2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Toni]

We’re all subsidizing Bezos, if you want something to complain about.

Are we? Because buying from a company is not the same as subsidizing the part-owner. You are not subsidizing Piggly Wiggly (or whatever the grocery store you guys have in your neck of the woods - rural areas around here often have Piggly Wiggly) either when you shop there.

And Musk who seems bent on producing as many children he doesn’t raise ( in his case that’s a good thing).

Presumably he does pay a lot of child support for them though. The taxpayer is not subsidizing his kids. Unlike some guy who has 14 kids as well but all his baby mamas are on SNAP and Medicaid.

Of course we are. We are subsidizing any employer who pays employees so poorly that they must supplement their income by food stamps, Medicaid, and other poverty relief measures. We are subsidizing them by increased number of children who need to go to subsidized daycares, Head Start programs, be in Medicaid, or free lunch programs, etc. We also are subsidizing all corporations by building infrastructure: roads, water and sewer, utilities, etc. We are especially subsidizing corporations every single time they are given tax breaks when they decide to build another store or warehouse in any community.

We are subsidizing them by allowing mega corporations such as Amazon and Walmart to underpay their suppliers and by cornering the market after they’ve drive out more local retailers —at which point they are free to charges they want and supply what they choose. When people have few choices about where and what they can buy because other options have been eliminated, we have helped create that situation by subsidizing corporations that do not, in fact, need the subsidies to survive or thrive.

This is off the top of my head.

 

[Elixir]

The guy who sucks up billions of taxpayer dollars? HIS spawn are not living off the blood of American taxpayers?
lol!!

 

[southernhybrid]

https://thecurrentga.org/2026/05/16/georgia-early-voters-top-1m-breaking-primary-election-record/

It appears as if the Democrats in Georgia are much more enthusiastic about the midterms compared to the Republicans. Hope there means we will have a big Dem turnout in the fall. Now, how about the rest of you tell us how your primary elections, assuming they are over, have been going. Election Day is Tuesday in Georgia, but everyone I know votes early, so I have hope.

Georgia voters broke a turnout record for early voting in a primary election on the final day of early voting. Statewide turnout was 13.9%.

• Primary election stories, candidates lists & more

About 1 million people turned out for early voting as polls closed Friday, according to the Georgia secretary of state’s office. The previous record for early voting in a Georgia primary was about 857,000 in 2022.

This story also appeared in WABE
And Democrats have flipped the script on Republicans this year compared to the early voting period in the 2022 primary.

Republicans ended that round with a 15 percentage point turnout advantage over Democrats. Later that year, the GOP went on to hold control of the state legislature and every statewide executive office (but failed to flip Democrat Raphael Warnock’s Senate seat).

This year, Democrats have a 15 percentage point turnout advantage over Republicans, with about 580,000 voters pulling Democratic ballots and 430,000 pulling Republican ones. Some 16,000 voters chose a nonpartisan ballot.

 

[unapologetic]

Election Day is Tuesday in Georgia,

This Tuesday in PA too.

 

[TV and credit cards]

What is interesting is to look at the lifestyle of a family of four earning $500,000 to one making $50,000. Better still, a family of three earning $500,000 to a family of four earning $50,000, because that is closer to reality. We do know there is an inverse relationship between income and family size at these levels.

The claim was not about how much better the former's lifestyle was, but about the use of public resources. Specifically, the claim was that the $500k person was using >10x as many public resources compared to the $50k person.

So I snipped the points that were not really related to public resource consumption.

It's the difference between private school and public.

The family sending their kids to private school consumes fewer public resources than the one sending their kids to a public school. The private school family still pays for the public school via taxes, esp. property taxes.

It's the difference between three people living in 4500 square foot home and four living in a 1400 square foot home.

The 4500 consumes more resources, yes, but nowhere near 10x as many, and both need the exactly same access to the public street, public water/sewer etc.

It's the difference between being able to take two or three vacations a year to unwind and living a life of constant stress and worry.

Vacations do consume resources, yes, but the family with $50k should still be able to travel occasionally. Even to fly abroad.

It's the difference between having a vacation home and worrying if you'll make rent because the car broke down.

How many people have a vacation home, even making $500k/a?

Do I care how the playing field is leveled? Only to the point that it can stand up in court.

What do you mean by playing field being leveled? Do you think people should have a similar lifestyle irrespective of income?

I was not pursuing the x10 argument. I largely agree with you on that point. Those with more disposable income will buy more, more frequently and dispose of more but I do not see where it rises to such a level.
The point I'm making is how we treat each other. That a household with $500k in income should live in such comfort while one with $50k should live in such distress and that those living in comfort should just say, "Oh well. Sucks to be you". We should get a little closer to parity.

