Biden Out of Race

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Gern Blansten said:
Detroit is doing much better and has undergone a revitalization of the downtown area. It was because private equity bought all of the lake front property for pennies on the dollar during bankruptcy. I guess that can be considered a success story, but decades of pain and suffering is a tough way to get to where Detroit is currently. The one time I visited a few years back, I was pleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...
I guess things are better now than when I was there in 2017. I crossed the border to drive to Toronto and he difference between Detroit and Windsor (Canada) was remarkable.
 
Splenda88 said:
I guess things are better now than when I was there in 2017. I crossed the border to drive to Toronto and he difference between Detroit and Windsor (Canada) was remarkable.
Click to expand...
The waterfront area is where I was. I am not saying it is a beautiful city, just that it has seen a ton of improvement.
 
Gern Blansten said:
I can see how it could apply to both. The difference is that one of them was elected to serve as President and the other is a polarizing entertainer. If Bruce was POTUS, then I would say he should be dispensing his political opinions. But, since he isn't, I think most would prefer that he sing his songs that they came to hear and drop the prepared speech he is reading from a teleprompter. I don't care for him much as a musical artist. I care for him even less as a political pundit. Similarly, I love the music of U2, but hate when Bono gets on his soap box about issues. Just sing the songs. Take care of other stuff behind the scenes and on your own time. Not during the concert that I overpaid to attend.

I think it is below the POTUS to engage with Springsteen in such a childish way. The President should stay above the fray on issues with Bruce and Taylor Swift. It is not a good look, even if I don't disagree with his overall assessment. It seems childish and he should just let others comment on the absurdity of Springsteen going to foreign soil and denigrating his country and his president. There are plenty who will have a lot to say about Springsteen and he deserves it. Trump should stay quiet on the matter. His silence would be far more effective. If I was Trump, I would invite Bruce to the White House and treat him exactly as Trump treated Bill Maher. That is the only way he will change opinions. However, I don't believe that Springsteen would accept the invite nor be as open as Bill Maher was.

It seems that Trump doesn't really care what anyone thinks of him any more, and that is hampering any good things that he may get done.
Click to expand...
Oh come on man. Just shut up and sing, right? Have you ever read the lyrics of Springsteen? His songs have been political since he started.

But where is the line in your argument? Before Trump was elected in 2016, an argument for electing him was that he can speak his mind even when it’s off the cuff and isn’t concise because he’s not a politician. But now he’s been elected twice, he’s a “politician” by ann reasonable definition, and he speaks the exact same way. But Springsteen shouldn’t speak his mind?
 
Onefellswoop87 said:
Oh come on man. Just shut up and sing, right? Have you ever read the lyrics of Springsteen? His songs have been political since he started.

But where is the line in your argument? Before Trump was elected in 2016, an argument for electing him was that he can speak his mind even when it’s off the cuff and isn’t concise because he’s not a politician. But now he’s been elected twice, he’s a “politician” by ann reasonable definition, and he speaks the exact same way. But Springsteen shouldn’t speak his mind?
Click to expand...
He is free to speak his mind. My point is that most aren't interested in an entertainer's views on politics. More often than not, they divide their fan base every time they do it. Almost by definition, most political issues are divided 50:50 in the country or at least 60:40. So, if an entertainer takes a hard line stand once, they have potentially alienated 50% of their fans. If they do it multiple times, they may lose those people as fans. If they take multiple hard line stands on multiple topics, they are likely to alienate an even greater portion of their fans. It is a very bad business decision for most artists. Springsteen is emboldened because he has already sold his song catalog to Sony for $550 million, so he really has not much to lose. I suspect that Sony wishes he would be quiet.
Even in his heyday, I would not have paid face value for tickets to see him. I don't see the appeal. His voice is not good. His songs are just okay. The only good thing I have heard about his concerts is that he plays for far longer than average acts do, so he seems to give his fans their money's worth. With there really only being about 4-5 songs of his that I would care to hear, I suspect that I would be a bit bored at one of his shows. I would go for Born to Run and Hungry Heart and maybe a couple of others.
 
