Lightning Bolt of the Week: Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich Edition

This Cato Institute piece describes why the economic policies of both candidates suck.

Highlights:
Mr. Obama's fiscal plan is totally implausible. He has, according to the National Taxpayer Union (NTU), already promised to increase spending on a variety of government programs by more than $344 billion per year. He intends to pay for it by increasing taxes on the "wealthy" (the top 1 percent of taxpayers already pay 39percent of the income tax). But the revenue he seeks will not be there, because the rich are able to find many legal (and illegal) ways to avoid paying much higher tax rates. Former Federal Reserve Board member and head of the National Economic Council Lawrence Lindsey has shown how the Obama proposal "would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer."

John McCain and his advisers have developed a more responsible fiscal plan, but need to explain more clearly how and where Mr. McCain will reduce spending (in light of his proposed $69 billion spending increases — again using NTU estimates) to attain his projected balanced budget and economic growth targets. If Mr. McCain can clearly articulate and defend his plan, he will have a big advantage against Mr. Obama, whose economic agenda is grossly irresponsible and destructive.

The Cato institute leans libertarian, so the language is slanted anti-Obama. Picking through the language though we see Obama's plan = good ole' tax and spend which has been proven time and again to not work. McCain's plan appears to be "say I'm going to cut spending to balance the budget, but in actuality I'll increase spending without changing taxes so I'll further the debt."

Both plans are irresponsible pieces of crap. Why the hell can't we get a good candidate for POTUS? Since I have been 18 I've gotten GWB 2X, Al Gore, Kerry, and these jokers - wtf

This Wall Street Journal editorial describes why Obama's proposed tax plan will be disastrous.

This graph and the last two paragraphs of the editorial sum it up:


This year, thanks to the credit mess and slower growth, taxes paid by the rich may fall and the deficit will rise. (The nonstimulating tax rebates will also hurt the deficit.) Mr. Obama proposes to close this deficit by raising tax rates on the rich to their highest levels since the late 1970s. The very groups like the Congressional Budget Office and Tax Policy Center that wrongly predicted that the 2003 investment tax cuts would cost about $1 trillion in lost revenue are now saying that repealing those tax cuts would gain similar amounts. We'll wager it'd gain a lot less.

If Mr. Obama does succeed in raising tax rates on the rich, we'd also wager that the rich share of tax payments would fall. The last time tax rates were as high as the Senator wants them -- the Carter years -- the rich paid only 19% of all income taxes, half of the 40% share they pay today. Why? Because they either worked less, earned less, or they found ways to shelter income from taxes so it was never reported to the IRS as income.

Why?