In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

Today, Krugman was partially (oh, crap, forget the word that means "proved
to be correct") ah - vindicated (all I could think of was venerated - more
proof that words are stored at least partially alphabetically).

Not hardly. This hasn't been much of argument.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/26/us...d-share-of-nat


The findings, based on a rigorous analysis of data from the Internal Revenue
Service and the Census Bureau, are generally consistent with studies by some
private researchers and academic economists. But because they carry the
imprimatur of the nonpartisan budget office, they are likely to have a major
impact on the debate in Congress over the fairness of federal tax and
spending policies.

But again, we have never (except for the estate tax) had a tax that
looks at wealth. So this is just an attempt to confuse people by
integrating the two. Tax policy doesn't generally address issues of
Congresscritters and constituents being ****ed off because someone is
too wealthy and should be punished. It is all based on Congresscritters
and constituents getting ****ed off because someone makes too much in
income and must be punished.


The poor and the middle class are losing ground to the uber-rich who are
clearly using their "bonus" income to buy more politicians and more laws and
exemptions favorable to them. That's an avalanche-type process that's
snowballing to a point where social inequality becomes a dangerous factor in
the equation. I've lived through two serious sets of rioting in my life.
I'd rather not see a third. Everyone loses. The parts of DC torn apart by
rioting decades ago are only now, hesitatingly making a recovery.

Most of which is coming from the unintended consequences of the
LAST time Congress tried to reign in executive pay.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz