Taxes on the affluent should be increased.

Well i have a lot to address so lets get to it. You have said that hoarding is a problem due to 0% interest rates. Well then the clear solution is to finally raise interest rates. Or deconstruct the federal reserve system. Another major theme in your arguments is that savings don't help the economy. You say that without demand, savings never go into action. This assumes that there will never be demand for anything. That the economy will perpetually get worse and worse and demand will not increase. This also assumes demand increases supply. According to says law, which is not a fallacy, supply increases demand. "The encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we have seen that production alone, furnishes those means." You can say that it's the consumer who buys the product so he needs the money. But if you favor demand side economics, then the products cost more even the the people have more money so it leads to the same point. The arguments against says law attack it's early form which only dealt with bartering. They ignore any of it's implications in a modern economy. They also grossly oversimplify it. Says used the example of a farmer. The more crop he grows the more he sells, the more he spends. In says law, the business cycle is caused by errors supply to meet demand. This is why production always falters first before ressecion. When the economy picks up, production always picks up first. You have said that cutting subsidies is raising taxes. This is incorrect. Libertarians don't oppose tax credits because they go to corporations like you do. It's because they cause the misallacation of capital. It also gives some industries huge advantages over others. The reason Ron Paul votes for tax credits is because he hates taxes more then he hates subsidies. You also call Bachmann and Ryan libertarians. I have no idea were you got that from. Right now justin amash is the most libertarian member of congress. You claim to be a kenesian but you decry subsidies. Subsidies are improtant for a goverment controlled economy. This is why the left advocates all kinds of subsidies, including the ones you hate. You say you support green energy subsidies, but that's corporate welfare to. You might say it's a good corporation, but it's still a corporation. You call the idea of lower priced products and better wages just an assumption, but this has been shown in history to be right. The massive surge in capitalsim in the late 1800s is evidence of this. During this period, wages increased by around 1.3% a year. And this is during major deflation to. Wages went from $1 to $1.50 in less the 40 years. The goods they bought were also significantly cheaper to. Oil was extremely cheap. By the turn of the century, the american worker was far better off the his european counterpart who was more unionized and regulated then he ways. Little to no regulation and taxation had led to one of the greatest rises in living in human history. You talk about about income inequality but really it's not a problem to worry about. Countries with high levels of income inequality also have low amounts of poor people and better paid workers. Places with little income inequality have tons of poor people. Who cares how the rich live when the middle class is doing well to? You say it is simply unfair that the rich are paying such low rates and the poor pay so much. Instead of going out for revenge of the rich, maybe we should cut the middle class and poor taxes by a lot to. Why do we need to pursue a quest of vengence against the rich. You say that we need the revenue to stimulate the economy and provide services. All the services you listed can be done better privately. Private schools out preform public schools by a long shot. Private roads are more efficient then public roads. I am not saying these should not be public services, but that they can be provided better privately. School vouchers is a good example of this. Private companies can provide public water better then the government can. I await your next argument, thank you for not re arguing everything on that last post.