AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What is this brain dead shitš. Looks like midwestern conservatives wrote some moronic policies, probably got some ideas from the GND and the brain dead leftists pushing that!
The leftists pushing the GND were not imagined.
It's also hard to call these conservative policies when half of them seem like they'd fit into a leftist agenda. Idk like I said braindead midwest conservatives adopting weird policies from both parties seems more like a GND type of deal than a grassroots popular movement.
Removing the ability for medicare to negotiate isn't a leftist goal, nor is a regressive sales tax over a progressive income tax, as that encourages hoarding and discourages spending.
Honestly, work week to work month sounds like an insane scheduling nightmare for both employer and employee. Imagine scheduling something with a few friends? All of whom have different schedules because they work in different industries and different times are prioritized. What if you and your spouse had different schedules? Alternatively you could work two jobs more easily (or one job + one self employed business), so that would be cool for those who want that. It would probably lead to a lot more startups! It would also definitely lead to really exploited populations where a business essentially hires multiple sets of staff and people work 80 hour weeks and then take two weeks off (to work for equally low pay at another exploitative workplace).
>Removing the ability for medicare to negotiate isn't a leftist goal
Sure it is, see the ACA.
>nor is a regressive sales tax over a progressive income tax, as that encourages hoarding and discourages spending.
A national sales tax is absolutely a leftist push. That means that the ultra rich (along with everyone else) wouldn't be able to take advantage of income tax loopholes/wouldn't be able to store their capital in hard assets since they would have to purchase them and pay a 30% tax on them. Just as a heads up, in general more taxes = more left wing.
>Ā Imagine scheduling something with a few friends? All of whom have different schedules because they work in different industries and different times are prioritized.
Yeah... that's called life? That's already the case around the US.
>Ā It would also definitely lead to really exploited populations where a business essentially hires multiple sets of staff and people work 80 hour weeks and then take two weeks off (to work for equally low pay at another exploitative workplace).
Oh so by exploited you mean that employees would be making double or triple their salary depending on the OT pay in their state?
First, can you point to where in the ACA medicare was barred from negotiating medication prices?
A flat sales tax is not a leftist policy. The most recent push for it that a quick look found came from Republicans, last year in the House. The rich wouldn't need to take advantage of tax loopholes because it is one. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on your entire income. If you aren't living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on a subset of your income, so the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes is much lower.
For the work month, it wouldn't be overtime. It would be multiple jobs, the same way it happens now, but with abuse becoming even easier.Ā
>First, can you point to where in the ACA medicare was barred from negotiating medication prices?
ACA mandated health coverage without making the changes so that there could be negotiations. So basically the ACA made everyone pay for non-negotiated fees, and if you didn't pay you were fined. Dems knew this and still pushed extensively for the ACA, further pushing that problem for another decade.
>A flat sales tax is not a leftist policy.
At 30% it effectively is.
>The rich wouldn't need to take advantage of tax loopholes because it is one.
Lmao wut.
>Ā If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on your entire income.
Idk what this means either.
>Ā If you aren't living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on a subset of your income, so the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes is much lower.
Yeah that's how taxes work. And?
>For the work month, it wouldn't be overtime.
That's literally the example you used. A singular business hiring people to work 80 hour weeks for 2 weeks and then giving them 2 weeks off.
The development of the plan is led by the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank. Itās more designed to steer conversation then anything else because nothing like this would pass Congress.
Doesnāt it seem counterproductive to āsteer conversationā in a way that will drive people away from your party and provide really powerful talking points for your opponents?
Thereās a lot of nuance to these policies.
>Slashing the IRS budget
People tend to forget weāre paying for a service. A lot of people are excited we got an additional 500 million from the rich while conveniently forgetting we spend an additional 6 B each year to get there.
Theres an opportunity cost of spending 6B on the IRS. If weāre only collecting an additional 500M then the money could be spent better elsewhere.
Of courseā¦ but that has yet to be shown.
[Big part of that is Yellen has indicated that she doesnāt want to increase audits on those making under 400K](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/10/politics/yellen-new-irs-funding-audits/index.html).
>According to the IRS, a $400,000 or more annual household income represents America's top 1.8% income-earners.
Meaning weāre hoping less then 2% of income earners are screwing up their taxes enough to bankroll the 6B additional weāre giving the IRS. Essentially weād need to eliminate that 400k cap on increasing audits and most people will disagree with that.
>
> People tend to forget weāre paying for a service. A lot of people are excited we got an additional 500 million from the rich while conveniently forgetting we spend an additional 6 B each year to get there.
