1 - 5
In response to:

The Elite Media Hates You

Kevin Glass Wrote: May 06, 2013 12:06 PM
Rector`s point, which he has been arguing tirelessly for several years, is that the Census Bureau overcounts the poor. How? First, when it calculates the number of households living in poverty (which was $13,942 for a family of four in 1991), it ignores family assets, ``which can make a huge difference,`` says Rector; and, second, when it ignores non-cash benefits like food, housing and medical assistance. ``In 1989, 40 percent of all households identified as poor by the Census Bureau owned their own homes,`` writes Rector, who also is impressed that many had color TVs and VCRs, as if such luxurious possessions mean one is living high on the hog. Rector is a first-class numbers cruncher and I wish him no ill, but I cannot help but...
Marc - which video are you talking about? Our ad servers do their best to eliminate auto-play videos but occasionally we miss some.
In response to:

SuperPACs and "Wasted Money"

Kevin Glass Wrote: Nov 08, 2012 4:18 PM
As Levitt writes, that doesn't get at correlation/causation. The candidate who raises the most money is most often *a better candidate.*
Collin - as I tried to emphasize in the piece, I really am not an electoral expert. I don't know what issues are "winners" and "losers." What I tried to write about is what would make for good policy, not necessarily what might just be popular. I don't particularly emphasize my social conservatism, but don't think that the GOP is necessarily wrong to do so.
Check the TPC link - I'm referring to only income tax (1st column), which is what the Buffett Rule will target. Effective rates for millionaires are only over 30% due to the amount that corporate taxes take out of their income.
1 - 5