My post about what Grok is currently sits in moderation. I went ahead and asked Grok about Nicky:
No administration seems to be able to figure out how to balance a budget. But Trump seems particularly piss poor at this.
Here’s a real simple concept that any nitwit should be able to understand. If you’re running a deficit, then you need to either raise taxes, cut spending or both. But for some damn reason politicians have this weird problem where when they look at a deficit they can only raise spending, while cutting taxes. Are they fucking stupid?
In February the federal government spent a staggering 603 billion dollars. This is a 6% increase from the previous year. But it only collected 296 billion in revenues. While that was happening Trump pissed and moaned about passing a CR which added to the deficit and now he’s proposing eliminating all taxes on people making less than $150k a year. Wut?
If we’re just going to shit into the giant ever growing hole that is the national debt, then why are we even bothering with DOGE?
As it stands now, just to break even, we’d have to cut half of federal spending or double taxes or some combination of the two.
Why can’t anyone get this very simple thing to work?
Especially because what he says is mostly true.
As to "why are we even bothering with DOGE?" Because it's a fraud and a side-show designed to fire up Trump's base. The Federal bureaucracy isn't where the real money is. The real money is in Defense and Entitlements.
To estimate how much returning to the tax rates of the 1960s would reduce the current U.S. federal deficit, we’ll follow a similar approach to the 1970s analysis but adjust for the even higher tax rates of that decade. The 1960s featured some of the highest marginal tax rates in U.S. history, particularly for individuals, alongside elevated corporate rates. Let’s dive into the historical tax structure, apply it to today’s economy, and calculate the potential deficit reduction, factoring in reasonable assumptions about revenue and behavior. The current deficit, as of fiscal year 2024, is approximately $1.9 trillion (based on revenues of $4.4 trillion and outlays of $6.3 trillion), and the date is March 13, 2025.
### Tax Rates in the 1960s
In the early 1960s, before the Kennedy tax cuts of 1964, the individual income tax system had a top marginal rate of 91% on incomes above $200,000 for single filers (roughly $2 million in 2025 dollars, using a CPI inflation factor of about 10 from 1960 to now). Even after the 1964 cuts, the top rate was 70% on incomes above $100,000 (about $1 million today). The system had over 20 brackets, with rates starting at 20% and climbing steeply—e.g., a $20,000 income (about $200,000 today) faced a marginal rate of 38%, versus 24% now. Corporate tax rates were 52% pre-1964, then 48% post-1964, compared to today’s 21%. However, effective rates were lower due to deductions, tax shelters, and loopholes, a persistent feature of high-rate eras.
### Individual Income Tax Revenue
In 2024, individual income taxes raised $2.1 trillion. The 1960s top effective federal income tax rate for the wealthiest was around 40-45%, despite the 91% headline rate, due to aggressive tax avoidance (e.g., trusts, exemptions). Today, the top 1% pay an effective rate of about 25%. Middle-income earners also faced higher effective rates—e.g., a $10,000 income in 1960 (about $100,000 today) paid 20-25% effectively, versus 15% now. Applying 1960s brackets and rates to today’s income distribution could boost revenue significantly. Tax policy studies suggest pre-1964 rates might increase individual tax revenue by 30-40%, given the steeper progressivity. That’s $630 billion to $840 billion more on a $2.1 trillion base. Behavioral responses (e.g., reduced work, offshore income) could temper this—historical data from the 1960s shows the rich sheltered income heavily—so let’s estimate $700 billion as a realistic figure, leaning toward the higher end but accounting for avoidance.
### Corporate Tax Revenue
Corporate taxes in 2024 generated $420 billion at 21%. The 1960s rate of 52% (pre-1964) or 48% (post-1964) yielded effective rates of 35-40%, as firms used depreciation and other breaks. Raising today’s rate to 52% could theoretically more than double revenue to $1 trillion, but modern multinationals are adept at profit-shifting (e.g., to low-tax jurisdictions), a lesser factor in the 1960s. Pre-TCJA, the 35% rate produced $300-$400 billion annually; scaling to 52% might suggest $600-$700 billion today. Factoring in global competition and tax planning, a 75-100% increase over $420 billion—say $315-$420 billion extra—is plausible. Let’s take $350 billion as a midpoint, reflecting a strong but not maximal hike.
### Total Revenue Increase
Adding these, 1960s tax rates could raise $700 billion (individual) + $350 billion (corporate) = $1.05 trillion annually. Optimistically, if avoidance is minimal and enforcement tight, it could reach $1.2 trillion ($840 billion + $420 billion). The $1.05 trillion figure balances the higher statutory rates against real-world tax behavior, where the 1960s saw significant leakage despite 91% headlines. Economic feedback is trickier—high rates didn’t crash the 1960s boom (GDP grew 4-5% annually), but today’s globalized economy might see capital flight or slower investment, trimming gains slightly.