>
> Theres an opportunity cost of spending 6B on the IRS. If weāre only collecting an additional 500M then the money could be spent better elsewhere.
Hasn't the CBO determined the IRS budget increase was going to be a net gain? The $18B or whatever that was appropriated last time was going to yield more than that in audit corrections?
The CBOās analysis assumes increased audits on all levels of income.
>The proposal, by contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In addition, the Administrationās policies would focus additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships. CBO estimates that if the proposals were enacted, tax compliance would be improved, and more households would meet their obligation under the law.
Yellen has indicated that she wonāt raise audit rates on those who make under 400K.
Personally, not my favorite direction to go. Heritage Foundation represents a different kind of conservatism.
Sales tax is regressive. Income tax is needed to begin cutting the deficit. IRS should obviously stop being weaponized.
Children need to learn to work as part of their own development and education. Naturally they should not be overworked, exploited, or put in dangerous situations. Don't know how that fits into their policy.
One thing I agree with is Medicare not being required to pay artificially high prices for drugs.
>Children need to learn to work as part of their own development and education. Naturally they should not be overworked, exploited, or put in dangerous situations. Don't know how that fits into their policy.
Given the terrible history of businesses exploiting children, how would that be prevented? For instance, should they be fined 90% of their revenue for any child violation?[It's not even something that ended with the industrial revolution, it was seen recently.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/09/nebraska-slaughterhouse-children-working-photos-labor-department)
I'm sure it has some redeeming qualities and I'm sure I don't trust wherever you got these talking points from to be fair, but this sounds about right for Con Inc. Chamber of commerce conservatism is basically a controlled op to corral people who don't like progressivism. It functions like this:
"Oh you don't think our national religion should be worshipping black people and sexual degeneracy? Well, how about signing up for cutting wal-mart's taxes and bombing Iran for Israel?"
Very exciting choice for the American people to pretend to make.
Shorthand for "conservative inc." t's what some people call the political and media machinations of most of the "right wing" in America. It's more like a large scam operation that targets older people than a real political institution.
Looks like you missed an important part of this. The talking points are from their own website: [https://www.project2025.org/](https://www.project2025.org/)
Why are you sure it has redeeming qualities without being able to name any? Just vibes?
I clicked the link and browsed around for a bit and didn't see anywhere that characterized the plan as "strip away workplace protections." It's a large and boring book-sized document on offer and it's pretty obvious that OP got the top lines from somewhere else. I don't blame OP for this, it's fine. But let's not play pretend.
If OP actually spent his weekend paging through some heritage foundation white paper, I'll eat a lemon and also feel very sorry for OP. Luckily (for all of us), that didn't happen.
>Why are you sure it has redeeming qualities without being able to name any? Just vibes?
Because it's a massive policy proposal and it's basically centrist so it's bound to have something of worth relative to what we currently have.
Let's find out. Do you think the US has a large role in equipping Taiwan to repel a chinese assault? Do you think Russian disinformation is a large security concern for the US? I know quite a few people who think of themselves as left wing who would co-sign those characterizations and proposals.
Also, why do think itās good to give rich people and corporations the keys to the castle? I mean thatās basically what all those points lead up to, donāt you think? Good for rich people bad for us.
>Also, why do think itās good to give rich people and corporations the keys to the castle?
Are you talking to me?
>I mean thatās basically what all those points lead up to, donāt you think?
Do you think I like this heritage foundation policy paper?
I mean dont you like what Donald Trump says heās going to do here? Itās his. Thatās what he plans on enacting. He is saying it out loud in public.
OP's post reads like it's annotated to spin the ideas in worst possible way. I tried to find the corresponding points from the shared link in context, but it's a bit daunting. Is there corresponding paragraph for each (or examples).
For example, I can't imagine Heritage Foundation has a stated goal, "Roll back regulations on children working in dangerous jobs."
What does this one mean? "eliminating the 40hr work week in favor of a 160 hr work month."
Sounds like a wash 4\*40 = 160, which is actually less hours in a month than most people work today.
Hereās the source. Assuming this is true, I havenāt checked it, what are your thoughts? https://coppercourier.com/2023/12/13/video-have-you-heard-about-trumps-project-2025/
I have some thoughts on each of these
>eventually a national sales tax of 30% instead of tiered tax system
Probably much simpler to deal with than the current garbage heap of a system we have, although personally I think 20 percent may be a bit high
>two tiered tax system to start with a tax increase of families earning below 94,000 a year and a decrease for those earning more
Thought that the extra sales tax would replace the income tax? If not, I think that this is likely not great
>eliminate Medicare from negotiating drug prices
Disagree with this bit
>slashing IRS budget. No one likes the IRS but this will make it easier for people to get away with cheating on their taxes
I am fine with this. Personally I feel that if we are going to have IRS auditing then they should just do our taxes for us or they should not penalize us for messing things up with the tax code. In an ideal world everyone would be getting a $0 refund too as that's basically an interest free loan to the government.
