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.

---

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%.

The scattered points, however, generally are not close to the fitted values line indicating that the association between GDP growth and the top tax rates is not strong.[22] Furthermore, the observed positive association between real GDP growth and the top tax rates shown in the figure could be coincidental or spurious because of changes to the U.S. economy over the past 65 years.[23] The statistical analysis using multivariate regression (reported in Table A-1) does not find that either top tax rate has a statistically significant association with the real GDP growth rate.[24]

These results are generally consistent with previous research on tax cuts. Some studies find that a broad based tax rate reduction has a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth.[25] Other studies have found that a broad based tax reduction, such as the Bush tax cuts, has no effect on economic growth.[26] It would be reasonable to assume that a tax rate change limited to a small group of taxpayers at the top of the income distribution would have a negligible effect on economic growth.

---

from pages 2, 4-5 of the suppressed report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service:

Top Tax Rates Since 1945
Tax policy analysts often use two concepts of tax rates. The first is the marginal tax rate or the tax rate on the last dollar of income. If a taxpayer’s income were to increase by $1, the marginal tax rate indicates what proportion of that dollar would be paid in taxes. The highest marginal tax rate is referred to as the top marginal tax rate. How much an additional dollar is taxed depends on if it is ordinary income (e.g., wages) or capital gains. The second concept of tax rates is the average tax rate, which is the proportion of all income that is paid in taxes. An examination of the trend in
the average tax rate provides information on how the tax burden has changed over time.

Although the statutory top marginal tax rate was over 90% in the 1950s, the average tax rate for the very rich was much lower. The average tax rates at five-year intervals since 1945 for the top 0.1% and top 0.01% of taxpayers is shown in Figure 1. The average tax rate for the top 0.01% (one taxpayer in 10,000) was about 60% in 1945 and fell to 24.2% by 1990. The average tax rate for the top 0.1% (one taxpayer in 1,000) was 55% in 1945 and also fell to 24.2% by 1990, following a similar downward path as the tax rate for the top 0.01%. Between 1990 and 1995, the average tax rate for both the top 0.1% and top 0.01% increased to about 31%. After 1995, the average tax rate for the top 0.01% was lower than that for the top 0.1%...


Top Tax Rates and the Economy
Some economists and policymakers often assert that reducing marginal tax rates would spur economic growth.[9] This could work through several mechanisms. First, lower tax rates could give people more after-tax income that could be used to purchase additional goods and services. This is a demand-side argument and is often invoked to support a temporary tax reduction as an expansionary fiscal stimulus. Second, reduced tax rates could boost saving and investment, which would increase the productive capacity of the economy and productivity.[10] Furthermore, some argue that reduced tax rates increase labor supply by increasing the after-tax wage rate. There is substantial evidence, however, to suggest that labor supply responses to wage and tax changes are small for both men and women.[11] To the extent that these mechanisms are valid, it is expected
that there would be an inverse relationship between the top tax rates and saving, investment, productivity growth, and real per capita GDP growth. Each relationship is examined.

As you can see, Republican Senators protested the report because it objectively reports the facts and because the facts disprove their voodoo economics.

---

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.

As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye....

Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast.

There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%.

So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters.

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 ...

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

The right wing believes they have the answer
Forgetting that the uber-rich don't care about them
To those people, you too are a cancer
The only one that will protect you is a Dem

---

#resist

Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars.
And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's.

States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights.

The states are discriminating. It's the federal government's job to step in and do away with this institutional racism.

What about the folks who can't afford driver's licenses? Or produce any other form of identification required to get a driver's license? That's blatant discrimination right there in plain site.

I have never sighted an example of a discrimination being cited on this site.

There once was a discussion about voter cessation.
The answers were expounded by expansion.
Some identification,
was the fixation,
until it was called discrimination.

So, now you are Cay-juhn Man? NOW?

Pretty soon, we'll all be paying for 'Bamacars.
And they can be driven by illegals too, seeing as how some of them have no problem obtaining DL's.

States issue drivers licenses, not the federal government. So if you have a problem with the issuance of DL's, your objection is to states' rights.

The states are discriminating. It's the federal government's job to step in and do away with this institutional racism.

What about the folks who can't afford driver's licenses? Or produce any other form of identification required to get a driver's license? That's blatant discrimination right there in plain site.

I have never sighted an example of a discrimination being cited on this site.

Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast.

There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%.

So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters.

WK, you may be on to something here. Each eligible voter who doesn't vote should have their vote automatically cast for "none of these candidates." That might just shake up elections in the USA. Instead of this register every moron BS the parties would only want to register people who will actually vote and then they will have to be sure they don't turn them off with vile attack advertisements. May be on to something WK.

---

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote?

[ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA]

I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided.

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.

As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye....

Booby, you are mixing up figures here, you are quoting UK figures on figures for party against total votes available, where the US figures are figures based on total votes cast.

There is a big difference, also in the US the number of votes cast is usually below 70% of the population that could vote, whilst in the UK the figure is usually over 70%.

So unless there is has been a big change, and the figures do not support that, then against the total voting population in this election then it will be about a third each for each party and the non-voters.

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote?

[ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA]

I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided.

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.

As I said before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye....

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The American people spoke last Tuesday night and the American people voted for "fundamental change."

Did they?

The popular vote was almost equal for both sides. The problem you are noting is the indirect way the President is chosen.

And if he and a couple of others in the Republican party had not voiced some stupid comments it could have easily ended up the other way.

Before you ask the US to remove the splinter from its eye, could you answer the question, when was the last time the majority party in the UK parliament won 50% of the popular vote?

[ETA]I'm old enough to remember when the majority party in parliament won a smaller share of the popular vote (1974) than the minority party (like the Republicans did this year), others here may be old enough to remember two occasions where that happened in the UK (it also happened in 1951).[/ETA]

I agree that the first past the post system in the UK is also flawed. But in the USA case it looks like a big, almost landslide, win for Obama at 332 - 206 when in fact as a country the population, that voted, is almost equally divided.

Guy, you are ridiculous and dishonest.

Both President Obama and Bill Ayers used the phrase "fundamental change" but neither said anything about "a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome." In fact, nobody ever says anything about equality of outcome but you wrong-wing extremists when you're making your straw men arguments about Progressives and progress.

And then there's the well known fact that the two men's "acquaintance" with one another is fabricated from once belonging to the same group.

---

What was my lie?

This:

The "fundamental change" they voted for is to flip from "limited government/individual take care of yourself" to a total government responsibility to ensure equality of outcome.

That is cut from whole cloth, and you know it.

---

Well, you tell me, what is "fundamental change?"

Don't you already have a link to the complete speech in which President Obama used that phrase? If not, why not? Have you not even looked for it? Is it because you're happier to assume he's a socialist than you would be to check the facts and learn that he really isn't? Not even close. He's not even a full-fledged Progressive and barely even leans that direction. Talk about mountains out of molehills.

This mashup you posted earlier is moderately cunning as propaganda goes, but it contains no real information. The viewer is intended to infer, as you have, from the one phrase "fundamental change," that both men are talking about exactly the same change and that both are willing to resort to the same tactics. Neither of which is true and no actual evidence supports either inference. But neuro-linguistic programming "can have a powerful effect on the weak-minded."

---