Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> 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?

I probably said more than one thing.

> Do you believe any of it
> applies to US crime?

That depends on what I said.

> 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:

[snip]

So what?

>> 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.

Um, the deficit spending started during the war. I am pretty sure the war
happened after 1934.

> Did you see Kangas also noted this?

Who is Kangas?

> 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!

Yup.

> * 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?

Because he thinks people should have the money they make? Just a guess.

>> 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.

Your point?

-- 
Kevin Gowen