Hey, we just didn't cut income taxes enough. More tax cuts now will help a lot. And it'll be interesting to watch the UK economy soar as soon as they throw half a million people out of their jobs.

I've noticed that some people rarely discuss over spending as the problem.

Overspending?

Not possible... there are still checks in the checkbook. And multiple checking accounts still to tap. And credit cards keep coming in the mail!

Johnston's always such a cheery read.

I've noticed that some people rarely discuss over spending as the problem.

Well, as I say, the UK model should bring some clarity there. They're blowing a 10% hole in their GDP with public spending cuts. We'll see how that goes.

I've noticed that some people rarely discuss over spending as the problem.

And I've noticed that's all some people can ever discuss.

Excuse me if I'm daft, but how does overspending apply here? Who "overspent" to cause such inequities in income and tax burden?

Johnston's always such a cheery read.

Right. It's just the messenger.

At the risk of blaming the victim, the question must be asked, what is keeping lower income Americans from increasing their share of the income pie? One explanation is that since 1980, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has increased from 18% to 40%. Over the same period, the rate for blacks has increased from 40% to 70%.

If you want to dramatically increase the chances that you will end up in a life of poverty, drop out of school and become a single mother. David Cay Johnston fails to mention the myriad of government policies (AFDC, food stamps, WIC, Section 8,...) that unintentionally promote these destructive pathologies.

Economic policy that fails to promote self-reliance and independence ultimately increases poverty and dependence.

Yes, indeed. All that socialist support is the reason that countries like Sweden, Denmark and Norway are cesspools of unimaginable poverty.

GDP per capita is substantially greater in the US than Sweden and Denmark. Norway is higher than US primarily because it is blessed with enormous natural resources (energy) and the fact that nobody really wants to live there.

As for the surge in incomes earned by the shrinking membership of the $50 million plus income club, you can be sure incomes in this exclusive group will drop in 2010 as Tiger Woods, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates among others experience substantial earning declines, as well as the loss in reported earnings from super rich who accelerated their income into 2009 to avoid the tax increases that have yet to come about.

"Economic policy that fails to promote self-reliance and independence ultimately increases poverty and dependence."

The welfare machine keeps grinding up more people. Pretty depressing report.

That there is hardly any mutual discussion is because mostly there is barely any information agreed in common. For example, LIARS Larson is packing his house with his flock of parrots (tomorrow 10/27) to watch the movie I Want Your Money, so 'they' can 'discuss' it, misinformed, on the radio, for weeks.

Meanwhile it is already shown and known that the movie is based on these (at least) nine lies:

[Filmmaker Ray] Griggs falsely claims Obama "doubled" the FY2009 deficit

Film pushes falsehood that health care reform will dramatically boost federal deficit

Griggs uses misleading statistic to minimize effect of stimulus

Griggs excuses Bush's spending increases by falsely suggesting it was mainly for war in Iraq

[Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen] Moore falsely claims "[g]overnment spending does not create jobs"

History revised: Film claims Reagan cut taxes for all, ignores his tax increases

Economics revised: Documentary attributes '80s boom to tax cuts

Moore claims the New Deal failed; economists say otherwise

Griggs falsely claims Bush's first veto was over spending

Reagan's legacy is 'plausible deniability' of deliberate ignorance -- in order to lie on camera and on mic with a straight face.

Thank you Media Matters .ORG for a review in advance of the film's false fibs LIARS loves.

How can any reasonable and sensible person consider Media Matters as a reliable credible source of information? Maybe more credibility could be expected when reading or seeing an article or film before making pre-judgments about it.

Well of course if you don't like what they say they must be wrong.

Economic policy that fails to promote self-reliance and independence ultimately increases poverty and dependence.

One could argue that Reaganomics actually contributed to the change in societal mores that led to both the wealth hoarding at the top AND the increase in poverty at the bottom. Prior to Reagan, there was societal pressure for those at the top to avoid "running up the score." Obscene wealth was, well, morally obscene. There was also societal pressure for those at the bottom to avoid welfare and not be a drain on society.

Reagan came along and gave voice to everyone's inner Ayn Rand -- if we all just live for ourselves, for the moment, selfishly, society will work perfectly. So those at the top clearly deserved their obscene wealth -- it's not like the workers or the teachers or the doormen helped out along the way. The government tax cuts were proof that the rich earned every penny and didn't owe anything to anyone.

Those at the bottom also decided to live selfishly for the moment -- have that kid, take the welfare check. If those multi-millionaires are going to get everything they want, I'm going to get something for myself.

And we all lived happily ever after.

It's always interesting when the far-right wingers attracted by the Bog-man's rants on local issues are confronted with the fact that the Bog-man, as is evidenced by his posts on anything other than local politics, is actually a left-winger. I like to hear their heads explode.

Another Reagan legacy: demonizing the mythical welfare queen.