Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Reconciliation

Today I made the case for putting Hillary Clinton (or some other legislator) on the Supreme Court, named health-care reform's biggest losers, and tried to figure out what's behind NPR's big ratings.

Here's what I didn't get to:

1) "Dow Jones crosses intrinsically meaningless milestone."

2) The last line of this post gets at one of the most fundamental problems facing conservative policymakers.

3) Joe Biden's worst nightmare.

4) Fifteen charts about wealth and inequality in America.

5) An argument that John Paul Stevens drifted left during his tenure, it wasn't just that the Court drifted right.

I was going to wish you a good weekend, but then I decided to retire.

By Ezra Klein  |  April 9, 2010; 6:36 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Should the White House want a controversial Supreme Court nominee?
Next: How financial innovation causes financial crises

Comments

Ezra,

A good question to explore next week might be the meaning and implications of rising stock prices during a time of very low trading volume. Cause for concern?

Posted by: Patrick_M | April 9, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

here is a happy, little weekend gem that shouldnt get lost in time.
especially if seafood is on the menu this weekend!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKS5RM6TFUE

Posted by: jkaren | April 10, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I have no problem with the government having an interest in growing the middle class and narrowing the income gaps.

The problem is the tools the socialists currently in charge would use and radical changes proposed in their quest to defeat America.

Babay / Bathwater

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | April 11, 2010 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"Dow Jones crosses intrinsically meaningless milestone."

Actually, it's a healthy reminder that the Goldbugs and all the so-called experts who've been predicting a 'major correction' month after month since Obama took office are complete wrong.

Either Annie Lowrey and Ezra Klein don't know of these people or don't care.

Posted by: leoklein | April 11, 2010 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Ezra -- What would have been the financial consequences of an economy based on a 1965 U.S. distribution of wealth on the capacity of the middle class to pay mortgages, and lighten the load on Medicaid, food stamps, etc, not to mention the currently bulging prison systems, and on the national debt?

The statistical analysis is far above my current pay grade (I'm retired.).

Posted by: oldbob | April 11, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Ezra -- What would have been the financial consequences of an economy based on a 1965 U.S. distribution of wealth on the capacity of the middle class to pay mortgages, and lighten the load on Medicaid, food stamps, etc, not to mention the currently bulging prison systems, and on the national debt?

The statistical analysis is far above my current pay grade (I'm retired.).

Posted by: oldbob | April 11, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Good Question.

And what would be the financial consequences of a 1965 distribution of income tax burden where people actually had a dog in this fight? Currently, 47% pay little or no tax and many even receive back more than they put in.

Posted by: WrongfulDeath | April 12, 2010 8:30 AM | Report abuse

"Currently, 47% pay little or no tax and many even receive back more than they put in."

But that is not the whole picture. As Paul Krugman observed a few days ago:

"So the right is now apparently outraged at the fact that many Americans pay no income taxes — a true observation that is elided into the utterly untrue assertion that many Americans pay no taxes. (Almost everyone pays payroll taxes, everyone pays state and local sales taxes, etc.)

This isn’t new; remember the famous WSJ editorial about the lucky duckies who have the great good fortune to not pay income taxes because they’re, um, too poor to be above the minimum. I guess luck is in the eye of the beholder.

The thing to bear in mind is that overall, the US tax system isn’t actually that progressive: the payroll tax is regressive, as are most state and local taxes, which largely offsets the progressivity of the income tax.

So the right likes to pretend that the income tax is the only tax; it isn’t."

Posted by: Patrick_M | April 12, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Man, those graphs are the best argument to raise the income tax rate on the top 1% back up to 70%. How much would that solve the deficit problem, Ezra?

Posted by: zvelf | April 12, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company