Which is exactly what they’re supposed to do with it. And they do that because, as you yourself have said, these changes in revenue do not affect their personal lifestyles — they affect only their saving (investing) habits. Your problem is that as a liberal all you see is the dollar value of the portfolio change, and not the actual capital that is bought with it. Do you think America saves too little? Well, a tax cut for the rich is all but guaranteed to be saved. What do you think the poor would do with the same money, Einstein?

You need to understand what “boosting a portfolio” is. What this really means is that they will invest the money in some sort of capital venture. There is more to this than just giving the money to the business; there’s also what the business itself then does with the money. And the answer is that it buys more labor or goods with which to expand its capacity.

If the business buys labor, then that puts people to work. If the business buys goods, then the companies that sell it the goods will have to add to their capacity to provide them — which means that they will put people to work.

The tax breaks for the rich do not give them more convertibles or larger mansions — we’ve proven here – you’ve proven here – that they will have their luxuries with or without the cuts. Their portfolios are the capital that employs all the rest of us, and tax cuts for the rich mean economic growth.

This is how supply side is supposed to work. This is how supply side economics does work. This is what supply side economics does. So, if you say “the “trickle down economics” idea didn’t really go well,” then you’re going to have to explain what you expected it to do. Because it does what it’s supposed to.

It amazes me how little is known about economics on the political left. Most of what you believe is economic absurdity. And even liberal economists like Paul Krugman regularly say things that make real economists wince. If you had even a clue to what your policies look like through the lens of basic economics you’d be embarrassed.

Perhaps I am conservative/libertarian precisely because I learned economics before I acquired an ideology instead of just picking an ideology that sounded like it meant well.

The reason Wal-Mart sells its products cheaper is because they outsource and cut costs wherever possible in order to undercut their competitors. It has nothing to do with generosity thanks to running an efficient operation.

It’s been evidenced time and time again that when you give the wealthy massive tax breaks, they use their extra revenue to boost their own portfolios.

If you give Exxon an enormous tax break (and they get plenty), they aren’t going to pass the savings onto us because it isn’t going to increase their profits to do so. They’ll simply pocket the extra cash.

Someone of my intellect realizes when he’s trying to teach a pig to sing.

Bring on the proof, sport. They’re only convictions because I’ve been convinced. You’re obviously a superior liberal — why don’t you just convince me otherwise?

As an inferior conservative, I should be mere childsplay for someone of your intellect.

If you believed that raising taxes on the rich caused the middle class to live more poorly while causing the truly poor to live better:

Would you do it?
Would you admit it?
Would you want voters to know?

It doesn’t matter whether you really believe it, it’s just a matter of what you would do if you did believe it. Think of it as an honesty test.

Really? Where did I say that? That’s not my desire at all.

I’m just saying that you libs have no idea what you’re taxing when you tax the part of rich people’s money that they weren’t going to consume anyway. That much is painfully obvious.

And I’m saying that anything the poor consume that they didn’t actually produce is like a tax on the middle class.

You libs are stupid that way. You get fixated on the money, when the problem is really about how much and how hard people must work to provide for themselves.

All I see you doing is mandating that people must share more with those who don’t provide for themselves. And you yourself established, right here, that the sacrifices necessary to do that will not be made by the rich.

When I oppose your ridiculous Marxist policies, it’s never the rich I’m worrying about.

Ya gotta hand it to the guy, he is blissfully unencumbered by the thought process. And he resorts to name-calling, you notice? When he gets really upset, we’re all labeled “libs”, as if that’s a bad thing.

I guess that means you were against the stimulus package, right? I mean, how in the WORLD could all that extra money have been put to use when all materials are being used?

I’ve never argued this hard with someone who said tax cuts for the middle class is bad. I’m just befuddled.