3 photos
I did too. Twice. And I see no such response.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;3060493]This is a classic failure to appreciate Simpson's Paradox. How many welfare Democrats live in blue cities in red states? And how many Republicans live in the suburbs and commute to Dallas and Houston? How many successful business owners in California are Republicans?
[B]Why don't you ask AI what's the average federal tax paid by Republicans versus Democrats? I did, and it said "about the same. ".[/b]Like I said, devolve more taxation and spending and power to states and cities. Then people can do what they want instead of having it imposed on them by Washington politicians. And flight from blue cities and states will increase.
As to benefits, it's about the same for Democrats vs. Republicans looking at social security, Medicare, welfare and the like. As to defense spending and Biden's corporate pork, exactly how do apportion that? Does a military base in South Carolina just benefit the civilian residents of South Carolina? That's probably the kind of assumption your LWM sources make. [/QUOTE]This is a classic failure to back up a claim with a credible source link or to at least quote the passage from an AI result that you think supports it even if it doesn't. As it doesn't in this case:
[QUOTE][b]what's the average federal tax paid by Republicans versus Democrats?[/b]
+6
Data indicates no direct, official record of "average federal tax paid" categorized by political party, as tax filings do not track party affiliation. However, partisan differences exist in tax burdens: high-income earners (often in Republican-leaning states) feel they pay a disproportionate share, while Democrats more often support progressive tax structures. Generally, 68% of Republicans view their federal taxes as too high compared to 37% of Democrats, reflecting different perceptions of fairness rather than strict average payment differences.
Pew Research Center
+4
Partisan Perspectives on Federal Taxes:
Partisan Disparity: Roughly 67% of high-income Republicans ($100k+) believe they pay too much, compared to 45% of high-income Democrats.
Perceptions of Fairness: According to, 62% of Democrats in 2025 feel the federal taxes they pay are fair, compared to only 35% of Republicans.
[B]State-Level Differences: Red states (Republican-leaning) generally prioritize lower tax rates, while blue states (Democrat-leaning) often have higher average tax burdens.[/b]
Party Goals: Republicans often focus on lower taxes for corporations and high-income families, while Democrats typically target increased taxes on the top 1%.
Gallup News
+4
.........
There is no official data tracking federal tax payments by political affiliation. However, analysis shows that Republicans generally report higher dissatisfaction with their tax burdens, with ~68% reporting taxes are too high compared to 37% of Democrats. Furthermore, 79% of upper-income Republicans feel they pay more than their fair share, compared to 57% of upper-income Democrats.
Pew Research Center
+2
Key Findings on Taxation & Political Views
[B]Partisan Tax Views: As of 2026, 68% of Republicans say their federal taxes are "too high," a sentiment shared by only 37% of Democrats.[/b]
Income Disparities: The difference in perception of paying "too high" taxes is most pronounced among high earners: 67% of Republicans earning over $100,000 feel they pay more than their fair share, compared to 45% of Democrats in the same bracket.
Party Goals: Republican initiatives often focus on extending tax cuts for high-income families and corporations, while Democratic proposals tend to target tax increases on top earners and expand credits like the Child Tax Credit.
Perceptions of Fairness: According to 2025 Gallup data, 62% of Democrats consider their tax burden fair, whereas only 35% of Republicans feel the same.
Gallup News
+5
Note: The Tax Foundation provides data on tax payments by income level, but not by political party.
Tax Foundation
+1[/QUOTE]Well, I see nothing supporting what you claimed.
However, the AI response to your question does underscore that Blue states have higher average tax burdens to help pay more for America's needs than do Red states. As I have asserted and repeatedly shown.
It's only that, being deadbeats by their very nature, high-earning Repubs "think", "feel" and "percieve" that they pay too much for those benefits for America despite the fact that Blue states pay more for them while high-earning Dems bellyache, whine and cry far, far less about paying for what benefits America than Repubs do despite the fact that their Blue states are paying more for it than Red states.
Which is exemplified by those higher burdened American tax-payers from California always offering our heartfelt "You're welcome" to Aunt Bea, Jethro, Gomer, Goober, Granny, Ellie-Mae, Uncle Jed, Elvis and you.
California's Newsome vs. The Pick-Pocket and Grifter MAGA Fuhrer
[QUOTE=Canada;3060337]Yes Newsome proposed a balanced budget just like he proposed the following.
Proposed High speed rail. Billions spent and no high speed rail.
Proposed fixing the homeless problem. Billions spent and more homeless year after year.
Proposed new gas tax to fix the roads and highways. Billions collected in gas tax and CA roads worst in the nation.
Proposed a balanced budget in 2025 and huge deficit.
Newsome proposal tax the millionaire to collect more taxes. Millionaires leaving state for Texas and Florida so collecting less taxes.[/QUOTE]Yes almost, but not as proud as you are, having your MAGA Fuhrer, increase the national debt by $2.25 trillion, in the first year back in charge, [URL]https://fortune.com/2026/01/20/how-much-national-debt-grew-trump-first-year-back-in-office-president/[/URL]
Yes almost, but not as proud as you are, having your MAGA Fuhrer, interfere in an sovereign election and give Argentine $40 billion (and not USA Farmers and businesses).