DocMcCoy said:
Lay off the twitters and such bro. This guy is deeper in your head than an RFK brain worm.
Click to expand...
But how else am I supposed to rub it in your faces that you all elected a corrupt, narcissistic dingus (there’s that autocorrect again) for president all because (at least for most of you, not particularly referring to you Doc) you didn’t like brown people coming into the country?
 
Onefellswoop87 said:
Oh come on man. Just shut up and sing, right? Have you ever read the lyrics of Springsteen? His songs have been political since he started.

But where is the line in your argument? Before Trump was elected in 2016, an argument for electing him was that he can speak his mind even when it’s off the cuff and isn’t concise because he’s not a politician. But now he’s been elected twice, he’s a “politician” by ann reasonable definition, and he speaks the exact same way. But Springsteen shouldn’t speak his mind?
Click to expand...


Gern Blansten said:
He is free to speak his mind. My point is that most aren't interested in an entertainer's views on politics. More often than not, they divide their fan base every time they do it. Almost by definition, most political issues are divided 50:50 in the country or at least 60:40. So, if an entertainer takes a hard line stand once, they have potentially alienated 50% of their fans. If they do it multiple times, they may lose those people as fans. If they take multiple hard line stands on multiple topics, they are likely to alienate an even greater portion of their fans. It is a very bad business decision for most artists. Springsteen is emboldened because he has already sold his song catalog to Sony for $550 million, so he really has not much to lose. I suspect that Sony wishes he would be quiet.
Even in his heyday, I would not have paid face value for tickets to see him. I don't see the appeal. His voice is not good. His songs are just okay. The only good thing I have heard about his concerts is that he plays for far longer than average acts do, so he seems to give his fans their money's worth. With there really only being about 4-5 songs of his that I would care to hear, I suspect that I would be a bit bored at one of his shows. I would go for Born to Run and Hungry Heart and maybe a couple of others.
Click to expand...


Springsteen has been Springsteen for a long time. Ry Cooder wrote this song and Bruce was singing it in 1988. It’s never been controversial. I’ve been a fan since I was a kid growing up in the rust belt in the 1970s. He’s just being himself, hasn’t changed much at all.

 
Last edited:
Gern Blansten said:
I can see how it could apply to both. The difference is that one of them was elected to serve as President and the other is a polarizing entertainer. If Bruce was POTUS, then I would say he should be dispensing his political opinions. But, since he isn't, I think most would prefer that he sing his songs that they came to hear and drop the prepared speech he is reading from a teleprompter. I don't care for him much as a musical artist. I care for him even less as a political pundit. Similarly, I love the music of U2, but hate when Bono gets on his soap box about issues. Just sing the songs. Take care of other stuff behind the scenes and on your own time. Not during the concert that I overpaid to attend.

I think it is below the POTUS to engage with Springsteen in such a childish way. The President should stay above the fray on issues with Bruce and Taylor Swift. It is not a good look, even if I don't disagree with his overall assessment. It seems childish and he should just let others comment on the absurdity of Springsteen going to foreign soil and denigrating his country and his president. There are plenty who will have a lot to say about Springsteen and he deserves it. Trump should stay quiet on the matter. His silence would be far more effective. If I was Trump, I would invite Bruce to the White House and treat him exactly as Trump treated Bill Maher. That is the only way he will change opinions. However, I don't believe that Springsteen would accept the invite nor be as open as Bill Maher was.

