The Next President is...

[blueingreen]

6 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

How do you account for the red-states that receive more in federal funding than blue states?

To be clear, I'm simply using the phrase "productive class" to describe Americans who pay more into the system than they take out of it. People don't have to be millionaires to consider themselves part of that class. For example, the top 20% of earners (household income of $170,000+) pay about 87% of US federal income taxes. 

With regard to blue states and red states, the most straightforward answer to your question is that red states, particularly those in the South, have the largest concentrations of people who are significantly more likely to be poor and rely on government benefits on a per-capita basis: Black and Hispanic people. This isn't to say that there aren't poor White or Asian people who rely on federal programs; In fact, Whites receive more benefits overall than anyone else in absolute terms, but their per-capita consumption rates are far lower (except for all the elderly people on Social Security, which is nothing more than a reflection of our country's historical demographics). When you take this into consideration, it's no surprise that blue states like Vermont, Maine, or Massachusetts receive less federal funding than Mississippi, Louisiana, or Georgia. So it's not really about the ideological consistency of the people who govern red and blue states, it's just a demographic reality.

There are lots of ways to slice the pie when it comes to analyzing the data on this kind of stuff. But people tend to get uncomfortable when you start categorizing along the lines of race, sex, national origin, and other classifications — especially if it concerns any kind of negative outcome — because it forces us to ask difficult questions and grapple with complex issues that don't necessarily have straightforward or pleasant conclusions. But the truth is that these categories have utility, which is why they're used all the time by professional statisticians across the ideological spectrum. Unfortunately, any time you make a generalized statement about people based on population-level statistics, there are going to be sensitive reactionaries chomping at the bit to mention every exception to the rule and call you every "-ist" under the sun.

Just as an example of how data can illuminate these types of discussions, let's look at education: The schooling system here in the US is often ridiculed by Americans and foreigners alike because we don't score as highly as you might expect on metrics like the OECD's Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). This kind of criticism was epitomized in Jeff Daniels' ridiculous monologue from "The Newsroom" where he rants about why America actually isn't the best country in the world according to various metrics.

The most recent data from the 2022 PISA puts the USA at 18th in the world, which is decent, but not great. However, the story changes when you split American students by race: US Asians are 2nd in the world, US Whites are 7th, US Hispanics are 39th, and US Blacks are 47th. So right away, we've dispelled the narrative that all American students are underachievers. For some reason, our Asian and White students are among the best in the world -- better than any European country. Yet for another reason, our Hispanic and Black students are lagging behind. Is it because they're poorer? Is it because of cultural differences in how ethnic groups value education in the US? Is it because of "institutional racism"? Your guess is as good as mine, but my belief is that a serious and just society would look at these kinds of disparities with genuine interest and curiosity borne out of a desire to help and improve; Instead, we're lowering standards, eschewing standardized testing, and removing AP classes from curriculums at predominantly Black and Hispanic schools, along with lots of other nonsensical stuff. Don't even get me started on the propaganda machines we call "universities".

 

 

Edited February 14 by blueingreen

[Lord Ratner]

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

It's funny that I have the exact opposite opinion. Just as a matter of pure observation, it's interesting how some of these things break down along polar political lines. Anyway, here you go:

RFK is on to something. He may be a bit off kilter on some issues such as Fluoride in the water and other fringe issues, but on others, like giving 69 vaccines to kids before they're 1, he probably has a couple of valid points. Also, just take your one each American citizen and put them on a scale. Now compare that to the same American in the 1950s. There is a difference, and it's not genetic. RFK is one of the few dems who is willing to say the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. He is pointing at something that is real and we can all put our hands on: our healthcare system and the way it functions is completely effed. It's driven by adverse incentive and no one is talking about it except for him! So he might not have all the solutions, but he has certainly identified a problem and it's an important conversation to start that we haven't been having. And finally, say whatever you will about his positions, he clearly has a deep level of knowledge about the domain.