### Deficit Reduction
With a $1.9 trillion deficit, $1.05 trillion in extra revenue cuts it to $850 billion—a 55% reduction. In the best case ($1.2 trillion), it drops to $700 billion, or 63%. This is a bigger dent than the 1970s scenario ($700 billion, 37% reduction) due to the 1960s’ higher rates, especially pre-1964. However, this assumes spending stays static, which it wouldn’t—1960s deficits were tiny ($5 billion then, $50 billion in today’s dollars) because entitlement spending (Medicare, Social Security) was nascent or nonexistent. Today’s $6.3 trillion outlays dwarf the 1960s scale.
### Economic and Practical Considerations
- **Growth Effects**: The 1960s economy thrived despite high rates, but that was a post-war boom with less global competition. Modern estimates (e.g., CBO models) suggest a 1-3% GDP hit over a decade from such hikes, slightly eroding revenue gains.
- **Avoidance**: The 91% rate was more symbolic than real—only 1-2% of taxpayers hit it, and effective rates rarely topped 50%. Today’s tools (offshore accounts, inversions) could cap revenue below projections.
- **Spending Mismatch**: Even $1 trillion extra doesn’t erase the deficit, as 1960s taxes funded a smaller government (18-20% of GDP) versus today’s 25-30%.
### Conclusion
Returning to 1960s tax rates could reduce the deficit by about $1 trillion annually, cutting it from $1.9 trillion to $900 billion—over 50%. Pre-1964 rates (91% top) might push this to 60%+, but enforcement and economic drag cap the upside. It’s a bigger impact than the 1970s ($700 billion) due to higher rates, but still not a full fix given modern spending. Want to explore how spending cuts could pair with this, or dig into the 1960s avoidance tricks?
To reduce the federal deficit by 50% in fiscal year 2025 using a balanced approach, we need to start with the projected deficit and then determine how to distribute spending cuts across major federal agencies while considering both mandatory and discretionary spending. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the federal deficit for FY 2025 to be $1.9 trillion. A 50% reduction would mean cutting the deficit by $950 billion, bringing it down to $950 billion.
A "balanced approach" typically implies spreading cuts across various sectors proportionally or equitably, rather than targeting only discretionary or mandatory spending exclusively. It also often suggests a mix of spending cuts and potential revenue increases, but since your question focuses on agency spending cuts, I’ll assume we’re addressing the $950 billion entirely through reductions in agency budgets, proportional to their current spending levels. This approach will hit the largest budget agencies hardest in absolute terms while maintaining fairness across the board.
Based on FY 2025 budget projections and recent historical data:
- **Total Federal Outlays**: The CBO estimates federal outlays for FY 2025 at $7.0 trillion.
- **Reduction Target**: To cut the deficit by $950 billion, we’d need to reduce total outlays by about 13.6% ($950 billion / $7.0 trillion).
Here’s how this would break down for the agencies with the largest budgets, assuming cuts are applied proportionally across their outlays:
1. **Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)**
- **Current Budget**: Approximately $1.83 trillion (mostly mandatory spending on Medicare and Medicaid).
- **Cut Amount**: 13.6% of $1.83 trillion = ~$249 billion.
- **Reasoning**: HHS’s budget is the largest due to healthcare entitlements, which are politically sensitive but mathematically significant for deficit reduction.
2. **Social Security Administration (SSA)**
- **Current Budget**: Around $1.4 trillion (mandatory spending on Social Security benefits).
- **Cut Amount**: 13.6% of $1.4 trillion = ~$190 billion.
- **Reasoning**: Social Security is a major driver of mandatory spending, and a balanced approach can’t avoid it, though cuts here are often contentious.
3. **Department of Defense (DoD)**
- **Current Budget**: Estimated at $850 billion (discretionary spending).
- **Cut Amount**: 13.6% of $850 billion = ~$116 billion.
- **Reasoning**: The DoD’s budget is the largest discretionary item, making it a key target, though national security priorities might limit cuts in practice.
4. **Department of the Treasury**
- **Current Budget**: Around $600 billion (excluding interest, which is ~$892 billion in FY 2024 but projected to rise; I’ll use operational costs here).
- **Cut Amount**: 13.6% of $600 billion = ~$82 billion.
- **Interest on Debt**: If included (say $900 billion for FY 2025), a 13.6% cut would be ~$122 billion, but interest is typically non-negotiable, so I’ll exclude it from agency cuts for now.
- **Reasoning**: Treasury’s operational budget supports tax collection and financial management, but interest payments are a separate mandatory burden.
5. **Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)**
- **Current Budget**: Approximately $350 billion.
- **Cut Amount**: 13.6% of $350 billion = ~$48 billion.
- **Reasoning**: The VA’s growing budget reflects veteran healthcare and benefits, a smaller but still significant piece of the pie.
