Why I'm Right About Raising Taxes on the Very Rich (and why my liberal critics are wimps) | R.Reich

[nashville_brook]

http://robertreich.org/post/3317811319


Why We Should Raise Taxes on the Super-Rich and Lower Them on the Middle Class
Robert Reich | TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011


My proposal to raise the marginal tax to 70 percent on incomes over $15 million, to 60 percent on incomes between $5 million and $15 million, and to 50 percent on incomes between $500,000 and $5 million, has generated considerable debate. Some progressives think it’s pie-in-the-sky. Here, for example, is Andrew Leonard, a staff writer for Salon:

A 70 percent tax bracket for the richest Americans is pure fantasy – even suggesting it represents such a fundamental disconnect with the world as it exists today that it is hard to see why it should be taken seriously. I would be deeply worried about the sanity of a Democratic president who proposed such a thing.

Fantasy? I don’t know Mr. Leonard’s age but perhaps he could be forgiven for not recalling that between the late 1940s and 1980 America’s highest marginal rate averaged above 70 percent. Under Republican President Dwight Eisenhower it was 91 percent. Not until the 1980s did Ronald Reagan slash it to 28 percent. (Many considered Reagan’s own proposal a “fantasy” before it was enacted.)

Incidentally, during these years the nation’s pre-tax income was far less concentrated at the top than it is now. In the mid-1970s, for example, the top 1 percent got around 9 percent of total income. By 2007, they got 23.5 percent. So if anything, the argument for a higher marginal tax should be even more realistic now than it was during the days when it was taken for granted.

A disconnect with the world as it exists today? That’s exactly the point of proposing it. For years progressives have whined that Democratic presidents (Clinton, followed by Obama) compromise with Republicans while Republican presidents (Reagan through W) stand their ground – with the result that the center of political debate has moved steadily rightward. That’s the reason the world exists the way it does today. Isn’t it about time progressives had the courage of our conviction and got behind what we believe in, in the hope of moving the debate back to where it was?

(snip)

[democracy1st]

1. K & R

[Better Believe It]

2. K & R

[stevedeshazer]

3. K & R

[Skink]

4. I am planning on being sober at some point at which time I'll read this.

:beer:

[Seedersandleechers]

84. Hey, I'm with you!

Sometimes I wake up in the AM and wonder, is it too early to start drinking?

[quinnox]

5. i wish Reich was lead advisor to President Obama on the

economy. He is right on the money here. And yup, the other liberal critics of his are a bunch of wimps.

Bravo to Robert Reich for telling the truth.

[nashville_brook]

17. yeah, instead we have the Goldman Sachs executive team.

[Mimosa]

18. We have the Goldman Sachs executive team.

And some DUers think that's fine and dandy.

[nashville_brook]

19. have them to build their own cage, and they'll call it home.

let them think they chose their captor, and they'll call him friend.

[BlueCheese]

25. Well, he was a big supporter of Obama early on.

Even in the primaries.

[JDPriestly]

71. That was before Obama decided he had changed things enough

and settled back in his easy chair in the White House and let Goldman Sachs run the country for him.

[defendandprotect]

96. Well, I'm sure Obama knows what Reich has to say ... Obama didn't pick him ...

and I think Obama is moving in the direction he wants to move in --

not a question of being poorly informed -- but a matter of being more

interested in corporate/elites and their welfare --

[aquart]

6. 70% is for pikers. 90% is appropriate for wartime.

They want lower taxes, they can end the wars.

[Forkboy]

7. I fucking hate Pikeys.

[TahitiNut]

82. I believe a "War Surtax" should be automatic when troops are killed.

It's INSANE that we collect cannon fodder with an economic draft and the uberwealthy skate with profiteering on such atrocities. Think "Blackwater" et. al.

[aquart]

89. Agreed

[BzaDem]

8. While I am in favor of hiking taxes on the wealthy, his argument about Eisenhower misses the point.

A 91% rate that no one pays is not very relevant. Tax revenue during Eisenhower's era was right about where it was immediately before the financial crisis (i.e. in 2007), since loopholes and exemptions during the Eisenhower era were FAR more important to one's tax liability than the fantasy marginal rate. As tax rates were lowered over time, loopholes have been closed, which has meant that the total tax revenue (as a percentage of the economy) hasn't changed much at all over the long term.

So if he wants to argue for his proposal, he shouldn't pretend that it has ever been tried before here, since nothing even remotely like it has been tried before. He should argue from first principles (not based on some false historical analogy).

