Yeah, but the dope he roped was himself. Trump was highly strategic in this debate. He didn't do anything to alienate his base and he goaded Biden into taking positions that are going to piss off the Bernie/AOC faction.Originally Posted by Wynnpleasure775
Last edited by mickeycrimm; 09-29-2020 at 08:47 PM.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
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.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
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.
Last edited by redietz; 10-01-2020 at 09:50 AM.
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.Originally Posted by redietzOriginally Posted by mickeycrimm
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.
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?
Last edited by mickeycrimm; 10-01-2020 at 12:33 PM.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
In order to vote there should be a law and it should be enforced that 1) you have to have a high-school diploma; 2) you have to be criminal background free; 3) you have to be able to stand in one place for more than 5 minutes without getting a text or having to text or talk to somebody on the phone.
Then you'll be able to vote.
Not that I disagree, but that would eliminate half the electorate.Originally Posted by Wynnpleasure775
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?Originally Posted by mickeycrimmComrade 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.Originally Posted by redietzOriginally Posted by mickeycrimm
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.
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?
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.
It's ironic that marxist Dietz brought up whose paying for what. Like he gives a shit.Originally Posted by DeechI 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?Originally Posted by mickeycrimmComrade 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.Originally Posted by redietz
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?
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.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
What is the source of these numbers? I am looking to see which states get an excess of money per capita over what they pay to the IRS. It sounds like this is what you're describing. Would love to see that list. I have some theories myself.Originally Posted by DeechI 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?Originally Posted by mickeycrimmComrade 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.Originally Posted by redietz
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?
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.
Basically the Senate is a screwy institution, created when it was all land and natural resources used to calculate a state's economic value. States weren't THAT different. Now industrial then digital type cities bring in far more capita per resident but are stuck at same level of representation. It is goofed. Flyover states can have a tiny population compared to booming larger states, but they'll forever be at the same representation in the Senate.
This in turn gives these small largely irrelevant states far too much leverage. So I'd assume the're paid more per capita or the just elected shitty Senators.
I have no idea what possessed me to wander off into the internet last night. I guess I wanted to prove to myself that the larger populated states pay more federal taxes. Secondly, if California received more federal help than taxes paid, what other states had this imbalance?Originally Posted by accountinquestionWhat is the source of these numbers? I am looking to see which states get an excess of money per capita over what they pay to the IRS. It sounds like this is what you're describing. Would love to see that list. I have some theories myself.Originally Posted by DeechI 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?Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
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.
Basically the Senate is a screwy institution, created when it was all land and natural resources used to calculate a state's economic value. States weren't THAT different. Now industrial then digital type cities bring in far more capita per resident but are stuck at same level of representation. It is goofed. Flyover states can have a tiny population compared to booming larger states, but they'll forever be at the same representation in the Senate.
This in turn gives these small largely irrelevant states far too much leverage. So I'd assume the're paid more per capita or the just elected shitty Senators.
Generally, I will spend an hour or so doing random research. This article from USA Today written by a gentleman from 24/7 Wall Street was perfect for the data I desired. I found it in two minutes.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ment/39202299/
Of the four data points for each state, the two most beneficial, for me, were the Federal funds given back to the state (with the state's ranking) and the actual money theoretically received per resident of the state. Regarding the top ten states by population, there were no outrageous anomalies. The 8th most populous state, Georgia, had the 12th biggest federal return dollars but Virginia, the 12th most populous state garnered the 5th most federal money. Otherwise, things were in line.
In my heart, I believe every state will be overcompensated at some point. It is wild that in 2017 the top 40 states were given more federal money than they had paid. Red was correct when he stated that the larger states pay more federal taxes. Yes, MC is correct that CA received more federal help than they paid in 2017. Again, 40 states were in this category (which is ridiculous to me).
For myself, finding this article was enlightening as it showed that most states (outside of Virginia and Kentucky) were not given some big pork barrel gratuity. I do wish that we get back to determining how to maintain a balanced budget, but with COVID and the egos of both political parties, a balanced budget may not be presented in my lifetime.
Hey Deech! You make some nice posts. I'm one of the few actual liberals on this board and know that we often disagree politically. We don't seem to disagree much about facts though. Please post on. I actually learn stuff from you.
