Octopus Overlords

I've got a new tax.

The freedom tax to be imposed on Canada and all the other countries who rise and sleep under the blanket of freedom we provide.

I figure what the heck it is worth a shot. If things get to bad I have learned one thing from our immigration problem. If things get to bad migrate north where they have more free stuff.

Rip wrote:I've got a new tax.

The freedom tax to be imposed on Canada and all the other countries who rise and sleep under the blanket of freedom we provide.

I figure what the heck it is worth a shot. If things get to bad I have learned one thing from our immigration problem. If things get to bad migrate north where they have more free stuff.

Free is a misnomer. We pay for it.

If you like taxes, Canada is the place to be.

Trump's tax plan broadly mirrors that of one of his main rivals: Jeb Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/politics/ ... index.html

em2nought wrote:Republicans need to get smart. New tax form, check off what party you belong to at top. Two separate worksheets. Democrats get all the tax increases they want by paying the taxes themselves. Republicans get all the tax cuts they want. Win, win!

Given that most of the red states are the biggest recipients of tax dollars, that plan is fine if we can also not give any of those Republicans a single benefit of taxes too. I think that would trim off a lot of the stupid rhetoric really quickly.

Well yeah, obviously if you don't pay the taxes you don't get the benefits of those taxes. Win/win.

I'd vote for that.

It would also be necessary for Red states to give up federally subsidized industries like defense, utilities, and oil/gas production.

Holman wrote:It would also be necessary for Red states to give up federally subsidized industries like defense, utilities, and oil/gas production.

Why only the Red states? The red states weren't spared from Obama's shitty ideas, why should the blue states be spared from Trump's shitty ideas?

El Guapo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:So basically less taxes for everyone, but mostly for the wealthy, with zero way to pay for it.

Kick that can.

This is a pretty common campaign tactic these days - promise broad tax relief, release a plan with large, specific tax cuts that will accrue largely to the wealthy, but promise to pay for them through vague "tax break cutbacks", even though typically the math for doing so is impossible.

However, I suspect that this may be damaging to Trump given the stark contrast with his populist campaign rhetoric.

Of course, given that Trump's competitors are largely doing the same thing in terms of their tax plans, it may be awkward and difficult for them to take advantage of this.

Yeah, and I guess it's easier for Trump to make that asinine tax promise because he's filed for chapter 11 so many times.

The only thing that saved him was that his debts were so big the banks were better off helping him sell bonds than taking what small pittance they could from him. So "owe a lot or fail" and "let someone else pick up the pieces" is kind of his thing.

ABC in 2011 wrote:"Here's a guy who's failed so miserably so many times and it's not as though he had to claw his way back after seven years in credit hell. He just said. 'OK, this isn't my problem anymore.' For him, it's just been a platform to the next money-making scheme," said Dough Heller, the executive director of Consumer Watchdog.

...

"People knew who Donald Trump was and for that reason were willing to trust the bonds, and they got burned," LoPucki said. "The people who invested with him or based on his name lost money, but he himself came out pretty well."

Deja vu again and again and again...

Binktopia wrote:Donald Trump Is Not Going Anywhere via NYTIMES

Yea, that is really long. Someone grab an intern.

There was a blurb on the news this morning that Trump is polling a double-digit deficit against either Clinton or Biden (I guess Sanders doesn't get any respect). Apparently, two others, while still losing, poll better for a general election at this time.

Rip wrote:
Why only the Red states? The red states weren't spared from Obama's shitty ideas, why should the blue states be spared from Trump's shitty ideas?

em2nought wrote:Republicans need to get smart. New tax form, check off what party you belong to at top. Two separate worksheets. Democrats get all the tax increases they want by paying the taxes themselves. Republicans get all the tax cuts they want. Win, win!

In em2nought's world where only Democrats shoulder the tax burden, then the already freeloading red states would have to give up all the benefits they get from my tax dollars.

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
Why only the Red states? The red states weren't spared from Obama's shitty ideas, why should the blue states be spared from Trump's shitty ideas?

em2nought wrote:Republicans need to get smart. New tax form, check off what party you belong to at top. Two separate worksheets. Democrats get all the tax increases they want by paying the taxes themselves. Republicans get all the tax cuts they want. Win, win!

In em2nought's world where only Democrats shoulder the tax burden, then the already freeloading red states would have to give up all the benefits they get from my tax dollars.

Gladly. All the freeloaders would leave and head to blue states.

Those that would prefer to work and be rewarded for their labors could go red.

Sounds like a win-win.

Rip wrote:

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
Why only the Red states? The red states weren't spared from Obama's shitty ideas, why should the blue states be spared from Trump's shitty ideas?

em2nought wrote:Republicans need to get smart. New tax form, check off what party you belong to at top. Two separate worksheets. Democrats get all the tax increases they want by paying the taxes themselves. Republicans get all the tax cuts they want. Win, win!