[mmonk]

20. The marginal rate was 91% and the effective rate was 88%.

[BzaDem]

22. ... no. 88% was the MAXIMUM effective rate. People didn't pay CLOSE to the maximum. n/t

[mmonk]

30. Even with deductions, it never dropped to the mid 30's like today.

This is suicide economics and I've had enough.

[Statistical]

39. Yes it was.

It was higher than today but the idea that the rich paid 50%, 60%, 70%, or 91% of their income in taxes is a fantasy. It never occurred.

[mmonk]

43. By having higher marginal rates, we could direct money and resources.

For example, things such as municipal bonds or tax breaks to direct the money into this or that program. Flattening taxes at lower rates without deductions hits the smaller tax payer harder than the rich and won't increase revenue. It also forces more regressive taxation by local and state taxing authorities.

[Statistical]

38. No it wasn't. Nobody in the history of the US has paid an effective federal income tax rate of 88%.

[tomp]

27. i'm no tax maven, but i'll bet that while personal tax loopholes may have increased.....

....corporate tax loopholes have increased.

[theaocp]

64. Except that now, we have

ludicrously low tax rates for the wealthy AND loopholes. May as well have one of the two.

[Gormy Cuss]

65. You don't seem to have read the link. Reich isn't pretending anything of the sort.

He's not saying that the rich paid that rate under Eisenhower nor would they pay it now.

"...Other critics of my proposal say there’s no way to have a truly progressive tax because the rich will always find ways to avoid it by means of clever accountants and tax attorneys. But this argument proves too much. Regardless of where the highest marginal tax rate is set, the rich will always manage to reduce what they owe. During the 1950s, when it was 91 percent, they exploited loopholes and deductions that as a practical matter reduced the effective top rate 50 to 60 percent. Yet that’s still substantial by today’s standards. The lesson is government should aim high, expecting that well-paid accountants will reduce whatever the rich owe."

[Warpy]

9. It will absolutely have to be done because every dime of austerity

subtracted from social programs means approximately 17 cents subtracted from the overall economy, not sensible at all since the economy continues to sputter and shows signs of stalling out.

When that social program money is no longer going into the economy, revenues from sales taxes and from people employed by the consumer sector will dry up. It's a study in how to destroy what's left of an economy and slash revenue at the same time.

Revenues have to be raised and the bottom 90% are quite simply tapped out.

The rich, however, will survive. The wolf won't arrive at their door for a very long time to come, even if their income drops to zero.

Raising taxes on plutocrats won't do it, alone. The Pentagon budget needs to be tamed, cut 10% per year until we're at parity with what other countries spend. 10% will force the generals to make hard decisions they should have been making all along instead of squandering every dime in order to prove they needed even more money the next year. The country can no longer afford their appetites.

Unfortunately, we're in for several more years of bandaids on business as usual as they all try to pretend the system set up by Reagan can be salvaged.

We know it can't be. It's going to be a miserable ride until they figure it out.

[nashville_brook]

11. i think you're right, esp about the more years of bandaids...

from what i heard in Obama's presser today it sounds like the administration is betting on growth...to bad there's nothing in these proposals that will actually encourage growth.

[Sherman A1]

91. Agreed & Well Said

We could raise the rate to 91% for the top and allow them enough loopholes that could direct that money into worthwhile projects/charities, etc that would benefit society. It's just a matter of doing so.

I would be happy to give them a deduction (from that nasty 91% rate) if they paid for road repairs, a library, zoo, museum, veterans care or such. I am more than willing to be open minded.

[SalviaBlue]

10. K&R

[Historic NY]

12. I subscribe to the Willie Sutton theory..."Go where the money is...and go there often."

[StarsInHerHair]

13. K&R

so true

[earthside]

14. Run, Robert! Run!

Draft Robert Reich for President!

[JCMach1]

15. This encouraged the rich to invest in building the country, not chasing after more cash

Reich is right as usual.

[nashville_brook]

16. that is a damn good point!

[cascadiance]

26. And not speculating on every market like they were in Vegas!

And screws all of the "lower classes" who want to make real investments rather than just gambling when they crash each bubble intentionally after investing in naked shorts! (and I'm not talking about the other naked shorts in Vegas!)

[RufusTFirefly]

21. Have Reich run as Vice President. He'll make President Kucinich look tall!

(Said in good fun. I'm a HUGE (Hugh?) admirer of both men.)

