Assuming the $68k in DC / $50k in MS is the benchmark, my point was that while it's much cheaper to reach that benchmark in MS, you're probably much more likely to reach it in DC. So a random person in DC is probably more likely to earn $68k or more than a random person in MS is to earn $50k or more.
>why OP highlights high tax Democratic States, no doubt that is what they are, but it is not applicable applied to Federal Income Taxes where everyone, regardless of State, is subject to the same progressive tax rates.
The poster above highlights not the tax rates, but ratio of receipts vs. expenditures of federal taxes in given states. Poorer states get well over one dollar in federal program spending for each dollar they contribute, while richer states have a net outflow, subsidizing the poorer states' programs.
I see how I could have misinterpreted High Tax Democratic States.
However, take the post argument, Blue States (CA, NY, IL) subsidize red States (FL). Revising my position from tax rate (which is equal across the board) to State expenditures (taxes the States pay to the Federal Government) CA is #1, NY is #3, IL is #4. Still FL is #5 (and another red state, TX is #2).
I think my point remains it is not hypocritical that Red States are getting more (receipts) back under the current system while simultaneously pushing for reforms.
Let me try rephrasing the hypocritical point from the pro progressive tax position. Warren Buffett is always pushing for tax reforms to raise taxes on the wealthy, and to highlight his issue he always points to the fact his secretary annually pays a higher tax rate than he ultimately does. However, nothing stops Warren Buffett from not taking advantage of the tax loop holes and personally paying more himself, but he doesn't. In my mind it doesn't make him a hypocrite for taking advantage of a system he wants to change.
That's only 1 of 3 pieces of data. If they only used the one you mention, then you wouldn't get the red/blue divide, you'd instead get a small/large state divide.
What this study does to get the red/blue divide dividing federal revenues by state revenues. So low tax, low spending states look bad because the Federal inflow is a bigger percentage of total spending.
I was saying that you help Them, not the reverse. And if they're completely unclear, but I think they've put some effort into making some statement that just isn't coming across, I just ask. Something like "could you clarify? I don't see what you mean by somethingsomething in light of othersomething." Granted, I don't win many online debates that way, but really all I'm trying to do is get the person to consider some other way of looking at the picture.
Maybe you are being willfully ignorant, or maybe you live in such a monoculture, different ideas are like a foreign language you can;t deal with or understand?
I think the effect of this is most insidious in infrastructure spending. And I'm not talking about major highways, which naturally go through rural and poorer areas while actually serving the urban areas they connect.
The urban areas tend to have people who insist upon higher taxes, while the people in the rural areas commonly want the reverse. Meanwhile, because of those taxes being redistributed in the way they are, money that could go toward mass transit in cities is instead being funneled to road projects in rural areas. With all that money, the rural areas are able to secure funding (but not in any way, shape, or form afford) oversized infrastructure so they can turn their places into post-apocalyptic wastelands of Walmarts and car sewers.
Rural towns may develop in horrendously bad ways, but at least if they were less well-fed by federal and state programs they might come to meet the reality that their development patterns are completely unsustainable.
You're confusing suburb and rural- rural areas have well water and septic tanks, 2-lane roads that eventually lead to the Walmart near the interstate. And the money is state and local, not federal, unless you have a senator that really swings above his weight class (like a Kennedy or Byrd).
I should have been more diligent by including suburbs in my comment. Furthermore, you're very right that the water and sewage is even more important than roads, and that overbuilding happens in the suburbs. But you may also have an overly optimistic picture of rural areas, because I can think of quite a few four lane highways where I grew up that go out into relative nowhere, and do so at huge cost. There's a town of 20k people there that has a beltway!
It's very common (a) for 7% to be an unrealistic return for pensions, given their allocations; and (b) for pensions funds to estimate even higher (8 or 9%) growth rates.
I can't speak to the majority of pensions funds, but there are State funds that assume 8.5% returns while having 50-60% of the fund in bonds. Those are the Minnesota numbers, and they tend to be pretty good for a State. They're ~75% funded, and that makes them 19th best in the country. If you face the reality that their assumptions are insane, then you have the wrestle with more realistic projections of how much they've really funded.
In most places around the country we need substantial decreases in infrastructure projects, scaling down of what already exists, and a much more thoughtful (does it fit the place, as well as fitting the urban road code?) application of the funding we do maintain.
We may be agreeing, but I'm always a little worried when people vaguely argue for more infrastructure. We pursue such enormous and unproductive road-building in this country in the name of growth. Induced growth is a siren's song to our governments; they've already driven us onto the rocks, but it would at least be nice if we'd address the problem before we sink the country anymore with huge debts, public and private.
