Report: Clinton Won Richest Counties – 64 Percent of US GDP Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election, but won the balloting in regions that generate nearly two-thirds of the American economy, a new analysis shows. According to the Brookings Institution analysis, the less-than-500 counties Clinton won nationwide combined to generate 64percent of America's economic activity in 2015, the Washington Post reported. The more-than-2,600 counties President-elect Donald Trump won combined to generate 36 percent of the country'seconomic activity last year. With the exceptions of the Phoenix, Ariz., and Fort Worth, Texas, areas, and a large part of Long Island, N.Y., Clinton won every large-sized economic county in the country, the researchers found. "This appears to be unprecedented, in the era of modern economic statistics, for alosingpresidential candidate," the Post reported. The last candidate to win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, Democrat Al Gore in 2000, won counties that generated about 54 percent of the country's gross domestic product, the Brookingsresearcherscalculated. The Brookings analysis found counties with higher GDP per capita were more likely to vote for Clinton over Trump, as were counties with higher population density
Reply to your post is inline below: "gaussian, post: 4938611, member: 507491"]And you wonder why everyone thinks boomers are paste eating troglodytes... Trump's goose is cooked. He's unfit to be president for a number of reasons but some of the more recently salient points: 1. Threatens treason and criminal inquiry into schiff who, while tasteless in his approach, did nothing wrong. 2. Has used US tax payer money to outfit his mar-a-lago property with improved security and better infrastructure. 3. Has his cabinet paying for rooms in many of his hotels. 4. Has not reliquished his business interests in his companies as required by US law. Your listed reasons, even if true, would not meet the “High crimes and misdemeanors” intent of our forefathers for valid impeachment charges. Besides, how can the Democratic Party both defend Biden on the same charge they are accusing Trump of? For any credibility the Democrats need to charge Biden with a crime. That could present a problem as Biden would then defend himself. As a US Vice President for 8 years under Obama, things could get “sticky”. I feel bad about Biden’s upcoming stroke and wish they let him live out his full life, but as Democratic motto should be, based on deeds, “Politics before people”. This is just the obvious stuff. He's doubled down and started openly asking allies to look into his political opponents as a distraction from his own corruption. The remaining "always trumper" base (the silent majority will likely move towards a Biden/Yang run) legitimately believe he has done no wrong and there's some deep state coup happening. The right wing tabloid media, fox news, has been spewing fake stories for the last two weeks on the subject. Drudge has more or less turned against Trump. His twitter is getting more and more frantic by the day. You can tell he is scared and he knows he's in real trouble. I can't find anyone under the age of 50 who is willing to vote for him again. I see a lot of surprises in 2020, including votes from unexpected places as at least a F.U. to the media and the Democrats for making everything a circus, from Supreme Court justice nominations to unjustified impeachment efforts. Unfortunately (and I detest this particular policy) we strip the right to vote away from felons in almost all cases. We should change this but this is fake news, and just as fake as all the "illegal votes" the right wing claims won the democrat popular vote. I never said illegal aliens. I said “New citizens”. Still, Democrats are seemingly making every effort to bestow taxpayer funded Government programs on either illegals or on rapid paths to citizenship after their “visit” to the US. Hell, even Trump signed of on $5,000,000,000 to avoid a humanitarian crisis with South American refugees. The RNC has gutted the middle class and working class with the Trump Tax Break. If the RNC was trying to win the "hard working people" they wouldn't have charged them more to exist. Maybe they'd even come up with a legitimate solution to the healthcare and student loan problem we have which disproportionately effects this cohort. There is virtually no difference to me between the RNC and DNC. They are both for the rich, by the rich, and will always be that way. Stop playing into the 2 party "system" that keeps the oligarchs in power. I and apparently neutral organizations looked into Trump’s tax break. We found it saves non cheaters money overall. In addition, the elimination of hard bracket encourages productivity by reducing the number of people who manage their income to fall in front of a higher tax bracket. This increased productivity has positive long term economic implications. You don't know what communism actually is if you think the Democrat platform (socialist in nature but in a very American sense - still right of actual socialist European parties) is communist. Communism in theory is a beautiful system. In practice, it is not. Although there are some examples of it currently working in some European countries, over time the incentive to produce is diminished and this causes productivity and the standard of living to decline. This in turn leads to protests and leadership crack downs on protestors. Communism is a inherently unstable system, even with a steady stream of honorable leaders. Leadership positions do not always attract honorable people. That said, Capitalism requires its participants to be ethical for that system to also remain stable. The Left’s attack on religion is counter productive in this regard. If trends continue, the US is at risk into devolving into a Fascist or Communistic system, imperiling the standard of living for its own citizens and perhaps, beyond.
