Oklahoma is going backwards

[steross]

We are such a silly people.

Why did I read this post in my head with a gay lisp?

 

[Stillwater Townie]

Big brands are staying quiet this Pride Month
KOCO

…
Companies are treading lightly, avoiding prominent campaigns and visible public support. Thirty-nine percent say they plan to scale back public Pride Month engagements this year, according to a survey of more than 200 corporate executives by Gravity Research, a risk management advisory. That includes sponsoring Pride events, posting supportive messages of LGBTQ rights on social media and selling Pride-themed merchandise.

Consumer brands are wary of provoking right-wing customers and activists, and they fear reprisals from President Donald Trump’s administration. Federal agencies have threatened to investigate companies with diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
…

Meanwhile, on the political side, Oklahoma City's mayor, David Holt, did not become too afraid to once again march in Oklahoma's City's gay parade on Sunday.

 

[Polds4OSU]

He out here acting like every job gets full medical benefits

 

[Polds4OSU]

Scientists Found an Unexpected Toxin Floating in the Oklahoma Sky
Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins, or MCCPs, have been detected in the air of Asia and Antarctica, but this surprise Oklahoma discovery is a first for North America.

Source: Popular Mechanics
https://search.app/nLsSZ

Shared via the Google App

 

[cowboyinexile]

Scientists Found an Unexpected Toxin Floating in the Oklahoma Sky
Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins, or MCCPs, have been detected in the air of Asia and Antarctica, but this surprise Oklahoma discovery is a first for North America.

Source: Popular Mechanics
https://search.app/nLsSZ

Shared via the Google App

I read this as midichlorians. That would be awesome

 

[Polds4OSU]

 

[JTOSU]

View attachment 12021

Josh Chafetz’s argument reflects a common misunderstanding—and one that too many politicians repeat without examining the underlying logic. He conflates two distinct issues: federal tax policy and federal spending.

The SALT (State and Local Tax) deduction pertains to how much federal tax high-income earners can deduct based on the taxes they pay to their state and local governments. It allows wealthy individuals in high-tax states to reduce their federal tax liability, effectively shifting more of the federal tax burden onto taxpayers in lower-tax states who don’t receive the same benefit.

Federal income tax rates are applied uniformly across the country based on income, not geography. The idea that people in net recipient states shouldn’t criticize the SALT deduction overlooks the fact that the deduction benefits a narrow group of taxpayers in specific high-tax states—regardless of how much federal spending their state receives.

Chafetz’ a argument also muddles the purpose of federal spending programs like Medicaid and SNAP, which are based on need, not on how much a state contributes in federal taxes. Suggesting that the SALT deduction is somehow justified by a state’s net contribution to the federal budget is a misdirection. It fails to recognize that the deduction introduces an unfair imbalance in how individuals across the country are taxed.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Josh Chafetz’s argument reflects a common misunderstanding—and one that too many politicians repeat without examining the underlying logic. He conflates two distinct issues: federal tax policy and federal spending.

The SALT (State and Local Tax) deduction pertains to how much federal tax high-income earners can deduct based on the taxes they pay to their state and local governments. It allows wealthy individuals in high-tax states to reduce their federal tax liability, effectively shifting more of the federal tax burden onto taxpayers in lower-tax states who don’t receive the same benefit.

Federal income tax rates are applied uniformly across the country based on income, not geography. The idea that people in net recipient states shouldn’t criticize the SALT deduction overlooks the fact that the deduction benefits a narrow group of taxpayers in specific high-tax states—regardless of how much federal spending their state receives.

Chafetz’ a argument also muddles the purpose of federal spending programs like Medicaid and SNAP, which are based on need, not on how much a state contributes in federal taxes. Suggesting that the SALT deduction is somehow justified by a state’s net contribution to the federal budget is a misdirection. It fails to recognize that the deduction introduces an unfair imbalance in how individuals across the country are taxed.

Senate GOP and House GOP are a LONG way from each other on SALT right now

 

[JTOSU]

Senate GOP and House GOP are a LONG way from each other on SALT right now

Fair. It is just a pork negotiating point right now.

Not surprising that one person has such a fundamental misunderstanding of federal tax policy. It is like every issue he cannot comprehend.

 

[CowboyJD]

Fair. It is just a pork negotiating point right now.

Not surprising that one person has such a fundamental misunderstanding of federal tax policy. It is like every issue he cannot comprehend.

" Suggesting that the SALT deduction is somehow justified by a state’s net contribution to the federal budget is a misdirection."

I don't have a fundamental misunderstanding of federal tax policy. What you said was largely correct.

It was you calling out someone else for "misdirection" that I was laughing at.

You're the king of "misdirection" and certainly know it when you see it, Cable.....at least this time.

 

[JTOSU]

" Suggesting that the SALT deduction is somehow justified by a state’s net contribution to the federal budget is a misdirection."

