Running on assistance programs
. Lets not fix the actual problem, the democrat way
Democratic Party Rebuild
- Thread starter the next guy
- Start date
. Lets not fix the actual problem, the democrat way
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
Housing is unaffordableRunning on assistance programs
“Let’s give first time buyers a tax credit.”
None of these are new ideas. And when I say “new,” I mean Biden and Harris ran on and implemented some of these. And three strikes was some 90s, Clinton garbage. Man really bringing up 2004 policies in 2026.
Just wait to November and get your Democratic Party pamphlet outside the voting booth and vote for those candidates that day.
Biden lowered Insulin cost. What else did they run on?Running on assistance programs
Seeing as you will never ever get a 60 vote majority in the senate. A tax credit is actually the most realistic legislation that you can pass
Banning offshoring does not need congress, just the Bully pullpit
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
And this post details exactly why you do not agree with what Christie said.
Again, just wait till November.
Also had some good pitched for home ownership from Kamala.This isn't true, both of these things are popular.
It's just that Americans prioritize bigotry over that stuff and are more concerned with things like DEI and trans athletes
But so much of white culture is believing they’re better thus giving minorities access to the things they feel like “they’ve earned” is a bridge too far.
Also, the idea of them being represented by anything other than a white man is just too much post Obama.
Sort of like a single government run grocery store?Running on assistance programs
Most people don’t have sufficient healthcare if they’ve gone periods without healthcare so long they’re now afraid to do routine doctors visits or dental exams because they’re afraid of what it will turn up as well as the accompanying shame.
Universal healthcare addresses that issue. People are able to access healthcare early, often, and without gaps due to employment.
I don’t understand how universal healthcare solves this when the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was not lawful?
I just don’t believe universal healthcare is getting people out to vote.
The mandate was struck down because it was in the individual. This isn’t an issue if the government provides the service themselves.
You don’t think Universal healthcare will come with a mandate? It has to
This poor soul thinks government can fix problems inherent to Humans and AmericaRunning on assistance programs
Housing being expensive is a supply and demand issue.Housing is unaffordable
“Let’s give first time buyers a tax credit.”
1st time homebuyers can’t compete with people that are reselling.
This levels the field.
Housing is unaffordable
“Let’s give first time buyers a tax credit.”
tape old as time 
What the law originally did
The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) included an individual mandate: you were supposed to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
2. Why it was okay at first
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court of the United States said:
- The government can’t force you to buy insurance under its normal powers
- BUT the penalty was basically a tax, and Congress can create taxes
So the mandate survived because it acted like a tax
3. What changed later
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced the penalty to $0
4. Why that caused a problem
If the penalty is $0:
- It’s no longer really a tax (you’re not paying anything)
- So the original reasoning from 2012 falls apart
5. The court’s conclusion (simplified)
In California v. Texas, the Supreme Court basically said:
- The people challenging the law weren’t actually harmed by a $0 penalty
- So they didn’t have the right to sue (this is called “standing”)
Result: the Court didn’t strike down Obamacare, and the mandate became effectively meaningless because there’s no penalty
I don’t disagree with the benefits of Universal healthcare I just don’t think it’s motivating votersWhat the law originally did
The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) included an individual mandate: you were supposed to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
2. Why it was okay at first
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court of the United States said:
- The government can’t force you to buy insurance under its normal powers
- BUT the penalty was basically a tax, and Congress can create taxes
3. What changed later
In 2017, Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced the penalty to $0
4. Why that caused a problem
If the penalty is $0:
- It’s no longer really a tax (you’re not paying anything)
- So the original reasoning from 2012 falls apart
5. The court’s conclusion (simplified)
In California v. Texas, the Supreme Court basically said:
- The people challenging the law weren’t actually harmed by a $0 penalty
- So they didn’t have the right to sue (this is called “standing”)