>It matters not at all whether one finds these statistics convincing, as
>deLong's claim was that B&S did not understand the regressivity argument.
>Clearly, they did, and rejected it.
No. They did not understand it.
Their statistics are simply not relevant to the progressivity of the deductible IRA--and the fact that they appear to have thought that their statistics *were* relevant is what made me conclude that they don't understand what a "progressive" tax is.
>That deLong
>instead prefers setting up bogus strawmen to knock down perhaps explains
>why he's a nonentity at some diploma mill,
:-)
Dennis--Gingrich complains that he thought he was supposed to *gain* six seats in the House of Representatives yesterday. He understands that he has failed to accomplish his tasks successfully: the past two years have seen too little wealth redistributed to the bourgeoisie and too little populist sentiment diverted into hatred of foreigners and of Americans who are "different." But, he asks, was it necessary to humiliate him so completely?
It may be time for us to find a new tool who can talk the right-wing populist talk and walk the bourgeois walk.
On a more positive note, let me congratulate you on your success in eliminating Faircloth and D'Amato from positions of political influence. Republicans had begun to forget that crossing the IMF means political death. This will remind them.
Brad DeLong