Reaganomics are a significant cause of modern economic strife.

You used a lot of fancy charts that I didn't understand, so I'll simply base my debate off what you said. Before I begin, I find it amusing that Democrats always name Reaganomics after Ronald Reagan, but they refuse to name "Obamacare" after Barack Obama. Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the debate. In your argument you said that every year taxes to the rich were cut the economy went bad. But is that the only factor? Did you know that there is another factor involved? In 1963 the Democrats held the majority in both houses. And then, in 2008 when the Recession hit, the Democrats were in charge again. As they were in the 1987 and 1989 congresses. In contrast, during the totally rad 90s, the Republicans were in charge from 1995 until 2001. This was a period of economic growth. So, either the democrats are doing tax cuts for the wealthy (unlikely) or this isn't as important an economic factor as you think it is. And let me put it this way: a President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) can't be as liberal as you think he is. I'm sorry if I didn't cover most of your points. But I didn't understand half of that. Then, you said that Reaganomics are economically immoral. But... John D. Rockefeller gave a lot of money to charity. My source for that claim is Wikipedia. J.C. Penney tithed 90% of his money. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet both gave billions to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And ultimately, you are proven wrong in this point by "The Giving Pledge," a pledge for billionaires that they will give most of their money to charity. According to the Huffington Post (a ridiculously liberal newspaper), 81 billionaires have already signed the pledge. So are the wealthy stingy people who never give back? The answer to this is a resounding NO. So what is the difference between the rich giving freely and the rich being taxed by the government, you may ask? Well, when the rich give money to the Government, they're giving their money to an inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt entity, which probably wastes 50% of the money it receives. But when the rich people do stuff, they do it efficiently. Corporations are ran by people with economic brains, people who think up new money-saving solutions in their sleep. The Government, on the other hand, would spend 200 billion dollars to try in vain to save an endangered species of rain forest monkeys. And also, when you were a teenager, if your mom told you to unload the dishwasher, it was a chore, right? But whenever you went to a friend's house and offered to unload the dishwasher for your friend's mom, it wasn't a chore. You did it more enthusiastically and you probably did a better job. It's that way with the wealthy giving to charity as well. Also, let me ask you: is it wrong for wealthy people to have their wealth, to make as much money as they do? I believe that if you simply inherit a company from somebody or you become the CEO of an already existing company, then you do not have the right to extract an unlimited amount of money from the company funds. It is not your right. However, if you created the company yourself, if you opened multiple businesses and it became a chain and you were the CEO of this business, then I believe you have the right to do whatever you want with the company, provided you pay your workers according to the contract between employer and employee. You are not oppressing your workers; you are giving them a job. You took a risk, you used your brain, and you established your businesses. Its tax percentage should not be more than that of a middle or lower class person. It should not be punished for being successful. Therefore, excessive taxes on the wealthy is unethical if the person you're taxing is the founder of the company. Perhaps it's okay to do so if they simply inherited the company or became its CEO through promotions. Finally, you said that Americans are getting poorer. That's simply not true! We have a higher standard of living today than we did 15 years ago! We have more sources of entertainment now than we did then. If Americans are as poor as you say they are, nobody would be buying all of this new stuff. P.S. Every one of your sources had a Left-Wing Bias. And with names like "faireconomy.org" and "thinkprogress.org" it's not an easy allegation to deny.