Tulsi, on the other hand, is decidedly not on to something. She's a confirmed and deranged conspiracy nut, and her tenure as DNI could potentially be catastrophic. Yes, everyone knows there are problems with our foreign policy. She offers no revelation there. But the USA is not out there sewing discord for some ulterior nefarious purpose, which is what her underlying view of the foreign policy establishment is. She's the type who sees Edward Snowden as a hero, rather than as a traitor - which she is on record as having a desire to see his charges dropped.

That's pretty much exactly my take as well. Two things can be true at once, Edward Snowden revealed something that needed to be revealed, and he's a traitor to America based on how he chose to reveal it. I think Tulsi knows that he's a traitor, but does not want to admit that because she views the first consideration as more important (and part of her broader view of a deeply conspiratorial government working against the citizenry with explicit malice). The problem with that is it indicates she is willing to justify even the most extreme and unacceptable acts if she thinks the underlying result is beneficial. That is a catastrophically dangerous perspective for any government official to hold. It's basically "the greater good" in conservative clothes. 

 

The fluoride thing is real, though there are few places in America with concentrations high enough to have the worst effects noted in the studies. My wife and I installed a reverse osmosis system for our drinking and cooking water when we first saw the studies about 5 years ago, so it's pretty amusing to see it now in the mainstream. I think there was a valid concern and justification for fluoridating the water back when it was originally done, but new information requires new policy, and the developing brain of a child is simply too fragile to play around with. Especially when some mild oral hygiene completely negates the addition of fluoride to the water.

[Guest nsplayr]

https://www.barrons.com/articles/defense-military-spending-lockheed-northrop-stock-ada2cff3

“We’re going to spend a lot less money,” said Trump at a news conference addressing the potential outcome of talks with Russia and China. “One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia. I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half.”

Lololol 😆

I mean, I know he’s straight up talking out of his ass, which is ops normal…but can you imagine for one second if Biden would have said this same sentence?

Luckily for us the Congressional Dems and Republicans will never go for this, and at least for now, Article I still (mostly) applies.

Edited February 14 by nsplayr

[ViperMan]

14 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

How do you account for the red-states that receive more in federal funding than blue states?

As someone (and friend's) who's moved into the "productive class" since retiring I've learned something about the taxes: we pay a lot because we're not rich enough to get the breaks or have the capital (yet) to either avoid most of these taxes, or just eat the fines/audits.

@M2 fucking excellent on that one. I busted that image out for one of my morning meetings and all the vets groaned.

Metrics like this mask more than they illuminate, especially when they are taken at face value. @blueingreen gave a good example. I won't make this another rant about prop 13, but it's another example of why stats like you provide - which inform your opinion - are bad basis upon which to make judgments about the world. Prop 13 functions to allow many people to live in CA who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. In other words, there are people whose federal tax contributions are counted in the CA column when they would really be residents displaced to NV, AZ, or elsewhere if CA's tax system wasn't so effed up. The two-pronged effect is to subtract federal tax contributions from other states and add them to CA - distorting the reality of the "red states receive more than they contribute" or at least complicating it.

I'm certain many such distortions exist which shift the balance in both ways. But painting with a simple brush like "blue states contribute more to the tax kitty" is likely an artifact of other underlying distortions that are in operation which make it appear so. Extreme high earners, who pay the majority of income taxes, tend to live in big cities like Los Angeles and New York.

[17D_guy]

It's fixed now but...lol.

Also...why isn't the White House included in the "bureaucracy"?

[blueingreen]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Is there actually proof of your assertions outside of anecdotal evidence?

I don't know exactly which assertions you're referring to, but here's a few numbers on Prop 13:

• A 2018 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) found that about 55% of single-family homes in California were owned by long-term residents who benefit from Prop 13’s tax caps.
• A 2020 study by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) estimated that 40–50% of homeowners pay property taxes based on pre-2000 assessed values, thanks to Prop 13.
• California has the 2nd lowest home ownership rate in the country at 55.3%, and it hasn't changed in almost 60 years.
• The median tenure of homeowners in desirable areas of California like LA, San Diego, the Bay Area, and the Central Coast is anywhere between 15 - 20 years, which is far above the national median tenure of 10 years.
• Between 2020 and 2024, the median home price in California rose from $580,000 to $869,000. This surge meant that many homeowners, particularly older residents who had purchased their homes 20 to 30 years ago, enjoyed record increases in home equity. Here's a chart on that:

All this data points to one thing: It's very likely that there are many people who lucked out and bought a house in CA in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's who have been holding on to it for dear life under the protection of Prop 13 ever since. These older homeowners, already past the peak of their economic productivity, can't compete with the Silicon Valley types or the huge influx of tech / finance people who moved into CA and started working from home during the COVID years. In a less regulated housing market, it's possible that a portion of those homeowners would move to other more affordable states (red states) and pay their taxes there.

