MoveOn: This is Rediculous! The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan ...

[Triana]

... to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.

But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.

Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!

Shocking, right?

And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.

We saw a great chart in The Washington Monthly that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama's budget are. Can you check it out and then fax the flyer we've prepared to your senator, so (s)he knows not to parrot Republican talking points?

Click below to download the flyer.

http://pol.moveon.org/fax/oneoffs/index_863.html


CHART/FLYER:

[spanone]

1. let's remember President Obama is not raising taxes....bu$h*s tax gifts are expiring

if bu$h* believed in his tax cuts, he should not have implemented them on the premise that they would expire...which he did

[bdamomma]

2. thanks done.

[Wickerman]

3. By the Reagan Tax Cuts for the wealthy, most familes needed two earners

Coincidence?

[stillcool]

4. Bummer...I don't have a fax machine

I guess I'll just email the gist of it. Thanks for posting!

[Winterblues]

5. And remember Republicans look to the fifties as the Glory years..

The economy did very well under the tax plan where those that made over a quarter million dollars paid fifty percent. It did horribly under the tax plan of Bush* and current Republicans where they only pay 35%. What possible LOGIC can they come up with when all the emperical evidence points to higher taxes for the wealthy create far better economies. They are just barking at the wind if you ask me..

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Does anyone have a comparative graphic showing wealth generation

over the same time period?

In the 50s and into the 60s most households had a single wage earner. There might be a second income, but it was for 'mad money'.

In the 70s, as the top margin was reduced, the second income became less 'mad money' and more of a necessity - but it was still usually just a part-time job.

In the Reagan years, the part-time job became a second full-time income, as the top margin was lowered yet again.

Today, a single person works 1.5 jobs, and a family will often have 2 full-time plus at least one part-time job between them. By any measure, a real reduction in per-hour income. As the wealthy get wealthier, the middle class is running to keep up.

Seems to indicate, the higher the taxes on the wealthiest, the more wealth will find its way to the working class.

[Triana]

7. I don't but that would be an interesting side-by-side comparison.

That definitely seems to be what has happened.