Trickle Down, Or Bottom Up?

Those are the choices, economically speaking, as Gateway Pundit explains:

Not that any of us are surprised but Barack Obama's mouthpiece, The New York Times, praised the Marxist redistribution of wealth enforced by Obamacare. And the author savors the fact that Obama is deliberately undoing "what historians have called the age of Reagan."

For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government's biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform's effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

…Since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign in 2007, he has had a complicated relationship with the Reagan legacy. He has been more willing than many other Democrats to praise President Reagan. "Reagan's central insight — that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic," Mr. Obama wrote in his second book, "contained a good deal of truth." Most notably, he praised Mr. Reagan as a president who "changed the trajectory of America."

But Mr. Obama also argued that the Reagan administration had gone too far, and that if elected, he would try to put the country on a new trajectory. "The project of the next president," he said in an interview during the campaign, "is figuring out how you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth."

So, which would you prefer: Reagan's trickle-down policy, or Obama's Marxist bottom-up policy?  Reminder:

Reagan's policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history while creating nearly 35 million more jobs. Federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990 after the Reagan tax cuts. President Reagan was able to bring down inflation rates from 10.4% in 1981 to 3.7% in 1987. Reagan brought the unemployment rate down from 9.7% in 1982 to 5.49% in 1988. The American economy also grew by almost one-third due to Reagan's economic plan.

Contrast that with the indefinite trillion-dollar deficits, 10%+ unemployment, a shrinking economy, and staggering expansions of government, all of which have been brought about by Obama's Marxist policies.

Which do you prefer?

There's my two cents.