Tax Policy Changes
Donald Trump's proposed tax policy changes for 2024 are designed to significantly benefit the upper class, primarily through tax cuts and other financial advantages. Here's a breakdown of how these policies are structured to favor the wealthy:
-
Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest: Trump's plan includes extending the temporary provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which are set to expire in 2025. This extension would primarily benefit the top 5% of earners, with the richest 1% saving about $36,320 annually. In contrast, the poorest 20% of families would see an increase in their tax burden by nearly 5% of their income.
-
Corporate Tax Reductions: The plan proposes reducing the corporate tax rate to 20% and eventually to 15%, which would disproportionately benefit large corporations and their wealthy shareholders.
-
Repeal of Green Energy Tax Credits: By repealing these credits, the plan would remove incentives for investments in renewable energy, which could have broader economic and environmental impacts.
-
Tariffs and Economic Impact: Trump's plan includes imposing a 20% tariff on all imports, which could offset the economic benefits of the tax cuts. These tariffs are likely to increase costs for consumers, disproportionately affecting lower and middle-income households.
-
Distributional Effects: The proposed tax changes would result in a larger relative benefit for higher-income taxpayers. By 2034, the top quintile would see a 3.1% increase in after-tax income, while the bottom 40% would experience tax increases.
Overall, Trump's tax proposals are structured to provide significant financial benefits to the wealthiest Americans, while potentially increasing the tax burden on lower-income groups.
Economic Crash
Numerous economists have raised alarms about the potential consequences of Trump's economic strategies. A report from the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget estimated that Trump's economic plan could increase the national debt by $7.5 trillion over the next decade. This includes the cost of extending tax cuts and implementing new fiscal policies without clear funding sources.
Additionally, Derek Holt, a Scotiabank economist, warned that Trump's policies could lead to "ruinous" economic outcomes, characterized by extreme protectionism and a surge in debt issuance to fund what he described as "totally undisciplined fiscal policy." These concerns highlight the potential for increased national debt and economic instability if Trump's plans are enacted without significant adjustments.
Even Elon Musk has expressed concerns about the potential economic impact of Donald Trump's proposed policies. Musk agreed with an X post suggesting that Trump's plans could lead to an "initial severe overreaction in the economy," causing market instability before potentially stabilizing into sustainable growth. This reflects Musk's acknowledgment of the potential for economic disruption under Trump's proposed policies, which include mass deportations, tax cuts, and blanket tariffs on imports.
It's important to note that Elon joined Trump on the campaign trail and will likely be given a spot in his cabinet—which brings to question the ethics of having a South African-Canadian-American billionaire influencing the White House and getting even more government funding for his various whims.
Conservative-Majority Supreme Court
With Donald Trump scoring another term, the prospect of him appointing at least two new justices to the Supreme Court looms large. Such appointments would cement a conservative majority, further influencing the direction of American jurisprudence for decades.
Historically, Trump's first term saw him appoint three conservative justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—who played pivotal roles in reshaping the court's approach to numerous legal issues, including the reversal of Roe v. Wade. This shift has already had profound effects on abortion rights, pushing the debate back to the states and leading to stricter regulations across the country.
A conservative-majority Supreme Court under Trump's potential influence could have sweeping implications. Key issues such as healthcare, with challenges to the Affordable Care Act, could see significant changes, potentially affecting millions of Americans' access to medical services. Civil rights, particularly those concerning LGBTQ+ individuals, voting rights, and affirmative action, might face new interpretations that could roll back protections established under previous court configurations.
Furthermore, with Trump likely to prioritize justices who align closely with his ideology, the balance of the court could tip even more sharply toward conservatism. This would not only affect immediate legal battles but also set the stage for long-term shifts in American law and society, embedding a judicial philosophy that favors conservative principles, ignoring the will of the American people with an unchecked reign.
The potential for Trump to shape the Supreme Court further emphasizes the weight of presidential elections and their enduring impact on the nation's highest legal body. As the court continues to decide on pivotal issues that touch every aspect of American life (including gay marriage and no-fault divorce, which we'll get to), the implications of these appointments will be felt for generations.
