Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LokiLoki22

  1. Ah, I don't know about the second link, I don't really like The Hill. Also, the title of the article is slightly misleading, since it is measured as only popularity within the state they are representing, not across the whole nation. That makes senators who are strongly polarizing but very popular in their state, like Sanders, have a huge advantage, as Vermont is far more liberal than the rest of the nation.
  2. Results gained by flipping a coin for every battleground state. We'll see if the humble penny can outdo political science majors everywhere.
  3. LokiLoki22

    I'm Back

    I confess, I am gone more than I'm active these days, still, I'm going to try to stay marginally active.
  4. LokiLoki22

    I'm Back

    I'm back, and I was completely isolated during basic, what did I miss?
  5. If it has to do with race, that would bring up a different problem, which would be why folks of certain descriptions are disproportionately poor compared to the average.
  6. I think that happens if you win an endorsement, they'll hop on board. I could be wrong though.
  7. I think that America is simply too large, and the administrative power needed would be immense. It's like the rocket problem with departments. That's why Iceland or Norway has an easier time coordinating their governments than the US, China, Russia, or other large countries. Too many people. Anything like that would be best done at a state level.
  8. Uh, yeah, especially if it's in the comedy/stupid/doesn't take itself too seriously genre. I also would like a WWII French/Allied resistance style game, but a spiritual sequal to the ridiculous LCS? I'd play that to death.
  9. Please discuss. I admit some bias in my writing style, which is why I leaned on statistics.
  10. I would like to run the numbers on a series of programs at the state and federal level, to see if they are worthwhile, and if so how. This is based on an observation of mine that states with stronger social welfare nets, such as CA, NY, and VT, have better economic output per capita than states that consider any welfare to be traitorous, and counterproductive. First to be tested will be my initial observation, using statistics from This Overbearing Table. (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2018). In the table, we can clearly see that my observation holds itself to be mostly true, with the exemption of states that have Oil money (ND, AL, TX). MA, CT, and NY make up the top three, while FL, MT, KY, Maine, AR, AL, SC, AZ, WV, ID, and MS round out the bottom of the table. After those three at the top, we find North Dakota, a state which between 2001 and 2015 doubled it's income per capita, which is a testament to the power oil still can have over a state's economy. The ten most populous states, (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, and NC), have very different looks regarding GDP per capita. Here we see that among the top ten most populous states, it generally holds true. Florida, at bottom spot, spent $3,803 (link) seeing lower income per capita than the US average ($51,337). New York, holding top spot, spent a whole $2000 more per person, a roughly ~166% difference, and gives more to the federal government than it receives, thusly being considered a "Donor state". New York spent $7,633 per person in it's budget for fy 2018 (link). California, at second position, spends $6,774. In fact, the only high spender of the list to have a smaller than average GDP per capita is Vermont, whose small population gets over $8,000 spent on it, per person, per year. A chart of the top nine spenders, compared to the US average, looks like this: Only Oregon (in yellow), and Vermont (dammit Vermont, I'm trying to make a point here), fall below the US average. (link to graph page). By Tax Rate Ever since Reagan cut taxes in the 1980s, the Republican party has seen several major tax cuts go through, citing trickle down economics. Does this work? We have 50 small economic testing grounds to tell us. For this, I will be using information gathered from the Tax Foundation a Foundation devoted to lowering taxes. I will not be using local tax for this, as it was not included in the spending half. California, the second highest GDP per capita state, has a 7.25% State tax rate, the highest in the Union, Per capita leaders New York, meanwhile sit at 4%, far lower than average. Tax rates do not seem to have a significant effect on GDP. Indeed at the federal level, we have seen presidents who cut taxes typically struggle with economic matters unrelated to the cut, such as the Savings and loan Crisis (1989), Black Monday (1987), and the Housing Bubble (2007-8). Per person, the average rate payed by all Americans since 1979 has not changed significantly (link, 2nd table). The Corporate income tax, meanwhile, has dropped from 5% in 1979 to 2.7% currently, only beaten by W. Bush's rates in '07 to '08. Payroll tax, meanwhile, has increased for the lower quintiles by 3% since 1979, and remained roughly stable for the upper. This data, unfortunately, cuts off at 2014, so the effect of Trump's tax cuts will be a discussion for another time. Healthcare A flagship program of Social Democrats everywhere, a single payer healthcare system is projected to cost anywhere from $1.38 Trillion to $2.8 trillion per year, no small number. Assuming an equal raise across all taxes to pay for the system, how would such a system perform? It is no secret that the US healthcare system, as it stands, is in crisis. Lack of competition has driven costs up, as well as the proliferation of middlemen. The US spent $3.3 Trillion on healthcare in 2016 (link), and a single payer system makes Medicare and Medicaid obsolete. One consistent fear espoused by conservative politicians is that quality of care would drop off. There is no real metric that I know of to measure this, but on average, wait times for elective surgery in nations that had single payer systems, in 2013, was 44-45 days, with Portugal being the worst, and Scotland's NHS system the best (link). There is no information for the United States there, and according to OCED, there is no data available for the US at this time. In fact, there is no record keeping of average wait times for any majority private health system, making comparisons here difficult, and likely inaccurate. Defense