Project 2029.......what do you think?

[ImStillMags Mags]

Lets start our own Project 2029.

Every generation of Americans has been called to shape the future of this country. Today, that responsibility falls to us. As we approach elections in 2026 and 2028 we need our own Project 2029. We cannot simply react to other people’s visions. We must build our own, one rooted in fairness, freedom, and the promise that every American, no matter where they live or who they are, deserves a real stake in this democracy.

The founders knew their work was unfinished. They left the building of a just, inclusive nation, to us. Project 2029 should be about completing that work.

Here is what a democracy-deepening 2029 agenda can look like. please add ideas that you think belong here:

DEMOCRACY THAT REFLECTS THE PEOPLE

1. Abolish the Electoral College. The most votes win. In a democracy, the person with the most votes should govern. Full stop.

2. Reimagine the Senate. Should the state of Wyoming (570,000 people) have an equal voice to California (40 million people). Representation must reflect the people in both houses.

3. Term limits for Congress. Public service should be a rotation, not a lifetime appointment. 12 years should be enough.

3A. All elected officials have the same retirement and healthcare that the average American has. Elected officials cannot approve pay raises for themselves.

4. Expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices + implement term limits. No single generation should control the judiciary for 40 years. The Court must evolve with the nation.

5. Make Washington, D.C. a state and hold a vote in Puerto Rico and all territories to determine statehood or independence. Americans deserve representation, not taxation without it.

6. Universal voting access + automatic voter registration at 18.

Voting should be easy, secure, and celebrated, not obstructed.

7. Election Day becomes a national holiday. Keep polls open for a week. Democracy works when participation is effortless, not burdensome.

AN ECONOMY THAT SERVES PEOPLE, NOT POWER

8. Ban hedge funds and private equity from buying single-family homes. Housing is for families, not financial instruments.

9. End Citizens United. Money is not speech. Politics should be decided by voters, not the wealthiest donors.

10. One-issue bills only. No more legislative shell games. No hidden pork. No policy hostage-taking.

11. No stock trading or private investing for any elected official. You serve the country, not your portfolio.

12. Cap political gifts at $2,500. A democracy built on small donors is a democracy built on people.

13. Affordable housing, healthcare, and childcare benchmarks.

Housing ≤ 20% of income

Healthcare ≤ 5% of income - should be free healthcare for all.

Childcare ≤ 5% of income

These are not luxuries, they are the foundations of thriving families.

14. Revised tax code that restores balance and fairness.

Raise individual tax rates to 39% for incomes over $1 million, 42% for incomes over $5 million, 45% for incomes over $10 million, and 50% for those earning over $1 billion. Tax capital gains, and any loan-based income arrangements over $5 million, at the same rate as ordinary income. No more shadow systems for the ultra-wealth

15. Corporate tax reform that closes every loophole.

If corporations are going to rely on America’s roads, ports, power grids, courts, and workforce, they must pay their fair share to sustain them. No more tax gymnastics, no more offshore tricks, just a straightforward commitment to the country that makes their success possible.

16. Universal high-speed WiFi. Connectivity is the modern public square.

17. A national strategy for small-business growth. Main Street is the soul of America.

18. Share national resources. Every American should get a share of the money we make from our mineral, timber, and oil resources. Wyoming and Alaska do it. These are the people’s resources not corporations.

A COUNTRY PREPARED FOR THE FUTURE

19. A serious national green energy plan. Clean energy = jobs, security, innovation, and survival. We lead or we fall behind.

20. Climate-resilient infrastructure. Strong grids, clean water, modern roads, and coastal protection.

21. Healthy food and clean water. Europe has figured out a way to keep their food supply clean, freed from food dye, sugars, and chemicals. We deserve the same.

22. Rebuild America’s public school system. Fair teacher pay, modern buildings, arts and STEM for all, and fully funded special education. Education through college should be free for all.

23. Universal mental health access. A compassionate nation invests in emotional wellbeing as much as physical health.

24. National Service Year (mandatory). Give every young person a chance to serve — in conservation, education, health, arts, disaster response — and build bridges across lines of race, class, and geography.

25. Transformative investments in research and science. America leads when we imagine boldly and fund discovery relentlessly.

A SOCIETY BUILT ON DIGNITY AND BELONGING

26. Common-sense gun safety supported by most Americans. Universal background checks, safe storage laws, red-flag protections, no semi automatics.

