American Politics

[Elvis 2008]

Well, Ive recently read a couple of articles about children dying in cars from heat in France. Maybe the French need to get over the fear of pollution, climate change and catching cold, and leave their engines running and air conditioning on when kids are in the car.

You mean the French are going to admit that they are wrong? LOL. That is as likely as Democrats doing so.

Only the French could have thousands dying in a heat wave and brag about their not having air conditioning. After debating Spidy, there are things I have learned about electricity generation. You want baseline usage rates to stabilize a grid. It is actually good for people to be charging their batteries at night and on the weekends as too little power being drawn from the grid is as much a problem as too much. So if you use solar or wind during the day and the grid at night, you really are not doing much in the way of carbon emissions.

And maybe just maybe you should revisit the issue when the technology gets better? Nah, why? You cannot tell the French anything. So my RV has this loud big GE AC unit and look at the numbers: https://www.bigbearvans.com/blog-det...lete-breakdown

Up to 4000 watts per hour to get it going and then up to 2000 watts per hour, and it is loud to boot. To prevent the massive power surge when starting up, there is a device called a soft starter that can reduce those huge initial surges and cut energy usage up to 70%.

Then you are seeing 12 v AC units come into play now. You can see a breakdown of the most efficient RV units on the planet in this video and go to the 7:47 mark to see how much power they consume. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CXCWdxj22Q

The amount the lower 12 volt AC unit puts out is a tiny 671 watts per hour.

Then you have the mini split AC systems I see being used in Colombia and Mexico and they cool very well and can use as little as 400 watts per hour.

But wait there is more! You can even take a 400 watt portable AC unit in your tent when camping if you desire: https://cybertake.com/products/s2-pr...2fGgNaTe5Wz78T

Or you can do as the super intelligent French do and die of heat stroke instead of considering using AC that is up to 90% more efficient.

BTW, is it possible the French are thinner because they smoke more? It is funny seeing all the world come to the USA for the world cup and rave about the food especially the BBQ. For all their food snobbery, I did not have one decent piece of meat the whole time I was in France, and I have been there for months at a time. The old USSR had better steak than France did. French food is so overrated!

[EihTooms]

Since the typically pro Repub Mainstream Media simply cannot formulate the words, "Kudos to President Biden's CHIPS and Science Act for at least making it look like Trump "economy" isn't a total flop on all fronts again" or anything like it and Trump and his MAGAs damn sure never will, allow me:

Is the CHIPS and Science Act driving the market on chips industry?
+4
Yes, the CHIPS and Science Act is a major driving force in the semiconductor market, acting as the premier U.S. industrial policy to revitalize domestic manufacturing and research. It has successfully spurred hundreds of billions of dollars in private investments and reshaping regional industry supply chains.

The market is being driven in three specific ways:

Massive Private Investment: The promise of $39 billion in manufacturing incentives and a 25% tax credit has triggered nearly $400 billion in private industry investments in U.S.-based semiconductor facilities.

Research and Workforce Development: The act allocates $13 billion for advanced research and development (R&D) and workforce training programs, aiming to secure long-term U.S. competitiveness in cutting-edge computing and AI technologies.

Supply Chain Localization: Driven by national security priorities and geopolitical concerns, the act is localizing supply chains, prompting major industry players to build mega-fabs in states like Arizona and New York.

