Republicans, list your favorite things about Darlene Graham

dbjork6317 · Monday at 4:02 PM

Billanole. said:
A vote for Darlene is exactly just what you claim to not support.

@scotchtiger is a purely single issue voter. He cares only about his tax rates. He would vote for absolutely anyone if he felt it meant his taxes would be lower. There’s literally nothing else he even thinks about, least of all how any policies affect anyone else that isn’t him.

scotchtiger · Monday at 4:15 PM

dbjork6317 said:
@scotchtiger is a purely single issue voter. He cares only about his tax rates. He would vote for absolutely anyone if he felt it meant his taxes would be lower. There’s literally nothing else he even thinks about, least of all how any policies affect anyone else that isn’t him.

Not true. Regardless, per chatGPT I’m not alone…

Based on national polling, I would estimate that 40–55% of American voters consider issues directly affecting their personal finances their single most important political priority. That is an analytical estimate, not a directly measured polling result.

You just don’t like that tax policy affects my personal finances more than tariffs or gas prices. Everyone is prioritizing their personal finances when they vote. Different categories just affect some more than others.

dbjork6317 · Monday at 4:49 PM

scotchtiger said:
Not true. Regardless, per chatGPT I’m not alone…

Based on national polling, I would estimate that 40–55% of American voters consider issues directly affecting their personal finances their single most important political priority. That is an analytical estimate, not a directly measured polling result.

You just don’t like that tax policy affects my personal finances more than tariffs or gas prices. Everyone is prioritizing their personal finances when they vote. Different categories just affect some more than others.

I mean, yeah, of course voters prioritize issues directly affecting them and their finances. You needed ChatGPT for that?

There’s a difference in prioritizing it and caring only about that to the point of ignoring all other issues. Many voters are willing to vote for something that may not be in their direct interests if they feel it would be for the greater good.

Everything I’ve ever seen from you indicates that you care only about the singular issue of how your finances are impacted and do not consider how any policy impacts anyone not named scotchtiger.

I don’t really understand what your last paragraph means? I don’t like that you’re impacted by tax policy? Everyone is impacted by tax policy, including me.

yoshi121374 · Monday at 7:18 PM

scotchtiger said:
Not true. Regardless, per chatGPT I’m not alone…

Based on national polling, I would estimate that 40–55% of American voters consider issues directly affecting their personal finances their single most important political priority. That is an analytical estimate, not a directly measured polling result.

You just don’t like that tax policy affects my personal finances more than tariffs or gas prices. Everyone is prioritizing their personal finances when they vote. Different categories just affect some more than others.

I don't prioritize my personal finances over integrity. I won't ever vote for an absolute trash human like Trump, no matter how much it may help my finances.

For the record, I'm not in your tax bracket, but we are dual income no kids and I promise you we pay a large amount in taxes, particularly when including our church jobs income which are 1099 and taxed at a high rate tonight full time jobs

I consider myself lucky to live in a country like America and I actually want to see my neighbors succeed.

FLaw47 · Monday at 7:29 PM

I hate to stand up for @scotchtiger here but I know I'd be voting for a Dem warm body over a generic Republican. The single most important thing about a legislative candidate is their party. I do think he's a reliable Republican vote (so no credit for both sides suck for him) but he needs to be convinced Democrats are better than Republicans (and from his values and asinine world view that's a tall hill to climb).

dbjork6317 · Monday at 7:34 PM

FLaw47 said:
I hate to stand up for @scotchtiger here but I know I'd be voting for a Dem warm body over a generic Republican. The single most important thing about a legislative candidate is their party. I do think he's a reliable Republican vote (so no credit for both sides suck for him) but he needs to be convinced Democrats are better than Republicans (and from his values and asinine world view that's a tall hill to climb).

Sure, I’d vote for a warm body over a Republican as well. But it’s like “I’m voting for a warm body republican so my taxes don’t go up” vs “I’m voting for a warm body democrat so the Republicans don’t continue chipping away at the fabric of our democratic institutions and install an authoritarian regime.”

they’re not really the same.

Billanole. · Monday at 8:14 PM

scotchtiger said:
1. I don't take anyone seriously who uses terminology like "drump." I assume these are basement dwellers deep in a social media political algorithm spiral.

2. Tax rates were lowered for everyone, with middle income people receiving a greater % decrease than wealthier Americans. I've shown the math on that here.

3. Trump is out of office in 2 years. This vote has more to do with what comes after Trump.

4. Universal health care would cost ~$3 TRILLION per year. The majority of the federal budget already goes toward entitlements. Dems would add $3T for healthcare plus expand other entitlements. Yes, this is a much, much bigger threat to long-term financial solvency than whatever Trump spends in his final 24 months. For context, we have spent $43.6B on the war in Iran. That's 1.5% of one year of universal healthcare, except UHC is forever.

#1 I have complete respect for the office of the President. drump deserves no respect. He is a criminal, a serial liar, and a thief. I don’t give a fat rat’s *** if you take me seriously.
#2 It is comical that people support the mega rich at a lower or even equal tax rate to citizens earning less than $50K a year.
#3 Trump is setting things up for his criminal family and his big backers to continue the massive grift from now on.
#4 Citizens deserve preventive care and medicine at rates equal to or lower than other modern nations. Big med monopolies should go the way of the great pterodactyl.
These simple steps would save billions yearly and boost our disgusting life span numbers.
Your suggestion that the drump war has only cost in the low $40 billions is laughable. What do you think we invested in the bases, including the massive naval one in Bahrain? Add up the lost aircraft… $43 billion is a laughable number and drump + Hegseth are flailing. No current way out. The cash register is adding more daily.

