Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Biden Presidency

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post
    DC does have representation, they have 3 EC votes, with a delegate in the House (granted, severely limited power there with no voting rights).

    Half of what you are saying though are issues that really shouldn't exist because the idea of statehood should be struck down from the word go. It doesn't matter the population, the GDP, etc. There is no reason to have the home of the federal government lie within a state.
    Im not sure I agree those factors can be dismissed out of hand for DC. They are quite commonly used for arguments on federal government taxations for real states and power sharing in government. Why should one of the largest contributors to our countries economy and production not get a say in the proceedings of the country? They have no representation in Senate and no voting ability in the House, yet pay more federal taxes the 22 states.
    "From Chaos comes Clarity"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
      Im not sure I agree those factors can be dismissed out of hand for DC. They are quite commonly used for arguments on federal government taxations for real states and power sharing in government. Why should one of the largest contributors to our countries economy and production not get a say in the proceedings of the country? They have no representation in Senate and no voting ability in the House, yet pay more federal taxes the 22 states.
      They shouldn't be taxed more, that I would argue should be lowered.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
        If the people of DC want any form of statehood at all, they should be returned to MD. That would be the only logical path for them to pursue.
        Ive heard of a proposal where Congress could redefine the boundary of the "seat" to just the White House, Mall, Congress and SCOTUS. From there..... what happens to the remaining land enclosed by the current boundary could take different paths forward. I believe Congress does have the ability to make those changes to the boundary with little difficulty.

        Path 1- the remaining area and its population becomes a new state thereby having to meet the requirements for state hood. Difficult path forward for sure and would certainly benefit Democrats.

        Path 2 - cede area back to Maryland. This would of course increase Maryland's population and likely increase the # of Reps but keep Senate in tact.
        "From Chaos comes Clarity"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post
          Ok I misspoke about corruption in surrounding areas. What I should say is the overflow of people populating the DMV area to service DC through service sector jobs. I don't mean for this to come off as that should be banned. Cities need those services and such. But the growth of that city to become the 6th largest metropolitan area in the nation was never intended. Granted, a lot of what has happened was never intended, but the entire purpose of our nation's capital being a separate entity devoid of political influence is supposed to remain.
          I'm personally a proponent of just giving the land back to Maryland besides a much smaller carve out of the public/federal lands around the National Mall. It would net the residents representation and Maryland would get an additional congressman out of it.

          When you consider state, local, AND federal government employment in DC/Maryland/Virginia the number of people working for a government entity is like 30%. The national average is ~18%. So the DC area is certainly disproportional.

          But the biggest driver in population growth over the past few decades has been private tech jobs and private tech-adjacent jobs. This happened because of the synergy/efficiency with Government contracting, Loudon County being the optimal location for east coast server farms, etc. Boston used to be the king of tech on the east coast but the DC area has more people working in STEM fields right now (raw numbers) than anywhere else on the east coast. And for major cities as a proportion of total workforce, it's only rivaled by the Bay Area and the North Carolina tech triangle.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
            Ive heard of a proposal where Congress could redefine the boundary of the "seat" to just the White House, Mall, Congress and SCOTUS. From there..... what happens to the remaining land enclosed by the current boundary could take different paths forward. I believe Congress does have the ability to make those changes to the boundary with little difficulty.

            Path 1- the remaining area and its population becomes a new state thereby having to meet the requirements for state hood. Difficult path forward for sure and would certainly benefit Democrats.

