leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 5 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Nothing on health care and child care costs either and barely mentioned in the 16 page platform. Two other areas that could swing Independents to Democrats. True, but on the other hand, it’s fair to wonder how much extra disposable income people would have if our country made a serious and sustained push toward lower taxation (federal/state income, property, sales and gas tax), and true energy independence. I’ve read estimates as from 39-60% of gross income goes toward tax on some level for the typical American taxpayer. So, you make $120k, between $47k-60k goes to the crown in some way, shape or form. I understand the need for a healthy tax program, and have no issues with progressive tax, but that’s a lot of money that might go toward child care, health insurance and general well-being. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: and true energy independence What is this supposed to mean? https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6#:~:text=Crude oil exports of about,million b%2Fd in 2023. The U.S. is a net energy exporter. But that's apparently not "true" as defined by ... what? This is what happens when a Republican talking point is overtaken by events. Drill, baby, drill! We drilled. We became energy self-sufficient by anyone's standard definition. But now it's not "true" because that would mean admitting that continuing with our talking point is now stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 On 7/9/2024 at 1:38 AM, Doc Brown said: Not sure if this deserves its own thread but since Biden's staying in the race this will be the direction the country presumably takes starting next January. Here's the 20 platform bullet points released by the RNC panel in a 16 page platform released today. Some of it is a little too hyperbolic/fear mongering for my taste but it beats the alternative imo. On abortion: (cnbc article) On abortion, the changes are stark. The old platform took a hard-line stance against abortion, calling for a “human life amendment to the Constitution” in a lengthy passage that used the word “abortion” dozens of times. The Trump-backed platform uses the word just once, in a brief paragraph that expresses support for allowing states to pass their own abortion laws while vowing to oppose “Late Term Abortion.” On entitlement reform: The 2016 and 2020 platforms noted, “Medicare’s long-term debt is in the trillions, and it is funded by a workforce that is shrinking relative to the size of future beneficiaries. ... When a vital program is so clearly headed for a train wreck, it’s time to put it on a more secure track.” It proposed a handful of reforms, including setting “a more realistic age for eligibility in light of today’s longer life span.” The new platform erases any discussion about the challenges of keeping the programs solvent. “Republicans will tackle Inflation, unleash American Energy, restore Economic Growth, and secure our Borders to preserve Social Security and Medicare funding for the next Generation and beyond,” it reads. “We will ensure these programs remain solvent long into the future by reversing harmful Democrat policies and unleashing a new Economic Boom.” ----------- Trump helped devise this and he's pry the least ideological and most pragmatic president of my lifetime. He and his advisors recognize the two areas they'll attack Republicans the hardest with policy wise is claiming Republicans will push to legalize abortion nationally and they'll cut medicare and social security. Many Republicans pry wish the stance wasn't so soft but it's a smart calculation if you want to win elections this November imo. Thoughts? If you find these to be comprehensible policy goals, well, then you must have some kind of super-comprehension powers that I lack. "End inflation." As in zero inflation? Would that be good for the economy as a whole? "End" as in "go beyond Powell's 2 percent target?" "Bring inflation back to historical standards" would make sense. But that would assume that your voters are, well, intelligent rather than poorly educated. "Put Medicare on a more secure track" without changing it in any way. Yeah, that'll work. "Unleash American Energy," ignoring the fact that it is pretty much unleashed already. "Stop outsourcing." Oh, o.k. What outsourcing? Components for U.S. manufacturing? How about a 10-60% tariff? That'll drive up consumer costs for everything, making it completely inconsistent with the "end inflation." A platform for the poorly educated. Nonsense on stilts. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: What is this supposed to mean? https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6#:~:text=Crude oil exports of about,million b%2Fd in 2023. The U.S. is a net energy exporter. But that's apparently not "true" as defined by ... what? This is what happens when a Republican talking point is overtaken by events. Drill, baby, drill! We drilled. We became energy self-sufficient by anyone's standard definition. But now it's not "true" because that would mean admitting that continuing with our talking point is now stupid. For me, it's about affordable energy at reasonable prices sourced from the US whenever possible, free of excessive/burdensome regulation. This article describes the tension between regulators and providers of energy, and the net impact on consumers. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/state-officials-blame-federal-policy-higher-energy-prices-EPA/707608/ LS PS: You're stupid too! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted July 11 Share Posted July 11 DEMS hyperfocused on Trumps agenda. and all the propaganda surrounding it to make it seem scary. While they NEVER mention what Bidens agenda is? More of the same policies that are failing on a domestic and global level? ramped up a bit. Understandable why they keep the constant deflection to what MSNBCNYT/WA-Po says about the orange dude. Lot easier than trying to advocate for his pathetic ars and teams' blue's corporate and anti American agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts