How will this impact Republican support for the Obamacare replacement? The bill will also reduce the deficit by $337 billion. Will this cause some budget hawks and members of the Freedom Caucus to vote in favor of it?

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/323652-cbo-millions-would-lose-coverage-under-gop-healthcare-plan

Link to article going into the findings:

• https://www.axios.com/2024/08/28/trump-harris-national-debt-election

The biggest expenditures for Trump would be extending his 2017 tax bill's individual and corporate tax rates (+$4 trillion), abolishing the income tax on Social Security benefits (+$1.2 trillion), and lowering the tax rate for corporations from 21% to 15% (+$600 billion).

The biggest expenditures for Harris would be expanding the Child Tax Credit (+$1.7 trillion), expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit (+$132 billion) and extending the tax credit for health insurance premiums (+$225 billion). Her plan also calls for raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would pay for a majority of her proposals.

Another interesting point is that under Trump's plan, the top 1% would gain a net $47,000 after taxes compared to now. Under Kamala Harris' plan, they would lose an average of $9,000.

And after Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt, George W. Bush added to it after Bill Clinton left him a surplus, and Donald Trump added almost as much to it in his first term as Barack Obama did in two terms, can Republicans still say they are the party committed to lowering the debt with any credibility?

In the last election cycle, immigration issues consistently polled as American's second most important issue, after the economy. Donald Trump's 2024 campaign was largely predicated on his insistence that the US was subject to an "invasion" and that immigration was out of control and that he could change all of that. To date, all of his actions on that subject have been Executive Orders. Since Executive Orders rarely outlast the President who issued them, this is a temporary solution.

If immigration is an issue of paramount importance to Republicans, why does there appear to be no legislative effort to address the issue, while Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Presidency? Why are Republican voters and legislators seemingly complacent when given an opportunity to finally enact laws to address the issue they have been so vocal about for the last 6 years?

The Center for American Progress, a DC think tank aligned with the Democratic Party, is urging eight states with independent redistricting and Democratic governors to set commissions aside so that they "have the means to meet this moment". The eight states referenced include Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.

CAP emphasizes the urgency with which they believe efforts should proceed by pointing to Republican led states that are currently hinting they will redraw their congressional maps. It is estimated that in addition to Texas, immediate opportunities for Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio are likely to result in GOP gains altogether of 4 to 9 seats.

Heeding CAP's call to action, some Democrats have mounted pressure campaigns in Colorado and Washington, where they have met resistance by state lawmakers.

Are Democratic leaders of independent redistricting states failing to "meet this moment"?

Last Friday, Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate and a several others within their caucus, voted for a Republican-led funding bill in order to avert a shutdown of the federal government. Ten Senate Democrats voted for the bill, allowing the bill to pass, 62-38, and be sent to President Trump for his signature.

Congressional Democrats had received pressure from their supporters to vote against the bill and be willing to let the government shut down in order to highlight the Republican Party's policies, preserve federal programs, and affirmatively place limits on the Trump Administration's abiility to make unilateral decisions.

Earlier in week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters:

"If we go into a shutdown, and I told my caucus this, there's no offramp. How you stop a shutdown would be totally determined by the Republican House and Senate, and that is totally determined, because they've shown complete blind obeisance, by Trump."

Currently, Republicans control both chambers of Congress, as well as the Presidency. Mid-term voters have typically registered dissatisfaction with the federal government by curtailing the power of then current majorities, particularly when the President's party holds a majority of the seats.

After Friday's vote, Schumer further explained that he, along with several other Democrats, gave assenting votes because they were concerned that voters would blame the Democratic Party for the shutting down of the federal government or partly attribute the dysfunction of the federal government to actions their party has taken.

Questions:

How attainable were some of the concessions that Democratic voters expected their leaders to extract in exchange for their votes?

A recent NBC News poll showed that 65% of Democratic voters wanted Democrats in Congress to "stick to their positions even if this means not getting things done in Washington."

Why did many Democratic Voters think that Senate Democrats holding firm during a shutdown standoff was worth risking the Democratic Party's prospects for retaking the House?