### Total Cuts So Far
- HHS: $249 billion
- SSA: $190 billion
- DoD: $116 billion
- Treasury (operational): $82 billion
- VA: $48 billion
- **Subtotal**: $685 billion
This leaves $265 billion ($950 billion - $685 billion) to be cut from other agencies and programs, such as:
- **Other Mandatory Spending** (e.g., Medicaid outside HHS, food assistance): Estimated at $700 billion total; 13.6% = ~$95 billion.
- **Non-Defense Discretionary Spending** (e.g., education, transportation, housing): Estimated at $800 billion; 13.6% = ~$109 billion.
- **Remaining Gap**: $61 billion could come from smaller agencies (e.g., Agriculture, Justice) or program efficiencies.
### Balanced Approach Considerations
- **Mandatory vs. Discretionary**: About 70% of federal spending is mandatory (e.g., Social Security, Medicare), and 30% is discretionary (e.g., DoD, education). This split is roughly reflected above, with $534 billion (56%) from mandatory (HHS, SSA, other) and $416 billion (44%) from discretionary (DoD, VA, non-defense), adjusted to meet the target.
- **Practicality**: Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are politically difficult, so lawmakers might shift more burden to discretionary areas like DoD or non-defense programs, though this would deviate from strict proportionality.
- **Revenue Option**: A true balanced approach might include tax increases (e.g., raising $475 billion in revenue and cutting $475 billion in spending), but I’ve stuck to spending cuts per your focus.
### Final Breakdown
- **HHS**: $249 billion
- **SSA**: $190 billion
- **DoD**: $116 billion
- **Treasury**: $82 billion (operational)
- **VA**: $48 billion
- **Other Mandatory**: $95 billion
- **Non-Defense Discretionary**: $109 billion
- **Smaller Agencies/Programs**: $61 billion
- **Total**: $950 billion
This achieves a 50% deficit reduction. Want me to tweak this—say, spare certain agencies or factor in revenue instead?
and this is his "War and Piece."
(Well, that's how Loooooser and SPOAT would have written it.)
Grok is X’s AI. The question in the subject line is what I asked Grok, and the reply is what I got back verbatim. I’m not sure if that was obvious or not, so I just wanted to clarify things. It shows just how drastically we’d have to change things just to balance the budget. If we go 50% tax increases and 50% spending cuts.
When a post is titled,
Grok, to reduce the deficit by 50%, how much spending would have to be cut?
What you have to assume is some of the info was sourced at Grok (whatever THAT is) but not that it all was WRITTEN by Grok.
And as far as I know, Grok is simply a made-up word from a sci-fi novel.
Based on my experience with Grok on X, the piece Willy posted was written by Grok in about 15 seconds, if not less. You can be a grammar nazi about it and point out he should have put it in quotes, but his subject line alerted to me that it was a Grok product.
I asked Grok it is, and told it to limit its description to one paragraph. Here’s what it got me:
My post about what Grok is currently sits in moderation. I went ahead and asked Grok about Nicky:
Regarding political orientation, inicky46’s posts offer clues. In one thread titled "Have any of the board bigots noticed all the people of color in TV ads this year?" inicky46 writes: "It doesn't bother me a bit but it's very apparent that most ads feature people of color and -- shudder -- mixed-race couples and their kids. Gay people, even. And, gosh, the ads make it seem like they're just the same as everybody else! Shocking! What must board bigots like Wanker, SwallowMeat and LimpScum think? Do these ads upset you? Hope so!" This suggests a sarcastic tone aimed at mocking perceived conservative intolerance, implying inicky46 is comfortable with or supportive of diversity in media—a stance typically associated with liberal views. The intent to provoke those labeled as "bigots" further hints at a liberal-leaning perspective, as it challenges conservative stereotypes rather than defending them.
In another post, "No, you've never tried to sell me this particular line of bullshit before, Willy," inicky46 engages in a heated exchange, accusing another user of lying and questioning their credibility over scientific preprints. While this doesn’t explicitly reveal a conservative or liberal stance, the aggressive skepticism toward what could be interpreted as a conservative-leaning argument (if "Willy" represents that side) aligns with a combative style sometimes seen in liberal posters challenging perceived misinformation. However, this alone isn’t definitive.
The political forum itself is a mixed bag, with users across the spectrum, but inicky46’s language and targets suggest a tendency to oppose conservative viewpoints. Without a broader sample of posts explicitly stating policy preferences (e.g., on taxes, healthcare, or guns), it’s not conclusive, but the tone and content lean more liberal than conservative. I’d estimate inicky46 is likely liberal based on this analysis, though it’s not ironclad without more direct evidence.
