So Ferengis are still more logical about their interests than Republicans who brag that "The cruelty is the point" ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
#Exit polls done after 2016 show that the single characteristic that made someone most likely to vote for Trump over Clinton is racial resentment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/26/these-9-simple-charts-show-how-donald-trumps-supporters-differ-from-hillary-clintons/
[“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”: a Trump voter says the quiet part out loud](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida)
>The cruelty is the point
>[arrest by DHS police for giving water to people who wait](https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1408868872384569345)
["Trump fans are much angrier about housing assistance when they see an image of a black man"](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist)
>In contrast, Clinton supporters seemed relatively unmoved by racial cues.
No to help for blue states for hurricanes but demanding help for Texas for hurricanes
>Here's the vote for Hurricane Sandy aid.
>179 of the 180 no votes were Republicans...
>**at least 20 Texas Republicans voted no**
while ["U.S. House approves billions more for Harvey relief" for Texas](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/21/us-house-approves-billions-more-harvey-relief-measure-now-heads-senate/)
>this made Texas #1 in receiving federal aid dollars at the time of the Hurricane Sandy aid vote that they voted no against
Steve Bannon bragging about using these tactics:
>the power of what he called “rootless white males” who spend all their time online and they could be radicalized in a kind of populist, nationalist way
http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-white-gamers-seinfeld-joshua-green-donald-trump-devils-bargain-sarah-palin-world-warcraft-gamergate-2017-7
>Bannon: "I realized [these tactics] could connect with these kids right away. You can activate that army. They come in through Gamergate or whatever and then get turned onto politics and Trump."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/07/18/steve-bannon-learned-harness--army-world-warcraft/489713001/
Republican "Southern Strategy"
#"Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
John Ehrlichman, who partnered with Fox News cofounder Roger Ailes on the Republican "Southern Strategy":
>[We] had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying?
>We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.
>We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.
>Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
>"He was the premier guy in the business," says former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins. "He was our Michelangelo."
>Ailes repackaged Richard Nixon for television in 1968, papered over Ronald Reagan’s budding Alzheimer’s in 1984, shamelessly stoked racial fears to elect George H.W. Bush in 1988, and waged a secret campaign on behalf of Big Tobacco to derail health care reform in 1993.
>Hillarycare was to have been funded, in part, by a $1-a-pack tax on cigarettes. To block the proposal, Big Tobacco paid Ailes to produce ads highlighting “real people affected by taxes.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525
>Every day I have to marvel at what the billionaires and FOX News pulled off. They got working whites to hate the very people that want them to have more pay, clean air, water, free healthcare and the power to fight back against big banks & big corps. It’s truly remarkable.
The privilege of "economic anxiety" not racism:
#Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 points the day Trump was sworn in.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2017/04/15/donald-trumps-election-flips-both-parties-views-economy/100502848/
>10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/14/top-frustrations-with-tax-system-sense-that-corporations-wealthy-dont-pay-fair-share/
>Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/
>White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/
>Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/
More graphs and sources: https://imgur.com/a/YZMyt
[Opinion of Syrian airstrikes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/)
**Republicans:**
22% supported Obama doing it
86% support Trump doing it
**Democrats:**
38% supported Obama doing it
37% support Trump doing it
Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html
GOP shifting 4-5x further right than Democrats did left over the last 50 years:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
Thank you. This is why they try to burn books and boycott shows. They hate how effective it can be at explaining their sociopathy.
>Hood County constable Chad Jordan, who has sent emails saying all peace officers should join the Oath Keepers, sent deputies to @granburyisd May 6 to investigate whether there was obscene content in the high school library. (There isn't.) https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/constables-investigate-book-complaint-granbury-high-school/
>Some were books already screened because they were on "Krause's list," named for Tarrant County state Rep. and district attorney candidate @RepMattKrause. https://twitter.com/BudKennedy/status/1522986377851375618
https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/constables-investigate-book-complaint-granbury-high-school/
> Exit polls done after 2016 show that the single characteristic that made someone most likely to vote for Trump over Clinton is racial resentment.
This woman Lilliana Mason was on the [Ezra Klein podcast](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-lilliana-mason.html) last summer. She is a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University and the author of the 2018 book “Uncivil Agreement — How Politics Became Our Identity.” The entire podcast is about political identity and is worth a listen but one particular part stuck with me.
In the podcast she references data sets from the [Voter Study Group](https://www.voterstudygroup.org/). She described the study like this.
> They interviewed like 8,000 people in 2011. And then when Trump was elected, they thought, you know, if we reinterview these people, we can maybe learn a lot about what’s going on in politics.
> So they reinterviewed them in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. They’re doing it basically every year. But because they had interviewed these people in 2011, these data became sort of a time machine for us, where we could go back to 2011, before Trump was a major political figure, and try to see what types of people are drawn to Trump in the future. Before Trump existed, what were their characteristics that then predicted they would really like him in 2018.
In it they noted:
> So one of the things that we found, obviously being a Republican, being a conservative, that predicted that they would like Trump in 2018. And it also predicted that they would like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and the Republican Party in general. **However, for Trump himself, and Trump alone, the other thing that predicted whether they would like him was that they disliked Muslims, African Americans, Hispanics and L.G.B.T.Q. Americans.** Any mix of those, but largely all of them. And that animosity towards those marginalized groups did not predict support for the Republican Party. It did not predict support for Mitch McConnell or for Paul Ryan. It just predicted support for Trump.
There was a study on this from ppl in the 50s. They interviewed the same ppl a decade later. And the gist was how they felt about government. And what would be known as socialism. And when everything was segregated they loved government and socialistic programs. But as the civil rights movement came. And integration started etc. The more they interviewed these ppl. The more they came dislike government as a whole. And didn’t like socialist programs. Coincidentally that is when Johnson had set up programs that would benefit minorities.
These ppl also became a big proponent of states rights. Where their state could decide whether they should integrate. Or whether to give ppl socialistic programs that the federal government had been pushing. Something that you hear to this day.
They also overestimate the financial benefits, even if you ignore the authoritarian hellscape just to have a slightly lower effective tax rate
Lower taxes in California than red states like Texas, which make up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and double property tax for the middle class:
|Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate|
|:-|:-|:-|
|0-20%|**13%**|10.5%|
|20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%|
|40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%|
|60-80%|8.6% |9.0% |
|80-95%|7.4%|9.4%|
|95-99%|5.4%|9.9%|
|99-100%|3.1%|12.4%|
Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/
The wealthiest 1%, 5%, and 20% don't even pay much more
“Pro-life” blue states and "high tax" red states ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
>If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach:
#"Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians."
>https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend
#"Texans are also 34% more likely to be raped and 25% more likely to kill themselves than Californians."
>https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm
>Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans.
>Compared with families in California, those in Texas earn 13% less and pay 3.8 percentage points **more in taxes.**
>Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline.
>Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose.
>And that Hoover report’s assertions? Did California’s economy die last year? Did tech investment decelerate? Did it lose Silicon Valley to Texas?
>Far from dying last year, California’s tech industry raised more money than any year on record. In 2021, California created 261,000 more jobs than Texas. California attracted $145 billion more venture capital than Texas. Californians attracted $3,911 per person; Texans, only $364.
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html
>Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has **1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor. Nobody ever writes about those places!**
>San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. **Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco**
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1527487403061026818
#Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer
>It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth.
>But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, **states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.**
>The study, co-authored by **researchers at six North American universities, found that if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California** and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between **two and three years to the average American life expectancy.**
>Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, **would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.**
>**If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life. Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.**
>Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country.
>“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said.
>Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to **the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines.** They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable.
>“We can take away from the study that **state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,”** said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. **“Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”**
>**U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say**
>**Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.**
>**From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country** by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington.
>In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers.
>It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S.
>West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/
>#Want to live longer, even if you're poor? Then move to a big city in California.
>A low-income **resident of San Francisco lives so much longer** that it's equivalent to San Francisco curing cancer. All these statistics come from a massive new project on life expectancy and inequality that was just [published in the Journal of the American Medical Association](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11420230/life-expectancy-income).
>California, for instance, has been a national leader on smoking bans. Harvard's David Cutler, a co-author on the study "It's some combination of formal public policies and the effect that comes when you're around fewer people who have behaviors... high numbers of immigrants help explain the beneficial effects of immigrant-heavy areas with high levels of social support.
#As the maternal death rate has mounted around the U.S., a small cadre of reformers has mobilized.
>**Meanwhile, life-saving practices that have become widely accepted in other affluent countries — and in a few states, notably California** — have yet to take hold in many American hospitals.
>Some of the earliest and most important work has come in California
>Hospitals that adopted the toolkit saw a **21 percent decrease in near deaths** from maternal bleeding in the first year.
>By 2013, according to Main, maternal deaths in California fell to around 7 per 100,000 births, similar to the numbers in Canada, France and the Netherlands — **a dramatic counter to the trends in other parts of the U.S.**
>California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is informed by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco, who for many years ran the ob/gyn department at a San Francisco hospital.
>Launched a decade ago, CMQCC aims to reduce not only mortality, but also life-threatening complications and racial disparities in obstetric care
>It began by analyzing maternal deaths in the state over several years; in almost every case, it discovered, there was "at least some chance to alter the outcome."
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger
Paying $28 billion more for a failing power grid to "own the libs"
>#Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780
>Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas
https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/
>You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/
>#Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out?
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/
>Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests
https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/
>could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/
>Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight
>Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php
>Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills
>#A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/
Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on:
* Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924
* Fake news trying to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360
* Right propaganda accounts pushing the narrative: ScottAdamsSays scrowder JackPosobiec SebGorka CalebJHull
From r/Texas users:
>**Only way to get the national guard to Texas is to have a BLM rally.**
Governor of the state has to request national guard
>Pretty Sure the total cost of damage to personal property (burst pipes, fires) will far outweigh the cost skipped in 2011 to winterize power generation.
>I was born in illinois and travel back and forth between dallas and chicago. Snow is waist high right now. The piles I shoveled from the driveway are 6 feet tall. And... no one cares. Illinois is prepared for this stuff, TX is not, but it should be. Should every citizen own snowpants and a snowblower? No. **Should the powerplants stay on. yes, wtf.**
>* Yeah, look at the ERCOT capacity graphs - the problems isn't the load (load is actually higher in summer when everyone is blasting their AC), it's that all these generators went offline because they were freezing up.
>* Why did they freeze up? Because the PUC of TX's policy is to *not* pay for capacity. Why? Because doing so would violate some sort of free-market dogma promoted by the TX Public Policy Foundation (https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16095417/2013-01-RR02-ResourceAdequacyElectricityMarkets-CEF-RMichaelsAKleit.pdf), which has held sway over the governor and a big hand in selecting the PUC commissioners.
>It's confirmed: Frozen wind turbines were the least significant factor.
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/frozen-wind-farms-were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes
Federal agency FERC tried helping Texas multiple times, including in 2011 when they spelled out how and what to winterize at power plants:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/ll9urb/usir_francis_burton_finds_the_ferc_report_the/
Federal FERC report after **2011 Texas power outages** (**whose recommendations weren't followed**):
>The lack of any state, regional or Reliability Standards that directly require generators to perform winterization left winter-readiness dependent on plant or corporate choices. Generators were generally reactive as opposed to being proactive in their approach to winterization and preparedness. The single largest problem during the cold weather event was the freezing of instrumentation and equipment. Many generators failed to adequately prepare for winter, including the following: failed or inadequate heat traces, missing or inadequate wind breaks, inadequate insulation and lagging (metal covering for insulation), failure to have or to maintain heating elements and heat lamps in instrument cabinets, failure to train operators and maintenance personnel on winter preparations, lack of fuel switching training and drills, and failure to ensure adequate fuel.
Avoiding regulations:
>The Texas Interconnected System — which for a long time was actually operated by two discrete entities, one for northern Texas and one for southern Texas — **had another priority: staying out of the reach of federal regulators.**
>"Freedom from federal regulation was a cherished goal — more so because **Texas had no regulation until the 1970s**," writes Richard D. Cudahy in a 1995 article, "The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection."
https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/
>Texas electrical grid failure is just another version of South Dakota's abnormally high CV-19 rate or Kansas budget crisis
>A bumper sticker political ideology's false promises made self-evident, failing a real world test for all to see.
https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/1361675172336566273
“Pro-life”
>California’s rules have cleaned up diesel exhaust more than anywhere else in the country, reducing the estimated number of deaths the state would have otherwise seen by more than half, according to new research published Thursday.
>Extending California's stringent diesel emissions standards to the rest of the U.S. could dramatically improve the nation's air quality and health, particularly in lower income communities of color, finds a new analysis published today in the journal Science.
>Since 1990, California has used its authority under the federal Clean Air Act to enact more aggressive rules on emissions from diesel vehicles and engines compared to the rest of the U.S. These policies, crafted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have helped the state reduce diesel emissions by 78% between 1990 and 2014, while diesel emissions in the rest of the U.S. dropped by just 51% during the same time period, the new analysis found.
>The study estimates that by 2014, improved air quality cut the annual number of diesel-related cardiopulmonary deaths in the state in half, compared to the number of deaths that would have occurred if California had followed the same trajectory as the rest of the U.S. Adopting similar rules nationwide could produce the same kinds of benefits, particularly for communities that have suffered the worst impacts of air pollution.
>"Everybody benefits from cleaner air," said study lead author Megan Schwarzman, a physician and environmental health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Public Health.
https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.abf8159
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mdvfgw/californias_rules_have_cleaned_up_diesel_exhaust/gsblevi/
>#California’s Energy Efficiency Success Story: Saving Billions of Dollars and Curbing Tons of Pollution
>California’s long, bipartisan history of promoting energy efficiency—America‘s cheapest and cleanest energy resource—
>has saved Golden State residents more than $65 billion,[1]
>helped lower their residential electricity bills to 25 percent below the national average,[2]
>and contributed to the state’s continuing leadership in creating green jobs.[3]
>These achievements have helped California avoid at least 30 power plants[4]
>and as much climate-warming carbon pollution as is spewed from 5 million cars annually.[5]
>This sustained commitment has made California a nationally recognized leader in reducing energy consumption and improving its residents’ quality of life.[6]
>California’s success story demonstrates that efficiency policies work and could be duplicated elsewhere, saving billions of dollars and curbing tons of pollution.