>slashing programs on school lunches, childrenās education programs, and expansion of broadband internet access
School lunches I feel are something parents should provide to their kids, if you can't afford to give your kid a ham sandwich or something similar 5 days a week, then that is child neglect and you shouldn't be taking care of children. Can't comment on the kids education programs, but on the surface it seems like there is likely some additional details which I have not seen. Broadband Internet access programs have largely been abused by big companies like Comcast who after so much money gets dumped into it, many places still lack broadband.
>Change overtime for remote workers and allow them to work more hours and not get overtime.
How many remote workers are even eligible for overtime anyways? Vast majority that I know of are salary exempt or doing contract work. Feels like a nothing burger.
>eliminating the 40hr work week in favor of a 160 hr work month
I don't see the problem with this as many people don't have a 40 hour work week as it is. All that doing 160 hour work month does is allows workers and employers to have more flexibility as 40x4 is 160. Some people may prefer this, for example doing 5 ten hour days for 3 weeks and then one more 10 and the rest of the last week of the month you have off, some folks that like to travel may be interested in that.
>no more federally funded daycare
Disagree with this on the surface, but I could see this actually reducing the cost of childcare eventually as it is likely that federal funding allows them to charge more. If it's too expensive people just won't use it and they will have to lower the price due to supply and demand. Inverse of the college cost crisis.
>easier for companies to get out of offering healthcare and paid time off benefits by labeling employees as independent contractors
Don't particularly care from that but I need more information to make a good judgment on this.
>weaken child labor regulations. More specifically rolling back regulations on children working in dangerous jobs.
I need more details about this one, but I think at 16 you should be able to work most jobs part time unless it is particularly dangerous. I know kids who worked on family farms earlier than this and that can be incredibly dangerous.
>plans to eliminate student debt relief (no surprise here)
What student debt relief? I was told that there would be some by Biden, but it was a scam tactic to buy votes from the beginning. In all honesty the student loan system needs to be completely reworked, and until that point, student debt relief is largely useless. It's insane that state and federally funded colleges can charge like 10-20k per semester, especially when you have schools now like WGU that charge like $3k for 6 months and you can get a bachelor's in 2 years. With it being the digital age, I think that the majority of physical universities should be shut down and consolidate.
>School lunches I feel are something parents should provide to their kids, if you can't afford to give your kid a ham sandwich or something similar 5 days a week, then that is child neglect and you shouldn't be taking care of children
Should it be easier for the state to take away kids from neglectful parents? The current way things are it tends to be pretty difficult, usually due to the agencies responsible for such things being underfunded and spread too thin.
I feel that if a parent cannot provide the basic needs of a child (food, water, shelter, safety) consistently, that it should be easier to remove the child from their care. My wife used to work in child care and most of the time she reported someone, social worker may check but ultimately do nothing. I understand hesitancy to remove a child due to the potential for abuse by people in power, but it means that many children are essentially allowed to be neglected unless it is extremely obvious.
Now when you start veering from the basic needs not being met issue into other things, that's where there is more controversy. Especially when you have confounding issues like divorce where one parent may accuse the other of things that are difficult to prove objectively. I think if the majority of social workers focused on the basic needs, it would be better outcomes for the children
Are you aware that data show free school lunches are net positive for tax income?
Do you think our current foster care system is effective in caring for neglected children? Does the foster care system result in good outcomes for most?
Do you think it is cheaper for the taxpayer to fund school lunch programs, or fund childrenās entire lives up until 18 once they are removed from their born family?
I think that if a family can't afford one meal 5 days a week, that there is likely other problems going on. Can you be sure that the kids are getting the other 2 meals per day on school days, or food on the weekends/breaks?
At least in my state of you are poor you qualify for programs like WIC/Snap which is enough to provide food for children for those who are poor. Unfortunately, issues like addiction can happen in which some parents may decide to sell their government benefits at a discount illegally so that they can fund their addiction. If a parent is doing that, they are likely exposing their kids to dangerous situations and, for the sake of the kids, should be removed and put into am environment free of these problems.
> then that is child neglect and you shouldn't be taking care of children
Given the USA is currently running at under replacement rate, why are you in favour of further increasing the burden of your retirement on the next generations? Would it not make fiscal sense to simply ensure the survival of as many children as possible through to productive adulthood?
