Cant read a chart either can you. I count 7 periods before Bush cut taxes.  That is not 7 years, 7 periods.  The last being just before Clinton jacked them up.  You are still wrong.  Do you want the actual link so you can verify the numbers (without the hearts)?

Well I guess I must be blind sir.  As I look at YOUR chart, I see the 1920's and the first few years in the 1930's that the highest tax bracket is at 25% roughly.  Then in '32 it goes up to 63%, and doesnt come down below that level until the 1980's and reagan.  Then in the late 80's bush 1 lowers it to the low 30's.  Then Clinton raises it to 39.6(a steal for the rich even still).  How and where do you see 7 periods in that chart where the top tax rate was below the 3 times I listed.

Blind?  Perhaps.  Or just can express yourself properly.  You did not say decades, you said periods.  A period is an indeterminate amount of time that is started and stopped based upon an event.  Since we are talking tax rates, then we have to look at the periods of when they changed.  Not decades.

Lesson #2.  A couple is 2, a few is 3 or more.  2 years (actually 1 since 30 is in the 20s decade, just as 2000 was the end of the 20th century - there is no year 0) is not a few.

SO I see NO decades where the rate was below the current rate for the entire decade (but then it wont be this entire decade either since it was not there in 2001-2, and thanks to Obama wont be there in 09 or 10 either).

Any way you stretch the truth, you are wrong.  So go ahead, turn in your liberal card, get a man card and admit it.

When you start paying the top rate (which after the state taxes could be and probably is in the blue states, over 50%), you can call it a steal for you. But you can only say you (or the government) is stealing it from the rich.  And hardly say that they are not paying their share.  The only ones that can say that are those paying the highest rate and then saying they are not paying enough (but there is no law against paying more than you owe - but as all hypocrites, I dont see liberals ante-ing up the extra either).

Seriously your talking symantics here....dont give your definitions or some books definitions of what a few or couple is.  You know what I meant and I am right as to what I said.  3 periods or time frames(whatever you wish to call it) as I have previously listed and described in detail where taxes on the rich for the federal tax(lets stay on subject here federal not state) was lowered(3 lowest since it was established) by long presiding republican president(s)(during thier time periods) and we got 3 very bad economic results.  There is no disputing that.

No.  Semantics is when you say "10 year period" versus decade (both very similar, but not the same).

You did not say that, nor is it true unless you decide to not use tax rates as your deciding factor.  If you look at the chart, there are 7 periods of tax rates lower than 2003.

Yes there is since your statement does not match the facts.  The lowering of tax rates does not have a direct correlation with bad economic results.  Indeed the only one that does is a very minor one (from 25-24%), so it tends to blow your conclusion out of the water.  If we look at when rates were signigicantly lowered (24, 64, 82, 88, 03) we see periods of great prosperity ensued.  Your conclusion is not backed up by any observable data.

Yes it does, oh sure not right away, but as you see continued low rates DOES adversely affect the country(in conjunction with deregulation).  You just cant stand to admit it. 

And in my statement I did specifically say the 3 lowest periods of tax rates led to 3 of the most significant recession/depression/financial crisis of the last 100 years(roughly).

I understand that seeing your idea of low taxes on the rich stimulating the economy not working in obvious terms kills the whole conservative economic plan, but its right there and its undeniable.  3 extended time frames of the lowest tax rates on the wealthy and 3 times we wound up in chaos(economically). 

I just dont see what is so hard to understand here.  I think you are just trying to dance around the meat and potatos of this whole thing and hope I go away. 

That is like saying birth causes death - just not right away.  Sorry, you blew the baby on that one.  The money does not cause the economic downturns.  It causes prosperity as we have seen.  But the economy cannot stay up forever, and as we see, when you screw the pooch, you get bad times, and if you screw it hard, it gets worse.  The worst recessions and the depression were caused not by tax cuts, but by bad government policy.

We already have a test tube case of this.  The US versus USSR.  SImilar in size as should have been the economies.  But as we know, the USSR never matched up to the US.  WHy?  Government control of all.  Sure no one starved (just beaten and imprisoned in gulags - and killed when the whim took the government), but the difference is that the US allowed the market, not the government to decide.  It is not perfect, but it works better than any alternative.