[hfojvt]

23. hey now, I made the same proposal - almost

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/129

It makes perfect sense to me to put in three more brackets
39.1% up to $500,000
45% up to $1,000,000 (1)
55% up to $5,000,000 (2)
65% for the rest (3)


Mine is a little bit steeper, with a 65% rate kicking in at $5 million.

Hmpf, but he passes me at $20 million. Maybe I need to put in another bracket. 75% over $20,000,000.

[Blue_In_AK]

24. I remember when rich people paid a lot of taxes.

They whined about it a lot, but the coutry seemed to be in much better shape economically.

[pampango]

28. What "liberal critics" would oppose a more progressive tax system?

I take it that he means that "liberal critics" think that it can't happen, not that it would be bad if it did.

Reagan was thought to be unrealistic when he proposed slashing taxes for the rich, breaking unions and deregulating corporate America. Perhaps why is remembered fondly by conservatives is that he pursued an "unrealistic" set of goals and won. Reich is right. The left needs the same dedication to its "unrealistic" set of goals - a more progressive tax system, stronger unions, more effective regulation of corporations, and a sounder safety net.

[nashville_brook]

29. he's referring specifically to the Salon editor...and, it seems other

elite commentators.

[hay rick]

99. Great point.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained... an epitaph for Obama's "realistic" presidency.

[JHB]

31. I propose "55 minus 10"...

...take the tax brackets in effect in 1955, adjust for inflation (~7.6X, or adjust for the change relative to median income, which would be about 10X), but lop 10 off the rate (i.e., the 20% bracket becomes 10%, 22% becomes 12%, and so on, all the way up to 91% becomes 81%).

One advantage of this is that it would be a pointed reminder that these tax rates are not some "socialist" theorizing, it is based on what was in effect in this country during "the good old days", and when the people caling it communist were relatively naked as ranting cranks (since back then there were actual communists for comparison).

I think a major point that gets lost in these discussions is that the advantage of the high marginal rates is not so much "soaking the rich" as it is in putting a damper on how fast they can get richer. Combined with some other policies that affects the decisions they make to not get soaked, and encourages the sort of circulation that "trickle down" promised but actually undermined.

You can either support people trying to get ahead... or people who are already there.

[The Wizard]

32. Seize their assets

use the money to zero out the debt. If they're so smart they'll figure out a way to regain their wealth, short of criminal activity. That is unless their assets were gained through criminal activity.
Eat the rich. They're not bad with mustard.

[Statistical]

40. Your rich on a global scale. So should we seize your assets first?

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

[pampango]

44. The rule is "Seize the assets of those richer than me. Do not seize my assets

just because I am richer than most of the world's population." :)

I strongly support taxes much more progressive than they are now, but seizing "their" assets might be a bad precedent to set if the world's truly poor were to get wind of it.

[The Wizard]

47. You don't start negotiating

from a moderate position. Each side starts at the extreme and works toward a settlement that meets on common ground.

[The Wizard]

45. Kindly delineate my assets

Your post indicates knowledge of me.

[Statistical]

48. You are rich on a global scale.

Even if your assets are 0 how about we start with seizing 90% of your future lifetime income stream including any pensions and Social Security.

I mean seizures are so "cool" right. Fuck due process, and rule of law. Just take what you want.

You seem to forget that you are better off than 80% to 99% of the people on the planet. What if they get the same idea you have? Suddenly not so cool.

[The Wizard]

49. Kindly provide

empirical data that proves income or assets.

[Statistical]

51. You have internet access an asset something the majority of the planet lacks.

Even if you were subsisting only on welfare, food stamps, and public housing (min of $15,000 annually) your income would be higher than 90% of the world's population. Hell if your income was a third of that ($5,000) you would be in the richest 15% of the world's population.

In Statistics that is called a lower bound. While your exact income may be unknown the lower bound for you not being in the global "rich" is so low that anyone not meeting that threshold would be unlikely to have regular internet access. So while if you are in the top 1%, top 5%, top 10%, or just in the rich top 20% may be up for debate regardless you are part of the global rich.

[The Wizard]

52. Your entire premise

is speculation. You have no idea where I live, nor do you have any idea where I access the Internet.
If Bill Gates sleeps in a homeless shelter for a night the average income of those in the shelter on that night makes them all rich by your calculations.
Here's a statistic for you. 100% of alcoholics drank water before they tried alcohol. Therefore, drinking water leads to alcoholism.
Deliberate omission to reach a false conclusion is prevaricating.

