tobetrained

In doing some more direct checking, I believe the high estimate for "Undocumented" in my previous post for payroll taxes are using sources, e.g. tax policy center, which report on aggregate federal state and local payroll taxes, sales tax, and other items as an aggregate (not just federal payroll) but AI doesn't interpret that nuance. If someone has a direct report from IRS, happy to have these last two posts deleted or x'd out.

@hntnhole snippet: I asked an AI tool to do this math for the US population and got wildly different answers based on how I asked the question. Many times I got different answers asking the same question in a new browser session. The following is a rough aggregate summary of 15 AI results for Federal payroll taxes which sources irs.gov and taxpolicycenter.org based on 2021 data: US citizens: $900bil to $1.4tri in federal payroll taxes Lawful permanent residents (incl. green card): $200-$300bil Non-citizen visa holders: $50-$100bil Undocumented: $10-$60bil It's very difficult to breakdown corporate taxes. State and local payroll taxes as well as sales tax would be additional. I only offer as a broad guide but nothing determinative.

@Pozzible First let's do a term check: I said market-driven economy and not capitalism (fettered or not). Norway, for instance, has a market-driven economy. Unfortunately, in a quick check there are a lot of wrong or misleading facts in the Norway example. For instance, "no security for seniors" -- we have both Social Security and Medicare as support programs. "No paid vacation/parental leave" this isn't true. The tax rate is misleading. And, on healthcare, it fails to mention the horrible regulation on salaries. GP salaries in the US are $225-250k/yr and Norway that's $130k/yr. Nurses in the US $75k/yr (non-specialized) with that being $58k in Norway. The AMA and nurses union might have an issue?? On taxes, Norway has a flat 22% "federal" tax vs. our progressive system which translates to 13% for the nurse's salary of $58k. In Norway, there are also social programs tax (8%) and municipal taxes bring the payroll taxes to >40%. In the US, with state and local taxes as well as Social Security and Medicare, we cap out between 21% (no state tax: TX, WA, etc) and 30% (CA, NY/NYC, etc). On top of that, they have a flat 25% VAT while our sales tax range from 0% to 10%. This means, on average, everything costs 20% more in Norway than the US and translates to thousands more per year -- to pay for social programs. Another interest note: part of their healthcare system is paid oil and gas production/sales, The Oil Fund. As a centrist myself, I would LOVE to see progressives sit down and allow more drilling and extraction of resources to PAY for the services they want and conservatives yield to the latter to allow the former -- if ONLY to see it happen. Separately, but on that note, it's important to remember that we have 14 million illegal immigrants in the US. That's almost THREE TIMES the size of Norway's population of 5.3 million. Norway has a fraction of 1% in their population. On the former comment, re: ranking, I assume you mean from The Commonwealth Fund? It's fairly well commented on, anyway. They're fairly selective in their metrics, designed to promote small-nation/state systems. For instance, they don't have a metric to account for the volume of non-tax paying population nor the volume of rural space and population relative to care. With these, the US would move much higher on the list. Their method can be very misleading too. Let's say your scoring something on a scale between 0 and 100. The measured values range from 80 to 90. In functional / practical terms, there little or no real difference. But they show the data in way to dramatically expand the differences. I asked an AI tool to offer a list of 10 items to demonstrate one of their charts: the estimated possible results were 80,82, 83, 84.5, 85,86,87,88,88. The US, in the Commonwealth's data could be the 80 and look 3 deviations below average -- terrible -- but, in practice, the difference of 80 vs the average 84.5 is minimal. But here's an NBC News link to the trouble with UK's NHS. Nothing is perfect. And almost 10% of the UK use private insurance instead -- so paying twice, re: taxes for NHS and incremental coverage for private care. For myself, as a centrist, I don't argue for or against. I expect politicians to PAY for their ideas or they're no ideas at all. Increased debt is not paying for anything. [think before following links] https://www.nbcnews.com/world/europe/uks-public-health-service-crisis-threatening-institution-heart-british-rcna228773 p.s. I learned to change text color!

Love it or hate it, no one has figured out a better way than market-driven economies. And many have tried and failed. Remember, the premiums being discussed will be paid by us regardless -- whether through increases premiums and co-pays, as Democrats argue, or by federal taxes and increased debt, as Democrats try to get us to ignore. The government hasn't made those costs disappear and healthcare providers have NOT reduced fees. Those fees just sit in a ledger as federal government debt and we have to pay both that principal and the interest against it. And the premiums being supported by this program are, effectively, "guaranteed" demand for insurance companies. Again, insurers did not reduce their rates as providers did not reduce what they charged for service. This plan, then, has put upward pressure on price as insurers have been at less risk of losing customers with this program active. It was simply designed to keep an pandemic-era spike in premiums from price-gouging consumers out of the market. Once/if the program is eliminated, like-for-like plan prices will go up. But, again, ARE paying for that difference anyway -- re: debt. Due to that jump, people will trade down and focus more on actual needs. Insurers, fearful of losing customers, will redesign plans, particularly ACA plans. That lessening of demand will put downward pressure on price. But, generally speaking, healthcare is far from unfettered capitalism -- particularly in a world where ACA is present. And with that, we'd get in to the never-ending debate of the ACA and what it's done to costs/prices. There has been greater leveraging to lower specific fees. But, overall, plans have been forced to cover more types of services, leading to larger-than-anticipated total plan costs. In the end, nothing is perfect. Damn doctors!...source of all the worlds evils. What happened to shamans?

@hntnhole I would have simply did "Thanks" tag or whatever those symbols are at bottom-right of posts... don't know how. So, Thanks! and I followed instruction... as is my role.

@Pozzible you said... I think this demonstrates an issue with partisans if that's progressives/Dems view, many times they forget people think different then they. Republicans, particularly conservatives, want small government. They want the public to see government fail to demonstrate small government with strong free enterprise, free market, private business is the way to go. Democrats are the ones who support government and its stability and its usefulness. Definitionally, it can't help when shut down. Shutting down the government over an program which was intended to expire has done these things: implicitly justified past Rep-led shutdowns as politically viable solutions to their political frustrations harm future crisis-era legislation: what Rep would cross party lines now for a program which will used as Sword of Damocles on them in the future? demonstrates how government programs are only additive -- debt be damned; in turn, this helps justify what Reps did in taking a sledgehammer to the government earlier this year: Dems make it impossible for small change -- even for programs designed to end -- so, if you can't make small changes then it's periodic large change I understand the negotiation bit, and agree, re: Trump. But Democrats lost their hand in the last election. On net, the public voted them out. That's democracy. It's was Dem voters who did not show up. I'm not sure, for Dems, a political cudgel is the way to regain support when demonstrating, in real-time, Rep talking-points.

@laguyinhou an interesting piece from Politico. I highlight for the very important sub-point re: Dems position on healthcare subsidies re: shutdown: those subsidies were never supposed to be permanent nor budgeted for as such. [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/19/ro-khanna-agree-marjorie-taylor-greene-00615010

I'll respond here just to return the convo back to the original question. @Rillion whether you're implied details are true, it's ultimately based on using the 60-vote threshold driven by the filibuster (or threat of same) which gets us back to the previous hypocrisy discussion re: progressives push from 2021-23 to eliminate that -- which would have meant, in the very unlikely event of that effort working, that now Reps would not need 60-votes. I'll leave it there. @laguyinhou right. and if Reps are so stupid as to pass legislation that will hurt so many in such a stark way, then let them. In democracies we solve differences through elections. We should NOT hold federal workers pay and livelihoods nor sometimes live-saving services hostage to politics. At least that's what Democrats said before. And, if the truth of their legislation is so bad, as you say, those elections will have a clear winner. In 2017, Trump's first term, the NJ and VA gubernatorial elections had Dems winning by 14pp in NJ and 9pp in VA. Those elections happen again in a couple weeks. To @nanana original post question, re: holding Trump accountable and by what metrics, those would be very obvious benchmarks.

@Pozzible Hopefully you got some sleep! I'm taking about Democrats and the progressive wing in and of itself, across the last day or two of convos. By calling out that behavior there is no implied pro- Trump, MAGA, nor Republican stance. I was doing so in response to comment directed to me about the No Kings rally (see: way back to page one). My point about radicalization included first hypocrisy. To your shutdown comments, go back and see how Dems spoke about past shutdowns and Republican behavior in real time back then. After that, consider if Dems living up to their own statements now, in and of themselves. My second point on radicalization is then rationalizing said hypocrisy. You're kinda doing that with the series of, "well they do it..." arguments -- I disagree with NONE of those, but that's not the point. On this one topic, Dems are hoping limit the political impact of the shutdown to their party and to appease their base with the healthcare push. But both parties can hold up any legislation claiming to help millions at any point in time, in their own view. It doesn't mean it's true nor does it always equal relevance (to said legislation, in and of itself).

@Pozzible You're kinda making my point. In you're first note, you're justifying the hypocrisy, re: shutdown: as Dems are doing it/fighting for "..." fill in the blank. You're justifying collateral damage for Dem political gain. What Dems "are fighting for" isn't actually the issue, they're just doing it to be obstinate using people's incomes and necessary services to get what they want. In your second comment, you're not debating the point(s) in and of themselves. You're rationalizing based on Republican actions... the, "they're doing it too" argument. Remember when growing up a parent would ask, "if they jump off a bridge are you going to?" Also, you wrote, I gave very specific examples for each one. but, yes, I was trying to answer specific questions you and another person asked. You said, Progressive did not just talk. As stated, they used it to purify the party and push out moderates. See link as an example. [think before following links] https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/philboas/2023/04/19/ruben-gallego-attack-kyrsten-sinema-filibuster-may-regret-it/70130218007/

@hntnhole you asked I'll answer on two fronts, 1 personal, where I am collateral damage to their policies, 2 public, where many others are: Personal: I've summarized above and wrote elsewhere how DEI policies have hurt my ability to get a job. I'll restate (was just trying to avoid duplication I was omitted via online app for a job I was very qualified for, so went thru an internal former colleague. I made it to final round of three. I found out thru colleague job was reduced for highest ranked woman and all final candidates -- incl. me -- were omitted same process as above, different company. In this case, job was eliminated and merged with another to hire a person of color. In both these two, my former colleagues were informed as part of exec team. Otherwise, like many others, I would not have known. a third example: in an panel interview (not with HR), the final Q of 12 was, "We believe in DEI policies, why should we hire you?" Public: As stated above, Dems are effectively filibustering to keep the government shutdown ( @Pozzible see below ). As they've rightly stated in past, shutting down the government hurts many people for income to services. All those people not getting paid, not getting services, etc. are the collateral damage. Dems lost the election. Remember it was progressives, just a few years ago, who tried to do away with this 60-vote threshold as it wasn't democracy -- a simple majority. Now they're using for their own ends. Quickly, see above for @Pozzible, it is filibustering as the filibuster is what requires 60 votes to surpass -- and that's where we are. I don't think we need to play semantics. Here's a quick write-up on wikipedia: [think before following links] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States_Senate To recap my above point. Democracies have fallen not just by oligarchs and despots... but extremist partisans by political parties. These groups, once becoming extreme, have done all sorts of things from exiling those that don't profess allegiance (to them or their ideas) to outright killing. They also try change rules when they don't work for them. Usually, this is a progression: Justifying hypocrisy. See shutdown. Trying to change the rules when they don't work for them. See filibuster reform, or even Pete Buttigieg's talk of expanding the Supreme Court simply for political purposes. Purifying the party. As I wrote above, for one example, how moderates like Manchin and Sinema were exiled by left wing re: filibuster. It was among his stated reasons Ruben Gallego primaried Sinema in the 2024 cycle. Obedience. @hntnhole even you ref'd this in part of you comments above on page 1. I'm paraphrasing here, so not using quotes as I'm also NOT personally calling you out re: intent. But it's along the line, If you don't say something you're part of the problem. Forced adherence is the start of getting people to stop thinking for themselves. It's the start of blind obedience. To marry that with forced speech is the opposite of free speech. Free speech is the right to say what you want which INCLUDES being silent. Forced speech has been a mantra of progressives for a few years now. Physical violence. I hope this is clear. The left, unequivocally outraged in most cases of mass shootings, etc. has already downplayed or, at minimum, qualified violence from the left. For Kirk and Trump, statements like, "...it's not OK, but..." Violence is not OK, period, exclamation point. There is no qualification. Many commentators, on both political sides, make horrible statements everyday. No one should wait for a person to be killed for it to pointed out about them, "...it's not OK, but..." I hope this more clearly states my point. And, hopefully, we can all avoid any tit-for-tat or child-like "but they do it" counter-points. Agreed, "they" do. But that stuff is for the playground. I'm always happy to debate on points/substance.

@PozBearWI And? Why do you down vote my previous comment when I was referencing other points? But to your comment, progressives/Democrats do the same thing. For instance, as I ref'd, their push of DEI -- regardless of its effects. It's saying, "you live by our values, or else and collateral damage is fine." If you read history, democracies have fallen to both Oligarchs -- which Trump is one, and I'm not a supporter of his, as stated elsewhere -- as well as extremist parties and partisanship. The latter is where Democrats and progressives have moved. I have every right to express my avoidance of a protest developed by one of those sides, particularly when it espouses (supposed) democratic intent and in a statement which was (in a comment) directed to me. Or, was that your way of bullying me into silence?

@tallslenderguy just a quick update, re: Denmark and Greenland. A couple days after I wrote above, Denmark HAS actually begun to do something, finally, re: Greenland. I didn't see the info until today. [think before following links] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9n790j878o

@hntnhole re: No Kings... not really into any of that. Due to leftist politics I've been discriminated against re: job (DEI policies front and center of those decisions, and explicitly stated). As well, we're currently witnessing a gov't shutdown where Dems are using the filibuster to shut everything down -- driven by progressives. Those same progressives, just a few years ago, tried to end the filibuster and pushed moderates out of the Dem party (e.g., Manchin, Sinema, etc.) who stood up against it. In fact, it was a "key reason" Ruben Gallego decided to primary Sinema (AZ Senate). Here, we see it's only with the "correct" simple majority that the filibuster shouldn't exist, in progressives' view. After all, if they had succeeded in ending the filibuster then, the government wouldn't be shut down now. Both sides pick their winners and set policy to benefit their chosen few.

and @tallslenderguy and all, here's an additional link as to how Trump is forcing EU+UK countries to start to spend. If they had already achieved NATO commitments (previous 2% of GDP) this would be an ugly agreement. But, again, this comes as many of those countries -- particularly Germany, UK, and France -- are decades behind on hitting those commitments. [think before following links] https://www.politico.eu/article/pressure-mounts-nato-allies-go-all-in-us-trump-arms-scheme-ukraine/

Remember, it's not just oil but natural gas and other energy products. This is also Russia's push to gain/keep the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The EU is making (slow) progress... but it's still a major issue. [think before following links] https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/eus-plan-phase-out-russian-energy-clears-first-political-hurdle-2025-10-08/ [think before following links] https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/roadmap-fully-end-eu-dependency-russian-energy-2025-05-06_en

Earlier I grabbed the wrong title from my digital book library. The second book should have been: A Population History of the United States by H Klein The one I wrote, Historical Atlas..., is good enough for what it is, but not really the same thing.

Recently joined the site and going through older posts. @BootmanLA to your question: I think two things are being conflated here. First is representation democracy (vs. direct) and second is the EC as a group of people who cast a vote. 1) representation democracy -- where voters select representatives who vote on things for them -- has always quantized the broader public in blocks. Most democracies now use geopolitical boundaries (districts, constituencies, etc.) for that. You note a racist way it was implemented, but 1 person today = 1 person in the process for allocation of seats (called redistricting, in the U.S.). Just because it started for a reason doesn't make it that way now, nor other forms of the same (e.g., parliamentarian constituencies). Oddly here, both Democrats and Republicans gerrymander FOR Republicans. Democrats have strong support of minority populations. They push hard for minority-majority districts -- effectively stuffing a lot of Democratic voters into one or a few districts. Without this behavior, driven by both parties, Democrats would have more of a chance in the suburbs and non-rural areas. And, in general, gerrymandering isn't new. Democrats controlled the U.S. House for most of the second half of the 20th century due to gerrymandering. See: wikipedia. 1980 U.S. House vote, for example: - Dems: 50.5% of the vote with 277 seats - Reps: 47.8% of the vote with 157 seats 2) EC as a voting body -- here is where racism played a bigger role -- as is who could be in the EC and who selected those members. Regardless of those details, read about that elsewhere, today states have effectively gotten rid of it. EC members are mostly voted through the convention process -- e.g., in many states, starting with county conventions. People just have to be a member of a party and participate. And that's the rub, people don't participate.

@tallslenderguy wrote, in part: "1). From what i have seen, Trump is not true to his word on this one. He speaks of wanting Greenland and Canada. That sounds a lot like "nation building" to me. He stated frequently that he'd end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. i honestly cannot tell what he wants to do. To me, he continually contradicts himself on this question, and at the very least, over estimates his ability to keep his word." This is an issue which I can go on FAR too long (SORRY!). And I fully support our involvement. Yes, he said that and thought too much of his "relationship" with Putin. but while Biden played the carrot-card, Trump is playing the stick. Initially with Ukraine but more with the Europeans. Here's a Newsweek article which sums up the spending by the EU on Russian energy, and this is beyond their below-NATO spending commitments to self-defense. [think before following links] https://www.newsweek.com/russia-trump-oil-europe-2039731 He first negotiated -- in his bloviated way -- with Europe to start spending on defense. Even after more than 3 years of war in Ukraine, most European countries in NATO are not at 2% of GDP spend on defense, which was their commitment -- some of that could have been sent over to Ukraine. He's got commitments for 5% (by 2030, i think). Now, he's working on them to stop buying Russian energy. The EU, as noted in the article above -- with reputable sources, has spent over 200 billion Euros on Russian energy since the start of the war, more than sent in aide to Ukraine. They are literally helping to fund Russia's war effort. Trump is playing hardball with them now to stop that. Ukraine has actually had to maintain some Russian energy pipelines (to Europe) through their territory to placate the Europeans while being bombed continuously by Russia. Again, ultimately, this is hardball negotiations with Europe, not Ukraine, to get it's act together. The EU + UK is collectively strong enough to defend itself and neighbors from aggressors. But they've chosen to be weak. We can support them but should not be expected to do it all. And we have allies in east Asia to help too -- who do well in their own self-defense, namely Japan and South Korea -- where are the Europeans on that! China is much more formidable than Russia. I give Trump and "passing+" grade. I want us to do more but I get the bigger picture with the Europeans.

@meetme agreed. people do it for the titillation of risk -- but that's the issue: there's a downside to "risky", who knew? But to @topblkmale's original post, in general, no where in the convo or in public discourse is why this is targeting gay people. As a former New Yorker, when busing of migrants was a thing (from TX, etc), that area was a dumping ground and the hotel next door used to house some of those people. But around it, for a time, were many others illegal immigrants without accommodations. Penn Station is also still cover for many here illegally given the free services (e.g., bathrooms, public wifi, etc.). Activists sound alarms for anything -- it's how they justify their existence, make money, and grow their social media foot print. It doesn't make it true. Gay people may have been part of the roundup, but it doesn't make them a target for that reason.

I'm throwing this question out there as a topic conversation given changes I see both online and in-person. Please be respectful of everyone else's choice. I've left this open for a month.

It's a tough thing to determine, even with metrics. Take immigration: he is trying to do something at a scale other Presidents have not -- your personal politics will determine if that's a good or bad thing he can say more would be done if Democratic mayors and governors would help -- your politics will determine if you support their effort or not What's true is that the number of people trying to get here has absolutely plummeted, work done in concert with countries across Latin America to slow such traffic through the southern border as well as a the threat of simply being returned to country of origin. It was widely reported illegal crossing across that border hit a 50+ year low just two days ago (10/7). But again, your personal politics will determine if that's a good or bad thing -- and they will influence what you think is an acceptable metric/norm/result. I assume his supporters are mostly content with the effort to-date, given options available. But his baggage is just so high, and he's an oligarch. I gave him credit, as said elsewhere, for taking (most) Europeans countries and Canada to task for not living up their NATO commitments. Many don't realize, over recent decades, this amounts to hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of Euros of funds not spent on their own defense, per said agreement. Ukraine would be not just better defended but actually well defended if Europe had lived up to those commitments. I'll add here, I give Biden credit for holding the alliance together in the first place in 2022 -- and it should be well remembered. To continue on Biden as a tangential point to original question: Consider his Build Back Better program (or whatever that turned into, I forget the lingo). It was a campaign promise and economic stimulus bill. By the time it was enacted such stimulus was not needed. No one truly anticipated the economy would bounce back so quickly... it normally does not. By the time if was passed -- a campaign promise -- it only added to other factors which drove massive inflation. So was meeting that campaign promise good? Probably not in the end. My point, it's really about is the President doing something to help people? With Trump, that will always be a question. He's transactional and he's his own ideology.

Only wear thongs under compression pants/shorts at gym, but a more substantial posing thong not light weight material or g-string. I like the feeling, and the posture change creating extra curves. Chafing can be an issue so it's far from all the time. But only jocks and a full-back speedo or poser if 'on display'. I'm also much more a visual person. If you've seen one dick / ass you've seen most. Nude does very little for me... it's almost a turn-off beyond the heat of actual play. Gear makes things more interesting, regardless.

Two very good books on the topic: 1) American Nations by C Woodward 2) Historical Atlas of the United States by M Carnes The books are as apolitical as you can reasonable get. The former is probably working itself out, to some degree, as culture has bee nationalized / globalized with digital media, fairly little local connections / community in today's world.

Very partial to Jared Golden