ViperMan

Negative homie. We've been through this. Here it is again for you. "No limits on NATO expansion." etc. etc. etc. This is about eliminating a competing energy state that can easily supply Europe. It has nothing to do with NATO besides the excuse Putin uses to scapegoat his actions.

This is Putin's CHOICE! I'm not desiring a bunch of dead people - characterizing our enabling of a lesser, defensive, Army as "pro war" is ludicrous. Putin started this thing in 2014, and then he really started it in 2022. This is and should be the painful consequence of his decision to FAFO. As we back down, now, we will have encouraged far more bloodshed elsewhere. It's real-politic. First, it's a complete misappropriation to place responsibility for this conflict on Ukraine. They have every right to defend themselves from Russia/Putin. It is Russia feeding generations of Ukraine into the wood chipper - not anyone else. I don't have too much to say about "suspending elections", but I will say it's possibly, just possibly, a little bit disingenuous to think that the should hold "elections" while they're in a fight for the very existence of their country, when it's been under assault for the last decade. In more ways than one. You think Russia interfered in our 2016 election? What about in Ukraine right now? Yeah, let's hold "elections" and see what happens. To the second part, I agree, and have said as much on this thread. It'll wind up with some sort of armistice. That is obvious, however, what we don't need to do is give away the whole kit and kaboodle. Russia's not exactly been able to take ground rapidly, in case you haven't noticed. Guaranteeing Ukraine's security when we suckered them into giving away their nukes may come back to haunt us in terms of the broader US project in the world. Turning our back on them may have other dramatic consequences. I wasn't happy when we surrendered in Afghanistan. In many ways I blame Biden for that because he signaled to Putin that we were weak and he took the opportunity. In a similar fashion, I can't wait to see what's behind door number three when we surrender Ukraine...

Nah, we have no interest in this war ending. We should continue to shovel weapons to Ukraine so Putin can slowly feed more and more of his society into the wood chipper.

This board is clear on your position. And I agree that we need more of all those things. But...what you have yet to reconcile is what happens when our finances spin out of control. You can take Stephanie Kelton or Paul Krugman school of economic thought and run with it as far as you like. Right up until it crashes into reality's brick wall. You can regurgitate falsehoods that "deficits don't matter when you are the reserve currency of the world" - but that's all fake news. Our deficit and debt level will wreck this country if we don't do something about it. And previous governments' failures to do something about it was inevitably going to lead to this - either through a visible cut, or through the invisible one we call inflation. Am I happy about taking budget cuts to defense? No. I'd rather we take them elsewhere. Do I understand this to be an inevitable consequence of fiscal and monetary decisions made by a series of governments over the course of decades? Yes. In short, yes, you position is crystal clear, but it's also decoupled from reality. If you want your argument to gain traction, I recommend you start by convincing the majority of people on this board that we can spend an unlimited amount of money - because that's really what you're advocating. Squawking about cuts to this group is spinning your wheels. We're on a different sheet of music than you are and we interpret the danger of a deficit/debt differently.

You need to relax the grip on your pearls. If you're that shocked with an "OMG 8%!!! cuts to the DOD budget!" you should have been equally concerned with the cumulative 28.5% rise in the DOD budget from 2018 to 2022. An 8% cut in the DOD budget will bring us back down to - wait for it - the 2022 level.

Fair enough. I should educate myself on that. Yup. And here is what I'll say about that. A good government - one that is restrained to doing good and correct things for its citizens - has a (basically) fixed cost. If you accept that (which you probably don't), you would eventually be forced to conclude that a percent-based income tax is not the proper way to fund such a government, because you eventually get enough dough to pay for the services you need to provide, and taxing beyond that must, therefore, be done for other purposes. The tax system we have guarantees no upper bound on what the government can collect. That is strange. Our tax system's main purpose is to flatten peoples' quality of life - which is beyond fucked up. But that's what it's purpose is. Keep us working. Inflate the value of your past labor away. Make saving a sucker's game. Ensure that the productive keep producing just enough to sustain themselves and everyone else. Never let anyone reach the land of milk and honey. The only reason to tax citizens when you have a government that simultaneously prints the very money they tax is to generate demand for the currency, otherwise, just print what you need. Right? Or what do you think about that relationship? Austerity may be a fact of life if we don't get our spending under control. Economically, the planet is a closed system in an entropy sense. So if we print infinity dollars, the value of those dollars to the rest of the world will drop to zero. That is indisputable. And it also happens to be a major caveat to our position in the world. The reserve currency privilege is not a God-given right. It is maintained purely by the fact that other people in the world have faith that a dollar will buy something. That it is a store of value. A medium of exchange. Look to how much you think Franks were worth in the 20s and 30s. There are reasons why currencies plummet in value. We are subject to the same economic realities as everyone else, but we *act* as if we're not. This is the absolute most dangerous fact in American life right now: the idea that our position in the world is fixed.