It will collapse first. I've been reading and learning more about quantitative easing and how The Fed keeps pulling tricks. Eventually they will need to get rid of cash and then they can start charging people negative interest rates as their last and final incentive. There is talk about it here and there, but they've went through most of the possible tricks already. Now they've increased the target rate of inflation. America has it great being the reserve currency for so much world wealth. It keeps demand for dollars high and Americans live a very lucky life. Most have no clue and think this is how it is supposed to be but no, America is in a very special spot.Originally Posted by DeechI have no idea what possessed me to wander off into the internet last night. I guess I wanted to prove to myself that the larger populated states pay more federal taxes. Secondly, if California received more federal help than taxes paid, what other states had this imbalance?Originally Posted by accountinquestionWhat is the source of these numbers? I am looking to see which states get an excess of money per capita over what they pay to the IRS. It sounds like this is what you're describing. Would love to see that list. I have some theories myself.Originally Posted by Deech
Basically the Senate is a screwy institution, created when it was all land and natural resources used to calculate a state's economic value. States weren't THAT different. Now industrial then digital type cities bring in far more capita per resident but are stuck at same level of representation. It is goofed. Flyover states can have a tiny population compared to booming larger states, but they'll forever be at the same representation in the Senate.
This in turn gives these small largely irrelevant states far too much leverage. So I'd assume the're paid more per capita or the just elected shitty Senators.
Generally, I will spend an hour or so doing random research. This article from USA Today written by a gentleman from 24/7 Wall Street was perfect for the data I desired. I found it in two minutes.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ment/39202299/
Of the four data points for each state, the two most beneficial, for me, were the Federal funds given back to the state (with the state's ranking) and the actual money theoretically received per resident of the state. Regarding the top ten states by population, there were no outrageous anomalies. The 8th most populous state, Georgia, had the 12th biggest federal return dollars but Virginia, the 12th most populous state garnered the 5th most federal money. Otherwise, things were in line.
In my heart, I believe every state will be overcompensated at some point. It is wild that in 2017 the top 40 states were given more federal money than they had paid. Red was correct when he stated that the larger states pay more federal taxes. Yes, MC is correct that CA received more federal help than they paid in 2017. Again, 40 states were in this category (which is ridiculous to me).
For myself, finding this article was enlightening as it showed that most states (outside of Virginia and Kentucky) were not given some big pork barrel gratuity. I do wish that we get back to determining how to maintain a balanced budget, but with COVID and the egos of both political parties, a balanced budget may not be presented in my lifetime.
Wasilla, I stumble into researching comments that are stated. I love to learn. Again, I am an independent, so do not state that we disagree politically, at least on most things. I will likely have to comment on items in the other political thread. It will not be from a conservative position.Originally Posted by wasilla
I love data. Politicians work with data, but like this website, no two individuals may view the data with the same opinion. But I read so many articles each day, it is great to be able to pull/post something that adds to the conversation. The trouble is, the more I read, the more an opinion forms, which ruins impartiality. Then again, multiple information allows us to form opinions, even if we disagree. I just love providing information that makes all of us think.
I remember and liked when we use to have different opinions over the same facts. I think that's healthy. I like your posts because I believe that you strive to be factual. Our opinions way converge or diverge from there, but we can have a reasonable discussion.
[QUOTE=Deech;113478][QUOTE=accountinquestion;113477]Totally agree Deech. I'm may be extremely cynical, but I don't see it happening. Between political expediency and the modern level of people's expectation to receive help from government, there isn't enough pie to go around. Not to mention one party's wish list would make it all but impossible to balance budget even with a 90% income tax.Originally Posted by Deech
Money is the politician's dope. They are money fiends. They can never get enough. A balanced budget is now a pipe dream. It will never happen again.
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
I agree Mickey. It’s often said that politicians are real generous with other people’s money. They’re not generous at all, they are just throwing back a few crumbs of the public largesse to remain in power.Originally Posted by mickeycrimm
Awesome presidential candidate:
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
China Joe at it again:
Challenge to redietz. We bet every NFL regular season game. You make the picks. If you lay the fav I get 2 extra points. If you take the dog I get a 2 point discount. Easy pickings for you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote