The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

November 18, 2013
csmonitor:

U.S. health care vs. socialized health care in 5 countries: The US spends almost twice as much on health care as countries like Canada, Japan, and most in Western Europe. 
Graphic: Jake Turcotte Research: Allison Terry

Take a look at the slides they put together from the OECD Health Data. Found that out of the estimated $8,500 Americans spend on healthcare per capita, the government covers about 47.8% of that cost. In other countries, the government covers more and total costs are lower. 

csmonitor:

U.S. health care vs. socialized health care in 5 countries: The US spends almost twice as much on health care as countries like Canada, Japan, and most in Western Europe. 

Graphic: Jake Turcotte Research: Allison Terry

Take a look at the slides they put together from the OECD Health Data. Found that out of the estimated $8,500 Americans spend on healthcare per capita, the government covers about 47.8% of that cost. In other countries, the government covers more and total costs are lower. 

(via evangotlib)

14:20 // 9 months ago
May 17, 2013
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has released a comparison of the budgets offered by President Obama, House Republicans, and Senate Democrats. They’re a lot similar than you’d expect given how much the two parties are at each others’ throats about things like Social Security and taxes, huh? Anyway, for those who enjoy charts and graphs, the CBO’s blog post on its budget projections will not disappoint. (h/t Ezra Klein) source

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has released a comparison of the budgets offered by President Obama, House Republicans, and Senate Democrats. They’re a lot similar than you’d expect given how much the two parties are at each others’ throats about things like Social Security and taxes, huh? Anyway, for those who enjoy charts and graphs, the CBO’s blog post on its budget projections will not disappoint. (h/t Ezra Klein) source

17:35 // 1 year ago
February 20, 2013
Because the sequester is (and is likely to continue to be) very ill-defined in the minds of most Americans, the politics of it will devolve into a popularity contest between the major players. Which gets us to the fact that Obama is at (or close to) his high-water mark in terms of job approval, while Congress sits in political reporter/used car salesman territory.
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, theorizing that there’s no way possible way Congress can win the sequester battle against President Obama. The thinking here is is based on three premises: One, that Obama believes the sequester ultimately will not be avoided, because Congress is dysfunctional and if they could have struck a deal on these cuts, there wouldn’t have been a sequester to begin with; two, that effects of the sequestered cuts will be felt by many Americans once they come into effect; and three, that Obama is significantly more popular than Congress. Given these three assumptions, it seems reasonable enough to conclude that if the sequester happens, Congress—and the GOP-led House of Representatives—will be blamed by the American public. It’s not a bad theory, though it’s still quite speculative given the assumptions. More information on the sequester here. source
19:32 // 1 year ago
January 23, 2013
Congress punts on debt ceiling: The House of Representatives passed a bill today that extends the nation’s debt limit until May 18th, effectively tabling the issue for another couple of months. This time, the GOP majority didn’t ask for spending cuts in exchange for the increase; rather, it simply demanded that both houses of congress pass a budget before April 15th. Otherwise, per the bill, all members of both bodies will have their salaries withheld (there’s some debate over whether or not this provision is constitutional). Also, while the majority of Republicans did vote for the bill, enough defected that John Boehner had to rally up a couple of Democrats to get it passed. Harry Reid says it’ll fly through the Senate without issue. (Photo credit: AP) source

Congress punts on debt ceiling: The House of Representatives passed a bill today that extends the nation’s debt limit until May 18th, effectively tabling the issue for another couple of months. This time, the GOP majority didn’t ask for spending cuts in exchange for the increase; rather, it simply demanded that both houses of congress pass a budget before April 15th. Otherwise, per the bill, all members of both bodies will have their salaries withheld (there’s some debate over whether or not this provision is constitutional). Also, while the majority of Republicans did vote for the bill, enough defected that John Boehner had to rally up a couple of Democrats to get it passed. Harry Reid says it’ll fly through the Senate without issue. (Photo credit: AP) source