If you'd like, let me know if you want to explore:Specific companies and suppliers receiving CHIPS Act fundingState-by-state economic impacts and new mega-fab locationsHow the act compares to global semiconductor initiativesI can provide more detailed information tailored to those specific areas.The CHIPS Act: How U.S. Microchip Factories Could Reshape the EconomyOct 8, 2567 BE In 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act. The legislation directs hundreds...Council on Foreign RelationsDoes the CHIPS and Science Act Argue for Industrial Policy?Aug 25, 2568 BE Key Points * Industrial policy's costs are knownwaste, corruption, and distorted markets. A new set of potential gains has emerged in the form of reduced vulne...Center for Technology, Science, and EnergyInnovation Lightbulb: Tracking CHIPS Act Incentives - CSISApr 25, 2568 BE In August 2022, Congress passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS Act) to revitalize U.S. semiconductor research and manufacturing and drive innovatio...CSIS | Center for Strategic and International StudiesWhich market will dominate the semiconductor industry in ... - LSE BlogsMay 29, 2569 BE America's share of global chip manufacturing fell from approximately 37 per cent in the early 1990s to around 12 per cent today, even as American firms retain c...The London School of Economics and Political ScienceWhy Micron Is Betting Big on New York Chips - WSJJun 30, 2569 BE Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Legislature reinforced those advantages through the 2022 NY Green Chips Act, which led to up to $5.8 billion in incentives for the Mic...WSJThe Politics of Semiconductors in 2025Jan 24, 2568 BE Driving Localization Through Incentives Governments are focused on initiatives to localize semiconductor production. The US CHIPS Act, European semiconductor fu...PublitekCHIPS and Science Act - WikipediaThe law constitutes an industrial policy initiative which takes place against the background of a perceived AI Cold War between the US and China, as artificial ...Wikipedia

Record chip rally adds $2 trillion in combined value to Micron, Intel and AMD in Q2

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/30/ai-c...ndroidappshare

Dow jumps 100 points to close out best first half in 5 years; Nasdaq posts best quarter since 2020

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/29/stoc...ndroidappshare

The moves higher were supported by a rise in chip stocks. Shares of Nvidia gained 2.6%, while Advanced Micro Devices added 7.7% and Intel advanced 6%. The VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) climbed more than 3%, putting its year-to-date gain at 82%.

Tuesday marked the final day of the first half and the second quarter.

The Dow gained 8.9% in the first six months of the year, posting its best first-half performance since 2021, when it jumped 12.7%. The S&P 500 climbed 9.6% in the first half, while the Nasdaq outperformed with a more than 12% advance. Additionally, the Russell 2000 gained almost 22% for its best first half since the first six months of 1991.

Since it becomes abundantly clear by the day that this kind of positive result for America never, never would have happened without them, I'm sure the USA Stock Market-watchers and USA GDP Growth-watchers here and elsewhere will happily and gratefully join me in a very heartfelt "Thanks, Joe, Kamala and the Dems in Congress who made this happen"!

[EihTooms]

It's like we're playing full court two on two with Elvis and Canada and you're down by their goal scoring points for them.

It looks like the AI and the Brookings Institution, the premier Democratic Party think tank, are on their side. From your post.

"Academic research by institutions like the Brookings Institution indicates that the tariffs had a minimal impact on overall USA economic output, adding or subtracting merely fractions of a percentage point from the national GDP. ".

"Albert Cavallo, an economist at Harvard and the author of a study on the impact of tariffshas found that Trump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue. ".

Then there's something about the tariff increase being larger than the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930, but the impact apparently wasn't significant, the quote is cut off.

Next thing the 3 of you will be insisting is that Trump's jobs creation numbers are "The Best Ever, Nobody's Seen Anything Like It"!

And that his 4. 2% CPI Rate of Inflation is lower than the 3. 0% he inherited from Biden. "Nobody's Seen Anything Like It"!

Or that for all his jobs creation failures and near zero infrastructure improvement, he still managed to add to the debt at the fastest rate of any president in USA History.

When any one of you 3 MAGAs finally produce a credible link showing that GDP Growth for 2025 was HIGHER than the Third Revision figures I provided credible links for 2021,2022, 2023 and 2024 rather than unsubstantiated opinions about it, I'll be quite impressed. And I assure you that is the biggest emotional reaction I will have ever conjured up about anything you guys have ever posted supposedly but never successfully refuting my points about consistently far superior economic policy and stewardship results for Dem presidents vs weak to disatrous Repub presidents' results going back 100 years.