The techs I worked with in the utilities department at Yosemite all made about $54k a year. I am very familiar with their condition. They did not take vacations. Their overwhelming concern was if the spouse gets a job, would the cost of childcare largely negate her earnings? And, can I get another winter on these tires, driving these mountain roads? That is what people making $50k a year concern themselves with.

Ameriprise Financial claims of the 1.3 million households in the US earning at least $500k a year, 50-65% own vacation homes. Not too shabby.

A little closer to parity by whatever means possible. I do not write tax law.

 

[Bomb#20]

You falsely and groundlessly accused me of lamenting the very poor's use of public services and being aggrieved at the terrible impact this had on lifestyles of the rich.

Can you spell “facetious”?
Of all the posters here, I believe you’d be among the very last to lament in any way over the condition of the very poor and the way that such condition permits the excesses of the very rich. In fact I'd expect you to minimize any possible such causal relationship.

'Their terrible impact upon the lifestyles of the “very rich” is just the high price the very rich have to pay' does not equal 'such condition permits the excesses of the very rich'. You appear to be doubling down on your character assassination. Do you use baseless ad hominems on me because you recognize you don't have any actual evidence for your contention, or is this just straight-up hostility to your outgroup?

OTOH, I would always expect you to be the very first to rightfully jump down my throat for an order of magnitude error in a “factual” statement. Were you REALLY going to let that go?
Are we in bizzarro world now?

I didn't let that go. I ridiculed it, here,

For every billionaire in the US, there are about 430,000 people living below the poverty line,

Yowza! I was today years old when I learned we have 425 million people below the poverty line.

and you read that post and replied to it three times. But that factual error was a triviality. The vastly more important factual error, the one I focused on, was the one that came next: 'hardly using any “common property”'. The people living below the poverty line in point of fact use a great deal of common property. I pointed out they do so in order to refute you and you took it as an opportunity to viciously strawman me. And ironically, right there in that same post, you admitted I was correct!

The very poor use Medicaid, emergency rooms for non-emergency medical problems, Medicare, public schools, roads, social services, police protection, food stamps, EITC, and in extreme cases, public parks and sidewalks as homes.

I use most of that stuff too.

"too".

 

[Bomb#20]

The point I would try to make is that the actual real levels of consumption by the very rich are systematically obscured through the corporate, and other systems. The three martini surf & turf luncheon at the seaside resort and transportation to and from, don’t count as “consumption” by the very rich because someone recommended closure of the Company’s distribution center in ... Iowa at some point during the meal. A very necessary Corporate expense, to be deducted from Corporate profits or carried forward as a loss, but in no way a reflection of anyone’s consumptive habits.
The middle class couple at another table pays out of pocket, and probably feels wasteful and indulgent for spending three figures on lunch on a “special occasion”.
No wonder they look out of place!

The 80s called; they want their class war rhetoric back. The "three martini lunch" has massively declined due to changes in tax law and corporate culture. The Company is paying out of pocket too, 90%. Perfectly fair to gripe about the surviving 10% subsidy, but the notion that it's a big enough effect to back up your claim of disproportion is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

 

[Bomb#20]

If a person with a billion dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you are advocating the law take that hundred all away from her. If a person with a thousand dollars does something to earn another hundred dollars, you do not advocate the law take that hundred all away from him. That is you being in favor of discrimination by the law against a person and group based upon wealth.

this discrimination is already the law, with tax brackets.

Certainly. But the law didn't claim to be against discrimination based upon wealth.

 

[jonatha]

The Company is paying out of pocket too, 90%

50%

 

[Bomb#20]

The Company is paying out of pocket too, 90%

50%

It's a deduction, not a credit. 50% is non-deductable; of the remaining 50%, 39.5% is paid out of the 79% of the corporation's income it's allowed to keep and 10.5% comes out of the 21% corporate income tax. So the company's paying 89.5% of the lunch.

 

[Bomb#20]

I didn’t say that: I said ‘taxing them all down to size.’

You also said "eliminate billionaires".

I’m pretty sure I did not type eliminate but would be happy to acknowledge that I did if you would link the post.

Here ya go:

I think I’m not on the internet very much but my phone regularly informs me otherwise…

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.

In any case I’m certain that any reasonable person would understand that I did not mean to do bodily harm to billionaires nor to imprison them.

