The Wall Street Journal will only be "impressed" with an economic plan than involves making the rich an order of magnitude richer, while at the same time making the poor disappear completely.

I liked obama's comments on the corporate taxes. I agree, cut the rate and cut the bs loopholes. That would generate more revenue in the long run. Smart policy.

By the way, the first freaking loophole that I would cut would be the corporate tax write off for luxury boxes and sports tickets. No loophole and gee no more luxury boxes and outrageous ticket prices. Then maybe little people like me might be able to go to a ball game. I know it's wishful thinking, but one can always hope.

Obama should have asked them, "Why do you hate Roosevelt's New Deal, and by extension, America?"

The Obamites belong to the Shadenfreude Party. Only happy when they can enjoy the misery of others.

Where I live $250K income for a couple is common, well within the middle-class. Especially for young professional couples. When an average 3 bedroom home costs in the range of $1 million it is the kind of income you need just to have what the rest of the country considers and average lifestyle. Add the property taxes of well over $100/mo and the desire for private school since the publics are poor in so many respects. All of a sudden $250K is what is needed to keep you from thinking about moving away to cheaper locations.

Now additional taxing for over $250K might be OK if the expectation would be that the extra revenue would help balance the budget. But Obama sounds like what the Reps will legitimately call a "tax-and-spend" program.

As for hitting the energy companies hard in order to fund an alternative fuel policy, just exactly who is going to implement that program? The energy companies, that's who. The objective is to give them an incentive to do it. What is their incentive? Profits. Until that time they will resist. And they are powerful in a global way (refer to the movie "Network"). Government cannot solve marketplace forces, at best it can guide them. I don't see Obama's plan doing that in a ny way. It sounds like an expansion of government in the expectation that it will fulfill the marketplace. That is a doomed policy.

Clinton balanced the budget through a fortunate combination of market forces (the emerging tech boom) and sensible fiscal policy. Obama has neither.

The WSJ thinks that "return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform" that actually brought economic security to Americans is objectionable. What a surprise. They value ideology not pragmatism or results. They are Pravda for capitalists.

It's fascinating to me to see many of the Clinton trolls coming in here with their masks off, spouting far right supply sider dogma.

Does anyone now believe that ardent supply siders like Fogu2 would have voted for Hillary Clinton over McCain?

As for the WSJ and right wingers in general, they always say that lowering taxes for the wealthy stimulates the economy. But look at the last 8 years. We've had the lowest taxes on the wealthy in a generation, and the lower and middle class people have been screwed. Jobs have disappeared, the economy is in ruins, the dollar is in freefall, gas is approaching five bucks a gallon, and the wealthy have seen their incomesa skyrocket. The oil companies have had record profits. Have they "invested" that money in R&D and solved our fuel crisis? Of course not. Nor will they ever. What it will take is for the government to give them a reason to, either by mandates or by targeted tax cuts based on actions, not Voodoo Economics.

But hey, I'm glad we're having this debate. At least we're discussing issues and not personalities.

Your criticisms of the WSJ are very similar to the right wing point of view that the NYT is a left wing conspiracy. Readers of WSJ have seen the paper agree with Obama and congratualte him on several occasions. Likewise, they are just as tough on McCain for his policy infantilism. I disagree with their characterization of Obama in the mentioned article, but your characterization of the paper sound short sighted and uninformed

Your characterization of the WSJ is as short sighted as the right wing view that the NYT is a liberal conspiracy. The WSJ has agreed with and even comended Obama in the past. Similarly, they give McSame hell over is policy infantilism and doubletalking. I think the level of discourse here is above spreading assumptions.