[Tiny 12]

That is exactly what Trump claimed his Trump Tariffs would do after inheriting a "dead" country from Biden, who so far has shown to have produced much, much better results on all counts in his 4 years than Trump did in his 5 1/2 years.

The A. I. Overview:

Maybe if you hold Canada's hand while you assure him that A. I. And I "made up this stuff just to make Trump look bad" he'll be able to get over the trauma of it sooner.

It's like we're playing full court two on two with Elvis and Canada and you're down by their goal scoring points for them.

It looks like the AI and the Brookings Institution, the premier Democratic Party think tank, are on their side. From your post.

"Academic research by institutions like the Brookings Institution indicates that the tariffs had a minimal impact on overall USA economic output, adding or subtracting merely fractions of a percentage point from the national GDP. ".

"Albert Cavallo, an economist at Harvard and the author of a study on the impact of tariffshas found that Trump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue. ".

Then there's something about the tariff increase being larger than the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930, but the impact apparently wasn't significant, the quote is cut off.

So the 2025 tariffs were on track to raise $250 to $300 billion a year in federal revenue but according to AI and the Brookings Institution possibly were adding to GDP? That's like having your cake and eating it too. Taxes are supposed to subtract from GDP, especially tariffs. Consumers should buy less because prices are higher, and that should hurt GDP.

I don't believe the AI and Brookings on this any more than I believe Modern Monetary Theory.

Instead of the short term effect on GDP you need to highlight inflation. Trump's making the same mistake as Biden and the Democrats did in 2021 and 2022. The tariffs and the second Iran War bumped up inflation. And worse yet, there are hints that real wages are stagnating. This is going to hurt Republicans in elections this year, just like it hurt Democrats in 2024.

[EihTooms]

The topic is the effect of tariffs on GDP growth. It's not how too much stimulus spending during COVID and afterwards juiced GDP, and added to the national debt.

We both agree that the tariffs affected GDP growth negatively. Tax increases (including new tariffs), like cuts in government spending, should cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise, all else being equal.

Apparently you disagree that GDP has been"chugging along" despite the tariffs.

Please see.

Real Gross Domestic Product (GDPC1).

FRED.

St. Louis Fed.

Please note that real GDP in 2017 dollars was 24.18 trillion dollars in Q1 2026 and 23.55 trillion dollars in Q1 2025.

Also please note that while a piddly tariff on iron and steel took effect in March, 2025, most of the Trump tariffs kicked in starting in April, in the 2nd quarter of 2025. A reasonable baseline for the pre-tariff economy is Q1 2025. Over the succeeding year, to Q1 2026, the GDP growth rate was 24.18/23.55 1 = 2.7%. You don't need to make seasonal adjustments because you're comparing like quarters. Ask your AI agent, "What was the year-on-year GDP Growth Rate for the United States in Q1 2026" and this is what you'll get unless the ***** is lying to you.

That is exactly what Trump claimed his Trump Tariffs would do after inheriting a "dead" country from Biden, who so far has shown to have produced much, much better results on all counts in his 4 years than Trump did in his 5 1/2 years.

The A. I. Overview:

Trump promised higher gdp growth due to his tariffs
+9

President Donald Trump promised that his broad "reciprocal" tariffs would trigger an economic boom, reshore manufacturing jobs, and lower domestic prices. However, independent data and economic research show that his trade policies have largely failed to deliver these promised benefits.

Key impacts of the tariffs include:GDP and Economic Output: Academic research by institutions like the Brookings Institution indicates that the tariffs had a minimal impact on overall U.S. economic output, adding or subtracting merely fractions of a percentage point from the national GDP.

Manufacturing and Jobs: Despite promises that factories would "come roaring back," U.S. manufacturing employment has declined since the tariffs were implemented. The administration has faced pushback from lawmakers over the negative impacts on blue-collar workers.I

nflation and Cost of Living: Rather than lowering consumer prices, the tariffs have functioned essentially as an import tax. Economists, including those from Harvard Business School, note that these costs are primarily passed on to U.S. consumers, driving up inflation by roughly three-quarters of a percentage point.