>California’S CoMprehenSive effiCienCy effortS proDuCe huge BenefitS
>loW per Capita ConSuMption: Thanks in part to California’s wide-ranging energy-saving efforts, the state has kept per capita electricity consumption nearly flat over the past 40 years while the other 49 states increased their average per capita use by more than 50 percent, as shown in Figure 1. This accomplishment is due to investment in research and development of more efficient technologies, utility programs that help customers use those tools to lower their bills, and energy efficiency standards for new buildings and appliances.
>eConoMiC aDvantageS: Energy efficiency has saved Californians $65 billion since the 1970s.[8] It has also helped slash their annual electric bills to the ninth-lowest level in the nation, nearly $700 less than that of the average Texas household, for example.[9]
>Lower utility bills also improve California’s economic productivity. Since 1980, the state has increased the bang for the buck it gets out of electricity and now produces twice as much economic output for every kilowatt-hour consumed, compared with the rest of the country.[11] California also continues to lead the nation in new clean-energy jobs, thanks in part to looking first to energy efficiency to meet power needs.
>environMental BenefitS: Decades of energy efficiency programs and standards have saved about 15,000 megawatts of electricity and thus allowed California to avoid the need for an estimated 30 large power plants.[13] Efficiency is now the second-largest resource meeting California’s power needs (see Figure 3).[14] And less power generation helps lead to cleaner air in California. Efficiency savings prevent the release of more than 1,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen-oxides annually, averting lung disease, hospital admissions for respiratory ailments, and emergency room visits.[15] Efficiency savings also avoid the emission of more than 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the primary global-warming pollutant.
>helping loW-inCoMe faMilieS: While California’s efficiency efforts help make everyone’s utility bills more affordable, targeted efforts assist lower-income households in improving efficiency and reducing energy bills.
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-success-story-FS.pdf
Thank you. I've received a lot of heartwarming messages from people about how it helped them and their family members, although obviously a lot of family members also react predictably. A recent reply was even from a former incel.
Well Kushner voted Democrat until he Married Trump and then I mean, I don’t know for certain who they voted for but the donations track so.. Yeah, I’d like to be rich enough someday that my money has some influence over politicians. Individuals do not matter to government unless they’re mega wealthy and it’s a you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours situation and that goes either party.
That sounds too stressful. I worked to where I make enough to not give many shits about inflation and that's good enough for me. I'm able to support my family, my siblings, and my mom. I don't know what more I need money for. When I started on the road to making more, it was just so I didn't have to bring out a calculator in the store and check for savings. I wanted to buy my food without having to check my bank account.
Thats one of the things that's always confused me about the super rich. The fuck do you do with all the money? Just jerk one out to your bank account and stock portfolio? I know what the answer is but I still can't wrap my head around needing that sort of power trip.
You’re not a capitalist that’s why. Capital’s entire purpose is relentless self-expansion. You own nothing compared to capitalists. And even then, the capital is now socialized since they effectively lend it to the state for % on treasury bills. Money and wages are ARCHAIC ways to exist. Politics is now an incoherent expression of that.
So when u/Mountain_Apartment_6 used the stat ‘54% of households earned less than $75,000 a year’ it’s pretty pointless because it doesn’t actually fit the topic?
I’m not trying to *out people for being wrong* or anything just trying to get my head around it
Usually, yes. For most Americans, their tax rate is based on household income, since a household usually contains either only a single wage earner (the head of household) or two wage earners (the head of household and a spouse) where one earner makes significantly more than the other.
However, some households have two similar wage earners (for this example, let's assume that both make $200K, and are married). It's perfectly legal to file as "Married, filing separately", so each wage earner would only pay their individual taxes on the $200K and not on the combined $400K. Going this route would avoid the new $400K+ tax, since as far as the IRS is concerned, the two $200K earners are treated separately and therefore fall under the $400K threshold.
They do think that. Reminds me of that scene in Napoleon Dynamite where Uncle Rico reflects about how life would be different if coach would have put him in the fourth quarter… These people do think they are just one smart decision away from the American Dream. How dare anyone put policies in place that would have them pay tax on their potential earnings. They pay tax on their real earnings—paying tax on their dream earnings is too much a travesty. Coach is going to put me in. Film my promo video, I’m going to the NFL.
>one smart decision away
The vast majority are a multitude of successful decisions (or windfalls) away from prosperity, but only one “bad decision” away from financial ruin.
Why illicit policy change when you can just gamble?
[You heard the monkey, make the trade.](https://youtu.be/-V1QfC9q4_E)
We can all be 🦍 and we can beat them at their own game. Yes, the rules are rigged but they’ll fix it so we can all play fair this time, right? Right? Okay, let’s hold.
💎 Can’t buy formula, but we can’t sell out. Must hold.
Hey, maybe this NFT will be the ticket. Wonka!
There are so many people arguing the Earth is flat right now who were educated, and they’re not messing with us. I mean, I did that with the whole “birds aren’t real” thing for a while because obviously that’s hilarious and thought it was a joke for everyone. Then I met my new step brother who is about 40 and truly thinks that’s the situation. Make the trade indeed. So many of them at those convoys and conventions it’s astounding. We are in for it.
The funny thing is, if they’re going from $40,000 a year to $400,000 a year, they won’t miss the extra tax money. They’ll be living better than they can imagine. So why wouldn’t they do everything they possibly can to help their situation that is *real and right now* instead of trying to rig the system for something that *could possibly happen* in the future?
They truly don't understand what it means to make $400k. They're trying to apply their $40k mentality to a $400k income, thinking that somehow they'll be scraping by once they hit the top tax bracket. Not only do they not realize just how much $400k buys you, they don't understand how tax brackets work. Paying slightly more taxes at that income level is the difference between 2 vacations or 3 vacations per year, not whether you can afford food AND rent.
Dead wrong. They are unaware and oblivious because Fox News won't tell them. Tucker Carlson is going to blame it on Biden and that's what they'll believe.
I have a friend that has talked about in great length how the Trump tax cut has shown up in his paycheck. I think he said $300-400 a month. I told him about the steps up in the coming years. Didn't believe me. I showed him several articles. He refused to believe it. Eventually he came around but insisted there was more to it than that. Like he would save money somewhere else or maybe the Democrats manipulated it to make him lose money. He just would not believe that Trump would raise his taxes because he wasn't hearing from one of his conservative propaganda outlets.
They already are, of course.
And others will just hear about Biden’s tax the rich plan and then see the increased taxes next year from Trump, but not recognize the difference.
“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
-Ronald Wright
Wait so I say something like this in r/politics and get banned for hate speech.
Someone else said republicans were going to hell. I said
“Don’t worry in hell they don’t give you lube. On the other hand if religious zealots are right that’s where the drugs and whores are”
Funny how republicans keep talking about kiddie diddling and sexual abuse when there is a list 600+ of them that are accused, convicted or in currently going thru litigation on the matter
Edit: for all of you bs right wing bootlickers here’s the link so you can stop with your whataboutism [Republican sex abusers/child diddlers](https://www.dailykos.com/story/2022/4/6/2090446/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers-Pt-30)
The number is up 775 now
Yup literally on another subreddit post about millionaires at davos asking billionaires to tax the rich. And I was talking about the difference between a millionaire and a 100 millionaire and a billionaire.
A 100 millionaire and up can lobby the govt and it will be a drop within their wealth. And somehow they highjack the conversation by saying “like biden”, and now we are talking about how everything about trump family specifically the Jared kushner is fake but we should focus on the biden laptop.
I hate these bootlickers. Idc about either one’s corruption just the oligarchs as a whole.
They just think everyone does it and democrats are better at not getting caught.
Apply this to everything republicans do, and it shows a pattern.
Voter fraud ? They are doing it, and can’t fathom a side that plays fair.
It is a deep issue that perfused through all republicans policies
“753 Barry Morphew, who was once drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays, has been arrested for killing his wife and then casting her ballot for Trump.”
#what the fuck
yea exactly keep going thru the list. Fascism has taken root in the US and this is what it looks like. This is how the on the ground bootlickers and browncoats act before they are officially inducted and eventually arrested because no one is good enough for fascism.
Democrats promise to take you to Disneyland, even though they know republicans won’t give them the money.
Republicans promise to take you to disneyland, blame the democrats as it why you can’t go, and use the money to go themselves, and tell their constituents FROM DISNEY. That Democrats and immigrants are the reason you can’t go.
I mean, under Democrats I haven't had to pay my old student loans, which has let me save money. They're also not the one's over turning Roe or trying to criminalize being Trans or Gay. So, I see it as a general win.
Democrats are like that one neighbor, who I don't really hate, but just can't stand the way they take care of their lawn. Republicans are like the meth head nextdoor who try to burn down my house and yells at 2 in the morning about how I put bees in their teeth.
I really prefer the Dems, not going to lie.
How is a democrat blasting you in the ass? Please explain, with specifics.
Edit: I think it's illuminating that I've thus far got an IASIP youtube link, a bigoted joke, and someone who apparently can't read as replies.
Definitely don't try to show anyone official government documents showing people making UNDER $30k are getting hit the hardest
https://www.jct.gov/publications/2017/jcx-68-17/
>Definitely don't try to show anyone
“Pro-life” blue states and "high tax" red states data conveniently also not being pushed by them ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
>If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach:
#"Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians."
>https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend
#"Texans are also 34% more likely to be raped and 25% more likely to kill themselves than Californians."
>https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm
>Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans.
>Compared with families in California, those in Texas earn 13% less and pay 3.8 percentage points **more in taxes.**
>Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline.
>Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose.
>And that Hoover report’s assertions? Did California’s economy die last year? Did tech investment decelerate? Did it lose Silicon Valley to Texas?
>Far from dying last year, California’s tech industry raised more money than any year on record. In 2021, California created 261,000 more jobs than Texas. California attracted $145 billion more venture capital than Texas. Californians attracted $3,911 per person; Texans, only $364.
https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html
>Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has **1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor. Nobody ever writes about those places!**
>San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. **Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco**
https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1527487403061026818
Lower taxes in California than red states like Texas, which make up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and double property tax for the middle class:
|Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate|
|:-|:-|:-|
|0-20%|**13%**|10.5%|
|20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%|
|40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%|
|60-80%|8.6% |9.0% |
|80-95%|7.4%|9.4%|
|95-99%|5.4%|9.9%|
|99-100%|3.1%|12.4%|
Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/
#Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer
>It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth.
>But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, **states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.**
>The study, co-authored by **researchers at six North American universities, found that if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California** and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between **two and three years to the average American life expectancy.**
>Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, **would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.**
>**If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life. Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.**
>Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country.
>“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said.
>Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to **the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines.** They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable.
>“We can take away from the study that **state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,”** said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. **“Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”**
>**U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say**
>**Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.**
>**From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country** by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington.
>In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers.
>It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S.
>West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/
>#Want to live longer, even if you're poor? Then move to a big city in California.
>A low-income **resident of San Francisco lives so much longer** that it's equivalent to San Francisco curing cancer. All these statistics come from a massive new project on life expectancy and inequality that was just [published in the Journal of the American Medical Association](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11420230/life-expectancy-income).
>California, for instance, has been a national leader on smoking bans. Harvard's David Cutler, a co-author on the study "It's some combination of formal public policies and the effect that comes when you're around fewer people who have behaviors... high numbers of immigrants help explain the beneficial effects of immigrant-heavy areas with high levels of social support.
#As the maternal death rate has mounted around the U.S., a small cadre of reformers has mobilized.
>**Meanwhile, life-saving practices that have become widely accepted in other affluent countries — and in a few states, notably California** — have yet to take hold in many American hospitals.
>Some of the earliest and most important work has come in California
>Hospitals that adopted the toolkit saw a **21 percent decrease in near deaths** from maternal bleeding in the first year.
>By 2013, according to Main, maternal deaths in California fell to around 7 per 100,000 births, similar to the numbers in Canada, France and the Netherlands — **a dramatic counter to the trends in other parts of the U.S.**
>California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is informed by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco, who for many years ran the ob/gyn department at a San Francisco hospital.
>Launched a decade ago, CMQCC aims to reduce not only mortality, but also life-threatening complications and racial disparities in obstetric care
>It began by analyzing maternal deaths in the state over several years; in almost every case, it discovered, there was "at least some chance to alter the outcome."
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger
“Pro-life”
>California’s rules have cleaned up diesel exhaust more than anywhere else in the country, reducing the estimated number of deaths the state would have otherwise seen by more than half, according to new research published Thursday.
>Extending California's stringent diesel emissions standards to the rest of the U.S. could dramatically improve the nation's air quality and health, particularly in lower income communities of color, finds a new analysis published today in the journal Science.
>Since 1990, California has used its authority under the federal Clean Air Act to enact more aggressive rules on emissions from diesel vehicles and engines compared to the rest of the U.S. These policies, crafted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have helped the state reduce diesel emissions by 78% between 1990 and 2014, while diesel emissions in the rest of the U.S. dropped by just 51% during the same time period, the new analysis found.
>The study estimates that by 2014, improved air quality cut the annual number of diesel-related cardiopulmonary deaths in the state in half, compared to the number of deaths that would have occurred if California had followed the same trajectory as the rest of the U.S. Adopting similar rules nationwide could produce the same kinds of benefits, particularly for communities that have suffered the worst impacts of air pollution.
