Is ProgArchives still an AnCap forum, primarily?

Yup. 

It's actually why, though I feel things should be done to correct this, the focus of the left should change from taxing the rich to instead boosting spending...trickle up vs trying to tax and spend. 

And I do have to say, the punish success line, I do think it's always been a weak argument. Someone in NYC makes $10 mill a year, lets say a 50% tax rate, add state and local, we're at 63%. A lot of tax, but still would leave them with 3.7 million for that year, which is more than many Americans will make in their lifetime, in one year.... I do find it hard to say this is punishing success. 

Especially when you take into account loopholes, deductions, creative accounting and stashing it offshore.

I knew someone in college who boasted how his family stashed their cash in the Cayman Islands I believe, so they dodge the taxes and were "poor" thus getting gov aid.  he raged against Obama's election and I was like, why do you even care? The 4.6% tax increase was never gunna impact him anyway with the $ being hidden.... (His father also put alot of $ into a "charity" involving churches in Haiti or something but it was a scam and actually they ripped off locals through it) Was very sick...

Well that was the battle:

Was Keynes simply suggesting the short run processes you mention, without drastic change to the orthodox, or did he want to take a hammer to the orthodox and make serious, fundamental changes? 

I guess it may not matter too much what he felt, why try to interpret and find real intent and etc in Keynes and what he may have meant? Regardless of his beliefs, a school of thought has indeed developed and expanded based on the latter interpretation, with his work as the foundation of course. 

I have drifted towards the latter, it took me a long time. It was just too shocking to hear things like "can run full(er) employment without inflation". From all I gather, the counter to deficits in the long run is: With a stronger economy deficits naturally fall/are lessened so it pays for itself to a large extent. I know this is highly unorthodox even among liberals today. 

Only if we are talking about hiking corp tax.  That's not on the table anyway.  Higher tax on personal income, esp income from return on investment, will not affect investment unless it brings down consumption significantly.  And that is not going to happen in a scenario where a huge proportion of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small minority of the population.  That scenario describes the situation in not only US but many, many countries across the world today.  

No taxes on low income earners, yes.  Lower taxes on middle income, yes.  But once you get to the rich, they run out of things that money can buy and they start to save and invest.  Which is why we have the unique spectacle of a never ending bull run in the stock markets in US with an at best anemic recovery in the real economy.  All the money Ben & co pumped in through QE just zipped straight into the bourses; had monetary and fiscal policy been in lock step, it would have had a greater impact on consumption than it has.  So, getting back to the point, tax progressively higher income levels at higher tax rates so that govt still has money to spend on the infrastructure that the economy needs, without hurting consumption at the macro level.