Kevin Gowen wrote:

> > Looks more like what is called the rich getting richer, and the poor
> > getting poorer.
>
> No, the poor keep getting richer, too. Even if what you said were true, so
> what? There is nothing wrong with income inequality. Quite the contrary.
> Inequality is nothing to worry about.

Remember what you said about terrorism? Do you believe any of it applies to US
crime?

How about any of these?

http://tinyurl.com/d9gz

In 1996, Harvard and Berkeley published separate studies that examined income
inequality in all 50 states. (3) According to Bruce Kennedy, the lead
researcher of the Harvard study, "The size of the gap between the wealthy and
less well-off, as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the
poor, appears to be related to mortality." (4) Both studies found that states
with higher income inequality have all the following social problems:

* Higher death rates for all age groups.
* Higher rates of homicide.
* Higher rates of violent crime.
* Higher costs per person for police protection.
* Higher rates of incarceration.
* Higher rates of unemployment.
* A higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps.
* More high-school dropouts.
* Less state funds spent per person on education.
* Fewer books per person in the schools.
* Poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math
skills.
* Higher infant mortality rates.
* Higher heart disease.
* Higher cancer rates.
* A greater percentage of people without medical insurance.
* A greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight.
* A greater proportion of the population unable to work because of
disabilities.
* A higher proportion of the population using tobacco.
* A higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
* Higher costs per-person for medical care.

> I said you may have noticed that the current
> > President is no Reagan.
>
> In terms of media use, certainly. Reagan was a master of that.
>
> > How is your explanation of deficit spending relevant or helpful, as it
> > applies to the US economy?
>
> What part is confusing you? Before you answer, do a Google search for
> Sweden, 1934, and "deficit spending". You also might wish to look at US
> deficit spending during WWII, during which the deficit was greater than the
> GNP.

Uh huh. After a big costly war where there wasn't much of a choice. Did you
see Kangas also noted this?

1945

* Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the United States
emerges as the world's only economic superpower. Deficit spending has resulted
in a national debt 123 percent the size of the GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the
$4.7 trillion national debt will be only 70 percent of the GDP!

* The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963,
when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience
the greatest economic boom it had ever known until that time.

So why does Bush want cuts?

> Check out this article, http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-24-03.html

Uh huh. And the government funded study found the opposite, saying an
immediate and permanent 66 percent increase was necessary.