Sorry for the delayed response, nor will I be able to post promptly for the next couple of weeks.
No worries, I've not been able to post regularly for months now and don't bother to apologize for late responses, after all, asynchronous communication is part of the allure of forums to me.
I make no moral argument, I make an economic one.
Fair enough. If you do want to try to make a moral argument I would be interested, to get it started I would say that my moral objections to the gist of your arguments, as I remember them, (I have clawed back through pages of inane posts to find where I left off, would rather not have to go even further for a refresher) is that even if you think it's to the benefit of the rich themselves to pay greater taxes that there is still the question of whether others should be able to decide that and compel them to do so (and the economic question of why they would have to do so if it were, indeed, in their economic interests).
But beyond that I disagree with some of the economics as well. Such as:
The Bush tax cuts saved me several thousand dollars a year in taxes and cost me over six figures from a flailing economy and I'm at the low end of the rich totem pole.
I disagree very strongly with this claim that the Bush tax cuts caused the economic problems (though they certainly put the government in a tough fiscal position when the economic problems lowered tax revenue). I think you are ascribing a myriad of other problems that caused the recession to tax cuts.
I'm not cherry picking spending, I am saying what happens in the real world when you reduce government income and I have lots of examples to back me up.
Yes you are cherry picking it. When the US spends as much as it does on war, the notion that all reduction in spending must be to cut social programs and have fewer teachers is patently absurd to me. Why not fewer bombs? Is it because we'd be perfectly fine with fewer bombs but if you describe smaller government as fewer teachers it sounds more dangerous?
I agree with you that I'd much rather cut wars than education, but until I see that there is really a choice to cut wars instead of education I'll live in the real world...
In the real world there most certainly is
still the option to spend less on war, and just because people choose
not to does not mean the option does not exist within the realm of reality.