Of course, BM is totally right that, as I've repeatedly said and you've ignored, the marginal use of incremental income is very different for the rich/moderately rich/poor, and that rather than a one size fits all approach of bunging the rich more money in any circumstance, we should be looking at the economy as a balance of complex flows and seeing where it is out of kilter.
This sort of thing:
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-resea...k-us-recovery/, revealing rising levels of household debt is the crux of my contention that it is the household/individual ordinary consumers' income that is most under pressure, and that what we don't need is more money in the pocket of the rich and of corporations - they're both flush already, but investment opportunities are scarce in part because the regular joe and josie can't afford to consume.
That's not the whole story - there are questions of sustainability, and automation, and the global savings glut, and so on, but it's enough to show why I think your zombie reaganomics are bunkum.