[savannah43]

53. Statistics--comfort for those without logic.

Go Wizard!

[Statistical]

57. You are richer than the majority of the planet.

Deal with it.

If you want to start confiscating wealth at least include yourself. To do otherwise is hypocritical. The majority of the planet would be better off if confiscation began at your income level. Of course people advocating confiscation always want it to be someone else wealth.

I know it is hard to accept but you ARE part of the global rich. The global median income is $850. If you are above that you are in the rich half.

[The Wizard]

81. All things being relative,

I am not wealthy. If I have a dollar in my pocket and 10 others have none I am not wealthy. Kindly provide empirical data that proves my wealth.
$850 will buy a lot more in Haiti than Beverly Hills. A person with a dollar in their pocket in Haiti could very well be better off than someone with a C note in hand in Manhattan.

[BobbyBoring]

92. Agreed!

For the most part. What one has to remember is many of the assets of the uber rich are ill gotten gains. Not only should many of them be stripped of every dime they have, they should also be thrown in fucking jail for the rest of their lives.

I have no problem with someone becoming wealthy in what used to be "The American Way". Start a business, provide jobs, and sell products. That's a win win situation. The wealth that's being generated now has just been a transfer of OUR wealth, the little some of us had, to the ass fucks.

WE need to start demanding JUSTICE FOR ALL!

[cate94]

33. K & R

[somone]

34. Recommended

[Poboy]

35. K to the R -nt

[Overseas]

36. K&R! Yes Please! //nt

[Blue_Tires]

37. major kick

[Zephie]

41. K&R!

[Luciferous]

42. K&R

[Dappleganger]

46. He is a very wise man...

why did the president not surround himself with this kind of intellectual wealth instead of the worst of Wall Street?

[DirkGently]

50. A much cleaner, simpler solution than beating up the rest us. But apparently unthinkable.

[sofa king]

54. They's a wawah awn!

There's a pretty damned simple way to turn this whole issue on its head--simply start loudly and publicly questioning the patriotism of the wealthy people who proper while our boys fight and die. FDR and Truman took that one to the hoop, leading to three decades of prosperity until Reagan unraveled it and condemned us to our present.

As we can clearly see, the President can't do that for us. He has to guard the center and collect overwhelming support so that the other side doesn't get close enough to steal it again.

But we can, just by asking "what are you doing to win the war?"

"I'm going without heat next winter."

"I haven't had a raise in six years."

"I gave a leg."



"I got a tax cut, ha ha. Cheers!"

[paparush]

63. I'm rec-ing your post.

[Mnemosyne]

97. I will second that, paparush! Op is good too. K&R n/t

[nashville_brook]

83. it's the god's honest truth -- what the hell are the rich doing to "save" the country?

NOT A GODDAMNED THING.

[Solly Mack]

55. K&R

[FredStembottom]

56. +1000

The Dems "compromise" while the Right stands firm - and so, we slide right.

"Isn’t it about time progressives had the courage of our conviction and got behind what we believe in, in the hope of moving the debate back to where it was?"

( I know the list of DU names that will pounce on me for not realizing that some all-powerful combination of not super enough majority / obscure parlimentary rules / Sarah Palin threat / lack of time / looming election / insufficient Men's room facilities./ etc. etc. etc. forces our Dems to give away the store so don't bother).


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[LongTomH]

58. For those arguing that the rich never paid their fair share due to 'loopholes'

..........and deductions. Here's Professor Reich's answer:

Will the rich avoid it? Other critics of my proposal say there’s no way to have a truly progressive tax because the rich will always find ways to avoid it by means of clever accountants and tax attorneys. But this argument proves too much. Regardless of where the highest marginal tax rate is set, the rich will always manage to reduce what they owe. During the 1950s, when it was 91 percent, they exploited loopholes and deductions that as a practical matter reduced the effective top rate 50 to 60 percent. Yet that’s still substantial by today’s standards. The lesson is government should aim high, expecting that well-paid accountants will reduce whatever the rich owe.

Besides, the argument that the nation shouldn’t impose an obligation on the rich because they can wiggle out of it is an odd one. Taken to its logical extreme it would suggest we allow them to do whatever antisocial act they wish – grand larceny, homicide, or plunder – because they can always manage to avoid responsibility for it.