[Guest nsplayr]

49 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

It's fixed now but...lol.

Also...why isn't the White House included in the "bureaucracy"?

Have these DOGE interns realized yet that there is already an official .gov website where anyone can already track federal spending?

https://www.usaspending.gov/

They are literally trying to reinvent the wheel and so far it’s a cube 😅

I mean cool, let the interns make a website that’s mostly a Twitter feed with some graphs. Good work boys, keep working hard and you’ll potentially earn college credit this semester!

Is the DoD more lethal yet? Can they DOGE some of our endless CBTs and buy some more munitions please?

Edited February 14 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

^^^Too funny coming from the guy who said Biden was doing a good job as president

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, Banzai said:

Is there actually proof of your assertions outside of anecdotal evidence?

Do you mean besides the express, stated purpose of Prop 13?

All kidding aside, if you think prop 13 has the effect it is supposed to have - namely, keeping people in their homes - then that's all the proof you need. If you want more data, I recommend this site: 

https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/

It will show you every property in CA and how much tax is paid on it yearly. You won't have to search around at all to find 10x differences in any given neighborhood. With some effort, you'll be able to find 100x differences. You can conduct your own thought experiment to determine whether or not someone who currently pays ~$1,000/yr in property taxes would be encouraged to sell their home and move if those same taxes went up to twenty or thirty thousand dollars/yr.

Prop 13 aside, another dynamic that distorts the simplistic "blue states contribute more" meme is to consider is how the SALT functions. In short, it reduces blue states' contributions to the federal tax kitty relative to red states' contributions. Here is a table, courtesy of Chat GPT, that will show you how on an income of $100,000, equal earners who live in different states pay the federal government different amounts. Notably, if you live in a lower tax state (i.e. red America), you get the privilege of paying more for the federal government.

If you live in FL for example, you pay 3.8% more effective federal tax than if you live in CA. You pay 3.0% more than if you live in NY. If you aren't a property owner, those differences increase even more.

Tax Comparison: California vs. Arizona vs. Florida vs. New York at $100,000 Income

Category	California (CA)	New York (NY)	Arizona (AZ)	Florida (FL)
State Income Tax Rate	9.3%	5.85% + NYC tax	2.5%	0%
State Income Tax Owed	~$4,450	~$5,200	~$2,500	$0
Property Tax (on $400K home)	~$3,000	~$4,200	~$2,000	~$3,200
Sales Tax (on $35K spending)	~$3,100	~$3,100	~$2,900	~$2,450
Total SALT (State + Property + Sales Tax)	~$10,550	~$12,500	~$7,400	~$5,650
SALT Deduction Allowed (Cap)	$10,000	$10,000	$7,400	$5,650
Disallowed SALT Deduction	$550	$2,500	$0	$0
Taxable Income After SALT Cap	$90,000	$90,500	$92,600	$94,350
Federal Income Tax Owed (2024 Brackets)	~$13,200	~$13,300	~$13,400	~$13,700
Total Taxes (State + Federal + Property + Sales)	~$20,750	~$21,800	~$17,800	~$19,350
Relative Federal Tax as % of Lowest State	100%	100.8%	101.5%	103.8%

Edited February 14 by ViperMan

[Clark Griswold]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[disgruntledemployee]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

Do you mean besides the express, stated purpose of Prop 13?