            Path 2 - cede area back to Maryland. This would of course increase Maryland's population and likely increase the # of Reps but keep Senate in tact.
            I believe in the 1870s they did cede some of the territory back to Virginia (What became Alexandria and all), so it's entirely plausible they could do that. I believe though, that the land must first be ceded back to Maryland (or at least offered), before the people could attempt statehood.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GowerND11 View Post
              I believe in the 1870s they did cede some of the territory back to Virginia (What became Alexandria and all), so it's entirely plausible they could do that. I believe though, that the land must first be ceded back to Maryland (or at least offered), before the people could attempt statehood.
              It was actually pre-civil war, but yeah DC used to be a square. They gave back Arlington and Alexandria to Virginia in the 1840s.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                That ain't getting 60 votes lol. These people are idiots
                May not need 60 if they can somehow eliminate the filibuster first.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                  Fun facts:
                  -DC has a population larger than Vermont and Wyoming.
                  -DC has GDP per capital double of New York State and at 0.7% of the nations GDP is larger than 16 states and equal to the combined GDP of Vermont Montana and Wyoming.
                  -Last year DC paid more in federal taxes than 22 states.
                  -DC is 80% Democrat
                  -DC have no representation in Congress. Im pretty sure our FFs went to war over this against the best army in the world at the time. I also remember the lovely argument conservatives make all the time about the liberal coastal elites determining the status quo for the rural counterparts. Well a populated area of the country of comparable size to at least 8 states has zero ability to have their say or take part in the direction fo the country.

                  Full disclosure I am for DC statehood. Many of my college friends grew up up in Bethesda, Chevy Chase and on McAuthur Blvd and attended Gonzaga HS and we have had several excellent conversations on this. Really good stuff and totally interesting.
                  Good points. If DC became a state, those who lived in Virginia and Maryland would be required to pay DC State taxes, right? State income for DC to solve their problems. As it is now, that's federal tax money for those. DC population is 100k less than North Dakota.

                  Comment


                  • If they make DC a state, when the pendulum turns, it should be the first priority of the GOP to divide Oklahoma into Rhode Island sized states.
                    Running the damn ball since 2017.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                      If they make DC a state, when the pendulum turns, it should be the first priority of the GOP to divide Oklahoma into Rhode Island sized states.
                      There is a stronger argument to break up normal or bigger central and western states than there ever was or ever will be to make DC one.
                      Based Mullet Kid owns

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                        If they make DC a state, when the pendulum turns, it should be the first priority of the GOP to divide Oklahoma into Rhode Island sized states.
                        I envision a future of 222 states and 123 Supreme Court Justices. Wonder how quick we get there.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by IrishLax View Post
                          I'm personally a proponent of just giving the land back to Maryland besides a much smaller carve out of the public/federal lands around the National Mall. It would net the residents representation and Maryland would get an additional congressman out of it.
                          This.

                          But apparently DC residents hate the idea, as does Maryland.

                          They could also give DC US Reps with voting power, but this issue is 100% about Senators.

                          IMO Puerto Rico makes 10x more sense to be the 51st state. I'm in favor of reaching 53 states, a prime number, so we are "indivisible." Looking at you, Cuba. lol

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                            There is a stronger argument to break up normal or bigger central and western states than there ever was or ever will be to make DC one.
                            Why do we need two Dakotas?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drayer54 View Post
                              If they make DC a state, when the pendulum turns, it should be the first priority of the GOP to divide Oklahoma into Rhode Island sized states.
                              THats not the same thing. The entire state of Oklahoma already is fully represented (if you ignore Native Americans) as intended by the FFs. Splitting it up would be an overt political act.

                              Making DC a state isnt. There is a legitimate and wholly American Democracy argument to be made for the residents of DC not being represented at all. It just has the current implication that would benefit Dems.
                              "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                              Comment


                              • Sorry, I had to laugh at this one. Just hits a little too close to home.

                                Last edited by ab2cmiller; 03-20-2021, 08:41 AM.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                  There is a stronger argument to break up normal or bigger central and western states than there ever was or ever will be to make DC one.
                                  How so? Not sure I have come across this one before.
                                  "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by BilboBaggins View Post
                                    Why do we need two Dakotas?
                                    We actually need more than two. We probably need at least four. Two pretty large states.

                                    Wyoming should be broken up as well
                                    Based Mullet Kid owns

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
                                      Sorry, I had to laugh at this one. Just hits a little too close to home.