FLaw47 · Monday at 9:56 PM

dbjork6317 said:
Sure, I’d vote for a warm body over a Republican as well. But it’s like “I’m voting for a warm body republican so my taxes don’t go up” vs “I’m voting for a warm body democrat so the Republicans don’t continue chipping away at the fabric of our democratic institutions and install an authoritarian regime.”

they’re not really the same.

For sure, that's where my values and ostensibly less asinine world view come in.

baltimorened · Tuesday at 5:13 AM

Jfcarter3 said:
trump has wreaked havoc on everything he has come remotely close to in contact with in less than his first two years. I'll trade the "what about 4 years after" for the "stop trump now" next two.

So @Jfcarter3...I can agree that Trump has turned into a disappointment for a lot of people who voted for him, and he has wreaked havoc during his 2 years in office....but not on "everthing he has come remotely close to". There have been some good things...lots of folks think the no tax on tips/overtime was good...same with the 20 hour thing with Medicaid...the prescription drug thing is good...as is the "Trump" account (although could have used a better title..all the manufacturing jobs/construction of plants here in the US (assuming it all happens) is another good thing for the US.....and there are others.

So some "havoc" and chaos for sure...some really negative things, but not everything he touched has been bad.

baltimorened · Tuesday at 5:19 AM

dbjork6317 said:
I mean, yeah, of course voters prioritize issues directly affecting them and their finances. You needed ChatGPT for that?

There’s a difference in prioritizing it and caring only about that to the point of ignoring all other issues. Many voters are willing to vote for something that may not be in their direct interests if they feel it would be for the greater good.

Everything I’ve ever seen from you indicates that you care only about the singular issue of how your finances are impacted and do not consider how any policy impacts anyone not named scotchtiger.

I don’t really understand what your last paragraph means? I don’t like that you’re impacted by tax policy? Everyone is impacted by tax policy, including me.

just so we're on the same page, a lot of the folks who you describe as "willing to vote for something that may not be in their direct interests" are the same folks who don't pay any federal taxes...and that's about 40-50% of us.

Now I'll admit that I'd be more than willing to vote for a lot of things in the common good if I don't have to pay for them. Additionally, as is being proven right now, a lot of the money paid by those who do pay federal taxes is being siphoned off the top through fraud..and it is disconcerting that those entrusted with the oversight responsibility seem to either be incompetent or complacent.

FLaw47 · Tuesday at 7:02 AM

baltimorened said:
just so we're on the same page, a lot of the folks who you describe as "willing to vote for something that may not be in their direct interests" are the same folks who don't pay any federal taxes...and that's about 40-50% of us.

Now I'll admit that I'd be more than willing to vote for a lot of things in the common good if I don't have to pay for them. Additionally, as is being proven right now, a lot of the money paid by those who do pay federal taxes is being siphoned off the top through fraud..and it is disconcerting that those entrusted with the oversight responsibility seem to either be incompetent or complacent.

Jfcarter3 · Tuesday at 9:12 AM

baltimorened said:
So @Jfcarter3...I can agree that Trump has turned into a disappointment for a lot of people who voted for him, and he has wreaked havoc during his 2 years in office....but not on "everthing he has come remotely close to". There have been some good things...lots of folks think the no tax on tips/overtime was good...same with the 20 hour thing with Medicaid...the prescription drug thing is good...as is the "Trump" account (although could have used a better title..all the manufacturing jobs/construction of plants here in the US (assuming it all happens) is another good thing for the US.....and there are others.

So some "havoc" and chaos for sure...some really negative things, but not everything he touched has been bad.

Cool. The negatives FAR outweigh any potential positives and it's not even close. He'll go down as the worst president in our history, not voting for another congressional sycophant for him.

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 1:59 PM

Billanole. said:
#1 I have complete respect for the office of the President. drump deserves no respect. He is a criminal, a serial liar, and a thief. I don’t give a fat rat’s *** if you take me seriously.
#2 It is comical that people support the mega rich at a lower or even equal tax rate to citizens earning less than $50K a year.
#3 Trump is setting things up for his criminal family and his big backers to continue the massive grift from now on.
#4 Citizens deserve preventive care and medicine at rates equal to or lower than other modern nations. Big med monopolies should go the way of the great pterodactyl.
These simple steps would save billions yearly and boost our disgusting life span numbers.
Your suggestion that the drump war has only cost in the low $40 billions is laughable. What do you think we invested in the bases, including the massive naval one in Bahrain? Add up the lost aircraft… $43 billion is a laughable number and drump + Hegseth are flailing. No current way out. The cash register is adding more daily.

Okay. It's just childish and petulant, and shows emotional rather than logical thinking. Maybe it's for the best though, as it's helpful to identify those qualities in someone you are engaging.
This doesn't make much sense in relation to my reply. You mentioned tax cuts. The preponderance of tax cuts from Trump targeted middle or "normal" earners. Higher standard deduction, expanded child tax credits, lower rates for all brackets, no tax on tips, no tax on OT, etc etc. This has literally nothing to do with people supporting "mega rich at a lower or even equal tax rate to citizens earning less than $50K a year."
1. Keep in mind that the effective tax rate for a person making $50K per year is 3.6%if married filing jointly or a whopping (I'm joking) 7.6% if single. These people already pay very, very, very low tax rates.
I despise the amount of grifting going on. But still think adding trillions in entitlements is worse for the long-term fiscal health of the country.
Whether the Iran war costs $43B (that was per chatGPT) or $143B or $243B ... the point is the same. It's a fraction of the financial impact compared with expanding entitlements and adding $3 trillion in annual spend for universal healthcare. The Iran war will not beget the financial fall of the United States. Out-of-control entitlements and government-paid healthcare actually could. So that's my primary concern.

