You used an analogy of a company to explain the behavior of a wealthy person? That is an apples to oranges comparison. Microsoft laid off people to reduce their cost structure. If you reduced corporate taxes so that their overall cost structure was lower, then Microsoft may not have laid off people. (And, by the way, Microsoft is no longer debt free. They've been involved in commercial paper so they now have debt obligations.) How do you increase the sustainable purchasing power of other people? Reduce their taxes in all tax brackets.
Tax rates are not some magic wand because there is no free lunch. You make deep tax cuts and the federal budget goes into red. Paying interest on national debt fits nobody's definition of economic efficiency. You make it sound like the country can eat its cake and have it too. Can't happen.
A lot of people believe a lot of crap. Sorry, I thought you were trying to stimulate a meaningful discussion here, I'll leave now. Cheers.
Supply-side has some holes, but it's certainly better than Keynesian pseudo-mathematical econo-trash.
We don't like paying interest on national debt. Let's reduce public spending which will reduce public debt which will reduce interest payments on national debt.
Public spending on public universities has been rising faster than the rate of inflation. Is public spending on public universities sustainable? No, it is not.
You make you're claims based on the assumption that an economy can be sustained by consumer spending alone. The point is that we must produce more than we consume. Who says we need to sell those products to americans. GDP = C + I + GT + E - I consumption, investment spending, government transfers, exports imports. The consumption portion of this equation has become much to large. Why give tax cuts to those who will only make it bigger. The "I" portion is the one that has slipped substantially over the last couple decades. Tax cuts to those with high mpi's is one way to increase it. I'm sorry but your arguments are fairly naive.
The point I was making is that Berkley is a gem. It is sustainable if you make it a priority (less "liberating" around the world, fewer aircraft carriers, etc.)