27. Humane, functional immigration reform. A system that secures borders and honors the immigrant story at the heart of America.

28. Paid family leave for all. Families deserve time to welcome a child or care for a loved one without risking financial ruin.

29. Restore a shared national narrative. Teach honest American history, the triumphs and the failures, so we can grow stronger and wiser together.

30. A national investment in arts and culture. Because creativity builds empathy, fuels innovation, and reminds us who we are.

31. Equal protections for all. No mater your race, gender, identity. We are all Americans and we all get to enjoy the same freedoms. This means addressing the pay gap between men and women and white and non white as well as equal access to opportunity.

32. Lean into our religious plurality. We are a nation of many faiths and beliefs. The world is complex. Let’s celebrate and learn from our diversity.

33. Deep reforms to the nations incarceration complex - We don’t need to build better criminals in prison, we need to build better people by addressing how they got there and how to help them succeed so they don’t go back. (See Norway, Finland, and Germany). (And no one profits from owning prisons)

34. End Gerrymandering. There has to be a better way that centers representation and is informed by our census.

35. Raise the minimum wage. Every citizen should be able to afford a baseline life free of stress. Bump up to $20 an hour.

36. Limit the power of lobbyist. Legislation can’t be the domain of corporations, the connected, and the wealthy.

Project 2029 is not about tearing down America. It’s about finishing the work of building it. It’s about believing that our country can be fairer, kinder, wiser, more democratic, and more worthy of the people who call it home. It’s about refusing the politics of division and stepping into a future where we do not fear our differences, we build with them.

[BEZARK]

14. Revised tax code that restores balance and fairness.

Raise individual tax rates to 39% for incomes over $1 million, 42% for incomes over $5 million, 45% for incomes over $10 million, and 50% for those earning over $1 billion. 

=========

I have never liked sharp large thresholds.

Basic unfairness (huge tax difference with $1 greater vs $1 lower)

Great temptation to cheat.

Should be a gradual relationship.

[BEZARK]

Over all a good statement of principles and ways to accommodate them.

Goals.

Useful in explanations to the mass of population. 

[Irie]

#1 we are not now where we ever a nation based on direct democracy!

[Navy]

Absolutely NOT. That would be the worst thing for this country and a power grab for dems.

On Saturday, December 13, 2025 at 11:39:48 AM UTC-6 ImStillMags Mags wrote:

[Lobo]

<<DEMOCRACY THAT REFLECTS THE PEOPLE

1. Abolish the Electoral College. The most votes win. In a democracy, the person with the most votes should govern. Full stop.

2. Reimagine the Senate. Should the state of Wyoming (570,000 people) have an equal voice to California (40 million people). Representation must reflect the people in both houses.>>

It's a shame that both weren't made that way from the beginning, as many of the Framers wanted (especially with at least the first one). They were both compromises between large and small states which, before the Civil War -- and especially right after the Revolutionary War -- were effectively separate independent republics that, except for a few cultural relationships like language, were politically little more to each other than what modern European countries are within the EU.

We're a VERY different country now, particularly with modern communications, transportation, and movement of people following jobs erasing most state and regional differences. 

The EC has never once functioned as intended and explained in the Federalist Papers, and on at least f occasions has resulted in the LOSER of the American people's vote being elected president.

Moreover, it has not just made the vote of a resident of a very large state like, say, "blue" California or "red" Texas worth more than ten times as much as a resident of a very small one like, say, "blue" Vermont" or "red" Wyoming, but has actually transformed 43 or 44 of our 50 states into IRRELEVANT "FLY-OVER" STATES!

Nowadays, other than a few TV ads, presidential nominees really only bother to campaign in a handful of "battleground states" (my own Georgia included). The rest are simply taken for granted by the two major political Parties.

Unfortunately, having more than two Parties just doesn't work with our "winner take all" system. The third (or more) candidate is at best a wasted vote, and at worst just acts as a "spoiler", resulting in electing the candidate you least want to see win. 

In any case, getting rid of each of them requires Constitutional Amendments which -- for better or worse -- were deliberately made very difficult to enact. But at least there is a "get-around" for the Electoral College system that appears to pass Constitutional muster:

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

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC)

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.^[2][3][4]

Introduced in 2006, as of August 2025, it was joined by seventeen states and the District of Columbia. They have 209 electoral votes, which is 39% of the Electoral College and 77% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force. The idea gained traction amongst scholars after George W. Bush won the presidential election but lost the popular vote in 2000, the first time the winner of the presidency had lost the popular vote since 1888.

