ah at last. ok scot, now for the umpteenth time maybe you can explain to me what does barack obama stand, sit or squat for. and just maybe, the locals with names like connors, friedman and schuster can also explain what makes the current occupant of the white house and or his wife worth ponying up THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND george washingtons a plate for. oh ya, you never answered my question on when was the last time you asked any of the current status woe at city hall, beacon hill or DC a leading question. or better yet, the 1st time. ma

You have a very short memory, Mike.

I think Scot is somewhat on target here, but it comes down to perception of these issues, more than the actual granular details of budget and tax policy. The gender gap got very steep because of the canard issues of mandated birth control coverage Obamacare, and the White House did a good job of exploiting it. Perception IS reality when it comes to courting voters, and therein lies the hazard for Romney. NEW PARAGRAPH: Scot also follows the left wing narrative about the Ryan budget in lockstep fashion. Yes, if that story holds, it will help Obama. But the American people are smart enough to understand that the Ryan budget takes on the coming fiscal armageddon, whereas the Obama budget does not. This is a tough concept for some, but cutting tax rates is not the same as cutting tax revenue. Revenues to the treasury soared after the highest marginal rate was cut to 28% in TRA of 1986. Ryan's budget operates on the exact same principle.

Richmond: Since you cling as desperately as these fellows __ http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/the-state-russian-museum-st-petersburg/artwork/the-ninth-wave-hovhannes-aivazovsky/511131/ __ to an idea that just won't float, I thought perhaps you'd be interested in this post, which examines the issue in some detail: http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2276/no-gov-pawlenty-tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves

Well Scott, I see your helping President Obama right along with his goal of getting the women to vote for him, I'm a women and find it strange that all of a sudden we matter. Free birth control will buy votes, scarily enough. I read a comment in another newspaper from a woman, something I will never forget. "I vote for the party that serves me economically" "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you" one doesn't need to ask why we have a 16 trillion dollar deficit and counting........what happened to our country that people took care of themselves, now everyone's got their hand out. Sad time for america

Right on! Finally some sense. I'd like to know, though, what are the odds that an American family will use government help some day? Police, fire, or other disaster care occur to me first, but it seems that medicare and social security make it virtually 100%.

A subject that has always fascinated me. Here is what I've learned over the years about our gender gap, which I may say more safely than male commenters. As a very general thing, men vote with their brains and women with their emotions. Men are games-players, recognizing that politics is a game; women tend to believe it's all for real and politicians really care about "the children". Men resent being pushed around by a political system; women barely notice they are being used. That having been said, women, once they catch on, are good at political action, combining new political skills with their understanding of the males who dominate politics, and focusing on what liberals, self-serving politicians, and the national debt are doing to their grandchildrens' future.

And if it came down to families, there's no better than the Obamas.

Social Security and medicare programs will be devestated by the Ryan "budget". It's so radical it doesn't belong on the table. It is so oblivious to middle class and poorer Americans. I would like this selfish GOP to have to live with the average person's medical coverage instead of their "cadillac" plan - then maybe they'd develop some empathy.

Scot, Thanks for the links. I certainly have never said that "tax cuts pay for themselves". That phrase is a non sequitor. The Ryan budget addresses the deficit, the Obama budget does not. I think a good number of women will see that basic truth, and move toward Romney. Of course, the politics will be played by the Obama camp in spades to create the impression that the Ryan plan is too harsh. Obama's record is NOT something he can run on, so demonizing Mitt and the GOP will be his makin message.

His main message........not "makin"

For those wondering if anyone in their family/social group needs or will need government assistance....keep in mind that the biggest housing subsidy given by the US government is the tax deduction on mortgage interest.

The more GOP contenders treat women like a bunch of June Cleavers, the more they fall behind. Women do not see how trickle down economics will help them or their families (neither do any economists). Women are smarter today. This country has tried "every man for himself" economics in the past and witnessed it's failure which took a lot of effort and social work to correct. A woman president is not far off. Women often have a clearer picture of what benefits society and what is BS. Making life easier for the rich falls into the latter category.

Richmond: Well, when one says that, with a tax cut, you will get more revenue than you would have had without it -- which has been your position these many months -- you are saying that a tax cut pays for itself. But I'm v. glad to see you are moving off that position.

scot, i'm not sure but i do believe you DID NOT answer either of my questions. is it so hard for you to explain why or what this incompetent stands for(obama) or refresh my memory if you would and tell me when was the last time you asked any of the status woe a leading question. or better yet the 1st time. ma

Hmmm,Mike. Maybe a week ago when I asked the Patrick administration why they were slapping a PLA on the Longfellow Bridge?

forget administration hack, when was the 1st or last time you personally asked menino or patrick a leading question. oh ya, ya still didn't answer my question on what obama stands for. ma

Mike, Are you the same guy who used to call me and thank me for columns pushing the mayor on police details and charter schools and the governor on charters and GIC reforms and pensions, and for going after Sal DiMasi -- or am I thinking of someone else? If I'm mistaken, my apologies. Scot

Scot, They are absolutely NOT the same thing. The phrase "pays for themselves" implies that there is a measurable level of revenue that is lost due to the tax cut. There simply is not. One can use static analysis to assume such a thing, but it is, a guess. Therefore, if the "cost" is not measurable, it is nonsensical to suggest that the cuts "pays" for this unknowable "cost". NEW PARAGRAPH: Using nothing but history as a guide, it is quite easy to see the pattern of how tax revenues change after tax cuts. In the vast majority of instances, the rate of revenue growth to the treasury increased. All of the analysis you have used to support your thesis have been based on some way to measure an unknowable metric: What tax revenues "would have been" if there had been no cut. My analysis contains no such assumptions, it is just a simple review of IRS tax revenue data. NEW PARAGRAPH: THe economy is so dynamic, with thousands of moving variables, that any attempt make assumptions based on static analysis is not to be trusted. Rely on history, not on guesses.

Oh come on, that's a rhetorical dodge, not an epistemological statement. You can certainly estimate within a reliable degree of accuracy.

Scot, I have always enjoyed your columns, but your willingness to engage with your most critical readers is admirable, albeit quixotic. The gents that you chatted with today are not about a free exchange of ideas, they are about dogma and hate. But I admire anyone who writes in the public sphere and is willing to get down in the dirt with his detractors. I hope that you keep on doing what you do well. Thanks! Regards to my two favorite trolls!

Thanks, M-W, much appreciated. Before I go to my reward, my hope is to get Richmond to admit that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, and today I feel like I made a half inch of progress.

Scot, I too appreciate your willingness to engage your readers. I think I have made some progress on you on the issue though, as you are unable to explain the higher revenue growth 4 years after the Bush tax cuts vs 4 years after the Clinton tax increases. History is far more reliable than guesses. Thanks for responding to us nutty trolls!