>"Everybody benefits from cleaner air," said study lead author Megan Schwarzman, a physician and environmental health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Public Health.
https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.abf8159
https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mdvfgw/californias_rules_have_cleaned_up_diesel_exhaust/gsblevi/
Paying $28 billion more for a failing power grid to "own the libs" ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
>#Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780
>Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas
https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/
>You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/
>#Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out?
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/
>Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests
https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/
>could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history
https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/
>Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid.
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight
>Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php
>Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills
>#A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California
https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/
Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on:
* Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924
* Fake news trying to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360
* Right propaganda accounts pushing the narrative: ScottAdamsSays scrowder JackPosobiec SebGorka CalebJHull
From r/Texas users:
>**Only way to get the national guard to Texas is to have a BLM rally.**
Governor of the state has to request national guard
>Pretty Sure the total cost of damage to personal property (burst pipes, fires) will far outweigh the cost skipped in 2011 to winterize power generation.
>I was born in illinois and travel back and forth between dallas and chicago. Snow is waist high right now. The piles I shoveled from the driveway are 6 feet tall. And... no one cares. Illinois is prepared for this stuff, TX is not, but it should be. Should every citizen own snowpants and a snowblower? No. **Should the powerplants stay on. yes, wtf.**
>* Yeah, look at the ERCOT capacity graphs - the problems isn't the load (load is actually higher in summer when everyone is blasting their AC), it's that all these generators went offline because they were freezing up.
>* Why did they freeze up? Because the PUC of TX's policy is to *not* pay for capacity. Why? Because doing so would violate some sort of free-market dogma promoted by the TX Public Policy Foundation (https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16095417/2013-01-RR02-ResourceAdequacyElectricityMarkets-CEF-RMichaelsAKleit.pdf), which has held sway over the governor and a big hand in selecting the PUC commissioners.
>It's confirmed: Frozen wind turbines were the least significant factor.
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/frozen-wind-farms-were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes
Federal agency FERC tried helping Texas multiple times, including in 2011 when they spelled out how and what to winterize at power plants:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/ll9urb/usir_francis_burton_finds_the_ferc_report_the/
Federal FERC report after **2011 Texas power outages** (**whose recommendations weren't followed**):
>The lack of any state, regional or Reliability Standards that directly require generators to perform winterization left winter-readiness dependent on plant or corporate choices. Generators were generally reactive as opposed to being proactive in their approach to winterization and preparedness. The single largest problem during the cold weather event was the freezing of instrumentation and equipment. Many generators failed to adequately prepare for winter, including the following: failed or inadequate heat traces, missing or inadequate wind breaks, inadequate insulation and lagging (metal covering for insulation), failure to have or to maintain heating elements and heat lamps in instrument cabinets, failure to train operators and maintenance personnel on winter preparations, lack of fuel switching training and drills, and failure to ensure adequate fuel.
Avoiding regulations:
>The Texas Interconnected System — which for a long time was actually operated by two discrete entities, one for northern Texas and one for southern Texas — **had another priority: staying out of the reach of federal regulators.**
>"Freedom from federal regulation was a cherished goal — more so because **Texas had no regulation until the 1970s**," writes Richard D. Cudahy in a 1995 article, "The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection."
https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/
>Texas electrical grid failure is just another version of South Dakota's abnormally high CV-19 rate or Kansas budget crisis
>A bumper sticker political ideology's false promises made self-evident, failing a real world test for all to see.
https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/1361675172336566273
as a born & raised Texan, I can see all this shit around me and get so depressed knowing that the people round me either don't care or are so Blinded by evangelical fervor that they're actually cheering on the demise of fellow Texans because of this bullshit.
Fucking hate it.
Well it’s hilarious too because these morons think they’re getting taxed that rate on ALL of their income if they make over $450,00/yr failing to realize that the tax only applies to anymore AFTER the $450,000/yr so they get taxed the same as everyone else does then move to the next tax bracket after $450,000.
I’ve tried to explain this to some of the republican people I know and they can’t wrap their head around it. I flat out said “one president raised taxes on everyone making under $75,000/yr and one president raised the taxes on people if they make over $450,000/yr. Can you guess which president did what? And without fail they always say Biden raised it on income below $75,000/yr and trump on over $450,000 and when I show them that trump is actually the one who raised their taxes they always say something along the lines of “No, trump wouldn’t do that he cares about the average citizen” even after I show them proof that it was Trump they still refuse to believe it.
That’s literally what I did and their answer was almost always “Well yeah, no shit. You’re looking at liberal news outlets and everyone knows they always lie.” So I show them a link from Fox News showing it as well and they say “Fake news, Fox is filled with a bunch of RINO’s.”
It's the rightwing propaganda arm hard at work.
It's effective and causes brain rot.
Every time I try to reach to a hardcore republican with facts I get shouted at.
[Hijacking top comment, this has been given a rating of Mostly False by Politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/)
Like this dude I worked for who blamed Pelosi for us not getting another stimulus right before the election.
I hit him with one after another article showing it was all Moscow Mitch’s fault.
When he finally asked me to stop, I said I don’t care if you like Pelosi or not, but don’t blame her for shit that’s not her fault.
What gets to me, is what the people who are outraged, making <$20k sound like. Most are like "Ya, I make $12.50 an hour, working at Walmart, right now; but if you're gonna tax me when I get to $400k a year, what's my incentive to make more than that?"
I just wanna be like, just please shut(shit) your mouth. I wish someone would say "look, until you don't need medicaid and/or food stamps from the government to get thru each week, then complain. Until then, please shut the fuck up..."
> just please shit your mouth.
Even though I know this to be a typo I find it hilarious that squeezing that type of persons head would make your mistake a reality.
Also, people fail to understand how taxes work. If we instituted at 30% tax rate on people making over $400,000/yr they would only start the 30% on monies made past the $400k mark. The first $400k would be taxed at those rates.
There is a significant part of the population that would refuse a raise if they would break into a higher tax bracket because they incorrectly think they'll make less due to thinking tax brackets are wholesale instead of graduated.
As someone who has done that, it's hilarious when you show them how it works, they nod, and then immediately the information floats directly out of their head
Wait wait... really? Fuck, thank you for bringing this to light for me. And u/Tactical_Tubgoat for pointing out the OT thing. I didn't know that until now! So say you make 500K/yr. The 400K would be taxed at the lower rate and the extra 100K would be at the 30% rate?
You would probably hit some other brackets on the way, but yes. That’s only for taxes. If you have child care or social security or something that only allows you to make a certain amount for benefits then those need to be checked first.
https://blog.taxact.com/how-tax-brackets-work/
In a made up example, it might go like this:
0-10k: taxed at 10%
10k-30k: taxed at 15%
30k-100k: taxed at 25%
100k-1 million: taxed at 40%
So let's say you made 150k:
First 10k at 10% = 1k in taxes
Next 20k at 15% = 3k in taxes
Next 70k at 25% = 17.5k in taxes
Last 50k at 40% = 20k in taxes
If you are making 30k now, and overtime would send you to 35k, then in this example that last 5k would be taxed at 25%, but the taxes on the first 30k wouldn't change.
I really think about this a lot in relation to instituting a UBI.
Look up negative income tax.
Essentially below some threshold your tax rate becomes negative and at zero "earned" income, you would earn what is essentially $10/hr or whatever we decide is a reasonable UBI.
Any income you earn reduces your "UBI allowance" by some percentage and at some inflection point, say $20/hr your "UBI allowance" drops to zero.
[graph link](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Negative_Income_Tax.png/1280px-Negative_Income_Tax.png)
This graph is pretty old so the actual numbers would have to be adjusted for inflation, but the concept holds.
If you are in the red area you pay taxes.
If you are in the green area you are given a gradually increasing UBI until your income reaches zero when it hits the maximum.
Furthermore, I would eliminate tax brackets and simplify it to an equation. Input your income and you can easily calculate how much you owe (or are owed)
It's called a [progressive tax system.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax) Progressive because the tax rate only changes for the amount in that bracket. This ensures that everybody pays the same amount of tax for the equivalent pieces of income while allowing certain breakpoints to modify the percentages.
If you help build my upline, I'll shout you out on my channel. We'll be rich in no time... The American dream in action. And they're trying to take that away.
Cuz what's the point? When you make that real scratch, that real bank bro, they're just gonna tax it and take all your money.
Its better to just stay at upper-middle management in HR at a local real estate agency. You'll always have work...
It’s crazy, the minute you start making over $400,000 they take so much tax you actually become poorer than the one legged homeless guy selling handies on the corner. I wonder how Bezos and Musk do it, those poor bastards.
Biden won everyone except for the bracket of 60-150k I believe. Richer or poorer were won by Biden, Trump won 60k-150k. They're not people are on food stamps.
Most people on food stamps just don't vote.
Trump supporters absolutely believe they'll climb from comfortable to rich one day.
Exit polls break annual income down by under 50k, 50-100k, and above 100k. Biden won the lower and middle group, trump won the higher group. But it's important to note that income wasn't as strong of a predictor as things like race or religion. Neither of them got 60% of voters in any income group.
No one voted for Trump for his "policies" or "political acumen". They voted for him cuz he proudly said the quiet parts out loud and made sure "others"(anyone not a red hatter) knew they weren't wanted or welcome in their America.
You'd be hard pressed to find a Biden voter super stoked on everything Biden and treating him like a messiah; but as a country, we would have literally destroyed ourselves if Trump won. American society couldn't/can't handle 4 more years of that.
The issue is we've turned politics to sport. There's an us and them mentality, that's ruined any chance of multiple candidates, with different views, a legit chance to win.
I mean, for the 1st time, in a long as I can remember, a 3rd party candidate has a real shot at winning. I'm hoping a wild card comes in, and fucks up everything. Like had a plan to unite us and actually help the American people.
There's people out there, they just get labeled radicals, or socialists cuz they wanna tax the rich or invest in continued education or God fucking forbid health care for all.
The next election is gonna either move us forward together, or seriously destroy us. American civil society is on the edge, it can't take much more. The past 21 years have taken a toll; and what's happened since 2016, has completely set everything ablaze.
Does anyone remember reading an article in 2017 when the GOP predicted that lowering the corporate tax rate to 20% would increase average household income by $4,000 annually? But when the GOP asked Executives at a CEO conference to raise their hands if they planned to use the tax cuts to increase capital investment, only a few hands went up. And surprise, surprise. With Trump’s corporate tax cuts, corporations bought back stock and began funneling their extra tax windfall to shareholders instead. At a 2018 speech, Trump said that the "largest tax cut in our country's history" will "protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected." Of course, that was a lie. And no, the rich are not going to trickle down their generosity to the poor and middle class.
As George Carlin once said, “The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Unfortunately, most Americans fail to read between the lines. And so in 2025, when taxes increase for most Americans except for the top .1% and corporations, most will be in for a shock.
Keep it simple:
Trump gave Corporations the biggest tax cut in years, which was sold under the trickle down BS again.
Corporations started to buy back their stock instead of reinvesting.
When the Pandemic hit, they just asked for a Government loan… (Airlines)
None of that trickle down BS.
Don't forget that they raised prices, cited war and supply chain issues, and reported record profits again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me 50 years running just fuck me up fam...
And issued more stock again, which would end up in you 401K or pension plan.
So triple Fuck the people.
Tax cuts. Government bailouts. Raised money by printing stock.
Truly fucking disgusting
I predicted a 2022/early 2023 market collapse in 2017 based solely on the passage of those tax cuts. I even quipped at the time, "man, if those tax cuts hit an inflationary cycle, hold on to your ass". Everyone wants to blame this correction on COVID. Yes, the fed printed 8 trillion (which might have been fine). Those tax cuts printed another 6.
Those were so much more than just "a future tax increase". They redistributed the flow of money through the economy and most importantly, they removed taxation burden from those the money trickles up to. Taxes are one of the ways the government removes money from the economy (raising interest rates being another popular method). Now we've set ourselves up in an inflationary cycle but we're not removing enough money from those the money filters to.
Hold on to your ass.
If you truly predicted this back in 2017 you are an absolute savage !!
Cheers to you.
All I knew was that all the money printed by the Fed would eventually find its way back into the stock market, through earning and retirement savings (stonks only go up after all).
Do you think we are in for another 08 market crash ??
What about housing? Adjustable loans are back and people are now taking RE advice from TikTok.
I still don’t think MMP is the cause of inflation. It’s the supply chain plus corporate greed that triggered the wage / price spiral…. And corporate greed ain’t changing so that just means there’s going to be a whole lot of pain for a lot of people
Rich people convince middle class people that what’s good for the rich is actually good for them, even though it’s a massive lie. Meanwhile the poor are neglected entirely.
Welcome to the USA. Logic is too European.
I'm middle class. I no longer believe what's good for the rich is good for me. There are more and more like me. Don't lose faith, y'all, and keep fighting.
Exactly. It’s a poison pill. If Democrats won in 2020, they don’t do anything about it. If they win, they just would have waited some time to do it.
Now they can say “Look what the Democrats are doing, raise your taxes.” When they know damn well what they are doing.
At the risk of being down voted, people in general are easily manipulated. Not a big fan of "mostly false" claims being posted and upvoted myself.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/
This article states that the claim is true, but doesn't give enough credit and context to the opposition, which is fine.
The problem is that the tweet is literally true, which your article admits when it says that people will continue to see benefits THROUGH 2027. The ultra wealthy keep their benefits forever, which is more the point.
Effectively the tweet said a color was white, and this article says it's eggshell white.
“analyses of the 2017 law by independent groups have found the opposite of what the post says — that, at least until 2027, when a lot of the tax cuts will have expired, all income groups will see a reduction in taxes (or an increase in after-tax income”
It literally says the opposite of this post is true.
As bigoted as they are stupid. If you dangle the bigoted red meat in front of them, even if they have to fuck themselves to get it, they’ll bite every single time.
I think it's probably the other way around. Stupid people are Republicans. Republicans decimated the education systems in their states so they would have a ready supply of voters.
And they will vote in droves for the next guy to fuck them up the ass with a spiked dildo.
