Now now. I just deleted a comment that slurred you. Please do me the kindness of civil treatment in return. You can disagree with my facts and philosophy (more and that later when I have time) but please don’t label me as spewing “far left hate mantra.” I’m not labelling you as a right-wing knee jerk whacko, so a little tit for tat is in order here. By the by, what, exactly, is a moderate to you?

You are not telling the truth about Obama’s tax rate, try around 55%!

http://www.heritage.org/research/Taxes/wm1973.cfm

Also just picking out tax rates from history is deceptive. If this is how you teach your students they should all demand their money back!

93 article that still is true today.
Cato Institute article 1993
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-192.html

Warren Harding (58%)

“Throughout 1920 the Wilson administration pressed hard for tax reduction, especially of surtaxes, emphasizing that high wartime rates were actually reducing the government’s revenue.(28) However, then as now, congressional Democrats were obsessed with holding on to as much of the people’s income as possible, the better to spend it themselves. It was also argued that high statutory tax rates were necessary for reasons of “fairness.” As a result, no action was taken, and Republican Warren G. Harding was elected president in 1920, and Republicans picked up many House and Senate seats. In his inaugural address, Harding said that his highest priority was the reduction of wartime tax rates, “which have become unproductive and are so artificial and burdensome as to defeat their own purpose.”(29)
During the 1920s tax rates were cut massively, with the amazing result that revenues actually increased, especially from the wealthy.(30) That was due to the vast expansion of the tax base as a result of the general economic expansion of the 1920s that was caused largely by the tax cuts”.

Dwight Eisenhower (91%)
“With the election of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower as president and a Republican Congress in 1952, a golden opportunity to cut the wartime tax rates was created. Unfortunately, Eisenhower believed that taxes could not be cut until the budget was balanced. “We cannot afford to reduce taxes, reduce income,” he said, “until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced.”(39)
Although Eisenhower’s sentiment was admirable, losses in the 1954 election cost the Republicans control of Congress. The return of Democratic control meant that any chance of reducing wartime tax rates was lost for the balance of the 1950s. It took the election of a Democratic president in 1960 to finally bring that about.
Eisenhower’s fiscal conservatism carried a heavy price. There were three recessions during his administration–July 1953 through May 1954, August 1957 through April 1958, and April 1960 through February 1961–and real growth of the gross domestic product averaged just 2.5 percent over those eight years. In large part, that sluggish growth was due to high tax rates, not just on the wealthy but on the middle class as well. In fact, as Figure 2 shows, increasing tax rates on the wealthy led to increases in tax rates on middle-class incomes (defined as $50,000 for a family of four in 1992) as well”.

“Conclusion
President Clinton’s proposal to raise taxes on the rich is based on false premises:
The rich got richer in the 1980s at the expense of the poor and the middle class.
That was the result of Reagan’s tax cuts, which also caused revenue from the wealthy to fall.
Higher tax rates will both increase government revenue from the rich and redistribute income from the rich to the poor and the middle class.
In fact, the rich did not getter richer at the expense of anyone. All income classes benefited from the prosperity of the 1980s. Moreover, the data on which Clinton has relied to support his proposal are deeply flawed.
In addition, authoritative data from the Internal Revenue Service clearly demonstrate that the tax cuts of the 1980s led to higher, not lower, revenues from the rich. Both logic and the experience of history strongly suggest that the opposite result would occur if tax rates were increased.
Last, there is no evidence that higher taxes on the rich would do anything to benefit the economic position of the poor and the middle class. On the contrary, there is strong evidence that higher taxes on the rich would eventually lead to higher taxes on the middle class”.

If Karl Marx would be proud of Obama (who wants to return to a 39.6% top marginal income tax rate from the current 35% rate) then Marx would LOVE Warren Harding (58%) Dwight Eisenhower (91%) and Richard Nixon (70%) . So unless Harding, Eisenhower and Nixon were fellow travellers, Obama isn’t, either. How about you acutally read a book or something besides just listening to AM dis-jockey’s of right wing claptrap. You’d be suprised to discover how many things you do not know. Like the defintion of Marxists, Socialists or zealots.

And I own ONE home.

And let us not forget….Obama would raise taxes on his own million dollar income…and McCain would reduce taxes on his.

Who picks up the slack under the McCain plan?

Me. With my one house.