All kidding aside, if you think prop 13 has the effect it is supposed to have - namely, keeping people in their homes - then that's all the proof you need. If you want more data, I recommend this site: 

https://www.officialdata.org/ca-property-tax/

It will show you every property in CA and how much tax is paid on it yearly. You won't have to search around at all to find 10x differences in any given neighborhood. With some effort, you'll be able to find 100x differences. You can conduct your own thought experiment to determine whether or not someone who currently pays ~$1,000/yr in property taxes would be encouraged to sell their home and move if those same taxes went up to twenty or thirty thousand dollars/yr.

Prop 13 aside, another dynamic that distorts the simplistic "blue states contribute more" meme is to consider is how the SALT functions. In short, it reduces blue states' contributions to the federal tax kitty relative to red states' contributions. Here is a table, courtesy of Chat GPT, that will show you how on an income of $100,000, equal earners who live in different states pay the federal government different amounts. Notably, if you live in a lower tax state (i.e. red America), you get the privilege of paying more for the federal government.

If you live in FL for example, you pay 3.8% more effective federal tax than if you live in CA. You pay 3.0% more than if you live in NY. If you aren't a property owner, those differences increase even more.

Tax Comparison: California vs. Arizona vs. Florida vs. New York at $100,000 Income

Category	California (CA)	New York (NY)	Arizona (AZ)	Florida (FL)
State Income Tax Rate	9.3%	5.85% + NYC tax	2.5%	0%
State Income Tax Owed	~$4,450	~$5,200	~$2,500	$0
Property Tax (on $400K home)	~$3,000	~$4,200	~$2,000	~$3,200
Sales Tax (on $35K spending)	~$3,100	~$3,100	~$2,900	~$2,450
Total SALT (State + Property + Sales Tax)	~$10,550	~$12,500	~$7,400	~$5,650
SALT Deduction Allowed (Cap)	$10,000	$10,000	$7,400	$5,650
Disallowed SALT Deduction	$550	$2,500	$0	$0
Taxable Income After SALT Cap	$90,000	$90,500	$92,600	$94,350
Federal Income Tax Owed (2024 Brackets)	~$13,200	~$13,300	~$13,400	~$13,700
Total Taxes (State + Federal + Property + Sales)	~$20,750	~$21,800	~$17,800	~$19,350
Relative Federal Tax as % of Lowest State	100%	100.8%	101.5%	103.8%

Your math is off

[disgruntledemployee]

Vance's speech in Munich.  Placeholder for, WTF comments.  I'll post more tomorrow.

[Guest nsplayr]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-musk-doge-posts-classified-data_n_67ae646de4b0513a8d767112
 

Oops! The “hardcore geniuses” at DOGE put up SECRET//NOFORN on their website.

In all seriousness, Trump needs to get this DOGE to heel. He was elected to an actual government office. He is the President and the one charged with safeguarding the nation’s secrets and interests.

These marauding morons working in his name with what I’m imagining is only the lightest amount of oversight from an unelected billionaire with his own agenda need to KIO.

I do not like or trust Trump or support his agenda - but he was elected and so be it. Elon wasn’t elected to shit and is doing a bunch of wildly unconstitutional stuff “with Trump’s blessing” and I think that’s gonna come back and bite us all. I am confident Trump didn’t ask him to hire some interns to put classified info on the internet. If I were a Republican Trump supporter I would be even more mad.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Your math is off

Thanks. I see the error with NY. Sorry about that. Hopefully the underlying, broader point about the SALT redistributing Federal tax dollars to blue states isn't lost in the arithmetic.

Estimates place approximately 14.4 million households in CA making between $80-120K. This puts the total redistribution to CA at $7.2 billion dollars per year (using a $500 net gain for CA per tax return) when compared to FL (currently). That amounts to about 2-3% of CA's annual budget. That number isn't on any accounting sheet. It's rough math, but the point is that there are hidden factors like this which distort how much individuals wind up paying to the federal government.

At lower levels of income, the difference is exacerbated.