19:31 // 1 year ago
December 6, 2012
This may be a moment in Senate history, when a senator made a proposal that, when given an opportunity for a vote on that proposal, filibustered his own proposal…I don’t think this has ever happened before.
Sen. Dick Durbin, after Mitch McConnell’s latest scheme blew up in his face. McConnell introduced legislation today that would allow the president to unilaterally raise the debt limit, suspecting that Democrats wouldn’t have the guts to vote for it. When it became clear that Democrats did indeed have the votes to pass the bill with a simple majority, McConnell filibustered it, preventing its passage. The United States Senate, ladies and gentlemen. source
15:23 // 1 year ago
October 16, 2012
We haven’t heard any specifics from the Governor beyond Big Bird and cutting Planned Parenthood that’s gonna pay for that.
President Obama, decrying Mitt Romney’s unwillingness to specify his spending and cutting plans with any vivid or mathematically meaningful details. Mitt Romney’s response: “Of course it adds up.” 
21:36 // 1 year ago
August 1, 2012
moneyisnotimportant:

How The Poor, The Middle Class And The Rich Spend Their Money

Interesting detail in this graphic: Spending on transportation goes up for the middle class.

moneyisnotimportant:

How The Poor, The Middle Class And The Rich Spend Their Money

Interesting detail in this graphic: Spending on transportation goes up for the middle class.

(Source: planetmoney)

19:18 // 2 years ago
February 8, 2012
Must-read of the week: The Washington Post’s “Capital Assets” series
In case you haven’t seen this, the Post’s coverage of how members of Congress are directing spending to places where it benefits them personally is pretty impressive. Examples: Sen. Richard Shelby helped push more than $100 million in earmarks to help rebuild Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and much of that money went to nicen up an area directly around an office building he owns in the city, which has risen in property value as development has increased. (Watch the video; it syncs up with a map of Tuscaloosa.) He’s not alone. Congressmen around the country directly or indirectly benefited from millions in spending that, at the very least, might give them a nicer view around their property — or in other cases, benefited their family members. The Post did a lot of great work on this piece, and it shows. source
Follow ShortFormBlog

In case you haven’t seen this, the Post’s coverage of how members of Congress are directing spending to places where it benefits them personally is pretty impressive. Examples: Sen. Richard Shelby helped push more than $100 million in earmarks to help rebuild Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and much of that money went to nicen up an area directly around an office building he owns in the city, which has risen in property value as development has increased. (Watch the video; it syncs up with a map of Tuscaloosa.) He’s not alone. Congressmen around the country directly or indirectly benefited from millions in spending that, at the very least, might give them a nicer view around their property — or in other cases, benefited their family members. The Post did a lot of great work on this piece, and it shows. source

Follow ShortFormBlog

10:01 // 2 years ago
July 26, 2011
As the chart we posted last night has been kinda controversial (Jasen Comstock’s take on it is our favorite), we’d like to also point out this one James Fallows brought up when discussing it. Fallows also contacted the makers of the chart to ask about specific breakdowns in the chart we posted yesterday, which has drawn some criticism for its use of projections and representation of the ongoing effects of Bush’s policies. According to the authors, contacted by Fallows, the chart lines up like so: "It indicates the legacy effects of the changes made by each Administration. For instance, neither Bush nor Obama is credited with the entire cost of Pentagon spending or entitlements, but only the changes his Administration made, up or down. By this logic the long-run effect of tax cuts initiated by Bush is assigned to him, as any long-run effect of savings he initiated would be too."  Whatever the case may be, do you think the criticism of the NYT chart is warranted?

As the chart we posted last night has been kinda controversial (Jasen Comstock’s take on it is our favorite), we’d like to also point out this one James Fallows brought up when discussing it. Fallows also contacted the makers of the chart to ask about specific breakdowns in the chart we posted yesterday, which has drawn some criticism for its use of projections and representation of the ongoing effects of Bush’s policies. According to the authors, contacted by Fallows, the chart lines up like so: "It indicates the legacy effects of the changes made by each Administration. For instance, neither Bush nor Obama is credited with the entire cost of Pentagon spending or entitlements, but only the changes his Administration made, up or down. By this logic the long-run effect of tax cuts initiated by Bush is assigned to him, as any long-run effect of savings he initiated would be too."  Whatever the case may be, do you think the criticism of the NYT chart is warranted?

12:32 // 3 years ago
June 29, 2011

Cost of last decade’s wars much higher than Obama said

  • $3.7 trillion cost for the United States’ post-9/11 wars source

» The wages of war: When President Obama referred to a $1 trillion price tag for America’s wars in the last decade, he clearly hadn’t spoken to the folks running the Costs of War project at Brown University’s Watson Institute. The project determined the above figure through calculations that included future costs, such as health services for wounded veterans returning home, as well as counting what’s generally referred to as our “secret” war in Pakistan.

Read ShortFormBlogFollow

18:03 // 3 years ago