tax cuts permanent. Is he insane?

"Liberals don't realize how important tax cuts have been to the US."

Perhaps you could help by explaining. Please give specific examples of the benefits and avoid dogma.

As an example, I have often seen the claim that the tax cuts encourage investment. What kinds of investments are actually beneficial to the country as a whole? What fraction of investments are in the beneficial categories? What do you think investors might have done with their money without the incentive of capital gains tax reductions?

"Are bankruptcy filings much harder or are there a lot more of them. It would seem that one of those statements is false. They probably can't both be true."

I beg to differ. I think the significance is that there are a lot more bankruptcy filings *despite* the increased difficulty.

In other words, a lot of people are in deep financial doo-doo.