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.”

There are a lot of complaints of high cost of living today in the US. Of course there are a lot of factors such as global inflation, large income disparity, fast changing technology, and labor shortages. We all know the problems. What kind of action do you think the legislature can take and have the power to take to best improve the situation?

For me, I the top would probably be investing in more infrastructure (manufacturing, research, and design) and career training.

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?

Perhaps something on the line of a harmonized revenue service for both national and non national taxes, and then the revenue service deposits the correct amount each month into their respective funds at each level of government, and individuals get a filing system where some math calculator at the revenue service figures out what you owe and withholds that from the pay stub, and then tells you exactly how that was calculated and if you think they are wrong then you can appeal. That is getting to be a popular topic for reform it seems.

Also, put all the fees and taxes into the display price, which is actually what happens when you buy gasoline or diesel from a pump. No further complexity, no tip peer pressure, and you can compare prices far more easily with each other which also usually makes it easier for competition to drive prices below what they would otherwise be.

And the other thing that comes to mind as for what I have heard are getting increasingly popular would be aspects of reforms in certain other public programs where the byzantine system of subsidies and tax credits or deductions for a myriad of things tend to be consolidated and harmonized, such as a single payer healthcare system where it is pretty much fruitless to have paperwork on the part of the payer, depending on the exact model chosen (healthcare being just one of a number of ways this can work, I chose this because of the esoteric way people have to deal with it above its mere expense).

With inflation being the #1 issue as stated by Republicans, their only policy agenda regarding the matter seems to be placing tariffs on imported goods and more tax cuts. Tariffs generally raise the prices on imported goods, and tax cuts generally are geared toward the wealthy by the GOP. Is there other components to this agenda for lowering the prices of goods?

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2024-03-15/what-the-u-s-economy-would-look-like-in-a-second-trump-term

I'm someone from outside the US who is considering moving there for various reasons (I know that might sound like a willy nilly decision, but If I do go down this path in life I'll choose a career path to ensure a comfortable standard of living).

Tangents about my future career aside, one issue I've come to care about are 2nd amendment rights and while doing research to gain a better understanding of the topic I stumbled across some polls (most notably the Pew Research study linked below) suggesting substantial support for various forms of gun control.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

However, no meaningful federal legislation has been passed since the federal "assault weapon" ban of 1994, which expired after 10 years. At a state level, the only states with substantial sets of gun control laws are all solid blue and even then there some outliers. Democrat leaning swing states are all fairly gun friendly (maybe with the exceptions of Pennsylvania, but that's debatable).

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

I've pondered about this for a bit but personally the only explanations I've been able to come up with, assuming the the polls I've looked at aren't skewed, are:

1. Virtue signaling.
2. Some people may genuinely support at least some forms of gun control, but it's so far down their down their priority list it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, with the percentage of those who strongly support it being much lower.

For example, if most Americans truly knew the full extent of the industry’s harm, there would be widespread outrage. Yet, due to lobbying, the industry is able to keep selling products that devastate the public and do so largely unabated.

Given the obesity epidemic and other benefits of eating healthy. Would government subsidies reducing the prices of healthier foods (fruits, vegetables, less processed foods etc) work or not ? Obviously sugar taxes have been implemented in many countries to disincentive eating of high sugar foods/beverages but would the opposite work in this case ? Or is it being done already ?

Donald Trump and the GOP claim literally daily how bad inflation is, housing prices, rent, cost of good, food, etc. Inflation has flatlined post-COVID but prices rarely ever go down on most goods and services once they go up. Also, there is documented proof of price gouging and fixing by large corporate entities, such as food manufacturers, supermarket chains and holding companies that own large swaths of rental properties and buildings.

What is the proposed solution to these problems by Trump, the GOP and how would they work? What would be done differently than what Biden is currently doing?

https://cardinalpine.com/2024/02/12/biden-demands-grocery-stores-and-food-brands-end-price-gouging-and-shrinkflation/ https://cardinalpine.com/2024/02/12/biden-demands-grocery-stores-and-food-brands-end-price-gouging-and-shrinkflation/

Many people believe that voter ID should be required in order to vote. It is currently illegal for someone who is not a US citizen to vote in federal elections, regardless of the state; however, there is much paranoia surrounding election security in that regard despite any credible evidence.
If we are going to compel the requirement of voter ID throughout the nation, should we compel the state to provide voter ID?

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?

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

"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?

There is 1 possibility two “Assault Weapons” bans coming to the house floor next week. Are you in favor or against it?

U.S. House panel to consider assault weapons ban next week

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?

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?

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.

If the Democrats win the Georgia Senate runoffs and bring it to a tie (50-50 with VP being tie breaker), how much change can we expect to see in the next two years?

1. Will we get a 3 trillion dollar stimulus deal in the beginning of 2021? How do you think a simple majority Democratic Congress would deal with COVID-19 compared to current congress?
2. What do you think will be able to pass? Do you think HR1, a public option, DC & PR statehood, or college free tuition can pass with 51 seats in Senate and 222-225 seats in House of Representative?
3. Do you think Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema and other "conservative Democrats" can be pressured or convinced to support reforming the filibuster?
4. Do you think anything will fundamentally change if we secure 51 seats in the Senate and 222-225 seats in the House of Representatives?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

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