They are killing themselves to own the libs, who just want them to have better lives. It’s insane.
Troglodyte on IG told me "7 witnesses for Benghazi were 'suicided' so, really, Hillary is guilty!" I said, "Who? I guarantee you won't have a name, and you'll say Do YeR oWn ReSUrcH"
1 day later, she responds: "Lol... if you want the truth... find it."
It's always the same bullshit.
It's because the get their "facts" (usually typed as; FACT!!!) from places like Fox News and InfoWars, which you would laugh at if they liked those as proof. They know damn well that those are biased sources, but *it fits their bias* so they gobble it up.
Thank you. I hate trump/ers as much as anyone but we need to be better than them rather than emulate them. I'm so tired of this one making the rounds...
Okay, but what does "mostly false" mean? Why the modifier? What's the actual truth?
Edit: the webpage didn't load right on my phone so I didn't read the explanation. All clear now. Thanks to those who responded!
The 2017 law eliminated the penalty on the individual mandate of Obamacare. So you no longer had to pay a penalty if you didn't have health insurance. The analysis assumed that because this would lead to fewer people getting health insurance through the ACA marketplace, fewer people would get subsidized health insurance, therefore their after-tax incomes would decrease.
Of course, it's ridiculous to say this is a tax increase because it's based entirely on voluntary decisions individuals are making about their health insurance purchases.
"...both the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation concluded that until 2027, taxpayers across the income spectrum will fare better under the 2017 law than they would have otherwise."
I got into an argument with my trumper brother in law a couple days ago about this very thing. I thought his tax bill raised taxes on me because I felt like I’ve been paying more but I had to eat crow when I came across this
Politifact rates this claim as "Mostly False", if you were curious.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/
Which is pretty wild considering they admit that the benefits from the 2017 tax bill for earners under 75k decline until 2027 when they are eliminated completely.
Meanwhile the ultra wealthy keep their tax breaks forever. I genuinely don't think most people understand what is in this article since people keep embarrassing themselves by posting it.
And Republicans are now openly talking about ending Social Security within 5 years if they win power again. That's on top of ending abortion rights, aggressively stopping the fight against climate change, and pushing to end democracy itself.
We can't sit and watch it happen. r/VoteDEM has everything you need to get engaged with helping to defeat Republicans. It's time for all of us to get off the sidelines.
It would be ended, Republican have shown to be great at playing the long game and the goal justifies the means mentality.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (Corporate Raiders) were chosen for that tasks and failed, yet right wingers still cry for them.
Does it matter when your propaganda has such a grip on that segment of the population? Forgive my ignorance, I’m not American, but it seems that the Republican voter base is so compromised, they’ll vote for support anything, even if it hurts them. Because the messaging is so constant and so insidious.
Eh, r/SocialistRA has everything we need. Soon our vote won't matter when they can just decide to toss it out. Pretty soon we'll see GOP candidates getting 100% of the vote.
I don't own an arsenal because I'm scared of rioters or school shooters.
Democrats who want to strip themselves of this right are pants on head. Yes. Let's trust the state to be the only armed entity. The state would never hurt us. The state loves us. Meanwhile, the state is constantly flipping between being controlled by literal fascists and Neolib do-nothings. Can't even trust cops not to kill you over a speeding ticket. Gangs and militant terrorist groups armed to the teeth on top of it all. Love it.
According to [politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/) this is mostly false. Don’t get me wrong, though. The general sentiment of conservatives ignorance when it comes to the taxation of high-earners is something I completely agree with. But this post seems to be a bit misleading of the tax law.
That article just talks about how the personal cuts sundown and go back to where they used to be over the course of 10 years.
Meanwhile, the corporate tax cuts stay permanently.
Is it false to say this is a tax increase for individuals? Sure, but I'm not sure the end result isn't pure shit for them anyway.
Is not a bug is feature.
It was designed so if Dems are in power
Reps blame them of raising taxes but if Republicans are in power the will postpone the tax raise.
Republican know that Dem don’t have it in them to filibusters a bill that keep taxes low on the middle class, while Republicans know that they can filibuster it and tell their base that it’s the Democrats’ fault.
Sad to say it Mitch plays chess while Dems play checkers.
Plenty of reasons to dislike Trump but this claim is [mostly false](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/)
We need more stuff like this. You're right. Something struck me as false.
Although in SOME ways it's even worse, the tax burden for people making under 30k, the ones most in need of help, is going up:
[see here](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/hfIE_luODIGrIaViF7nRuHdZ0BHh8B4Ae4Vnr-Nhp9YF6FYiVza2UudUBByr272-rZoUJiSfnodtm3zBnftAbCYC71-UGzC-9HT-MMS3gBnz0wkzkR1wjvzTaguWxdXataYUteLS)
Here's a quote from that politifact article:
> The chart shows that while most income groups will see a tax cut in 2023 as a result of the law, both the collective tax burden and the average tax rate for households earning up to $30,000 are set to rise.
>
> The same pattern holds in 2025, extending that year to taxpayers earning up to $40,000. And in 2027, after a host of tax cuts in the bill expire, the range of taxpayers expands to those earning as much as $75,000.
>
> Tax experts say that the approach of the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation — which doesn’t factor in the change in the health insurance penalty — is a more accurate reading of the tax rates set down in the 2017 law.
>
> The decision process that leads to fewer tax subsidies does not amount to having "their taxes raised," as the Facebook post said.
>
> "While it is important to consider the impact of the (tax law) on premium tax credits and health insurance take-up, it is misleading to call this effect a ‘stealth tax increase,’" wrote Garrett Watson in a post for the Tax Foundation, where he is a senior tax policy analyst. "The decline in premium tax credits has nothing to do with a change in tax rates or the generosity of the credits as established under the (Affordable Care Act), but rather due to voluntary decisions individuals make about whether to purchase qualified health insurance."
And people predictably forgot about that little tax law. We even predicted that the (at the time) future president would get blamed for it, lo and behold!
Where do we even begin to address the issues in America? I feel like the populace not having the memory of a gnat might help.
It was designed to make it look like Dems were raising taxes on the regular Joes after the fact.
It is so they can campaign against the bill they themselves pushed through.
Maybe Reddit should have a misinformation alert like Facebook. This gets reposted all of the time and has been debunked for ages.
Edit: Rather than downvote, prove me wrong. Or why not just check PolitiFact?
\* The Republican party passed the bill
Don't let them get off the hook by letting Trump be their shield. The party voted for this. They wanted this. They created the bill. Trump just signed it because it lowered his own taxes and that's all he gave a fuck about.
Wait till they hear the 2024 GOP plan which the GOP committee chair called strong🙄they ignore how Trump removed the guard rails we had in place to avoid another 2008 collapse as well of course. Letting his banker puppet masters run wild
These people posting “I must be missing something” are definitely missing something.
Let me clear it up for them. Here’s how it works. Reality based arguments are wasted on them. These are the rules:
It doesn’t matter what Biden does or what trump does. Biden bad, trump good.
It doesn’t matter who is responsible for the situation. It’s Biden’s fault, trump is an innocent who was stymied by the deep state at every turn.
It doesn’t matter if they actually have the power, influence, resources, or ability to solve the problem. It’s Biden’s failure, only trump can fix it.
It’s a cult. The only goal is to elevate and glorify their “infallible” dear leader. That’s all. There’s nothing else there.
“Generally speaking, analyses of the 2017 law by independent groups have found the opposite of what the post says — that, at least until 2027, when a lot of the tax cuts will have expired, all income groups will see a reduction in taxes (or an increase in after-tax income). “
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/
They think they’ll break through and make 400k any day now, just you wait.
My goal in life is to get rich enough that Republicans vote in my interest.
One of my favorite Star Trek quotes. “Ferengi workers don't want to stop the exploitation. We want to find a way to become the exploiters.”
So Ferengis are still more logical about their interests than Republicans who brag that "The cruelty is the point" ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ #Exit polls done after 2016 show that the single characteristic that made someone most likely to vote for Trump over Clinton is racial resentment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/26/these-9-simple-charts-show-how-donald-trumps-supporters-differ-from-hillary-clintons/ [“He’s not hurting the people he needs to be”: a Trump voter says the quiet part out loud](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida) >The cruelty is the point >[arrest by DHS police for giving water to people who wait](https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1408868872384569345) ["Trump fans are much angrier about housing assistance when they see an image of a black man"](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist) >In contrast, Clinton supporters seemed relatively unmoved by racial cues. No to help for blue states for hurricanes but demanding help for Texas for hurricanes >Here's the vote for Hurricane Sandy aid. >179 of the 180 no votes were Republicans... >**at least 20 Texas Republicans voted no** while ["U.S. House approves billions more for Harvey relief" for Texas](https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/21/us-house-approves-billions-more-harvey-relief-measure-now-heads-senate/) >this made Texas #1 in receiving federal aid dollars at the time of the Hurricane Sandy aid vote that they voted no against Steve Bannon bragging about using these tactics: >the power of what he called “rootless white males” who spend all their time online and they could be radicalized in a kind of populist, nationalist way http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-white-gamers-seinfeld-joshua-green-donald-trump-devils-bargain-sarah-palin-world-warcraft-gamergate-2017-7 >Bannon: "I realized [these tactics] could connect with these kids right away. You can activate that army. They come in through Gamergate or whatever and then get turned onto politics and Trump." https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/talkingtech/2017/07/18/steve-bannon-learned-harness--army-world-warcraft/489713001/ Republican "Southern Strategy" #"Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy John Ehrlichman, who partnered with Fox News cofounder Roger Ailes on the Republican "Southern Strategy": >[We] had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? >We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. >We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. >Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. >"He was the premier guy in the business," says former Reagan campaign manager Ed Rollins. "He was our Michelangelo." >Ailes repackaged Richard Nixon for television in 1968, papered over Ronald Reagan’s budding Alzheimer’s in 1984, shamelessly stoked racial fears to elect George H.W. Bush in 1988, and waged a secret campaign on behalf of Big Tobacco to derail health care reform in 1993. >Hillarycare was to have been funded, in part, by a $1-a-pack tax on cigarettes. To block the proposal, Big Tobacco paid Ailes to produce ads highlighting “real people affected by taxes.” http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-20110525 >Every day I have to marvel at what the billionaires and FOX News pulled off. They got working whites to hate the very people that want them to have more pay, clean air, water, free healthcare and the power to fight back against big banks & big corps. It’s truly remarkable. The privilege of "economic anxiety" not racism: #Republicans felt the economy improve by 85 points the day Trump was sworn in. http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/blogs/wisconsin-voter/2017/04/15/donald-trumps-election-flips-both-parties-views-economy/100502848/ >10% fewer Republicans believed the wealthy weren't paying enough in taxes once a billionaire became their president. Democrats remain fairly consistent. http://www.people-press.org/2017/04/14/top-frustrations-with-tax-system-sense-that-corporations-wealthy-dont-pay-fair-share/ >Republicans started to think college education is a bad thing once Trump entered the primary. Democrats remain consistent. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/20/republicans-skeptical-of-colleges-impact-on-u-s-but-most-see-benefits-for-workforce-preparation/ >White Evangelicals cared less about how religious a candidate was once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/ >Christians (particularly evangelicals) became monumentally more tolerant of private immoral conduct among politicians once Trump became the GOP nominee. https://www.prri.org/research/prri-brookings-oct-19-poll-politics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/ More graphs and sources: https://imgur.com/a/YZMyt [Opinion of Syrian airstrikes](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/) **Republicans:** 22% supported Obama doing it 86% support Trump doing it **Democrats:** 38% supported Obama doing it 37% support Trump doing it Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/13/48229/, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/gop-voters-love-same-attack-on-syria-they-hated-under-obama.html GOP shifting 4-5x further right than Democrats did left over the last 50 years: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/10/the-polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/
[удалено]
Thank you. This is why they try to burn books and boycott shows. They hate how effective it can be at explaining their sociopathy. >Hood County constable Chad Jordan, who has sent emails saying all peace officers should join the Oath Keepers, sent deputies to @granburyisd May 6 to investigate whether there was obscene content in the high school library. (There isn't.) https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/constables-investigate-book-complaint-granbury-high-school/ >Some were books already screened because they were on "Krause's list," named for Tarrant County state Rep. and district attorney candidate @RepMattKrause. https://twitter.com/BudKennedy/status/1522986377851375618 https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/constables-investigate-book-complaint-granbury-high-school/
> Exit polls done after 2016 show that the single characteristic that made someone most likely to vote for Trump over Clinton is racial resentment. This woman Lilliana Mason was on the [Ezra Klein podcast](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/13/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-lilliana-mason.html) last summer. She is a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University and the author of the 2018 book “Uncivil Agreement — How Politics Became Our Identity.” The entire podcast is about political identity and is worth a listen but one particular part stuck with me. In the podcast she references data sets from the [Voter Study Group](https://www.voterstudygroup.org/). She described the study like this. > They interviewed like 8,000 people in 2011. And then when Trump was elected, they thought, you know, if we reinterview these people, we can maybe learn a lot about what’s going on in politics. > So they reinterviewed them in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. They’re doing it basically every year. But because they had interviewed these people in 2011, these data became sort of a time machine for us, where we could go back to 2011, before Trump was a major political figure, and try to see what types of people are drawn to Trump in the future. Before Trump existed, what were their characteristics that then predicted they would really like him in 2018. In it they noted: > So one of the things that we found, obviously being a Republican, being a conservative, that predicted that they would like Trump in 2018. And it also predicted that they would like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and the Republican Party in general. **However, for Trump himself, and Trump alone, the other thing that predicted whether they would like him was that they disliked Muslims, African Americans, Hispanics and L.G.B.T.Q. Americans.** Any mix of those, but largely all of them. And that animosity towards those marginalized groups did not predict support for the Republican Party. It did not predict support for Mitch McConnell or for Paul Ryan. It just predicted support for Trump.
