You obviously don't understand the intent of this site in general–the articles aren't long form, which anyone reading it over the past year can clearly see. The blogs are quite short. When I look at the two pages about New Mexico in this ITEP report, I see nothing that contradicts anything she writes. They confirm what she says–that ITEP's analysis shows New Mexico has a regressive tax system. It is plain as day. It doesn't matter if there are progressive features, the overall effect of the system is regressive.

You obviously don't understand the intent of this site in general–the articles aren't long form, which anyone reading it over the past year can clearly see. The blogs are quite short. When I look at the two pages about New Mexico in this ITEP report, I see nothing that contradicts anything she writes. They confirm what she says–that ITEP's analysis shows New Mexico has a regressive tax system. It is plain as day. It doesn't matter if there are progressive features, the overall effect of the system is regressive.

You obviously don't understand the intent of this site in general–the articles aren't long form, which anyone reading it over the past year can clearly see. The blogs are quite short. When I look at the two pages about New Mexico in this ITEP report, I see nothing that contradicts anything she writes. They confirm what she says–that ITEP's analysis shows New Mexico has a regressive tax system. It is plain as day. It doesn't matter if there are progressive features, the overall effect of the system is regressive.

The non-sequitor argument presents a false dilemma. One might read the full report and still defend wealthy capitalists, or one might have read the full report and not be defending wealthy capitalists. Reaching a conclusion about how information from the report was presented by another group funded by the sponsors of the report different than your conclusions — about the contents of the report — that's not “defending wealthy capitalists.”

For the record, my message about which you offer allegation of ad hominem contained three second person nouns phrases: your argument
you misconstrue you cite.

Your post alleging ad hominem on my part contained six second person nouns, in addition to another command directed at me in each post that mischaracterizes the scope of my reading.

The non-sequitor argument presents a false dilemma. One might read the full report and still defend wealthy capitalists, or one might have read the full report and not be defending wealthy capitalists. Reaching a conclusion about how information from the report was presented by another group funded by the sponsors of the report different than your conclusions — about the contents of the report — that's not “defending wealthy capitalists.”

For the record, my message about which you offer allegation of ad hominem contained three second person nouns phrases: your argument
you misconstrue you cite.

Your post alleging ad hominem on my part contained six second person nouns, in addition to another command directed at me in each post that mischaracterizes the scope of my reading.