Project 2025 Will Become the Law of the Land
So you researched Project 2025, and it was terrifying, right? Well, with Republicans landing the White House, taking control of the House, and a conservative-majority Supreme Court, nothing will be in the way to stop the Heritage Foundation and the GOP from teaming up (and they already have; a significant amount of the writers of Project 2025 served in Trump's 2016 cabinet) and repealing even more of our rights.
Project 2025 is built on four pillars: a detailed policy guide, a personnel database, training for potential administration members, and a playbook for the first 180 days in office. The nearly 900-page policy book, "Mandate for Leadership 2025," proposes significant changes across federal agencies, including dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and imposing stricter immigration controls.
The agenda also targets social issues, advocating for the reversal of the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone and promoting a biblically based definition of marriage and family—which directly defies the Constitution (we have this little thing called "separation of church and state). With a conservative-majority Supreme Court, these proposals could face fewer legal hurdles, allowing for rapid implementation.
Despite Trump's attempts to distance himself from Project 2025, its alignment with his past policies and campaign promises suggests a strong influence on his administration's direction. The potential for Republicans to enact this agenda without significant opposition underscores the profound impact of unified government control, raising concerns about the erosion of democratic checks and balances.
Tariff Tax Hike on Foreign Goods
When a government decides to impose higher tariffs on foreign goods, it sets off a chain reaction that can ultimately lead to increased consumer prices domestically. This economic mechanism hinges on the nature of tariffs, which are essentially taxes levied on imported goods. While the intent might be to protect domestic industries or retaliate against trade practices deemed unfair, the actual burden of tariffs tends to fall on local consumers rather than foreign producers.
Here's how it works: when tariffs are imposed, the cost of bringing foreign goods into the country increases. Importers of these goods—whether they are manufacturers, retailers, or other businesses—must either absorb these additional costs or pass them on to consumers. Typically, to maintain profit margins, businesses choose the latter, leading to higher prices for imported goods on store shelves.
For example, consider the electronics industry, which relies heavily on imported components and finished products. An increase in tariffs on these imports would raise the costs for U.S. manufacturers and retailers. As a result, consumers could see higher prices for everything from smartphones and computers to household appliances.
Beyond direct price increases on imported goods, tariffs can also have inflationary effects. As the cost of goods rises, consumers may have less disposable income, which can lead to reduced spending in other areas of the economy. Additionally, domestic producers, facing less competition from abroad due to higher-priced imports, might also raise their prices, contributing further to inflation.
The automotive industry is another prime example. If tariffs are increased on car parts or vehicles themselves, the overall cost of production rises. Car manufacturers might pass these costs onto consumers, leading to higher prices for new cars, and potentially even impacting the market for used vehicles.
While tariffs are intended to support domestic industry, the immediate consequence is often higher costs for consumers. This not only affects the affordability of everyday goods but can also ripple through the economy, influencing inflation and consumer purchasing power. As such, tariff policies need to be carefully considered for their broader economic implications.
Retribution On His Enemies
As Donald Trump eyes a return to the presidency, his rhetoric around retribution against political opponents has become a focal point. Trump has not shied away from making bold threats, often using his platform to promise retaliation against those he perceives as adversaries.
In a Fox News interview, Trump labeled Democrats as the "enemy from within," suggesting that they might cause chaos on Election Day, potentially requiring intervention by the National Guard. This kind of language underscores his willingness to frame political opposition as a threat to national security, and it displays his hypocrisy on these issues as he whines about political opponents conducting a "witch hunt" and referring to himself as the "most persecuted" person of all time.
So according to Trump logic, it's not ok for his enemies to vilify him—but it's ok for him to dehumanize his opponents and their supporters.
A study by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) analyzed over 13,000 of Trump's posts on Truth Social, revealing a relentless focus on punishing perceived enemies. Trump has threatened to use federal power to target President Joe Biden, judges, and other political figures, promising investigations, indictments, and even jail time. In one post, he ominously declared, "IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I'M COMING AFTER YOU!"