It's my understanding that he's been putting his own people in high military positions for a while now. So it's not surprising that he could have short circuited the coup mechanism.
Having said that, I stayed up watching the whole thing, and it never felt very real. There's no way you're going to fire on people in the streets with a helicopter but not shoot down the president's plane. Hell, they didn't even arrest the Parliament.
And the President got exactly what he wanted out it, an increase in popular support and a consolidation of power. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he had a hand in his own coup attempt as a way to solidify his grasp on power.
Well this is the same president who had his officials caught red handed a couple years ago planning a false flag on themselves to start a war in syria.
Not the craziest thing to say he would setup a coup against himself.
It seems quite likely to me. Like why launch the coup at prime time, arrest zero government members, leave most TV stations running and not fire on Erdogan's plane? Also the guy who "allegedly gave the order that set the coup in motion" was one of Erdogan's AKP mates brother. Just today the guy who bombed the parliament was testifying and said he was instructed to drop a bomb in the parliament garden. I mean why bomb the garden if not for theater?
What I'm wondering is where things go from here and if anyone can do anything about it. I'm guessing the likes of the NSA probably have some info on who did what if they feel like using it.
Very few of the army generals were his supporters. From now on surely numbers will go up. But it is clear that for more than 20 years it was Gulen who put his followers to police force, army and all state departments (especially justice) semi-secretly. It was a network of people who collected information and kept things moving according to their agenda.
I get scared when I hear how many Turkish people talk about the Gülenist movement. The similarities to communism in the US during the 50s and 60s is striking. Sure, based on a "true story" but in the same way that the movie 300 is.
The Gulenist movement was very involved in education. They had maybe hundreds of schools in every category of Turkish education system, and they have some Turkish language schools abroad too, and also provide loads of scholarship. The general opinion is that through these schools they were raising loyal members of the movement who'd go into all sorts of public and private institutions as high-rank employees. This opinion exists at least since 90's, and is vastly popular. It's known that members pay a fixed amount (AFAIK a percentage of their monthly pay) monthly to the organisation. Most members are conservative celebs, conservative enterpreneurs and white collar types.
After their break-up with AKP, when the corruption scandals showed up, the movement quickly became the scapegoat of the ruling party, accused of having formed a "parallel statal system". IDK if Gulen himself organised this coup (how can I know), but I can say that, reasoning on the Turkish public's view of the movement, including third party stories I've heard over the years (tho I've never met a member), they certainly have the network, hierarchy and the power to do it. It may also be someone in their hierarchy below Gulen that organised it. Time will show us the reality, I think.
The break-up happened before the corruption scandal, things soured because of political disagreements (Gulenists were not happy that government was trying to initiate talks with Kurdish groups. Everything about these talks collapsed later on.) Corruption scandal was their attempt to take down Erdogan who clearly had became an enemy element according to them.
Interesting tidbit: The officials who went to kill/capture Erdogan was told the group of soldires that they were to "pick up a high level PKK operative (A Kurdish terrorist organisation) in Marmaris." http://www.milliyet.com.tr/-gerekirse-olun-ama-gundem-228033...
IMO, even though in general movement has nationalistic tendencies, It cannot be said "they are not fond of Kurds" (as an ethnicity). However, their agencies were making a lot of negative press on the last peace process. Also, they were quite likely behind exposing secret peace meetings and mass detaining of kck members in (if I recall correctly) 2010. Apparently Kurdish problem was one of the main issues of conflict.
I didn't mean that they were not fond of Kurds, they believed the initiative/talks in 2010's were wrong and would throw country into chaos (ironically this can be seen as a self fulfillig prophecy because of their actions).
But the Gulenist movement really is that creepy. It sounds more like scientology. Or maybe even more like a beefed-up version of Tvind, if you've heard about that.
There's also the little thing that they used to be on Erdogan's side, too, and helped him purge the military of officers who might topple him. Check out operation sledgehammer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sledgehammer_(coup_plan)
I had a look and it seems then the Gulenists were having a go at the army for allegedly plotting a coup. Later the big falling out between Erdogan and the Gulenists was when some of them tried to prosecute his cabinet for corruption. Is fighting coups and corruption through the legal system so bad? It seems to be the latter action of having a go at corruption that freaked Erdogan out and made him call them terrorists. He also called academics who signed a petition for peace terrorists and is now saying the west is supporting terrorism for not supporting him now. But he used to seem ok with buying oil from ISIS. He's got some funny ideas about that stuff.
Its crazy how the liberal media is anti-Erdogan for understandable reasons (not being a Euro-style liberal), but the Gulen movement is a straight up theocracy. Erdogan has a religiosity of a George Bush. Gulen wants to be like the Iranian Ayotollah but seen as a living prophet as well.