Let me caveat this with my current understanding of VA compensation: I don't know anything about VA compensation. My opinion? Yes, probably. I see guys I work with who are 100% disabled and still fly F-16s. YGBFFFM. Seriously bro? In their defense, it's also been explained to me that "disability" is probably the wrong word to use to describe what's going on. Most people aren't disabled according to the MW definition of the word. The legalistic, lawyerly, VA definition of "disability" has more to do with how much damage you've sustained over a career. Fair enough. Back to my opinion. When someone who is able to claim 100% disability can still fly a 9G jet and stands next to someone who is 100% disabled who had all four limbs blown off in AFG, I think that's a bit sick, frankly. Something is wrong with the system.

The core problem in our society boils down to one thing - too many people have no skin in the game. It's reflected in this conversation right now. We are lamenting the 69 people who don't pay enough in taxes. Roger. I get that, and they should pay more than their 15% or whatever it is they're paying - it's a lot less than the 40-50% you and I pay. That said, there is far, far, far, faaaaaar greater moral and social consequence to the functioning of society when 50% of us pay nothing, or next to nothing. I'm not saying don't tax Elon, Jeff, and Bill more - at least to parity. But we absolutely *must* start charging people for what they consume. Want welfare benefits? Cool. Here's welfare and a 40-hour per week job filling up pot holes. The free lunch has to stop. Benefits have to go hand in hand with some sort of exchange of labor, long-term debt, or generational/familial accounting. Free has to end.

You're quoting a summary statistic that conveys information about groups who use any program and collecting it all underneath one metric. This incorporates social security. Which basically includes anyone who worked and paid taxes at some point in their lives. It's a bit of a stretch to consider SS under the same banner as food stamps, SNAP, WIC, or Section 8 benefits. Anyway, the more subsets you include in any statistic, the more it will display convergence towards the underlying population. So that's the literal, mathematical reason you're seeing that effect. The same exact site you provide allows you to answer your own question. If you select "Filter by Characteristics - Race" you'll be able to dig into the stats. For instance, you can see what @blueingreen is talking about if you look at WIC/SNAP by race: Section 8 benefits show a similar pattern. Effectively, you're missing examining the underlying populations, or stated differently, not restricting the data by subset.

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.

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%

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.

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.

I'm sure the nuance of this will be lost on your one each lib, but Tricare is part of the total benefits package my employer - the US government - offered me in exchange for my labor. In no way, shape, or form is it "socialized."

Having little to no SA on the specifics here, I can say based on my experiences in the military and thus far in the civilian world, ATC is far too comfortable giving visual approaches to passenger aircraft. IMO, they should basically only be given upon request. I think it has become the easy button for them to place responsibility on pilots.

If you're basing your entire opinion of anything based on the fact that a "jury of his peers found him guilty," I know two things about you. You've never sat on a court martial or a jury, and two, you have very little practical knowledge of how the justice system works. If you had you would understand that many things - facts, relevant facts - are withheld from the jury. I know this - I learned this - because I once was part of the jury on a court martial in which the member was found guilty, and only after we rendered our verdict and sentence recommendation, were we allowed to be made aware of things which the defense and the prosecution argued about allowing us to know. Why does this matter? Well, we may have still found the member guilty, but I believe the punishment we meted out would have been significantly moderated. I hope you're never falsely accused of a crime. I hope you're never up against a DA or prosecutor that has an ax to grind. I hope that you're never in the wrong place at the wrong time or in the wrong circumstances. If you are, and you think that everything will be ok because the jury will just magically get it right since it's part of our constitutionally guaranteed set of rights, you had better reinterpret your threat environment, because juries absolutely can and do get it wrong. All. The. Time. Yes, a jury may have found him guilty. That is a fact. Whether or not he actually is guilty of the crime he was charged with is a separate question.