These statements highlight a potential presidency marked by personal vendettas, where the machinery of government could be wielded as a tool for settling scores. As Trump continues to vocalize these threats, the implications for democratic norms and the rule of law remain a pressing concern. Not to mention, anything Americans actually want or need will play second fiddle to settling his scores.
Gutting Social Security and Medicare
Donald Trump's plans regarding Social Security and Medicare have raised concerns about potential cuts and the acceleration of insolvency for these programs. Although Trump has publicly vowed not to cut these entitlement programs, his policy proposals could inadvertently lead to financial challenges for them.
Trump has proposed eliminating the tax on Social Security benefits, which many seniors currently pay into. While this might seem beneficial, it could significantly reduce the revenue that Social Security relies on, potentially hastening its insolvency. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) projects that Trump's agenda could increase Social Security's ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion, making the program insolvent by 2031, three years earlier than currently projected.
Additionally, Trump's plans to end taxes on tips and overtime, impose tariffs, and expand deportations could further widen Social Security's cash deficits. These measures would reduce payroll tax collections and potentially increase costs through higher inflation, further straining the program's finances.
The TLDR: While Trump has stated he would protect Social Security and Medicare, the financial implications of his proposed tax cuts and other policies suggest that these programs could face significant funding challenges, potentially leading to benefit cuts in the future.
Defunding and Dismantling Public Education
The GOP's plan to defund public education involves several key proposals that could significantly impact the U.S. education system. One of the central ideas is to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, a goal that has been part of the Republican agenda for some time. This proposal is supported by former President Donald Trump and other GOP candidates, who argue that closing the department would "reduce federal oversight and spending."
The Republican fiscal year 2025 budget plan proposes cutting federal education funding by $11 billion, which includes a 25% reduction in Title I grants for high-poverty schools. The plan also seeks to prohibit the use of federal funds for enforcing Title IX protections for LGBTQ+ students and employees. These cuts are justified by some GOP members as a way to eliminate wasteful spending and divisive programs, though critics argue it would dismantle public education support.
Not to mention it sends a direct message to our children, whom we call the future, that we care more about padding our wallets than we do about giving them a good, safe education.
Additionally, the GOP platform includes cutting federal funding for schools that teach what they consider "woke" content, such as critical race theory and radical gender ideology. The platform also calls for expanding "school choice" (which involves funneling tax-payer dollars into private schools), ending teacher tenure, and promoting "patriotic" education. These proposals reflect a broader Republican strategy to reshape education policy by reducing federal involvement and indoctrinating students with conservative values.
Overall, these plans could lead to significant changes in how education is funded and managed in the U.S., potentially affecting the quality and accessibility of education for many students, particularly those in high-poverty areas.
National Abortion Ban
Donald Trump's position on a national abortion ban has been a topic of significant discussion and, at times, contradiction. Recently, Trump stated that he would veto a federal abortion ban if elected again, emphasizing that the decision should be left to the states based on the will of their voters. He reiterated his support for exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, aligning himself with the stance of former President Ronald Reagan.
Despite these statements, Trump's past actions and judicial appointments have significantly influenced the national conversation on abortion. His appointment of Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, and his proud boasting about it since, has led to increased state-level restrictions, making abortion a central issue in the 2024 race.
While Trump casts himself as a "protector" of women, claiming that they won't be "thinking about abortion" if he's elected, his mixed messages and the impact of his judicial appointments continue to fuel debate and concern among voters. Plus, powerful people who do want to ban abortion nationally will be in his cabinet—specifically RFK Jr., who will be in charge of healthcare reform and who has said he would ban abortion on a national level. But more on that in a minute.
RFK Jr. Will Be in Charge of Our Healthcare
Trump has promised to appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to oversee healthcare, and it could have significant consequences for the U.S. healthcare system. Kennedy is a well-known vaccine skeptic, and his influence might lead to increased vaccine hesitancy, resulting in lower vaccination rates and a potential resurgence of preventable diseases like measles and polio. This could also foster greater distrust in federal health agencies such as the FDA and CDC, undermining public health efforts.