Yes especially in times when taxes on the rich are left low as history has shown thanks again for proving me right.

my point exactly we agree if you keep screwing the economy by giving to the rich they just keep most of it and the middle class and poor suffer.

Right and one of those MAJOR policies was taxes and complete deregulation and non reregulation once business found away around the old regulations.  Which I might add happened during the 3 aforementioned time froames.

OR when taxes are kept high.  YOu cherry pick again with that statement.  Taxes on the rich are a dissincentive to investment, but hardly a cause of recessions. (by your logic, we should have been in a recession or depression since the inception of the country to 1913.  But then you see the stupidity of trying to say that heart attacks are caused by progress).

Not even close.  The first error is the word give.  A classic mistake by liberals.  Nothing has been given to the rich ever.  Only less taken.  And as I just pointed out, taking less from them for the first 150 years did not seem to have caused the US to fold up and disappear.  Your logic is flawed.  Second, by not taking (note theword) from the rich, you deprive the middle class and poor of nothing.  Since nothing was taken from them, they are not deprived.  Third, everyone suffers.  It is called life.  You cannot eliminate suffering.  And those that attempt to are not all there.  You can (through charitible means) attempt to mitigate the suffering, but you putting your had in my pocket and taking my money is not a demonstration of your charity. Only that you have no charity within you.

No.  Again you would make a great communist, but a lousy economist (and yes the 2 are mutually exclusive).  You have only proven that your idea of charity is for others to give, but not you.  And you have proven that you cannot develop an hypothesis and then back it up with facts.  Sadly, all you have proven is that you do know how to cherry pick.  Your own hypothesis is blown out of the water by the very facts you try to twist to support your thesis, but not by the facts themselves.

I agree I dont think that the rich should be taxed at the levels we saw years ago...60% or higher.  But I think that a reasonable rate would be 40-50.  As compared to history that is pretty decent.

Wrong.  The whole idea of what you advocate is that the reason the government taxes rich people less is that they CREATE something for the middle class and poor....JOBS.  When this doesnt happen(And once again in history is doesnt) they are deprived.  About the suffering why cant we cure it?  Funny I always thought that americans could do anything we put our minds too.  They said we couldnt reach the moon before 1970 but we did.  They said LBJ couldnt lower the poverty rate from 24% to the roughly 12% he did when he left office.  They said we couldnt harness the power of the atom but we did.  Why cant we cure world hunger or at least our own countries.  Why cant we have an abundence of good jobs that people can at least support themselves on.  We can still have rich people, and upper middle class, we just raise the bar.  Its called vision and I think many on this board and in our country have lost it.

I find this repeated statement funny as you are the one who has yet to really deal with what I brought forth other than to say that it was failed government policies.  By the way who was in charge before these time periods that you said they were failed government policies?  Seem to me that it was republicans.  1921-1933--3 different republican presidents, 1981-1993--2 republican presidents, and finally 2001-present--1 republican president.  So whos screwing the pooch now?(sorry I threw that in for effect, I still try to keep some levity here I hope you still do understand that about me)

When you add all levels of taxation, the marginal rate of the rich is already above 50%.  SO I guess you agree it should not be raised.

Oh?  And where did the jobs come from?  The poor?  On the contrary, history shows that it indeed does.  The poor do not create jobs.  The poor take jobs.

Man cannot achieve perfection, and to think that we can is arrogance beyond belief.

The poverty rate was not 24% nor did Johnson's Great Society lower it appreciably.

I have dealt each of your points and refuted them.  I have attributed failed government policies to many of them since that is what the debate was.  The "poverty" (there is no poverty in America) rate was in the low teens before Johnson's massive expenditures, and it has not varied by more than a couple of points (less than actually) since then.  No matter how much money you poor down the drain, you cannot change the shape of a Bell curve - because by definition that is what it is.

Imagine a society of 100 people and a simple poverty line definition of "makes less than 50% of the average".

25 people make 100,000 Garfunkels per year.

25 people make 70,000 Garfunkels per year.

25 people make 50,000 Garfunkels per year.

And 25 people make 40,000 Garfunkels per year.

50% of the people in the society are poor.

And whose fault is that?

Garfunkles.