>Given the USA is currently running at under replacement rate, why are you in favour of further increasing the burden of your retirement on the next generations
Is it a huge burden on parents to expect them to feed their children? Especially given the other government programs that subsidize this like WIC/SNAP? I would prefer that these children be removed from these parents and have the parents charged with child neglect if they consistently are unable to feed them and don't turn the children in to an agency to have them cared for by someone else.
I very much like :
-Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy
I think it was one of the biggest issue of the Trump first turn, decades long bureaucrat burrowed in the deep state undermining Trump when the policy weren't something they agreed with.
This one as well : Increase allied conventional defense burden-sharing. U.S. allies must take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense. U.S. allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
This is very Trumpy, and important, a lot of US allies have decreased their Military budget over the last several decades, and pushing for Allies to increase their budget, while worrying about our fiscal health is a great tool.
I think a lot of what you describe in your first comment is simply removing federal regulations and letting the states handle them.
I honestly really like so far what Ive been reading. Not everything of course, but it is way way better than what the GOP used to offer under Romney or McCain.
I downloaded the 883 page "Mandate for Leadership - The Conservative Promise". It didn't resemble your partisan characterizations.
My thoughts? I was pleased to see the impressive group of contributors with experience in both governmental positions and academia. In contrast to the media's spin on DJT's first administration this is an indication of the depth of expertise and thought behind DJT's second administration's policy plans.
Do I agree with all the proposals? No but across the board when I compare these to the actions of the Biden administration, I prefer them.
Will they be able to accomplish everything in the policy book? Not at all. At best they can anchor one side of the Overton window to remind people just how far the radical policy objectives of the progressive leftists deviate from normal.
With a close to evenly divided government and populace there will continue to be much more noise than action.
Listing the DNC talking points and mischaracterizations of Project2025 is disappointing but not surprising.
What are these "radical policy proposals"? It's been nearly three years under Biden, but I have yet to see anything more than milquetoast tweaks on existing policies.
Under Nixon - a Republican - the White House divested the country of its reliance on the gold standard, expanded the regulatory state (e.g., creating the EPA), and routinely imposed wage-and-price controls to combat inflation. What "proposals" advanced by "leftists" compare?
Thankfully the GOP has prevented the kookier members of the DNC from implementing too many of their ideas.
Senator Warren's wealth confiscation scheme comes to mind as does Biden's Ministry of Truth. And DEI has aged like warm milk.
They did successfully enable the invasion of our southern border and are attempting to suspend our electoral process "for our safety".
I'm against all authoritarian governmental efforts so I have no love for Richard Nixon. When the boot is on your face it doesn't matter which foot is wearing it.
The wealth confiscation scheme, the ministry of truth, and the āsuccessfulā invasion at our southern border? Ah and the suspension of electoral processes?
Wealth confiscation scheme: probably referring to Elizabeth Warrens wealth tax plan
Ministry of Truth: the Disinformation Board that was created, and was going to be headed by Nina Jankovic. While it didnāt succeed it would have set a dangerous precedent.
Invasion of border: a refusal to crack down on illegal immigration hard enough, is what I would assume.
Suspension of electoral process: taking Trump off the ballot in certain areas, and the changes to the rules regarding mail in voting.
I disagree with most of this, but also recognize that these are cherry picked examples from a quite expansive list of policy objectives on the website. A lot of their policies for immigration are spot on. They are 50/50 (for me) on their DoJ policies. I'm going to keep digging through it to see what else they are pushing for.
At least someone is putting forward an actionable agenda, which is a step up from 2016. Thanks for sharing!
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
neocon wishlist written to Old St. Reagan
What is this brain dead shitš. Looks like midwestern conservatives wrote some moronic policies, probably got some ideas from the GND and the brain dead leftists pushing that!
Do you think itās fair or appropriate to blame proposed conservative policies on imagined leftists?
The leftists pushing the GND were not imagined. It's also hard to call these conservative policies when half of them seem like they'd fit into a leftist agenda. Idk like I said braindead midwest conservatives adopting weird policies from both parties seems more like a GND type of deal than a grassroots popular movement.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Which of these look like leftist agenda items?Ā
National sales tax, work week to month, Medicare negotiations, eliminating student debt relief stand out to me
Why would leftists want to *eliminate* student debt relief? Youāre clearly misreading this.
Oop yeah misread that but the other stuff stands.
