The Next President is...

[Sua Sponte]

37 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Funny how progressives never give back their savings from tax cuts back to the government…

You know both can be wrong, right? Of course you did. Does the government need to be cutdown? Sure. Does it need an autistic technicrat who’s a defense contractor of all things data mining American’s data to run through his Grok 2.0 AI with this band of college aged broccoli haired retards named “Big Balls” shutting down agencies without authority to do so? No. Conduct auditing with qualified people who can conduct auditing. 

But hey, at least Elon’s government contracts are doing great!

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FY25-Procurement-Forecast.xlsx (NAISC Code 311999)

SpaceX also was awarded a $38M contract yesterday. 

So, a CEO of multiple government contractors will be “auditing” competing government contractors? But don’t worry, he said he’ll recuse himself of any conflict, all is good.

[Lord Ratner]

6 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

You know both can be wrong, right? Of course you did. Does the government need to be cutdown? Sure. Does it need an autistic technicrat who’s a defense contractor of all things data mining American’s data to run through his Grok 2.0 AI with this band of college aged broccoli haired retards named “Big Balls” shutting down agencies without authority to do so? No. Conduct auditing with qualified people who can conduct auditing. 

But hey, at least Elon’s government contracts are doing great!

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FY25-Procurement-Forecast.xlsx (NAISC Code 311999)

SpaceX also was awarded a $38M contract yesterday. 

So, a CEO of multiple government contractors will be “auditing” competing government contractors? But don’t worry, he said he’ll recuse himself of any conflict, all is good.

What conflict? Space X is the only game in town.

 

You guys are acting like some sort of new crony threat is occurring. If Elon diverts every space contract to SpaceX it'll just save us even more money. 

 

The choice was never between a good option and a bad option. The American people are tired of waiting for perfection. They are settling for "effective."

[HeloDude]

18 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

You know both can be wrong, right? Of course you did. Does the government need to be cutdown? Sure. Does it need an autistic technicrat who’s a defense contractor of all things data mining American’s data to run through his Grok 2.0 AI with this band of college aged broccoli haired retards named “Big Balls” shutting down agencies without authority to do so? No. Conduct auditing with qualified people who can conduct auditing. 

But hey, at least Elon’s government contracts are doing great!

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/FY25-Procurement-Forecast.xlsx (NAISC Code 311999)

SpaceX also was awarded a $38M contract yesterday. 

So, a CEO of multiple government contractors will be “auditing” competing government contractors? But don’t worry, he said he’ll recuse himself of any conflict, all is good.

Your original post was about “tax cuts for billionaires”, was it not?  So if those progressives who are against tax cuts, my question is why don’t these same progressives give back their tax cuts to the government?  Your response above literally had nothing to do with the tax cuts.

[Day Man]

1 hour ago, Smokin said:

If that house budget increase of $3T is legit, that is absolutely absurd and only proves that Trump and most Republicans now are not actual conservatives, simply populists.  

next you're gonna say he's not a real christian or whatever he claims! 

[Sua Sponte]

20 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

Your original post was about “tax cuts for billionaires”, was it not?  So if those progressives who are against tax cuts, my question is why don’t these same progressives give back their tax cuts to the government?  Your response above literally had nothing to do with the tax cuts.

No, it was the irony of the party that prides itself on being fiscal responsible is slashing the government then proposing to increase the budget and spend more. You just randomly came in with a false equivalency for whatever reason assuming I’d defend whatever progressives allegedly do.

[ViperMan]

15 hours ago, Banzai said:

Yes, and kill tricare too. Socialized healthcare is NOT something the gov should be in business of doing.

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."

Edited February 13 by ViperMan

[HeloDude]

4 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

No, it was the irony of the party that prides itself on being fiscal responsible is slashing the government then proposing to increase the budget and spend more. You just randomly came in with a false equivalency for whatever reason assuming I’d defend whatever progressives allegedly do.

Perhaps we’re talking past each other.  I’m for cutting waste, cutting overall spending, and cutting taxes.  I’m probably one of the few on here who is for cutting welfare and the defense budget.  As for social security and Medicare, that Ponzi scheme was never going to work and was doomed to failed, just like any other Ponzi scheme.  

[pbar]

I don't understand why the Left doesn't seem to understand that business as usual and printing money will eventually lead to a sovereign debt crisis.  Then massive cuts to government services will happen regardless.  Perhaps it's better to get ahead of the curve and try to prioritize?  Also, don't understand their continued insistence that we have a taxation problem rather than a spending problem.  You could zero out the defense budget, confiscate all of the wealth of the top 10%, and we are still going to go bankrupt at the rate we are going.  Nor do I have much faith the Establishment GOP will reign in spending either. 

[blueingreen]

5 hours ago, pbar said:

I don't understand why the Left doesn't seem to understand that business as usual and printing money will eventually lead to a sovereign debt crisis.

Also, don't understand their continued insistence that we have a taxation problem rather than a spending problem. 

It's funny how the Left frames the productive class—the ones funding everything—as the bad guys for not “sharing enough.” Never mind they’re already paying most of the taxes. Meanwhile, those who receive far more than they contribute in benefits are cast as victims. It’s a neat trick: blame the people keeping the lights on while ignoring the real problem—spending. But hey, why fix the system when you can just keep milking it? Mainstream politicians across the ideological spectrum are insulated from the negative consequences of their decisions. The rich stay rich, the poor are lavished with benefits with no incentive to achieve anything, and the middle class has to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

[M2]

DOGE is going to force this guy to retire, and we'll finally be free of his tyranny!

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, blueingreen said:

 Meanwhile, those who receive far more than they contribute in benefits are cast as victims.

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.

[17D_guy]

For my conservative bros/chicks here - thoughts on RFK being confirmed, or Tulsi as DNI?

I don't know enough about Tulsi to give real opinion. I was/am deeply concerned with RFK.

I also think it's hilarious how a decade ago the vaccine nuts (and playboy models) were all Left, and now it's shifted Right.

[brabus]

14 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

I was/am deeply concerned with RFK

Why?

[Smokin]

To paraphrase, Joe Rogan, prior to COVID, I would have likely ranked vaccines as one of mankind's greatest accomplishments.  Now?  Not so sure.  After COVID, I wonder how many of them are just full of junk that I don't need and won't work anyway.  Has the flu vaccine really worked for me?  I've had the flu many times after the vaccines, so was it really less severe than it would have been?

I fully recognize that vaccines defeated small pox, polio, etc (reference the greatest accomplishments thing).  But when governments and big corporations team up to almost force people to get a vaccine that hasn't been fully tested to prevent an illness that wasn't as bad as many were claiming, you have to wonder why.  And then as soon as you do and you realize there's a guy behind the curtain telling you to ignore the guy behind the curtain, that makes you question a lot of things you had previously accepted as fact.

I think part of being a conservative is a natural distrust of consolidation of power.  Governments and big companies used COVID to consolidate power and vaccines as an enforcement mechanism.  Hence the right's relatively newfound distrust of vaccines and many medical 'experts'.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, 17D_guy said:

For my conservative bros/chicks here - thoughts on RFK being confirmed, or Tulsi as DNI?

I don't know enough about Tulsi to give real opinion. I was/am deeply concerned with RFK.

I also think it's hilarious how a decade ago the vaccine nuts (and playboy models) were all Left, and now it's shifted Right.

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.

[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