Revenue: The Congressional Budget Office and financial reports from outlets like the Wall Street Journal confirm that while the tariffs have significantly boosted federal revenue, they have not successfully replaced broader income taxes or sparked widespread, transformative economic growth.

A year on: Four ways Trump's tariffs have changed the global economy - BBCApr 2, 2569 BE 2 April 2026. Natalie ShermanBusiness reporter. EPA-EFE/Rex/Shutterstock. When US President Donald Trump launched his trade war last April, he promised a new er...BBCTrump touts 'high economic growth.' The numbers are mixed. - NBC NewsJan 21, 2569 BE Barring three recession years, 2025 was the slowest 12 months for U.S. job creation since 2003. Trump promised in the spring that his protectionist economic pol...NBC News8:21'Trump's promise that foreign companies would pay. . .turned out to be false'YouTubeCNNPresident Trump promised, again and again, that he would lower ...Jun 30, 2569 BE Starting on Day 1, we'll drive down prices and make America affordable again. - Trump Trump promised to slash healthcare costs Day 1. Instead, premiums are ...FacebookSenator Dick DurbinThe Tariff Effect: Billions in Revenue but No Economic EarthquakeAug 6, 2568 BE Quick Summary * Trump's tariffs, intended to reshape the economy, have so far only caused minor disruptions, with inflation ticking up slightly. * Tariff revenu...WSJSens. Warren, Kelly press Trump administration on effects of tariffs on manufacturingJun 23, 2569 BE Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., sent a letter, shared exclusively with CNBC, to three Trump administration Cabinet officials dinging t...CNBCTrump says tariffs led to economic growth. The facts tell another story - AP NewsFeb 6, 2569 BE Alberto Cavallo, an economist at Harvard and the author of a study on the impact of tariffs cited by Trump in his op-ed, has found that Trump's tariffs have boo...AP NewsTrump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue ... - ReutersMar 25, 2569 BE Trump's tariffs had little impact on GDP in 2025, but raised revenue, academic paper finds. By David Lawder. March 25, 20266:05 PM PDTUpdated March 25, 2026. Sh...ReutersChaos, fear and disappointment: Trumps tariffs turn one year oldApr 2, 2569 BE Although the tariff increase was larger than the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930, which many economists blame for deepening the Great Depression, the overall impa...EL PAS EnglishAre the tariffs working? - POLITICOMar 30, 2569 BE A Brookings Institution paper on the short-term impacts of tariffs concluded that the tariffs only had a small effect on the overall economy, with authors Pablo...PoliticoEconomic coercion, eroding trust, and the future of multilateral trade | What we are readingJan 27, 2569 BE The Washington Post reports that US ( the United States ) tariffs have failed to deliver the manufacturing boom Trump ( President Donald Trump ) promised. The W...Hinrich FoundationIn his State of the Union address, President Trump said the economy is soaring. But more than half of Americans don't agree, according to a CBS News poll. CBS News business analyst Jill Schlesinger breaks down President Trump's claims from Tuesday night, from the stock market to tariffs. https://cbsn.ws/4ceW8aaFeb 25, 2569 BE I love them. Yes. Look at that and Trump also claimed that tariffs could replace income tax. No. Absolutely not. There there's no way. We're talking about the g...Facebook

Maybe if you hold Canada's hand while you assure him that A. I. And I "made up this stuff just to make Trump look bad" he'll be able to get over the trauma of it sooner.

[SubCmdr]

The Republican Party is for the rich but they will glad you rule over you and keep you poor if you let them.

Mississippi has the highest poverty rate at 18.0%, followed by Louisiana at 18.9% and New Mexico at 17.8% based on 2023 Census data.

The correlation between state wealth and political control is distinct:

Republican-Controlled States: The majority of the poorest states are governed by Republicans. Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina all have Republican governors and legislatures (or supermajorities). Kentucky is unique with a Democratic governor but Republican legislative control.

