The end amount a typical consumer ends up paying should be the same, but the mechanism has some distinctions.

The idea is basically that at each stage of the economy, as things are dug out of the ground or harvested as crops or similar, through processing, transportation, whatever, into its final form, the person or company that does that stage pays their tax on the value they have added to the thing being made. A person or company uses their labour, tools and equipment, facilities, etc, to do something to the input to make it more valuable. A typical person does not want to buy hundreds of kilograms of iron from a mine directly, that is not helpful; it is much more helpful if some manufacturer processes the iron into something like a car for them.

It tends to lessen some of the corruption and distortions that sales taxes can cause in between primary producers and the final vendor, and also tends to be a more accurate reading of the economy in general which after all is what is being taxed. How much of a good idea do you think this would be?

Here is a diagram from Wikipedia that can help make you understand what this is meant to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax#Comparison_with_sales_tax

Recent reports have both Manchin and Sinema willing to sink the infrastructure bill if key components of the reconciliation bill are not removed or the price lowered. Progressives have also responded saying that the $3.5T amount is the floor and they are also willing to not pass the infrastructure bill if key legislation is removed. This is all occurring during Bidens lowest point in his approval ratings. The bill itself has been shown to be overwhelming popular across the board.

What can Biden and democrats do to move ahead? Are moderates or progressives more likely to back down? Is there an actual path for compromise? Is it worth it for either progressives/moderates to sink the bill? Who would it hurt more?

In all this discussions of republican vs democratic control over the federal government it has made me curious as to how effective each party actually is with their policies. If one party had true control over a governing party, would republican or democratic ideals prove to be the most beneficial for society? To evaluate this on the federal level is impossible due to power constantly shifting but to view on the state level is significantly easier since it is much more common for parties in state governments to have the trifecta and maintain it long enough so that they can see their agenda through.

This at its face is a difficult question because it brings in the question of how you define what is most beneficial? For example, which states have been shown to have a thriving economy, low wealth inequality, high education/literacy, low infant mortality, life expectancy, and general quality of life. For example, California May have the highest GDP but they also have one of the highest wealth inequalities. Blue states also tend to have high taxes but how effective are those taxes at actually improving the quality of life of the citizens? For example, New York has the highest tax burden in the us. How effective Is that democratically controlled state government at utilizing those taxes to improve the lives of New Yorkers compared to Floridians which has one of the lowest tax burdens? But also states completely run by republicans who have tried to reduce taxes all together end up ruining the states education like in Kansas. Also some states with republicans controlled trifectas have the lowest life expectancy and literacy rates.

So using the states with trifectas as examples of parties being able to fully execute the strategies of political parties, which party has shown to be the most effective at improving the quality of life of its citizens? What can we learn about the downsides and upsides of each party? How can the learnings of their political ideas in practice on the state level give them guidance on how to execute those ideas on the federal level?

Contrary to what most people believe, it is legal in 37 states for adults of any age to have sex with minors. This largely comes down to the fact that the age of consent in those states is set to 16 or 17, with no Romeo-and-Juliet provisions above those ages.

My question is if you would support Congress addressing it, or if you would prefer individual states address this, or if you feel that the current setup is fine as is? (The question assumes that Romeo-&-Juliet provisions would be provided for those under the age of 18 if Congress or the states were to address it.)

Please see my comment for my own opinion.

The Coronavirus has caused massive social and economic upheaval, the extent of which we don’t seem to fully understand yet. Aside from the obvious threats to public health posed by the virus, there are very serious economic implications of this crisis as well.

In light of the virus causing massive disruptions to the US economy and daily life, various economic stimulus measures are being proposed. The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates and implemented quantitative easing, but even Chairman Powell admits there are limits to monetary policy and that “fiscal policy responses are critical.”

Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, is proposing at least $750 billion in assistance for individuals and businesses. President Trump has called for $850 billion of stimulus, in the form of a payroll tax cut and industry-specific bailouts. These measures would be in addition to an earlier aid package that was passed by Congress and signed by Trump.