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 2:10 PM

dbjork6317 said:
I mean, yeah, of course voters prioritize issues directly affecting them and their finances. You needed ChatGPT for that?

There’s a difference in prioritizing it and caring only about that to the point of ignoring all other issues. Many voters are willing to vote for something that may not be in their direct interests if they feel it would be for the greater good.

Everything I’ve ever seen from you indicates that you care only about the singular issue of how your finances are impacted and do not consider how any policy impacts anyone not named scotchtiger.

I don’t really understand what your last paragraph means? I don’t like that you’re impacted by tax policy? Everyone is impacted by tax policy, including me.

I've engaged with posters on here on a wide range of topics and have provided thoughtful and nuanced positions on many of them. Many of which have differed from both parties' positions. Some involve personal taxation and some do not. It's not my singular focus, though it is a significant focus. And not just from a personal self-interest standpoint.

I genuinely believe one of the greatest threats to our long-term financial stability is shifting to more and more government dependence and entitlements. Entitlements are already a boat anchor around our fiscal necks. The absolute last thing we need to do is surrender more earned income to be poorly managed and redeployed in a way that makes Americans more reliant on the federal government. I believe society functions best when people are responsible for themselves and their families, we take care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves and safety net programs are laser focused on offering a hand up rather than creating perpetual dependence.

Confiscation of more and more assets from hardworking Americans is a giant red flag that we are drifting in the wrong direction in my view. Government programs should be focused on how individuals can create their own success, not redistributing money that other people earned.

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 2:20 PM

FLaw47 said:
I hate to stand up for @scotchtiger here but I know I'd be voting for a Dem warm body over a generic Republican. The single most important thing about a legislative candidate is their party. I do think he's a reliable Republican vote (so no credit for both sides suck for him) but he needs to be convinced Democrats are better than Republicans (and from his values and asinine world view that's a tall hill to climb).

You are correct in the party thing in this case. Regardless of how "moderate" Annie Andrews is, unless she is Joe Manchin, she will be a "yes" vote on legislation that I likely oppose.

And you are also right on that I need to be convinced on Democrats being better than Republicans. I disagree with Republicans on MANY things and have been vocal of my disapproval of the party since they failed to have any semblance of a healthcare plan in 2017. But that doesn't mean the dems are better in the major categories. And I don't think it's due to flawed values or world view, either. You can disagree on what's best for the country without those being somehow flawed. For example, I think it's completely okay to think that expanding dependency on the federal government is a dangerous direction for the country both from a long-term financial health standpoint and an individual motivation/incentive standpoint.

baltimorened · Tuesday at 2:21 PM

Jfcarter3 said:
Cool. The negatives FAR outweigh any potential positives and it's not even close. He'll go down as the worst president in our history, not voting for another congressional sycophant for him.

ok I can live with your analysis

FLaw47 · Tuesday at 2:30 PM

scotchtiger said:
You are correct in the party thing in this case. Regardless of how "moderate" Annie Andrews is, unless she is Joe Manchin, she will be a "yes" vote on legislation that I likely oppose.

And you are also right on that I need to be convinced on Democrats being better than Republicans. I disagree with Republicans on MANY things and have been vocal of my disapproval of the party since they failed to have any semblance of a healthcare plan in 2017. But that doesn't mean the dems are better in the major categories. And I don't think it's due to flawed values or world view, either. You can disagree on what's best for the country without those being somehow flawed. For example, I think it's completely okay to think that expanding dependency on the federal government is a dangerous direction for the country both from a long-term financial health standpoint and an individual motivation/incentive standpoint.

I was going to reply on another post but then you responded to mine so this will do just fine. I will give a summary for myself of how I sum everything up for you, and I imagine it's extremely similar for the other left of centers on the board.

I actually believe you are earnest in most of your stated policy positions. I haven't seen you do or say anything especially bigoted (though some probably creeps in when it comes to deserving/undeserving poor) and I don't think you like a bunch of what Trump or the GOP does. I do actually think you care about more than just your taxes.

At the end of the day, though, I have yet to see you ever express willingness to vote for anything tangible if was going to increase your tax burden so the correlation is effectively 1:1. While you may disagree with plenty of what the GOP does it does not appear to be anywhere close to ever pushing you away enough to vote for a Democrat and, from what I can gather, the things the Democrats want to do that you don't want the most are:

Raise your taxes
Expand entitlements which you're totally only against because you sincerely believe it's wrong for the country and not because it's going to raise your taxes

So you don't really get any credit for disliking any of the other stuff; you still vote for it time and time again. And it's a tough pill to swallow for some of us when we can see so much bad happening right now and it seems like that's all ok because otherwise your taxes might go up. I'll reiterate that I think you do vote in line with your stated and revealed preferences. There are others who are commenting in this thread who tend to vote for the GOP and I think they (and my parents) are just lying to themselves (or us) either about what their priorities are or which party better aligns with them.

FLaw47 · Tuesday at 2:47 PM

scotchtiger said:
You are correct in the party thing in this case. Regardless of how "moderate" Annie Andrews is, unless she is Joe Manchin, she will be a "yes" vote on legislation that I likely oppose.