                                      <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Biden All-Female Communications Team Won't Tell Nation What's Wrong, Nation Should Already Know <a href="https://t.co/ausOAlNPwc">https://t.co/ausOAlNPwc</a></p>&mdash; The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1354459236839862275?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
                                      Fuckin A that is funny
                                      "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                        We actually need more than two. We probably need at least four. Two pretty large states.

                                        Wyoming should be broken up as well
                                        Wilt Chamberlain shagged more women than there are residents of Wyoming and both Dakotas combined.
                                        It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                          We actually need more than two. We probably need at least four. Two pretty large states.

                                          Wyoming should be broken up as well
                                          I d rather just have two dirt poor states that take up liberal tax dollars than four.

                                          Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 01-27-2021, 03:44 PM.
                                          "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                          Comment


                                          • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                                            THats not the same thing. The entire state of Oklahoma already is fully represented (if you ignore Native Americans) as intended by the FFs. Splitting it up would be an overt political act.

                                            Making DC a state isnt. There is a legitimate and wholly American Democracy argument to be made for the residents of DC not being represented at all. It just has the current implication that would benefit Dems.
                                            Pretending that state packing isn't an overtly political act to gain Senators is blatantly dishonest.

                                            If the left packs the courts, the right needs to pack them out the door.
                                            If the left packs the states, the right needs to pack them even more.

                                            “You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think"- Cocaine Mitch
                                            Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                            Comment


                                            • Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
                                              Sorry, I had to laugh at this one. Just hits a little too close to home.

                                              <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Biden All-Female Communications Team Won't Tell Nation What's Wrong, Nation Should Already Know <a href="https://t.co/ausOAlNPwc">https://t.co/ausOAlNPwc</a></p>&mdash; The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1354459236839862275?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
                                              LOL

                                              Comment


                                              • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                                                I d rather just have two dirt poor states that take up liberal tax dollars than four.

                                                Oh it'd be more than four states. We gotta break up Wyoming as well. May need to break up others as well. Simply not realistic to expect a single house rep to cover that kind of ground.

                                                Sure they'll get a couple more senators each but really its all about making sure people in these areas have a realistic opportunity to have congressmen who can spend enough time in their area to properly represent them.

                                                That's what we really care about. Why don't you support it? Don't you believe people should be adequately represented?
                                                Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                Comment


                                                • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                  Oh it'd be more than four states. We gotta break up Wyoming as well. May need to break up others as well. Simply not realistic to expect a single house rep to cover that kind of ground.

                                                  Sure they'll get a couple more senators each but really its all about making sure people in these areas have a realistic opportunity to have congressmen who can spend enough time in their area to properly represent them.

                                                  That's what we really care about. Why don't you support it? Don't you believe people should be adequately represented?
                                                  ???. They already have their Constituionally based representation. 2 senators and representatives apportioned by the census. DC doesnt have any. Want more Reps for Dakotas and Wymoing, get more people. Just like everyone else except DC. Hell they even have equal if not more power in the Senate compared to California or NY. DC doesnt have any. Those states do take up more tax dollars than they give though in any case. DC pays more in taxes than those states combined.
                                                  Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 01-27-2021, 04:12 PM.
                                                  "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                                  Comment


                                                  • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                                                    ???. They already have their Constituionally based representation.
                                                    So does DC.
                                                    Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                    Comment


                                                    • Originally posted by NorthDakota View Post
                                                      So does DC.
                                                      No they dont.
                                                      "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                                      Comment


                                                      • Texas is too big. Break them up into five states with Houston, Dallas/Fort Worth, San Antonio with the western part of the state into two others - Amarillo and El Paso.

                                                        Comment


                                                        • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                                                          No they dont.
                                                          Yes, they do. This isn't hard.
                                                          Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                          Comment


                                                          • DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

                                                            It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.

                                                            Comment


                                                            • Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
                                                              DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

                                                              It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.
                                                              They've always had the representation that they are constitutionally given...none. Tbh they really shouldn't even be allowed electoral votes but that it was it is at this point.