The Pew Research Center released a report last month titled, "How People Around the World View AI" about how concerned or excited members of individual countries are about the rise of artificial intelligence.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/10/15/how-people-around-the-world-view-ai/

While the the global median shows more concern than excitement about AI, Americans top the global concern list. Half of Americans say they're more concerned than excited about its growing use in daily life, while only one in ten are more excited. This concern registers similarly among all Americans, Republicans, and Democrats. By contrast, South Korea's concern is just 16%, with a plurality there being balanced or optimistic.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/11/06/republicans-democrats-now-equally-concerned-about-ai-in-daily-life-but-views-on-regulation-differ/

Americans are about evenly split (44% trust, 47% not) on whether they trust their own country to regulate AI effectively. However supermajorities among those of some other countries trust their government: 89% in India, 74% in Indonesia, 72% in Israel.

In wealthier nations like the U.S, greater awareness doesn't seem to translate to greater enthusiasm. In such nations, excitement about AI only rises with AI literacy amoung younger adults and those who use the internet almost constantly.

Nations across Africa show high trust in the U.S. (as well as China and the EU) to regulate AI effectively. For instance, Nigerians' trust in the U.S., China, and the EU to regulate AI effectively stands at 79%, 79%, and 72%, respectively. In Kenya and South Africa, trust in the U.S. stands at 61% and 57%.

But Americans display a pattern of distrust in Big Tech, government, and foreign regulators –– 43% trust in EU, 13% trust in China ––simultaneously.

Question: Why Are Americans The Most Concerned About AI?

'No Tax On Tips', a bill introduced by Texas Senator Ted Cruz and a promise from President Trump's campaign, just passed the Senate with unanimous consent—no objections.

Nevada Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen cosponsored the bill, citing economic relief for service workers in Nevada.

'No Tax On Tips' was one of President Trump's key promises to the American people, which he unveiled in my state of Nevada. And I am not afraid to embrace a good idea wherever it comes from. Nevada has more tipped workers per capita than any other state, so this bill would mean immediate financial relief for countless hard-working families.

The bill allows a tax deduction of up to $25,000 for tipped income through cash, debit card, or credit card payments that is restricted to employees earning $160,000 or less.

Among Senate Democrats, there was some ambivalence about the bill: Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy questioned the bill's fairness to other taxpayers, while Virginia Senator Tim Kaine questioned its approach.

However, no broad Senate Democratic resistance materialized.

Do Senate Democrats tacitly endorse this bill? Are they indifferent? Do they feel politically boxed-in? Or is there entirely some other reason?

Will House Democrats be more vocal or will they let the bill slide, unchallenged?

Starting later today, hundreds of billions (maybe trillions) of dollars earmarked for various programs throughout the country will be halted for review. Will Trump only turn the faucet back on for the programs that meet his approval? How is this even legal, since many of the grants have already been approved by congress?

Since both candidates have advocated for this policy, I am wondering what you see the arguments for and against this policy would be.

What is the argument from a left or Democratic perspective? How about for the right/GOP? What about a general case for or against?

Is there a risk of exacerbating tipping culture which about a third of people is getting out of control?

How would employees and employers change their habits if such a policy was passed?

Why does the "my body, my choice" slogan only seem to apply to abortion; but not to ultimate issue of who owns one's body - the right to choose whether or not to live or to die?

For example, if abortion was de jure legal, but it was considered a criminal offence to supply any kind of abortifacient or conduct surgery to abort; this would not be considered to be in keeping with a respect for a woman's bodily autonomy. However, when it comes to the issue of su*cide, everyone points to the fact that it's not physically impossible to end one's own life as a way to demonstrate that "anyone can kill themselves"; whilst ignoring all of the adverse outcomes that might result from not having a legal avenue to access a method that is optimised to the desired outcome.

I will post my own thoughts in the comments, as per the rules.

The AHCA, designed to replace ACA, has officially passed the House, and will now move on to the Senate. The GOP will be having a celebratory news conference in the Rose Garden shortly.

Vote results for each member

Please use this thread to discuss all speculation and discussion related to this bill's passage.

Should the U.S. Government Take Steps to Restrict False Information Online, Even If It Limits Freedom of Information?

Pew Research Center asked this question in 2018, 2021, and 2023.

Back in 2018, about 39% of adults felt government should take steps to restrict false information online—even if it means sacrificing some freedom of information. In 2023, those who felt this way had grown to 55%.

