http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/8828 http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/08/tax-foundation-is-not-credible-source.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/the-tax-foundation-is-not-a-reliable-source/ http://www.ctkidslink.org/publications/bud05taxfreedom04.pdf
Those were not moderate republican policies - those were neo con policies. The founder of neo cons like Kristol were former socialists. Those policies were socialists policies with a bit of conquer the middle east for democracy to protect Isreal and thwart communism. From wikipedia... "New" conservatives initially approached this view from the political left. The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.[citation needed] A number of future neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick,[citation needed] were Shachtmanites in their youth; some were later involved with Social Democrats USA.... Neoconservatism... originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry ('Scoop') Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves 'paleoliberals.' [After the end of the Cold War]... many 'paleoliberals' drifted back to the Democratic center... Today's neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists. In his semi-autobiographical book, Neoconservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea, Irving Kristol cited a number of influences on his own thought, including not only Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss but also the skeptical liberal literary critic Lionel Trilling. The influence of Leo Strauss and his disciples on neoconservatism has generated some controversy, with Lind asserting:[23] For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order... In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it. William Kristol defends his father by noting that the criticism of an instrumental view of politics misses the point. When the context is a discussion of religion in the public sphere in a secular nation, religion is inevitably dealt with instrumentally. Apart from that, it should be born in mind that the majority of neoconservatives believe in the truth, as well as the utility, of religion.[24]
That's a useful clarification. Subtracting those concepts leaves little but "party of the rich" left to define the republicans.
Nice! thank you for pointing these out. can you point me to some other estimates that you think more reliable?
what about http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html Tax Year 2008 Percentiles Ranked by AGI Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid Top 1% = 38.02 Top 5%= 58.72