In em2nought's world where only Democrats shoulder the tax burden, then the already freeloading red states would have to give up all the benefits they get from my tax dollars.

Gladly. All the freeloaders would leave and head to blue states.

Those that would prefer to work and be rewarded for their labors could go red.

Sounds like a win-win.

Right. Because despite blue states who vote democrat requiring less government handouts, it's the moochers in the red states that vote Republican that are the root of all the Democrat evil.

Do you even hear yourself? How on earth are you capable of the mental gymnastics required to say the things you say?

The only thing that needs to change is for red states to stop taking government handouts. Em2's world becomes real and Red states reap what they sow. Just stop taking government handouts. Talk to your representative Rip. It should be easy.

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
Why only the Red states? The red states weren't spared from Obama's shitty ideas, why should the blue states be spared from Trump's shitty ideas?

em2nought wrote:Republicans need to get smart. New tax form, check off what party you belong to at top. Two separate worksheets. Democrats get all the tax increases they want by paying the taxes themselves. Republicans get all the tax cuts they want. Win, win!

In em2nought's world where only Democrats shoulder the tax burden, then the already freeloading red states would have to give up all the benefits they get from my tax dollars.

Gladly. All the freeloaders would leave and head to blue states.

Those that would prefer to work and be rewarded for their labors could go red.

Sounds like a win-win.

Right. Because despite blue states who vote democrat requiring less government handouts, it's the moochers in the red states that vote Republican that are the root of all the Democrat evil.

Do you even hear yourself? How on earth are you capable of the mental gymnastics required to say the things you say?

The only thing that needs to change is for red states to stop taking government handouts. Em2's world becomes real and Red states reap what they sow. Just stop taking government handouts. Talk to your representative Rip. It should be easy.

What makes you think the moochers in the red states are Republicans? We have Democrats that mooch, see New Orleans.

Besides the numbers you are using are deceptive at best.

http://www.youngcons.com/liberals-love- ... s-baloney/

The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state. But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case. PBS states, “In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars.

About 1.3% of the nation are on welfare proper. I say proper because there are a whole treasure trove of backdoor welfare programs that don’t have the welfare label (think food stamps, tax credits and Social Security Disability), but I hope to run some analysis in the future if I can find all of these datasets. If the welfare population were uniformly distributed across the nation then each state would have 1.3% of their population on welfare. But what we find is that Democratic states have 24% more representation than the national average after adjusting for population size while Republicans have 43% less. And this is even giving Democrats Florida, which is one of the most evenly divided states in the union. Without Florida going to either party, Democratic states would be overrepresented by 33.7%. A shocking fact is that a full third of the welfare cases in the nation come just from the state of California, yet they only represent 12% of the nation’s population.

What else? We also know that Republicans earn about 40% more income than Democrats, on average. Voter exit polls for the most recent election showed that 63% of the sub $30,000 per year vote went to Obama and Obama voters were less likely to have jobs (and were younger). From a recent NPR poll surveying the long term unemployed, the Democrat’s proportion is twice that of Republicans.

Liberals repeatedly question why conservatives “vote against their own interests.” But maybe the simple answer is because they aren’t. Think about it, who would? The answer to this ‘paradox’ is because the ones who are actually voting for Republicans aren’t mooching off the government. The Occam’s razor answer was staring them right in the face the whole time, but they either couldn’t see the facts, or deliberately ignored them for their agenda.

Rip wrote:What makes you think the moochers in the red states are Republicans?

It's just that all the states that consistantly vote republican (red states) also have all these statistics that make them look like they make the MOST USE of these handouts and from what I've seen - just the most use of federally collected taxes in general. (moochers)

and if they aren't moochers - they are just suckers voting for policies that only support the richest of the rich and the corporate world, while they cling to their guns and religion, which the Republican party has been smart to corner the market on.

States least/most dependent on the federal government:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-l ... n-findings

Unagi wrote:

Rip wrote:What makes you think the moochers in the red states are Republicans?

It's just that all the states that consistantly vote republican (red states) also have all these statistics that make them look like they make the MOST USE of these handouts and from what I've seen - just the most use of federally collected taxes in general. (moochers)

and if they aren't moochers - they are just suckers voting for policies that only support the richest of the rich and the corporate world, while they cling to their guns and religion, which the Republican party has been smart to corner the market on.

I wouldn't call them suckers. As you state, they make the most use of handouts. We're suckers for not calling them on small government agendas while consistently spending more than they contribute to the tax base.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-l ... ment/2700/

Take your pick from any source you choose

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=st ... s+received

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mo ... per+capita

Unagi wrote:States least/most dependent on the federal government:

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-l ... n-findings

What the hell? Who do you think you are, Izzy?