Kennedy's views on drug regulation could disrupt the pharmaceutical industry. He has criticized the FDA and NIH for being too aligned with pharmaceutical interests, and his proposed changes might affect drug approval processes and research funding, potentially delaying new treatments. While some of his ideas, like capping drug prices, have bipartisan support, his broader agenda could lead to significant policy shifts that might not align with established scientific standards.
Overall, his appointment could lead to increased public health risks, regulatory uncertainty, and shifts in healthcare policy that might not align with scientific consensus, with far-reaching implications for public health and the healthcare system in the U.S.
Presidential Immunity for Anything and Everything
Historically, the presidency has been enveloped in a legal gray area, where accountability often plays second fiddle to executive privilege. This immunity is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but has been interpreted through various legal precedents to shield sitting presidents from certain prosecutions. It's the kind of immunity that can transform the Oval Office into a sanctuary where actions, no matter how contentious, face little—if any—repercussion.
Imagine a world where a president's every move is insulated from the harsh glare of legal scrutiny. For Trump, returning to this role could mean a continuation of the controversial decisions and bold, divisive statements that marked his first term, all under the protective umbrella of presidential immunity. From foreign policy maneuvers that raise eyebrows to domestic decisions that stir outrage, the potential for unchecked power looms large.
Critics argue that such immunity can lead to an abuse of power, with the president operating above the law, immune from the consequences that ordinary citizens might face. It's a setup ripe for exploitation, where the line between leadership and lawlessness blurs.
The conversation around presidential immunity isn't just about legalities—it's about the essence of democracy itself. Can a leader truly serve the people if they operate without accountability?
Using the Troops Against "The Enemy From Within"
Donald Trump has suggested using the military to address what he describes as "the enemy from within," focusing on domestic political opponents rather than foreign threats. This rhetoric has sparked obvious controversy and concern. Trump has indicated that he might deploy the National Guard or military forces to handle perceived threats from "radical left lunatics" during events like Election Day.
His comments have been interpreted as a potential shift in the military's role, using it as a tool for domestic policy enforcement, which could include actions against political adversaries and civil unrest. This approach has drawn criticism from various quarters, including concerns about authoritarianism and the misuse of military power against U.S. citizens.
Trump's plans also involve recalling troops from overseas to focus on domestic issues, such as border security and immigration enforcement, which he frames as a national security priority. This strategy has raised alarms about the implications for civil liberties and the traditional boundaries of military involvement in domestic affairs.
Trump has also reportedly openly voiced a want for generals like Hitler's. Just thought that was important to note too.
Marriage Equality: Repealed
Justice Clarence Thomas has been vocal about his desire to revisit and potentially overturn landmark rulings that legalized gay marriage, among other rights. In a concurring opinion following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Thomas explicitly called for the court to reconsider past decisions based on the doctrine of substantive due process, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage. Thomas argued that these decisions were "erroneous" and that the court has a "duty to 'correct the error'" established in these precedents.
Thomas's stance has sparked significant concern among LGBTQ+ advocates and civil rights groups, who view his comments as a direct threat to marriage equality and other privacy rights. The potential for Trump to appoint additional conservative justices only heightens these fears, as it could solidify a court more inclined to revisit and possibly overturn these critical rulings.
The implications of such a shift are profound, potentially rolling back decades of progress in civil rights and altering the legal landscape for millions of Americans. As the nation watches the unfolding political dynamics, the future of marriage equality remains a pivotal issue, underscoring the enduring impact of Supreme Court decisions on American society.
He Will Be a "Dictator On Day One"
Donald Trump recently made a controversial statement about being a "dictator on day one" if re-elected, which has sparked significant debate and concern. During a town hall event in Iowa with Fox News host Sean Hannity, Trump was asked if he would abuse power for retribution against his political opponents. He responded, "Except for day one," explaining that on that day, he would focus on closing the southern border and expanding oil drilling.
Trump's comment was seen by some as a rhetorical flourish intended to provoke the media and his political opponents, while others view it as a serious indication of his intentions to wield executive power aggressively. His campaign aides have suggested that the remark was meant to highlight issues like border security and energy independence, which are key points in his platform.