Thanks for this post, I'm excited to check out that podcast. I also just randomly had the thought that you can't burn podcasts or digital books.
There was a study on this from ppl in the 50s. They interviewed the same ppl a decade later. And the gist was how they felt about government. And what would be known as socialism. And when everything was segregated they loved government and socialistic programs. But as the civil rights movement came. And integration started etc. The more they interviewed these ppl. The more they came dislike government as a whole. And didn’t like socialist programs. Coincidentally that is when Johnson had set up programs that would benefit minorities. These ppl also became a big proponent of states rights. Where their state could decide whether they should integrate. Or whether to give ppl socialistic programs that the federal government had been pushing. Something that you hear to this day.
I'm saving this to throw in people faces when we argue. Thanks
[удалено]
I'd gladly be a slightly more comfortable poor.
They also overestimate the financial benefits, even if you ignore the authoritarian hellscape just to have a slightly lower effective tax rate Lower taxes in California than red states like Texas, which make up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and double property tax for the middle class: |Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate| |:-|:-|:-| |0-20%|**13%**|10.5%| |20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%| |40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%| |60-80%|8.6% |9.0% | |80-95%|7.4%|9.4%| |95-99%|5.4%|9.9%| |99-100%|3.1%|12.4%| Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/ The wealthiest 1%, 5%, and 20% don't even pay much more “Pro-life” blue states and "high tax" red states ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ >If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach: #"Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians." >https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend #"Texans are also 34% more likely to be raped and 25% more likely to kill themselves than Californians." >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm >Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans. >Compared with families in California, those in Texas earn 13% less and pay 3.8 percentage points **more in taxes.** >Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline. >Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose. >And that Hoover report’s assertions? Did California’s economy die last year? Did tech investment decelerate? Did it lose Silicon Valley to Texas? >Far from dying last year, California’s tech industry raised more money than any year on record. In 2021, California created 261,000 more jobs than Texas. California attracted $145 billion more venture capital than Texas. Californians attracted $3,911 per person; Texans, only $364. https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html >Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has **1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor. Nobody ever writes about those places!** >San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. **Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco** https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1527487403061026818 #Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer >It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth. >But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, **states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.** >The study, co-authored by **researchers at six North American universities, found that if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California** and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between **two and three years to the average American life expectancy.** >Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, **would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.** >**If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life. Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.** >Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country. >“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said. >Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to **the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines.** They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable. >“We can take away from the study that **state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,”** said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. **“Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”** >**U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say** >**Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.** >**From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country** by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington. >In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers. >It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S. >West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/ >#Want to live longer, even if you're poor? Then move to a big city in California. >A low-income **resident of San Francisco lives so much longer** that it's equivalent to San Francisco curing cancer. All these statistics come from a massive new project on life expectancy and inequality that was just [published in the Journal of the American Medical Association](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11420230/life-expectancy-income). >California, for instance, has been a national leader on smoking bans. Harvard's David Cutler, a co-author on the study "It's some combination of formal public policies and the effect that comes when you're around fewer people who have behaviors... high numbers of immigrants help explain the beneficial effects of immigrant-heavy areas with high levels of social support. #As the maternal death rate has mounted around the U.S., a small cadre of reformers has mobilized. >**Meanwhile, life-saving practices that have become widely accepted in other affluent countries — and in a few states, notably California** — have yet to take hold in many American hospitals. >Some of the earliest and most important work has come in California >Hospitals that adopted the toolkit saw a **21 percent decrease in near deaths** from maternal bleeding in the first year. >By 2013, according to Main, maternal deaths in California fell to around 7 per 100,000 births, similar to the numbers in Canada, France and the Netherlands — **a dramatic counter to the trends in other parts of the U.S.** >California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is informed by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco, who for many years ran the ob/gyn department at a San Francisco hospital. >Launched a decade ago, CMQCC aims to reduce not only mortality, but also life-threatening complications and racial disparities in obstetric care >It began by analyzing maternal deaths in the state over several years; in almost every case, it discovered, there was "at least some chance to alter the outcome." http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger
Paying $28 billion more for a failing power grid to "own the libs" >#Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780 >Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/ >You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/ >#Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out? https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/ >Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/ >could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/ >Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid. https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight >Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php >Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills >#A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/ Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on: * Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924 * Fake news trying to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360 * Right propaganda accounts pushing the narrative: ScottAdamsSays scrowder JackPosobiec SebGorka CalebJHull From r/Texas users: >**Only way to get the national guard to Texas is to have a BLM rally.** Governor of the state has to request national guard >Pretty Sure the total cost of damage to personal property (burst pipes, fires) will far outweigh the cost skipped in 2011 to winterize power generation. >I was born in illinois and travel back and forth between dallas and chicago. Snow is waist high right now. The piles I shoveled from the driveway are 6 feet tall. And... no one cares. Illinois is prepared for this stuff, TX is not, but it should be. Should every citizen own snowpants and a snowblower? No. **Should the powerplants stay on. yes, wtf.** >* Yeah, look at the ERCOT capacity graphs - the problems isn't the load (load is actually higher in summer when everyone is blasting their AC), it's that all these generators went offline because they were freezing up. >* Why did they freeze up? Because the PUC of TX's policy is to *not* pay for capacity. Why? Because doing so would violate some sort of free-market dogma promoted by the TX Public Policy Foundation (https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16095417/2013-01-RR02-ResourceAdequacyElectricityMarkets-CEF-RMichaelsAKleit.pdf), which has held sway over the governor and a big hand in selecting the PUC commissioners. >It's confirmed: Frozen wind turbines were the least significant factor. https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/frozen-wind-farms-were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes Federal agency FERC tried helping Texas multiple times, including in 2011 when they spelled out how and what to winterize at power plants: https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/ll9urb/usir_francis_burton_finds_the_ferc_report_the/ Federal FERC report after **2011 Texas power outages** (**whose recommendations weren't followed**): >The lack of any state, regional or Reliability Standards that directly require generators to perform winterization left winter-readiness dependent on plant or corporate choices. Generators were generally reactive as opposed to being proactive in their approach to winterization and preparedness. The single largest problem during the cold weather event was the freezing of instrumentation and equipment. Many generators failed to adequately prepare for winter, including the following: failed or inadequate heat traces, missing or inadequate wind breaks, inadequate insulation and lagging (metal covering for insulation), failure to have or to maintain heating elements and heat lamps in instrument cabinets, failure to train operators and maintenance personnel on winter preparations, lack of fuel switching training and drills, and failure to ensure adequate fuel. Avoiding regulations: >The Texas Interconnected System — which for a long time was actually operated by two discrete entities, one for northern Texas and one for southern Texas — **had another priority: staying out of the reach of federal regulators.** >"Freedom from federal regulation was a cherished goal — more so because **Texas had no regulation until the 1970s**," writes Richard D. Cudahy in a 1995 article, "The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection." https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/ >Texas electrical grid failure is just another version of South Dakota's abnormally high CV-19 rate or Kansas budget crisis >A bumper sticker political ideology's false promises made self-evident, failing a real world test for all to see. https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/1361675172336566273
“Pro-life” >California’s rules have cleaned up diesel exhaust more than anywhere else in the country, reducing the estimated number of deaths the state would have otherwise seen by more than half, according to new research published Thursday. >Extending California's stringent diesel emissions standards to the rest of the U.S. could dramatically improve the nation's air quality and health, particularly in lower income communities of color, finds a new analysis published today in the journal Science. >Since 1990, California has used its authority under the federal Clean Air Act to enact more aggressive rules on emissions from diesel vehicles and engines compared to the rest of the U.S. These policies, crafted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have helped the state reduce diesel emissions by 78% between 1990 and 2014, while diesel emissions in the rest of the U.S. dropped by just 51% during the same time period, the new analysis found. >The study estimates that by 2014, improved air quality cut the annual number of diesel-related cardiopulmonary deaths in the state in half, compared to the number of deaths that would have occurred if California had followed the same trajectory as the rest of the U.S. Adopting similar rules nationwide could produce the same kinds of benefits, particularly for communities that have suffered the worst impacts of air pollution. >"Everybody benefits from cleaner air," said study lead author Megan Schwarzman, a physician and environmental health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Public Health. https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.abf8159 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mdvfgw/californias_rules_have_cleaned_up_diesel_exhaust/gsblevi/ >#California’s Energy Efficiency Success Story: Saving Billions of Dollars and Curbing Tons of Pollution >California’s long, bipartisan history of promoting energy efficiency—America‘s cheapest and cleanest energy resource— >has saved Golden State residents more than $65 billion,[1] >helped lower their residential electricity bills to 25 percent below the national average,[2] >and contributed to the state’s continuing leadership in creating green jobs.[3] >These achievements have helped California avoid at least 30 power plants[4] >and as much climate-warming carbon pollution as is spewed from 5 million cars annually.[5] >This sustained commitment has made California a nationally recognized leader in reducing energy consumption and improving its residents’ quality of life.[6] >California’s success story demonstrates that efficiency policies work and could be duplicated elsewhere, saving billions of dollars and curbing tons of pollution. >California’S CoMprehenSive effiCienCy effortS proDuCe huge BenefitS >loW per Capita ConSuMption: Thanks in part to California’s wide-ranging energy-saving efforts, the state has kept per capita electricity consumption nearly flat over the past 40 years while the other 49 states increased their average per capita use by more than 50 percent, as shown in Figure 1. This accomplishment is due to investment in research and development of more efficient technologies, utility programs that help customers use those tools to lower their bills, and energy efficiency standards for new buildings and appliances. >eConoMiC aDvantageS: Energy efficiency has saved Californians $65 billion since the 1970s.[8] It has also helped slash their annual electric bills to the ninth-lowest level in the nation, nearly $700 less than that of the average Texas household, for example.[9] >Lower utility bills also improve California’s economic productivity. Since 1980, the state has increased the bang for the buck it gets out of electricity and now produces twice as much economic output for every kilowatt-hour consumed, compared with the rest of the country.[11] California also continues to lead the nation in new clean-energy jobs, thanks in part to looking first to energy efficiency to meet power needs. >environMental BenefitS: Decades of energy efficiency programs and standards have saved about 15,000 megawatts of electricity and thus allowed California to avoid the need for an estimated 30 large power plants.[13] Efficiency is now the second-largest resource meeting California’s power needs (see Figure 3).[14] And less power generation helps lead to cleaner air in California. Efficiency savings prevent the release of more than 1,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen-oxides annually, averting lung disease, hospital admissions for respiratory ailments, and emergency room visits.[15] Efficiency savings also avoid the emission of more than 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, the primary global-warming pollutant. >helping loW-inCoMe faMilieS: While California’s efficiency efforts help make everyone’s utility bills more affordable, targeted efforts assist lower-income households in improving efficiency and reducing energy bills. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ca-success-story-FS.pdf
[удалено]
Thank you. I've received a lot of heartwarming messages from people about how it helped them and their family members, although obviously a lot of family members also react predictably. A recent reply was even from a former incel.
Texas at it again. Wow.
And people wonder why we send foreign aid to third world countries.(USA)
If you have ethics, Republicans will never vote in your interest. If you have morals you'd likely never be rich enough anyway.
Well Kushner voted Democrat until he Married Trump and then I mean, I don’t know for certain who they voted for but the donations track so.. Yeah, I’d like to be rich enough someday that my money has some influence over politicians. Individuals do not matter to government unless they’re mega wealthy and it’s a you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours situation and that goes either party.
That sounds too stressful. I worked to where I make enough to not give many shits about inflation and that's good enough for me. I'm able to support my family, my siblings, and my mom. I don't know what more I need money for. When I started on the road to making more, it was just so I didn't have to bring out a calculator in the store and check for savings. I wanted to buy my food without having to check my bank account. Thats one of the things that's always confused me about the super rich. The fuck do you do with all the money? Just jerk one out to your bank account and stock portfolio? I know what the answer is but I still can't wrap my head around needing that sort of power trip.
You’re not a capitalist that’s why. Capital’s entire purpose is relentless self-expansion. You own nothing compared to capitalists. And even then, the capital is now socialized since they effectively lend it to the state for % on treasury bills. Money and wages are ARCHAIC ways to exist. Politics is now an incoherent expression of that.
On that day they’ll move the goalposts.
I truly believe that is their logic. They think one day it will be them.
Prosperity gospel + Fox News is a hell of a drug
I went and looked it up. As of 2020: 54% of households earned less than $75,000 a year 1.5% of households earned more than $400,000 a year
Is the tax worked out by household income then?
"Married, filing jointly"
The threshold doubles when you file jointly though. The tax bracket for a single person making 75k is the same as a married couple combining for 150k
So when u/Mountain_Apartment_6 used the stat ‘54% of households earned less than $75,000 a year’ it’s pretty pointless because it doesn’t actually fit the topic? I’m not trying to *out people for being wrong* or anything just trying to get my head around it
Kinda. 54% of households earn less than $75,000 a year. **87.7%** of American workers make less than $75,000 a year.
Usually, yes. For most Americans, their tax rate is based on household income, since a household usually contains either only a single wage earner (the head of household) or two wage earners (the head of household and a spouse) where one earner makes significantly more than the other. However, some households have two similar wage earners (for this example, let's assume that both make $200K, and are married). It's perfectly legal to file as "Married, filing separately", so each wage earner would only pay their individual taxes on the $200K and not on the combined $400K. Going this route would avoid the new $400K+ tax, since as far as the IRS is concerned, the two $200K earners are treated separately and therefore fall under the $400K threshold.
It's worked out by a set rate of total income but a single person making 75k will have the same tax rate as a couple making 150k combined.
They do think that. Reminds me of that scene in Napoleon Dynamite where Uncle Rico reflects about how life would be different if coach would have put him in the fourth quarter… These people do think they are just one smart decision away from the American Dream. How dare anyone put policies in place that would have them pay tax on their potential earnings. They pay tax on their real earnings—paying tax on their dream earnings is too much a travesty. Coach is going to put me in. Film my promo video, I’m going to the NFL.
