#United States Tax Strategies

[tessansgp]

How Taxes Devour Your Estate (and How YOU Can Minimize Them) | Estate Lawyer Reveals the Truth [Video]

USA Retirem ..

[youthchronical]

The next U.S. president could face a tax battle in 2025 — here's what it means for investors

This combination of pictures created on October 25, 2024 shows US Vice-President and Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris in Houston, Texas on October 25, 2024 and former US President Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump in East Del Valle, Austin, Texas on October 25, 2024.  Getty Images As millions of Americans cast ballots on election day, advisors are bracing for major…

[maplewoodstreet]

CONTENT WARNING: police, violence

Some Stop Cop City TikToks caught my attention

and got me interested in learning more about Cop City. I thought I would share some of the information I found.

from Police Foundations. These are not necessarily corporations that donated to Cop City, but they are to show that donating to police is something corporations regularly do.

Cop City is another name for the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

Funded with $90,000,000 in taxes and donations.

Largest police training facility in the United States.

Located in the densest black populated area in Georgia.

Cop City is being built in one of Atlanta’s last forests.

Stop Cop City protester and environmentalist activist Manuel Esteban Paez Terán was shot “12 or 13” times by a police officer despite Terán not firing at the police. The cop did not face charges because the killing was “objectively reasonable under the circumstances of this case”.

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr described Defend Atlanta Forest as “an anarchist, anti-police, and anti-business extremist organization” and 61 activists have been charged with domestic terrorism.

The Israel Defense Force (IDF) directly shares strategies with the Georgia International Law Enforcement Exchange (GILEE). “The Atlanta Police Department and Fulton County SWAT teams had conducted training exercises in an abandoned hotel to remove “Hamas terrorists’.”

Corporations like Dunkin Donuts parent corporation Inspire Brands, Coca-Cola, Chic-Fil-A, Bank of America, UPS, Norfolk Southern, and more help fund Cop City with multimillion-dollar donations. Coca-Cola, UPS, Chic-Fil-A, and more made statements during the murder of George Floyd with things like “…end the cycle of systemic racism”, “creating social impact, advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion”, and “building stronger communities.” Corporations often donate to police foundations.

Articles sourced:

https://prismreports.org/2023/11/14/stop-cop-city-gilee-palestinian-genocide/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/morgansimon/2023/03/14/cops-and-donuts-go-together-more-than-you-thought-the-corporations-funding-cop-city-in-atlanta/ 

I’m not a professional or even a hobbyist journalist, so if I have wrong information here, please let me know.

[warrioreowynofrohan]

This is one of the best articles I’ve seen yet on Trump, Trumpism, and the upcoming election. It’s directed at the right and centre-right (whereas most tumblr posts on this are directed at the left), but it’s saying – with detailed analysis and evidence – exactly what needs to be said, to everyone. This is not a normal election. How you vote this November determines whether you ever get the chance to vote in a democratic election again. This is not a game. Fascism is not a buzzword or a rhetorical device to hurl at anyone and everyone you disagree with. It is real, it is dangerous, and Trump is openly running on a fascist platform.

There are only two sides in this election: those who want the United States to be a fascist dictatorship and those who do not.

I live in Canada. I do not want to live next to a fascist state (especially since the Comservatives here are way ahead in the polls and their leader gives every sign of wanting to cozy up to Trump).

Please, stop this while you still have a chance.

Today we’re going to look at definitions of fascism and ask the question – you may have guessed – if Donald Trump is running for President as a fascist. Worry not, this isn’t me shifting to full-time political pundit, nor is this the formal end of the hiatus (which will happen on Nov 1, when I hope to have a post answering some history questions from the ACOUP Senate to start off on), but this was an essay I had in me that I had to get out, and working on the book I haven’t the time to get it out in any other forum but this one. And I’ll be frank, some of Donald Trump’s recent statements and promises have raised the urgency of writing this; the political science suggests that politicians do, broadly, attempt to do the things they promise to do – and the things Trump is promising are dark indeed.

Now I want to be clear what we’re doing here. I am not asking if the Republican Party is fascist (I think, broadly speaking, it isn’t) and certainly not if you are fascist (I certainly hope not). But I want to employ the concept of fascism as an ideology with more precision than its normal use (‘thing I don’t like’) and in that context ask if Donald Trump fits the definition of a fascist based on his own statements and if so, what does that mean. And I want to do it in a long-form context where we can get beyond slogans or tweet-length arguments and into some detail.

Now the response from some folks is going to be anger that I am even asking this question and demands for me to ‘stay in my lane.’ To which I must remind them that the purpose of history and historians is, as Thucydides put it, is to offer “an exact knowledge of the past as an aid to the understanding of the future, which in the course of human affairs must resemble if it does not reflect it” (Thuc. 1.22.4). This is my lane. Goodness knows, I’d much rather be discussing the historical implications of tax policy or long-term interstate strategy, but that isn’t the election we’re having. And if hearing about these things that happened is unpleasant, well, Polybius offers the solution: “men have no more ready corrective of conduct than knowledge of the past” (Plb. 1.1.1). We must correct our conduct.