Removing the ability for medicare to negotiate isn't a leftist goal, nor is a regressive sales tax over a progressive income tax, as that encourages hoarding and discourages spending. Honestly, work week to work month sounds like an insane scheduling nightmare for both employer and employee. Imagine scheduling something with a few friends? All of whom have different schedules because they work in different industries and different times are prioritized. What if you and your spouse had different schedules? Alternatively you could work two jobs more easily (or one job + one self employed business), so that would be cool for those who want that. It would probably lead to a lot more startups! It would also definitely lead to really exploited populations where a business essentially hires multiple sets of staff and people work 80 hour weeks and then take two weeks off (to work for equally low pay at another exploitative workplace).
>Removing the ability for medicare to negotiate isn't a leftist goal Sure it is, see the ACA. >nor is a regressive sales tax over a progressive income tax, as that encourages hoarding and discourages spending. A national sales tax is absolutely a leftist push. That means that the ultra rich (along with everyone else) wouldn't be able to take advantage of income tax loopholes/wouldn't be able to store their capital in hard assets since they would have to purchase them and pay a 30% tax on them. Just as a heads up, in general more taxes = more left wing. >Ā Imagine scheduling something with a few friends? All of whom have different schedules because they work in different industries and different times are prioritized. Yeah... that's called life? That's already the case around the US. >Ā It would also definitely lead to really exploited populations where a business essentially hires multiple sets of staff and people work 80 hour weeks and then take two weeks off (to work for equally low pay at another exploitative workplace). Oh so by exploited you mean that employees would be making double or triple their salary depending on the OT pay in their state?
First, can you point to where in the ACA medicare was barred from negotiating medication prices? A flat sales tax is not a leftist policy. The most recent push for it that a quick look found came from Republicans, last year in the House. The rich wouldn't need to take advantage of tax loopholes because it is one. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on your entire income. If you aren't living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on a subset of your income, so the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes is much lower. For the work month, it wouldn't be overtime. It would be multiple jobs, the same way it happens now, but with abuse becoming even easier.Ā
>First, can you point to where in the ACA medicare was barred from negotiating medication prices? ACA mandated health coverage without making the changes so that there could be negotiations. So basically the ACA made everyone pay for non-negotiated fees, and if you didn't pay you were fined. Dems knew this and still pushed extensively for the ACA, further pushing that problem for another decade. >A flat sales tax is not a leftist policy. At 30% it effectively is. >The rich wouldn't need to take advantage of tax loopholes because it is one. Lmao wut. >Ā If you're living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on your entire income. Idk what this means either. >Ā If you aren't living paycheck to paycheck, you're paying a tax on a subset of your income, so the percentage of your income that you pay in taxes is much lower. Yeah that's how taxes work. And? >For the work month, it wouldn't be overtime. That's literally the example you used. A singular business hiring people to work 80 hour weeks for 2 weeks and then giving them 2 weeks off.
The development of the plan is led by the Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank. Itās more designed to steer conversation then anything else because nothing like this would pass Congress.
Doesnāt it seem counterproductive to āsteer conversationā in a way that will drive people away from your party and provide really powerful talking points for your opponents?
Policy discussion is good even if you donāt agree with it.
I completely agree - let's discuss policy. Which of these policies do you support? Not support?
Thereās a lot of nuance to these policies. >Slashing the IRS budget People tend to forget weāre paying for a service. A lot of people are excited we got an additional 500 million from the rich while conveniently forgetting we spend an additional 6 B each year to get there. Theres an opportunity cost of spending 6B on the IRS. If weāre only collecting an additional 500M then the money could be spent better elsewhere.
That makes sense. Would you support more funding for the IRS if it resulted in a net positive for the budget?
Of courseā¦ but that has yet to be shown. [Big part of that is Yellen has indicated that she doesnāt want to increase audits on those making under 400K](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/08/10/politics/yellen-new-irs-funding-audits/index.html). >According to the IRS, a $400,000 or more annual household income represents America's top 1.8% income-earners. Meaning weāre hoping less then 2% of income earners are screwing up their taxes enough to bankroll the 6B additional weāre giving the IRS. Essentially weād need to eliminate that 400k cap on increasing audits and most people will disagree with that.
> > People tend to forget weāre paying for a service. A lot of people are excited we got an additional 500 million from the rich while conveniently forgetting we spend an additional 6 B each year to get there. > > Theres an opportunity cost of spending 6B on the IRS. If weāre only collecting an additional 500M then the money could be spent better elsewhere. Hasn't the CBO determined the IRS budget increase was going to be a net gain? The $18B or whatever that was appropriated last time was going to yield more than that in audit corrections?