Nobody said you did. You appeared to be advocating confiscation of 100% of any income that would carry a person over $999,999,999,99. If that's not what you meant, feel free to clarify.

My meaning is that we should structure our tax code and corporate structure, including strengthening ant-monopoly laws to make it impossible to become a billionaire.

How does that work? If you don't mean a 100% tax rate, what top tax bracket do you have in mind?

 

[Toni]

I didn’t say that: I said ‘taxing them all down to size.’

You also said "eliminate billionaires".

I’m pretty sure I did not type eliminate but would be happy to acknowledge that I did if you would link the post.

Here ya go:

​

I think I’m not on the internet very much but my phone regularly informs me otherwise…

​

I have been reading WaPo for decades but in recent years haven’t bothered with the Opinions pages. I did today and omg. We need to eliminate all billionaires by taxing them down to size.​

In any case I’m certain that any reasonable person would understand that I did not mean to do bodily harm to billionaires nor to imprison them.

Nobody said you did. You appeared to be advocating confiscation of 100% of any income that would carry a person over $999,999,999,99. If that's not what you meant, feel free to clarify.

My meaning is that we should structure our tax code and corporate structure, including strengthening ant-monopoly laws to make it impossible to become a billionaire.

How does that work? If you don't mean a 100% tax rate, what top tax bracket do you have in mind?

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

 

[Bomb#20]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So with Sen. Cassidy losing primary over vote to impeach, the GOP base apparently is now officially a far right authoritarian voter base.

 

[southernhybrid]

So, is anyone going to tell us about the primaries in their state? I'm hoping the huge Democratic turnout in Georgia will continue tomorrow, although to be honest, I think most people here vote early so it's looking very good for the Dems, at least in Georgia. But, despite a very smart, energetic candidate running in my district for Congress, I'll be shocked due to the gerrymandering out to the exurban bright red areas if she wins in November. My neighbor is a hairdresser and she says it's really hard listening to her Trump supporters while she's d doing their hair.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile... at Indy Qualifying, an Assistant Sec of Defense was pushing some fascist bullshit about the military during an enlistment ceremony. The adapting language and imagery is becoming a bit much for me.

Ohio primaries seem to matter little. We have one or two-ish districts that are competitive. Husted is facing Brown, Husted replaced VP Vance and Brown was Senator back when Ohio was a tad more purple, but this state is becoming toxic and red... tired of the results of all the red governance results... and keep electing the red team. An interesting thing did happen, Yost resigned his post after the primary, which had the potential to cause a cascade of people wanting to switch the office they were running for after the primary. Oh, an attempt to kill the property tax didn't get enough signatures. Ohioans are against the property tax because they don't like being forced to pay taxes via property taxes. It isn't fair, to them, that people that don't own property can vote for property tax increases (like schools). I'd have a bit more empathy if they weren't against all forms of taxation.

It is impossible to know how the blue wave will be in November. None at all... massive tsunami... blue but shallow. Regardless, Ramaswamy faces Amy Acton. The scandal? Ramaswamy was exposed for having rational opinions about the Covid pandemic during the Covid pandemic, similar to that of Acton, who was in charge of the medical response in the state. Yeah, Ramaswamy is talking that Acton was a despot... lying his fucking ass off about the pandemic response... I have a feeling that Ramaswamy will win because Trump and the GOP successfully radicalized a lot of America over the pandemic in this deeper red state. The Democrats did win in 2006's wave (Ted Strickland), but they were all ousted after Gov. Strickland caused the global recession.

 

[Toni]

What is interesting is to look at the lifestyle of a family of four earning $500,000 to one making $50,000. Better still, a family of three earning $500,000 to a family of four earning $50,000, because that is closer to reality. We do know there is an inverse relationship between income and family size at these levels.

The claim was not about how much better the former's lifestyle was, but about the use of public resources. Specifically, the claim was that the $500k person was using >10x as many public resources compared to the $50k person.

So I snipped the points that were not really related to public resource consumption.

It's the difference between private school and public.

The family sending their kids to private school consumes fewer public resources than the one sending their kids to a public school. The private school family still pays for the public school via taxes, esp. property taxes.

It's the difference between three people living in 4500 square foot home and four living in a 1400 square foot home.

The 4500 consumes more resources, yes, but nowhere near 10x as many, and both need the exactly same access to the public street, public water/sewer etc.

It's the difference between being able to take two or three vacations a year to unwind and living a life of constant stress and worry.

Vacations do consume resources, yes, but the family with $50k should still be able to travel occasionally. Even to fly abroad.

It's the difference between having a vacation home and worrying if you'll make rent because the car broke down.