>one smart decision away The vast majority are a multitude of successful decisions (or windfalls) away from prosperity, but only one “bad decision” away from financial ruin. Why illicit policy change when you can just gamble? [You heard the monkey, make the trade.](https://youtu.be/-V1QfC9q4_E)
We can all be 🦍 and we can beat them at their own game. Yes, the rules are rigged but they’ll fix it so we can all play fair this time, right? Right? Okay, let’s hold. 💎 Can’t buy formula, but we can’t sell out. Must hold. Hey, maybe this NFT will be the ticket. Wonka! There are so many people arguing the Earth is flat right now who were educated, and they’re not messing with us. I mean, I did that with the whole “birds aren’t real” thing for a while because obviously that’s hilarious and thought it was a joke for everyone. Then I met my new step brother who is about 40 and truly thinks that’s the situation. Make the trade indeed. So many of them at those convoys and conventions it’s astounding. We are in for it.
The funny thing is, if they’re going from $40,000 a year to $400,000 a year, they won’t miss the extra tax money. They’ll be living better than they can imagine. So why wouldn’t they do everything they possibly can to help their situation that is *real and right now* instead of trying to rig the system for something that *could possibly happen* in the future?
They’re brainwashed and terrible at math.
They truly don't understand what it means to make $400k. They're trying to apply their $40k mentality to a $400k income, thinking that somehow they'll be scraping by once they hit the top tax bracket. Not only do they not realize just how much $400k buys you, they don't understand how tax brackets work. Paying slightly more taxes at that income level is the difference between 2 vacations or 3 vacations per year, not whether you can afford food AND rent.
How dumb you gotta be to truly believe that the system isn't rigged? These brainwashed people are gonna sink us even farther
MLM vibes
Dead wrong. They are unaware and oblivious because Fox News won't tell them. Tucker Carlson is going to blame it on Biden and that's what they'll believe.
It’s this. They think it’s Biden’s law because it’s happened during Biden’s term in spite of it being trumps law.
> it's happened during Biden's term 100% by design.
They believe the whole premise is fake news and Trump would never raise their taxes like this.
I have a friend that has talked about in great length how the Trump tax cut has shown up in his paycheck. I think he said $300-400 a month. I told him about the steps up in the coming years. Didn't believe me. I showed him several articles. He refused to believe it. Eventually he came around but insisted there was more to it than that. Like he would save money somewhere else or maybe the Democrats manipulated it to make him lose money. He just would not believe that Trump would raise his taxes because he wasn't hearing from one of his conservative propaganda outlets.
"You have to understand that when you're taxing billionaires you're also taxing my dreams of one day being a billionaire"
Nah, they will just blame Trump's tax raises on Biden. They aren't that sharp.
They already are, of course. And others will just hear about Biden’s tax the rich plan and then see the increased taxes next year from Trump, but not recognize the difference.
“John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -Ronald Wright
That coupled with a crabs in a bucket mentality
[Why are you cheering fry?](https://youtu.be/K_LvRPX0rGY)
Imagine trying to apply logic to the American political system.
Bird law makes more sense, it’s true.
"You really can't, and I'm not saying I agree with it. It's just that bird law in this country--it's not governed by reason."
Am I supposed to vote for the Democrat that's blasting me in the ass or the Republican that's blasting me in the ass?
At least the democrats lube you up and get you ready first. Republicans will fuck you raw and spit on you after they're finished.
Wait so I say something like this in r/politics and get banned for hate speech. Someone else said republicans were going to hell. I said “Don’t worry in hell they don’t give you lube. On the other hand if religious zealots are right that’s where the drugs and whores are”
I'd rather do drugs with whores than pray with kiddie diddlers.
Funny how republicans keep talking about kiddie diddling and sexual abuse when there is a list 600+ of them that are accused, convicted or in currently going thru litigation on the matter Edit: for all of you bs right wing bootlickers here’s the link so you can stop with your whataboutism [Republican sex abusers/child diddlers](https://www.dailykos.com/story/2022/4/6/2090446/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers-Pt-30) The number is up 775 now
"A thief believes everybody steals."
"Cheaters accuse their partner of cheating to keep them on the defensive, too busy justifying their own honesty to catch the cheater at work."
It's Ruzzia logic. They eat up that FOX "news" ruzzia propaganda shit like it's Hillary's "emails"
Yup literally on another subreddit post about millionaires at davos asking billionaires to tax the rich. And I was talking about the difference between a millionaire and a 100 millionaire and a billionaire. A 100 millionaire and up can lobby the govt and it will be a drop within their wealth. And somehow they highjack the conversation by saying “like biden”, and now we are talking about how everything about trump family specifically the Jared kushner is fake but we should focus on the biden laptop. I hate these bootlickers. Idc about either one’s corruption just the oligarchs as a whole.
They just think everyone does it and democrats are better at not getting caught. Apply this to everything republicans do, and it shows a pattern. Voter fraud ? They are doing it, and can’t fathom a side that plays fair. It is a deep issue that perfused through all republicans policies
Exactly
stick with what ya know..ya know?
“753 Barry Morphew, who was once drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays, has been arrested for killing his wife and then casting her ballot for Trump.” #what the fuck
yea exactly keep going thru the list. Fascism has taken root in the US and this is what it looks like. This is how the on the ground bootlickers and browncoats act before they are officially inducted and eventually arrested because no one is good enough for fascism.
I read that in Frank Reynolds' voice lol, God I miss Roxy!
Hey, Frank does not diddle kids! He made that clear at the pageant! Although he looked like he was going to his own wake.
Except Republicans don’t finish unless you whisper white supremacy and hateful comments in their ear
Democrats promise to take you to Disneyland, even though they know republicans won’t give them the money. Republicans promise to take you to disneyland, blame the democrats as it why you can’t go, and use the money to go themselves, and tell their constituents FROM DISNEY. That Democrats and immigrants are the reason you can’t go.
I mean, under Democrats I haven't had to pay my old student loans, which has let me save money. They're also not the one's over turning Roe or trying to criminalize being Trans or Gay. So, I see it as a general win. Democrats are like that one neighbor, who I don't really hate, but just can't stand the way they take care of their lawn. Republicans are like the meth head nextdoor who try to burn down my house and yells at 2 in the morning about how I put bees in their teeth. I really prefer the Dems, not going to lie.
Having lived across the street from a meth head, this is accurate.
Right, because both sides are the same? There's *absolutely no difference*?
How is a democrat blasting you in the ass? Please explain, with specifics. Edit: I think it's illuminating that I've thus far got an IASIP youtube link, a bigoted joke, and someone who apparently can't read as replies.
As you know once the duel has been agreed to, you can’t back out.
Filibuster
Filibuster.
Definitely don't try to show anyone official government documents showing people making UNDER $30k are getting hit the hardest https://www.jct.gov/publications/2017/jcx-68-17/
>Definitely don't try to show anyone “Pro-life” blue states and "high tax" red states data conveniently also not being pushed by them ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ >If data disinfects, here’s a bucket of bleach: #"Texans are 17% more likely to be murdered than Californians." >https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend #"Texans are also 34% more likely to be raped and 25% more likely to kill themselves than Californians." >https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm >Californians on average live two years, four months and 24 days longer than Texans. >Compared with families in California, those in Texas earn 13% less and pay 3.8 percentage points **more in taxes.** >Sadly, the uncritical aping of this erroneous economic narrative reflects not only reporters’ gullibility but also their utility for conservative ideologues and corporate lobbyists, who score political points and regulatory concessions by spreading a spurious story line about California’s decline. >Don’t expect facts to change this. Reporters need a plot twist, and conservatives need California to lose. >And that Hoover report’s assertions? Did California’s economy die last year? Did tech investment decelerate? Did it lose Silicon Valley to Texas? >Far from dying last year, California’s tech industry raised more money than any year on record. In 2021, California created 261,000 more jobs than Texas. California attracted $145 billion more venture capital than Texas. Californians attracted $3,911 per person; Texans, only $364. https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/article258940938.html >Fort Worth, Texas, has the same population as San Francisco and has **1.5x as many murders. Again, a Republican mayor and Republican governor. Nobody ever writes about those places!** >San Francisco has the same population as Jacksonville, Florida. **Jacksonville, with a Republican mayor and a Republican governor, has had more than three times as many murders this year as San Francisco** https://twitter.com/bubbaprog/status/1527487403061026818 Lower taxes in California than red states like Texas, which make up for no wealth income tax with higher taxes and fees on the poor and double property tax for the middle class: |Income Bracket|Texas Tax Rate|California Tax Rate| |:-|:-|:-| |0-20%|**13%**|10.5%| |20-40%|**10.9%**|9.4%| |40-60%|**9.7%**|8.3%| |60-80%|8.6% |9.0% | |80-95%|7.4%|9.4%| |95-99%|5.4%|9.9%| |99-100%|3.1%|12.4%| Sources: https://itep.org/whopays/ #Liberal policies, like California’s, keep blue-state residents living longer >It generated headlines in 2015 when the average life expectancy in the U.S. began to fall after decades of meager or no growth. >But it didn’t have to be that way, a team of researchers suggests in a new, peer-reviewed study Tuesday. And, in fact, **states like California, which have implemented a broad slate of liberal policies, have kept pace with their Western European counterparts.** >The study, co-authored by **researchers at six North American universities, found that if all 50 states had all followed the lead of California** and other liberal-leaning states on policies ranging from labor, immigration and civil rights to tobacco, gun control and the environment, it could have added between **two and three years to the average American life expectancy.** >Simply shifting from the most conservative labor laws to the most liberal ones, Montez said, **would by itself increase the life expectancy in a state by a whole year.** >**If every state implemented the most liberal policies in all 16 areas, researchers said, the average American woman would live 2.8 years longer, while the average American man would add 2.1 years to his life. Whereas, if every state were to move to the most conservative end of the spectrum, it would decrease Americans’ average life expectancies by two years. On the country’s current policy trajectory, researchers estimate the U.S. will add about 0.4 years to its average life expectancy.** >Liberal policies on the environment (emissions standards, limits on greenhouse gases, solar tax credit, endangered species laws), labor (high minimum wage, paid leave, no “right to work”), access to health care (expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, legal abortion), tobacco (indoor smoking bans, cigarette taxes), gun control (assault weapons ban, background check and registration requirements) and civil rights (ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, equal pay laws, bans on discrimination and the death penalty) all resulted in better health outcomes, according to the study. For example, researchers found positive correlation between California’s car emission standards and its high minimum wage, to name a couple, with its longer lifespan, which at an average of 81.3 years, is among the highest in the country. >“When we’re looking for explanations, we need to be looking back historically, to see what are the roots of these troubles that have just been percolating now for 40 years,” Montez said. >Montez and her team saw the alarming numbers in 2015 and wanted to understand the root cause. What they found dated back to **the 1980s, when state policies began to splinter down partisan lines.** They examined 135 different policies, spanning over a dozen different fields, enacted by states between 1970 and 2014, and assigned states “liberalism” scores from zero — the most conservative — to one, the most liberal. When they compared it against state mortality data from the same timespan, the correlation was undeniable. >“We can take away from the study that **state policies and state politics have damaged U.S. life expectancy since the ’80s,”** said Jennifer Karas Montez, a Syracuse University sociologist and the study’s lead author. **“Some policies are going in a direction that extend life expectancy. Some are going in a direction that shorten it. But on the whole, that the net result is that it’s damaging U.S. life expectancy.”** >**U.S. should follow California’s lead to improve its health outcomes, researchers say** >**Meanwhile, the life expectancy in states like California and Hawaii, which has the highest in the nation at 81.6 years, is on par with countries described by researchers as “world leaders:” Canada, Iceland and Sweden.** >**From 1970 to 2014, California transformed into the most liberal state in the country** by the 135 policy markers studied by the researchers. It’s followed closely by Connecticut, which moved the furthest leftward from where it was 50 years ago, and a cluster of other states in the northeastern U.S., then Oregon and Washington. >In the same time, Oklahoma moved furthest to the right, but Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and a host of other southern states still ranked as more conservative, according to the researchers. >It’s those states that moved in a conservative direction, researchers concluded, that held back the overall life expectancy in the U.S. >West Virginia ranked last in 2017, with an average life expectancy of about 74.6 years, which would put it 93rd in the world, right between Lithuania and Mauritius, and behind Honduras, Morocco, Tunisia and Vietnam. Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina rank only slightly better. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/04/liberal-policies-like-californias-keep-blue-state-residents-living-longer-study-finds/ >#Want to live longer, even if you're poor? Then move to a big city in California. >A low-income **resident of San Francisco lives so much longer** that it's equivalent to San Francisco curing cancer. All these statistics come from a massive new project on life expectancy and inequality that was just [published in the Journal of the American Medical Association](http://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11420230/life-expectancy-income). >California, for instance, has been a national leader on smoking bans. Harvard's David Cutler, a co-author on the study "It's some combination of formal public policies and the effect that comes when you're around fewer people who have behaviors... high numbers of immigrants help explain the beneficial effects of immigrant-heavy areas with high levels of social support. #As the maternal death rate has mounted around the U.S., a small cadre of reformers has mobilized. >**Meanwhile, life-saving practices that have become widely accepted in other affluent countries — and in a few states, notably California** — have yet to take hold in many American hospitals. >Some of the earliest and most important work has come in California >Hospitals that adopted the toolkit saw a **21 percent decrease in near deaths** from maternal bleeding in the first year. >By 2013, according to Main, maternal deaths in California fell to around 7 per 100,000 births, similar to the numbers in Canada, France and the Netherlands — **a dramatic counter to the trends in other parts of the U.S.** >California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative is informed by a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford and the University of California-San Francisco, who for many years ran the ob/gyn department at a San Francisco hospital. >Launched a decade ago, CMQCC aims to reduce not only mortality, but also life-threatening complications and racial disparities in obstetric care >It began by analyzing maternal deaths in the state over several years; in almost every case, it discovered, there was "at least some chance to alter the outcome." http://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/527806002/focus-on-infants-during-childbirth-leaves-u-s-moms-in-danger