The author, Bret Devereaux, lays out the history of the rise to power of Hitler and Mussolini and draws out the lessons

What I want to note here are two key commonalities: First, fascists were only able to take power because of the gullibility of those who thought they could ‘use’ the fascists against some other enemy (usually communists). Traditional conservative politicians (your Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham types) and conservative business leaders (your Elon Musks) fooled themselves into believing that, because the would-be tyrant seemed foolish, buffoonish, and uneducated that such an individual could be controlled to their ends, shaped in more productive, more ‘moderate,’ more ‘business friendly’ directions. They were wrong; many of them paid for their foolish error with their lives (Victor Emmanuel III paid for it with his crown). Mussolini and Hitler would not be ‘shaped,’ – they would be exactly the violent, tyrannical dictators they had promised to be – to the total and utter ruin of their countries.

Note that these men were not exactly subtle about what they wanted to do. Mein Kampf is not a subtle book. But they both knew how to promise violence to their followers while prevaricating to their temporary allies; be wary of the fascist who promises violence in his rally speeches but assures you that, if you just give him power, he won’t hurt anyone (except the people you don’t like) – because it is a lie, of course.

Second: once these fascist leaders were in power it was already too late to stop them. Precisely because fascists had no respect for democratic processes and the rule of law – things they had declared openly in seeking power – once in power, they were unconstrained by them and swiftly set about converting all of the powers of the government into a machine to keep them in power. And the conversion from democracy to dictatorship was remarkably swift, in Italy, Mussolini marched in October of ’22, rewrote the election rules in November of ’23 and by December of ’24 had effectively dropped even the pretense of democracy; just two years. Hitler was faster: appointed chancellor in January 1933, by March of that year he had suspended constitutional protections and ruled by fiat; just three months.

The time to stop an authoritarian takeover of a democratic system is before the authoritarian is in office, because once they are in power, they will use that power, to stay in power and it becomes almost impossible to remove them without considerable violence (and difficult to do even with considerable violence).

That, however, creates a tricky situation. With most political ideologies, voters can adopt a strategy of judging by outputs: “if you don’t like the current government’s policies, let these other fellows here have a go at it and see if they do better. If not, you can always vote them out next time.” But with fascists and other authoritarians there may not be a next time and this strategy fails: by the time the actions of the fascists make it clear they are dangerous, it is too late to vote them out.

This is why it is important to listen carefully to what fascists say and what they promise and most importantly to take their threats of political violence and authoritarianism seriously.

Which is not to say that everything on the right is fascism (just as not everything on the left is its own authoritarian variant, communism). Ronald Reagan was not a fascist, nor was George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush or John McCain or Mitt Romney. They were conservatives within the liberal tradition (again, ‘liberal’ here in the old Jefferson-Locke-and-Washington sense). Most Republicans today are not fascists, although a distressing number appear ready to repeat Franz von Papen’s mistake of assuming they can achieve their goals through an alliance with fascists. Only the devil wins such a devil’s bargain.

How is one to tell the difference? Listen to the things they promise to do and understand that they make speak out of both sides of their mouth: promising violence to one audience and then toning down their rhetoric to another. But politicians speaking from within the tradition of liberty don’t need to speak that way because they don’t promise violence in the first place.

Listen for the promises of violence, the promises to suspend press freedoms, the promises to persecute political adversaries and when you hear them believe them.

I strongly recommend reading the whole article, as the author goes on to lay out two of the more common definitions of fascism and analyze, point-by-point, how Trumpism fits them.

There is a reason why some Republicans, even some of the people who were in Trump’s inner circle in 2016-2020, have jumped ship now. The Republicans who are willing to vote for Kamala aren’t doing it because she’s conservative – they’re doing it because they’re anti-fascist. It would be deeply ironic if people on the left who have been calling themselves anti-fascists for the last eight years proved to be less so than those Republicans. This may be one of the most crucial moments in American history. Take it seriously.

[lady-raziel]

Somewhere, in another timeline...Bernie Sanders is finishing out his second term as president.

(a coping-method scenario)

Back in 2016, the Democratic Party saw that denying his appeal and pushing forward with Hillary Clinton would be catastrophic—she didn’t have the appeal, and pushing forward another historic first right after Obama might galvanize the right wing further into feeling that America was no longer “for them.” The potential risk was too great in radicalizing that bloc, and as strange as it seemed, Bernie was the safer choice. He faces Donald Trump in the general election—and many pundits decry the sad state of today’s politics, where the only choices are a “socialist kook” or a reality television star. Trump’s odd mannerisms and morally questionable behavior, however, manage to turn off enough people that they’d rather not vote at all. After careful consideration, the Democrats do decide to take a chance on a female VP running mate (after all, the Republicans had set precedent with Sarah Palin in 2008)-- Senator Amy Klobuchar gets tapped to balance the ticket. With the slightly lower voter turnout on the right, and the left energized with a surging youth vote, Bernie Sanders becomes the 45th president of the United States, and America gets its first female VP with Amy Klobuchar.

