It's like week 1. Why don't you wait a bit and see what the goals end up being. The Tea Party is almost in year 4. It takes time before movements either dissapate (which is possible) or form a true movement. I'm saying reserve judgement. You don't have to agree with them off the bat or be a supporter but why not wait to see what their goals are before assuming they are long haired hippies wanting a hand out.Don't recall any arrests at T.E.A. Party rallies, please post them for me then tell me exactly what the protest Wall Street rally is supposed to accomplish? What is the alternative? You want all your money going to D.C. and let them send back to you what they think you need? If you don't want to spend your money on Wall Street, don't do it. Try that with your taxes?
I think for the most part it's increased our deficits. I think for a large part it's led to a concentration of wealth to the few. Why exactly are you personalizing this, I actually work in a very good job and do very well but my problems with trickle down are the results of trickle down economics.Why are you anti Reagan economic plan? You don't have any initiative or drive? You aren't seeking individual wealth creation?
Innovation doesn't stop with higher tax rates. This idea that Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerman only exist because of lower marginal tax rates and low capital gains tax is false. It's a good sales pitch but it isn't proven with reality. You would have to show an absence of innovation during times of high marginal tax rates for the wealthy which is not the case. I also find it interesting that you have pointed out very progressive innovators who I doubt would quit working if their tax rate went up 5% or so.Stop buying and complaining about what you are reading and think about the Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerman's of the world.
Reagan was also a very big deficit spending (Keynesian), Volcker started decreasing interests rates after finally beating inflation in 83', and oil prices dropped globally. To point to tax breaks as the reason is pretty disenginous because taxes are lower now than they were under Reagan. Clinton increased tax rates right before the boom in the 90's. You can't really claim taxes have such an effect on innovation and growth without explaining away the contradictions and other possible causes...which no one can.Reagan economic policies led to the creation of 17 million jobs after a net job loss during the 81-82 recession.
And FDR is a very popular President still 60 years after he was President. His economic policies were the polar opposite of Reagans in a lot of ways. Just because he's a popular President does not mean everything he did was perfect.Reagan's approval ratings are extremely high today telling you what kind of job he did
I am. You're the one with an idealized picture that doesn't meet reality. I've posted why i think the way I do.Think instead of feeling.
Like I mentioned, it doesn't mean all his policies were perfect. He was the great communicator not the great economists. Liberals are anti-Reagan because he's the antithesis in economic policies to Liberalism. It's like asking why Libertarians are so anti-Roosevelt.Do you think Reagan would be ranked as high today as he is if his policies failed as the liberals claim? Why are liberals so anti Reagan?