Go look at some simple studies in savings rates. Rich people do spend money, no question about that, but relative to their incomes, the bottom 50% spend A LOT MORE money than the top 1%. Based on some very simple data, it's really clear that giving billions of dollars in tax breaks does more for the economy in the bottom 50% than the top. I'd also like to see a study of how many times money circulates, too. My *opinion* is that rich people spend money in the top end of the luxury economy, which tends to cycle money through people like them- who save 20% of their income. $1B becomes $.8B on the second round, and $.64B on the third time. Whereas the bottom end tend to spend money on the bottom end of the economy- more basics than luxuries- which reduces the amount saved to the same rate that the spenders to- $1B becomes $.99B, and then $.98B etc.
Which is to say that there IS data that government spending and taxes benefit for the lower end of the economy is far more effective than doing the same on the top end.
It's nice to bring up charities, but, again, one must look at the data. Yes, they spend more on charities. But it's STILL nowhere near compensating for the money that is just being taken out of the economy and put into savings.
I agree that spending is an issue. But an effective government is also important. Looking at Kansas and Wisconsin are excellent examples of cutting spending is not the answer- most states already are barely able to perform the tasks that they are required to perform. And if spending is so important, it does need to be across the board, too- not the partisan bits and pieces.
As for your last comment about not being able to tax our way to prosperity- it goes the other direction, too. You'll never be able to tax cut your way to prosperity, as well. Rich don't need tax cuts- they have way more than enough money to thrive on. As much as you hate it, taxes do a service to make sure money is circulating in the economy.