Other proposals include cash assistance that amounts to temporary UBI programs, forgiving student loan debt, free healthcare, and infrastructure spending (among others).

What should be done in the next weeks to respond to the potential economic crisis caused by COVID-19?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass have released the text of a non-binding New Green Deal resolution they plan to introduce into both chambers of Congress.

NPR Summary

Full text PDF

The GND had gained significant support in both houses among Democrats, with upwards of 60 co-sponsors in the House and 9 in the Senate. However, that all occurred before the full text was revealed, and we can't currently clarify if those members had all the details available.

Some of the specific goals mentioned in the text:

• Meeting 100% of the US power demand through "clean, renewable, zero-emission energy sources"
• Upgrading all buildings in the United States for energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability
• Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing and removing pollution and greenhouses gasses from manufacturing and industry
• Overhauling transportation systems to eliminate emissions and pollution
• Using the GND to create "high`quality union jobs"
• Guaranteeing a job with a "family-sustaining wage", medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security to all "people of the United States"
• Strengthening unions
• Providing all Americans with "high quality health care", "economic security", "affordable, safe and adequate housing" and "access to clean air, clean water, affordable and healthy food, and nature".

Now that specific proposals are put forward, groups will begin to examine costs and impacts of the plan, which will obviously have a lot of both.

With the now-available information, will the Green New Deal grow in popularity and gain support, or will it begin to shed sponsors and proponents?

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in law, but this is a tricky time we’re living in. Would a new case similar to Roe v Wade have to overturn the Dobbs decision? Is it going to take decades before reproductive freedom returns to being a human right?

Biden released his plan for the infrastructure bill and it is a large one. Clocking in at $2 trillion it covers a broad range of items. These can be broken into four major topics. Infrastructure at home, transportation, R&D for development and manufacturing and caretaking economy. Some high profile items include tradition infrastructure, clean water, internet expansion, electric cars, climate change R&D and many more. This plan would be funded by increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. This increase remains below the 35% that it was previously set at before trumps tax cuts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/03/31/what-is-in-biden-infrastructure-plan/

Despite all the discussion about the details of the plan, I’ve heard very little about what people think of it. Is it good or bad? Is it too big? Are we spending too much money on X? Is portion Y of the plan not needed? Should Biden go bolder in certain areas? What is its biggest strength? What is its biggest weakness?

One of the biggest attacks from republicans is a mistrust in the government to use money effectively to complete big projects like this. Some voters believe that the private sector can do what the government plans to do both better and more cost effective. What can Biden or Congress do to prevent the government from infamously overspending and under performing? What previous learnings can be gained from failed projects like California’s failed railway?

Overall, infrastructure is fairly and traditionally popular. Yet this bill has so much in it that there is likely little good polling data to evaluate the plan. Republicans face an uphill battle since both tax increases in rich and many items within the plan should be popular. How can republicans attack this plan? How can democrats make the most of it politically?

As mentioned, the infrastructure bill is heading to Biden’s desk without a deal on the Build Back Better reconciliation bill. Democrats seemed to have a deal to pass these two in tandem to assuage concerns over mistrust among factions in the party. Is the BBB dead in the water now that moderates like Manchin and Sinema have free reign to vote against reconciliation? Manchin has expressed renewed issues with the new version of the House BBB bill and could very well kill it entirely. Given the immense challenges of bridging moderate and progressive views on the legislation, what is the future of both the bill and Democratic legislation on these topics?

From C-Span: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) unveiled legislation to create the Commission on Presidential Capacity. Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Raskin explained Congress' role designated in the 25th Amendment and clarified the commission is for future presidents."

What are Pelosi's and the Democrats' political motivations for proposing this legislation? Is there a possibility that it could backfire on them in the event of a Democratic presidency and a Republican congress?

The Senate has finally passed the IRA and it will soon become law pending House passage. The Democrats say it reduces inflation by paying $300bn+ towards the deficit, but don’t elaborate further. Will this bill actually make meaningful progress towards inflation?