Trump, who had honestly never intended on winning anyway, uses the loss as planned to claim fraud and launch his own cable streaming channel- TNN, Trump News Nation- intended as a rival to Fox News. He repeatedly tries to sue over the “stolen” election—this had all been intended to make sorely needed funds for his hemorrhaging business ventures after all. TNN draws massive ratings on launch, but as the months go by, views trickle off as watchers grow exhausted of hearing about politics through the context of Trump’s own grievances. Most filter back to Fox News, where at least the diet of mostly fabricated nonsense and conspiracy theories are varied. TNN’s most viewed show is a variation on the Apprentice, where contestants compete to gain Donald’s political endorsement and “mentorship.” None of the winning show contestants ever end up winning their political races. By 2018, viewership is minimal and stagnant, any ad revenue has dried up, and TNN shutters its doors. Trump moves on to his next failed business grift, fading from public relevance only to be occasionally remembered as “that time a reality tv personality ran for president…can you believe that happened?” American politics forgets him as another failed presidential candidate, and the GOP moves on, reexamining their strategy after losing to a Democrat once again.

Bernie’s presidency isn’t all sunshine and roses. The young progressives who voted him in find themselves frustrated with the lack of sudden progressive changes he’s actually able to make due to the constraints of the presidency—one still needs to work with Congress, after all. And Washington doesn’t exactly warm up to the formerly Independent senator with a leftist bent quickly. But landmark bipartisan legislation on climate change that includes concessions to congressional Republicans on taxes proves to be very successful. Despite controversy on some of the legislation's corporate tax restructuring (part of Republican demands), the tax cuts and benefits for the vast majority of Americans have appeal to even those who questioned the value of climate change measures.

By the 2020 election, Bernie’s favorability is substantial, in addition to a boost from quick action in tackling a small, ultimately containable new virus. Regardless, Bernie is able to leverage providing funds for vaccine research to help contain and prevent future outbreaks to drug companies, in exchange for negotiating price caps on certain drugs. The combined result is more than enough to hand him a win in 2020 against Ted Cruz—who’s off-putting “serial killer vibes” and right-leaning deep Texas persona prove to be buzzkills for the GOP’s attempt at leaning right as a rebrand.

The fields for both parties are packed in the 2024 primaries—but ultimately Senator Cory Booker clenches the Democratic nomination, and the Republicans take a chance on Representative Liz Cheney, hoping that the combination of the Cheney name and a female candidate a la the Sarah Palin gambit will be what’s needed to turn their losing streak around. It’s a tight race, in the end—pundits pontificate on how “polarized” the nation has become, as rhetoric flies about the Cheney legacy and calling Liz everything from a warmonger to “the worst candidate America has ever seen who will do serious damage to the heart of the nation.” Voters on the left debate the potential of the first female president vs rehashed talking points from the Bush era and the legacy of wars in the Middle East.

The pick of Booker by the Democratic establishment, who are fairly eager to regain control over the nomination process and candidate selection after having to cede control and allow Bernie's candidacy last time, ultimately reflects that the party and elites have not learned the lesson 2016 should have impressed upon them. Instead of allowing the voters interests to shape the primaries, they continue to wield control and painstakingly fixate over the specific demographics of candidates, trying to find the right "mix" that they think moderate voters will "tolerate." Booker, despite his accomplishments, is ultimately the victim of this, as he doesn't have the revolutionary appeal of Obama, despite frequently being painted as "Obama 2.0." The Democrats fail once again to learn that what voters truly care about is not a candidate fitting certain demographic boxes, but the strength of their ideas and narrative.

Ultimately, the voters go with Liz Cheney, who historically becomes the first female president of the United States. Republicans are jubilant at taking back the White House (and that they were able to claim a historic first and deny Democrats the honor-- not that they'd say it outright, since they'd sought to strike a contrast between running Cheney just as a candidate and not as a woman). Despite the outcome of the election, it's unclear whether the Democratic establishment finally learns that lesson-- or retreats into itself pointing fingers and throwing blame at "not picking a female and losing credibility as the party of progress." Rumors had been flying that Hillary was going to try again—ultimately turning out to be false (but perhaps not entirely untrue-- she had been approached and was considering it). Some Democrats point out that "progress" should be expressed through innovative and progressive policies that will APPEAL to different demographics, instead of ignoring stagnant policies to focus on demographics alone...time will tell if their voices are heard.

