Why the next president should keep the capital gains tax rate right where it is

You know...that's really not a valid reason.

The WSJ will always complain when the rich and the corporatists have to pay their fair share, so who cares what they think.

I believe that most reasonable Americans would be happy if taxes were left alone and the government focused on controlling spending. I get annoyed when I hear about an economic stimulus package (More Spending). Personally I feel we should change our foriegn aid policy. ALL $$ spent on foriegn aid should go to U.S. Businesses to provide the aid. This would serve both the country in need, and the important economy right here in our borders. Maybe I am just too simple-minded, but I believe we are facing an economic emergency right now. If only we could get some "elected officials" to declare this emergency and open up the U.S. Oil reserves, then we could effectively drive the price of oil back down or bankrupt the nice people who finance the terrorist organizations. Either way I'm sure it would make most (reasonable) Americans happier.

My 2 Cents.

I am surprised that, given your post has been up a few days, that it has not garnered more ferocious comment. As I have become extraordinarily lazy of late -- springtime perhaps .. various lame excuses) -- I will be slow to post-up some links on this issue. Eco/Fin, it appears to be a mix; politically, it seems to open the doors of greed and envy. But, bottom-line (nasty metaphor) the consensus seems to be .. low tax rates on cap gains are a short-term stimulus to risk-taking behavior; over longer periods, not. In the larger scope of things, income is income, tax policy should be neutral, and thus there should not be any favored nor disfavored taxable income types. The markets will adjust; that's what they do.
Anyway...am enjoying your blog; think blogs by paid journalists might save journalistic institutions, and further inquiry. You Go Dude.

There needs to be more discussion about how Globalization, Hedge Funds, CDO's, etc. effect traditional notions about economic impact.
Yes, once upon a time, war had a "positive" effect. That was because manufacturers were located here, and there was job growth related to the production of war materials, in this country.
Similarly, low capital gains rates put more money into the hands of investors, who funded economic expansion IN THIS COUNTRY. Creating employment and consumers locally.
Business expansion in communities meant that sales and profits were local, and that re-investment was largely local.
Banks were local, deposits were local, loans for investment were local.
The idea of supply side economics, and trickle down, was never a good idea for for non investor classes. Now trickle down, means trickle off shore. The investor classes are trying to get their money out, and foreign investors take their profits home. In this scenario, how does cutting capital gains rates truly benefit the economy?
There is something really frightening about watching the economy unravel, while government fails to employ critical thinking.

@T.Tinsely
Wikipedia has the oil reserve at 70million barrels as of last month. Looking at us import charts (which I found have some fair variety in their figures) - this would last anywhere between a couple of days and maybe two months. Hardly

Re tied aid - something like 90% of all us aid is tied already. And since it forces the money to spent inefficiently (by 25-40%), it reduces the actual impact - so people complain that for all the money spent, not much was achieved...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/oda/2004/0706tiedaid.htm

T.Tinsely,
The US reserves are not enough to really drive down the price of oil to the extent that it would "bankrupt" Middle Eastern countries. And as TAD pointed out, they wouldn't last very long anyway. Moreover, this increase in oil prices is not a temporary phenomenon that will ease any time soon - while prices may come down a bit when investors stop using it as a haven during this economic crisis, it will remain much higher than historical norms for the foreseeable future due to permanently increased demand.

US foreign aid is not that much, as a percentage of GDP either, when compared both to historical levels and other countries. Certainly, at 0.17% of GNI (the second smallest among OECD countires according to the below site), it is too small to close the budget deficit.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs

Note also that about 1/3 of that aid goes to Iraq and Afghanistan, so it is largely being channeled through US companies already.

Why base your tax policy on trying to avoid running afoul of the WSJ? You write as if they're Rethuglican candidates. (Or maybe I shouldn't say "thug" - the Chinese might get angry.)