The Democratic Outlier: New Mexico is the only state with complete Democratic control that ranks among the poorest, currently holding the fourth-highest poverty rate.

Wealth Correlation: Conversely, eight of the ten wealthiest states by median household income have Democratic governors.

Critics argue that [BE]Republican[/BE] policies, such as lower taxes and "Right to Work" laws, contribute to lower public investment in education and infrastructure, perpetuating poverty. Conversely, analysts note that historical factors, such as the economic legacy of the post-Civil War South, also play a significant role in the persistent economic disparities in these regions.

People who are too poor to buy shoes cannot vote with their feet and leave the states where Republicans want to keep them poor and working on the corporate government plantations that make them rich.

I was asked who in the Republican Party was racist. I provided a list that was not allowed to be published. So I present the following as all the proof I need to show me that the Republican party is racist at it's core:

In the weeks since Callais was decided, the decision has already spurred a flurry of mid-decade partisan gerrymandering in key states such as Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina, to advance Republican control of the House of Representatives after the 2026 elections. The Louisiana governor went so far as to cancel an active primary election and discard 45,000 already-cast ballots to redraw congressional maps. 6 We can expect that more congressional gerrymandering will occur in advance of the 2028 elections and that federal, state, and local bodies of government will come into play as post-census redistricting begins after 2030.

https://www.demos.org/policy-briefs/...iana-v-callais

Republicans want to count those who look like me as 3/5 of a person again and take away our right to vote!

[Canada]

What a debacle, what a dumbass MAGA president! When the dude can't even manage the re-servicing, re-doing and re-painting a reflecting pool, I don't image the country will fare any better under this presidential total incompetence.

How much of a loser MAGA president can you be?

Yet another bungled project with millions of taxpayer dollars to the fragile ego and vanity of a president who continues to fiddle while America insidiously crumbles and burns, from MAGA "values" of corruption, ineptitude and lawlessness and the continuous "fuck you" to hardworking Americans, as the MAGA president cares very little for affordable housing for those hardworking Americans, since before he was elected and so concerned about the price of bacon.

Project was great and the refurbishment went well. Actually is was too good prompting the jealous Democrats to vandalize the pool. Now 7 Democrats have been arrested for vandalism and will be spending several years in prison. That is the way the violent Democrats operate. Not something you should be proud of.

[SubCmdr]

Look at how people are voting with their feet

Anyone who is a citizen of the Dis United States of America who votes with their feet and leaves the Dis United States of America pays taxes on their worldwide income to the Dis United States of America unless they renounce their citizenship.

More Americans Are Giving Up USA Citizenship, New Report Finds

https://www.boundless.com/blog/more-...us-citizenship

[Tiny 12]

Nice. You combined your own unfounded and unsubstantiated opinion that the USA GDP Growth Rate is not declining with other peoples' opinion about what will happen by the end of this year.

U.S. GDP (1960-2026)

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-m...dp-growth-rate

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/fi...dp4q21_3rd.pdf

https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-...p-industry-and

Yep. After the 4th Quarter of the year, the USA GDP Growth Rate for the entire year is also calculated and published:

Biden.

2021 = 6. 9%.

2022 = 2. 6%.

2023 = 2. 89%.

2024 = 2. 79%.

Trump.

2025 = 2. 11%.

2026, Q1 = 1. 27%.

Last I checked, 2. 11% is lower than 6. 9%, 2. 6%, 2. 89% and 2. 79%.

And there is nothing about a 1. 27% YOY 1st Quarter figure that suggests Trump's 2nd year of his 2nd term GDP Growth Rate will be higher than any of the 4 Biden years either.

Sorry. I looked but could not find a definition for the term "chugging along" in any of those historical records links. "Declining" and "Increasing", yes. "Chugging along", no.

Are you going to break the bad news to Canada or should I?

The topic is the effect of tariffs on GDP growth. It's not how too much stimulus spending during COVID and afterwards juiced GDP, and added to the national debt.