As for Joe Biden, one of the longstanding members of the political sphere, after serving as Obama's VP, he retires to his home in Delaware, only occasionally being seen at major political events here and there. The largest amount of attention he gets is a moment in 2021 that spawns many, many memes-- a viral video is captured of Biden enjoying an ice cream when it falls to the floor, at which point the former VP stares at the melting cone and declares "I'm Dark Brandon." No one has any clue what he's talking about, and it's written off as just another "Uncle Joe" gaffe. Other than that, not much is heard from Biden. People do say, however, that occasionally the man stares off into the distance with a far-off look of horror, as if he is somewhere else entirely...and witnessing something awful.

As Cheney is sworn in as president, the progressive corners of the internet mourn, citing the actions of Dick Cheney and decrying that this new administration might be "the death of democracy." A viral Tweet (yes, TWEET) with millions of likes reads "bruh this has to be the darkest timeline, there's no way this could be any worse 😫"

(If only they really knew...)

[mariacallous]

A month after Franklin D. Roosevelt won the 1940 presidential election, he called for legislation to ramp up military aid to countries fighting Nazi Germany. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. Within months, Britain and the Soviet Union were pounding Adolf Hitler’s forces with U.S. weapons and other equipment.

Now that Americans have voted to return Donald Trump to the White House, the situation risks flipping into reverse: After Jan. 20, 2025, the United States may abandon its European allies to Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s fascist war machine.

During his campaign, Trump said he will “not give a penny to Ukraine.” Part of his plan to end the war “in one day” is that he would “tell [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky, no more. You got to make a deal.” But if Russia is allowed to conquer and subjugate Ukraine, it would only be a matter of which democracy gets colonized next by a neighboring dictatorship: Poland, the Baltic States, Moldova, or Taiwan.

Thus, over the next 75 days, Congress and the Biden administration face an urgent historic mission to help Ukraine get as many weapons as possible before a possible withdrawal of U.S. support.

U.S. President Joe Biden has directed the Defense Department to draw down all remaining Ukrainian security aid that Congress has appropriated by the end of his term. It’s not clear if the Pentagon could supply much more weaponry than that by Inauguration Day, even if it received additional funding from Congress.

Instead, the way to promptly fund more arms is to bankroll Ukrainian procurement of U.S. weapons. Specifically, Biden should request, and Congress should pass, another supplemental funding bill on a similar scale as the one in April, which included $60.8 billion for Ukraine. The new supplemental should authorize the administration to spend any amount of the aid—up to the full amount—to cut a massive check to the Ukrainian government with the stipulation that Ukraine use the funds to purchase U.S.-made weapons.

Sending Ukraine $60 billion to spend on weapons would be entirely consistent with the strategy that the Biden administration had been preparing in case of a Trump win. One of Biden’s main initiatives has been to push the G-7 to give $50 billion in frozen Russian assets to Ukraine, deliberately structuring the transfer to get out the door before Jan. 20 so that Trump cannot stop it. Biden originally wanted to seize and give to Kyiv all $300 billion of Russia’s frozen money, but the Europeans could not be convinced. The administration has also shown its willingness to throw U.S. budgetary resources into the mix: When the $50 billion was blocked by the Hungarian government, the White House engineered a clever way of guaranteeing the money through the Treasury Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The key political challenge, however, could be getting House Speaker Mike Johnson to support this legislation during the lame duck period, when he will probably be preparing to run for another term as speaker. This may require some hardball maneuvering by some of the many pro-Ukraine Republicans in the House. It would be much easier, of course, if Trump quietly goes along with it, like he did with the last supplemental.

The United States would not be the first government to fund Ukrainian arms procurement. Denmark paved the way this year with a grant that finances contracts between Ukraine and defense manufacturers. Denmark and Ukraine developed a transparent set of financial controls that include factory site visits, validation of delivery, and auditing processes. All sides regard this pilot program as so successful that other allies are pulling out their checkbooks to join in on the action.

Americans’ tax dollars would be safely held by the most credibly reformed and reputably led wing of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry: the defense procurement agency. In the early weeks of the full-scale invasion, when Russian forces were bearing down on Kyiv and heavy Western weapons hadn’t yet arrived, Ukraine’s desperate Defense Ministry called up illicit intermediaries, begging them to help buy up old stocks of Soviet-type munitions on the notoriously opaque and fragmented international arms market. But over the following months, as Western aid started flowing, Ukraine’s strategy shifted to building a clean, transparent pipeline for buying weapons straight from producers.

Established in August 2022, the defense procurement agency is now run by Maryna Bezrukova, a seasoned reformer who previously cleaned up procurement at Ukraine’s national electricity company. To be her deputy, Bezrukova hired Ukraine’s most reputably independent corruption investigator: Artem Sytnyk, the former head of the state National Anti-Corruption Bureau. With these sheriffs in town, the surest way for even the most powerful Ukrainians to go to jail is to try to corruptly make money off weapons acquisitions.

