The only real world number he used was the wage elasticity. There's not a question that the rich got richer. I already showed proof of the inequality of distribution earlier this thread. Taht still is not proof particularly in light of the deficit that is created. The last was already discussed regarding the uproar from conservatives about the tax increase in 1993 in the Krugman article. If you want to actually quote the preponderance then I will read it but I tire of board conservatives expecting me to assume your argument and research it myself. Right now it just seems like a real scotsman argument.