We both agree that the tariffs affected GDP growth negatively. Tax increases (including new tariffs), like cuts in government spending, should cause GDP to be less than it would be otherwise, all else being equal.

Apparently you disagree that GDP has been"chugging along" despite the tariffs.

Please see.

Real Gross Domestic Product (GDPC1).

FRED.

St. Louis Fed.

Please note that real GDP in 2017 dollars was 24.18 trillion dollars in Q1 2026 and 23.55 trillion dollars in Q1 2025.

Also please note that while a piddly tariff on iron and steel took effect in March, 2025, most of the Trump tariffs kicked in starting in April, in the 2nd quarter of 2025. A reasonable baseline for the pre-tariff economy is Q1 2025. Over the succeeding year, to Q1 2026, the GDP growth rate was 24.18/23.55 1 = 2.7%. You don't need to make seasonal adjustments because you're comparing like quarters. Ask your AI agent, "What was the year-on-year GDP Growth Rate for the United States in Q1 2026" and this is what you'll get unless the ***** is lying to you.

Alternately, if you want to take the average quarter-on-quarter (QoQ) seasonally-adjusted-annualized-rate (SAAR) rate since the tariffs took effect, it's still 2.7%:

Q2 2025:3. 8%.

Q3 2025:4. 4%.

Q4 2025:0. 5%.

Q1 2026:2. 1%.

Average: 2. 7%.

I can't provide you with a link to the Bloomberg consensus estimate (average of 65 economists) I pulled for the 2 Q2026 QoQ SAAR because it's a pay site that requires Bloomberg software. But here's the estimate from the frequently followed Atlanta Fed model:

GDPNow. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.

Edit: apparently my links didnt come through, just the titles. You should be able to Google the names and go to the sites.

[Tiny 12]

See what exactly?

Blue (Democratic-leaning) states generally have higher median household incomes than red (Republican-leaning) states, with 15 of the top 20 highest-income states leaning Democratic as of 2023 data. The national median household income is $81,000, and many blue states exceed this, while several red states fall below it.

Top-income states by political leaning (2023 median household income):

Blue states: Massachusetts ($107 K), Maryland ($102 K), New Hampshire ($99 K), Colorado ($97 K), Hawaii ($97 K), Virginia ($96 K), Washington ($93 K), Connecticut ($92 K), New Jersey ($92 K), California ($90 K).

Red states: Utah ($101 K), Alaska ($98 K), Nebraska ($89 K), Kansas ($85 K), South Dakota ($82 K).

Swing states: Arizona ($83 K), Nevada ($81 K), Pennsylvania ($80 K), Wisconsin ($80 K), Michigan ($77 K), Georgia ($72 K), North Carolina ($69 K).

Lowest-income states are predominantly red, including Mississippi ($55 K), Louisiana ($58 K), West Virginia ($60 K), Alabama ($61 K), and Arkansas ($63 K). Notable exceptions include New Mexico (blue, $61 K) and Utah / Alaska (red, both above $98 K). This pattern reflects broader economic differences, with blue states often having more urbanized, service-oriented economies, while red states rely more on agriculture, manufacturing, and natural resources.

I have visited 48 of the 50 states in the Dis United States of America. Exactly WHAT do you think I need to see?

Inaccurate. See the information I provided above.

What is the basis for this statement? What state do you actually live in in the Dis United States of America?

No, Montana does not have zero state taxes; it imposes a graduated individual income tax (up to 6. 75%) and a corporate income tax (6. 75%.

In contrast, South Dakota and Wyoming have zero individual and corporate income tax, but they are not entirely tax-free as they rely on other revenue sources:

South Dakota levies a sales tax (averaging 6. 11% combined) and property tax (effective rate 1. 17% along with taxes on cigarettes and alcohol to offset the lack of income tax.

Wyoming has a sales tax (averaging 5. 36%) and property tax (effective rate 0. 53% while also utilizing severance taxes on mineral extraction.

All three states, like all USA States, levy property taxes.

This is the third time I have had to put you in check using facts.

Yes, historically for every hard working, taxpaying Republican in California maybe there were two Democratic slackers. If you look at this at the individual level, Republicans made more money, until Trump came along. When he disappears and Democratic Socialists increasingly take control from the Democratic moderates, I think we'll go back to the way it was. Please note below that people who pay higher taxes have higher taxable income.

Here's what Gemini Deep Research says, as to its estimates of federal tax rates borne by Democrats vs. Republicans for the last 8 presidential elections, based on exit polls. Please note that party affiliation was based on who the respondent voted for President. So when Trump ran, there were a lot of upper income, highly taxed Republicans who didn't vote for him. They would show up as Democrats or "other" in the polls.

Average estimated tax rates:

1996 Democrat: 9. 2% Republican: 17.5%.

2000 Democrat: 9. 8% Republican: 16.2%.

2004 Democrat: 8. 5% Republican: 15.4%.

2008 Democrat: 10.1% Republican: 14.8%.

2012 Democrat: 7. 4% Republican: 18.2%

2016 Democrat: 11.5% Republican: 13.9%.

2020 Democrat: 12.8% Republican: 12.1%.

2024 Democrat: 16.1% fRepublican: 11.4%.

So people voting for the Republican presidential candidate paid a lot more than their fair share up through the 2012 election. In 2016 they paid somewhat more. In 2020 the numbers were about equal. And in 2024 people voting for Kamala Harris paid a lot more than their fair share.

Theres a link to the Gemini reply in my original post. It should provide links to the exit poll results, where you should be able to see income estimates for the Repblican vs Democrat voters.

If you adjusted for purchasing power, the red states, where costs are lower, would look better. Look at how people are voting with their feet, leaving California and New York for places like Texas, Oklahoma and Florida.

[EihTooms]

Its not an opinion, its fact.

GDP is measured quarterly. It was up 2.7% from the 1Q2025, when Trump took office, to 1Q2026, the most recent reported quarter. For the 2Q2026, which will end shortly, the consensus forecast on Bloomberg, from 65 contributors, is 2.5% for the quarter on quarter seasonally adjusted annualized rate. Economists think long term GDP growth will be around 2% or a little lower. So 2.5%+ is pretty good.

That said, GDP growth would have been higher without the tariffs and the second Iran war.

On the other hand, all else being equal, GDP growth would have been lower without Trump's Big Beautiful Bill and probably without deregulation.

Nice. You combined your own unfounded and unsubstantiated opinion that the USA GDP Growth Rate is not declining with other peoples' opinion about what will happen by the end of this year.

U.S. GDP (1960-2026)

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-m...dp-growth-rate

https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/fi...dp4q21_3rd.pdf

https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-...p-industry-and

Yep. After the 4th Quarter of the year, the USA GDP Growth Rate for the entire year is also calculated and published:

Biden.

2021 = 6. 9%.

2022 = 2. 6%.

2023 = 2. 89%.

2024 = 2. 79%.

Trump.

2025 = 2. 11%.

2026, Q1 = 1. 27%.

Last I checked, 2. 11% is lower than 6. 9%, 2. 6%, 2. 89% and 2. 79%.

And there is nothing about a 1. 27% YOY 1st Quarter figure that suggests Trump's 2nd year of his 2nd term GDP Growth Rate will be higher than any of the 4 Biden years either.

Sorry. I looked but could not find a definition for the term "chugging along" in any of those historical records links. "Declining" and "Increasing", yes. "Chugging along", no.

Are you going to break the bad news to Canada or should I?

[Spidy]

What a debacle, what a dumbass MAGA president! When the dude can't even manage the re-servicing, re-doing and re-painting a reflecting pool, I don't image the country will fare any better under this presidential total incompetence.

How much of a loser MAGA president can you be?