Rip wrote:
Besides the numbers you are using are deceptive at best.

http://www.youngcons.com/liberals-love- ... s-baloney/

The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state. But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case. PBS states, “In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars.

So where does the rest of the money go? Defense is not the majority of Federal spending so what happens to that remaining spending (Medicare/aid/healthcare, Social security, Discretionary, etc)?

Rip wrote:

About 1.3% of the nation are on welfare proper. I say proper because there are a whole treasure trove of backdoor welfare programs that don’t have the welfare label (think food stamps, tax credits and Social Security Disability), but I hope to run some analysis in the future if I can find all of these datasets. If the welfare population were uniformly distributed across the nation then each state would have 1.3% of their population on welfare. But what we find is that Democratic states have 24% more representation than the national average after adjusting for population size while Republicans have 43% less. And this is even giving Democrats Florida, which is one of the most evenly divided states in the union. Without Florida going to either party, Democratic states would be overrepresented by 33.7%. A shocking fact is that a full third of the welfare cases in the nation come just from the state of California, yet they only represent 12% of the nation’s population.

California contributes more than any other state to the national GDP and Federal tax revenue. Guess that's not worth mentioning.

And why is his method of calculation based on spreading welfare evenly across the nation and then comparing that fantasyland number to real-world, population adjusted spending? If someone takes gives you $10n and takes $9n, are they mooching more or less than someone that gives you $4n and takes $5n? By his calculation the first person is the bigger moocher despite them giving you a net surplus and the second person actually taking money from you.

Rip wrote:

What else? We also know that Republicans earn about 40% more income than Democrats, on average. Voter exit polls for the most recent election showed that 63% of the sub $30,000 per year vote went to Obama and Obama voters were less likely to have jobs (and were younger). From a recent NPR poll surveying the long term unemployed, the Democrat’s proportion is twice that of Republicans.

Liberals repeatedly question why conservatives “vote against their own interests.” But maybe the simple answer is because they aren’t. Think about it, who would? The answer to this ‘paradox’ is because the ones who are actually voting for Republicans aren’t mooching off the government. The Occam’s razor answer was staring them right in the face the whole time, but they either couldn’t see the facts, or deliberately ignored them for their agenda.

Who says that? This seems like a strawman. I don't think the primary complaint about conservatives is that they vote against their best interests.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Rip wrote:
Besides the numbers you are using are deceptive at best.

http://www.youngcons.com/liberals-love- ... s-baloney/

The problem with both of those claims is that it doesn’t get to the heart of what “mooching” is. The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare. Actual welfare and poverty programs only amount to about 10% of the expenditures at the federal level. Now if a state received only funds for poverty programs, then you could claim that it is a welfare state. But unfortunately for their argument, this is not this case. PBS states, “In all but a handful of states, Department of Defense dollars account for by far the majority of federal dollars.

So where does the rest of the money go? Defense is not the majority of Federal spending so what happens to that remaining spending (Medicare/aid/healthcare, Social security, Discretionary, etc)?

I wanted to see the proof that it's baloney but I didn't trust the hostage advertising the site posts. I saw in the two or three seconds I had to read before I got blocked by their subscription stuff, I couldn't find anything that looked like proof.

I went to look up the proof from an independent site. Even thought the original problem was pork, not welfare, I'll went with welfare because that's the current goal post....

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=we ... per+capita


Red and blue look pretty even when it comes to disability:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_we ... per-capita

Red seems to way outpace blue when it comes to non disability welfare

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/per ... /21877399/

LawBeefaroni wrote: California contributes more than any other state to the national GDP and Federal tax revenue. Guess that's not worth mentioning.

Lol.

Also, I now resent youngcons and facebook , as clicking on the link is now filling my facebook with their propaganda spam as if it's news or "related articles", and their headlines pretty much show them them to be tripe.

GreenGoo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: California contributes more than any other state to the national GDP and Federal tax revenue. Guess that's not worth mentioning.

Lol.

They also get a massive chunk of things like defense spending.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Docume ... Report.pdf

It isn't a coincidence the the largest defense contractors are in blue states.

Which is why we end up with a military made up of over-engineered, overpriced crap like the F-35.

While soldiers and veterans get the shaft.

Rip wrote:It isn't a coincidence the the largest defense contractors are in blue states.

Which is why we end up with a military made up of over-engineered, overpriced crap like the F-35.

While soldiers and veterans get the shaft.

This is unmitigated, unsupported bullshit. And you know it.