It seems that Trump doesn't really care what anyone thinks of him any more, and that is hampering any good things that he may get done.
Click to expand...
yeah, I hear this viewpoint sometimes, but only from people who disagree with what the entertainer is saying. Easy for me to say, as someone who votes D and who generally agrees with the things Springsteen is saying, but I think this is an interesting intersection of free speech and market capitalism, things the R's like to say they're in favor of, but whose policies generally don't support either. My opinion is that Springsteen can say whatever he wants, and that his right to free speech is no less valid just because he has a platform bigger than most. His job as a singer doesn't abridge those rights. On the free-market side, he's putting his brand out there, and if people decide they don't want to pay to attend his concerts or buy his albums because they either disagree with WHAT he's saying or THAT he's saying anything at all, well, that's their right, and it'll cost Springsteen some customers.
 
cchoukal said:
yeah, I hear this viewpoint sometimes, but only from people who disagree with what the entertainer is saying. Easy for me to say, as someone who votes D and who generally agrees with the things Springsteen is saying, but I think this is an interesting intersection of free speech and market capitalism, things the R's like to say they're in favor of, but whose policies generally don't support either. My opinion is that Springsteen can say whatever he wants, and that his right to free speech is no less valid just because he has a platform bigger than most. His job as a singer doesn't abridge those rights. On the free-market side, he's putting his brand out there, and if people decide they don't want to pay to attend his concerts or buy his albums because they either disagree with WHAT he's saying or THAT he's saying anything at all, well, that's their right, and it'll cost Springsteen some customers.
Click to expand...
Gern certainly didn’t have a problem with Rogan supporting Trump…
 
MirrorTodd said:
Gern certainly didn’t have a problem with Rogan supporting Trump…
Click to expand...
But Rohan hosts a podcast which is similar to a talk show host. He’s basically famous because people want to hear him talk. He’s also a comedian, but he really hasn’t done comedy to a significant degree in a while.
Bruce is popular because he sings.
Rohan is popular because he interviews people and has political commentary. Him taking a political side or making political comments is actually expected.
 
Wait a minute, is your argument here that people shouldn’t be able to express their opinions? That is wild. It’s “shut up and dribble” all over again.

Also, it’s like you just landed on this planet and never heard Springsteen talk before or any of his lyrics.

Also, Bill Maher? Again?!
 
circleK said:
Wait a minute, is your argument here that people shouldn’t be able to express their opinions? That is wild. It’s “shut up and dribble” all over again.

Also, it’s like you just landed on this planet and never heard Springsteen talk before or any of his lyrics.

Also, Bill Maher? Again?!
Click to expand...
People have freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of that speech.

I don’t know what shut up and dribble means but I assume it refers to people not wanting to get political lectures from uneducated athletes (and actors/singers). If so, that is a true statement for me. The average education level of entertainers is pretty low (just above high school diploma level, typically) and I don’t consider them good sources of opinions on important topics.

I lived on this planet my whole life.

You don’t like Bill Maher now because he had dinner with Trump? The left turns on their own very quickly. You forget that Trump, Elon, Joe Rogan, and many others were solid democrats. The party left them. They didn’t leave the party.

Go ahead and follow the political tide of your entertainment heroes you are so enamored with. I’m sure it will turn out great. Lebron James for US Senate (after he gets his GED).
 
Last edited:
Gern Blansten said:
But Rohan hosts a podcast which is similar to a talk show host. He’s basically famous because people want to hear him talk.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting singers aren't famous because people don't want to hear them make words with their mouths?

🙂
 
nimbus said:
That plane is valued at $400mil. To put that in perspective, these are the top 10 donors and the amount of their donations during the 2024 Presidential election campaign. The Qataris want advanced chips that were export banned because of their association with Hamas and China. They want to build AI data centers as they already have access to cheap energy. Trump is salivating at the gulf oil money.

View attachment 403708

www.visualcapitalist.com

Ranked: Top 10 Donors of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election

In four of the last five U.S. elections, the candidate who raised the most money won.
www.visualcapitalist.com www.visualcapitalist.com
Click to expand...
With all the red donors. Where did all of Harris money come from the 3 billions dollars? Vs trump 1.5 billion dollars in donations?

There are individual donors and there is the super pac money. Our elections are rigged with shadow money donations from super pacs
 
Gern Blansten said:
People have freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of that speech.

I don’t know what shut up and dribble means but I assume it refers to people not wanting to get political lectures from uneducated athletes (and actors/singers). If so, that is a true statement for me. The average education level of entertainers is pretty low (just above high school diploma level, typically) and I don’t consider them good sources of opinions on important topics.

