Candidates' tax plans agree: More debt

Neither program is acceptable without cuts in government spending. How do you reduce government spending to a point of tax cut equivalency. If they can pass a law that states we need to reduce carbon emissions to half their present rate on some bogus hockey stick hot spot theory, why can't we pass a law to reduce government spending to half it rate on reality?

Thais article fails to mention the Obama marriage tax penalty. If he taxes"household" income at 39% on incomes above $250,000 then a husband and wife who each earn $130,000 per year then they pay his higher rate. If they get divorced then they do not pay his tax. This is not a "working family" friendly agenda.

Your articles on both candidate's tax plans fail to factor in the effect of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The IRS reported that over 20,000,000 households will be effected by the ATM in the 2007 tax year.

Stephen Moore, in today's Weekly Standard, gets it a lot more accurate than what is portayed in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/318ewzfd.asp In neither candidate's plan is the impact of raising or lowering taxes accurately portayed. Raising taxes ultimately brings in less money than lowering taxes. Increasing taxes on those who create jobs (i.e., the wealthier Americans) is not in keeping with good economic sense. Raising taxes on corporations forces them to pass on the increased costs to consumers.