It's easy to read someone that you agree with, and nod as one's prejudices are confirmed. For that reason i'd rather read an intelligent conservative that challenges me to think than a liberal who tells me I'm right.

An example is this interview with "old-school supply-sider Bruce Bartlett": Reaganomics is dead (long live Reaganomics). He doesn't take the orthodox line, acknowledges that Keynes got it at least partly right, and makes some general criticisms of the way people think about economics and crises, which if anything are more critical of the right wing than the left. I'm no economist, but he's talking way more sense than the kinds of people I'm used to seeing on Fox. (Which I admit, is not saying much - he probably deserves better praise than that.)

I found this quote funny.

As Larry Summers [Obama's chief economic adviser] once put it, we don't have a VAT [Value Added Tax] because liberals think it's regressive and conservatives think it's a money machine. We'll get a VAT when liberals figure out it's a money machine and conservatives figure out it's regressive.

The GST (Australia's name for a VAT) certainly seems to be a money machine in Australia.

Another interesting comment:

The mistake of the left is to assume you can raise rates on the rich and they won't react. They'll put more effort into tax avoidance and evasion. That won't do anyone any good except tax lawyers.

I've heard this argument, along with an argument that the maximum tax rate to avoid this is 30%. Sounds reasonable, but not sure if it's actually true - I've only heard the right-wing side of the argument, and one thoughtful rebuttal by a leftie. That left me slightly agnostic about the idea, but with the feeling that there's a significant degree of truth in there.