Certain legal questions may affect implementation of the compact. Some legal observers believe states have plenary power to appoint electors as prescribed by the compact; others believe that the compact will require congressional consent under the Constitution's Compact Clause or that the presidential election process cannot be altered except by a constitutional amendment.

Mechanism

Taking the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among participating states only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. Once in effect, in each presidential election the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.^{[citation needed]}

The compact would modify the way participating states implement Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires each state legislature to define a method to appoint its electors to vote in the Electoral College. The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors, and instead vests state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate their states' electors (although systems that violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal protection of the law and prohibits racial discrimination, are prohibited).^[4][5] States have chosen various methods of allocation over the years, with regular changes in the nation's early decades. Today, all but two states (Maine and Nebraska) award all their electoral votes to the single candidate with the most votes statewide (the so-called "winner-take-all" system).^{[note 1]}

The compact would no longer be in effect should the total number of electoral votes held by the participating states fall below the threshold required, which could occur due to withdrawal of one or more states, changes due to the decennial congressional re-apportionment, or an increase in the size of Congress, for example by admittance of a 51st state. The compact mandates a July 20 deadline in presidential election years, six months before Inauguration Day, to determine whether the agreement is in effect for that particular election. Any withdrawal by a state after that deadline will not be considered effective by other participating states until the next president is confirmed.^[7]

Motivation

See also: United States Electoral College § Impacts and reception, and United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote

Reasons given for the compact include:

1. State winner-take-all laws encourage candidates to focus disproportionately on a limited set of swing states, as small changes in the popular vote in those states produce large changes in the electoral college vote.
   For example, in the 2016 election, a shift of 2,736 votes (or less than 0.4% of all votes cast) toward Donald Trump in New Hampshire would have produced a four electoral vote gain for his campaign. A similar shift in any other state would have produced no change in the electoral vote, thus encouraging the campaign to focus on New Hampshire above other states. A study by FairVote reported that the 2004 candidates devoted three-quarters of their peak season campaign resources to just five states, while the other 45 states received very little attention. The report also stated that 18 states received no candidate visits and no TV advertising.^[8] This means that swing state issues receive more attention, while issues important to other states are largely ignored.^[9][10][11]
2. State winner-take-all laws tend to decrease voter turnout in states without close races. Voters living outside the swing states have a greater certainty of which candidate is likely to win their state. This knowledge of the probable outcome decreases their incentive to vote.^[9][11] A report by The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) found that turnout among eligible voters under age 30 was 64.4% in the ten closest battleground states and only 47.6% in the rest of the country – a 17% gap.^[12]
3. The current Electoral College system allows a candidate to win the Presidency while losing the popular vote, an outcome seen as counter to the one person, one vote principle of democracy.^[13]
4. 
   

Whether these splits suggest an advantage for one major party or the other in the Electoral College is discussed in § Suggested partisan advantage below.

Enactment prospects

See also: § Adoption, and § Constitutionality

Political analyst Nate Silver noted in 2014 that all jurisdictions that had adopted the compact at that time were blue states, and that there were not enough electoral votes from the remaining blue states to achieve the required majority. He concluded that, as swing states were unlikely to support a compact that reduces their influence (see § Campaign focus on swing states), the compact could not succeed without adoption by some red states as well.^[17] Republican-led chambers have adopted the measure in New York (2011),^[18] Oklahoma (2014), and Arizona (2016), and the measure has been unanimously approved by Republican-led committees in Georgia and Missouri, prior to the 2016 election.^[19] On March 15, 2019, Colorado became the most "purple" state to join the compact, though no Republican legislators supported the bill and Colorado had a state government trifecta under Democrats.^[20] It was later submitted to a ballot initiative, where it was approved by 52% of voters.^{[citation needed]}

In addition to the adoption threshold, the NPVIC raises potential legal issues, discussed in § Constitutionality, that may draw challenges to the compact.

