Now THAT was stupid. Thanks for calling the person who got you to admit you were wrong "stupid."

Data is data because we call it data. A graph showing a tax rate for a particular income is still a factual representation if it is based on factual data. If I had 10 pencils in front of me, and 4 were blue, would you disagree with a graph that showed 40% were blue because it is not the "data"? You really are stretching this argument to hide the fact that the link was useful, accurate information based on factual data. And why do Conservative Christians continue to name call every chance they get? Tell us why the data is not "real" since it obviously just bit you in the åss.

The 60s were really horrible tough times for the US, and the wealthy in particular. Do you know what the top marginal rate was then? Go ahead, pick your favorite generation. O'reilly likes the 50s.

So now he's a wordsmith. His words are that my link did not provide the data, as in including the complete set in what... XML? In other words, ww did not even know that the article included references and links to the source data. So now he believe's the article is accurate, or is this another Con tactic of semantics?

I'll assume that "wiseone" created a new topic so he could write and run. Still waiting. A logical COn would have gone back to see that the links provided included the original sources. Lets see if "wiseone" can wiggle his way out of this one with some logical fallacy. But hey, who trusts primary sources anyway?

So you didn't read the link that explained where the data came from? Really, and you're writing a new topic on this, showing me that you didn't follow the links? Finny how the source of the data is not good enough for you. They used federal numbers, and included their links. You either don;t agree with the source, or you didn't follow through. Show your "source" numbers and we'll see why you bothered to post a new topic. Waiting...

"dumb" Brought to you by, your typical Christian Conservative.

Not NYT data. Why are Cons afraid of reading? Tell me where the data came from. Go ahead, tell me why data accepted by both Ds and Rs is unacceptable. Just because the NYT cruched the numbers and you cannot does not make the results in error.

binc wants lower taxes, AND wonders why the fewer are paying their fair share. Please feel free to reconcile those two statements. But more to the point, you don't know who is not paying. Who paid payroll taxes? What percentage is elderly? Note the graph showing earnings -- you want to lower taxes AND have more people pay (your gripe is all about the number not paying, right?)

And you gleaned this from the link by... Yes, I thought so. You don't like reading links. Or you think the numbers have been altered by some nasty Liberal. Facts are such Liberal things.