Shoulda read the whole article, kids!

[Statistical]

59. I would say instead of stupidly setting the rate to 91%

then allowing the rich to loophole their taxes down to 50% to 60% simply eliminate ALL deductions and setup a single progressive tax system.

"The lesson is government should aim high, expecting that well-paid accountants will reduce whatever the rich owe."
Or simply simplify the sytem so ther is NOTHING an accountant can do.

Something like.

Line 1) _________ Income from all sources (nothing is exempt)

Line 2) _________ Total Taxes Owed (Lookup taxes below)

Line 3) _________ Taxes already paid (paycheck witholding)

Line 4) _________ If Line 2 more than Line 3 subtract Line 3 from Line 2. This is taxes due. Remit this amount by April 15th
OR
Line 5) _________ If Line 3 is more than line 2 subtract line 2 from Line 3. This is refund amount.


Tax table:
Income from all sources:
$0 to $40,000 - 0%
$40,000 to $80,000 - $0 + 10% of income > $40,000
$80,000 to $250,000 - $4,000 + 18% of income > $80,000
$250,000 to $1 mil - $34,600 + 25% of income >$250,000
$1 mil to $5 mil - $222,100 + 35% of income >$1 mil
>$5 mil - $1,622,100 + 46% of income >$5 mil

That is a tax braket of:
$0 to $40K - 0%
$40K to $80K - 10%
$80K to $250K - 18%
$250K to $1 mil - 25%
$1 mil to $5 mil - 35%
>$5 mil - 46%

Obviously this is just an example the brackets, and rates would need analysis by CBO but there is no reason to set sky high rates, then add millions of lines of tax code requiring billions of dollars worth of work for taxpayers to comply. Set the tax rate progressively and everyone does taxes on a postcard.

One thing. Less than $40K in individual income (no such thing as filing jointly) you have no federal taxes witheld from your check, thus no refund owed, and no reason to even file tax return.

[fasttense]

69. Well thought out.

I came here just to kick the post because I love the subject line. But then I read your carefully thought out idea for taxes. I love it.

My family makes less than $40,000 and we just got notified of a 4% tax increase this year. How come the uber rich got to keep their tax give away but our tax cut was allowed to expire? Bill Gates got to keep his tax cut but my tax cut, making less than $40,000 a year, disappeared.

This happened under a Democratic House majority, a Democratic Senate majority and a Democratic President. How could Democrats be so unfair?

[grahamhgreen]

73. Do both!

[grahamhgreen]

74. Exactly.

[Starry Messenger]

60. k&r

[FourScore]

61. He is so right.

If anyone thinks that a 70% tax cut for the wealthiest is high, that's exactly what it was when Ronald Reagan slashed it to 28%. When Reagan went into office, the richest 1% owned 8% of American wealth. Now they on 25%. BTW, the tax rate for the richest 1% was 92% for a while.

[aquamarina]

62. K&R to infinity.

[rox63]

66. I loves me some Robert Reich!

:loveya:

[Frisbee]

67. Automatic K&R for Robert Reich. eom

[treestar]

68. Get it through Congress

Of course it would be good. But in this country, it has to pass both Houses of Congress.

[DRex]

70. Sounds perfectly sensible to me. nt

[MasonJar]

72. For sure the richest one percent do not want anyone to remember

the pre-Reagan tax levels. The sad part is the best of them would not even object. Now the Koch Brothers might demur. They'd have less funds to promote the destruction of democracy.

[highplainsdem]

75. K&R

[grahamhgreen]

76. He's dead right on taxing the ultra-rich, but has he changed his mind on outsourcing yet?

[sulphurdunn]

77. We should tax the rich

for the same reason John Dillinger gave for robbing banks.

[Waiting For Everyman]

78. It's a no-brainer. If pols won't do this, they are not serious about the deficit.

It should be a global thing too, but that isn't farfetched. As I recall, the EU wanted to do this sometime after the 2008 crash, but we refused.

The mega rich are usually the ones who are able to set their own income level, like CEOs etc. - that doesn't mean it's justified. It's theft. This would end that practice of overpaying themselves.

It should be stopped as a matter of public policy, even if we didn't need the money. It's dangerous and stupid. It encourages and incentivizes the mentality of limitless greed.

Robert Reich is right, alright. Go Bobby! Keep it in their face until they have to admit it.

He's the one who should've been Sec. of Treasury all along. Hell, I'd vote for him for President.

