Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
Originally Posted by redietz View Post
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm View Post
Comrade Dietz gets hung up on the weirdest things. He like to push his marxist agenda with goading others to bet on outcomes of elections. His latest thing is Biden being -375 to win the popular vote.

In 2016 Hillary garnered 65,853,514 votes according to wiki. Trump got 62,984,828.

But let's remove the California vote from the election. Trump got 58,501,018 and Hillary got 57,099,726 votes. So Trump wins the popular vote if California is excluded.

Now, lets also remove the New York vote. Trump got 55,681,484 votes per the 48 states and Hillary got 52,543,602 votes.

So if you are looking for some action with Comrade Dietz see if he will bet even money on the popular vote with The People's Republics of California and New York excluded.

Dietz' chickenshit ass will be here shortly with a smart ass response.

Mickey makes a lot of sense. If you exclude the populations of California and New York, which financially prop up (in terms of federal money) the rest of the country, then Trump won. Of course, that makes about as much sense as excluding the votes of all non-Hispanic white males over the age of 25. The numbers are about the same.

It is jarring when you think about it. There are as many people in California and New York as there are white non-Hispanic males over the age of 25 in the United States.
Comrade Dietz, what do you do, just make the shit up as you go? The closest year I could find, 2017, California paid 435.6 billion to the feds and the feds paid 436.1 billion to California. Quit with the lying bullshit.

A third of the population draws some form of public assistance. The rich got all the homeless taking a shit in their doorways. LOL! Comrade Dietz, when are you going to leave all those conservatives in Tennessee and move to the People's Republic of California?
I do not enjoy coming out of the bleachers in regards to two gentlemen that I respect. I am a numbers guy. Both Red and MC have correctly used their statistical references. California, New York, and Massachusetts have given more federal money than most states. Yes, California received more money in 2017 than payments. What about NY and MA? How does the inequity of CA receiving a surplus rank against other states in 2017?

Let's face facts. American has been running on a yearly deficit for a number of years. This is not a shot at any administration. It is obvious that the stronger northeastern states along with California and Texas may give larger numbers to the government for taxes. That hopefully is obvious. My question, after reading this blog, is whether the most taxed states (and in some eyes, key Democratic states) have gained an advantage? For 2017, the answer is no.

California did have a .5 billion surplus in 2017 for tax/benefit revenue. 40 states had this benefit in 2017. California was number 40. They had a plus $12 per resident tax/revenue advantage that year. Numbers 41 trough 50 had a negative number per resident. New York was #47 at -$1,792 per resident and Massachusetts was #48 at -$2,343 per resident.

If the premise is that the large Democratic states are supplying the most tax money to the government and are receiving excessive benefits, then California at #40 is guilty. At $12 per person. Montana is receiving $3,808 per person. Number 16 on the list. We are running a deficit. No, I will not blame any individual set of states. Things will get better when we reach fiscal responsibility. Again, not a shot, both parties have the need to spend money, hence the knee jerk reaction to spend money, though both parties are trying to say no.