Updated to fix typos and bad cut/pasting. ;)

>>>I was not connecting the authors, rather the users of the irrelevant distraction, income distribution itself.
>
>Which includes the authors of the report, and me, and Buffet. Having fired a blunderbuss, now you want to pretend that the pellets don't spread?

The CBO is supposed to be an impartial assessor of legislation as stated on their website "CBO serves as a source of objective information". They were asked to look into it by Baucus and Grassley.

>>>No, as I stated before, Buffet is a selfish hypocrite. Now that he's worth umpteen billions and has the financial freedom to earn more through every possibly avenue he is doing the "selfless" thing of suggesting tax increases on "the wealthy" etc etc

Although I was quite clear before, allow me to unravel your contextual twist.

>The gist is that concern about income distribution is a sign of jealousy,

No. Specific to the occupy movement. Those who began it did so with the intention of having it spread through the use of people's jealousy at those who are more successful and who are easily vilified as having been bailed out. Income distribution talk (1%) is a piece of the rhetorical arsenol.

>hypocrisy

No. I called Buffet a hypocrite and laid out specifically why. In addition, I provide a point regarding Keystone XL and a rail company that just happens to be owned by Buffet and which just happens to profit greatly if the pipeline doesn't exist. One could examine this and take Buffet's presidential campaign contributions and his tax increase rhetoric and come to a tawdry conclusion regarding influence, crony-capitalism and quid-pro-quo or one could simply snip the point out and use the single word "hypocricy" in the context twister. Personal preference, I guess.

>or some other pejorative you'll come up if a previous assertion fails. Great argument.

Both assertions remain accurate when taken in their proper context.

>>>The tea parties formed as a direct result of the bailouts and stimilus. The Occupy movement is angry that they haven't been bailed out also. That's a fundamental difference in attitude and solution.
>
>LOL. Both groups disapprove of the bailouts in particular, though they reach that point from different directions.

No, the tea party is vehemtly anti bailout, all bailouts. The occupiers want the bailout for themselves.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44879455
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/30/occupys_next_frontier_foreclosed_homes/

>I suspect both groups will be enraged afresh when they understand the full extent of the welfare the banksters consumed. If they joined forces it would be a heck of a lot harder to portray them as wackos, since they'd represent a fairly wide cross-section of the population. Won't happen as long as some people are more interested in nasty slaps rather than shared beliefs.

The "different directions" they arrive from prevent "shared beliefs". The tea party correctly sees the cause of the problem as residing in government, primarily DC, after all, that's where the power, the regulations (and lack thereof) and bailouts come from. Occupy sees banks as the problem and want more interference by the very root cause of the problems, DC.

DC created the laws that drove lending
DC backed Fannie/Freddie
DC forced Fannie/Freddie to massively underwrite subprime loans
DC allowed saving and investment banks to coexist after decades of prevention
DC kept artificially low mortgage rates
DC forced banks into lower lending requirements
DC allowed banks off balance sheet insurance to allow massive leverage
DC bailed out the banks
DC offered the banks non-public, massive loans at discounted rates
DC let the banks write the new laws to cement too-big-to-fail

That bankers were greedy is not news, nor unexpected. That they reward themselves with bonuses after getting DC to bail them out is not surprising. Greed is an inherent part of human nature. It resides in all humans not just those whom the occupiers dislike.

DC is still the largest underwriter of garbage loans and is now deciding to assist in bailing out Europe. Until the occupiers decide to occupy the correct address, they will never enjoy common ground with the tea partiers.

Plus, they'd have to acquire proper permits and clean up and after themselves which they have proven incapable. ;)

>>>btw: Any thoughts on the US bailing out Europe? That was a pretty fine kick to the can applied by the FED.
>
>LOL. It's all inflationary and I'll bet you $1000 new US dollars (which will be worth 43 of today's cents) that before long the dollar will hyper-inflate briefly and eliminate all the consequences in one huge chaotic lunge. ;-)

No bet, between the massive printing and the mess of the Euro the dollar can't really avoid massive inflation. The good news is that when that happens the price of oil will plummet. ;) Bad news coming for the market though.

"If only I had known then what I know now" is a phrase I will not be saying 10 years from now when this is shaken out. ;)