(continued) and making employees cheaper should increase the demand for them.

Cuts to income taxes or payroll taxes affect things primarily by putting more money in the hands of people who will spend it thereby increasing economic activity. Cutting income taxes puts that money primarily in the hands of the wealthy, and people who support such taxes claim that the important thing is getting the wealthy to invest more. A payroll tax cut primarily puts the money in the hands of the working poor. They are more likely to spend additional money on things they could not have afforded before. This is the route to go if the problem with the economy is a lack of demand for goods. There is a secondary effect that cutting payroll taxes makes workers cheaper (particularly if it is the employer's contribution that is cut.

Does Hill not read the news? There have been a number of concrete proposals that show whose taxes would go up and how much. The idea that the facts are not available suggests a kind of willful ignorance on Hill's part. Obama has called for letting the Bush tax cuts expire for individuals making 200,000 and couples earning 250,000. Is that fact really a surprise to Hill? Currently Obama has called for a job proposal to be paid for by a surtax in income above 1 million dollars. Again did Hill really miss that? His argument claims that these specifics don't exist. In fact they have been reported by every serious news source.

If by embrace you mean not accept the ignorant ranting of racists against that group, then I guess that is fair.

And I notice that democracies like Taiwan and South Korea do not undercut your belief at all even though they show that it is ignorant nonsense.

Wow, one muslim officer went crazy and yet the military brass still insisted that did not mean that the rest of the Muslims in the military are evil. Wow it is almost as if they are not comic book racists like the author of this column. What is this world coming too.

Pavilch seems to have the too common conservative habit of having strong opinions about Israel without actually following the situation too closely. Israel is not actual unwilling to negotiate with terrorists, that is how they got Shalit back, after all. And it did used to be an Israeli requirement that the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel, but that ended when the Palestinian Authority recognized the State of Israel. Now that has moved to recognizing the State of Israel as a Jewish state. Panetta's comments are reasonable. They are what someone who cares about Israel would be recommending.

Cambermeister, Or when you ask about discrimination do you mean specifically discrimination concerning sexual orientation. You didn't specify, but I gather you have an obsession with homosexuality so even when you don't specify it may just be because you think everyone thinks about homosexuality as much as you do.

Yes, I do. Did you see there is a church in Kentucky that rejects the membership of interracial couples. I find it troubling that such blatant racist discrimination still exists, although I am cheered that it is not so widespread anymore. Why do you ask?

Cambermeister, If you are an adult why do you have the obsession with homosexuals that most people outgrow by junior high school? Do you feel tempted to homosexual behavior and so fear that someone will convert you? One of the reasons I find this idiocy about homosexuality so pathetic is that being heterosexual there was never any threat of being converted. I admit I am puzzled by men who fear the threat of conversion. They must somehow be gayer than me.