Hey, Isg, what we need is a link to an article that shows the biggest recipients of military contracts... and who they are donating to. Being in a blue state does not automatically make every person and company blue.

I agree, that was an impressive level of bullshit.

Rip wrote:It isn't a coincidence the the largest defense contractors are in blue states.

Rip wrote:

The problem with the first claim is that federal spending is made up mostly of defense expenditures at both the federal level and the state level. Defense is not welfare.

If hepcat is reading he must be

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: California contributes more than any other state to the national GDP and Federal tax revenue. Guess that's not worth mentioning.

Lol.

They also get a massive chunk of things like defense spending.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Docume ... Report.pdf

It isn't a coincidence the the largest defense contractors are in blue states.

Which is why we end up with a military made up of over-engineered, overpriced crap like the F-35.

While soldiers and veterans get the shaft.

a) I have no idea how your government doles out defense contracts. I'm surprised they don't go to red states which are traditionally strong supporters of armed forces. My first guess is that Red states are too stupid spent too much effort undermining science in the classroom to make anything beyond toasters, but I could be way off. See, we can both spout nonsense.

b) Your government spending puts as much cash into veterans as it does into education for the entire country. If veterans are getting the shaft, what is education getting?

c) As pointed out in my government spending post, government spending is part of the GDP. *You* might not feel it's a valid indicator of a state's contribution to the GDP, but the economy certainly does, and it doesn't care what you think is real or not real based on your political ideology.

TheMix wrote:Hey, Isg, what we need is a link to an article that shows the biggest recipients of military contracts... and who they are donating to. Being in a blue state does not automatically make every person and company blue.

I agree, that was an impressive level of bullshit.

Federal Procurement Report - Top 100 Contractors Report

Defense Contractor political contributions

There you go. Every one of those states is blue.

Boeing Wash/Ill

Lockheed Martin D.C./MD

Northrop Grumman Virginia

Raytheon Co Mass.

United Technologies CT.

General Dynamics Virginia/CT.

You get the picture.

The states may be blue, but other than one or two blips, the donations to republicans were higher.

Which goes to what I was stating, making sweeping statements at state level is foolish. Although it's clear that you have no problem with that.

Let's talk manufacturing, not HQs.

Lockheed Martin:



Boeing: Everett, WA. & St. Louis, MO

Northrop Grumman VA, MD, CA

Raytheon

Rip wrote:There you go. Every one of those states is blue.

If you think the state where a defense contractor is headquartered is the only state that benefits from their defense contracts, you should really put down the bong, shut down the computer, and go fishing.

Rip wrote: Boeing Wash/Ill

Has 20 times the number of employees in Missouri that it does in Illinois.

Rip wrote: Northrop Grumman Virginia

F-35 (AKA "The Rip Plane") manufactured by Northrop Grumman in Texas

Rip wrote: Raytheon Co Mass.

Raytheon's Factory of The Future is located in Alabama.

Rip wrote: You get the picture.

Ditto. I could go on but you get the picture.

TheMix wrote:The states may be blue, but other than one or two blips, the donations to republicans were higher.

Which goes to what I was stating, making sweeping statements at state level is foolish. Although it's clear that you have no problem with that.

That only works if you think the only people benefiting from all those contracts going to the companies they do is whoever is running it. The states and the people in them make a lot more off of it than the smucks giving out those donations. A giant chunk of the California GDP is defense or defense related. Even better look at Hawaii, it is like half.

Rip wrote: Even better look at Hawaii, it is like half.

If we pulled them all out, the island might flip over.

Rip wrote:

TheMix wrote:The states may be blue, but other than one or two blips, the donations to republicans were higher.

Which goes to what I was stating, making sweeping statements at state level is foolish. Although it's clear that you have no problem with that.

That only works if you think the only people benefiting from all those contracts going to the companies they do is whoever is running it. The states and the people in them make a lot more off of it than the smucks giving out those donations.

Boeing has 800 employees in Illinois. They have over 150,000 total employees.

Rip wrote: A giant chunk of the California GDP is defense or defense related. Even better look at Hawaii, it is like half.

Total crap. Your own DOD source earlier in the thread has Hawaii at like 9%. Which is not like half. California isn't in the top 5 (#5 is Alaska at 5.7%).

Rip wrote:That only works if you think the only people benefiting from all those contracts going to the companies they do is whoever is running it. The states and the people in them make a lot more off of it than the smucks giving out those donations. A giant chunk of the California GDP is defense or defense related. Even better look at Hawaii, it is like half.

Heh. That's an interesting question

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=wh ... l+spending

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-an ... the-states

Rip wrote: A giant chunk of the California GDP is defense or defense related. Even better look at Hawaii, it is like half.

Like I said, total crap:





I mean where do you even come up with this stuff?