Debate over effects

The project has been supported by editorials in newspapers, including The New York Times,^[9] the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times,^[21] The Boston Globe,^[22] and the Minneapolis Star Tribune,^[23] arguing that the existing system discourages voter turnout and leaves emphasis on only a few states and a few issues, while a popular election would equalize voting power. Others have argued against it, including the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.^[24] Pete du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, called the project an "urban power grab" that would shift politics entirely to urban issues in high population states and allow lower caliber candidates to run.^[25] A collection of readings pro and con has been assembled by the League of Women Voters.^[26] Some of the most common points of debate are detailed below:

Protective function of the Electoral College

Certain founders, notably Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, conceived of the Electoral College as a deliberative body which would weigh the inputs of the states, but not be bound by them, in selecting the president, and would therefore serve to protect the country from the election of a person who is unfit to be president.^[27][28] However, the Electoral College has never served such a role in practice. From 1796 onward, presidential electors have acted as "rubber stamps" for their parties' nominees. Journalist and commentator Peter Beinart has cited the election of Donald Trump, whom some, he notes, view as unfit, as evidence that the Electoral College does not perform a protective function.^[29] As of 2025, no election outcome has been determined by an elector deviating from the will of their state.^[30] Furthermore, thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws to prevent such "faithless electors",^[31][32] and such laws were upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2020 in Chiafalo v. Washington.^[33] The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does not eliminate the Electoral College or affect faithless elector laws; it merely changes how electors are pledged by the participating states.^{[citation needed]}

^{-----------------------------}

^{{Too much to copy & paste}}

On Saturday, December 13, 2025 at 12:39:48 PM UTC-5 ImStillMags Mags wrote:

[Lobo]

<< #1 we are not now where we ever a nation based on direct democracy!  >>

We've never been an autocracy, an oligarchy, or a plutocracy before Trump, but that didn't stop "Project 2025" from replacing Constitutional principles in America.

In any case, where does any of Mags' "Project 2029" result in "direct democracy"?

[Irie]

"We've never been an autocracy, an oligarchy, or a plutocracy..."

And we still aren't, irrespective of the lib talking point.

[Rick Richardson]

34. End Gerrymandering. There has to be a better way that centers representation and is informed by our census.

Do we know where the lines were drawn before this started?

[Rick Richardson]

You sure don't care about the power grab that is here right now.

[Lobo]

Sadly, we're neck-deep in all three. We're not entirely a totalitarian dictatorship just yet, but we're close and rushing headlong into one -- much faster than Erdogan dismantled Turkey's century-old Liberal Democracy, or Putin and Viktor Orban did to Russia's and Hungary's much younger ones.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States

Democratic backsliding in the United States

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The right of center "The Economist" magazine now rates the US a "Flawed Democracy", even below Hungary!

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

The Economist Democracy Index

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI Overview

The United States has 

not fully become an autocracy today, as key democratic institutions like a mostly free press and independent judiciary still exist. However, many experts and international watchdog groups believe the U.S. is experiencing significant "democratic backsliding" and moving down an anti-democratic path, with some reclassifying its system. 

Key Perspectives and Classifications

Different political scientists and organizations use various terms to describe the current state of American democracy: 

• "Anocracy" or "At the Cusp of Autocracy": The Polity data series, which measures regime qualities, has classified the U.S. as an "anocracy" (a mix of democracy and autocracy) since early 2021 and states it is now "at the cusp of autocracy".
• "Electoral Autocracy" or "Competitive Authoritarian System": The V-Dem Institute classified the U.S. as an "electoral authoritarian" regime in late 2025, a system where elections are held but are not considered free and fair due to state manipulation. Other experts refer to the U.S. as a "competitive authoritarian" system, which has the trappings of democracy but an unlevel playing field.
• "Flawed Democracy": Freedom House and The Economist still classify the U.S. as a democracy, though scores on their metrics have significantly declined.
• "Autocracy in the Making": Many scholars, commentators, and public figures, including former President Barack Obama and billionaire Ray Dalio, warn that the U.S. is "dangerously close" to autocracy and is following a path similar to countries like Hungary or Turkey, where democratic erosion happens incrementally through law and institutional manipulation rather than a sudden coup. 

Key Factors in the Debate

Concerns center on actions that undermine democratic norms and institutions: 

• Undermining Faith in Elections: Questioning election integrity has been a central concern.
• Executive Power Expansion: There are concerns about the use of numerous executive orders to bypass Congress, challenges to the rule of law, and a lack of legislative oversight.
• Politicization of Institutions: Efforts to politicize key state institutions such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the military are cited as signs of democratic backsliding.
• Attacks on Independent Bodies: The targeting of the media, universities, and the judiciary are also highlighted as autocratic tactics. 