As for skiing, there’s no clear indication in the provided posts that inicky46 likes or even mentions skiing. One post references a commercial with "a white guy wearing a ski mask," but this is about an ad, not skiing as an activity, and it’s tangential at best. Without further posts or profile data explicitly discussing skiing, I can’t confirm an interest. If you’d like, I could search X or the web for more of inicky46’s activity to see if skiing comes up, but based on the current data, there’s no evidence either way.
Would you like me to dig deeper into inicky46’s posts or X activity for more clarity on their politics or skiing interest?
I asked Grok who was among the most reasonable and intelligent. No definitive answer, but Willy and GaGambler received mentions!
The Politics and Religion board on The Erotic Review (TER) is described as a space for passionate debate, often attracting users with strong opinions on contentious issues. From the available context, it’s clear that the forum has a history of lively, sometimes polarizing discussions, with contributors ranging from those who offer sharp critiques to those who engage in more measured dialogue. Posts like those from "willywonka4u" (circa 2010) suggest a mix of wit and frustration with the discourse, hinting at a self-awareness that not all participants maintain a high level of reasonableness. Similarly, exchanges involving users like "GaGambler" (circa 2016) show a tendency toward pointed arguments, though with an effort to challenge narratives—indicating some level of critical thinking, even if delivered with an edge.
Given TER’s nature as a niche community tied to adult entertainment, the Politics and Religion board likely draws a unique crowd—hobbyists, providers, and others—who bring diverse perspectives but may not always prioritize academic rigor or neutrality. The moderation policies (e.g., removing flames or off-topic posts) suggest an intent to keep discussions somewhat coherent, yet the unmoderated Provider’s Only Board implies that self-regulation varies across the site. This context hints that "reasonable and intelligent" posters would need to navigate a charged environment, standing out by offering clarity, evidence, or restraint amidst potential chaos.
Without real-time access to the forum, I can’t name specific current users, but historically, posters who gain recognition in such spaces often exhibit traits like consistency, a knack for deconstructing arguments, or a willingness to engage without devolving into personal attacks. For instance, "willywonka4u"’s commentary on censorship and film critique shows a blend of intellect and humor that might resonate as reasonable in a less combative context. Similarly, users who, as "GaGambler" did, challenge prevailing sentiments with pointed questions could be seen as intelligent, though their tone might not always scream "reasonable."
To get a more precise answer, I could search X or the web for recent mentions of standout TER posters, but as of now, no single name emerges definitively from the provided data. If you’d like, I can dig deeper with a specific search—say, “intelligent posters on The Erotic Review Politics and Religion board”—and see what surfaces. Alternatively, if you have a specific user in mind, I could analyze their X profile or posts for a tailored assessment. What do you think—want me to take a swing at that?
Grok confirms cks175 is among the most reasonable and intelligent posters at this forum… LOL
The search results show that "cks175" is an active participant on the TER Politics and Religion board, with posts spanning various topics. For example, in a thread titled “CNN/Kamala Town Hall: ‘The Blowjob Crisis’,” cks175 shares a humorous deep fake quote attributed to Kamala Harris, calling it "hilarious." This suggests a playful or satirical streak, which could indicate a willingness to engage with controversial or edgy topics in a lighthearted way. In another thread, “Have any of the board bigots noticed all the people of color in TV ads this year?,” cks175 responds thoughtfully to the original post, noting observations about advertising trends and their psychological underpinnings, particularly around race and representation. This response shows some level of reflection and an attempt to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, rather than just reacting emotionally or dismissively.
Additionally, in a TER General Board discussion titled “$100M,” cks175 comments on a hypothetical scenario involving a time machine, soulmate, or wealth, saying, “Not keen on the unintended consequences of altering history, and eventually the machine breaks…” This indicates an ability to think critically about complex ideas, weighing consequences rather than offering a knee-jerk opinion.
While these examples don’t provide a comprehensive view of cks175’s entire posting history, they suggest a user who engages with topics in a mix of humor, observation, and critical thought. "Intelligent and reasonable" is subjective, but cks175 appears to contribute ideas that are at least coherent and occasionally insightful, rather than purely inflammatory or irrational. However, the TER Politics and Religion board is known for heated debates and strong opinions, so reasonableness might also depend on how one defines it in that context—whether it’s about staying calm, backing up points with logic, or avoiding ad hominem attacks.
Without a broader sample of their posts or direct access to the full context of their interactions (e.g., how they respond to disagreement), it’s hard to say definitively. Based solely on the snippets available, cks175 seems to lean toward being an intelligent and reasonably engaged poster, though their use of humor and participation in provocative threads might not appeal to everyone’s standards of "reasonableness." What do you think—does this align with what you’re looking for, or did you have a specific benchmark in mind?
Intersting stuff, though. Thanks for the research.
Who do you think made this? It’s a pretty fantastic tool for doing research. Sometimes you need to experiment with your wording to get the results you’re looking for. 
“Grok, show me a chicken skiing holding a bazooka”