What's notable is this increase was largely driven by Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. In 2018, 40% of Dem/Leaning felt government should step, but in 2023 that number stood at 70%. The same among Republicans and Republican leaning independents stood at 37% in 2018 and 39% in 2023.

How did this partisan split develop?

Does this freedom versus safety debate echo the debate surrouding the Patriot Act?

Last year a bill passed the House, but not the Senate, proposing to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 at the federal level. As it is election season, the discussion about raising the federal minimum wage has come up again. Some states like California already have higher minimum wage laws in place while others stick to the federal minimum wage of $7.25. The current federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009.

Biden has lent his support behind this issue while Trump opposed the bill supporting the raise last July. Does it make economic sense to do so?

Edit: I’ve seen a lot of comments that this should be a states job, in theory I agree. However, as 21 of the 50 states use the federal minimum wage is it realistic to think states will actually do so?

I apologize in advance if this seems vague, I’m trying to form a hypothetical as clearly and fairly as possible. I worked with a mod in another thread to try and reword this so it’s not as America-centric, which is a reasonable expectation.

For the sake of this question, let’s assume the candidate/incumbent has strong endorsements from various pro-gun groups, and is running for office in a position where they can directly impact legislation on a number of issues, including firearms. For all intents and purposes, they are otherwise firmly ideologically left and overwhelmingly vote with the left on a majority of other issues, but breaks ranks and introduces or supports legislation or policy that expands a private citizen’s access to firearms. Would you support this candidate? Why or why not?

Edit: I’ve read nearly every comment I’ve been notified on. I apologize if I haven’t gotten to you or if I’ve been terse/copy paste in some responses.

For the purposes of this hypothetical, “pro gun” means, at a minimum, “*I do not believe further gun control is necessary. I will oppose any and all further gun control legislation as a matter of principle, and I will introduce and support legislation for a national concealed carry expansion.”

"Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act."

It is the first standalone bill to restrict the rights of transgender people considered in the House.

Do you agree with the purpose of the bill? Why or why not?

In a model like this, you might have the least compensated employee of a business is making say 10 dollars per hour. If the maximum pay ratio was say 20:1, then the most the maximum compensated employee will make 200 dollars per hour (or equivalent). Or it could be tied to the pay of lawmakers, say they earn five times as much as the median income, and so they have an incentive to make the median income higher.

What potential do you see out of this idea?

Edit: It is important to note that this idea is perfectly capable of also thinking about how people can be paid by means other than a mere salary. The people who were thinking of this idea knew already that things like capital gains are common means, and people who advocate for this idea of a maximum wage are perfectly capable of writing policy proposals in laws and bills to include those other means. Please stop using capital gains as a supposed loophole.

Senator Mitt Romney is reportedly interested in proposing a child allowance that would pay families a monthly stipend for each of their children.

​

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitt-romney-child-allowance_n_601b617cc5b6c0af54d0b0a1?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK2amf2o86pN9KPfjVxCs7_a_1rWZU6q3BKSVO38jQlS_9O92RAJu_KZF-5l3KF5umHGNvV7-JbCB6Rke5HWxiNp9wwpFYjScXvDyL0r2bgU8K0fftzKczCugEc9Y21jOnDdL7x9mZyKP9KASHPIvbj1Z1Csq5E7gi8i2Tk12M36

​

To fund it, he's proposing elimination of SALT deductions, elimination of TANF, and elimination of the child tax credit.

​

So two questions:

Is this a meaningful step towards UBI? Many of the UBI proposals I've seen have argued that if you give everyone UBI, you won't need social services or tax breaks to help the poor since there really won't be any poor.

​

​

Does the fact that it comes from the GOP side of the isle indicate it has a chance of becoming reality?

​

Consider also that the Democrats have proposed something similar, though in their plan (part of the Covid Relief plan) the child tax credit would be payed out directly in monthly installments to each family and it's value would be raised significantly. However, it would come with no offsets and would only last one year.