Under this reformist leadership, the defense procurement agency is aggressively cutting out intermediaries by contracting directly with arms manufacturers. The clearest sign of success is that excluded arms dealers and their cronies are attacking Bezrukova with threatening messages, smear campaigns, and doxing on Telegram. Most recently, these intermediaries tried to sideline Bezrukova by getting Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov to merge her agency into another one—and fire her in the process. That announcement triggered such strong pushback by NATO and Ukrainian civil society that the minister canceled the planned reorganization. Instead, with support from Ukraine’s allies, the ministry formed a new supervisory board of reputable experts to oversee the procurement agency.

Any U.S. legislation that funds weapons contracts arranged by Ukraine’s defense procurement agency should come with one additional condition: Before Kyiv receives any money, it must enact legislation mandating the existence of the agency, safeguarding the independence of its supervisory board, and most importantly, prohibiting the defense minister from firing the agency head without a concurring decision by the supervisory board.

Beyond the strategic benefits, this approach could create jobs for Americans during Trump’s second term, largely in states that voted for him. Unlike military aid provided by Europe or allocated by NATO, U.S. funding would come right back home: to Northrop Grumman’s gun truck production line in Arizona, General Dynamics’ artillery shell facility in Texas, Raytheon’s missile factory in Alabama, and Lockheed Martin’s F-16 plant in South Carolina.

To prevent the Trump administration from using executive authority to block the export of weapons procured by Ukraine under the program, Congress should insert one exemption to the Buy American requirement: If the U.S. government ends up blocking exports, Ukraine would be free to redirect the funds to non-U.S. arms manufacturers.

Just as vital as the original Lend-Lease Act, this legislation could be called the Buy American Weapons Act. And it would keep the United States on the right side of history against the imperial armies that are once again on the march.

[izooks]

Some of Joe Biden’s accomplishments:

**Domestic policy**

* **American Rescue Plan (2021)**: Provided $1.9 trillion in COVID-19 relief, including direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, and funding for vaccines and testing.

* **Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)**: Allocated $1.2 trillion for infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, broadband, and clean energy initiatives.

* **Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022)**: Expanded background checks for gun purchases and provided funding for mental health services.

* **Child Tax Credit Expansion (2021-2022)**: Temporarily expanded the Child Tax Credit to provide up to $3,600 per child in monthly payments.

* **Affordable Care Act Expansion (2021)**: Made health insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income Americans by reducing premiums and expanding subsidies.

**Foreign Policy**

* **Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021)**: Ended the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

* **Re-joining the Paris Agreement (2021)**: Re-committed the United States to global efforts to address climate change.

* **Strengthening Alliances with NATO and the EU (2021-present)**: Repaired relationships with key European allies after strained relations during the Trump administration.

* **Supporting Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War (2022-present)**: Provided military, humanitarian, and diplomatic support to Ukraine in its defense against Russia's invasion.

* **Nuclear Deal with Iran (2023)**: Revived negotiations with Iran on a comprehensive nuclear deal, aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

**Other Notable Accomplishments**

* **Appointing Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court (2022)**: Made history by being the first Black woman appointed to the nation's highest court.

* **Signing the Respect for Marriage Act (2022)**: Ensured federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

* **Establishing the Office of the National Cyber Director (2021)**: Coordinated federal efforts to combat cybersecurity threats.

* **Creating the COVID-19 National Preparedness Plan (2021)**: Developed a comprehensive strategy to respond to future pandemics.

* **Launching the Cancer Moonshot (2022)**: Re-energized the government's efforts to find a cure for cancer.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from the New York Times:

At first glance, Dave Langston’s predicament seems similar to headaches facing homeowners in coastal states vulnerable to catastrophic hurricanes: As disasters have become more frequent and severe, his insurance company has been losing money. Then, it canceled his coverage and left the state.

But Mr. Langston lives in Iowa.

Relatively consistent weather once made Iowa a good bet for insurance companies. But now, as a warming planet makes events like hail and wind storms worse, insurers are fleeing.

Mr. Langston spent months trying to find another company to insure the townhouses, on a quiet cul-de-sac at the edge of Cedar Rapids, that belong to members of his homeowners association. Without coverage, “if we were to have damage that hit all 17 units, we’re looking at bankruptcy for all of us,” he said.

The insurance turmoil caused by climate change — which had been concentrated in Florida, California and Louisiana — is fast becoming a contagion, spreading to states like Iowa, Arkansas, Ohio, Utah and Washington. Even in the Northeast, where homeowners insurance was still generally profitable last year, the trends are worsening.

In 2023, insurers lost money on homeowners coverage in 18 states, more than a third of the country, according to a New York Times analysis of newly available financial data. That’s up from 12 states five years ago, and eight states in 2013. The result is that insurance companies are raising premiums by as much as 50 percent or more, cutting back on coverage or leaving entire states altogether. Nationally, over the last decade, insurers paid out more in claims than they received in premiums, according to the ratings firm Moody’s, and those losses are increasing.

The growing tumult is affecting people whose homes have never been damaged and who have dutifully paid their premiums, year after year. Cancellation notices have left them scrambling to find coverage to protect what is often their single biggest investment. As a last resort, many are ending up in high-risk insurance pools created by states that are backed by the public and offer less coverage than standard policies. By and large, state regulators lack strategies to restore stability to the market.