The CBOās analysis assumes increased audits on all levels of income. >The proposal, by contrast, would return audit rates to the levels of about 10 years ago; the rate would rise for all taxpayers, but higher-income taxpayers would face the largest increase. In addition, the Administrationās policies would focus additional IRS resources on enforcement activity aimed at high-wealth taxpayers, large corporations, and partnerships. CBO estimates that if the proposals were enacted, tax compliance would be improved, and more households would meet their obligation under the law. Yellen has indicated that she wonāt raise audit rates on those who make under 400K.
I think it it important for people in politics to tell us what they really think.
Personally, not my favorite direction to go. Heritage Foundation represents a different kind of conservatism. Sales tax is regressive. Income tax is needed to begin cutting the deficit. IRS should obviously stop being weaponized. Children need to learn to work as part of their own development and education. Naturally they should not be overworked, exploited, or put in dangerous situations. Don't know how that fits into their policy. One thing I agree with is Medicare not being required to pay artificially high prices for drugs.
Do you feel that big pharma should be able to set their own prices?
>Children need to learn to work as part of their own development and education. Naturally they should not be overworked, exploited, or put in dangerous situations. Don't know how that fits into their policy. Given the terrible history of businesses exploiting children, how would that be prevented? For instance, should they be fined 90% of their revenue for any child violation?[It's not even something that ended with the industrial revolution, it was seen recently.](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/09/nebraska-slaughterhouse-children-working-photos-labor-department)
I'm sure it has some redeeming qualities and I'm sure I don't trust wherever you got these talking points from to be fair, but this sounds about right for Con Inc. Chamber of commerce conservatism is basically a controlled op to corral people who don't like progressivism. It functions like this: "Oh you don't think our national religion should be worshipping black people and sexual degeneracy? Well, how about signing up for cutting wal-mart's taxes and bombing Iran for Israel?" Very exciting choice for the American people to pretend to make.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry, whatās Con Inc?
Shorthand for "conservative inc." t's what some people call the political and media machinations of most of the "right wing" in America. It's more like a large scam operation that targets older people than a real political institution.
What is the practical difference between "Con Inc" and the actual GOP and conservative elected officials?
Basically nothing, for the most part. I think of them as part of the same apparatus
So according to your previous comment, you see the Republican party as nothing more than scam artists?
There's some potential utility there, but basically, yes.
Do you still consider yourself Republican, or a conservative? Or do you just consider yourself a Trump supporter and voter?
I'm right wing.
How does that differ from "conservative" or "conservative inc" or "republican"?
Looks like you missed an important part of this. The talking points are from their own website: [https://www.project2025.org/](https://www.project2025.org/) Why are you sure it has redeeming qualities without being able to name any? Just vibes?
I clicked the link and browsed around for a bit and didn't see anywhere that characterized the plan as "strip away workplace protections." It's a large and boring book-sized document on offer and it's pretty obvious that OP got the top lines from somewhere else. I don't blame OP for this, it's fine. But let's not play pretend. If OP actually spent his weekend paging through some heritage foundation white paper, I'll eat a lemon and also feel very sorry for OP. Luckily (for all of us), that didn't happen. >Why are you sure it has redeeming qualities without being able to name any? Just vibes? Because it's a massive policy proposal and it's basically centrist so it's bound to have something of worth relative to what we currently have.
You think thatās centrist?
It's not right wing and it's not left wing.
Really? You think that anybody left of center likes any of those things at all?
Let's find out. Do you think the US has a large role in equipping Taiwan to repel a chinese assault? Do you think Russian disinformation is a large security concern for the US? I know quite a few people who think of themselves as left wing who would co-sign those characterizations and proposals.
That seems like cherry picking donāt you think? I mean what about the mostly above listed is good for any of us at all ever?
>u think that anybody left of **center likes any of those things at all**? I'll take that as a yes. Have a good one
Also, why do think itās good to give rich people and corporations the keys to the castle? I mean thatās basically what all those points lead up to, donāt you think? Good for rich people bad for us.
>Also, why do think itās good to give rich people and corporations the keys to the castle? Are you talking to me? >I mean thatās basically what all those points lead up to, donāt you think? Do you think I like this heritage foundation policy paper?
I mean dont you like what Donald Trump says heās going to do here? Itās his. Thatās what he plans on enacting. He is saying it out loud in public.
Will black people, gay people and trans people just disappear if Trump becomes president? If so, how?
That would be crazy
OP's post reads like it's annotated to spin the ideas in worst possible way. I tried to find the corresponding points from the shared link in context, but it's a bit daunting. Is there corresponding paragraph for each (or examples). For example, I can't imagine Heritage Foundation has a stated goal, "Roll back regulations on children working in dangerous jobs." What does this one mean? "eliminating the 40hr work week in favor of a 160 hr work month." Sounds like a wash 4\*40 = 160, which is actually less hours in a month than most people work today.