That is not a fair statement on several levels. 1. How do you determine if some is truly a racist if they do not admit it? Just because some has something taken out of context or the speaker intent is misunderstood, does not make them a racist. Therefore, it seems hard to quantify. What is not hard to quantify is educational and business incentives that are solely available if you are a certain sex, other than male, a certain race, other than white, a sexual orientation, other than heterosexual. 2. Racism, although fairly rare in my opinion in the modern era, works both ways, involving multiple different races of both major parties. My perception is that under Obama, racist behavior increased from minorities to Whites and decreased from Whites to minorities. Obama needed the White vote to get elected, right? Twice?
Military spending is a large part of this. In a era of submarine launched nuclear ballistic missiles, one does not want all their military bases on the coasts. In addition, there is Government spending in the Red plains states to incentivize food growing for national food security as well as lower food prices the populous Blue states benefit most heavily from. I suspect there would be few Democrats calling for the repeal of food subsidies. Furthermore, the lower cost of living in Red states through lower taxes, less regulation, and cheaper property prices means the cost of goods produced in Red state is less. In addition, a lower population base causes less total productive capacity meaning less total state “GDP” when compared to the more populous Blue states. Playing with statistics and definitions are fun, but in the final analysis, Democratic policies do not work over the long term. Also, the article above is an attempt at a deflection as no statistics on welfare, foodstamps, or subsidized housing comparing Red and Blue states were offered. At a later time, we can talk about subsidized healthcare, subsidized education, and preferential hiring that has adversely affected those who are better qualified in certain Government jobs in Blue states. God knows we need more competent people in all levels of Government. As a reminder, California was Republican controlled for a while before the Democrats took it over. Since the Democratic takeover, taxes and regulations have soared, creating increased business relocation out of the state. The states of Washington, Utah, and Texas have benefitted from businesses relocating from California. California benefits heavily with its many harbors and Asian trade routes and this has saved them from the full brunt of Democratic policies so far. California has also become the homeless capital of the United States, where, if I recall correctly, nearly one half of all homeless people in the US live there. Democratically controlled Oregon and Washington States deserve “Honorable” mention as well for their outsized homeless numbers. Given enough time, Democratic policies suck the incentive out of people and cause economic declines in even the most inherently robust areas of the country.
And Republicans love their military and farm welfare http://www.nola.com/military/index.ssf/2013/09/military_bases_defense_contrac.html Military bases, defense contracts, retirees bring $8.7 billion to Louisiana economy, study says The Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base's main entrance in Belle Chasse. The air station is one of the region's economic engines and plays a key role in the $527 million that military installations' payroll and contracts contribute to southeast Louisiana. (U.S. Navy) By Paul Purpura, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune Follow on Twitter on September 11, 2013 at 6:21 PM, updated September 12, 2013 at 10:19 AM The military presence and defense contracts pumped more than $8.7 billion into the Louisiana economy during the 2012 fiscal year, with almost one third of the money tied to bases and activities in the New Orleans area, according to a summary of a long-sought economic impact analysis commissioned by the state. About 82,700 Louisiana jobs -- or about 4.35 percent of the state’s employment -- are tied to the military, and the workforce generated $287 million in state and local taxes in fiscal 2012, according to the study. The military presence alone accounted for $5.2 billion during the year, an amount that includes payroll for troops and civilians who work for the Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard or Louisiana Military Department, plus contracts associated with those installations. The balance includes defense contracts held by private companies in petroleum, shipbuilding and other industries, totaling $2.8 billion. Also, $637 million in pension checks was paid to the almost 24,000 military retirees living in Louisiana, according to the study. "We strongly support our military men and women in Louisiana as well as the installations at which they are based," Louisiana Economic Development Secretary Stephen Moret said Wednesday. "Accordingly, we have committed a great deal of staff time to developing and maintaining strong relationships with military installation leaders here as well as their superiors at the Pentagon." http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/...Don-t-Even-Think-About-Closing-Military-Bases Congress to Pentagon: Don’t Even Think About Closing Military Bases December 18, 2015 The Defense Department has been pressing for years to close unneeded bases in the U.S., which would save billions and help gradually downsize and reconfigure the military. But that campaign has been mostly greeted with hostility on Capitol Hill. Last March, for example, Pentagon officials argued before a Senate panel that a new Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round would pay off handsomely, producing $2 billion a year in savings by shrinking the infrastructure by only five percent, according to the Military Times. But influential Republicans including Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, chair of the Armed Services readiness subcommittee, lashed back, noting that the last BRAC in 2005 cost the government $35 billion and yet produced little in the way of savings. “Now is not the time to spend billions of up-front dollars on another BRAC round, especially as costs for the last one have dramatically exceeded expectations,” she said Just in case the Defense Department and the White House didn’t get the message, the GOP-controlled Congress inserted unmistakable language in the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2016 barring DOD from planning another massive shutdown of military bases. “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute a new additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round,” states the legislation, which is awaiting final approval by the House and Senate. “Normally, Congress just tells an agency that they can’t spend money to do this or that,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “But telling the Pentagon that they can’t spend money to propose a BRAC is the legislative equivalent of ‘don’t even think about it.’ The Administration can’t even put it in their Fiscal Year 2017 budget request next year.” It has been a full decade since Congress last authorized a major downsizing of the military’s U.S. footprint. More than 350 installations have been closed in five BRAC rounds dating back to 1988. In an effort to insulate the decision making from politics, Congress in the past has left the nitty gritty of deciding which bases to preserve and which to close to an independent commission, and then voted to approve or reject the overall recommendations. Related: $55 to $75 Billion--Guess How Much the New Stealth Bomber Will Cost Given the steady decline in the number of troops and civilian workers, there is less and less of a need to maintain many sprawling and costly bases and military installations in the country. The Defense Department at one time estimated its excess or surplus infrastructure at between 18 percent and 30 percent, according to The Fiscal Times. The Pentagon’s vast real estate portfolio includes more than 562,000 buildings and structures on 523 bases, posts and centers. At a time when Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are pressing to streamline the military and reorganize combat commands, administration officials, defense budget analysts and others are dismayed by the staunch congressional resistance to downsizing the infrastructure. This is especially alarming when the Pentagon is being showered with so much money -- $572.6 billion alone in fiscal 2016 – while little is being done to crack down on waste or adequately audit spending. However, lawmakers argue that the timing is wrong for another BRAC amid widespread public concern about defense and the threat of ISIS terrorists. And they say that the last downsizing during the administration of Republican President George W. Bush in 2005 provided a cautionary note about the limits to savings that can be achieved by closing bases. Mostly, House and Senate members don’t like base-closures because they are politically divisive – pitting one state against another – and they can lead to the loss of jobs and economic opportunity in their states that could become an issue during an election. Ayotte, for example, is facing a tough challenge next year from Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan and can’t afford to appear willing to risk a base closing in New Hampshire. Related: U.S. Weapons Worth $500 Million Vanish in Yemen “Congressmen don’t want bases closed in their districts, it’s as simple as that,” said Gordon Adams, a professor emeritus at American University and an authority on defense spending and strategy. “And that’s almost entirely what it is. The military brass would love to close bases; they would love to get the savings from consolidating infrastructure for things that they really want. They know they have too much infrastructure.” However, the controversy isn’t cut and dried. When the last BRAC was considered and approved in 2005, the Pentagon estimated similar excess capacity to what it is claiming now, according to reports. Congress ultimately approved reducing military infrastructure by less than 3.5 percent, but at a cost of a startling $35 billion to achieve. The annual savings from that huge investment turned out to be roughly $4 billion. Ever since then, opponents of more base closures cite the Bush administration’s costly experiment. Yet Adams said that the 2005 BRAC was different from earlier efforts because “they did more realignment than they did closure.” Related: Army’s Plans to Cut 60,000 Could Be a Major Blow to the Economy “What that means is taking forces from point A and grouping with them with forces at point B, consolidating bombers, consolidating fighter aircraft,” he said. “They didn’t close very many bases. But they had to do a lot of spending to reconfigure bases so that they could receive the incoming material and people.” “Members of Congress hide behind that cost to oppose any future base closure rounds,” he added. https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/2016/september/military.php Military Installations Worth Billions for Texas Comptroller Study Weighs Economic Impacts by Bruce Wright Texans have a long and proud military tradition, and have distinguished themselves in every conflict since there was a Texas. But for many communities throughout the state, the military isn't just a focus for pride. B-1 flight prep: Flight preparation begins for a B-1B Lancer at Dyess Air Force Base. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Air Force Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar recently visited a number of Texas military installations to announce the results of a new study that quantifies the economic benefits Texas derives from the presence of these facilities in our state. The Comptroller study found that the 15 major military installations located in Texas generate more than $136.6 billion in economic activity here each year, and add $81.4 billion to our gross state product (Exhibit 1). They also generate $48.1 billion in annual personal income and support, directly and indirectly, nearly 806,000 Texas jobs.
CA has the countrys biggest economy and one of the largest in the world.California has also become the homeless capital of the United States because more people want to live there rather than shit hole republican confederate states
2 ways are the party they vote for and their beliefs such as loving and considering heroes the people who fought to keep black people as slaves(The Confederacy who most republicans love)
Around 40% of the US are racist and helped elect a racist president who promised to make America white again.I wouldn't call that rare.
That would be fine with them.... it's exactly what they want! (The goal of Leftism everywhere around the world...)