2020 US Election (Part One)

[Broken_Erika]

I read it too, and i agree that Bobo the Space Monkey is the true hero of the Sparta-Neptune wars.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do either "socialist" or "Hilary" have the sort of clout with swing-voters or non-voters that they do with dedicated Republicans? Especially the latter: Democrats don't win by courting moderates, they won by courting non-voters. Obama provide these decisively; so, as after a fashion, did Clinton. And it's hard to believe that people who's investment in electoral politics does not extend to consistently participation even in presidential elections are going to letting the clichés of the Limbaugh set do their thinking (or thought-terminating) for them.

They actually do have the clout. The disinterested hear the very loud shouts, from both sides. They aren't listening for them, but when they are loud enough they do filter in.

The GOP has been consistently screaming some variation of "Hillary Clinton is the absolute embodiment of evil, just look at..." at the tops of their lungs for thirty frigging years. No one in the US, no matter how apolitical, has said "Hillary Clinton? Who's she?" in most people's lifetime. And the answer for the apolitical, at various times, has been "shrew," "Whitewater," "e-mails," "pay-to-play," "Bengahhhhhhhhzi!!!!!" People who don't pay enough attention to follow up on investigations hear "Hillary" and they are amazed she isn't in prison because the GOP has announced that they have the evidence of her crimes pretty much monthly since before my thirty-something year old kids started high school. So, yeah, asking the politically disinterested to pay enough attention to dismiss all that BS is a big ask.

Meanwhile, "socialism" has been the catchall word for "evil enemy governments" for even longer than that. Once again, the disinterested have never bothered, and probably won't bother, with finding out what it actually is. They've already heard more than enough. More than their disinterested little hearts can stand, actually. So it has immense clout...maybe even more than "Hillary." Keeping in mind that these people call themselves "capitalists" despite most of them not owning more than the immediate roof over their head, if that.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I can't find much data on this. There is a 40-year general social survey (GSS) which found that Republican households had a slightly higher average income than Democrats, meaning that historically Republicans in red and blue states have been net subsidizing the needs of Democrats in red and blue states. I wouldn't be surprised if this situation has changed in the last ten years or so with the continued rise in ultra-wealthy individuals in tech and finance, and the shrinking of the relative size of the private sector vs the public.

The basis of the position is net federal tax paid, by state, v net federal spending, by state. While on an individual level you can say "person X pays more tax than person Y" and hypothesize that it means "person X is subsidizing person Y," you can't actually make that connection without the assumption "government services are provided equally to both," which is most likely a bad assumption. However, by taking it at the state level you can examine net taxes collected and you can examine net federal spending and compare the two, seeing what states are "paying for what they get, plus" and what states aren't...and conclude that the states that aren't are in fact "being subsidized."

Now, you may get citizens in that subsidized state who claim that they personally use no government services at all, no matter who is paying for them. They guard their own house with all their stuff in it, and that house is not on a road and they never leave. They are totally self sustaining, with nothing delivered, ever, and have never signed a contract of any kind. Self educated. Etc etc etc. I usually laugh at such claims, but there will be people making them, no matter what state.

 

[Estebonrober]

The basis of the position is net federal tax paid, by state, v net federal spending, by state. While on an individual level you can say "person X pays more tax than person Y" and hypothesize that it means "person X is subsidizing person Y," you can't actually make that connection without the assumption "government services are provided equally to both," which is most likely a bad assumption. However, by taking it at the state level you can examine net taxes collected and you can examine net federal spending and compare the two, seeing what states are "paying for what they get, plus" and what states aren't...and conclude that the states that aren't are in fact "being subsidized."

Now, you may get citizens in that subsidized state who claim that they personally use no government services at all, no matter who is paying for them. They guard their own house with all their stuff in it, and that house is not on a road and they never leave. They are totally self sustaining, with nothing delivered, ever, and have never signed a contract of any kind. Self educated. Etc etc etc. I usually laugh at such claims, but there will be people making them, no matter what state.

Civilization is socialism. Its just a matter of degree and like most things it seems logarithmic in its utility. The more socialist the civilization the more utility it provides for more of its civilians and then at a certain point it levels off and can even inflect and head back negative. Finding that balancing point of maximum utility for the civilian population should be the goal, instead we spend a lot of effort screaming at each other epithets that don;t even make sense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Civilization is socialism. Its just a matter of degree and like most things it seems logarithmic in its utility. The more socialist the civilization the more utility it provides for more of its civilians and then at a certain point it levels off and can even inflect and head back negative. Finding that balancing point of maximum utility for the civilian population should be the goal, instead we spend a lot of effort screaming at each other epithets that don;t even make sense.

No doubt. The complexity of the problem in the US is demonstrated best though by noting that the citizens in the (mathematically speaking) subsidized states are also the most heinous epithet throwers and one of their favorites involves calling the people in the states that subsidize theirs names like "freeloader."