I lived on this planet my whole life.

You don’t like Bill Maher now because he had dinner with Trump? The left turns on their own very quickly. You forget that Trump, Elon, Joe Rogan, and many others were solid democrats. The party left them. They didn’t leave the party.

Go ahead and follow the political tide of your entertainment heroes you are so enamored with. I’m sure it will turn out great. Lebron James for US Senate (after he gets his GED).
Click to expand...
I never got why anyone ever gave credence to what completely uneducated celebrities would say. Unless they showed some real intelligence a la some old school comedians have in the past.

But Taylor swift? LeBron James? Jesse Ventura? Hulk Hogan?

The nearly 25 year old Dave Chappelle bit still applies here:

“Can someone find Ja Rule so he can help me make sense of all this???”

 
  • Like
Reactions: pgg
Gern Blansten said:
People have freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of that speech.

I don’t know what shut up and dribble means but I assume it refers to people not wanting to get political lectures from uneducated athletes (and actors/singers). If so, that is a true statement for me. The average education level of entertainers is pretty low (just above high school diploma level, typically) and I don’t consider them good sources of opinions on important topics.

I lived on this planet my whole life.

You don’t like Bill Maher now because he had dinner with Trump? The left turns on their own very quickly. You forget that Trump, Elon, Joe Rogan, and many others were solid democrats. The party left them. They didn’t leave the party.

Go ahead and follow the political tide of your entertainment heroes you are so enamored with. I’m sure it will turn out great. Lebron James for US Senate (after he gets his GED).
Click to expand...
And you want to **** on him on SDN then that's perfectly fine, but THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES making mafia style threats on his own social network and subsequently spread throughout the internet is NOT ok. How hard is that to ****ing understand bro. Like goddamn, you are so far gone dude, just so far gone.
 
Sorry @DocMcCoy I just can't stop posting these. If it helps, I don't actually use truth social or twitter at all. All of these pics are screenshotted from other sources, but hell SOMEONE has to remind you all what an absolute trash of a human being you elected to be president.

Screenshot 2025-05-17 at 4.07.34 PM.png
 
MirrorTodd said:
Sorry @DocMcCoy I just can't stop posting these. If it helps, I don't actually use truth social or twitter at all. All of these pics are screenshotted from other sources, but hell SOMEONE has to remind you all what an absolute trash of a human being you elected to be president.

View attachment 403816
Click to expand...
I’m scratching my head as to why the internal morals of the president are so important to you. Is it that you find it offensive on a personal level? Or does the dissonance of knowing you likely work with mostly Trump voters bother you, as most anesthesiologists are men and most of them are conservative? Like why don’t you just tune the crazy stuff from the internet out if it bothers you this much? Basically none of us would see truth social if it wasn’t posted here by angry bluesky/threads rage baiters
 
rowsdower88 said:
People have always, and will always, care about the morals of their leaders. It's telling that you see this common trait we almost universally share as an aberration.
Click to expand...
I think people ascribe their idea of their personal aspirational morals to their leaders, which the leaders rarely live up to.

Anyone who is even partially awake in reality doesn’t use their executive governmental leader as some personal moral compass.

I’d love to know what it tells you about me though, do elaborate.
 
Gern Blansten said:
People have freedom of speech but not freedom from the consequences of that speech.

I don’t know what shut up and dribble means but I assume it refers to people not wanting to get political lectures from uneducated athletes (and actors/singers). If so, that is a true statement for me. The average education level of entertainers is pretty low (just above high school diploma level, typically) and I don’t consider them good sources of opinions on important topics.

I lived on this planet my whole life.

You don’t like Bill Maher now because he had dinner with Trump? The left turns on their own very quickly. You forget that Trump, Elon, Joe Rogan, and many others were solid democrats. The party left them. They didn’t leave the party.