And you are also right on that I need to be convinced on Democrats being better than Republicans. I disagree with Republicans on MANY things and have been vocal of my disapproval of the party since they failed to have any semblance of a healthcare plan in 2017. But that doesn't mean the dems are better in the major categories. And I don't think it's due to flawed values or world view, either. You can disagree on what's best for the country without those being somehow flawed. For example, I think it's completely okay to think that expanding dependency on the federal government is a dangerous direction for the country both from a long-term financial health standpoint and an individual motivation/incentive standpoint.

Have you actually looked at Annie Andrew's policy positions? Her taxpayer pledge is really quite bad, full of stuff I disagree with so I'd think you've love most of it:
Taxpayer Pledge

dbjork6317 · Tuesday at 2:57 PM

scotchtiger said:
I've engaged with posters on here on a wide range of topics and have provided thoughtful and nuanced positions on many of them. Many of which have differed from both parties' positions. Some involve personal taxation and some do not. It's not my singular focus, though it is a significant focus. And not just from a personal self-interest standpoint.

I genuinely believe one of the greatest threats to our long-term financial stability is shifting to more and more government dependence and entitlements. Entitlements are already a boat anchor around our fiscal necks. The absolute last thing we need to do is surrender more earned income to be poorly managed and redeployed in a way that makes Americans more reliant on the federal government. I believe society functions best when people are responsible for themselves and their families, we take care of those who truly cannot take care of themselves and safety net programs are laser focused on offering a hand up rather than creating perpetual dependence.

Confiscation of more and more assets from hardworking Americans is a giant red flag that we are drifting in the wrong direction in my view. Government programs should be focused on how individuals can create their own success, not redistributing money that other people earned.

I’m much more concerned about confiscation of rights than I am confiscation of assets at this point in time.

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 3:30 PM

FLaw47 said:
I was going to reply on another post but then you responded to mine so this will do just fine. I will give a summary for myself of how I sum everything up for you, and I imagine it's extremely similar for the other left of centers on the board.

I actually believe you are earnest in most of your stated policy positions. I haven't seen you do or say anything especially bigoted (though some probably creeps in when it comes to deserving/undeserving poor) and I don't think you like a bunch of what Trump or the GOP does. I do actually think you care about more than just your taxes.

At the end of the day, though, I have yet to see you ever express willingness to vote for anything tangible if was going to increase your tax burden so the correlation is effectively 1:1. While you may disagree with plenty of what the GOP does it does not appear to be anywhere close to ever pushing you away enough to vote for a Democrat and, from what I can gather, the things the Democrats want to do that you don't want the most are:

Raise your taxes

Expand entitlements which you're totally only against because you sincerely believe it's wrong for the country and not because it's going to raise your taxes

So you don't really get any credit for disliking any of the other stuff; you still vote for it time and time again. And it's a tough pill to swallow for some of us when we can see so much bad happening right now and it seems like that's all ok because otherwise your taxes might go up. I'll reiterate that I think you do vote in line with your stated and revealed preferences. There are others who are commenting in this thread who tend to vote for the GOP and I think they (and my parents) are just lying to themselves (or us) either about what their priorities are or which party better aligns with them.

RE: the underlined part: I recently posted a proposal on Social Security that would have raised my SS taxes from 12.4% to 14% (incl. employer portion), increasing my tax burden by thousands of dollars.

There's some bad things now, but most are short term. As I said earlier, I'm more concerned with a continued shift to government dependency. This comment to @Billanole. hits on that point:

Whether the Iran war costs $43B (that was per chatGPT) or $143B or $243B ... the point is the same. It's a fraction of the financial impact compared with expanding entitlements and adding $3 trillion in annual spend for universal healthcare. The Iran war will not beget the financial fall of the United States. Out-of-control entitlements and government-paid healthcare actually could. So that's my primary concern.

I think "so much bad" is a bit hyperbolic as well.

scotchtiger · Tuesday at 3:31 PM

dbjork6317 said:
I’m much more concerned about confiscation of rights than I am confiscation of assets at this point in time.

What rights of yours have been confiscated?

dbjork6317 · Tuesday at 3:43 PM

scotchtiger said:
What rights of yours have been confiscated?

None of mine have as of yet, but I see the rights of others being eroded or threatened. And I can’t abide that, regardless of what happens to my taxes.

baltimorened · Tuesday at 4:03 PM

FLaw47 said:
I was going to reply on another post but then you responded to mine so this will do just fine. I will give a summary for myself of how I sum everything up for you, and I imagine it's extremely similar for the other left of centers on the board.

I actually believe you are earnest in most of your stated policy positions. I haven't seen you do or say anything especially bigoted (though some probably creeps in when it comes to deserving/undeserving poor) and I don't think you like a bunch of what Trump or the GOP does. I do actually think you care about more than just your taxes.

At the end of the day, though, I have yet to see you ever express willingness to vote for anything tangible if was going to increase your tax burden so the correlation is effectively 1:1. While you may disagree with plenty of what the GOP does it does not appear to be anywhere close to ever pushing you away enough to vote for a Democrat and, from what I can gather, the things the Democrats want to do that you don't want the most are:

Raise your taxes

Expand entitlements which you're totally only against because you sincerely believe it's wrong for the country and not because it's going to raise your taxes

So you don't really get any credit for disliking any of the other stuff; you still vote for it time and time again. And it's a tough pill to swallow for some of us when we can see so much bad happening right now and it seems like that's all ok because otherwise your taxes might go up. I'll reiterate that I think you do vote in line with your stated and revealed preferences. There are others who are commenting in this thread who tend to vote for the GOP and I think they (and my parents) are just lying to themselves (or us) either about what their priorities are or which party better aligns with them.

things aren't as black or white as I think you make them to be. First of all I don't think anyone wants to see their taxes go up.. I know I don't. And it's not because I don't want the truly needy taken care of, but because I want the government to spend the money wisely and efficiently. And many of us have believed for decades that this is not the case. If nothing else, the fraud being uncovered now is proof of those beliefs.