How many people have a vacation home, even making $500k/a?

Do I care how the playing field is leveled? Only to the point that it can stand up in court.

What do you mean by playing field being leveled? Do you think people should have a similar lifestyle irrespective of income?

I was not pursuing the x10 argument. I largely agree with you on that point. Those with more disposable income will buy more, more frequently and dispose of more but I do not see where it rises to such a level.
The point I'm making is how we treat each other. That a household with $500k in income should live in such comfort while one with $50k should live in such distress and that those living in comfort should just say, "Oh well. Sucks to be you". We should get a little closer to parity.

The techs I worked with in the utilities department at Yosemite all made about $54k a year. I am very familiar with their condition. They did not take vacations. Their overwhelming concern was if the spouse gets a job, would the cost of childcare largely negate her earnings? And, can I get another winter on these tires, driving these mountain roads? That is what people making $50k a year concern themselves with.

Ameriprise Financial claims of the 1.3 million households in the US earning at least $500k a year, 50-65% own vacation homes. Not too shabby.

A little closer to parity by whatever means possible. I do not write tax law.

Those without disposable income spend all that they have. Those with some disposable income will spend more, sure Abd they w ill also save some. Those with a lot of disposable income will spend more, save more and invest more using mechanisms to shield as much income as possible from being taxed. Guess which group is the biggest?

 

[Toni]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

 

[Harry Bosch]

You appear to be putting your own interpretation to the words that I typed.to for your own special narrative.

I don't see what other interpretation is possible, and you aren't trying to explain one. Your option.

I’ve stated that I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer and I don’t have a specific number in mind. For a while, we had a 90% tax rate for the very highest tier.

Yes, it was 91% from 1945 until 1963. Three Americans became billionaires during that period, Howard Hughes and a couple of oil tycoons. It's a ton easier to become a billionaire now, with the economy so much bigger and the dollar so much smaller.

So the economy did not collapse when the tax rate was 91% and some people became billionaires anyway. So what’s the problem with a 91% tax now on billionaires and near billionaires?

I agree that people who make more should pay more. However, if rates are set too high, it will encourage higher earners to move to locations that more want their business and economic development. I moved my small company from Oregon to Washington because Oregon just isn't business friendly anymore. I know many companies doing the same. I love Oregon, but they don't want business. Fine. Will go to somewhere that does. Same thing for personal taxes.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Meanwhile... at Indy Qualifying, an Assistant Sec of Defense was pushing some fascist bullshit about the military during an enlistment ceremony. The adapting language and imagery is becoming a bit much for me.

Ohio primaries seem to matter little. We have one or two-ish districts that are competitive. Husted is facing Brown, Husted replaced VP Vance and Brown was Senator back when Ohio was a tad more purple, but this state is becoming toxic and red... tired of the results of all the red governance results... and keep electing the red team. An interesting thing did happen, Yost resigned his post after the primary, which had the potential to cause a cascade of people wanting to switch the office they were running for after the primary. Oh, an attempt to kill the property tax didn't get enough signatures. Ohioans are against the property tax because they don't like being forced to pay taxes via property taxes. It isn't fair, to them, that people that don't own property can vote for property tax increases (like schools). I'd have a bit more empathy if they weren't against all forms of taxation.

It is impossible to know how the blue wave will be in November. None at all... massive tsunami... blue but shallow. Regardless, Ramaswamy faces Amy Acton. The scandal? Ramaswamy was exposed for having rational opinions about the Covid pandemic during the Covid pandemic, similar to that of Acton, who was in charge of the medical response in the state. Yeah, Ramaswamy is talking that Acton was a despot... lying his fucking ass off about the pandemic response... I have a feeling that Ramaswamy will win because Trump and the GOP successfully radicalized a lot of America over the pandemic in this deeper red state. The Democrats did win in 2006's wave (Ted Strickland), but they were all ousted after Gov. Strickland caused the global recession.

I understand the argument of people getting to vote for taxes they don't pay. If the rules aren't fair, someone is going to complain and justifiable so. My money from federal sources are not taxed at the state or local level. I do not feel I am entitled to vote on state or local taxes but I can. Make it fair first. Subsidies for those struggling should follow. We don't get to vote for taxes in a district we do not live in. Fair taxation we all vote for would be sales tax. Make that switch first. Then decide to what extent property taxes should be limited or eliminated and for whom and why.
My understanding is the problem with getting signatures for the property tax issue was there was no alternative funding source presented. This is what the lady in Home Depot was bending my ear about. It was my first question to her and I got the dear in the headlights look.