The statement has been criticized by Democrats and people who argue that it reflects Trump's authoritarian tendencies and poses a threat to democratic norms. Trump's rhetoric has often included promises of retribution against his perceived enemies, and his plans for a second term reportedly involve significant expansions of executive power, including targeting political rivals and reshaping federal agencies.
Union Busting
Donald Trump's stance on unions has been highlighted by a recent conversation with Elon Musk, where they discussed firing striking workers. During a two-hour conversation on the social media platform X, Trump praised Musk for his approach to handling striking workers, suggesting that Musk's method of firing them was commendable.
Trump said, "You walk in, you say, ‘You want to quit?’ They go on strike, and you say, ‘That’s okay, you’re all gone.’" This conversation has led to the United Auto Workers (UAW) filing unfair labor practice charges against both Trump and Musk, as firing workers for striking is illegal under federal labor law.
The UAW's action underscores concerns about Trump's anti-union stance, as he has been known to support policies and rhetoric that undermine union efforts. This incident is part of a broader pattern where Trump's administration and campaign have been perceived as favoring corporate interests over those of organized labor.
Mass Deportations
Donald Trump's immigration plan for 2024 includes a large-scale deportation operation, which he has described as the "largest deportation operation in American history." This plan aims to deport millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, with a focus on those who have committed crimes but potentially extending to all undocumented individuals.
The plan involves using federal resources, including the National Guard, to assist in deportation efforts, which would be a significant shift in the role of military forces in domestic law enforcement. Trump's team has suggested constructing large detention facilities to hold deportees temporarily, and they have discussed using legal mechanisms like the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations.
The financial and logistical challenges of such a plan are substantial. Estimates suggest that deporting one million people annually could cost between $88 billion and $315 billion per year, requiring a massive increase in ICE personnel and detention capacity. The economic impact could also be significant, potentially reducing the U.S. GDP by 4.2% to 6.8% due to labor shortages and decreased tax revenue from undocumented workers.
Overall, Trump's immigration strategy reflects a hardline approach that could have widespread social and economic consequences, affecting not only undocumented immigrants but also the broader U.S. economy and communities.
Dismantling the Affordable Care Act
If the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is dismantled or significantly altered under Trump's proposed healthcare policies, it could have profound consequences for individuals, particularly those with preexisting conditions and the unemployed.
One of the key protections offered by the ACA is the prohibition against denying coverage or charging higher premiums to individuals with preexisting conditions. If these protections are weakened or removed, millions of Americans with chronic illnesses such as diabetes, cancer, or heart disease could face significant barriers to obtaining affordable health insurance. They may encounter exorbitant premiums or be denied coverage altogether, making it difficult to manage their health effectively.
For unemployed individuals, the expiration of enhanced tax credits could mean losing access to affordable health insurance options. The ACA currently provides subsidies that help lower-income individuals afford premiums, and without these, many unemployed or underemployed people might find health insurance financially out of reach. This could lead to a rise in uninsured rates, leaving more individuals vulnerable to unexpected medical expenses.
The introduction of short-term health plans, which do not cover all the essential health benefits required under the ACA, could further exacerbate these issues. While these plans might offer lower premiums, they often provide limited coverage, excluding key services like prescription drugs, mental health care, and maternity care. People who rely on comprehensive insurance for ongoing medical needs may find themselves with inadequate coverage, leading to higher out-of-pocket costs and unmet healthcare needs.
These potential changes could result in increased healthcare costs for individuals, greater financial strain on families, and reduced access to necessary medical services. Beyond the personal impact, there are broader implications for public health and economic stability. A rise in the uninsured population could lead to higher uncompensated care costs for hospitals and a sicker workforce, ultimately affecting economic productivity and growth.
Environmental Deregulations
The environmental deregulations under the Trump administration's first term saw significant impacts across various sectors in the United States. These deregulations primarily aimed to boost fossil fuel production and reduce regulatory burdens on industries, but they also raised concerns about environmental and public health consequences.