One other thing that many of us believe is that simply throwing more money at problems is not the only solution to fixing our problems. Now I know you'll say you don't believe that either, yet the leaders of your party are, at least according to news reports, preparing plans to do just that on various government programs that all of us know are inefficient. Just for example, we all know that the affordable care act needs reform. Again, according to reports are preparing simply to revisit expanded subsidies that expired in 2025. I haven't seen reports of any plans to actually fix what's broken.

Nobody likes all the policies of every administration. You jump to a conclusion that pulling a "D" lever in an election is the right thing to do. I personally have never done that. Not every republican has policies I support nor does every Democrat. Plus I know that when the elected candidate gets to DC, they fall in line with the party. So what they say to get elected is not necessarily what they vote.

Now, I respect your opinion. You think voting for a Republican is somewhat next to blasphemy. That's OK. But you might consider returning the same respect to someone who might not agree with you.

EDIT: just as a follow up point...just read that the CMS had just blocked $203 million in potentially fraudulent Medicaid payments in just 90 days. That's $203 million that could either be used in other programs or returned to taxpayers in the form of lower taxes. And time 4 for the year that's over $800 million that might be saved,

baltimorened · Tuesday at 4:04 PM

dbjork6317 said:
I’m much more concerned about confiscation of rights than I am confiscation of assets at this point in time.

so which rights have been confiscated?

EDIT: just read your post..so which rights are being eroded or threatened?

FLaw47 · Tuesday at 4:45 PM

scotchtiger said:
RE: the underlined part: I recently posted a proposal on Social Security that would have raised my SS taxes from 12.4% to 14% (incl. employer portion), increasing my tax burden by thousands of dollars.

There's some bad things now, but most are short term. As I said earlier, I'm more concerned with a continued shift to government dependency. This comment to @Billanole. hits on that point:

Whether the Iran war costs $43B (that was per chatGPT) or $143B or $243B ... the point is the same. It's a fraction of the financial impact compared with expanding entitlements and adding $3 trillion in annual spend for universal healthcare. The Iran war will not beget the financial fall of the United States. Out-of-control entitlements and government-paid healthcare actually could. So that's my primary concern.

I think "so much bad" is a bit hyperbolic as well.

I thought about your social security proposal after I posted and I'm sorry for missing it. I believe this is an exception that proves the rule but you deserve credit for that, nevertheless.

I don't think "so much bad" is hyperbolic at all. When I compare that to the "almost nothing" in the "good" ledger, it's pretty damning.

FLaw47 · Tuesday at 4:46 PM

baltimorened said:
EDIT: just as a follow up point...just read that the CMS had just blocked $203 million in potentially fraudulent Medicaid payments in just 90 days. That's $203 million that could either be used in other programs or returned to taxpayers in the form of lower taxes. And time 4 for the year that's over $800 million that might be saved,

I'm going to respond to the rest later but I think it earlier today when you hand waved away $100 billion dollars as a difference in spending on the Iran War so.....

FLaw47 · Tuesday at 6:28 PM

baltimorened said:
things aren't as black or white as I think you make them to be. First of all I don't think anyone wants to see their taxes go up.. I know I don't. And it's not because I don't want the truly needy taken care of, but because I want the government to spend the money wisely and efficiently. And many of us have believed for decades that this is not the case. If nothing else, the fraud being uncovered now is proof of those beliefs.

One other thing that many of us believe is that simply throwing more money at problems is not the only solution to fixing our problems. Now I know you'll say you don't believe that either, yet the leaders of your party are, at least according to news reports, preparing plans to do just that on various government programs that all of us know are inefficient. Just for example, we all know that the affordable care act needs reform. Again, according to reports are preparing simply to revisit expanded subsidies that expired in 2025. I haven't seen reports of any plans to actually fix what's broken.

Nobody likes all the policies of every administration. You jump to a conclusion that pulling a "D" lever in an election is the right thing to do. I personally have never done that. Not every republican has policies I support nor does every Democrat. Plus I know that when the elected candidate gets to DC, they fall in line with the party. So what they say to get elected is not necessarily what they vote.

Now, I respect your opinion. You think voting for a Republican is somewhat next to blasphemy. That's OK. But you might consider returning the same respect to someone who might not agree with you.

EDIT: just as a follow up point...just read that the CMS had just blocked $203 million in potentially fraudulent Medicaid payments in just 90 days. That's $203 million that could either be used in other programs or returned to taxpayers in the form of lower taxes. And time 4 for the year that's over $800 million that might be saved,

What did I say was black and white? You seem to think that being a "moderate" makes you more reasonable for some reason. I don't vote for Democrats because I'm a Democrat, I vote for Democrats because they are overwhelmingly closer to my values and priorities than the GOP. And no one one this board has even tried to convince me that's not true, so why am I supposed to start voting for Republicans? I'd be a moron to vote for them based on what I want.

I don't believe there's any amount of fraud that you and your ilk wouldn't use as justification to not pursue certain policies that you don't like. Maybe I'm wrong on that but that's my read. I don't believe in letting perfect be the enemy of good, but that doesn't mean we can't clean some things up.

