[orev_saara]

Huh... I finally looked at this thread to see if there was anything interesting. Looks like there was one interesting thing, now there's another. A bit of a whodunnit. I would like to reply to the most recent comment by Instar on the president's performance. You can stop wondering why the prez keeps proposing stuff that's bad for the economy. We've seen it all before as Reagonomics. The plan is, you cut taxes, especially to the wealthiest (funny coincidence there). Then you explode defense spending. At this point a strange phenomenon called "no money for domestic spending" occurs. This has the "unintended" consequence of crashing social programs like welfare, education, civil rights monitoring, environmental regulation, etc., etc., etc. And there you have it! Calling your opponents names makes it all go down easier.

Oh, yeah, about the distribution of wealth thingy, 70 percent controlling ten percent sounds bad, but when you look at global wealth distribution, it doesn't seem like any big deal. And that's just dollars. There's no way to measure political control, but from where I sit, I'd guess that the distribution of political influence in America is a lot worse than the 70% for 10% split in money. Kinda creepy.