Tax Comparison: California vs. New York vs. Arizona vs. Florida at $50,000 Income

Category	New York (NY)	California (CA)	Arizona (AZ)	Florida (FL)
State Income Tax Rate	5.85% + NYC tax	6.0% (on part of income)	2.5%	0%
State Income Tax Owed	~$1,700	~$1,200	~$650	$0
Sales Tax (on $25K spending)	~$2,200	~$2,200	~$2,100	~$1,750
Total SALT (State + Sales Tax Only)	~$3,900	~$3,400	~$2,750	~$1,750
SALT Deduction Allowed (Cap)	$3,900	$3,400	$2,750	$1,750
Disallowed SALT Deduction	$0	$0	$0	$0
Taxable Income After SALT Deduction	$46,100	$46,600	$47,250	$48,250
Federal Income Tax Owed (2024 Brackets)	~$4,800	~$4,900	~$5,000	~$5,200
Total Taxes (State + Federal + Sales)	~$8,700	~$8,500	~$7,750	~$6,950
Relative Federal Tax as % of Lowest State	100%	102.1%	104.2%	108.3%

Here you can see a FL resident pays 8.3% more to Uncle Sam than a NY resident, and ~6% more than a CA resident. So really, the SALT is a way for blue states to redirect federal tax dollars into their coffers before that money shows up on any accounting sheet. In 2016, the average SALT deduction in CA was ~$18K. Multiplying this by 5.5 million returns puts the total deduction at about $100B. That's a redirection of about $25 billion dollars (in one year - before the SALT was capped) from the federal government to CA. In comparison, total tax receipts from the lowest 5 states in 2020 (4 red, 1 blue) was about $30 billion.

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

If I were a Republican Trump supporter I would be even more mad.

This is the dumbest thing you've ever said, and that's quite a threshold.

[HeloDude]

Progressives are upset that Trump is doing a lot of what he said he would do, and yet, non-progressives are supposed to be upset as well?  And I love the “unconstitutional” part of what Trump is doing…this is their new catchphrase since the Musk Nazi-salute nonsense didn’t work.

Edited February 15 by HeloDude

[Swizzle]

37 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Progressives are upset that Trump is doing a lot of what he said he would do, and yet, non-progressives are supposed to be upset as well?  And I love the “unconstitutional” part of what Trump is doing…this is their new catchphrase since the Musk Nazi-salute nonsense didn’t work.

 

[dream big]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/defense-military-spending-lockheed-northrop-stock-ada2cff3

“We’re going to spend a lot less money,” said Trump at a news conference addressing the potential outcome of talks with Russia and China. “One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China and President Putin of Russia. I want to say let’s cut our military budget in half.”

Lololol 😆

I mean, I know he’s straight up talking out of his ass, which is ops normal…but can you imagine for one second if Biden would have said this same sentence?

Luckily for us the Congressional Dems and Republicans will never go for this, and at least for now, Article I still (mostly) applies.

Biden couldn’t talk in complete sentences so kind of irrelevant there. Yes Trump is talking out of his a$$, but his intention isn’t wrong, plenty of worthless expenditures in the DoD - it’s become a jobs and industrial program more so than actual national security. 

[Guest nsplayr]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Biden couldn’t talk in complete sentences so kind of irrelevant there. Yes Trump is talking out of his a$$, but his intention isn’t wrong, plenty of worthless expenditures in the DoD - it’s become a jobs and industrial program more so than actual national security. 

I mean if you want to make the argument looking at the world and the role the U.S. has played since the end of WWII and argue we can do it on 50% of the budget, I’m all ears.

No need really since cuts, let alone dramatic cuts will never make it through Congress. Just curious to know if my mil friends on the right could justify that statement in any way.

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

This is the dumbest thing you've ever said, and that's quite a threshold.

Wow that is a high bar! Truly not sure why what I said there is so dumb.

If I voted for Kamala Harris to be President but once she was sworn in Zuckerberg and a bunch of kids too young to even rent a car came in and started trashing the government, giving nonsense press conferences from behind her desk while she sat there mute, etc., I would not be too happy with that.

If Trump and the GOP want to do these cuts, he should own it and use the constitutional process - y’all absolutely could achieved this given that you control Congress as well. He is supposed to be the leader, not a random unelected outsider. If the tables were turned and this was George Soros y’all would storm the capitol again 😅

Pass a new appropriations bill getting rid of agencies and departments you don’t like, etc. Fire employees with the proper notifications, timelines, etc. and pass Schedule F through Congress if you want more at-will government employees. 