January 6th was a block party that got out of control. If you want to see an *actual* insurrection, you can look at the summer of 2020 when numerous democratic governments all but sanctioned mob violence in the name of social justice.

DEI is awful, and at the same time, I don't think it's directly responsible for this. That's just nonsense. Pulling back though, it is part of the larger, more dangerous, apathy that has taken hold in our country which says "competence doesn't matter and neither does accountability." Hopefully whoever is responsible for this is held accountable.

If wanting people to pay for what they use makes me guilty of not being conservative, then lock me up.

The defense rests.

???

Ah ok.

Yes, you are right, but this take appears to be disingenuous. Of course there is no "mind" of the state of California, which you thankfully identify, but then immediately turn around and imbue it with agency and convey that it still disagrees with me :). My point was clear though: there are repeated efforts in California to address problems that prop 13 is creating. People, with minds, are aware of those issues. I brought it up because I think people on this message board would like to see how tax law and policy choices create weapons effects down stream. Hence the discussion. Yes. This is correct. My point is to illustrate one of the hidden effects of prop 13. CA residents can wonder "why don't we have enough infrastructure??? I pay so much in taxes." It's reasons like prop 13 which mask the "why" of not having enough money to buy infrastructure AND all their favorite social programs. I'm just pointing that out. Dickering over what spending should be focused on is a good (political) topic, but a separate one. I'm not commenting on whether or not CA 'needs' to increase their tax revenue - it is implicit that they do because their infrastructure has failed. That's true, prima facie. I may not like it, but it is plainly the case. You are right in stating that CA doesn't have enough money. That's what I'm pointing out. You're placing 100% of the blame on social program spending. That's part of the spend side and is a part of the problem. I'm pointing out that there is also a systematic collection problem on the other side of the equation, and also an interesting one that most people aren't aware of. You're categorically denying there is a collection problem. That's ok. Neither you or I like taxes. We don't have to be happy with every fact in the world. I'm as conservative as you are, but any objective analysis must start with looking at facts. Not with "democrats are stupid and wrong in all cases and all circumstances a priori and anyone who doesn't agree with me is henceforth a democrat." That style of thinking led dems to align themselves with all manner of absurdity when Trump would state something obviously true, just because they had to be the opposite. The question you present is framed in such a way as to side-step the issue and generate your pre-approved response. It hasn't got anything to do at all with what someone else paid for their home. Property taxes must cover the things we agree that property taxes must cover. If the cost of living in a neighborhood goes up because we need to run underground water pipes up the hillside in order to deliver water, that's going to be a cost borne by property taxes. I would argue that such a project should be shouldered equally, by all the people who are going to benefit from it. That is a conservative position. Prop 13 arrests that, which is why I think it's a problem. We don't "own" our homes in the same sense we own our cars or our furniture. I don't like that, and I'm not advocating for that, but for the purposes of this discussion, and the world we all inhabit, it is the case. So embarking on a diatribe for you and constructing an answer about why property taxes need to change over time is playing into a misframed argument. The price of a toilet flush changes over time. You know this. Everyone else in the world knows this. As that price changes, funds have to be raised to cover those increased costs. In contrast, wealth taxes are designed specifically to take from all assets as they are construed by Pocahontas, and their intent is confiscatory - that is a new thing as far as our country is concerned and is something that I am equally frightened to see we are flirting with. Property taxes serve a different purpose, and as long as any of us has existed, they have been part of the equation. Painting with such a broad brush intentionally muddies the water and conflates two separate issues. Funding things like infrastructure with property taxes is the choice we have collectively made as a society. Again, that's just a fact in the world, not an endorsement. We witnessed infrastructure collapse or at least not serve its function - ergo facto there is a problem there, maybe we should look at something. Hey prop 13 causes property taxes to function in a radically different way than in every other state, maybe that's part of our budget gap. Oooo, yeah, look, see here Bob, some people are paying only 1-2% of what other people are paying for all our infrastructure...maybe, just maybe, that's contributing to funding shortfalls, and could perhaps be the reason politicians have had to make trade-offs over the years and allow infrastructure projects to go unaddressed. That's all I'm saying. Constantly nudging the conversation back to all taxes are immoral, or at least property taxes in this case, is an interesting theoretical point, but not on topic. For the purposes of this discussion, they are a given. Not good or bad. Just a given.

Ok, cool. So like Hertz rent-a-T6.