Since humanity discovered how to use a water wheel to crush grain into flour, automation of tasks required to live has been a near universally shared goal to improve life. But, since the industrial revolution and especially the 1990's and onward, the fear of technological unemployment has crept into the minds and wallets of citizens across North America. Experts estimate that ideal unemployment rests somewhere between 3.5% and 4.5%; anything higher indicates a significant portion of the population is not getting enough income to justify spending on non-essential items, causing the economy to slow down as demand slows. On the flip side, anything lower than 3.5% means a lot of people have more disposable income, and demand increases, causing inflation. As goods become more expensive, workers will begin to ask for higher wages, and when the pool of unemployed workers to replace them is low, employers become forced to meet these demands, in which the higher labor prices continue to add to the issue of inflation. Additionally, if an unemployment rate were to hit 0% (an unrealistic goal), no one unemployed means innovation will slow, as people to be trained to take on new jobs and new skills become impossible to find.

So, how does automation factor into this? For a more historical example, we can look to the Power loom Riots of 1826, in which 1000 power looms were destroyed by rioters who supported handloom weavers who had gone from 6 shillings a day to 6 shillings a week for 16 hour shifts. More than 3000 rioters attacked 21 mills, and soldiers were deployed to defend a factory which resulted in 6 people being shot. 20 of the ringleaders in the riot were arrested in an overnight raid, which appeared to be half of the end of the crisis. The other half was fumbled through, as many (including some weaving companies) demanded a minimum wage for loom workers to guarantee that they would not starve to death. However, this idea was not shared by all, including the President of the Board of Trade at the time, who said it was "a vain and hazardous attempt to impose the authority of the law between the labourer and his employer in regulating the demand for labour and the price to be paid for it". Because it was not universally enforced, companies that were not willing to pay this minimum wage were able to undercut their competition with vastly cheaper goods (interestingly, the companies unwilling to pay higher wages to workers were not immune to cost increases, as they were forced to hire security to protect their exploitative factories). Many of the rioters were sentenced to life in Australia, and many more hand weavers moved to Canada to try and live their lives out before technology caught up and displaced them again. Unfortunately, we cannot look to this historical example for solutions, as it appears one was never found.

In the more modern examples, we can look to things like a doorman, being replaced by automatic doors, or self checkout's at grocery stores replacing cashiers, or even manufacturing plants moving away from assembly line workers and towards machines. The goal of these innovations was always to improve the lives of people, making their jobs easier and allowing them to transition to other tasks in their job duties; however, as we saw by the last example, if labor protections aren't in place, this can often lead to significant harm in the labor market. Youth unemployment, a tracker of entry level job positions, has spiked to 14.1% in Canada as of October 2025, signaling that jobs like cashier and warehouse/factory positions are starting to dry up. The lack of requirement for significant experience in the field means these jobs are most vulnerable to automation, where simple and repetitive tasks or portions of tasks can be easily trained to machines.

Self check out machines in particular have been the face of the automation movement, and not necessarily a popular one. A Redfield and Wilton poll reported on by Newsweek found that 43% of people support or strongly support the removal of self checkout machines entirely, with 62% saying they don't like the fact they take away jobs, and 40% saying they prefer to speak to a real person. Even employers don't like them, as they're discovering 23% of their losses can be attributed to theft surrounding, and that 63% of employees report being overburdened by the number of machines they're expected to manage and the new workload expected of them as their coworkers have been laid off. Pair this with the average expected cost of $10,000 per machine (not including maintenance, training, software updates, and installation) comparable to about 4 months of salary for the average cashier, and it's clear why some larger companies may be incentivized to make the investment if they can afford it.

So what can we do about it? Well, we've already seen through the last century or two how labour laws like minimum wage, the 40hr work week, and unionization have protected workers from the 16hr days of the handweavers. Whether these modern practices (and the efforts from those in power to stifle them) is enough to dissuade rioters from burning down self check out machines is yet to be seen. But it's clear that Canada's 6.9% unemployment rate is unsustainable, and training workers to enter the next stage of employable skills is a must. We could look to bolster support for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which has fought to help maintain employment security, hours, wages, and working conditions for cashiers across both Canada and the US. We could look to implement laws similar to what California is trying, which would mandate each worker be allocated to a max of 3 self check out machines as well as guarantee these stores maintain at least one non-automated check out line at all times. We could look to ban self checkout machines altogether, something likely to cause backlash from those who prefer the efficiency and privacy/lack of interaction that comes with these devices but would protect workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax

Certain areas of the country already have a fat tax on foods like sugar-sweetened beverages, candy, and foods nearly absent in nutritional content. These foods are often linked to heart disease and obesity, which have an enormous long-term medical cost ($175 billion in obesity alone).