                                                              Its 1000% a ploy for extra Senate seats, like you said, the furthest anyone there needs to move is 5 miles if having the ability to vote for real congressmen is that important to them.

                                                              The part that is telling is that they don't want to join Maryland, they'd probably rather be a District than a part of the Maryland.

                                                              LAX's suggestion of trimming down the district and returning the rest to MD is the only acceptable solution outside of leaving things the way they are.
                                                              Based Mullet Kid owns

                                                              Comment


                                                              • Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
                                                                DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

                                                                It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.
                                                                DC's poverty rate of 16.8% is third in the nation behind Mississippi and Louisiana. Those can't move out. New Mexico is fourth at 16.6%. Their total Medicaid enrollment is 238,900.

                                                                They have no say in the disbursement of federal revenue. "Taxastion without (voting) representation" comes to mind. Race - White 46%, African American 46%. White includes Hispanic, Latino. Without those, DC white population is 37%. A minority majority area.
                                                                Last edited by Legacy; 01-27-2021, 04:59 PM.

                                                                Comment


                                                                • I love how we're willing to add and divide states willy nilly style for power, but my idea to have a divorce and go our own ways isn't serious.
                                                                  Running the damn ball since 2017.

                                                                  Comment


                                                                  • Adding states has always been political. Pre civil war we didnt annex the DR and Cuba because of fears we'd have too many slave states. The reason we have 2 dakotas, wyoming and many small mountain west states is Republican legislative domination and desire to tip the scales at the electoral college and senate levels. Hawaii and Alaska were added together to assuage the parties because at the time everyone knew Hawaii would end up a hard republican state and Alaska a deep deep blue democratic state. Just goes to show partisan alignments change.

                                                                    The reason DC doesn't just join maryland is maryland doesn't want them for financial reason (the poverty level makes it a money hole).

                                                                    With the current coalitions the tipping point senate seat is R+6. If PR and DC were added it would be R+3. Cry me a river.

                                                                    Comment


                                                                    • Originally posted by BilboBaggins View Post


                                                                      Unemployment doesn't show any noticeable Trump impact either...and I assume we don't need to discuss the fact that wage growth happens in a tight labor market, right? I'd just like to see some specific policies that directly lifted the wages of lower/middle class Americans....I have a feeling that police is "voila! 4% unemployment, the secret recipe!"



                                                                      If we're going to remove 2009 and start in 2010, well then "Obama's" manufacturing numbers would look terrific:



                                                                      But of course the real answer is that China's rising wages and the US falling energy prices due to fracking started encouraging manufacturers to relocate and/or expand in the US instead of Asia. There were plenty of articles in 2013/2014 about the manufacturing resurgence that industrial site selectors were noticing.

                                                                      I wouldn't give Obama a ton of credit for fracking and China's middle income issues, just as I wouldn't heap a huge amount of praise on Trump for tariffing the hell out of industrial inputs like steal.

                                                                      Fact is, Presidents' impact on the overall economy is much grayer than people who argument politics like to suggest.

                                                                      You mentioned Trump and credit for the rising stock market (which was at a record high the month he took office lol) but you left out the impact of the Fed's interest rates decisions making bonds and savings accounts dreadful invests and therefor pushing investments into stocks and real estate.
                                                                      Ah Buster, wouldn't be the same without ya.

                                                                      1. The first thing Trump did when he took office was he lowered corporate taxes and rolled back regulations. This led to private sector growth in our economy.

                                                                      2. It's accurate that a tight labor market led to low unemployment and higher wages. When more jobs are open than people available to fill them, this is a good problem to have.

                                                                      3. As I said yesterday, government doesn't create jobs. Government policies make it harder or easier for businesses to operate. Based on the results from Trump's economic policies, I would argue the dumb orange man had a better formula than the community organizer's $787 billion stimulus.
                                                                      The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                      Comment


                                                                      • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
                                                                        You're right. Because my argument was that Trump basically had the same delta as Obama (delta means rate of change btw).

