... uns wird man ja auch versuchen, angebotsorientierte Wirtschaftspolitik verkaufen.
<korrigierte_textpassage>
Ich bin persönlich wirtschaftspolitisch eher liberal als sozialistisch, aber wenn ich so einige Beiträge Wolfgang Flammes im m-e-x blog lese, die in meiner bescheidenen Meinung oft zu einem vereinfachenden und liberal-populistischen "Öffentlichen Sektor bashing" geprägt sind, wie z.B. der Beitrag über Windenergie.
</korrigierte_textpassage>
Linkt das mal. Das hat nämlich wirklich ein Experte geschrieben.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/magazine/14TAXES.html?pagewanted=1(NYT benötigt gratis Registrierung)
[...] But they have another reason for cutting taxes mainly on the rich, which has become known as the ''lucky ducky'' argument.
Here's how the argument runs: to starve the beast, you must not only deny funds to the government; you must make voters hate the government. There's a danger that working-class families might see government as their friend: because their incomes are low, they don't pay much in taxes, while they benefit from public spending. So in starving the beast, you must take care not to cut taxes on these ''lucky duckies.'' (Yes, that's what The Wall Street Journal called them in a famous editorial.) In fact, if possible, you must raise taxes on working-class Americans in order, as The Journal said, to get their ''blood boiling with tax rage. [...]
Paul Krugman
Gruß Axel