Despite these trends, the U.S. still possesses institutional resilience, including a robust civil society, a decentralized federalist structure for running elections, and a history of peaceful transitions of power, which could help counteract a permanent slide into autocracy. The near future and the functionality of the existing checks and balances will be critical in determining the nation's trajectory. 

[Lobo]

<< Despite these trends, the U.S. still possesses institutional resilience, including a robust civil society, a decentralized federalist structure for running elections, and a history of peaceful transitions of power, which could help counteract a permanent slide into autocracy.   >>

A proud history that Trump pretty much killed forever on January 6...

[Lobo]

<<14. Revised tax code that restores balance and fairness.

Raise individual tax rates to 39% for incomes over $1 million, 42% for incomes over $5 million, 45% for incomes over $10 million, and 50% for those earning over $1 billion. 

=========

I have never liked sharp large thresholds.>>

Me either. Either physical cliff-sides, that always make me feel like I'm about to go over into the abyss, or in things like tax rates. They should be gradual, with many brackets, but much higher than now as you approach the top.

Why does no one (except me) talk about restoring pre-Reagan tax rates -- at least to the 70% top marginal rate that we had under JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, if not rates as high as 94% that we had from WWII to Kennedy, and rates approaching those going back as far as 1917...?

Even "Democratic Socialist" Sen Bernie Sanders only talks about raising the top marginal rate to 58%.

(GOPers Coolidge and Hoover lowered the top rate to 25%... shortly before giving us the Great Depression...)

Back then, the wealthiest American billionaires and super-millionaires were paying on average around 55% to 60% of their income and wealth increases in effective tax rates (compared to paying less than 10% now), but though they weren't nearly as rich as now, or taking nearly as large a percentage of the nation's wealth and income as now (or as they took in their previous late-19th/early 20th century Gilded Age), they somehow managed to scrape by. And far from being a drag on the economy as a whole, for the American middle class and America's rise to the top in almost every area, it was a Golden Age.

Hell, the top rate was 50% even during Reagan's first six years in office. America's middle class decline didn't begin until the top rate was lowered to 28% in 1988. And though correlation does not necessarily indicate cause and effect, it does prove that high taxation at the top does not harm the economy.

On Saturday, December 13, 2025 at 12:58:23 PM UTC-5 BEZARK wrote:

[Lobo]

https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

[Rick Richardson]

Lobo I think You will find some imformative going backwards.

I am going to read now.

It may be interseting to you and some others.

I searched for taxcuts of Reagan's and it went back in time.

Go to AskEconomics

r/AskEconomics•6 mo. ago

Tus3

So, on here I encountered contradicting claims about the Reagan tax cuts. Can anybody provide clarification?

So, when reading r/AskEconomics and r/EconomicHistory in my spare time the Reagan tax cuts had been brought up a few times.

Then I had encountered contradicting claims about how that it happened that despite Reagan lowering tax rates, tax revenues increased:

• 1: Reagan actually raised taxes instead of lowering them. The tax rates were lowered, but the tax base was broadened by doing such things as getting rid of various exemptions and deductions; the net effect was a tax increase instead of a decrease.

• 1B: Once it had been stated that Reagan had on net decreased taxes for the rich and increased them on the poor.

• 2: Tax revenue increased, but less than it would have done without the tax cuts.

• 2B: By cutting taxes Reagan reduced the amount of economic growth. In order to finance those tax cuts the government had to borrow more money, with the result there was less money available to be borrowed by companies; government budget deficits crowded out private capital investments.

Note; those might not be mutually exclusive, under Reagan multiple changes to the tax code happened so it is possible that one claim is correct for one change and the other claim for another change or all combined.

I had also looked the Reagan tax cuts up on Wikipedia; however, of some of the sources there I am unsure about how reliable they are.

Think-Culture-4740

•6mo ago

The so called high taxes of the 1950s to the 1980s was a complete fairy tale that conventional wisdom has sold to the public at large.

Here's the truth. The stated Marginal Tax Rates were high, but because of a Swiss cheese tax code; no one actually paid those taxes. None whatsoever. Which is why, if you look at the tax revenue as a percentage of GDP; it is basically stable. It has been roughly the same a decade before Reagan and decades after Reagan and on.

You can mechanically calculate it for yourself with these two links.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

Here's a link to the tax foundation

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/

The tldr - the tax receipts as a percentage of GDP were largely unchanged. However, the actual tax rates and base were never changed to one value and actually successively went down and then up later during his

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/1l680zd/so_on_here_i_encountered_contradicting_claims/#:~:text=Reagan%20signed%20a%20large%20tax,bracket%2C%20the%20Economic%20Recovery%20Act.