Defense is typically on the chopping block for many social Democracies, but not as much as I thought going into this. Norway, Denmark, and Sweden all spend near enough 1.5% of their GDP on defense each year, while the US spends 3.1%, a clear increase, but not exactly the seismic difference I was expecting. The global average is 2.166%. Above that are France(2.2%). (link for military spending). This shows a difference in priorities between these nations, as several more developed nations have decided that a large military simply isn't useful to them, or is less useful than other places to spend the same money. As such, 2016 saw fewer than 600 people from the Americas and Europe die in battle. This includes terror attacks. Indeed, for the western world, the 21st century looks to be a much safer one than the 20th, perhaps necessitating less spending on the military. (link). Military spending and battle deaths have dropped since 1960. This data is for civilians only, I didn't bother looking up military deaths, I will do that at a later date.
  11. For me, OH Gov (Home state, and a very close race in a state that increasingly leans right), TX Sen, because no democrat has any business being anywhere near Cruz in polls, but here we are, and the overall house.
  12. I'd be inclined to agree with most of that, but I think that Biden might. I do think it is unlikely, however, and I discourage drinking that much Tabasco sauce, as you might suffocate from the sheer quantity of facial hair you gain.
  13. I would love it if you could send me some of the files for these, and I can begin to postulate how each district would go. I might use my Ohio, out of rude, greedy self indulgence. I lumped similar areas together, and tried to make competitive districts, even to the point of making some weird decisions. Like district 1 stretches into Butler County, so as to have my house be in a competitive district, and I ended up with a swathe of coastal territory that ended up being a "Lakeside District" District 11 is YUGE (damn you population density). Ohio is tough because there are vast differences in population density.
  14. John McCain, whether you agree with his war record or not, was still a hero. Not for his achievements in the Senate, or his presidential bid. He was a hero in that when it came time for him to serve, and his number was up, he chose to stand up and be counted, rather than slink off to college, or fake a medical condition. He didn't have to agree with the war, when worst came to worst, he followed orders, and should be honored as a man who did not run away when his time came. His achievements in the Senate solidify his reputation as a man who always fought for the country he believed in, right up until the end. I am saddened by some of the hate he receives, but he would've made a fine president, but for the timing.
  15. Awesome, Since I've been tipped to start at 1952, I'll start there, and maybe work up through the years.
  16. I like it! My redistricting plan was decently similar, but I had all of hamilton county lumped in with Cincinnati, and had Columbus split in two, with the suburbs included, and made the farm districts much larger to compensate. I had Cleveland done differently, but your way 100% still works, and if this was on the table instead of my plan, I would definitely throw my support behind it.
  17. I do that sometimes, but I didn't mean that.
  18. Alright, why allowing denial of employment based on birth, even if they are legal, or service based on skin colour, or other things that they can't control. Also, equal pay. I'm genuinely intrigued to hear your part on that.
  19. Wow, I won't even. Needless to say, I disagree, but I understand the concept of "The states can handle it.". There are a few that I would like your position on explained, if you're down for that.
  20. How do you feel about Beto, as compared to many more extreme Democrats on the plate, and his opposition (Ted Cruz). At least he seems to be having a good time. He's been described as being on a "Suicide Mission", but might be well placed for a potential future. Plus I like him partially because I dislike Cruz.
  21. Very cool, not sure how they'd face off.
  22. I... agree. A surprise, for sure, but a welcome one. Anyway, we're getting off topic, and should probably leave this or move it before @admin_270 kills it.
  23. 1. Allowing verbal harassment in public places: The federal government shouldn't step in on this. Simply, it would make a massive mess, with very little in the way of winners, and would muddy the waters of the 1st amendment. I don't like it, and I encourage citizens and businesses to take punks who make a problem of themselves in public and show them the door, but the federal government simply cannot step in on this 2. Denying employment or firing someone based exclusively off their political and social views What about, for example, a Neonazi. That is a political or social view. What about a KKK leader who made other workers uncomfortable. State workers have other protections against firing, like the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, among others. What is a problem is if they impede other workers by "Expressing their views" on how black people are inferior, or other, equally appalling things. I support true democracy, and would love to see more citizen involvement in the civil service, but I can't lay down a blanket ban. 3. On firearms. If a state wants to allow businesses to say "We'd rather not have armed customers" that is fine. That is the business' decision on how to run their establishment, and guns don't have the same rights as people. If that same business suffered from a boycott, they only have themselves to blame. Firearms are unnerving to retail workers, especially in crime ridden areas, who don't know if the customer in question is a good guy or a bad guy, and can lead to misunderstanding. Forcing a business to allow guns on premise doesn't help anything, and is a breach of private property rights for no obvious reason except gunowner convenience.
  24. I think I'm ready for the attacks that follow.
  25. What I'm Rolling with is looking at where candidates from minor parties ran, and increasing candidate strength there by one, and having a very generic, pure center platform (as an average). Independent progressives (an actual party) will get their own party.
  • Create New...