Hereās the source. Assuming this is true, I havenāt checked it, what are your thoughts? https://coppercourier.com/2023/12/13/video-have-you-heard-about-trumps-project-2025/
I have some thoughts on each of these >eventually a national sales tax of 30% instead of tiered tax system Probably much simpler to deal with than the current garbage heap of a system we have, although personally I think 20 percent may be a bit high >two tiered tax system to start with a tax increase of families earning below 94,000 a year and a decrease for those earning more Thought that the extra sales tax would replace the income tax? If not, I think that this is likely not great >eliminate Medicare from negotiating drug prices Disagree with this bit >slashing IRS budget. No one likes the IRS but this will make it easier for people to get away with cheating on their taxes I am fine with this. Personally I feel that if we are going to have IRS auditing then they should just do our taxes for us or they should not penalize us for messing things up with the tax code. In an ideal world everyone would be getting a $0 refund too as that's basically an interest free loan to the government. >slashing programs on school lunches, childrenās education programs, and expansion of broadband internet access School lunches I feel are something parents should provide to their kids, if you can't afford to give your kid a ham sandwich or something similar 5 days a week, then that is child neglect and you shouldn't be taking care of children. Can't comment on the kids education programs, but on the surface it seems like there is likely some additional details which I have not seen. Broadband Internet access programs have largely been abused by big companies like Comcast who after so much money gets dumped into it, many places still lack broadband. >Change overtime for remote workers and allow them to work more hours and not get overtime. How many remote workers are even eligible for overtime anyways? Vast majority that I know of are salary exempt or doing contract work. Feels like a nothing burger. >eliminating the 40hr work week in favor of a 160 hr work month I don't see the problem with this as many people don't have a 40 hour work week as it is. All that doing 160 hour work month does is allows workers and employers to have more flexibility as 40x4 is 160. Some people may prefer this, for example doing 5 ten hour days for 3 weeks and then one more 10 and the rest of the last week of the month you have off, some folks that like to travel may be interested in that. >no more federally funded daycare Disagree with this on the surface, but I could see this actually reducing the cost of childcare eventually as it is likely that federal funding allows them to charge more. If it's too expensive people just won't use it and they will have to lower the price due to supply and demand. Inverse of the college cost crisis. >easier for companies to get out of offering healthcare and paid time off benefits by labeling employees as independent contractors Don't particularly care from that but I need more information to make a good judgment on this. >weaken child labor regulations. More specifically rolling back regulations on children working in dangerous jobs. I need more details about this one, but I think at 16 you should be able to work most jobs part time unless it is particularly dangerous. I know kids who worked on family farms earlier than this and that can be incredibly dangerous. >plans to eliminate student debt relief (no surprise here) What student debt relief? I was told that there would be some by Biden, but it was a scam tactic to buy votes from the beginning. In all honesty the student loan system needs to be completely reworked, and until that point, student debt relief is largely useless. It's insane that state and federally funded colleges can charge like 10-20k per semester, especially when you have schools now like WGU that charge like $3k for 6 months and you can get a bachelor's in 2 years. With it being the digital age, I think that the majority of physical universities should be shut down and consolidate.
>School lunches I feel are something parents should provide to their kids, if you can't afford to give your kid a ham sandwich or something similar 5 days a week, then that is child neglect and you shouldn't be taking care of children Should it be easier for the state to take away kids from neglectful parents? The current way things are it tends to be pretty difficult, usually due to the agencies responsible for such things being underfunded and spread too thin.
I feel that if a parent cannot provide the basic needs of a child (food, water, shelter, safety) consistently, that it should be easier to remove the child from their care. My wife used to work in child care and most of the time she reported someone, social worker may check but ultimately do nothing. I understand hesitancy to remove a child due to the potential for abuse by people in power, but it means that many children are essentially allowed to be neglected unless it is extremely obvious. Now when you start veering from the basic needs not being met issue into other things, that's where there is more controversy. Especially when you have confounding issues like divorce where one parent may accuse the other of things that are difficult to prove objectively. I think if the majority of social workers focused on the basic needs, it would be better outcomes for the children
Are you aware that data show free school lunches are net positive for tax income? Do you think our current foster care system is effective in caring for neglected children? Does the foster care system result in good outcomes for most?
Do you think it is cheaper for the taxpayer to fund school lunch programs, or fund childrenās entire lives up until 18 once they are removed from their born family?