Yes almost, but not as proud as you are, having your corrupt MAGA Fuhrer, pick-pocket American taxpayers (so far) to the tune of $3.4 bn, into his own pockets and family pockets, while in his second term in office. [URL]https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/trump-personal-gains-and-taxpayer-costs-while-in-office-847256[/URL]
Yes almost, but not as proud as you are, having your MAGA Fuhrer, plunge the United States into insolvency. [URL]https://fortune.com/2026/03/23/us-government-insolvent-fiscal-crisis-fix/[/URL]
Yes almost, but not as proud as you are, having your MAGA Fuhrer, in illegal war after illegal war, costing $1+ billion a day (by some estimates).
Let's face it, most big utility projects will have cost overruns. But California's HSR project ran foul and suffered from a shit-ton of "right-of-way" and eminent domain legal conflicts. When the laws and legislation around "right-of-way" get cleaned up and simplified, the better off America will be for such large scale nationwide or state projects. Something I might add Florida HSR, never had.
It's a whole other conversation, but even the HSR in Florida, isn't producing the ridership, touted by Gov. Ron DeSantis, as investors are delayed again for payment owed. Which brings up a really good question, [I]"Will HSR ever really be viable and widely adopted, in the U.S.?"[/I]
According to EithTooms latest post here:[URL]http://www.internationalsexguide.nl/forum/showthread.php?2467-American-Politics&p=3059439&viewfull=1#post3059439[/URL] under Gov. Gavin Newson, California's California's $4 Trillion economy outpaces major nations and is now the world's 4th largest economy, passing Japan. That says a lot, despite all the concerns and challenges, you cite. [URL]https://www.edhat.com/california/news/under-governor-gavin-newsom-californias-4-trillion-economy-outpaces-major-nations-report-shows/[/URL]
But this much is clear, while Newsome has always had Californians best interests at heart, your MAGA Fuhrer only cares about enriching himself, his family and his billionaire cronies on the backs of hardworking Americans.
I'll finish by quoting EihTooms:
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3059439] California, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Dems offer a heartfelt, [b]"You're welcome, Aunt Bea, Jethro, Gomer, Tiny, Elvis and Granny. "[/b][/QUOTE]
Electrosate vs. Petrostate: No SA 'baseload' required, but autonomous mining trucks?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;3060381]Absolutely true. Spidy has used South Australia as a role model. Well, conditions for solar and wind there are among the best in the world. But for baseload power, South Australia still must rely on natural gas from the Cooper Basin and interconnects from Victoria. And Victoria generates electricity mostly from dirty, dirty coal.[/QUOTE]AEMO boss Daniel Westerman -- [I]"Australia's operational paradigm is no longer 'baseload-and-peaking', but increasingly its a paradigm of 'renewables-and-firming'.[/I] It's a crucial point to understand:
[LIST][b]Baseload is not so much a technical virtue as a business model[/b] the people who invest in coal generators, and nuclear in particular, count on those machines operating at or near full capacity most of the time. [url]https://reneweconomy.com.au/dan-tehan-fails-to-grasp-difference-between-baseload-and-firming-as-he-sprouts-nonsense-on-nuclear/[/url][/LIST]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;3060381]What can I say that I haven't already said.
[URL]https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country[/URL][/QUOTE]Don't say anything! Just listen for a change!
[QUOTE=Tiny12;3060381]Why do you even attempt to argue Alberta politics with an Albertan? He's going to kick your ass, if he chooses to waste the time to do so.[/QUOTE]Unlike the MAGA side of America, I am remain interested in the global south (or north) and world politics related to energy, among other things, other then when your MAGA Fuhrer is blowing up stuff. But by all means you can go back and put your MAGA blinders on.
I'm sure Canada, is quite able to speak for himself and is welcome to try, if he's not too busy, getting his ass kissed by you!
[B]Coal use dropped in China and India in 2025. It rose in USA, hiking energy costs,[/B] January 19th, 2025 [URL]https://electrek.co/2026/01/19/coal-use-dropped-in-china-and-india-in-2025-it-rose-in-usa-hiking-energy-costs/[/URL]
So in the USA, higher natural gas prices and the policy shift by the MAGA Fuhrer and his shit-show administration, which included issuing orders to keep open coal-fired plants slated for closure, led to the country posting an 8% to 13% increase in demand in 2025 and the largest absolute gains and approximately 37 million tons, leading to [U]a 2.4% increase in carbon emissions in the United States.[/U]
And while China is the largest annual CO2 emitter, it is worth mentioning, that while is not everything, it's not nothing either, as they move to electrify everything and mitigate as much of their carbon foot print as possible and how for example [I][b]Autonomous electric trucks drive China's shift to smart, green mining,[/b][/I] [URL]https://english.news.cn/20260204/0704b4e427664d83a2b746ea2a3a0e8b/c.html[/URL]
Yeah, how about that, just checkout China's smart (5 G technology) green, electrotech coal mining operations. EV mining trucks, autonomously hauling coal, to be used as electricity to power China and themselves, while saving millions in diesel fossil fuel, operation costs.
Chinese driverless, autonomous electric mining trucks [I]...the U.S. not so much![/I]