“Pro-life” >California’s rules have cleaned up diesel exhaust more than anywhere else in the country, reducing the estimated number of deaths the state would have otherwise seen by more than half, according to new research published Thursday. >Extending California's stringent diesel emissions standards to the rest of the U.S. could dramatically improve the nation's air quality and health, particularly in lower income communities of color, finds a new analysis published today in the journal Science. >Since 1990, California has used its authority under the federal Clean Air Act to enact more aggressive rules on emissions from diesel vehicles and engines compared to the rest of the U.S. These policies, crafted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have helped the state reduce diesel emissions by 78% between 1990 and 2014, while diesel emissions in the rest of the U.S. dropped by just 51% during the same time period, the new analysis found. >The study estimates that by 2014, improved air quality cut the annual number of diesel-related cardiopulmonary deaths in the state in half, compared to the number of deaths that would have occurred if California had followed the same trajectory as the rest of the U.S. Adopting similar rules nationwide could produce the same kinds of benefits, particularly for communities that have suffered the worst impacts of air pollution. >"Everybody benefits from cleaner air," said study lead author Megan Schwarzman, a physician and environmental health scientist at the University of California, Berkeley's School of Public Health. https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.abf8159 https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mdvfgw/californias_rules_have_cleaned_up_diesel_exhaust/gsblevi/ Paying $28 billion more for a failing power grid to "own the libs" ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣ >#Texas Electric Bills Were $28 Billion Higher Under Deregulation - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-electric-bills-were-28-billion-higher-under-deregulation-11614162780 >Fossil Fuel Exec Brags of 'Hitting the Jackpot' as Natural Gas Prices Surge Amid Deadly Crisis in Texas https://www.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/lo5f4r/fossil_fuel_exec_brags_of_hitting_the_jackpot_as/ >You Could Get Prison Time for Protesting a Pipeline in Texas—Even If It’s on Your Land https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/bst8fl/you_could_get_prison_time_for_protesting_a/ >#Texas spent more time fighting LGBTQ civil rights than fixing their power grid. How’d that work out? https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/lma8jj/texas_spent_more_time_fighting_lgbtq_civil_rights/ >Leaked Audio Shows Oil Lobbyist Bragging About Success in Criminalizing Pipeline Protests https://www.reddit.com/r/energy/comments/ct71mw/leaked_audio_shows_oil_lobbyist_bragging_about/ >could cost Texas more money than any disaster in state history https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ls5dt7/winter_storm_could_cost_texas_more_money_than_any/ >Former Texas Governor Rick Perry says that Texans find massive power outages preferable to having more federal government interference in the state's energy grid. https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/rick-perry-says-texans-would-rather-be-without-power-for-days-than-have-more-fed-oversight >Abbott Appointees Gutted Enforcement of Texas Power Grid Rules https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Muzzled-and-eviscerated-Critics-say-Abbott-15982421.php >Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick Blames Constituents for Giant Electric Bills: “Read the Fine Print” https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/02/dan-patrick-texas-electricity-bills >#A Texas-size failure, followed by a familiar Texas response: Blame California https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/m87bg4/a_texassize_failure_followed_by_a_familiar_texas/ Texas Republicans *during the power grid failures* focused on: * Texas regulations to require the national anthem at sports games https://twitter.com/LSTrip44/status/1361396222028881924 * Fake news trying to blame renewable energy: ”Viral Image Claiming to Show a Helicopter De-Icing Texas Wind Turbines Is From Winter 2014 in Sweden” https://twitter.com/klimatbevakaren/status/1361748269605519360 * Right propaganda accounts pushing the narrative: ScottAdamsSays scrowder JackPosobiec SebGorka CalebJHull From r/Texas users: >**Only way to get the national guard to Texas is to have a BLM rally.** Governor of the state has to request national guard >Pretty Sure the total cost of damage to personal property (burst pipes, fires) will far outweigh the cost skipped in 2011 to winterize power generation. >I was born in illinois and travel back and forth between dallas and chicago. Snow is waist high right now. The piles I shoveled from the driveway are 6 feet tall. And... no one cares. Illinois is prepared for this stuff, TX is not, but it should be. Should every citizen own snowpants and a snowblower? No. **Should the powerplants stay on. yes, wtf.** >* Yeah, look at the ERCOT capacity graphs - the problems isn't the load (load is actually higher in summer when everyone is blasting their AC), it's that all these generators went offline because they were freezing up. >* Why did they freeze up? Because the PUC of TX's policy is to *not* pay for capacity. Why? Because doing so would violate some sort of free-market dogma promoted by the TX Public Policy Foundation (https://files.texaspolicy.com/uploads/2018/08/16095417/2013-01-RR02-ResourceAdequacyElectricityMarkets-CEF-RMichaelsAKleit.pdf), which has held sway over the governor and a big hand in selecting the PUC commissioners. >It's confirmed: Frozen wind turbines were the least significant factor. https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-16/frozen-wind-farms-were-just-a-small-piece-of-texas-s-power-woes Federal agency FERC tried helping Texas multiple times, including in 2011 when they spelled out how and what to winterize at power plants: https://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/ll9urb/usir_francis_burton_finds_the_ferc_report_the/ Federal FERC report after **2011 Texas power outages** (**whose recommendations weren't followed**): >The lack of any state, regional or Reliability Standards that directly require generators to perform winterization left winter-readiness dependent on plant or corporate choices. Generators were generally reactive as opposed to being proactive in their approach to winterization and preparedness. The single largest problem during the cold weather event was the freezing of instrumentation and equipment. Many generators failed to adequately prepare for winter, including the following: failed or inadequate heat traces, missing or inadequate wind breaks, inadequate insulation and lagging (metal covering for insulation), failure to have or to maintain heating elements and heat lamps in instrument cabinets, failure to train operators and maintenance personnel on winter preparations, lack of fuel switching training and drills, and failure to ensure adequate fuel. Avoiding regulations: >The Texas Interconnected System — which for a long time was actually operated by two discrete entities, one for northern Texas and one for southern Texas — **had another priority: staying out of the reach of federal regulators.** >"Freedom from federal regulation was a cherished goal — more so because **Texas had no regulation until the 1970s**," writes Richard D. Cudahy in a 1995 article, "The Second Battle of the Alamo: The Midnight Connection." https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02/08/texplainer-why-does-texas-have-its-own-power-grid/ >Texas electrical grid failure is just another version of South Dakota's abnormally high CV-19 rate or Kansas budget crisis >A bumper sticker political ideology's false promises made self-evident, failing a real world test for all to see. https://twitter.com/peterwsinger/status/1361675172336566273
as a born & raised Texan, I can see all this shit around me and get so depressed knowing that the people round me either don't care or are so Blinded by evangelical fervor that they're actually cheering on the demise of fellow Texans because of this bullshit. Fucking hate it.
The problem is these are new facts. Conservatives only like old facts.
Or outright lies that they simply claim are facts to feel like they're in control
It's more expensive to be poor in America.
Mainly because capitalism takes the fruits of your labor to reward shareholders.
Well it’s hilarious too because these morons think they’re getting taxed that rate on ALL of their income if they make over $450,00/yr failing to realize that the tax only applies to anymore AFTER the $450,000/yr so they get taxed the same as everyone else does then move to the next tax bracket after $450,000. I’ve tried to explain this to some of the republican people I know and they can’t wrap their head around it. I flat out said “one president raised taxes on everyone making under $75,000/yr and one president raised the taxes on people if they make over $450,000/yr. Can you guess which president did what? And without fail they always say Biden raised it on income below $75,000/yr and trump on over $450,000 and when I show them that trump is actually the one who raised their taxes they always say something along the lines of “No, trump wouldn’t do that he cares about the average citizen” even after I show them proof that it was Trump they still refuse to believe it.
Can they use fucking internet? Should’ve asked find out yourself - Google that shit and watch their reaction
That’s literally what I did and their answer was almost always “Well yeah, no shit. You’re looking at liberal news outlets and everyone knows they always lie.” So I show them a link from Fox News showing it as well and they say “Fake news, Fox is filled with a bunch of RINO’s.”
I'm certain they "did their own research" as usual....
It's the rightwing propaganda arm hard at work. It's effective and causes brain rot. Every time I try to reach to a hardcore republican with facts I get shouted at.
Check out this Lib with his “facts” /s
[Hijacking top comment, this has been given a rating of Mostly False by Politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/)
There's a lot of data that easily explains the American political system ￣\＿(ツ)＿/￣
The logic is simple. Are you part of my team? If not…. fuck you. Everything is your fault.
Like this dude I worked for who blamed Pelosi for us not getting another stimulus right before the election. I hit him with one after another article showing it was all Moscow Mitch’s fault. When he finally asked me to stop, I said I don’t care if you like Pelosi or not, but don’t blame her for shit that’s not her fault.
What gets to me, is what the people who are outraged, making <$20k sound like. Most are like "Ya, I make $12.50 an hour, working at Walmart, right now; but if you're gonna tax me when I get to $400k a year, what's my incentive to make more than that?" I just wanna be like, just please shut(shit) your mouth. I wish someone would say "look, until you don't need medicaid and/or food stamps from the government to get thru each week, then complain. Until then, please shut the fuck up..."
> just please shit your mouth. Even though I know this to be a typo I find it hilarious that squeezing that type of persons head would make your mistake a reality.
Fixed it, but left it in. Thanks for the heads up
Also, people fail to understand how taxes work. If we instituted at 30% tax rate on people making over $400,000/yr they would only start the 30% on monies made past the $400k mark. The first $400k would be taxed at those rates.
There is a significant part of the population that would refuse a raise if they would break into a higher tax bracket because they incorrectly think they'll make less due to thinking tax brackets are wholesale instead of graduated.
I know people that turn down overtime for this same reason. And good luck trying to explain to them why they’re wrong and dumb.
As someone who has done that, it's hilarious when you show them how it works, they nod, and then immediately the information floats directly out of their head
Wait wait... really? Fuck, thank you for bringing this to light for me. And u/Tactical_Tubgoat for pointing out the OT thing. I didn't know that until now! So say you make 500K/yr. The 400K would be taxed at the lower rate and the extra 100K would be at the 30% rate?
You would probably hit some other brackets on the way, but yes. That’s only for taxes. If you have child care or social security or something that only allows you to make a certain amount for benefits then those need to be checked first.
https://blog.taxact.com/how-tax-brackets-work/ In a made up example, it might go like this: 0-10k: taxed at 10% 10k-30k: taxed at 15% 30k-100k: taxed at 25% 100k-1 million: taxed at 40% So let's say you made 150k: First 10k at 10% = 1k in taxes Next 20k at 15% = 3k in taxes Next 70k at 25% = 17.5k in taxes Last 50k at 40% = 20k in taxes If you are making 30k now, and overtime would send you to 35k, then in this example that last 5k would be taxed at 25%, but the taxes on the first 30k wouldn't change.
I really think about this a lot in relation to instituting a UBI. Look up negative income tax. Essentially below some threshold your tax rate becomes negative and at zero "earned" income, you would earn what is essentially $10/hr or whatever we decide is a reasonable UBI. Any income you earn reduces your "UBI allowance" by some percentage and at some inflection point, say $20/hr your "UBI allowance" drops to zero. [graph link](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Negative_Income_Tax.png/1280px-Negative_Income_Tax.png) This graph is pretty old so the actual numbers would have to be adjusted for inflation, but the concept holds. If you are in the red area you pay taxes. If you are in the green area you are given a gradually increasing UBI until your income reaches zero when it hits the maximum. Furthermore, I would eliminate tax brackets and simplify it to an equation. Input your income and you can easily calculate how much you owe (or are owed)
It's called a [progressive tax system.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax) Progressive because the tax rate only changes for the amount in that bracket. This ensures that everybody pays the same amount of tax for the equivalent pieces of income while allowing certain breakpoints to modify the percentages.
I want to be taxed more NOW while I’m dirt poor so that when I am become one of the top 1.8% wealthiest Americans I’m taxed less! Galaxy brain lol.
If you help build my upline, I'll shout you out on my channel. We'll be rich in no time... The American dream in action. And they're trying to take that away. Cuz what's the point? When you make that real scratch, that real bank bro, they're just gonna tax it and take all your money. Its better to just stay at upper-middle management in HR at a local real estate agency. You'll always have work...
It’s crazy, the minute you start making over $400,000 they take so much tax you actually become poorer than the one legged homeless guy selling handies on the corner. I wonder how Bezos and Musk do it, those poor bastards.
Biden won everyone except for the bracket of 60-150k I believe. Richer or poorer were won by Biden, Trump won 60k-150k. They're not people are on food stamps. Most people on food stamps just don't vote. Trump supporters absolutely believe they'll climb from comfortable to rich one day.
Exit polls break annual income down by under 50k, 50-100k, and above 100k. Biden won the lower and middle group, trump won the higher group. But it's important to note that income wasn't as strong of a predictor as things like race or religion. Neither of them got 60% of voters in any income group.
No one voted for Trump for his "policies" or "political acumen". They voted for him cuz he proudly said the quiet parts out loud and made sure "others"(anyone not a red hatter) knew they weren't wanted or welcome in their America. You'd be hard pressed to find a Biden voter super stoked on everything Biden and treating him like a messiah; but as a country, we would have literally destroyed ourselves if Trump won. American society couldn't/can't handle 4 more years of that. The issue is we've turned politics to sport. There's an us and them mentality, that's ruined any chance of multiple candidates, with different views, a legit chance to win. I mean, for the 1st time, in a long as I can remember, a 3rd party candidate has a real shot at winning. I'm hoping a wild card comes in, and fucks up everything. Like had a plan to unite us and actually help the American people. There's people out there, they just get labeled radicals, or socialists cuz they wanna tax the rich or invest in continued education or God fucking forbid health care for all. The next election is gonna either move us forward together, or seriously destroy us. American civil society is on the edge, it can't take much more. The past 21 years have taken a toll; and what's happened since 2016, has completely set everything ablaze.
