The arguments seem to me to be:

1) Raising taxes always destroys incentives, always ultimately reduces revenue, and is always counter-productive because people will (rather than doing what makes the most sense to raise their incomes, make their businesses more successful, plan for their retirement) do whatever is necessary to keep from paying any tax increase. They'll lobby congress; they'll invest in tax shelters; they'll move their money off-shore; they'll quit.

2) The conclusive evidence from the Reagan and Clinton years is that one can have strong economic growth, reductions in unemployment and increases in employment, substantial reductions in the deficits, and increasing incomes for the average working person, even when taxes on the upper income groups are increased.

The conclusive evidence from the 2000s is that cutting taxes on the wealthy does not increase economic growth over the long term. It does not raise average incomes. It does not increase job growth. It does not reduce the federal deficit or the federal debt. It does not force the government to shrink. It does little except increase wealth and income disparities to levels comparable to banana republics.

So which is it? Is #1 correct, or is #2 correct? They can't both be right. Either the ideology under #1 is wrong, or the facts of #2 are wrong.

I vote for #1 being wrong. If you think #2 is wrong, then you need to present evidence. I've presented evidence why #2 is correct.

IOW, those of us in the reality-based community are unpersuaded that the last 30 years of "voodoo economics" was an insufficient test. The supply-siders' rhetoric has been shown to be incoherent and wrong. (E.g. they don't care about deficits even though they talk about them incessantly when a Democrat is president - http://yglesias.thin...the-deficit-2.php ) Clap Louder is unpersuasive. http://www.balloon-j.../?page_id=28596#C

It is possible, and necessary, to increase taxes on the wealthy to begin solving many of our economic problems.

HTH. ;-)

Cheers,
Scott.