                                                                        So was Obama better than all presidents before him? GW? Clinton? This is just straight up illogical.

                                                                        Yeah, I agree if Cuomo and Newsome had of taken the DeSantis approach then CA/NY would have swung to the GOP. Totally sane argument LOL Big Aubrey Huff fan???
                                                                        Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.

                                                                        Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.

                                                                        Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.
                                                                        The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                        Comment


                                                                        • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                          Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.

                                                                          Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.

                                                                          Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.
                                                                          The stimulus was passed under W.

                                                                          Comment


                                                                          • Originally posted by GoIrish41 View Post
                                                                            The stimulus was passed under W.
                                                                            The $787B package was Obama.

                                                                            https://www.politico.com/story/2009/...us-bill-018837

                                                                            Comment


                                                                            • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                              Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.

                                                                              Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.

                                                                              Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.
                                                                              Waittttt what happened during 2008 and bled into 2009??? lmao it's too easy.

                                                                              "Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator." - What is this supposed to mean? Are you agreeing that it's dumb to say "Hrrr President X is best cuz market was highest" or do you actually believe that a president's economic policy success should be judged by the stock market?

                                                                              No, your point was that NY/CA restricted their citizens to hurt Trump. So walk the whole class through your point here, because this going to be a hell of an explanation.

                                                                              Comment


                                                                              • The term "China Virus" has now been officially canceled. I will now sleep well tonight.

                                                                                Comment


                                                                                • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                  Ah Buster, wouldn't be the same without ya.

                                                                                  1. The first thing Trump did when he took office was he lowered corporate taxes and rolled back regulations. This led to private sector growth in our economy.
                                                                                  Did we experience the same 2017? The "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017" was signed in November. Ten months into office. After the economy was roaring straight through 2017.

                                                                                  Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                  2. It's accurate that a tight labor market led to low unemployment and higher wages.
                                                                                  Glad we agree on settled economics and understand why crediting Donald Trump for increased wages is ridiculous.

                                                                                  Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                  When more jobs are open than people available to fill them, this is a good problem to have.
                                                                                  And here I thought the slogan for the GOP's education plan was "make it harder for people to obtain a college education," but you've nailed a better slogan.

                                                                                  Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                  3. As I said yesterday, government doesn't create jobs. Government policies make it harder or easier for businesses to operate. Based on the results from Trump's economic policies, I would argue the dumb orange man had a better formula than the community organizer's $787 billion stimulus.
                                                                                  ...every industrialized economy is one big complicated public-private partnership. Come on man this can't be news to ya.

                                                                                  "Government Consumption Expenditure and Gross Investment" was $3.8 TRILLION of the US GDP. "Gross Private Domestic Investment" was 3.7 TRILLION.

                                                                                  When government "wastes" money, it doesn't take it out behind the Capitol and lite it on fire, it pays someone to do something. Put the roof on a prison, build a tank, pave a highway, extend a pipe, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. You could argue it's not efficient, but you cannot state that government doesn't create jobs and expect to be taken seriously.

                                                                                  By the way "Personal Consumption Expenditure" was a whopping $14.4 TRILLION of GDP, dwarfing all government and corporate investment combined. Turns out, making life easier on the middle class is the easiest way to grow the economy.

                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                  • Originally posted by Cackalacky2.0 View Post
                                                                                    I d rather just have two dirt poor states that take up liberal tax dollars than four.

                                                                                    I see this thrown around a lot, certain states getting more tax dollars than they contribute. This is the United States though, and most states contribute in their own way. New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island bring in big bucks per capita, but they also produce very little agriculture. Obviously they don't have the acreage some of the bigger states have, but I would guess the weather isn't always as accommodating too with shorter favorable seasons. Roughly 20 of the top 25 ag states are red, although California leads them all. Can't live off just wine though! I'm joking obviously.

                                                                                    In any case, there's two sides to the coin here. I haven't seen where they outline how those federal dollars are spent, I'd be interested to see that. I'm sure much of it goes to assistance with jobless, but I wonder how much federal aid goes directly to farmers. They make very little on their sales and many have to rely on government. An NPR article said farmers received $19 billion from the government in 2019.