I'm appreciative of your respect but I don't owe someone's values or priorities my respect, no matter how sincerely held they might be. I know I'm having a frustrating day and it's crept through in my tone but I don't think I've been out of line. You seem to have values I mostly agree with but I don't think you vote in the best way to achieve those values. Yes yes you disagree with me but I'm not particularly bothered by that.

Billanole. · Tuesday at 9:16 PM

scotchtiger said:
Okay. It's just childish and petulant, and shows emotional rather than logical thinking. Maybe it's for the best though, as it's helpful to identify those qualities in someone you are engaging.

This doesn't make much sense in relation to my reply. You mentioned tax cuts. The preponderance of tax cuts from Trump targeted middle or "normal" earners. Higher standard deduction, expanded child tax credits, lower rates for all brackets, no tax on tips, no tax on OT, etc etc. This has literally nothing to do with people supporting "mega rich at a lower or even equal tax rate to citizens earning less than $50K a year."

Keep in mind that the effective tax rate for a person making $50K per year is 3.6%if married filing jointly or a whopping (I'm joking) 7.6% if single. These people already pay very, very, very low tax rates.

I despise the amount of grifting going on. But still think adding trillions in entitlements is worse for the long-term fiscal health of the country.

Whether the Iran war costs $43B (that was per chatGPT) or $143B or $243B ... the point is the same. It's a fraction of the financial impact compared with expanding entitlements and adding $3 trillion in annual spend for universal healthcare. The Iran war will not beget the financial fall of the United States. Out-of-control entitlements and government-paid healthcare actually could. So that's my primary concern.

Talk about number two. What are the rates for those earning over

scotchtiger said:
Okay. It's just childish and petulant, and shows emotional rather than logical thinking. Maybe it's for the best though, as it's helpful to identify those qualities in someone you are engaging.

This doesn't make much sense in relation to my reply. You mentioned tax cuts. The preponderance of tax cuts from Trump targeted middle or "normal" earners. Higher standard deduction, expanded child tax credits, lower rates for all brackets, no tax on tips, no tax on OT, etc etc. This has literally nothing to do with people supporting "mega rich at a lower or even equal tax rate to citizens earning less than $50K a year."

Keep in mind that the effective tax rate for a person making $50K per year is 3.6%if married filing jointly or a whopping (I'm joking) 7.6% if single. These people already pay very, very, very low tax rates.

I despise the amount of grifting going on. But still think adding trillions in entitlements is worse for the long-term fiscal health of the country.

Whether the Iran war costs $43B (that was per chatGPT) or $143B or $243B ... the point is the same. It's a fraction of the financial impact compared with expanding entitlements and adding $3 trillion in annual spend for universal healthcare. The Iran war will not beget the financial fall of the United States. Out-of-control entitlements and government-paid healthcare actually could. So that's my primary concern.

number 1. Pissoff you drump follower. Repeat… Pissoff.
number 2. If willing, please address tax rates for those earring over 1 million $ per year.
Number 3. You think caring for citizens is “entitlements”. What a joke when you think the workers allow wealth and services to be created. Those and their dependents deserve care.
Number 4.It will be hidden, but drump‘s little fracas will wind up adding north of a trillion to the national debt. You seem to be unwilling to see that.

Where do you get the $3 trillion number that you repeat regarding health coverage?

Billanole. · Tuesday at 9:26 PM

scotchtiger said:
RE: the underlined part: I recently posted a proposal on Social Security that would have raised my SS taxes from 12.4% to 14% (incl. employer portion), increasing my tax burden by thousands of dollars.

There's some bad things now, but most are short term. As I said earlier, I'm more concerned with a continued shift to government dependency. This comment to @Billanole. hits on that point:

Whether the Iran war costs $43B (that was per chatGPT) or $143B or $243B ... the point is the same. It's a fraction of the financial impact compared with expanding entitlements and adding $3 trillion in annual spend for universal healthcare. The Iran war will not beget the financial fall of the United States. Out-of-control entitlements and government-paid healthcare actually could. So that's my primary concern.

I think "so much bad" is a bit hyperbolic as well.

Any comment on the $12 trillion of debt drump has pushed thru?
You give no credit to the savings that would accrue if Americans had access to preventative and timely healthcare. The old Fram oil filter commercial is appropo. Regarding care, you can pay me now, or you can pay me later… at a higher cost.

dbjork6317 · Tuesday at 9:51 PM

baltimorened said:
so which rights have been confiscated?

EDIT: just read your post..so which rights are being eroded or threatened?

The right to due process, right equal protection, right to abortion, right to free speech in the press, right to no established religion are all completely gone for certain people or are being heavily attacked/eroded By an admin where the President has repeatedly asserted he can “do whatever he wants” and has refused to rule out attempting to remain in office after his term is up.

But you know all this. All conservatives know all this. They play coy with it, but this is what conservatives wanted - less rights for “certain people”

FLaw47 · 2026-10-14T08:55:22-0500

dbjork6317 said:
The right to due process, right equal protection, right to abortion, right to free speech in the press, right to no established religion are all completely gone for certain people or are being heavily attacked/eroded By an admin where the President has repeatedly asserted he can “do whatever he wants” and has refused to rule out attempting to remain in office after his term is up.

But you know all this. All conservatives know all this. They play coy with it, but this is what conservatives wanted - less rights for “certain people”

I'll just add that, despite some courts ruling I don't have standing to be upset about this, that we've lost the right for our tax dollars to not be spent in ways that are blatantly illegal.

