What about neocons who aren't Republicans? I say people! What? What you gonna do? You've gotta get on the groove if you want your body to move.
So you won't answer the question. We got it. When documented history goes against the arguments you're making, you just try and not answer the question. You've made it clear.
Smack some sense into your head and address my points or just simply admit that you can't and the only thing you have is semantics.
You're the one who is so hung up on the 90% number that you can't actually address the underlying point. I talk about "after WWII" because that is when we raised taxes to deal with the issue of a debt load at 100% of GDP, you know, just like the debt load today. Except that when we had higher tax rates, we had higher growth rates, both GDP and wage, and our productivity increased dramatically. After 30 years of "trickle down," all we have are massive deficits and debt, 8% unemployment, and stagnant median wage growth stagnation combined with upper incomes increasing dramatically. In other words, the facts disagree with your opinions.
Is that kinda like being a conservative (the more "fiscal" party), intiating two wars, and national tax cuts. While "reducing" the deficit? Where were you fiscal conservatives when we were funding two ridiculous wars against "terror", and handing out tax cuts? Idiots meet moron.
The fact that a higher tax rate on top earners saw the country fix the debt, increase employment, etc. In other words the points you tried to ignore by arguing about the 90% figure while ignoring that their rate of paying taxes on taxable income was much higher than it is today. Like I said, you can't argue the points, so you try and distract from the points, and pretend there were no points at all. Please answer the gentleman's points. your dodging big time.