                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                    • Originally posted by ab2cmiller View Post
                                                                                      DC hasn't had "representation" forever. But that's the way that it was designed originally.

                                                                                      It's hard to believe that the arguments of "representation" are a strong belief by those that choose to live there. If you really cared about representation, you could choose to live just a short distance from where they currently live. Every single person in DC has the opportunity to move just 5 miles away from where they currently call home and BINGO they have representation. Sorry, this feels more like playing politics to get two extra Dem Senators.
                                                                                      LOL........Reading through this banter on whether D.C., this is one of the first things I thought of.

                                                                                      Comment


                                                                                      • Originally posted by ulukinatme View Post
                                                                                        I see this thrown around a lot, certain states getting more tax dollars than they contribute. This is the United States though, and most states contribute in their own way. New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island bring in big bucks per capita, but they also produce very little agriculture. Obviously they don't have the acreage some of the bigger states have, but I would guess the weather isn't always as accommodating too with shorter favorable seasons. Roughly 20 of the top 25 ag states are red, although California leads them all. Can't live off just wine though! I'm joking obviously.

                                                                                        In any case, there's two sides to the coin here. I haven't seen where they outline how those federal dollars are spent, I'd be interested to see that. I'm sure much of it goes to assistance with jobless, but I wonder how much federal aid goes directly to farmers. They make very little on their sales and many have to rely on government. An NPR article said farmers received $19 billion from the government in 2019.
                                                                                        Yeah I think they just add up all federal spending and subtract the federal taxes paid.

                                                                                        IMO the farmers are probably a net negative in some places as the government subsidized the bejeezus out of HFCS.

                                                                                        Comment


                                                                                        • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                          Obama took office, passed a stimulus, and unemployment went up. Trump took office and we had a record low unemployment. I'll leave it at that.
                                                                                          This is a take fit for AM radio. You really do subscribe to the idea that Presidents and governors are economic dictators lolol

                                                                                          Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                          Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator.
                                                                                          What exactly is the stock market an indicator of when unemployment ballooned during the pandemic and the stock market experience a hiccup and then went on a tear for record highs? 2020 made it pretty damn apparent that Wall Street and Main Street are very, very disconnected.

                                                                                          You still haven't commented on the inflationary side effect of record low interest rates. Economists I read say they drive up asset prices, like stocks and...

                                                                                          Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                          Cuomo and Newsome are running states that ranked 1 and 2 in 2020 for the highest number of people leaving for other states. They're gonna miss that tax revenue.
                                                                                          ...housing prices. If California governors could overturn the property tax regulations and NIMBYism that stifle development. They really have a simmering emergency on their hands as people just cannot afford to live there.

                                                                                          But as for the California economy as a whole, it does a lot wrong with regulatory madness, but at the end of the day it's still an economic powerhouse and did just fine in the 2010s leading up to the pandemic. Of course that GDP is also inflated by increased housing prices. Economics is complicated lol

                                                                                          <iframe src="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/graph-landing.php?g=wGXW&width=670&height=475" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; width:670px; height:525px;" allowTransparency="true" loading="lazy"></iframe>
                                                                                          Last edited by BilboBaggins; 01-28-2021, 10:30 AM.

                                                                                          Comment


                                                                                          • https://wallethub.com/edu/states-mos...overnment/2700

                                                                                            This was the source of the image. If you read through it does appear they look at taxes collected versus payouts in various forms. Not sure if that is what you are getting at though. Good point though ulk and BB.

                                                                                            State Residents’ Dependency – Total Points: 50
                                                                                            Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government: Triple Weight (~37.50 Points)
                                                                                            Note: This metric was calculated by dividing federal funding in U.S. dollars by IRS collections in U.S. dollars.
                                                                                            Share of Federal Jobs: Full Weight (~12.50 Points)
                                                                                            State Government’s Dependency – Total Points: 50
                                                                                            Federal Funding as a Share of State Revenue: Full Weight (~50.00 Points)
                                                                                            Note: This metric reflects the proportion of state revenue that comes from the federal government in the form of intergovernmental aid in 2017.