[Rick Richardson]

Think Culture is all I could get the body of his conclusion did not post. 

[Navy]

You mean like in California where the leftist gerrymandered republicans right out of having a vote? 

You didn't seem to speak up about that when in happened. I suspect you happy danced like most of your ilk.

[Exposeposers]

Gotta be pretty stupid to not know California responded to the Order by Trump, to Texas, to gerrymander their maps to add 5 more likely Goptard districts. Oh, the Horror of California doing the same, but only after letting their people vote if they wanted/approved of the State Government doing what Texas asked zero of their citizens to do. Snowflake Cultists cant take a punch back after they move first, they fold and cry like the snowflakes they really are!

[Navy]

Why don't you come to Oklahoma ....I'll show some one who can for sure throw a punch. I'll knock your fucking teeth down your throat. Please come.

[BEZARK]

"You mean" along with "So" the lead-in squawks of  MAGAmorons.

[Lobo]

<<1: Reagan actually raised taxes instead of lowering them. The tax rates were lowered, but the tax base was broadened by doing such things as getting rid of various exemptions and deductions; the net effect was a tax increase instead of a decrease.>>

In addition to the Federal Income Tax, there was also a big increase in the regressive FICA tax on middle class working people, worked out between Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neil, to put Social Security and the SS Trust Fund in the black for at least the next half century to come. (That one I could live with).

Tax cuts on middle to lower income earners usually produce a very small, very short term increase in commerce and revenue, as working people -- who have to spend anywhere from a small percentage to all of their income just to survive -- have a little more to spend. But it doesn't last long, and certainly never produces anywhere near as much as it costs (or "pays for itself").

But at least they produce some revenue. Tax cuts on the rich and super-rich (which is where most GOP tax cuts have gone to -- 83% to the top 1% in the case of Trump's tax cuts) produce nothing at all but higher deficits, increased debt, and more inequality, as they concentrate more and more of the nation's wealth into the hands of the ultra-wealthy, both in raw dollars and as a percentage of the nation's wealth.

They have no effect whatsoever on either commerce or investment, because the super-rich are already spending whatever they're going to spend -- and borrowing against their own wealth and securities (which is not taxed but can be deducted from any tax liabilities) for whatever $$$ they require -- while investing in a business is a reaction to consumer demand (or expected consumer demand) and to how much reward can be expected from the investment. Not to how much extra money one has on hand.

[Lobo]

<< You mean like in California where the leftist gerrymandered republicans right out of having a vote? 
You didn't seem to speak up about that when in happened. I suspect you happy danced like most of your ilk.>>

Damn, Navy... you really weren't aware that California did it strictly as a reaction to Texas first taking a wrecking ball to American tradition, by redistricting a second time in a decade?

Moreover, Texas not only re-gerrymandered Democrats out of their seats for the second time since the 2020 Census, but gave the finger to the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act by gerrymandering blacks and Latinos out of any representation, despite the fact that an increase in minorities living in Texas is the only reason the state got more seats this decade!

And on top of it, as Exposeposers points out, the Texas gerrymandering was done on orders from Trump, with Texas voters getting no say in the matter, while California's reaction was put up to a vote by the state's citizens.

Christ... small wonder that you believe some of the things you do, when you're only getting, at very best, only half of the story, and that half totally biased and partisan, and consisting of bots on Facebook telling you whatever FB's algorithms have decided you want to hear...

On Monday, December 15, 2025 at 7:41:30 AM UTC-5 Navy wrote:

[BEZARK]

I remember decades ago seeing on TV news from Moscow old ladies  who genuinely missed Stalin.

[Exposeposers]

Tsk,Tsk, throwing a Maggot cult tantrum of violence to mask ignorance is very becoming of you. I know, you feel very stupid with your posts, berating California in this instance for what cult country Texas already did, and you didnt know about it, or thought everyone is at your intelect level. has to be hard.  Why do you think its appropriate to resort to keyboard tough old Karen hag bag, inviting a violent confrontation from someone that dosent give a shit about your testosterone level, has never laid a hand on a woman, and not knowing what you would be getting yourself into? 

-------------------------------------------------------------

.I'll show some one who can for sure throw a punch. I'll knock your fucking teeth down your throat. Please come.

On Monday, December 15, 2025 at 3:37:00 PM UTC-5 Navy wrote: