<mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:cas6dd$n4e$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> necoandjeff <spam@schrepfer.com> wrote:
> > <mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
> > news:caqpgb$j8k$2@news.Stanford.EDU...
> >> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> >> > in article capi7q$jvj$3@news.Stanford.EDU,
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
> > at
> >> > mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/16/04 10:33 PM:
> >>
> >> My comments were clear; you are attempting to get a value judgement
from
> >> me. Failing that, you fabricate your own, in order to refute it.
> >>
> >> Granted, an argument with you is an easily winnable one, but not that
> >> interesting.
>
> > I don't know why you insist on skirting what is a fairly straightforward
> > question from both KWW and Ernest. The vast majority of your posts in
this
>
> It's fairly simple.
>
> I made a simple statement in response to someone else's mistaken comment

"Actually, no, he didn't. What he did was cut taxes across-the-board, BUT
gave a disproportionate cut to the upper income brackets."

"It is a fact that Reagan's tax cuts were disproportionate in favor of
the upper income brackets."

"However, it is a fact that the tax cuts were disproportionately in favor
of the rich. MUCH larger cuts were given the very richest than anyone
else, who got a much flatter cut."

Three statements made by you. People are asking for the definition of
"disproportionate" that stands behind each of these three statements. So it
seems that you have chosen door number three. Fair enough. Nobody reading
this thread is under the delusion that you have a well thought out basis for
making these three statements anyway.

Jeff