Marty, while your point is well written it I don't believe it to be well thought out to a productive assertion.


First, my analysis is based on facts, outcomes, and then a logical deduction based on those facts. Your example of the dentist and doctor is the logic of fools. Only a fool would blame the dentist for his tooth, in your example. My analysis is not based on foolish logic. I'm not calling you a fool, I'm saying that the arguement your example tries to create is a red herring or a deflection in attempt to defeat my analysis. But I don't think it works well in this case.


Now, to say that lowering taxes has helped us be better off is an acceptable hypothesis, but I'm not sure facts can back this theory up. On the flip side, just looking at the facts since the beginning of trickle down economics, it's a pretty solid argument to say that supply side economics is profoundly effective. Specifically, it's helped the wealthy and hurt everyone else. I think there are actual studies that back this up.


The link you provided was an interesting read. But the article buries the lead!! As one should expect from a corporatist newspaper, it failed to headline the fact that the recession probably had more to do with the issues in the article than the 10 percent tax hike. That analysis is in the article, but it's buried at the bottom.


As for the corporatist term, I think those that defend the wealthiest among us while ignoring the will of most of us can be considered corporatist. It's just a term I threw out there. Oligarchs would be another term I'd use...

---