Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Research desk is open

The Dylan Matthews Act of 2010 would end uncertainty.

By Ezra Klein  |  August 18, 2010; 11:24 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gin, juice and state monopolies
Next: XKCD takes on highway policy

Comments

there has been a handful of polls on "tea party" attitudes: my sense is that they show tea partiers to be essentially republicans who really, really, really hate obama, but i wonder if you could please pull all the available polling data together and see what they suggest about "tea party" makeup.

Posted by: howard16 | August 18, 2010 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Of the people who want repeal of heath care reform, what percent of those want it replaced with something more progressive (e.g. single-payer)?

Posted by: lauren2010 | August 18, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

I keep hearing people who are against the Park 51 cultural center say that 9/11 families are against it, but I've never seen an actual quote from one of the family members, or a statement from one of the victims groups. My question is this, how many of the victims have actually come forward publicly, and what have they said?

Posted by: DKOSullivan | August 18, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

All the proposals for stabilizing Social Security suggest raising the retirement age. But, it seems to me that it would be more equitable to start means-testing once people begin collecting more money than they put in. Two questions:

1. At what age does the typical person begin taking out more money than they paid in?
2. If we means-tested after that point, what would the budgetary impact of that that change?

Posted by: augie2 | August 18, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Does the federal government have any plans to update expectmore.gov? It was a great resource in refuting the claims that all government is ineffectual and inefficient but the data is getting old.

Posted by: 57Kevin | August 18, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The latest cool GOP talking point to prove our health care system is teh awesome and we don't need no stinkin' reforms is that, if you just factor out car crashes and murders, our premature death rate looks fine. So what if we were to play fair, and factor out the top two lifestyle-related causes of death from other large Western nations? How do our numbers, sans car crash and shooting victims, stack up next to the Netherlands when you take out the people who crashed their bikes while high? Take out the Spaniards gored by bulls? The Canucks eaten by bears or brained by hockey pucks?

Posted by: blynch201 | August 18, 2010 1:12 PM | Report abuse

How does the rate of household creation relate to the rate of new housing constuction?

Posted by: bharshaw | August 18, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Conservatives have not been clear about how low they would ideally like the tax burden (as a share of GDP) to be.

However, from listening to their rhetoric, it seems that many envision an America very much like Victorian England. This would be an America with great wealth and opportunities for the elite, partially driven through technological innovation and partially through international adventurism, but also with crushing and inescapable poverty for the rest. The poor would be supported only through charity. Social services, including schools and hospitals, would be deregulated, private sector entities, and would serve only those who could pay.

Thus, Victorian England seems in some ways a good proxy for the conservative ideal. Given that, my question is this: What was the level of taxation in Victorian England, and, as an aside, what proportion of government revenue was spent on the military?

Posted by: Unwisdom | August 18, 2010 2:41 PM | Report abuse

You posted another graph today another graph today showing the how the Bush tax cuts affect people based on income. Is there anyway to calculate who benefits from the various plans by party? Are more of the rich republicans, more of the poor democrats and therefore the Bush tax cuts a kickback to his own party?

Posted by: patrickbst | August 18, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company