aubobo

The Electoral College consists of one vote for each Representative + one vote for each Senator. So 435 Reps +100 Senators + 3 electors from DC = 538 votes. Each Senator vote = 1/5.38 of the total vote. If the number of reps were expanded to around 5,700 (to get the Rep/citizen ratio closer to the original) then the new EC math would be 5700 Reps + 100 Sen + 39 DC = 5839 vote. Each senator vote = 1/58.39 of the total elector vote. In this manner the "Will of the people" would regain the same weight as at the countries outset, while the "Will of the States" would still exist, but in a more diminished capacity. In this way, we could get closer to the results of the "popular vote" without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I didn't say it would reduce the power of the Senate. I said that having more Reps would cause "the influence of the 2 Senator vote becomes greatly diminished". If for instance there were 1000 reps with 100 senators, then each Senate vote would have half the influence of the current ~500 reps + 100 Senators.

Let me restate then: Under the proposal you are defending.

You are aware that body fat percentage plays a vital role in the onset of puberty and menstruation. So, under your proposal we would have disqualified most of the US Olympic women's gymnastics teams. Of course there are exceptions, but this proposal throws the baby out with the bath water. It is no ones business but a woman and her doctor what her menstruation cycles look like. What you are also missing is that discrimination "now a days" is measured by a thing called disparate impact. So from a Title IX standpoint under the current EO, all that would have to be proven is that "menstruation discrimination" = "gender identity discrimination". So now you have a distinction without a difference, but to get to that distinction you required disclosure of personal medical history to unnecessary parties. Not to mention potential exposure of schools to HIPPA violations when the results of the questionnaire inevitably get out. If your purpose is to protect women's rights to fair competition, then you should see that their right to keep their medical history personal should be held in equal regard. If your purpose is to make sure Trans people don't get to compete then by all means, disregard the privacy and dignity of the women you are waving a banner for.

So, the response is to discriminate on the basis of menstrual cycles? What about a high school girl that is late to the puberty party, or has a condition that prevents menstruation? BTW, a hand wave at this will just change from optional to mandatory doesn't make it any less a big change. I don't disagree, however, I think we will find that the courts find this as it's own form of Title IX discrimination and policing a young woman's menstruation history is both unnecessary and a bridge too far.

How about just ask? If this is the purpose of the menstruation questions, then how about be direct about it. One could lie just as easily about their cycles as their biological sex.

Instead of invasive medical questions, wouldn't just using the birth certificate suffice?

I think expanding Congress, specifically the House of Representatives to a closer ratio (currently 1 Rep per ~750K voters) to the original founding (1:57K) would help in several ways. It would water down the power of corporate interest. Instead of spreading money around to influence 435 elections, 5,700 or so elections would "require influencing" This would make representatives more accountable to their constituency. From an Electoral College perspective, the influence of the 2 Senator vote becomes greatly diminished, preserving the "States Rights" aspect, but reducing that influence to one more aligned with the original math. This would mean the EC should be more in line with the "popular vote." I'm sure there are other benefits (or even negatives) to this, but in either case I doubt it will happen as changing the makeup would ultimately reduce the power of each individual representative. And what politician has ever voluntarily reduced their influence?

I agree with this. The problem is that shareholders (at least those with more money than me) will not take the earnings and just keep them in the company. Then they will borrow against the asset value, thus creating "tax free income." BTW, if you look at most valuation models w/ re to corporate stocks, the corporate tax is a contributing factor. This is why the current corporate tax is in reality a double taxation (taxed in the value of the asset, then taxed on any gains at withdrawal). Also, I agree with your statement about simple solutions to complex situations. Just to say "tax rate decreases will cause a decrease in revenue is overly simplistic in itself." The numbers I posted show that this is not always the case. Revenues have definitely risen. Whether this is despite or because of the TCJA we can't know for sure. I'm more concerned with the spending side of this under every administration (sans a couple of years of President Clinton) in my lifetime. 25% increase and still a deficit, smh. Finally, I commiserate with you on searching for unbiased analysis. That's why I cited the Department of the Treasury. These aren't projections like Brookings and the CRFB.

That is indeed "quite possible." What metrics would you use to move beyond conjecture, though? If an increase in tax revenue isn't sufficient to say that the tax cuts were successful or not, what is your measuring stick? What is interesting is that between 2015 and 2018 overall tax receipts (inflation adjusted) were trending downward from 4.05T to 3.91T. They started to rise in 2019 (4.0T), coincidentally after the TCJA passed, slumped in 2020 (COVID) and then after 2020 saw a dramatic increase to 4.9T. In the last two years we have seen a nearly 25% increase in revenue. I think it's reasonable to make the argument that cutting taxes at the individual level can increase the pie and create more revenue. What is amazing to me is that even with a 25% increase in revenue we are still increasing deficits. Spending has increased by more than 25%. Let me be clear: the Trump administration did this country no favors with regard to spending control. But the Biden administration isn't really doing any better.

What's interesting about this statement is that while the CRFB projected a revenue decrease in 2019, the Department of the Treasury has reported an increase in revenue since that time. Most of the increase has happened since 2020, after the Trump tax cuts. "Total revenue has increased from $4.05 T in 2015 to $4.90 T in 2022.1" 1https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/government-revenue/