🤷‍♂️ I guess y’all don’t feel the same way.

Edited February 15 by nsplayr

[Guest nsplayr]

Hell let’s swing for the fences and make some foreign policy statements I would think should be a bipartisan consensus:

1. We shouldn’t annex Canada.

2. We shouldn’t “own” Gaza and permanently displace the 2m Palestinians living there.

3. We shouldn’t sell out Ukraine to Putin for absolutely nothing.

4. We shouldn’t cut the DoD budget by 50%.

🤷‍♂️ not sure why any of the above would be controversial.

Edited February 15 by nsplayr

[Lord Ratner]

57 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Truly not sure why what I said there is so dumb.

Truly? You said that you, a progressive who voted for a progressive candidate who pitched Donald Trump as the literal end to American democracy, would somehow be more mad if you were a Republican who voted for the Republican president who immediately started doing what he campaigned on doing. And you didn't see how that comment is bananas-dumb? 

 

Donald Trump is wiping out the bureaucrats that used administrivia and procedure to thwart and outlast his first administration. He's bringing in experts on efficiency and modernization to slash departments that shouldn't exist in the first place. He's purging an ideology that destroyed our academic institutions and violated the very core principals the country was founded on. 

 

I know why you're mad about all of these things, but if you're so delusional to think any of this would make a conservative mad, you clearly do live in a mental bubble with no grasp at all on how other people in this country think. That wouldn't be particularly remarkable except for you've been in a primarily conservative organization for what, two decades? 

 

The only thing I'm mad about right now is that we had to wait for a reality TV star with a gold toilet and plastic wife to do what conservative presidents should have been doing for the last 30 years.

[Guest nsplayr]

I guess my point was the process. Trump is at best marginally “doing” these things. The Congress the GOP worked hard to win isn’t doing anything right now. IMHO there will be a government shutdown with the GOP trifecta come March 14th and…good luck dodging the blame there.

What I didn’t expect from this new admin was for the President to bring in a random Johnny-Come-Lately unelected bureaucrat, recently-liberal billionaire to destroy the government Trump is supposed to be leading. Also some of Trump’s weirder recent utterances like wanting to own Gaza and cut the DoD budget by 50%…that’s far afield from anything he campaigned on, quite the opposite actually.

I am not confused as to why MAGA loves “owning the libs,” it’s clear that is the primary motivator for a lot of what’s happening. I guess I just didn’t expect Trump to be watching from a proverbial “chair in the corner” while Elon talks to reporters from behind the resolute desk, has his kid picking his nose and telling Trump, “You’re not the President, you need to go away, shut your mouth,” etc. That was a really bizarre scene to me. Trump signing EOs in big black sharpie, holding rallies, and “I alone can fix it” is all par for his course - playing second fiddle is not.

I guess the ends justify the means re: Elon? He will make a good fall guy if something goes sideways, I’ll give you that.

I do agree that conservative Presidents like Reagan and the Bushes did not dismantled the state previously, but in my view it’s likely because they were wise enough not to. Kneecapping the government is a fun sport the GOP excels at when out of power; usually when in office they realize that if/when shit breaks down and they are in the seat, they will be blamed. Very few if any GOP governors have sought to eviscerate their own governments…control, shape, lead, yes. But destroying your own house will inevitable lead to poor outcomes for you.

Edited February 15 by nsplayr

[busdriver]

Libertarian fever dream:  this will be the thing that spurs the legislative branch into taking power back from the executive!

 

 

[ClearedHot]

7 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Hell let’s swing for the fences and make some foreign policy statements I would think should be a bipartisan consensus:

1. We shouldn’t annex Canada.

2. We shouldn’t “own” Gaza and permanently displace the 2m Palestinians living there.

3. We shouldn’t sell out Ukraine to Putin for absolutely nothing.

4. We shouldn’t cut the DoD budget by 50%.

🤷‍♂️ not sure why any of the above would be controversial.

So you do think we should buy Greenland!

[lloyd christmas]

https://victorhanson.com/mythologies-about-musk/