on the election is that it has really clarified the extent to which big money defines policy in the US system.
Would a Gingrich presidency create policies inimical to the interest of his key donor? Of course not.
Is Romney's economic platform designed to promote the interests of billionaires? - well, he plans to be rid of the estate tax (hmmm) and to reduce capital gains taxes (hmmm) and lower higher rate income taxes (uh huh). Funny how that shoe fits so well. Yet it is justified in the usual way - incentives. But where's the research showing that incentives work better when you change the tax code from supporting advantage for the majority to advantage for the very few.
Ad then, of course, there's the voodoo economics claim. Lower taxes, higher growth. Still searching for the evidence of that myself. Looks like the usual right wing dogma, with the usual lack of supporting evidence.
Heck, people that imagine oil seepage all across and around America to match the sands of Arabia can surely also believe in trickle down effects and supply side economics and the motive power of lottery-style incentives and the beneficence of extreme greed.
| 