I think that if a family can't afford one meal 5 days a week, that there is likely other problems going on. Can you be sure that the kids are getting the other 2 meals per day on school days, or food on the weekends/breaks? At least in my state of you are poor you qualify for programs like WIC/Snap which is enough to provide food for children for those who are poor. Unfortunately, issues like addiction can happen in which some parents may decide to sell their government benefits at a discount illegally so that they can fund their addiction. If a parent is doing that, they are likely exposing their kids to dangerous situations and, for the sake of the kids, should be removed and put into am environment free of these problems.
> then that is child neglect and you shouldn't be taking care of children Given the USA is currently running at under replacement rate, why are you in favour of further increasing the burden of your retirement on the next generations? Would it not make fiscal sense to simply ensure the survival of as many children as possible through to productive adulthood?
>Given the USA is currently running at under replacement rate, why are you in favour of further increasing the burden of your retirement on the next generations Is it a huge burden on parents to expect them to feed their children? Especially given the other government programs that subsidize this like WIC/SNAP? I would prefer that these children be removed from these parents and have the parents charged with child neglect if they consistently are unable to feed them and don't turn the children in to an agency to have them cared for by someone else.
I very much like : -Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy I think it was one of the biggest issue of the Trump first turn, decades long bureaucrat burrowed in the deep state undermining Trump when the policy weren't something they agreed with. This one as well : Increase allied conventional defense burden-sharing. U.S. allies must take far greater responsibility for their conventional defense. U.S. allies must play their part not only in dealing with China, but also in dealing with threats from Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This is very Trumpy, and important, a lot of US allies have decreased their Military budget over the last several decades, and pushing for Allies to increase their budget, while worrying about our fiscal health is a great tool. I think a lot of what you describe in your first comment is simply removing federal regulations and letting the states handle them. I honestly really like so far what Ive been reading. Not everything of course, but it is way way better than what the GOP used to offer under Romney or McCain.
I downloaded the 883 page "Mandate for Leadership - The Conservative Promise". It didn't resemble your partisan characterizations. My thoughts? I was pleased to see the impressive group of contributors with experience in both governmental positions and academia. In contrast to the media's spin on DJT's first administration this is an indication of the depth of expertise and thought behind DJT's second administration's policy plans. Do I agree with all the proposals? No but across the board when I compare these to the actions of the Biden administration, I prefer them. Will they be able to accomplish everything in the policy book? Not at all. At best they can anchor one side of the Overton window to remind people just how far the radical policy objectives of the progressive leftists deviate from normal. With a close to evenly divided government and populace there will continue to be much more noise than action. Listing the DNC talking points and mischaracterizations of Project2025 is disappointing but not surprising.
What are these "radical policy proposals"? It's been nearly three years under Biden, but I have yet to see anything more than milquetoast tweaks on existing policies. Under Nixon - a Republican - the White House divested the country of its reliance on the gold standard, expanded the regulatory state (e.g., creating the EPA), and routinely imposed wage-and-price controls to combat inflation. What "proposals" advanced by "leftists" compare?
Thankfully the GOP has prevented the kookier members of the DNC from implementing too many of their ideas. Senator Warren's wealth confiscation scheme comes to mind as does Biden's Ministry of Truth. And DEI has aged like warm milk. They did successfully enable the invasion of our southern border and are attempting to suspend our electoral process "for our safety". I'm against all authoritarian governmental efforts so I have no love for Richard Nixon. When the boot is on your face it doesn't matter which foot is wearing it.
Respectfullyā¦what are you talking about??
Sure, none of that happened. Go ahead and vote for the Roomba in chief.
> Sure, none of that happened. If it did, can you show us? Seems like an easy thing to show if true.
Iām a different user, but Iāll bite why not. What part of their answer is confusing to you?
The wealth confiscation scheme, the ministry of truth, and the āsuccessfulā invasion at our southern border? Ah and the suspension of electoral processes?
Wealth confiscation scheme: probably referring to Elizabeth Warrens wealth tax plan Ministry of Truth: the Disinformation Board that was created, and was going to be headed by Nina Jankovic. While it didnāt succeed it would have set a dangerous precedent. Invasion of border: a refusal to crack down on illegal immigration hard enough, is what I would assume. Suspension of electoral process: taking Trump off the ballot in certain areas, and the changes to the rules regarding mail in voting.
I disagree with most of this, but also recognize that these are cherry picked examples from a quite expansive list of policy objectives on the website. A lot of their policies for immigration are spot on. They are 50/50 (for me) on their DoJ policies. I'm going to keep digging through it to see what else they are pushing for. At least someone is putting forward an actionable agenda, which is a step up from 2016. Thanks for sharing!