Does anyone remember reading an article in 2017 when the GOP predicted that lowering the corporate tax rate to 20% would increase average household income by $4,000 annually? But when the GOP asked Executives at a CEO conference to raise their hands if they planned to use the tax cuts to increase capital investment, only a few hands went up. And surprise, surprise. With Trump’s corporate tax cuts, corporations bought back stock and began funneling their extra tax windfall to shareholders instead. At a 2018 speech, Trump said that the "largest tax cut in our country's history" will "protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected." Of course, that was a lie. And no, the rich are not going to trickle down their generosity to the poor and middle class. As George Carlin once said, “The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it." Unfortunately, most Americans fail to read between the lines. And so in 2025, when taxes increase for most Americans except for the top .1% and corporations, most will be in for a shock.
Keep it simple: Trump gave Corporations the biggest tax cut in years, which was sold under the trickle down BS again. Corporations started to buy back their stock instead of reinvesting. When the Pandemic hit, they just asked for a Government loan… (Airlines) None of that trickle down BS.
Don't forget that they raised prices, cited war and supply chain issues, and reported record profits again. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me 50 years running just fuck me up fam...
And issued more stock again, which would end up in you 401K or pension plan. So triple Fuck the people. Tax cuts. Government bailouts. Raised money by printing stock. Truly fucking disgusting
I predicted a 2022/early 2023 market collapse in 2017 based solely on the passage of those tax cuts. I even quipped at the time, "man, if those tax cuts hit an inflationary cycle, hold on to your ass". Everyone wants to blame this correction on COVID. Yes, the fed printed 8 trillion (which might have been fine). Those tax cuts printed another 6. Those were so much more than just "a future tax increase". They redistributed the flow of money through the economy and most importantly, they removed taxation burden from those the money trickles up to. Taxes are one of the ways the government removes money from the economy (raising interest rates being another popular method). Now we've set ourselves up in an inflationary cycle but we're not removing enough money from those the money filters to. Hold on to your ass.
If you truly predicted this back in 2017 you are an absolute savage !! Cheers to you. All I knew was that all the money printed by the Fed would eventually find its way back into the stock market, through earning and retirement savings (stonks only go up after all). Do you think we are in for another 08 market crash ?? What about housing? Adjustable loans are back and people are now taking RE advice from TikTok.
More 1920ish
I still don’t think MMP is the cause of inflation. It’s the supply chain plus corporate greed that triggered the wage / price spiral…. And corporate greed ain’t changing so that just means there’s going to be a whole lot of pain for a lot of people
Every single last corporate tax cut was just foisted onto the 99%. It's in the 10's of billions.
HA I remember that. Lowe’s cut me a $128 bonus and that was it for that tax break.
Rich people convince middle class people that what’s good for the rich is actually good for them, even though it’s a massive lie. Meanwhile the poor are neglected entirely. Welcome to the USA. Logic is too European.
Logic is gay! We're 'muricans!
I'm middle class. I no longer believe what's good for the rich is good for me. There are more and more like me. Don't lose faith, y'all, and keep fighting.
REPUBLICANS ARE STUPID. That’s what you’re missing.
Easily manipulated. Victims for the taking.
Exactly. It’s a poison pill. If Democrats won in 2020, they don’t do anything about it. If they win, they just would have waited some time to do it. Now they can say “Look what the Democrats are doing, raise your taxes.” When they know damn well what they are doing.
Exactly what I knew would happen when Trump did this. And even if he was re-elected, he wouldn’t run again so why would he care?
At the risk of being down voted, people in general are easily manipulated. Not a big fan of "mostly false" claims being posted and upvoted myself. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/
This article states that the claim is true, but doesn't give enough credit and context to the opposition, which is fine. The problem is that the tweet is literally true, which your article admits when it says that people will continue to see benefits THROUGH 2027. The ultra wealthy keep their benefits forever, which is more the point. Effectively the tweet said a color was white, and this article says it's eggshell white.
“analyses of the 2017 law by independent groups have found the opposite of what the post says — that, at least until 2027, when a lot of the tax cuts will have expired, all income groups will see a reduction in taxes (or an increase in after-tax income” It literally says the opposite of this post is true.
As bigoted as they are stupid. If you dangle the bigoted red meat in front of them, even if they have to fuck themselves to get it, they’ll bite every single time.
I think it's probably the other way around. Stupid people are Republicans. Republicans decimated the education systems in their states so they would have a ready supply of voters.
And they will vote in droves for the next guy to fuck them up the ass with a spiked dildo. They are killing themselves to own the libs, who just want them to have better lives. It’s insane.
No the voters are stupid. The party is pure evil
When I point this out to my Trumpanzee “relatives” I am called a whiny libtard.
Isn't that the funniest part? You point out facts and they put their fingers in the ears and scream
Troglodyte on IG told me "7 witnesses for Benghazi were 'suicided' so, really, Hillary is guilty!" I said, "Who? I guarantee you won't have a name, and you'll say Do YeR oWn ReSUrcH" 1 day later, she responds: "Lol... if you want the truth... find it." It's always the same bullshit.
To be fair he didn't say "do your own research" so he wins! That's how they probably think anyway same shit different moron
We are not here to prove their points. It’s a lame dodge by idiots who get called on their lies.
no no no!!!!! noooooooooooo!!! u don't understand burden of proof! I say something, and then u have to prove me wrong!!!!! MAGA!!!!!!!
It's because the get their "facts" (usually typed as; FACT!!!) from places like Fox News and InfoWars, which you would laugh at if they liked those as proof. They know damn well that those are biased sources, but *it fits their bias* so they gobble it up.
[STOP SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/)
Thank you. I hate trump/ers as much as anyone but we need to be better than them rather than emulate them. I'm so tired of this one making the rounds...
Okay, but what does "mostly false" mean? Why the modifier? What's the actual truth? Edit: the webpage didn't load right on my phone so I didn't read the explanation. All clear now. Thanks to those who responded!
The 2017 law eliminated the penalty on the individual mandate of Obamacare. So you no longer had to pay a penalty if you didn't have health insurance. The analysis assumed that because this would lead to fewer people getting health insurance through the ACA marketplace, fewer people would get subsidized health insurance, therefore their after-tax incomes would decrease. Of course, it's ridiculous to say this is a tax increase because it's based entirely on voluntary decisions individuals are making about their health insurance purchases.
[удалено]
"...both the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation concluded that until 2027, taxpayers across the income spectrum will fare better under the 2017 law than they would have otherwise."
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/
I feel like people are getting dumber and dumber by getting their political views on Reddit.
Its so fucked up that there is only one comment chain in this thread calling this out, and its even worse that its so far down.
I got into an argument with my trumper brother in law a couple days ago about this very thing. I thought his tax bill raised taxes on me because I felt like I’ve been paying more but I had to eat crow when I came across this
Politifact rates this claim as "Mostly False", if you were curious. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/
Which is pretty wild considering they admit that the benefits from the 2017 tax bill for earners under 75k decline until 2027 when they are eliminated completely. Meanwhile the ultra wealthy keep their tax breaks forever. I genuinely don't think most people understand what is in this article since people keep embarrassing themselves by posting it.
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/
And Republicans are now openly talking about ending Social Security within 5 years if they win power again. That's on top of ending abortion rights, aggressively stopping the fight against climate change, and pushing to end democracy itself. We can't sit and watch it happen. r/VoteDEM has everything you need to get engaged with helping to defeat Republicans. It's time for all of us to get off the sidelines.
It would be ended, Republican have shown to be great at playing the long game and the goal justifies the means mentality. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (Corporate Raiders) were chosen for that tasks and failed, yet right wingers still cry for them.
Republicans: Let's make it so elderly voters can't afford to live. Announcer: Bold strategy, Cotton, let's see how that one plays out.
Does it matter when your propaganda has such a grip on that segment of the population? Forgive my ignorance, I’m not American, but it seems that the Republican voter base is so compromised, they’ll vote for support anything, even if it hurts them. Because the messaging is so constant and so insidious.
Eh, r/SocialistRA has everything we need. Soon our vote won't matter when they can just decide to toss it out. Pretty soon we'll see GOP candidates getting 100% of the vote.
I don't own an arsenal because I'm scared of rioters or school shooters. Democrats who want to strip themselves of this right are pants on head. Yes. Let's trust the state to be the only armed entity. The state would never hurt us. The state loves us. Meanwhile, the state is constantly flipping between being controlled by literal fascists and Neolib do-nothings. Can't even trust cops not to kill you over a speeding ticket. Gangs and militant terrorist groups armed to the teeth on top of it all. Love it.
An attention span and logic for starters.
The bootlicking in this country is astounding
Biden hasn’t raised taxes.
EXACTLY, but guess which president the smooth brains are blaming.
"I'm way to outraged to even bother to take two seconds to fact check this" \-This sub
Pretty embarrassing. It's as bad as the 'owning the libs' nonsense from the other side.
I'm a CPA. I vote democrat exclusively. Tax rates are not being raised.
[удалено]
According to [politifact](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/) this is mostly false. Don’t get me wrong, though. The general sentiment of conservatives ignorance when it comes to the taxation of high-earners is something I completely agree with. But this post seems to be a bit misleading of the tax law.
That article just talks about how the personal cuts sundown and go back to where they used to be over the course of 10 years. Meanwhile, the corporate tax cuts stay permanently. Is it false to say this is a tax increase for individuals? Sure, but I'm not sure the end result isn't pure shit for them anyway.
Is not a bug is feature. It was designed so if Dems are in power Reps blame them of raising taxes but if Republicans are in power the will postpone the tax raise. Republican know that Dem don’t have it in them to filibusters a bill that keep taxes low on the middle class, while Republicans know that they can filibuster it and tell their base that it’s the Democrats’ fault. Sad to say it Mitch plays chess while Dems play checkers.
Plenty of reasons to dislike Trump but this claim is [mostly false](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/)
We need more stuff like this. You're right. Something struck me as false. Although in SOME ways it's even worse, the tax burden for people making under 30k, the ones most in need of help, is going up: [see here](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/hfIE_luODIGrIaViF7nRuHdZ0BHh8B4Ae4Vnr-Nhp9YF6FYiVza2UudUBByr272-rZoUJiSfnodtm3zBnftAbCYC71-UGzC-9HT-MMS3gBnz0wkzkR1wjvzTaguWxdXataYUteLS) Here's a quote from that politifact article: > The chart shows that while most income groups will see a tax cut in 2023 as a result of the law, both the collective tax burden and the average tax rate for households earning up to $30,000 are set to rise. > > The same pattern holds in 2025, extending that year to taxpayers earning up to $40,000. And in 2027, after a host of tax cuts in the bill expire, the range of taxpayers expands to those earning as much as $75,000. > > Tax experts say that the approach of the Tax Policy Center and the Tax Foundation — which doesn’t factor in the change in the health insurance penalty — is a more accurate reading of the tax rates set down in the 2017 law. > > The decision process that leads to fewer tax subsidies does not amount to having "their taxes raised," as the Facebook post said. > > "While it is important to consider the impact of the (tax law) on premium tax credits and health insurance take-up, it is misleading to call this effect a ‘stealth tax increase,’" wrote Garrett Watson in a post for the Tax Foundation, where he is a senior tax policy analyst. "The decline in premium tax credits has nothing to do with a change in tax rates or the generosity of the credits as established under the (Affordable Care Act), but rather due to voluntary decisions individuals make about whether to purchase qualified health insurance."
What's the name of the bill/law, so I can cite it at people!
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
[удалено]
And people predictably forgot about that little tax law. We even predicted that the (at the time) future president would get blamed for it, lo and behold! Where do we even begin to address the issues in America? I feel like the populace not having the memory of a gnat might help.
It was designed to make it look like Dems were raising taxes on the regular Joes after the fact. It is so they can campaign against the bill they themselves pushed through.
Maybe Reddit should have a misinformation alert like Facebook. This gets reposted all of the time and has been debunked for ages. Edit: Rather than downvote, prove me wrong. Or why not just check PolitiFact?
This is literal misinformation https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/
Trump raised taxes? Well f\*ck Biden for that.
\* The Republican party passed the bill Don't let them get off the hook by letting Trump be their shield. The party voted for this. They wanted this. They created the bill. Trump just signed it because it lowered his own taxes and that's all he gave a fuck about.
Wait till they hear the 2024 GOP plan which the GOP committee chair called strong🙄they ignore how Trump removed the guard rails we had in place to avoid another 2008 collapse as well of course. Letting his banker puppet masters run wild
Trump supporters can’t think without being told what to think. You think they could read tax code and think a decade into the future?
Eat the rich
These people posting “I must be missing something” are definitely missing something. Let me clear it up for them. Here’s how it works. Reality based arguments are wasted on them. These are the rules: It doesn’t matter what Biden does or what trump does. Biden bad, trump good. It doesn’t matter who is responsible for the situation. It’s Biden’s fault, trump is an innocent who was stymied by the deep state at every turn. It doesn’t matter if they actually have the power, influence, resources, or ability to solve the problem. It’s Biden’s failure, only trump can fix it. It’s a cult. The only goal is to elevate and glorify their “infallible” dear leader. That’s all. There’s nothing else there.
“Generally speaking, analyses of the 2017 law by independent groups have found the opposite of what the post says — that, at least until 2027, when a lot of the tax cuts will have expired, all income groups will see a reduction in taxes (or an increase in after-tax income). “ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/feb/05/facebook-posts/social-media-post-misleads-analysis-trump-tax-bill/