It would seem like an obvious strategy, I agree, but then again, that was how the both of us have thought all along.

On the other hand, that strategy hasn't always worked, and the mystery of why working class voters support economics that put them into default on their home loans is an enduring one.

My theory: Horatio Alger novels. Or something like them, without the creepy pederastic undertones.

I think the dream of being rich is more powerful than the mere desire not to be poor. Although the middle class is an important part of a functional economy, it is seldom an inspirational goal. People on the very bottom dream of making it to the very top, not just above the poverty line.

Reganom...

It would seem like an obvious strategy, I agree, but then again, that was how the both of us have thought all along.

On the other hand, that strategy hasn't always worked, and the mystery of why working class voters support economics that put them into default on their home loans is an enduring one.

My theory: Horatio Alger novels. Or something like them, without the creepy pederastic undertones.

I think the dream of being rich is more powerful than the mere desire not to be poor. Although the middle class is an important part of a functional economy, it is seldom an inspirational goal. People on the very bottom dream of making it to the very top, not just above the poverty line.

Reganomics preserves that inequality which glamorizes the ridiculously rich by contrast with those on the "trickle" side. Many people no doubt think: I don't want to force rich people to pay taxes, because some day I'm gonna be one of them!

We are often prone to over-estimating our position in socitey. A statistic quoted by Al Franken (admittedly, a dubious source) was that when surveyed, 20% of Americans believed themselves to be part of the richest one percent of Americans.

Revenues to the treasury are breaking records on a yearly basis under the Bush tax cuts. The same thing happened during the Reagan era and most of the time since. Credit and consumption is a product of the wealth created under the "trickle down" paradigm. Hence the term "trickle down". It is an embarrasing thing for the left to bemoan an idea as being built upon crumbs from the tables of the rich, when the the facts is that as the "crumbs" pile up, they pile up to the knees of the rich, then the torso, then the neck.

You know what else has increased because of America's vast wealth creation over the past 25 years? Give up? The wealth of the world has increased. The economic dependen...

Revenues to the treasury are breaking records on a yearly basis under the Bush tax cuts. The same thing happened during the Reagan era and most of the time since. Credit and consumption is a product of the wealth created under the "trickle down" paradigm. Hence the term "trickle down". It is an embarrasing thing for the left to bemoan an idea as being built upon crumbs from the tables of the rich, when the the facts is that as the "crumbs" pile up, they pile up to the knees of the rich, then the torso, then the neck.

You know what else has increased because of America's vast wealth creation over the past 25 years? Give up? The wealth of the world has increased. The economic dependency of Nations upon one another has also increased. Economic aid has increased. Food aid has increased. Technology has advanced much more rapidly. Oppresive systems that could not keep up disappeared.

So, on the Right hand you have the Reagan "trickle down" legacy and on the Left hand you have the LBJ "New Society" legacy. Which has done the most good?

I'm far too tall to keep my head down, but I've still got a trick or two up my sleeve.

Actually, I see both Regan and LBJ as just different sides of the same Big Government coin. (My definition of Big Government: the interventionist use of government power to attempt to create a desired effect in society that would usually be effected naturally without government action.)

Both the Reganomics and the Great Society, as you accurately observe, create wealth through power and manipulation, not through good old fashioned hard work. Although this makes us look much richer on the books, it has a different effect in reality.

The free flow of foreign aid and "development investment" from LBJ's phi...

I'm far too tall to keep my head down, but I've still got a trick or two up my sleeve.

Actually, I see both Regan and LBJ as just different sides of the same Big Government coin. (My definition of Big Government: the interventionist use of government power to attempt to create a desired effect in society that would usually be effected naturally without government action.)

Both the Reganomics and the Great Society, as you accurately observe, create wealth through power and manipulation, not through good old fashioned hard work. Although this makes us look much richer on the books, it has a different effect in reality.

The free flow of foreign aid and "development investment" from LBJ's philosophy of bleeding-heart condescension has done little to actually improve the lot of normal people, even though it greases the wheels of the elite economic system. (Guess where that new wealth goes?) The main function of the "Great Society" ideology has become to make affluent white Americans feel a little less guilty about their embarrassment of riches. (A worthy cause?)

On the other hand, Reganomics has sought to unshackle the ultra rich from that pesky nagging thing we call a conscious. ("My being rich is good for everyone, of course!")

As we've discovered, and this article accurately observes, the transfer of wealth isn't the same as creation of wealth, even though global accountants try to make it look that way. (If it were actually the creation of wealth, why would we need to worry about all these bubbles?)

What is more, self-serving government social engineering, whether on the left or the right, has utterly failed us. I believe that the conservatives are right when they criticize liberals for their quixotic and often absolutist schemes to recreate society in their own image. I just wish that conservatives would apply that same sort of prescient scrutiny to their own ambitious social projects.

I should clarify, though... my biggest beef with the Bush and Regan application of "Trickel Down Economics" is that it is merely a rationalization. I don't believe that it ever had the genuine goal of changing society. I think it was simply a convincing excuse to allow the rich to behave badly.

The proof is in the execution, which was patently irresponsible. Both Bush and Regan pursued this experiment in supply-side economics at times when, for military reasons, their government expenditures were soaring.

Whether or not those expenditures are justified is another debate, but the fact is, at times when America was spending more money, they were cutting taxes and reducing government income, ...

I should clarify, though... my biggest beef with the Bush and Regan application of "Trickel Down Economics" is that it is merely a rationalization. I don't believe that it ever had the genuine goal of changing society. I think it was simply a convincing excuse to allow the rich to behave badly.

The proof is in the execution, which was patently irresponsible. Both Bush and Regan pursued this experiment in supply-side economics at times when, for military reasons, their government expenditures were soaring.

Whether or not those expenditures are justified is another debate, but the fact is, at times when America was spending more money, they were cutting taxes and reducing government income, creating in both cases staggering deficits.

Some have argued that the invigoration of the economy by tax cuts for the wealthy will make up for the reduced income by increasing the overall wealth, and thus increasing revenues even if they are collected at lower rates.

That would be cool.

To bad it's a cheap lie. The proof? Just ask China. They are the proud owners of $400,000,000,000 worth of evidence that the US government can't make ends meet. If you already can't pay your bills, would you tell your boss you want to take a pay cut?

By the way, how much have the tax cuts cost us? Just about the same as the amount of money we've had to borrow from China. Just because China is gullible enough to keep loaning us money doesn't make it a good idea to keep borrowing.

Hell, we are just re-enacting the sub-prime mortgage crisis on a global scale!

We may feel richer because money changes hands faster, but we aren't earning more of it, were just borrowing against assets that were over-valued by narcotic optimism to begin with.

What is the end product of all this? Wealthy power players walk away with millions, financial instiutions crumble, while the average man takes the fall.

This was a thin rationalization for the rich and powerful to grab as much money as they could.