How Democrats can win big in 2014.

[ProSense]

37. As usual, ignoring facts, posting nonsense. Again,

according to my "graph," is this "stimulative":

The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. [4] Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[5] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

More: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024465391#post30

"I am NOT the one trying to portray Reaganomics as progressive - that would be YOU. It's progressive, you say, if tax cuts that favor the rich come from Obama, because you can spin them as an economic stimulus.

MY claim, is that, using the very same spin that YOU are using, then Reaganomics was also stimulative. You know, the tax cuts known as ERTA, which were passed in 1981 and cut the top rate from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate from 15% to 11%. "

That's simply nonsensical spin to claim that an apple is an orange, therefore Reaganomics is stimulative.