                                                                                            The following metrics were included in the infographic above for context only. They represent subsets of federal funding and are reflected in the first two metrics.

                                                                                            “Federal Contracts” divided by “IRS Collections”
                                                                                            “Grants” divided by “IRS Collections”
                                                                                            “Other Financial Assistance” divided by “IRS Collections”
                                                                                            Last edited by Cackalacky2.0; 01-28-2021, 09:05 AM.
                                                                                            "From Chaos comes Clarity"

                                                                                            Comment


                                                                                            • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
                                                                                              Waittttt what happened during 2008 and bled into 2009??? lmao it's too easy.

                                                                                              "Stock market isn't everything, but it's something and a strong indicator." - What is this supposed to mean? Are you agreeing that it's dumb to say "Hrrr President X is best cuz market was highest" or do you actually believe that a president's economic policy success should be judged by the stock market?

                                                                                              No, your point was that NY/CA restricted their citizens to hurt Trump. So walk the whole class through your point here, because this going to be a hell of an explanation.
                                                                                              Obama stimulus was passed in 2009. Unemployment went up in 2010.

                                                                                              The stock market doesn't tell the whole story of our economy, but it is something. No, a president shouldn't be judged on that alone. But it shouldn't be completely disregarded either just because you don't like the guy.
                                                                                              The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                                              Comment


                                                                                              • Originally posted by GoIrish41 View Post
                                                                                                The stimulus was passed under W.
                                                                                                And you're a classroom teacher? lol
                                                                                                The yellow mustard pants are hideous and have to go.

                                                                                                Comment


                                                                                                • Originally posted by Polish Leppy 22 View Post
                                                                                                  Obama stimulus was passed in 2009. Unemployment went up in 2010.

                                                                                                  The stock market doesn't tell the whole story of our economy, but it is something. No, a president shouldn't be judged on that alone. But it shouldn't be completely disregarded either just because you don't like the guy.
                                                                                                  Unless you have "alternative facts" this is wrong, https://www.bls.gov/charts/employmen...yment-rate.htm

                                                                                                  Didn't say it should be disregarded, just a lot more factors at play.

                                                                                                  Dodged again - yes or no, did Gavin Newsome and Andrew Cuomo try to hurt Trump by imposing stricter restrictions than other states? If they didn't impose the restrictions do you believe that Trump would have been competitive in those states?

                                                                                                  Comment


                                                                                                  • Originally posted by TorontoGold View Post
                                                                                                    Unless you have "alternative facts" this is wrong, https://www.bls.gov/charts/employmen...yment-rate.htm

                                                                                                    Didn't say it should be disregarded, just a lot more factors at play.
                                                                                                    Leppy and Co are literally comparing 2010 vs 2017 as an indicator of who was the better economic President. All one can do is lol and smfh.

                                                                                                    Comment


                                                                                                    • Originally posted by BilboBaggins View Post
                                                                                                      Leppy and Co are literally comparing 2010 vs 2017 as an indicator of who was the better economic President. All one can do is lol and smfh.
                                                                                                      Never thought I'd say it, but I miss YJ, at least he made sense and gave specifics to why he thought Trump's economic policies were good. He never just read off the Hannity provided list of Trump economic policy success lmao.

                                                                                                      Currently three lingering questions that three posters haven't answered since they made them.

                                                                                                      Leppy - CA/NY imposed tougher restrictions so that it could hurt Trump.
                                                                                                      Drayer - Long lines at polling stations is caused by Dems trying to vote twice - an all timer right there
                                                                                                      RDU - Transexuals are making women unsafe in bathrooms.

                                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                                      Adsense

                                                                                                      Collapse
                                                                                                      Working...
                                                                                                      X