Bush spent too much, of course, but comparatively, he was a miser. Obama knows no limit- he would spend 2T over our revenue as long as he could buy votes. He is not only a lousy leader, good only at campaigning, but he is irresponsible with the public purse, and takes care of his friends - crony capitalists and unions - while driving us off the precipice from which we can never recover. Clinton tax rates are fine, if you also give us the Clinton budget, Clinton's wars, and Clinton's economy (which, of course, was Gingrich's economy). I am so tired of reading stupid clap trap from stupid people who haven't a clue what they are talking about. These are the people who elect Democrats, who want us, quite simply, to be Greece.

I'm sorry, you know less about economics than you do the 1st amendment. Supply side did not get us here, statism and oversized government got us here. We have spent more than we take in for at least 12 years, and that is true even though Bush tax cuts actually increased our tax revenues. We have a spending problem, and idiots like you, who must buy every lie the President tells, are why we continue to spend when any fool knows it is taking us to hell. If you increase taxes just 2% on the people who still pay them, you will reduce revenue by about 7%. I have the math models to prove it. You are a Keynesian Klutz.

School prayer would not have any effect on the separation of church and state. You can pray to any God you want, or none. If you fee pressure, get a freakin life. It is not statism to want the opportunity for prayer in public places, or for nativity scenes on public grounds. That is just ridiculous, and, I'm sorry, a completely stupid understanding of statism. Statism wants people to look and find everything, anything, solely from the state, not from a church, even one sponsored by the state. We existed without any formal church-state relationship for 170 years in this country, and when we left, we had 9-11, school massacres, and all manner of things we were protected from in the past, before we elected a government that ignores God.

Whether they hate God or not, they are pure statists, who, like Castro, want us to look to the state for everything, so religion and the spiritual are no longer relevant. This gives them power over even our prayers. God has already concluded we are lost, and these statist, secular humanist punks have taken us there intentionally. Get ready for the price we will pay. Isaiah 9:10.

It's a little scary when someone names himself "Illuminati" - either because he is conceited enough to think he is smarter than us (he has no chance, I promise), or because he relates somehow to the real illuminati from history, who are scary, indeed. It would be like the President calling his foreign policy "successful" and people actually believing him - oh, sorry!

Ummmm, you are no doubt correct that we are at the end of a rope. What you don't seem to realize is that there really is a Laffer Curve, there really is a negative revenue effect to raising taxes, there really is an effect on job creation, and only if we hold the line on tax rates and allow business to prosper can we ever get out of this mess. If you want to go back to the Clinton tax rate days, then also go back to Clinton spending levels, military budgets, welfare programs, and regulation. It is apples and oranges to argue otherwise.

I see the point, Ann, but I have a better idea. The media may now blame Republicans, but history will blame Obama. Because the security of the country is at stake, we should stand firm on no tax rate hikes, require entitlement and spending cuts now, not later, and take a whipping if necessary. My friends who voted the first time for Obama to do exactly what you are suggesting underestimated the willingness of American idiots (about, apparently, 51% of the population) to suffer any harm necessary to have a half-black, "post-racial" President instead of fiscal solvency and some semblance of capitalism.

What were you drinking when you wrote this one? I don't disagree with the counter-socialist basis, but man this is a little weird!

Schieffer is the most obsequious, silly, bought and paid for liberal twit I believe I have ever seen on air - this interview made Katy Curry look plausible. If I hear that question about tax "fairness" (with fair undefined and usually undefinable) one more time I will puke. This is not journalism, and 60 minutes risks ruining its reputation letting that guy do important interviews.

Krugman is THE Junk Economist, and a stooge for the left. Heck, I don't even see how he claims to be an economist. Can he add?

Roger 123 - when the Constitution was written, there was little difference between the weapons used for war and those used for hunting and personal defense. But the reason the amendment was adopted wasn't so that folks could go hunting, or even to provide for their own defense. The provision exists because the recent experience of the Founders was that an oppressive government had to be resisted by revolution and warfare. The government today could easily become far more oppressive than the one under which the colonists suffered. It doesn't want us to have assault rifles because those weapons make it a fairer fight if we were ever at war with that government. If it were not for that threat, why does anyone need such weapons?