I don't have a fundamental misunderstanding of federal tax policy. What you said was largely correct.

It was you calling out someone else for "misdirection" that I was laughing at.

You're the king of "misdirection" and certainly know it when you see it, Cable.....at least this time.

First, I was referring to the idiot Josh Chafetz who was wrong on just about everything in the 2024 election. He is top of mind right now due to people defending and/or justifying the acts of the LA rioters. Chafetz famously tweeted about the protesters at homes of Supreme Court justices. His tweet “when the mob is right, more aggressive tactics are justified.”

But I have to give it up to you. It take a lot of gall to think a statement is about you. And to then call someone else out for “misdirection”. Wow. You are consistent. Consistent in your reflexive need to defend everything far left and to be incredibly hypocritical.

 

[CowboyJD]

First, I was referring to the idiot Josh Chafetz who was wrong on just about everything in the 2024 election. He is top of mind right now due to people defending and/or justifying the acts of the LA rioters. Chafetz famously tweeted about the protesters at homes of Supreme Court justices. His tweet “when the mob is right, more aggressive tactics are justified.”

But I have to give it up to you. It take a lot of gall to think a statement is about you. And to then call someone else out for “misdirection”. Wow. You are consistent. Consistent in your reflexive need to defend everything far left and to be incredibly hypocritical.

Whatever you say, Cable.

 

[Polds4OSU]

 

[cowboyinexile]

View attachment 12032

How big were his stock purchases today?

 

[PJ-OSU]

How big were his stock purchases today?

 

[Stillwater Townie]

View attachment 12021

And possibly end up paid considerably less in a low tax state. Oklahoma min. pay: $7.25. New York min. pay: $15.50. In New York City $16.50.

 

[Stillwater Townie]

Are you sure they weren't short purchases?

 

[Polds4OSU]

In one of the most passive-aggressive press releases I've seen, Sen. Shane Jett of Shawnee — on behalf of the Oklahoma Legislature's Freedom Caucus — reminded everyone on Friday that drivers can legally run over protestors, writes columnist Ginnie Graham.

https://tulsaworld.com/opinion/column/article_50d4498b-5e71-45dd-a925-1fa371395973.html?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_Owasso_Reporter&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR6WSltJbcf1G9rt2aY_SoS82WtoU4L17DurLNsYJWahQqYSq_dsg0GBKc2Qhg_aem_QHE-eDmoxiSKSIQmJGa_4w

 

[steross]

Josh Chafetz’s argument reflects a common misunderstanding—and one that too many politicians repeat without examining the underlying logic. He conflates two distinct issues: federal tax policy and federal spending.

The SALT (State and Local Tax) deduction pertains to how much federal tax high-income earners can deduct based on the taxes they pay to their state and local governments. It allows wealthy individuals in high-tax states to reduce their federal tax liability, effectively shifting more of the federal tax burden onto taxpayers in lower-tax states who don’t receive the same benefit.

Federal income tax rates are applied uniformly across the country based on income, not geography. The idea that people in net recipient states shouldn’t criticize the SALT deduction overlooks the fact that the deduction benefits a narrow group of taxpayers in specific high-tax states—regardless of how much federal spending their state receives.

Chafetz’ a argument also muddles the purpose of federal spending programs like Medicaid and SNAP, which are based on need, not on how much a state contributes in federal taxes. Suggesting that the SALT deduction is somehow justified by a state’s net contribution to the federal budget is a misdirection. It fails to recognize that the deduction introduces an unfair imbalance in how individuals across the country are taxed.

Do you really not see the obvious flaw in your attempt?

I mean, it is weird. For some reason, states that tend to take care of their state citizens actually have more educated, healthier, and better paid work force. They generate so much more money that despite higher state taxes to make their citizens shine, they still pay more into the federal system and that money is used to cover the low-tax weaklings. But, hey, screw them. No deductions. We need to keep the system FAIR!!

This is the argument being made by this guy▼. I guess high state-tax citizens are not part of "ALL" citizens:

Yes that is a mischaracterization. I want ALL citizens to keep more of the money they earned.

 

[JTOSU]

Do you really not see the obvious flaw in your attempt?

I mean, it is weird. For some reason, states that tend to take care of their state citizens actually have more educated, healthier, and better paid work force. They generate so much more money that despite higher state taxes to make their citizens shine, they still pay more into the federal system and that money is used to cover the low-tax weaklings. But, hey, screw them. No deductions. We need to keep the system FAIR!!

This is the argument being made by this guy. I guess high state-tax citizens are not part of "ALL" citizens:

No flaw at all ….if someone understands tax policy and federal spending. Your statement that states “still pay more into the federal systems and that money is used to cover the low-tax weaklings” exposes your lack of understanding and falling for Chafetz’s silly argument. Federal taxes are not applied by geographic location… federal spending to low-income homes is rarely by geographic area. But sure, go ahead and misunderstand.