Huckabee must be making up some serious ground 
Just what I was thinking, Sirs. Once he gets to be a "serious" candidate. the vultures come out.
Maybe you could explain why conservatives would want to put a politician nicknamed "Tax-Hike Mike" and endorsed by the NEA in the White House?
Surely you jest! Bush's tax cuts are absurd -- there is simply not enough money coming in and/or we are spending like crazy and not only in Iraq. We need a fiscally responsible politician who is also conservative on social issues, and that, R.R., is a rare bird in this neocon age. Look, the last time I voted Democrat in the Presidential race was Jimmy Carter, but in my view, Bush has NOT done us any favors by spending willy-nilly and getting us involved in absurd entanglements like Iraq. And, if I am any indication, the Dems will have a field day come next November. As it stands now, it just ain't even gonna be close, dude!
Huckabee may not be perfect but the man has got it all over Guiliani in character and is more conservative throughout. Just because Guiliani did a great job in post-9/11 NYC does not automatically make him good presidential material. I learned that in Jimmy Carter. He thought he would be a good president since he was governor of Georgia. Well, guess what? Running the United States is a heckuva lot different than running the state of Georgia. Folks like Bert Lance, arrrgh! Huckabee suffers form this same problem, but I simply do not see another conservative around as good. Romney? Too polished. I ask you, what is really going on there? Do you know? Does anyone other than his handlers and the Elders?
Why do you think that taxes are presently too low?
What is the right amount that the economic strength of the country should be reduced by taxation?
It shouldn't be rocket science. Figure out a sensible budget (Yeah, I know!) and then have a tax base to support that budget.
I am sure that you are familiar with nonlinear ratios , and with the difference between positive and negative feedback.
The amount of tax received by the government does not necessarily increase with an increase in tax rate , as hanging more unproductive load on to the economy produces a negative feed back and so the more the government takes ,necessarily ,there is less left to take , but also less left to produce ,that which can be taken in the future.
The tax Cuts of Kennedy , of Reagan and of Bush 43 have cost the governmet nothing altogether since the reduced load caused increased ability of the economy to be productive in each of these instances ,tax receipts actually rose each time.
The tax increase of he Bush 41 administration netted very little improvement in government income because it was done shortly before a medium sized recession, was this juxtaposition coincidental? I would have a hard time making proof ,but it definitely demonstrates that a tax raise does not necessarily net much increase in cash received.
Clinton can be quoted saying that he raised taxes too much , but, rather bad for the case I am trying to make, the Economy did not falter under the increased load. WE may never know what a reduced tax load might have caused ,if, during the silicon boom, the tax load had been light . Would the surging economy have surged even better? or would the potential for increased government income have been missed? Perhaps the next time that outstanding inventions and new types of resources allow our economy to expand rapidly , we can try a decrease in taxes as an experiment.
So we know that an increase in taxes do not necessarily produce an increase in money available to the government and an increase in taxes do not necessarily cause recession. We know this from recent experience
Also in recent memory we have learned that a decrease in taxes can accompany an increase in money received by the government .
Rocket science gets complicated with multiple nonlinear interrelated factors such that the formulas that can be usefull to determine the trajectory of a ballistic body between planets or a body under thrust in the atmosphere require calculus , but these formulas were manageable enough in the days of slide rules to loft a ton of payload 200 miles across Europe in 1944 and 25 years later a moon landing.
Economic interrelationships are so interrelated and convoluted and counterintuitive and most especially
understudied that now in the days of Cray computers and massive availability of information on the internet we cannot predict the motion of our economy reliably for the course of a single day. I have to guess by the state of understanding economics has achieved, compared to Rocket science understanding , that Rocket science must be about two orders of magnitude easier at least.
So what formulas are availible to economists, to make economic prediction possible and economic controll practical? Simplyfying these things might make make them less like reality.