[Initech]

79. We officially live in bizarro world.

It sucks that the economy is horrible, yet our only answer to balance the budget is to screw the people who actually do the work so the people who don't deserve their money don't have to pay their share.

:wtf: :argh:

[DirkGently]

85. God forbid the rich pay Reagan-era taxes. The horror.

[Bill USA]

80. RECOMMENDED.

[greenmutha]

86. Yes, yes, YES!

Bravo!

:applause:

[pampango]

87. Andrew Leonard (Salon) just responded: Why Robert Reich's 70 percent tax rate isn't helpful

http://www.salon.com/news/taxes/?story=/tech/htww/2011/02/16/andrew_leonard_responds_to_robert_reich

I am honored that Robert Reich devoted an entire column responding to the section of my Monday post on Obama's budget criticizing Reich's call for dramatically higher tax brackets for the rich as a way of solving the government's fiscal picture and reviving the economy. In retrospect, I might have been a little harsh in saying his proposal represented "a fundamental disconnect with the world as it exists today."

And I should also hasten to point out that I don't disagree that we should raise taxes on the rich. If I had a dollar for every time I wrote "tax the rich" in How the World Works, I might be in a tax bracket high enough to change my mind! But I still think that as it applies to the struggle currently playing out in Congress over budget priorities, funding the government, and the economy, Reich's platform, evaluated as tactics, is not helpful -- and could actually be dangerous.

Yes, the U.S. once did a much better job of taxing the rich. The U.S. also once had a strong and vibrant union movement, a bipartisan consensus that protecting the environment was a good thing (Richard Nixon created the EPA!) and a Supreme Court majority that didn't believe that protecting the interests of the business class was its first priority. For that matter, once upon a time the newspaper and recorded music industries enjoyed profitable business models, and neither China nor India posed any serious threat to (or opportunity for) the U.S. economy.

The world has changed and we've got to change with it. This doesn't make me happy. Living in California, I see the disastrous government-crippling consequences of Proposition 13 every day. But I can't deny how Ronald Reagan channeled the anti-tax, anti-government energy that Californians expressed so vigorously in the 1970s into a national movement and a presidential campaign that changed the terms of debate in this country. I think he did great damage to the country, but the damage is done. Fixing it isn't going to happen by simply declaring that we should roll things back to the way they were before the "revolution" hit.

[Major Hogwash]

108. It seems to me he stuck to his original premise, that's pathetic. Is 60% tax rate too high?

Let's bargain it down to 50%.
Is that still too high?

How about 40%?
Is that still too high?

I said a few days ago that we needed to go back to the tax rates that were in place when JFK was in office and I'm glad to see that Robert Reich and I agree.

[Doc Martin]

88. K&R

[TomClash]

90. NO! That's class war!

Oh my God!

:sarcasm:

I'll go him one better. Let's tax the assets of the uber-wealthy to reclaim the money they stole.

[fascisthunter]

93. So, in other words, the rich have been getting tax breaks for years

and guess what happened when they did.... voila!

[Faryn Balyncd]

94. K and R.

[bvar22]

95. Now THAT is what a "Democrat" sounds like.

For those of you born after LBJ, take note.
Our Party once stood for something.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone


"By their works you will know them."

[Mnemosyne]

98. Hear, hear! n/t

[nashville_brook]

102. +1

[LooseWilly]

109. Heh, I'll take your word for that.

Reading your posts in the past, I have some trust in your veracity... though it's really hard to believe that the Democratic Party once stood for something.

Having been a young kid when Carter was in office... I've never seen it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears... but if you say so, I'll take your established word for it. ;)

[chimpymustgo]

100. K&R.

[Major Hogwash]

101. Why did Reagan fuck this country up?

Why can't stupid people like Leonard realize this simple truth?

[Beartracks]

107. What *IS* the answer to that?

:shrug:


------------------------------

[quakerboy]

103. Aww heck

Now here's an idea. Lets reverse every single tax law passed since the day Eisenhower left office. Lets go back to exactly what the tax arraignment was back then for the next 10 years.

I wonder how many here who protest that "with deductions, they never really paid that much" would be cool with going back to whatever it was.

[quakerboy]

104. dupe

[NEOhiodemocrat]

105. K & R

"Isn’t it about time progressives had the courage of our conviction and got behind what we believe in, in the hope of moving the debate back to where it was?"

[Beartracks]

106. K&R n/t