Most of his premises were wrong.

The Republican tax cut theory is overly simplistic because it assumes tax cut money will be spent or reinvested in the US. Investing over seas or paying off debt instead nullifies the desired impact.

What, the rich invest all their money overseas or pay debt with it? You have numbers on that? So who's buying stocks on Wall Street? I recall once being lectured by a liberal on the rich in this country owning over a third of all America's stocks. You know, that same few percent on top that already pay most of the taxes Obama is going to be spending.

What debt? I thought they were rich. Isn't it actually the bottom end that's paying off debt with tax cuts?

Obviously the increased wealth is then used primarily to support further growth in industries only the wealthiest can afford like yachts, fancy cars, expensive jewelry, high cost call girls, etc.

Oh, of course. What else would someone like Warren Buffett or Bill Gates do with all that money? The part that's left over, of course, after they put most of it into big bags with dollar signs on them and hide them in their money bins.

The reason that capitalism has been superior to communism is that people are supposed to be rewarded for hard work or innovation which motivates them to do more.

"Hard work and innovation." How the hell do you think most people in this country got wealthy in the first place? Who do you visualize when you use the word "innovation?" What faces and names come to mind? How many of those are rich?

Do you really think this country is going to be radically improved by taking money away from entrepreneurs, equity investors, and venture capitalists, and giving it to law school graduates in Washington to spend? People who are probably know less about technology and profitable investment than my dog does?

Where do people learn economics today? Playing "Monopoly?"