Go ahead and follow the political tide of your entertainment heroes you are so enamored with. I’m sure it will turn out great. Lebron James for US Senate (after he gets his GED).
Click to expand...
Again, no one has ever liked Bill Maher. I don’t know why you fantasize about him so much.

I also don’t know why you care that athletes/entertainers speak their mind. Yes, they are not experts in specific policy positions but neither are the talking heads on the opinion shows of MSNBC, Fox, CNN that y’all watch incessantly. But they are people, and they have opinions. You are not forced to listen.
 
PainInTheAnes said:
I’m scratching my head as to why the internal morals of the president are so important to you. Is it that you find it offensive on a personal level? Or does the dissonance of knowing you likely work with mostly Trump voters bother you, as most anesthesiologists are men and most of them are conservative? Like why don’t you just tune the crazy stuff from the internet out if it bothers you this much? Basically none of us would see truth social if it wasn’t posted here by angry bluesky/threads rage baiters
Click to expand...
Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
 
PainInTheAnes said:
I think people ascribe their idea of their personal aspirational morals to their leaders, which the leaders rarely live up to.

Anyone who is even partially awake in reality doesn’t use their executive governmental leader as some personal moral compass.

I’d love to know what it tells you about me though, do elaborate.
Click to expand...

I think it's telling about your own political priorities that you would make this bizarre argument in response to a Trump quote, yes.

I think it's perfectly normal for people to have a moral reaction to the President's speech and behavior.

Your original question was: "why are (sic) the internal morals of the president (sic) so important to you?"

The answer to that is patently obvious to anyone who has heard of "values voters", has passively absorbed knowledge of Presidential scandals, or is remotely concerned about integrity or corruption.

You're now changing your argument to be "people shouldn't use their leaders as a moral compass" (sic) or "people shouldn't impose their own morals on their leaders" (sic).

Those are different questions.
 
Last edited:
rowsdower88 said:
I think it's telling about your own political priorities that you would make this bizarre argument in response to a Trump quote, yes.

I think it's perfectly normal for people to have a moral reaction to the President's speech and behavior.

Your original question was: "why are (sic) the internal morals of the president are so important to you?"

The answer to that is patently obvious to anyone who has heard of "values voters", has passively absorbed knowledge of Presidential scandals, or is remotely concerned about integrity or corruption.

You're now changing your argument to be "people shouldn't use their leaders as a moral compass" (sic) or "people shouldn't impose their own morals on their leaders" (sic).

Those are different questions.
Click to expand...
It's telling that you feel the need to use the (sic) adverb as some sort of commentary on my grammar to quip about the quality of my thoughts.

I don't personally know anyone who espouses the values of Donald Trump as a reason they voted for him, and I know a bunch of Trump voters. Part of the appeal is that he is anathema to the values of sensitive liberals, leading to rants about his tweets and whatnot.
 
PainInTheAnes said:
It's telling that you feel the need to use the (sic) adverb as some sort of commentary on my grammar to quip about the quality of my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Lol. My bad, that was unintentional. I used it just to reflect that I edited your comments. That was my intent, but I can understand your interpretation. Is there another latin term that is better for reflecting an edit to fit context?

"...inserted after a quotation indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated as found in the source text" - that was my intent

en.wikipedia.org

Sic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
PainInTheAnes said:
I don't personally know anyone who espouses the values of Donald Trump as a reason they voted for him, and I know a bunch of Trump voters. Part of the appeal is that he is anathema to the values of sensitive liberals, leading to rants about his tweets and whatnot.
Click to expand...
I do. They claim he has “morals”. You aren’t far enough down in the weeds yet.
 
rowsdower88 said:
Lol. My bad, that was unintentional. I used it just to reflect that I edited your comments. That was my intent, but I can understand your interpretation. Is there another latin term that is better for reflecting an edit to fit context?

"...inserted after a quotation indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated as found in the source text" - that was my intent

en.wikipedia.org

Sic - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
That is fair, I typically only see that term used sarcastically in written form unless it’s in an academic book like a history. My bad jumping to conclusions there.