Yet another bungled project with millions of taxpayer dollars to the fragile ego and vanity of a president who continues to fiddle while America insidiously crumbles and burns, from MAGA "values" of corruption, ineptitude and lawlessness and the continuous "fuck you" to hardworking Americans, as the MAGA president cares very little for affordable housing for those hardworking Americans, since before he was elected and so concerned about the price of bacon.

[SubCmdr]

It is a shame you are not smart enough to see that.

See what exactly?

Blue (Democratic-leaning) states generally have higher median household incomes than red (Republican-leaning) states, with 15 of the top 20 highest-income states leaning Democratic as of 2023 data. The national median household income is $81,000, and many blue states exceed this, while several red states fall below it.

Top-income states by political leaning (2023 median household income):

Blue states: Massachusetts ($107 K), Maryland ($102 K), New Hampshire ($99 K), Colorado ($97 K), Hawaii ($97 K), Virginia ($96 K), Washington ($93 K), Connecticut ($92 K), New Jersey ($92 K), California ($90 K).

Red states: Utah ($101 K), Alaska ($98 K), Nebraska ($89 K), Kansas ($85 K), South Dakota ($82 K).

Swing states: Arizona ($83 K), Nevada ($81 K), Pennsylvania ($80 K), Wisconsin ($80 K), Michigan ($77 K), Georgia ($72 K), North Carolina ($69 K).

Lowest-income states are predominantly red, including Mississippi ($55 K), Louisiana ($58 K), West Virginia ($60 K), Alabama ($61 K), and Arkansas ($63 K). Notable exceptions include New Mexico (blue, $61 K) and Utah / Alaska (red, both above $98 K). This pattern reflects broader economic differences, with blue states often having more urbanized, service-oriented economies, while red states rely more on agriculture, manufacturing, and natural resources.

Come to USA and see for yourself.

I have visited 48 of the 50 states in the Dis United States of America. Exactly WHAT do you think I need to see?

Every Republican state is better off than the democratic states.

Inaccurate. See the information I provided above.

Oklahoma is ten times better than California and that is why more people leave CA to go to Republican states.

What is the basis for this statement? What state do you actually live in in the Dis United States of America?

Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota have thousands of California residents moving in. Zero state taxes and cheaper cost of living makes republican states very attractive.

No, Montana does not have zero state taxes; it imposes a graduated individual income tax (up to 6. 75%) and a corporate income tax (6. 75%.

In contrast, South Dakota and Wyoming have zero individual and corporate income tax, but they are not entirely tax-free as they rely on other revenue sources:

South Dakota levies a sales tax (averaging 6. 11% combined) and property tax (effective rate 1. 17% along with taxes on cigarettes and alcohol to offset the lack of income tax.

Wyoming has a sales tax (averaging 5. 36%) and property tax (effective rate 0. 53% while also utilizing severance taxes on mineral extraction.

All three states, like all USA States, levy property taxes.

This is the third time I have had to put you in check using facts.

[Sirioja]

Baloney. The USA is 160th out of 217 countries for air pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._air_pollution

Please do not risk your health bicycling in mountains in 45 degree Celsius heat. I enjoy your posts even though I often disagree with them and would prefer you don't die for a long time.

USA are second for pollution after China which make 30% of pollution. Heat, tornados, big rains are due to pollution effects. AC use a lot of energy with pollution to make this energy. Trump is so ignorant, when our planet is dying from pollution. I love my intense sporty holidays, before dying.

[Tiny 12]

Americans, most fat, who can t live without AC and second for pollution, more than India, just after China. When 40 Celcius, I don t need AC, in my car, AC is always off, when bicycle climbing mountains for my dreamed holidays, under sun under 45 degrees in sun, when I'm not 20/30 anymore, but I don't eat American shits, I'm not obese.

Baloney. The USA is 160th out of 217 countries for air pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._air_pollution

Please do not risk your health bicycling in mountains in 45 degree Celsius heat. I enjoy your posts even though I often disagree with them and would prefer you don't die for a long time.