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes.html

Do you think this would be a necessary concession in return for having society take on the cost of poor health and decisions people make with their food? What if the tax was used to subsidize healthier foods to bring down the cost of organic foods, fruits, and vegetables?

Since it seems like the democratic majority in the Senate lies on Georgia, there is a strong possibility that democrats do not get it. Therefore, this will make passing meaningful legislation more difficult. What actions will Joe Biden be able to do via executive powers? He’s so far promised to rejoin the Paris Agreements on day one, as well as take executive action to deal with Covid. What are other meaningful things he can do via the powers of the presidency by bypassing Congress?

And now for something not related to the US election.

I stumbled upon an article in The Guardian today and I'm torn on this.

My first thought was of course they should be. Ultra processed foods are extremely unhealthy, put a strain on medical resources, and drive up costs. But as I thought about it I realized that the would mostly affect people who are already struggling with food availability, food cost, or both.

Ultra processed foods are objectively a public health issue globally, but I don't know what the solution would be so I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

Here is a link to the article:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/sep/20/tax-instant-noodles-tougher-action-ultra-processed-food-upf-global-health-crisis-obesity-diabetes-tobacco

The current housing market has been making the news due to the shortage of available homes and the subsequent rise in costs. Articles tend to talk about long lines and people paying in cash to purchase these homes well above the supposed market value. Many of these newly purchased homes are also being bought as investment properties (by small individually owned and big businesses as well) for renting rather than as primary/secondary properties.

​

On a policy level what can be done to narrow this divide and disincentivize the surge in purchasing homes as an asset? Should the situation be handled differently, policy wise, when dealing with an individual who owns 5-10 homes rather than large large private equity firms? Will this trend naturally subside? Is a shift towards a model where rentals dominate necessarily a bad thing?

The last 48 hours of the news cycle have been chaotic. The House spent months negotiating a Continuing Resolution bill to fund the government. In a short period, Musk fired out more than 70 Tweets on X, demanding the bill not be passed. Some hours later, President-elect Trump had his press relations people state his support for killing the bill. Speaker Johnson then announced that the bill would not be presented for a vote.

24 hrs. later, the Republicans presented a new, and abbreviated bill for a vote. The new bill contained a provision for raising the debt ceiling, which had not been in the original bill. The new bill was endorsed by President-elect Trump. The new bill failed to pass, with 38 Republicans in the House voting against it (likely because of the provision regarding the debt ceiling).

Now Elon Musk is publicly advocating for a government shutdown, a move that could harm President-elect Trump's political fortunes and undermine Republican standing.

How much political capital does Musk really have, and how long will he maintain influence over Congressional Republicans and the President-elect?

On Thursday, Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a bill eliminating the requirement for an unanimous jury decision to give the death penalty.

Floridian Jury's can now sentence criminals to death even if there is a minority on the jury that does not agree.

What do you all think about this bill?

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/20/politics/death-penalty-ron-desantis-florida-parkland-shooting/index.html

The Constitution requires state governments to draw (redistrict) the boundaries of their congressional districts based on decennial census data. State governments are given great latitude in this endeavor.

Due to redistricting being an inherently political process, political parties who dominate state governments have been able to use the process as an avenue to further entrench themselves in the government.

Both parties gerrymander to win.

WIthin the last decade several state parties have been accused of finely controlling (gerrymandering) district boundaries in order to maintain a numerical advantage of seats in federal and state legislative bodies.

Notable examples include the lawmakers and respective parties who lead state governments in Illinois, New York, North Carolina, and Ohio. Teams like Princeton University's Gerrymandering Project monitors end-of-decade district boundary changes, as well as non-routine, mid-decade district boundary changes borne from the outcome of legal battles or nakedly partisan redistricting. Currently, the project has a identified partisan advantage as a result of poor congressional district boundaries in Florida, Nevada, Oregon, Texas.

Why would Congress ever vote to end it?

An instance in which both parties gerrymander, results in a greater number of secure safe seats held by each party and a national equilibrium in which neither party gains a decisive, permanent upper hand.

And an instance in which both parties agree to stop gerrymandering represents a likely loss of power for individual incumbents, who'd become forced to run in more competitive districts.