Anyway we disagree on the value of values. But I think Trump is the first candidate that was explicitly the opposite of a values candidate for most people, which is why I don’t understand people bringing that up constantly about him.

Anyone who says they vote for him because he’s this awesome moral guy is either a fool or lying.
 
PainInTheAnes said:
That is fair, I typically only see that term used sarcastically in written form unless it’s in an academic book like a history. My bad jumping to conclusions there.

Anyway we disagree on the value of values. But I think Trump is the first candidate that was explicitly the opposite of a values candidate for most people, which is why I don’t understand people bringing that up constantly about him.

Anyone who says they vote for him because he’s this awesome moral guy is either a fool or lying.
Click to expand...
You realize that's a **** load of republicans right? They weren't all doctors who only cared that he "might" increase their net worth peripherally.
 
MirrorTodd said:
And you want to **** on him on SDN then that's perfectly fine, but THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES making mafia style threats on his own social network and subsequently spread throughout the internet is NOT ok. How hard is that to ****ing understand bro. Like goddamn, you are so far gone dude, just so far gone.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you read my post from yesterday stating that Trump should not be responding like this. I think it’s only a few posts above if you wanted to see:
Post 13,449
 
Last edited:
Gern Blansten said:
I don’t think you read my post from yesterday stating that Trump should not be responding like this. I think it’s only a few posts above if you wanted to see:
Post 13,449
Click to expand...
No I probably didn't read it. As much as I've posted on here, I haven't read everything. I'm preferring the reactionary route with my posts.
 
MirrorTodd said:
You realize that's a **** load of republicans right? They weren't all doctors who only cared that he "might" increase their net worth peripherally.
Click to expand...
It’s a bunch of them yes. I am aware of this and the easily led nature of people who didn’t grow up with the early internet, and the ones who have now grown up saturated by it.

I’m beginning to think that only people between the ages of 28-50 or so are able to resist propaganda anymore. Most people outside of that are in this weird spot of either no immunity to a random Facebook post (older people) or are so lost in the internet from smart device addiction that they find a right or left leaning rabbit hole and sink permanently (younger people)

A college degree is almost no defense from any of this either. We live in a new world of information and anxiety/anger disorders driven by it.
 
PainInTheAnes said:
I’m scratching my head as to why the internal morals of the president are so important to you.
Click to expand...
Because he can, has, and will sell out the country's best interests for personal gain.


I know I know bothsidesbad HunterBidenBurisma NancyPelosi! You'll never understand how and why Trump is different because you're a partisan hack and you don't want to understand.
 
pgg said:
Because he can, has, and will sell out the country's best interests for personal gain.


I know I know bothsidesbad HunterBidenBurisma NancyPelosi! You'll never understand how and why Trump is different because you're a partisan hack and you don't want to understand.
Click to expand...
So I voted for Trump all of one time. Never cared about Hunter Biden AT ALL. Never cared about Pelosi but for the fact that liberals swear up and down they're the purity party for the little guy.

I've never looked to this country's leaders for morals because it doesn't affect my day to day in the slightest. Let me know when selling out our "country's best interests" start to affect me in some material way. I'll be on the lookout for it. The worst thing to happen to all of our careers in recent memory has been the ACA, by the way.

Maybe you're just too partisan yourself to have a normal conversation without going into liberal REEEEEEEE mode.
 
PainInTheAnes said:

No matter what anyone thinks of the guy, this is a tough thing to go through for any person and his family and I’m hoping he does ok. Hope his family get lots of good time together, fortunately prostrate cancer treatment is extremely good in some circumstances.
Click to expand...


He’s beyond the age when prostate cancer screening is recommended but it seems like he was diagnosed at a late stage.
 
Splenda88 said:
I am not a PCP but I thought the USPSTF recommended against screening at the age of 70+.
Click to expand...
It does, but it also doesn't really recommend PSA screening.... ever. "Shared decision making" is stupid and I'm not sure any of us actually do that. I used to and no one ever declined the screening.

