Even if they did buy their stuff here, they can't or don't buy enough to offset their huge incomes. Thanks for your comments.

'The rich' can do basically 4 things with a big income, all of them having great effects for the economy and the country at large. They can spend it. This provides a demand for the goods and services purchased and means jobs. They can invest it. This enables the companies they invest in to expand and create jobs, new products, etc They can save it. This provides capital that banks loan back to others, who in turn use it to purchase or to open a business, etc They can give it away. This is all good. I trust that you have no problem with philanthropy. What is it exactly that you're afraid a rich person will do with his income? Why the constant covetousness and envy of 'the evil rich' from left wingers? Aren't you supposed to be glad that others are doing well instead of demonizing them and condemning them for it and assuming that they must have done something immoral to have gotten so rich? Last I heard covetousness was wrong, but it is a standard tool of the political left. Why is it your business how much someone else makes anyway?

I guess according to your sweeping statements on the left that Warren Buffett is either crazy or has gotten poor. Why else would he "demonize" the rich and say they should pay more taxes? Of course I'm sure you know more than he does about financials.

I think it's funny that hypocrites like Warren Buffett say "We (rich) SHOULD pay more taxes, it's the right thing to do" but he DOESN'T pay extra unless he's REQUIRED by law to do so. If he REALLY thinks it's 'the right thing', why doesn't he simply pay more and follow his conscience? And why does he have to force everyone else to agree with his moral choice to pay more? Can't he simply practice what he preaches and lead by example?

I agree with you Joe. The tax cuts contributed to the deficit that we enjoy today.

If you're old enough, you'll recall that Reagan worked out a deal with Tip ONeill to have the tax cuts enacted along with spending cuts to avoid incurring additional deficits. The Democrat controlled congress failed to live up to their agreement and instead INCREASED spending dramatically during that period. If spending levels had even just stayed the same , there would have been no additional deficits since the tax cuts actually caused the amount of revenue coming into the Treasury to double over the course of Reagan's 2 terms. Think about it. Reagan cut taxes dramatically, but the Treasury collected more, MUCH MORE.

Where is this reference?

That's not what the graph says or implies. Which economic policy would be more influencial during the 1990's - Reagan or Clinton. The answer is clearly Clinton. Did Reagan benefit from Carter's efforts at breaking hyper-inflation, of course he did.

I didn't reference the graph. It's what the article says: "the 1989-2000 cycle, which was little affected by those cuts." Little affected? What nonsense. It's like saying "I started a business in 1981, but it is the additional products that I rolled out in 1989 that affected my lifestyle in the 90s. " Do you see how foolish that is? If you hadn't laid the foundation by starting the business, you wouldn't be in a position to roll out 'additional' products 8 years later. It can be argued that Reagan's tax cuts had more influence on the economy in the 90's than Clinton's policies, because the Reagan tax cuts had had a cumulative effect by that time and the Clinton policies were just being implemented.

From EPI (http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_06162004/): When President Reagan took office in 1981, he quickly succeeded in passing substantial "supply-side" cuts in both individual and corporate income taxes. He predicted that the 1981 tax cuts would “pay for themselves” through higher investment and faster growth in productivity and incomes. Once enacted, the 1981 tax cuts opened up wide budget deficits (6% of gross domestic product, the largest peacetime deficit in history), leading Congress and the president to agree to substantially increase taxes on corporations in 1982 and on payrolls in 1983. Although those measures helped to narrow the budget deficit, large deficits persisted and further major tax hikes were adopted in 1990 and 1993. By the time that the tax increases of 1993 took effect, any supply-side effects of the 1981 tax cuts had been largely eliminated. So, Joe - please explain how the tax cuts which were essentially reversed under Reagan had a significant effect through the recession of 1989 and again through the recession of 1992/1993. I look forward to your thoughtful answer.

When Reagan took office, income tax rates were very high. The rates were slashed, and even though they have crept back upward in direction, they are still nowhere near what they were. So to say that the cuts were 'largely eliminated' or 'essentially reversed' is simply not true.

Joe - the sentence doesn't say that the tax cuts were largely eliminated. The sentence is saying that the effects of supply side economics were eliminated. Thanks for reading.