Insurers are still turning a profit from other lines of business, like commercial and life insurance policies. But many are dropping homeowners coverage because of losses.

Tracking the shifting insurance market is complicated by the fact it is not regulated by the federal government; attempts by the Treasury Department to simply gather data have been rebuffed by some state regulators. 

The turmoil in insurance markets is a flashing red light for an American economy that is built on real property. Without insurance, banks won’t issue a mortgage; without a mortgage, most people can’t buy a home. With fewer buyers, real estate values are likely to decline, along with property tax revenues, leaving communities with less money for schools, police and other basic services.

And without sufficient insurance, people struggle to rebuild after disasters. Last year, storms, wildfires and other disasters pushed 2.5 million American adults out of their homes, according to census data, including at least 830,000 people who were displaced for six months or longer.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Matt Gertz at MMFA:

Former President Donald Trump’s deadly lies about the federal response to Hurricane Helene — and soon, inevitably, Hurricane Milton — depend on the impermeability of the right-wing information bubble. President Joe Biden has directed an ongoing federal and state response to the swath of death and destruction Hurricane Helene left on the southeastern United States, an effort which includes tens of thousands of personnel helping victims across several states.  Trump’s Helene response has been characterized by conspiracy theories and grievance-mongering for political gain.

The Biden administration won plaudits from GOP elected officials across the region, but Trump falsely claimed the federal government abandoned the public. Americans affected by the storm can access a robust program of federal assistance, but he falsely claims they could only get $750 in aid. The White House stressed there’s plenty of FEMA funds to respond to both Helene and Milton — and Republicans are reportedly the ones blocking additional funding — but Trump falsely claims Vice President Kamala Harris blew “all her FEMA money” housing immigrants.  The former president, through these deranged fabrications, is trying to win votes in the coming election. He is summoning an alternate reality in which Biden and Harris are blithely unconcerned with the fates of millions of victims because many of those victims are Republicans and they instead prioritize immigrants. And he is doing so despite his own record  as president of allegedly withholding disaster aid for political reasons.

The only reason this strategy is remotely plausible is that the right-wing media ecosystem is willing to play along with it. The news sources Republicans rely on, from MAGA influencers to Fox stars, have bolstered Trump’s lies at every turn. The result is that right-wing audiences are bombarded with falsehoods from within an echo chamber. The MAGA media ecosystem responds in this same fashion to every news event because its function isn’t to report on what is happening. Instead, right-wing pundits offer a scapegoat — immigrants, Jews, journalists, teachers, trans people, Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans — in order to hold their audience’s attention, make money, and support the GOP’s core agenda of tax cuts for rich people and abortion bans.

Hurricane misinformation is plaguing the response to Helene. Local media outlets, federal and state officials, and emergency responders all are desperately trying to swat down rumors and falsehoods — some promoted by the former president. Republican officials in affected areas are begging the people pushing “conspiracy theory junk” to stop lying and pitch in instead.

Donald Trump and the right-wing media’s pushing of conspiracy theories about Hurricane Helene reveals that they are in an insular bubble.

[tessansgp]

How Much Money You Should Save In Your 401K (Amount By Age) [Video]

[sataniccapitalist]

“The single defining feature of this political moment in the United States is that all major presidential candidates favor continuing the perpetration of an active genocide — and that everyone’s trying to tap dance around this issue.

That’s it. That’s the main story here. It’s not “American democracy is on the line in this election.” It’s not “Making America great again” or “Taking back our country” or “Fighting the woke agenda” or any of that braindead nonsense. The main story is that an actual genocide is scheduled to continue no matter whom Americans elect, and everyone’s meant to just ignore that point as though it’s some small insignificant quibble and focus on the candidates’ positions on other issues like immigration reform and student loan debt forgiveness.

The main story is this mind-warpingly insane situation in which progressive-minded Americans now find themselves saying plainly ridiculous things like “Gosh I’m not crazy about this candidate’s pro-genocide policies, but I really like what she’s saying about tax credits for low and middle income families!” It’s that right wingers are now forced to adopt the position “Yeehaw, Trump’s gonna end the wars and bring our troops home and Make America Great Again, right after he helps Israel defeat Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, and oh yeah, also Iran.” It’s that independents are saying “RFK Jr is going to dismantle the war machine while simultaneously backing a genocide and pledging ‘unconditional support’ for the front-line aggressor in today’s major conflicts throughout the middle east.”

That’s what all the headlines should be about. Not how Trump’s 2024 campaign strategy differs from his other presidential runs. Not the ways Kamala should go after him in their first debate. The main story in US politics is the fact that there’s a genocide happening which all viable candidates support, and that an entire country is trying to find ways to psychologically compartmentalize around this horrifying fact.

