I agreed with you on your first two "facts". The third one I know nothing about so I don't feel qualified to have an opinion. The fourth "fact" you posed is simply wrong, so I pointed it out. Indeed, if you read your own source quoted in your last post, even it states the highest marginal tax rate was over 90%, so I simply think your statement that we now have "historically high tax rates" is wrong, and so does your own source. Finally, I never said Rudy was my choice in 2008. There are others whom I would much rather see win the nomination. However, I did say that forced to choose between Hillary and Rudy, I'd take Rudy. Hopefully, those won't be the choices in 2008.
My time point is 1913.
Even disregarding my time reference and focusing on nearer history the higher marginal rates that continued from the Roosevelt era affected far fewer in those brackets and the mid-level margins were much softer.
Women were able to stay home and raise a family. One wage earner sufficed for the family unit and basic needs were not a problem. People had discretionary income and chose to save.
That was only one generation ago.
The point to you was that you accused people of focusing on ‘one issue’ in post #200. That ‘one’ issue is a huge set of issues.
Abortion, Economics, Education and Security are linked in more ways than one.
That you recanted and admitted that abortion is tied to other issues shows a capacity for discourse but to handwave that you would choose an abortion supporter who is tough on terrorism is a red herring. It makes no logical sense because there are those that will be tougher on terrorism yet are wholly prolife.
We're done.