Well, they obviously forgot Pepperdine University. I didn't go there, but I've been there, and I've never been any place more ethereal.

And I have to mention the humble city college I attended, Santa Barbara City College, which may not be quite as celestial as Pepperdine, but Jesus what a view. UCSB not so much. UCSB is kind of ugly, actually. But SBCC... wow.

I take them at their word: their top priority is preventing Obama's reelection. I don't think they care about anything else at this point.

Of course, once they control government again, that priority will be moot, and they can once again focus on running up huge deficits giving tax breaks to the super-wealthy.

Democrats tax and spend, Republicans borrow and spend. Democrats take your money and give it to poor people, Republicans take your children's money and give it to rich people.

Those are pretty much your choices, although Republicans, increasingly emboldened by what they can get away with, are starting to talk about taxing poor people ("the 50% who don't pay taxes") to accelerate the great transfer of wealth to the wealthy. So the Republicans appear to want your money as well as your children's money.

Oh well, apparently it all makes perfect sense to the American people.

That's not what I see in the data. Looking at the second link, which looks at receipts as a percentage of GDP, I see drops in revenue both during Reagan's presidency and during Bush Jr.'s.

Look, don't get yourself too worked up about deficits and the national debt. Remember when Bush was president? Nobody cared about deficits. In fact, Cheney famously said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." It only became an issue when a Democratic president was elected, eager to pursue a Democratic agenda. The day Obama was elected the debt became an urgent national crisis and we suddenly had no money to spend.

The day Obama leaves office and is replaced by a Republican, from that day forward you'll never hear another word about deficits or the debt. The Republicans will continue to do the only thing they're good at: running up the national debt. $20 trillion, $40 trillion, $80 trillion... it will keep going higher and higher and nobody except an occasional economist crank will mention it again. The debt "crisis" is a tool to prevent Democrats from advancing their agenda, nothing more. At least we hope so, because we know the Republicans won't care about it once they're in power again.

It just makes me feel old to realize that most of the people with whom I now share the world would shake their heads in disbelief at the idea that a telephone was a device that sat on a table in your home. When somebody called you on the telephone, it meant they were calling your home. If you weren't home, they didn't talk to you. Maybe they would leave a message on a machine or with a family member who was home. Then, later, when you got home, you would get the message and call them back. At their home.

Actually, remembering how it was I realize it seems kind of alien to me too now. I wonder how we ever managed the inconvenience of it all. But then I also remember how nice it was before you were expected to be so accessible. You never had to answer the phone, because you always had an excuse for not answering: "I wasn't home."

I believe the sequel or prequel will be about milking a proven property for more money.

Ridley Scott was once a hell of a director, and he still can paint a pretty picture like few others, but he sold out long ago. I expect nothing from this endeavor except that Scott make himself and a few others a little bit richer. If it even accomplishes that.

I agree 100% on the capital gains tax. It's nothing but a special, discounted, alternative income tax for people who don't actually work for a living.

I wonder if there's an analysis somewhere of how much of the income of the wealthy qualifies as capital gains and how much that affects their total income tax rate if capital gains are counted along with regular income.

I don't know if it's true that they pay far less generally than the middle class, but it is unarguable that they pay far less than they have historically. The only serious debate we've had about raising taxes in this country for the last few years had been about letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, and only for the top tax brackets. That would take us back to the same top tax brackets used during the Clinton years, and they would still be about half of what the top rates were when Reagan was elected president. It's hard to argue that such a step is socialism or that it would prevent economic growth. We should be so lucky to have an economy like we had when Clinton was president.

And all through the 50s and the early 60s the top marginal income tax rate was above 90%. Yes, when Eisenhower was president, millionaires were seeing some of their income taxed above 90%. Damn that communist Eisenhower! No wonder the 1950s were a time of economic stagnation in America.

Oh, wait...