❖

You can’t “lesser evil” a genocide. That’s not a thing. Past a certain line a candidate is just plain evil, and if genocide is not on the other side of that line for you, then it no longer makes sense for you to talk about “evil” — or any other moral distinction for that matter. By framing the single worst thing a leader can do as a forgivable infraction, you have made all moral distinctions nonsensical. You live your life with your head in a moral universe where good and bad have no meaning apart from your feelings and how things make you feel.”

[uboat53]

It's two days after the election and Republicans are already insisting that Democrats need to drop their opposition to Trump and try to work together which… yeah, really.

If you find yourself wondering "sure, why shouldn't they?", I'll go ahead and lay it out.

First of all, Republicans have never done this, certainly not in my adult lifetime. Before Barack Obama was even sworn in the top elected Republican announced that his number one goal was to make him a one-term president. They spent eight years stonewalling every attempt he made at outreach and arguably caused a lot of pain to Americans in the process by preventing any efforts to ease the recovery from the Great Recession. In 2016, when everyone thought Clinton was going to win, every elected Republican was vocal about how their top priority was preparing to resist, attack, and investigate every aspect of the expected administration. Even in Biden's term, while some Senators did join him to pass an infrastructure bill, most Republicans spent the entire four years even denying that he was legitimately elected.

There's an idea in game theory where you set up a game that gets played over and over again ad infinitum. On each turn, two people independently choose to either cooperate or not for that turn. If they both cooperate each gets a 70% prize and if they both refuse then they each a 30% prize, but if one person cooperates and one person doesn't then the person who cooperated gets nothing while the other person gets a 100% prize (these numbers aren't exact, but they make the point). So how do you win the game? Well, obviously, long-term, the best strategy is cooperation, but if one person always cooperates the other person can take advantage of this to do even better by refusing their cooperation.

I'll spare you the math and game theory behind this idea, but it turns out that the optimal strategy, the one that leads to the best rate of return, is to cooperate on the first turn and then simply do whatever the other person did before on every turn after that. In this way you always leave open a return to cooperation, but you also prevent yourself from being taken advantage of.

Basically, when Republicans ask for (demand, really) cooperation, they're asking for something they've never been willing to give themselves. Maybe if, for once, they were at least magnanimous in victory, we might able to talk, but that leads me to my second point…

What, exactly, is there to compromise on? Look, if we both think that we need to invest in roads and schools but we have different ideas about what kinds of things need to be invested in or how much to invest, then we can have a conversation and that can lead to compromise, but that's not the nature of the disagreements on key issues. Republicans think that LGBT people should not have basic rights, that states should have the right to gerrymander minorities out of political power, that women have too many rights these days (abortion, no fault divorce, etc.), and that corporations and rich people pay too much in taxes.

Don't believe me? Look at the legislation they're already lining up and the policies they're preparing to put in place, they're not planning a single bill or policy that does anything but the things that I listed above. So what should the Democrats compromise on? Should we agree that LGBT people only deserve some rights? Should we trade women's rights against minority rights? Should we give up on tilting the economy back in favor of working people and accept even more national debt to give money to rich people?

The agenda that Republicans have proposed is so radical and so violently opposed to everything that the Democratic Party stands for that there's no room for compromise. Even if Democrats wanted to set aside party differences and do what's best for the country, Republicans aren't doing anything that Democrats could remotely agree is good for the country. And here's the thing, most Americans agree. Yes, I know, the United States just elected Republicans to power but, while they did so, they also voted almost entirely against Republicans on almost every issue that I noted above that was up for a vote, even in deep red states! Americans may like Republican vibes and messaging, but every time it comes down to actual policy, the policy that Democrats prefer wins over and over again.

So, as a Democrat, I'm expecting my party to resist. They won't be able to stop everything, but I expect them to raise hell, throw sand in the gears, and investigate fully to point out every last bit of self-dealing, hypocrisy, and flagrant disregard for the rule of law that goes on on the other side.

If Republicans don't like this, if they want cooperation, then they need to think long and hard about what they're actually willing to offer. Just getting less of this far-right policy isn't enough, we can probably stop more of it by resisting anyways. If they want cooperation, they need to think about which of our issues they're willing to give. Are they willing to pass legislation to protect the rights of women, LGBT, and minorities? Are they willing to nominate moderate judges instead of Federalist Society operatives? How about giving 80% of their tax cuts to the working class instead of the rich?

They'll find plenty of Democrats willing to talk if those things are on offer, including me. Of course, they're not actually offering anything; to them, "compromise" just means that we give in to what they want and that's why I have no problems saying that I intend to fully resist the policy of the upcoming administration and I expect my party and all its elected representatives to do the same. When compromise becomes a two-way street, I'm fine with going back to it, but I'm done with the one-way "compromises" the GOP keeps demanding.

And, if you're one of the "why can't we all just get along?" people in politics who want politicians to be bipartisan, I hope I've shown you what it will take to get there.

[batboyblog]

The Biden administration on Wednesday issued one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history, a rule designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032.