Also doesn't recommend screening under age 55. Pretty sure I diagnosed a 53 year old with cancer literally last week.

Want to have a fun 15 minutes, next time you see a urologist or oncologist in the hospital tell them you agree with the USPSTF recommendations.
 
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu

Distributional Effects of House Budget Reconciliation as of Thursday, May 15 — Penn Wharton Budget Model

The effects of the U.S. House budget reconciliation package as of Thursday, May 15, on the distribution of after-tax-and-transfer income. (Note that these numbers are likely to change with additional amendments.)
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu

First estimates out for the Republicans Big Beautiful Bill and the impact on after-tax income by quintile. Bottom quintile expected to see a 10% decrease in after-tax income, next quintile to see a 1-2% decrease, remaining quintiles expected to see significant increases in after-tax income, with the top 0.1% expecting an additional $389k for the average 0.1% earner (>$4.3M/yr).

Expected to increase inequality.
 
rowsdower88 said:
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu

Distributional Effects of House Budget Reconciliation as of Thursday, May 15 — Penn Wharton Budget Model

The effects of the U.S. House budget reconciliation package as of Thursday, May 15, on the distribution of after-tax-and-transfer income. (Note that these numbers are likely to change with additional amendments.)
budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu

First estimates out for the Republicans Big Beautiful Bill and the impact on after-tax income by quintile. Bottom quintile expected to see a 10% decrease in after-tax income, next quintile to see a 1-2% decrease, remaining quintiles expected to see significant increases in after-tax income, with the top 0.1% expecting an additional $389k for the average 0.1% earner (>$4.3M/yr).

Expected to increase inequality.
Click to expand...

The only possible reversal of this trend is with a Bernie-like candidate, or gulp AOC. Bernie as a white male was potentially electable on a national stage. AOC has no chance. I don’t know much about Josh Shapiro. Gavin Newsome is a typical douchey politician.

The people here who voted for Trump for ‘personal reasons’ will gain more wealth (so will I!!) but America is on the decline if life gets worse for the middle class and below. Trump is a populist but he speaks for the upper class. The days of ‘I’m bringing coal mining back to WV!!’ are over. Now it’s ’I’m getting filthy rich off my memecoin and market manip and I’ll toss you other upper class folks a bone too occasionally!!’. And the upper class folks go ‘yep he gets my vote!!’.

Listen to Bernie on Rogan a couple years back. Nothing radical. This country was bought and sold by lobbyists, insurance companies, and big pharm.
 
Southpaw said:
The only possible reversal of this trend is with a Bernie-like candidate, or gulp AOC. Bernie as a white male was potentially electable on a national stage. AOC has no chance. I don’t know much about Josh Shapiro. Gavin Newsome is a typical douchey politician.

The people here who voted for Trump for ‘personal reasons’ will gain more wealth (so will I!!) but America is on the decline if life gets worse for the middle class and below. Trump is a populist but he speaks for the upper class. The days of ‘I’m bringing coal mining back to WV!!’ are over. Now it’s ’I’m getting filthy rich off my memecoin and market manip and I’ll toss you other upper class folks a bone too occasionally!!’. And the upper class folks go ‘yep he gets my vote!!’.

Listen to Bernie on Rogan a couple years back. Nothing radical. This country was bought and sold by lobbyists, insurance companies, and big pharm.
Click to expand...
Bernie got screwed out of the Dem nom in 2016. I don't know if he would've won though. AOC will never win aside from being a woman and a brown one at that, she is way too far "left". She would never get moderate voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Biden guilty on all counts
2 3 4
Replies
154
Views
6K
DocMcCoy
DocMcCoy
G
Backing out of a locum assignment
Replies
8
Views
1K
SRYSPAC
S
A
Anesthesia out of network, facility and surgeon in network
Replies
24
Views
3K
JStarMD
J
MirrorTodd
Ins and outs of a production based model?
Replies
28
Views
3K
AppTrail
AppTrail
S
Ins and Outs of Locums Search
Replies
45
Views
3K
SRYSPAC
S
Top