I think liberals and the liberal media are picking sides here, and they shouldn't be. Erdogan's vision of Turkey is far more secular and liberal than what the Gulenist movement wants. Turkey seems in better hands with the current leadership, which wins elections and is a strong NATO partner, compared building another middle-east theocracy. Like most politics, its a case of the lesser evil. I'm not exactly sure what liberals think is possible in Turkey, but migrating to a UK or French level of liberalism in what's a highly religious and conservative country isn't realistic. Even if it was, guys like Gulen aren't going to get you there.
This is a bit like leaving Catholicism to become a Scientologist. You're better off staying Catholic and trying to reform the church from within.
People say that about Gulen but there doesn't seem much evidence eg. his recent statement "Like many Turkish citizens, the Hizmet movement’s participants supported Mr. Erdogan’s early efforts to democratize Turkey and fulfill the requirements for membership in the European Union."
On the other hand Erdogan is racing to world #1 in closing news outlets, throwing reporters in jail, threatening anyone who speaks against him and so on.
Then Gulen's party can win elections instead of having their loyalists in the military blow up civilians. Why are we excusing mass murder now? The coup attempt killed a lot of people for no reason and Gulen's people need to be held accountable.
Or are you saying that the Turkish people don't have a right to self-determiniation and elites like yourself should prescribe who their leaders are? Liberals decry overthrowing Iran and other governments, but here they are, pleading to overthrow Turkey. Its bizarre.
How about letting the democratic process work itself out and stop murdering civilians?
I'm all in favour of democracy which works better if you don't close half the press and I'm all in favour of punishing the murderers who are found guilty of murder based on evidence. Being guilty of being Gulenist is a different thing.
How exactly was all those teachers involved in the coup?
No, that kind of group think is a consequence of not having proper freedom of press and proper freedom of association in the country. Which in turn is a consequence of voting for Erdogan (even if not everything was roses on that front before Erdogan, to be fair).
If they weren't involved that is OK. But if they supported this organisation in anyway it should be examined. Of course every legal action should be taken with evidence. Legal action was ongoing and slow. And I was supporting event-based trials not something like witch hunt. However after the coup attempt any state would take drastic actions to secure itself. And don't forget that most of the people supports this. (They bombed national council!). There are many background events you may or may not know, like mobbing other soldiers to resign, stealing questions of state entrance exam and sharing in their secretive organisation, businesses were threatened etc. Imagine something like that happens in a (rich) western country. It is hard to imagine, because they wouldn't allow it from the beginning... Situation is not clear and not black&white. In Turkey people try to choose lesser evil every time.
Actually, I'd claim that democratic countries would limit the drastic choices to the short period when it is actively defeating the actual coup. After the coup failed, there is plenty of time to be methodological and not harm the rule of law. If members of some group do something bad, then use the law to fight the wrongdoers for the actual crimes that has been committed.
As for businesses being threatened, how many media businesses have been closed by Erdogan? Free press is not optional for something that claims itself to be a democracy. Turkey is worst in class in that department, and as long as that is the case, whatever people support doesn't really matter, because the leader can dictate what news they see (or not).
I agree with you in general. I think the key justification point for ongoing trials is this organisation is in the works of infiltrating the government since 1970's. Also I am aware that Erdogan helped this organisation in the past, so I'm not a supporter. I only think it is better for the future of Turkey to get rid of a secretive organisation like this.
>"As for businesses being threatened, how many media businesses have been closed by Erdogan?"
Erdogan and Gulen organisation in police and in judicial system done those things together. Every trial that is against Gulen's opponents contamined with fabricated proofs.
>"Turkey is worst in class in that department"
I sadly agree with you.
>"whatever people support doesn't really matter, because the leader can dictate what news they see (or not)."
Things are a bit complicated than that in Turkey. Most of the people hated Gulen's organisation before 2013, where Erdogan and Gulen media protected and praised him. Also other political parties support Erdogan in this case...
Did I say they were involved? Most likely they were clueless. I meant once the the decision makers of the movement are even slightly involved with this, people will blame it all. This is a natural reaction. Besides, on the flip side, movement has more serious `group think` issues than others.
There are more serious evidence to consider than a clueless random TV reporter's blunder. I will say statements of many captive officers and government workers but I guess you will say they are fabricated. A former police (who was fired because of a link with them) was found in a coup tank with army suit. You will say it was his personal vendetta. There are recordings of people hinting the event a month ago in public domain. Then you will say it is just not apparent. Bias is a problem but I think evidence so far is quite clear.
If the article is posed as a question, the answer is almost surely no. Having read the content of the question as well, I now have two reasons to come to that conclusion.