 

[Berzerker]

Didn't you stop paying income taxes because of freeloading red states?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's also harder to talk about 'subsidy' when every government institution is so far in debt. Lower taxes coupled with higher debt is not a sign of being a 'lower subsidy' than higher taxes with less debt.

I have no idea which party is classically worse on that front. But I also know that simply looking at 'taxes paid' (or even more brazenly 'income') isn't going to get anything but a simple answer to a complex question.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Didn't you stop paying income taxes because of freeloading red states?

More because of red states full of nasty snarky punks who vote dangerously WHILE they are freeloading. Somehow, "no, we aren't grateful for the taxes your state pays that are spent in our state, nor for the food your state provides, in fact we hope an earthquake tosses you all to your deaths in the ocean" just seems like it doesn't deserve much support. But thanks for asking.

 

[Imaus]

Civilization is socialism. Its just a matter of degree and like most things it seems logarithmic in its utility. The more socialist the civilization the more utility it provides for more of its civilians and then at a certain point it levels off and can even inflect and head back negative. Finding that balancing point of maximum utility for the civilian population should be the goal, instead we spend a lot of effort screaming at each other epithets that don;t even make sense.

No? Socialism is where the state is focused on, and ruled by, the Industrial Worker Proletariat for their betterment, advancement, and enshrining, and the abolishment of the Bourgies. A state just existing for the benefit of its people is not Socialism. Socialism is a very specific, codified thing - there's this guy called Marx. Your sentence alone alludes to the school of Utilitarianism, or Populist, thought, which predates codified Socialism.

I've been hearing stuff like this for years, and it's why the Right Wing can go about Red-Baiting any big or welfare government as 'EVIL SOCIALISTS'. Heh, someone once quipped 'Socialism is where the state helps as many as it can and Communism is where it helps all it can', which, in a sense, is somewhat true, but thrown about because Obama was in office. And that was supposed to be supportive of him.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Lol. What is your job again? I thought you worked on something that relies on taxes.

Many days I work to provide weather data for Kansas farmers as there aren't enough people in Kansas capable of doing it themselves.

in fact we hope an earthquake tosses you all to your deaths in the ocean

True story. I used to hear this all the time in IL/MO.

 

[Berzerker]

More because of red states full of nasty snarky punks who vote dangerously WHILE they are freeloading. Somehow, "no, we aren't grateful for the taxes your state pays that are spent in our state, nor for the food your state provides, in fact we hope an earthquake tosses you all to your deaths in the ocean" just seems like it doesn't deserve much support. But thanks for asking.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Kansas is the state least dependent on federal money. Not only does Kansas subsidize your state, you got so mad at freeloading red states you stopped paying income taxes and became a freeloader. Your neighbors are paying your way, so is my state. You're welcome... Oh, that wasn't gratitude?

The complexity of the problem in the US is demonstrated best though by noting that the citizens in the (mathematically speaking) subsidized states are also the most heinous epithet throwers and one of their favorites involves calling the people in the states that subsidize theirs names like "freeloader."

You're the citizen of a state Kansas subsidizes and you're throwing the most heinous epithet of freeloaders at Kansans. Thats funny.

Many days I work to provide weather data for Kansas farmers as there aren't enough people in Kansas capable of doing it themselves.

Thx... So you work for the government and you're calling the people who pay your salary selfish monsters?

Well, me and the other sinners who anger you

Kansans spend my tax dollars every day and I'm happy for it. I don't mind paying for roads and schools and hospitals in backward states even as the occupants of said states continue to scoff at me and mine as if they didn't gorge on a disproportionate amount of the tax take because I'm not a selfish monster.

We're spending our tax dollars on you

 

[Estebonrober]

No? Socialism is where the state is focused on, and ruled by, the Industrial Worker Proletariat for their betterment, advancement, and enshrining, and the abolishment of the Bourgies. A state just existing for the benefit of its people is not Socialism. Socialism is a very specific, codified thing - there's this guy called Marx. Your sentence alone alludes to the school of Utilitarianism, or Populist, thought, which predates codified Socialism.

I've been hearing stuff like this for years, and it's why the Right Wing can go about Red-Baiting any big or welfare government as 'EVIL SOCIALISTS'. Heh, someone once quipped 'Socialism is where the state helps as many as it can and Communism is where it helps all it can', which, in a sense, is somewhat true, but thrown about because Obama was in office. And that was supposed to be supportive of him.

Yes, of course you are right. I'm not in this debate to get into specificity in the history of political philosophy. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of fear of the word. I do understand what big S Socialism is.

My point was that civilization is by fiat a social structure that requires cooperation and reinforcement of each other necessarily. The more so it does this generally the better the civilization. Republicans in the US are scared of words and it is stupid. They can't even articulate the ideas they say they are scared of anymore, they can just name enemies, like Venezuela. Of course they can't seem to elaborate on why they fear those enemies generally but there it is.