-
Climate Change and Air Quality: The Trump administration rolled back numerous climate-related regulations, including the Clean Power Plan, which was replaced with the less stringent Affordable Clean Energy Rule. This change is projected to result in only a 1% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, compared to no policy at all. Additionally, fuel economy standards for vehicles were relaxed, reducing the required annual improvements from 5% to 1.5%.
-
Fossil Fuel Production: Deregulations facilitated increased fossil fuel exploration and extraction, including lifting bans on oil and gas exploration in sensitive areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and coastal waters. These actions were intended to support the fossil fuel industry but have been criticized for potentially increasing environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions.
-
Public Health and Safety: The administration weakened regulations on pollutants such as mercury and other toxic substances from power plants, as well as the disposal of coal ash, which contains harmful toxins. These changes could pose risks to public health, particularly in communities near industrial sites.
-
Legal and Regulatory Challenges: Many of these deregulatory actions faced legal challenges, with courts often ruling against the administration for not following proper procedures or for failing to meet statutory obligations under laws like the Clean Air Act. The administration's track record in court was poor, with a high percentage of its regulatory changes being overturned.
Interracial Marriage: Repealed
Although Clarence Thomas didn't mention interracial marriage specifically during his concurring opinion (go figure, he's married to a white woman), the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has sparked intense debate about privacy rights in the United States, casting a shadow over other landmark rulings grounded in the same legal doctrine. At the heart of this issue is the concept of substantive due process, a constitutional principle that has been pivotal in safeguarding certain unenumerated rights, including those related to personal privacy and autonomy.
Substantive due process, derived from the Fourteenth Amendment, enables courts to protect rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution by interpreting them as integral to liberty and justice. This doctrine has been crucial in landmark decisions that expanded individual freedoms, such as Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right to use contraception, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage. The reversal of Roe v. Wade, a decision that had enshrined abortion rights for nearly half a century, signals a potential retreat from the substantive due process framework. Without the protections afforded by this doctrine, numerous privacy rights could be jeopardized. The implications extend beyond abortion; they threaten the very fabric of personal autonomy, dictating how individuals make intimate decisions about their bodies and relationships.
Overturning these precedents could lead to a cascade of restrictions, as states gain more power to regulate personal matters traditionally protected under the veil of privacy. The erosion of these rights raises profound concerns about the future of civil liberties in the U.S., as it could set a precedent for revisiting other established rights related to marriage, contraception, and family planning. Ultimately, the reversal not only affects individual liberties but also challenges the broader principles of democracy, equality, and justice, underscoring the intricate balance between state power and personal freedom in American jurisprudence.
As the nation grapples with these changes, the discourse on privacy rights remains a critical battleground for the preservation of constitutional protections.
Foreign Policy Will Shift to Nationalism and Isolationism
Donald Trump's foreign policy, often encapsulated by the "America First" slogan, is complex and has elements that could lead to nationalism and isolationism. This approach emphasizes prioritizing American interests, frequently at the expense of international cooperation, which can foster a sense of nationalism by focusing on domestic priorities and reducing reliance on international alliances. During his tenure, Trump strained relationships with traditional allies, such as NATO members, by criticizing them for not contributing enough financially. This tension could lead to a more isolated U.S. stance if allies perceive the U.S. as unreliable.
Additionally, Trump's administration's use of tariffs, particularly against China and the European Union, reflects a protectionist stance that can foster economic nationalism. These measures often prioritize domestic industries but can isolate the U.S. economically. His foreign policy has also been noted for its favorable opinion of authoritarian leaders, contrasting with traditional democratic alliances. This alignment could shift U.S. foreign policy away from democratic norms, fostering a more isolated position internationally.
Trump's approach often involved making foreign policy decisions without thorough policy processes, leading to unpredictability. This unpredictability can isolate the U.S. diplomatically, as allies and adversaries find it challenging to predict U.S. actions. While Trump's policies are not purely isolationist, their focus on unilateral actions and domestic priorities can lead to a form of nationalism that distances the U.S. from its traditional international roles.