Cars and other forms of transportation are, together, the largest single source of carbon emissions generated by the United States, pollution that is driving climate change and that helped to make 2023 the hottest year in recorded history. Electric vehicles are central to President Biden’s strategy to confront global warming, which calls for cutting the nation’s emissions in half by the end of this decade. But E.V.s have also become politicized and are becoming an issue in the 2024 presidential campaign.

“Three years ago, I set an ambitious target: that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” said Mr. Biden in a statement. “Together, we’ve made historic progress. Hundreds of new expanded factories across the country. Hundreds of billions in private investment and thousands of good-paying union jobs. And we’ll meet my goal for 2030 and race forward in the years ahead.”

The rule increasingly limits the amount of pollution allowed from tailpipes over time so that, by 2032, more than half the new cars sold in the United States would most likely be zero-emissions vehicles in order for carmakers to meet the standards.

That would avoid more than seven billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions over the next 30 years, according to the E.P.A. That’s the equivalent of removing a year’s worth of all the greenhouse gases generated by the United States, the country that has historically pumped the most carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The regulation would provide nearly $100 billion in annual net benefits to society, according to the agency, including $13 billion of annual public health benefits thanks to improved air quality.

The standards would also save the average American driver about $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance over the life of a vehicle, the E.P.A. estimated.

The auto emissions rule is the most impactful of four major climate regulations from the Biden administration, including restrictions on emissions from power plants, trucks and methane leaks from oil and gas wells. The rules come on top of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the biggest climate law in the nation’s history, which is providing at least $370 billion in federal incentives to support clean energy, including tax credits to buyers of electric vehicles.

The policies are intended to help the country meet Mr. Biden’s target of cutting U.S. greenhouse emissions in half by 2030 and eliminating them by 2050. Climate scientists say all major economies must do the same if the world is to avert the most deadly and costly effects of climate change.

“These standards form what we see as a historic climate grand slam for the Biden administration,” said Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, a political action committee that aims to advance environmental causes.

Mr. Bapna’s group has calculated that the four regulations, combined with the Inflation Reduction Act, would reduce the nation’s greenhouse emissions 42 percent by 2030, getting the country most of the way to Mr. Biden’s 2030 target.

Get in Losers we're going to save the planet.

[canichangemyblogname]

Woah, woah, woah, woah. Let’s not start pointing the finger at any demographic besides white people, and especially white men, for the US election results. Trump saw no meaningful increase in support among marginalized communities. He was predicting that Black men would come out in force for him. That did not happen. Let’s not be blaming anyone other than the whites in a majority-white country for electing a racist. Let’s not blame anyone other than the whites for a campaign—and now presidential administration—fueled by racial animus.

He wins because he says the quiet part out loud. He wins because he “refuses to be PC” about the “Mexicans taking over the country” and “Black crime in the cities.” (Put in quotations because these aren’t my ideas; I do not own them or hold them.) Don’t forget what country you live in: The United States, a country more than happy to shove Japanese Americans into concentration camps, mass deport Latino American citizens, enslave and impoverish Black people through plantations and sharecropping and the prison industrial complex, genocide Indigenous groups, and lie to bomb Arabs in South West Asia. This is the country that inspired Fascism.

Trump *is* representative of the soul of America: an unstable racist, misogynist, cheat, grifter, and liar. Blame gerrymandering. Blame vote suppression. Blame Harris’ short election cycle because a white man’s ego got in the way. Blame inflation. Blame the Billionaire class and the money they POURED into Trump’s reelection. Blame housing prices. Blame corporate greed and the way it has driven a cost of living crisis. Blame the fact that most Americans think tariffs are taxes on foreign countries. Blame a lack of class consciousness and the fact that most Americans believe that poor people should be taxed and rich people not because of “wealth paternalism,” the feudal-inspired idea that the wealthy “take care” of the poor and give them jobs. Blame the fact the US culture hates women and other gender minorities more than it loves an economy in recovery. Blame the lack of jobs in traditional blue collar fields due to an ongoing technological revolution; companies are investing in different technology, and someone’s uncle Joe got lost behind when the ol’ plant closed and DJT is the only one who promised to bring those traditional jobs back (he won’t, he can’t). Blame celebrity culture and the fact Americans love a showman. Blame the fact that DJT is a reaction against the social progresses in this country that make every white boy and his white mother “uncomfy,” from voting rights for non-whites to marriage equality. Blame ableism and COVID resentment, as Americans hate being told what to do (unless that law targets a specific minority group), and many believe the weak must be culled. Blame the fact that most Americans are Christian Zionists who believe that Israel must exist to usher in the second coming of Jesus, and DJT has been dubbed “America’s first Zionist President.” Blame unsound Democratic political strategy that long alienated the core of their traditional base: blue collar whites. Blame hyper-individualism and the “fuck you, I got mine” mentality. But for the love of fuck, I better not see y’all Tumblr libs blaming Black people and trans women for this shit (I have, that’s why I made this post).