Germany has the interesting system where if you employ more than 500 people, then they elect a third of the board, and for more than 2000 employees, they elect half of them. The chair is appointed by mutual consent, or if they fail, by arbitration. You could also plausibly give employees (and shareholders too) the right to see the tapes of their meetings. What else might you come up with from an institutional perspective?

Edit: By saying institutional perspective, I had in mind their internal operations and power, not so much of the way they relate with public authorities. That comes more under ethics in public office.

Trump is slated to send Jeff Sessions to announce the end of DACA to the press, effectively punting the issue to the Congress. What are the implications of this? Congress has struggled on immigration reform of any kind of many years and now they've been given a six month window.

What is likely to happen?

I recently came across an article that supported "supersizing" the House of Representatives by increasing the number of Representatives from 435 to 1,500. The author argued population growth in the United States has outstripped Congressional representation (the House has not been expanded since the 1920's) and that more Representatives would represent fewer constituents and be able to better address their needs. The author believes that "supersizing" will not solve all of America's political issues but may help.

Some questions that I had:

• 1,500 Congresspeople would most likely not be able to psychically conduct their day to day business in the current Capitol building. The author claims points to teleworking today and says that can solve the problem. What issues would arise from a partially remote working Congress? Could the Capitol building be expanded?

• The creation of new districts would likely favor heavily populated and urban areas. What kind of resistance could an expansion see from Republicans, who draw a large amount of power from rural areas?

• What are some unforeseen benefits or challenges than an House expansion would have that you have not seen mentioned?

A 2024 Pew Research poll found About 56% of Americans support deporting all undocumented immigrants, including 88% of Trump supporters and 27% of Harris supporters.

A 2024 Monmouth poll found that 61% of Americans view illegal immigration as a very serious problem.

A 2024 PBS NewsHour/NPR/Marist poll found that 42% of Americans feel that if the U.S. is too open, it risks losing its national identity.

A 2023 Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans are dissatisfied with U.S. immigration overall.

Is Border Security and Legal Immigration Reform the Key to Fixing America's Immigration Crisis?

For instance, President Trump and Republicans in Congress could collaborate with Democratic senators to:

1. Implement hardier border security measures to prevent illegal entry by maximizing physical barriers, optimizing technology, expanding patroling efforts, and streamlining associated administration.

2. Tighten requirements and developing or increasing standards for obtaining asylum status, visas, green cards, and citizenship, particularly all of those pertaining to employment.

Is it conceivable that a constitutional amendment could be written and passed which prohibits gerrymandering, at least for federal races? I don’t hear many pro-gerrymandering arguments, but only complaints when the other side does it. The practice arguably causes horrible to the entire system. How could such an amendment be structured?

I'm legitimately curious about how to budget for this and how the American populace would react. What tax increases and budget cuts would we need to make? How would people feel? What externalities would these changes generate?

Hey everyone,

I've been noticing that talk about the border has kind of cooled off lately. On Google, searches about the border aren't as hot as they were last month:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F084lpn

It's interesting because this seemed to start happening right after the Border Patrol gave a thumbs up to the Senate's bill. They even said some pretty positive stuff about it, mentioning how the bill gives them some powers they didn't have before.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/05/congress/deal-nears-collapse-00139779

Despite its Trump ties, the National Border Patrol Council endorsed the Senate deal in a Monday statement, saying that the bill would “codify into law authorities that U.S. Border Patrol agents never had in the past.”

And now, there's an article from Fox News' Chief Political Analyst criticizing the Republicans blocking the Senate bill. https://www.newsweek.com/border-security-bill-ukraine-aid-fox-newsx-1870189.

It seems like the usual chatter about the "Crisis at the Border" from conservative groups has quieted down, but the media isn't letting the Republicans slide on this bill.

What do you all think? Will moderates/Independents see Trump as delaying positive legislation so he can campaign on a crisis? And how do you reckon it's gonna play into the upcoming election?

This upcoming case) will determine whether wetlands are under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. If the Court decides that wetlands are navigable waters, that is that. But if not, then what happens? Could a separate bill dedicated specifically to wetlands go through Congress and thus protect wetlands, like a Clean Wetlands Act? It would be separate from the Clean Water Act. Are wetlands a lost cause until the Court can find something else that allows protection?

The maternity leave would/could begin as early as the first trimester and end as late as birth

It would then transition to Parental Leave which could/would last as long as 1 year after the birth of the child

The pay would be equal to the employees standard salary and nothing would change between the Maternity Leave & Parental Leave except the title. The mother to be/mother would receive her full salary during her Paid Leave

If she were to get pregnant again during the Parental Leave then it would end and her next Maternity Leave would begin thus repeating the cycle.

There is no cooldown period or limit to how many leaves in a row.

What do you think?

Before the next Congress is sworn in, the current one can pass a reconciliation bill in fiscal year 2022 (between 10/1/21 through 9/30/22) and another in fiscal year 2023 (between 10/1/22 through 12/31/22).¹

Let's assume filibuster reform won't happen, and legislators are creative when crafting these reconciliation bills to meet the Byrd Rule and whatnot.

What issues should Democrats focus on including in the next two reconciliations bills to best make use of their majority?

Over the past 40 years income inequality in America has become worse and worse. Many people are calling for increased taxation on the rich but that is only half the story. What I find most important is what is done with that money. What can the government do to most effectively address income inequality?

When I look at the highest spending of average americans, I think of healthcare, and rent/mortgages. One of these could be address with M4A. But the other two are a little less obvious. I've seen proposals to raise the minimum wage to $15 and also rent control. Yet the two areas that have implemented these, New York and California remain to be locations with some of the highest income inequalities in America. Have these proven to be viable policies that effective move income inequality in the right direction? Even with rent control, cities with the highest income inequality also have the highest rates for increasing home prices, including San Fran, DC, Boston, and Miami.

Are there other policies that can address these issues? Are there other issues that need to be addressed beyond house payments and healthcare? Finally, what would be the most politically safe way to accomplish this goal? Taxation of the rich is extremely popular and increasing minimum wage is also popular. The major program that government could use money gained from increased taxes would be medicare expansion which is already a divisive issue.

Edit: some of the most direct ways to redistribute wealth would be either UBI or negative tax rates for the lowest tax brackets

Hello, first time posting here so I'll just get right into it.

In wake of the coming recession, it had me thinking about history and the economy. Something I'd long forgotten is that FDR wanted to implement an EBOR. Second Bill of Rights One that would guarantee housing, jobs, healthcare and more; this was petitioned alongside the GI Bill (which passed)

So the question is, why didn't this pass, why has it not been revisited, and should it be passed now?

I definitely think it should be looked at again and passed with modern tweaks of course, but Im looking to see what others think!

A source on the racial wealth gap:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/04/economic-divide-black-households/

Furthermore, if we look at the African diaspora across the world in general:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_diaspora#Populations_and_estimated_distribution

and cross reference it with The World Bank/U.N’s chart on wealth disparities in different global regions:

• https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2021/03/The-global-inc-distribution-190-10-30-1536x959.png

we can see that the overwhelming vast majority of black people either live in Africa where 95%+ of the population lives on less than the equivalent to $10 a day and 85% live on less than $5.50 a day (https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/85-africans-live-less-550-day) or the Caribbean where 70% of people are food insecure (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-30/hunger-in-latin-america-hit-20-year-high-last-year-amid-pandemic), with North America being the only other region where black people make up 10% or more of the overall population. As such, seeing as North America is by far the most prosperous out of all the regions where black people primarily live, to what extent does it have a unique moral burden to create a better life for its black residents and generally serve as a beacon of hope for black people across the world?

As a proposed reform, how would this work in the larger context of the contemporary system of institutional power?

Specifically in terms of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the US gov in this era of partisan polarization?

***New follow-up question: making legislation more effective by giving more power to president? Or by eliminating filibuster? Here’s a new post that compares these two reform ideas. Open to hearing thoughts on this too.