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Kansas is the state least dependent on federal money. Not only does Kansas subsidize your state, you got so mad at freeloading red states you stopped paying income taxes and became a freeloader. Your neighbors are paying your way, so is my state. You're welcome... Oh, that wasn't gratitude?



You're the citizen of a state Kansas subsidizes and you're throwing the most heinous epithet of freeloaders at Kansans. Thats funny.



Thx... So you work for the government and you're calling the people who pay your salary selfish monsters?

Well, me and the other sinners who anger you



We're spending our tax dollars on you

Kansas is a pretty bad place to live if you are not set with some significant capital. This is true in all red states. So while a few of them manage to be on the plus side of their budgets it is at the expense of the poor compared to other states around them. I know this because mystupid state is in the same race to the bottom as Kansas is. . .

 

[Sommerswerd]

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Kansas is the state least dependent on federal money. Not only does Kansas subsidize your state, you got so mad at freeloading red states you stopped paying income taxes and became a freeloader. Your neighbors are paying your way, so is my state. You're welcome... Oh, that wasn't gratitude?

You're the citizen of a state Kansas subsidizes and you're throwing the most heinous epithet of freeloaders at Kansans. Thats funny.

Nah, that's not correct. Even if we assume for sake of discussion that your source's methodology is correct and their calculation is correct, which... meh, who knows [EDIT: I just read the article a little closer, they're citing Rasmussen, which is well known Republican propaganda, so now I'm more skeptical of anything they say]... it still doesn't result in your illogical "Kansas subsidizes California" conclusion, for numerous reasons, of which I will just list a few.

First of all, "least dependent on Federal subsidy" does not remotely mean "pays the most (net or gross) into the Federal system". A simple example, is if I receive zero Federal dollars, but I also pay zero dollars to the Fed, then I am the "least dependent" but I am not "subsidizing" anyone, cause I don't pay jack-squat. The population difference between Kansas and Cali alone suggest that California would be paying bigly more than Kansas, right? Finally, Kansas at #50 is at the top of wallethub's "least dependent" list but Cali is 15 from the top at #35. There's 50 states, so you'd have to be ranked at least #26, and thus in the bottom half before we can start calling you "subsidized" by the top half... unless we delve into the actual gross payouts of the states, which... as I've already pointed out, Cali is going to be way ahead of everyone, particularly states like Kansas.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thx... So you work for the government and you're calling the people who pay your salary selfish monsters?

Well, me and the other sinners who anger you

Next you're going to tell me you pay my salary and therefore you're my boss. lol

Your premise is incorrect but this is funny so I'll roll with it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

On topic -

I am pretty frustrated with the constant coverage of racist things Trump said because it's basically only meant as clickbait. There is nothing he can say or do that will change the outlook of his supporters and the media is milking outrage in a way that gives him constant coverage that feeds his base more than anything else. Our media needs some serious reforms as I hold them responsible for Trump's rise. If they hadn't given him wall to wall coverage from the moment he announced and fed off all the outrage, he likely wouldn't have made the nomination in the first place. And now all they're doing is feeding the fire.

I mean even when he says outrageously racist things, the media takes such a non-confrontational stance over it that it's pathetic. Even the way they frame the questions are pathetic. They don't ask, 'Why do you say racist things?', they instead ask questions like 'Do you think the things you say is racist?', which smacks of both-sidedness and gives him a platform to simultaneously deny he's being a bigot while doubling down on bigotry. I get that the media is supposed to be neutral but they create false equivalencies either directly or through omission and therefore take sides.

 

[Traitorfish]

They actually do have the clout. The disinterested hear the very loud shouts, from both sides. They aren't listening for them, but when they are loud enough they do filter in.

The GOP has been consistently screaming some variation of "Hillary Clinton is the absolute embodiment of evil, just look at..." at the tops of their lungs for thirty frigging years. No one in the US, no matter how apolitical, has said "Hillary Clinton? Who's she?" in most people's lifetime. And the answer for the apolitical, at various times, has been "shrew," "Whitewater," "e-mails," "pay-to-play," "Bengahhhhhhhhzi!!!!!" People who don't pay enough attention to follow up on investigations hear "Hillary" and they are amazed she isn't in prison because the GOP has announced that they have the evidence of her crimes pretty much monthly since before my thirty-something year old kids started high school. So, yeah, asking the politically disinterested to pay enough attention to dismiss all that BS is a big ask.

Meanwhile, "socialism" has been the catchall word for "evil enemy governments" for even longer than that. Once again, the disinterested have never bothered, and probably won't bother, with finding out what it actually is. They've already heard more than enough. More than their disinterested little hearts can stand, actually. So it has immense clout...maybe even more than "Hillary." Keeping in mind that these people call themselves "capitalists" despite most of them not owning more than the immediate roof over their head, if that.

It still feels like you're just talking about Republicans, here.

Non-voters don't generally follow the sort of partisan news outlets you're talking about, and then simply refrain from voting because they just can't be arsed. They are, on the whole, politically disengaged or inconsistently-engaged, which means nobody has reached them. Perhaps they've picked up some of this rhetorical flotsam, but it doesn't represent some sort of firmly held conviction. It can be overturned by sincere and substantial appears. If they default to shop-worn clichés when exposed to Clinton, it was because she made zero effort to engage them. I don't think you can say the same about Sanders and his take on socialism.

 

[Berzerker]

Nah, that's not correct. Even if we assume for sake of discussion that your source's methodology is correct and their calculation is correct, which... meh, who knows [EDIT: I just read the article a little closer, they're citing Rasmussen, which is well known Republican propaganda, so now I'm more skeptical of anything they say]... it still doesn't result in your illogical "Kansas subsidizes California" conclusion, for numerous reasons, of which I will just list a few.

First of all, "least dependent on Federal subsidy" does not remotely mean "pays the most (net or gross) into the Federal system". A simple example, is if I receive zero Federal dollars, but I also pay zero dollars to the Fed, then I am the "least dependent" but I am not "subsidizing" anyone, cause I don't pay jack-squat. The population difference between Kansas and Cali alone suggest that California would be paying bigly more than Kansas, right? Finally, Kansas at #50 is at the top of wallethub's "least dependent" list but Cali is 15 from the top at #35. There's 50 states, so you'd have to be ranked at least #26, and thus in the bottom half before we can start calling you "subsidized" by the top half... unless we delve into the actual gross payouts of the states, which... as I've already pointed out, Cali is going to be way ahead of everyone, particularly states like Kansas.

That was a Rasmussen opinion poll

"According to a 2018 Rasmussen report, 61% of American adults think there are too many people receiving government financial aid. On the other hand, only 9% think not enough people are receiving funds."

that has nothing to do with the methodology behind the study

Nobody said Kansas pays more in taxes than California, the research argues Kansas gets back less in proportion. That means no other state can claim to subsidize Kansas, but Kansas does subsidize other states. Tim called us freeloaders while he purposely avoids paying income taxes because he's mad at red state freeloaders. He's a freeloader and if his means of avoiding income taxes involves unreported income he's also violating the law to be a freeloader. Now if you want to argue California subsidizes states more dependent on federal dollars, thats why Kansas is subsidizing California.

Next you're going to tell me you pay my salary and therefore you're my boss. lol

Your premise is incorrect but this is funny so I'll roll with it.

You dont think 'we the people' pay the salaries of government employees? You ungrateful monster

 

[Socrates99]

What made the Samaritan good was his choice to treat the "other" as a neighbor. Based on the assumption that most people are selfish, the government systems mechanize the deed and remove your choice. These systems are not charities. They do not present you with the choice to do good works, so no, they bear no resemblance to Christ's original teachings other than render unto Caesar.

The truth about people is probably something that makes evolutionary sense: most people have good general intentions, but their generosity is almost entirely parochial, and they do not trust others to be generous at all.


Of course I didn't make any remark about this, so none of this garbage was necessary. The post is still there for anyone able to read.

But I could offer some remarks. I think evolutionary theory is the best tool so far for making deductions about human nature. Nothing against him, but Jesus of Nazareth did not have that tool. As for a moral system, I like the Protestant idea of fairness-as-proportionality, equity, more than equality; I think it makes more sense for a civilization of millions of strangers than Jesus' teachings or competing philosophical schools.



I can't find much data on this. There is a 40-year general social survey (GSS) which found that Republican households had a slightly higher average income than Democrats, meaning that historically Republicans in red and blue states have been net subsidizing the needs of Democrats in red and blue states. I wouldn't be surprised if this situation has changed in the last ten years or so with the continued rise in ultra-wealthy individuals in tech and finance, and the shrinking of the relative size of the private sector vs the public.

I actually did point out that the tired "choice" trope doesn't even work here since charitable donations to the migrant centers are being turned away or ignored and water left in the desert is dumped out. Even when people personally chose to be charitable the policies of these agencies prohibit it.

 

[rah]

Nobody said Kansas pays more in taxes than California, the research argues Kansas gets back less in proportion.

That's only one way to look at it. I think a better guide is the total amount given to the feds vs total amount awarded back. This site shows that
https://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.htmlhttps://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-taxpayers-10-states-give-more-feds-than-get-back.html
And Kansas doesn't look as good. And it show the blues states give more total than they get back so yes they do subsidize the red states.

 

[Lexicus]

One Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all
Screw all this state vs state crap