Message boards :
Politics :
Republicans Can't Handle The Truth
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
Author | Message |
---|---|
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
There once was a setizen named Guy He's believed every Republican Lie The truth be told that crew is getting old When their gone will you cry or a modified Guy Believes every Republican Lie It's like pigs in a Sty Revenge I am told Is best served up cold Help save the US, GOP Die In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Your failure to answer the question is duly noted, it was 1931. Every landslide election in the UK since then has been on less than half the votes cast. Thatcher in 1983, where there were 397 Conservative MPs vs 253 others was on 42.4% of the popular vote, Blair in 2001 had 413 Labour MPs vs 237 others on 40.1% of the popular vote. Are you sure it's me that's mixing things up? The percentages used for UK elections were of total votes cast (aka the popular vote), the same basis was used for US elections. In 1983 the Conservative Party won 42.4% of total votes cast (13.7 million votes for Conservative Party candidates vs 17.5 million votes for other candidates). The last time voter participation in the UK was over 70% was 15 years ago (source), US voter participation is typically a smaller proportion (source). Reagan in 1980 won 50.7% of total votes cast, he won the Electoral College by 489 vs. 49 for Carter. The issue of the Electoral College not reflecting the proportion of votes cast is not new, nor is it new for the system to be discussed following an election. The college has been a feature of US elections since 1788 (the first election following the adoption of the Constitution), and I suspect it will remain a feature of US elections for some time yet. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
from pages 2, 4-5 of the suppressed report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service: Top Tax Rates Since 1945 As you can see, Republican Senators protested the report because it objectively reports the facts and because the facts disprove their voodoo economics. |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
The fitted values seem to suggest that higher tax rates are associated with slightly higher real per capita GDP growth rates. The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was over 90%, and the real GDP growth rate averaged 4.2% and real per capita GDP increased annually by 2.4% in the 1950s. In the 2000s, the top marginal tax rate was 35% while the average real GDP growth rate was 1.7% and real per capita GDP increased annually by less than 1%. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11354 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Reed, the Republicans started ignoring economics when Regan became president. A problem that I never see discussed is that the marginal utility of a dollar is much lower for the rich therefore they are much less likely to spend or invest that marginal dollar. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.