US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2423

On October 20 2015 12:22 Slaughter wrote:
I have been thinking about taxes for a bit and I was wondering for those of you here who are more knowledgeable in social/political/economic theory. Has anyone tried or proposed funding of specific things through voluntary tax options? Take something as currently contentious as planned parenthood. Instead of all this pretty useless arguing about its funding, why not have a section on tax forms that ask if you would want to willingly give extra money towards w/e program (in this example planned parent hood). These programs or w/e it is could make presentations of their benefits and make their cases. So like little ways for people to directly put their tax dollars where they want them to go. Obviously not on a huge scale.

This idea kind of struck me due to stores who sometimes ask "do you want to add $1 to your order for such and such charity?"

Just curious.

It began as whispers in hushed corners: Could it ever happen? And now, just three months from the Iowa caucuses, members of the Republican establishment are starting to give voice to an increasingly common belief that Donald Trump, once dismissed as joke, a carnival barker, and a circus freak, might very well win the nomination.

“Trump is a serious player for the nomination at this time,” says Ed Rollins, who served as the national campaign director for Reagan’s 1984 reelection and as campaign chairman for Mike Huckabee in 2008.

Rollins is not alone in his views. “Trump has sustained a lead for longer than there are days left” before voting begins in Iowa, says Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “For a long time,” Schmidt says, “you were talking to people in Washington, and there was a belief that there was an expiration date to this, as if there’s some secret group of people who have the ability to control the process.”

But for Trump, a dip in the polls after the second debate that many predicted was the beginning of the end has arrested; and for nearly four months, he has remained at the top of the polls. Now, long-time GOP strategists who were expecting Trump’s act to wear thin a couple of months ago worry that he can’t be stopped, or at least that he has a significant chance of winning the nomination.

It’s a drastic departure from the near-universal sentiment of the Republican establishment voiced when Trump announced his candidacy in June.

“I know all of us dismissed Trump, early on, all of the so-called experts,” Fox News’s Chris Wallace said Sunday. “‘Summer fling,’ ‘momentary amusement.’” But Wallace, who interviewed Trump late last week and aired portions of the interview on his show Sunday, said he finds himself feeling differently now. “As I watched that interview and I heard what he had to say . . . I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States,” he said.

On October 20 2015 13:11 RenSC2 wrote:

Cool idea. I don't like anything the government does, I will thus pay $0 in taxes.

The idea falls apart very fast under scrutiny. The reason why we have taxes and not donations in the first place is that we feel that certain things must be funded even if people don't want to fund them sufficiently. So the government takes from everyone to make sure that those essentials get paid for.

Currently, our government sees the services that PP provides as important enough to our society to use tax dollars on it. You may not like it, but if you look through the budget, I'd bet there are a whole lot of things you'd dislike. PP is just one of many and at least in its case, it is very likely driving down government costs in other areas due to the work they do.

On October 20 2015 12:35 Nyxisto wrote:
That does sound more like charity than taxation though. I also don't think fundamental public tasks, in the case of planned parenthood healthcare for women is something that should fall under that category. I think on the contrary way too many jobs that should be covered by strong institutions have been handed over to charity or dubious semi-private schemes in almost all Western countries over the last two or three decades.

Just look at how many volunteers it takes in Germany to take care of the refugee situation. Without the goodwill of the population we'd be in deep shit. Under normal circumstances politics should take care of such things, that's what politicians are payed for. Delegating fundamental stuff to volunteers to save some bucks or to appease parties sounds troublesome.

On October 20 2015 13:31 zlefin wrote:
Slaughter -> such things are found.
The issues with them have already been covered by the other posters.
I'm not familiar with what effects they've had in practice; the massachusetts and new york state forms both have options for such

http://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/current_forms/it/it201_fill_in.pdf line 60
http://www.mass.gov/dor/docs/dor/forms/inctax14/f1-nrpy/form-1.pdf line 32

If you want to research those and see how well they've worked in practice.

More than 80 companies — including Nike, Ikea and Procter & Gamble — have announced actions they will take to reduce their carbon emissions and have pledged their support for the Paris climate talks this December.

In signing the American Business Act on Climate pledge, sponsored by President Barack Obama, each company agreed Monday to take steps — including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, ramping up the use of renewable energy sources, increasing carbon capture methods and limiting waste — to reduce their impact on the environment and help avert the worst effects of global warming.

“Countries and communities around the world are already being affected by deeper, more persistent droughts, pounded by more severe weather, inundated by bigger storm surges and imperiled by more frequent and dangerous wildfires," the White House said in a news release.

At the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP 21) climate negotiations in Paris this December, world leaders will gather to pledge action on global warming — culminating in the signing of a global climate treaty. Obama has said the United States will cut nearly 6 billion tons of carbon pollution through 2030.

The U.S. needs the needs the private sector to reach that goal. Electricity generation, transportation and industry are the top three contributors to U.S. emissions, accounting for 31 percent, 27 percent and 21 percent, respectively. The agriculture sector accounts for about 9 percent of U.S. emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Climate change control advocates welcomed the companies’ commitments.

The moderate wing of the GOP is concerned that if the House cannot coalesce behind Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) or someone like him as speaker, some of the more pragmatic members of the caucus will retire, the National Journal reported Monday.

“De­pend­ing on how this shakes out, you may see some Main Street mem­bers re­tire,” Sarah Cham­ber­lain -- chief op­er­at­ing and fin­an­cial of­ficer for the Republic­an Main Street Part­ner­ship, which supports moderate GOP lawmakers -- told the National Journal. "They’re hop­ing for a Ry­an-type can­did­ate. But if it’s not and it be­comes a huge mess, why be sit­ting here?”

Two of the most vocal GOP critics of the conservative hardliners who have been roiling House leadership suggested to National Journal that the thought of retirement was weighing on members' minds, even if they themselves weren't currently considering stepping down.


“A lot has been put on hold in both ways—people de­cid­ing to run again, or not run again,” Rep. Pete King (R-NY) told National Journal, while saying he personally is not considering retiring "be­cause you can’t give in."

Likewise, Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) said he was "pre­par­ing as if I’m run­ning for reelec­tion right now."

"But we’ll see what hap­pens. The next two months are go­ing to be pretty intense,” Dent said.

On October 21 2015 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:



Well the establishment Republican party is in it's death throws...


Mission accomplished?

I'm not going to lie about the fact that the leading nominee for the republican party saying he doesn't buy the standby Republican line about Bush keeping us safe, thinks going to Iraq was a downright stupid idea, thinks everyone should have access to healthcare (regardless of income), and and says he's basically against citizens united makes me laugh.

Is Canada a preview for the "liberal" sweep coming down here? Ryan was the house's go to guy, now it sounds even if they got him to say yes he wouldn't have the votes.

Republicans literally can't lead themselves and they think people are going to hand them the country!?

On October 21 2015 03:46 Plansix wrote:

Its hard to lead when the base they created wouldn’t understand what it was if they did. The simple fact is that the people who like Trump and think he “Will make America Great Again” don’t know what they want. What they do know is that they blame the government, Obama and politicians for all of their problems and they wanted it torn down.

And people are idiots and think Trump will serve the people. Bucking the “establishment’ means you don’t want to listen to people who are in power. Its also means you might not listen to the voters either. But the idea the Trump is in it for just Trump never crosses their minds. Or they truly believe that voting for a self serving bigot will somehow improve their life.

Or they truly believe that voting for a self serving bigot will somehow improve their life.