And importantly, the administration illegally dismantled the VA union that represented my wife. The courts told them this was illegal after like a year and they just disbanded the union again under a different pretext. Conservatives would have gone ballistic if Biden had attempted to do something like that on something they cared about.

scotchtiger · 2026-10-14T09:26:30-0500

Billanole. said:
Talk about number two. What are the rates for those earning over

number 1. Pissoff you drump follower. Repeat… Pissoff.
number 2. If willing, please address tax rates for those earring over 1 million $ per year.
Number 3. You think caring for citizens is “entitlements”. What a joke when you think the workers allow wealth and services to be created. Those and their dependents deserve care.
Number 4.It will be hidden, but drump‘s little fracas will wind up adding north of a trillion to the national debt. You seem to be unwilling to see that.

Where do you get the $3 trillion number that you repeat regarding health coverage?

1. Not a Trump follower. I was adamantly and vocally agains him being the 2024 R nominee.

2. Sure. I'm guessing you aren't very familiar with our progressive tax structure. People pay more as they earn more money, not less. They pay higher rates, not lower. Here are the rates and tax amounts for a family of 4 earning $100K, $500K and $1M per year. You will notice that the amounts and rates go up dramatically as incomes climb.

In fact, despite only earning 5X the amount, the family earning $500K pays 32X the amount of federal income taxes as the family earning $100K. Yet this family was the target of tax hikes proposed by both Biden and Kamala. It makes absolutely no sense.

3. There are ways to address healthcare without jumping to government-funded universal healthcare.

Here are several estimates referenced by ChatGPT. I'm noticing these are dated though, and may not account for current prices. That means they may be underestimating the cost.

Major Medicare for All cost estimates

Source	Additional annual federal spending	10-year estimate
Congressional Budget Office (2020)	$1.5T–$3.0T in 2030	Not estimated
Mercatus Center (2018)	$3.26T average	$32.6T
Urban Institute (2019), comprehensive plan	$3.4T average	$34.0T
Urban Institute (2019), less generous plan	$1.76T average	$17.6T

scotchtiger · 2026-10-14T09:33:04-0500

Billanole. said:
Any comment on the $12 trillion of debt drump has pushed thru?
You give no credit to the savings that would accrue if Americans had access to preventative and timely healthcare. The old Fram oil filter commercial is appropo. Regarding care, you can pay me now, or you can pay me later… at a higher cost.

I don't support Trump and do not approve of his fiscal approach. This is a thread about a democrat senate candidate from SC who will serve 4 of her 6 years under a president other than trump.

Americans have access to preventive and timely healthcare. We have Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for 65+ and ACA for those not covered by an employer plan. Lower earners receive subsidies to purchase ACA plans.

There are many, many, many ways to improve healthcare without shifting to a government funded universal model. We should start with broad population health issues. For example, the obesity rate in the US in over 40% while the EU average is around 15%. That adds a massive burden (pun intended) to our healthcare system and cost structure. We should aggressively attack this issue and costs would go down for everyone.

baltimorened · 2026-10-14T10:54:09-0500

dbjork6317 said:
The right to due process, right equal protection, right to abortion, right to free speech in the press, right to no established religion are all completely gone for certain people or are being heavily attacked/eroded By an admin where the President has repeatedly asserted he can “do whatever he wants” and has refused to rule out attempting to remain in office after his term is up.

But you know all this. All conservatives know all this. They play coy with it, but this is what conservatives wanted - less rights for “certain people”

I'll push back a little bit on your statement "this is what conservatives want - less rights for certain people" I don't think that's right. I know I don't want less rights, I want the same rights for everyone and we have courts set to make sure that happens. Are there times when someone's issue falls through the cracks..sure. But that the same in everything we do. But when a court determines someone's right have been violated there is remediation.

EDIT: on your statement about trump adding 12 trillion to the debt....couple of things to remember...1. Congress sets the budgets. So let's put some of the blame on them for $40trillion in debt. 2. If Trump added $12 trillion to the debt that means others added $28trillion ...so burden is not solely on Trump. Presidents and Controlled Congress' by either party have distinguished themselves on the fiscal front

bdgan · 2026-10-14T11:25:10-0500

scotchtiger said:
2. Tax rates were lowered for everyone, with middle income people receiving a greater % decrease than wealthier Americans. I've shown the math on that here.

Democrats talk about the BBB's tax breaks for billionaires but I'm not aware of any such things. The law is pretty much the same as it's been for 8 years except for no tax on tips, no tax on OT, and a $12k deduction to offset the tax on SS. All of these things are capped based on income so billionaires (or people making > $250k) didn't get a dime. I think the tax cut for billionaires is based on the idea that tax rates weren't increased.

scotchtiger · 2026-10-14T11:39:18-0500

bdgan said:
Democrats talk about the BBB's tax breaks for billionaires but I'm not aware of any such things. The law is pretty much the same as it's been for 8 years except for no tax on tips, no tax on OT, and a $12k deduction to offset the tax on SS. All of these things are capped based on income so billionaires (or people making > $250k) didn't get a dime. I think the tax cut for billionaires is based on the idea that tax rates weren't increased.

It’s a completely BS talking point. It’s presumably based on the lowering of the top tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, so in theory, yes, rates were lowered for billionaires. But they were lowered by a larger % for everyone else, especially middle-income earners.

This is more of the democrat propaganda about billionaire boogeymen and the ultra rich not paying their fair share while they propose actual policy that attempts to take more money from hardworking American families already paying high tax rates. It’s shameful.

bdgan · 2026-10-14T11:47:56-0500

scotchtiger said:
4. Universal health care would cost ~$3 TRILLION per year. The majority of the federal budget already goes toward entitlements. Dems would add $3T for healthcare plus expand other entitlements. Yes, this is a much, much bigger threat to long-term financial solvency than whatever Trump spends in his final 24 months. For context, we have spent $43.6B on the war in Iran. That's 1.5% of one year of universal healthcare, except UHC is forever.

I've heard the cost would be $3.5 trillion but I don't think that's completely honest. The private sector spends $1.6 trillion on health insurance. Medicare is another $1.2 trillion and Medicaid is $0.7 trillion (not including state contributions). So we're already spending about $3.5 trillion per year. The devil is obviously in the details and the Medicare for all people aren't talking because their details would be widely criticized. It's safer for a politician to say it would be better and less expensive without providing details.

Some things to consider:
- Employers would pay a tax in lieu of paying premiums so it might increase their costs but not by that much.
- Dems want to cover everybody including illegal immigrants and people with TPS. That alone could be $100 billion/yr.
- People wouldn't have a choice of plans. No high deductible plans to save cost.
- Would Medicaid and Medicare be replaced?
- How would the tax be imposed? In Europe everybody pays for the most part. In Canada wealthy people pay ~ $60k per year.

One argument for Medicare of all is that it would be less expensive if run by the government. I don't think that's true. I understand that providers only have to deal with the government, not an array of different insurers. I agree that's bound to save some money but competition and the motivation to reduce costs are eliminated.

One thing for sure is that Medicare for all wouldn't reduce cost by 40% to get us where western European countries are. There's no way we can pay our providers more than twice as much and have similar costs.

FLaw47 · 2026-10-14T11:50:14-0500

scotchtiger said:
It’s a completely BS talking point. It’s presumably based on the lowering of the top tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, so in theory, yes, rates were lowered for billionaires. But they were lowered by a larger % for everyone else, especially middle-income earners.

This is more of the democrat propaganda about billionaire boogeymen and the ultra rich not paying their fair share while they propose actual policy that attempts to take more money from hardworking American families already paying high tax rates. It’s shameful.

Ok, I've had about enough of this so I'm going to need some reciepts.

That's nearly a 10% reduction in taxes at that top tax bracket, that's not insignificant.

You guys love talking about how the standard exemption was roughly doubled but that was paired with the elimination of the personal exemption, which came close to washing that entire benefit out while also making it less likely to be able to itemize deductions.

Corporate income taxes were reduced by 40%.

Allow more deductions on pass through income.

The estate tax exemption was doubled.

They got rid of the solar tax credit.

Everything I'm reading is that middle class people got a 1.5-2% bump in take home pay while the top 10% saw a 3-4%.

fskillet · 2026-10-14T11:53:43-0500

scotchtiger said:
It’s a completely BS talking point. It’s presumably based on the lowering of the top tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, so in theory, yes, rates were lowered for billionaires. But they were lowered by a larger % for everyone else, especially middle-income earners.

This is more of the democrat propaganda about billionaire boogeymen and the ultra rich not paying their fair share while they propose actual policy that attempts to take more money from hardworking American families already paying high tax rates. It’s shameful.

Ignoring the lowering of top tax rate, here are the other changes the BBB made to high earners.
1. Increased estate tax exemption to $15m. (I agree with this.)
2. Expanded the Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) exemption by 50%—allowing up to $15 million or 10 times an investor's basis to be excluded from capital gains—and maintains preferential treatments for private equity and investment funds. (I agree with this.)
3. Cut and locked in lower corporate and international business tax rates, providing tens of billions in annual savings to top 0.1% shareholders and corporate giants. (I agree with this.)
4. 199A pass through deduction allowing business owners to deduct 20% of their "qualified business income." Taxpayers making less than $200,000—while representing 60 percent of small-business filers—received only 11 percent of the benefits from the pass-through deduction. (Somewhat agree with this - I think it should have been cut off once your small business makes more than $1m/year.)

While I mostly agree with all of the BBB tax adjustments, there was much more in there than just reducing the top tax bracket.

bdgan · 2026-10-14T11:58:37-0500

scotchtiger said:
It’s a completely BS talking point. It’s presumably based on the lowering of the top tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, so in theory, yes, rates were lowered for billionaires. But they were lowered by a larger % for everyone else, especially middle-income earners.

But the rate has been 37% since 2017. Their argument is that they got a tax cut by not getting a tax increase.

Two additional points:

- I support increasing taxes on the ultra wealthy. >50% (37% + state + local) seems more than adequate but we're running $2 trillion deficits. We've got to find a way to get the deficit down. The problem is democrats who want to tax the rich think that money will lower their grocery, housing, and health insurance costs. Redistribution doesn't lower cost, it just forces more people to pay for other people.

- The USA already has the MOST PROGRESSIVE tax system in the industrialized world. That's not because super wealthy Americans pay the most, it's because those in lower income brackets pay the least.

U.S. already has most ‘progressive’ tax system in industrialized world | Fraser Institute

Republicans, list your favorite things about Darlene Graham

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-American

Heisman

All-Conference

All-American

All-American

All-American

All-American

All-Conference

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-American

All-American

All-American

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-American

All-American

All-American

All-American

All-American

All-Conference

All-Conference

Heisman

All-American

Heisman

Major Medicare for All cost estimates​

Heisman

All-American

All-American

Heisman

All-American

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

Major Medicare for All cost estimates