Sometimes, the presidential election can seem like a fight happening in an alternative universe that doesn’t actually mean anything to regular people.
But luckily the folks at USTaxCenter have crunched the numbers and figured out something more concrete: what do the leading candidates for President tax plans mean for your bottom line?
Here’s what they found:
Now, one note of caution when looking at this.
While Donald Trump’s plan looks good on paper, there are many reasons to think that it could actually do damage to the overall health of the economy. His plan would take out nearly $10 trillion in government revenue. Presumably, if he wanted to cut the deficit and debt, he would have to offset that loss of revenue with massive cuts. And it is not at all clear that he would actually be able to get his tax plan through Congress.
For Hillary Clinton, her plan is basically maintaining the status quo with some minor adjustments and some more tax credits for caregivers.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.
Photo Credit: USTaxCenter/ Submitted
What Do You Think?
You Might also like
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is running for president and he isn’t doing very well. That’s probably best demonstrated by the fact you just had to copy/paste and Google search “Sen. Lindsey Graham.”
Graham, who is next in line of the totally nationally successful McCain and Lieberman triumvirate spoke at the highly anticipated Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington, D.C. today.
Graham’s speech was something else. Part attack on Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, part doom and gloom lecture on the failings of the Republican party, Graham’s address made quite the impression in the room.
“It’s not about turning out evangelical Christians, it’s about repairing the damage done by incredibly hateful rhetoric driving a wall between us and the fastest-growing demographic in America,” Graham said according to Jezebel, referencing Trump. “It’s about looking Hispanic Americans in the eye and saying, ‘We get it, be part of our cause.”
But it was Graham’s comments on the GOP at large that has many people buzzing.
“He took issue with Cruz’s preceding remarks that Republicans need to vote in strength, and low turnout is why the party failed to win in 2008 and 2012.
“How many of you believe we’re losing elections because we’re not hard-ass enough on immigration?’ Graham asked the crowd, to light applause. ‘Well, I don’t agree with you.'”
WATCH: Lindsey Graham bashes hardline conservatives on immigration and abortion
Graham also questioned hardline conservatives on the issue of abortion, saying that the party needed to support an exception in the case that a woman was raped.
Otherwise, the party would continue to be alienate the “majority” of the county on the abortion issue.
H/T: The Hill
Cover Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 44
What Do You Think?
For a large portion of the 21st century, liberals have taken on the role of the protective big sibling persona for any minority or controversial community in the U.S.
Time and time again, liberals speak for those who have been othered. But this type of help has enforced a new, problematic discourse that hinders ones ability to have an opinion and generate productive discussions about any kind of issue directed at a specific group of people.
The liberal protectiveness that is most destructive in today’s current state of controversy is Islamophobia.
This is a word created to criticize those who reject Muslim culture by calling them irrationally fearful of a religion.
But this is an unfair categorization for the disapproval of aspects of Islamic culture.
In 2015, Bill Maher had a round table discussion about Islam and whether or not it is predisposed to violence.
In that round table, Dinesh D’Souza explained, “What’s going on here is there is a civil war in the mind of the liberal”. He explains that liberals advocate for individual freedom for everyone and for multiculturalism all at the same time.
The latter half protects Muslim culture from any kind of criticism or intervention.
Bill Maher stated, “Christopher Hitchens said Islamophobic is a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons”.
So let’s break down this very clever statement.
The Fascists, in this case, are liberals that dictate how a population can be viewed, understood, and spoken of within a political or social setting.
Cowards are those that fear political incorrectness and controversy.
And morons are the public who agree with this strategy, thus eliminating any discussion that represents Muslims in a poor fashion.
Can we really chalk up every fear of an oppressive culture to being a phobia? To be fearful of an extreme religion that has enabled people to murder and stone one another does not seem irrational; in fact, that is a very rational thing to be afraid of.
Those that feel strongly against the oppressive nature of the Islamic faith are not being phobic, they are afraid of the violence that has ensued and continues to kill innocent people due to ancient ways of thinking.
Like this? You can write for us too!
In 2013, a story was released that Arifa Bibi was stoned to death by her uncle and cousins for having a mobile phone in Pakistan.
Stoning is a violent torture method most frequently used to punish women for asserting too much freedom or for their sexuality.
Many Muslim supporters of the campaign against stoning argue that while stoning women is not written in the Koran, “it is legitimized by the Hadith – the acts and sayings of the Prophet Mohamed.”
The story also mentions another case in 2008 in which a 13-year-old girl, Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, was buried from her neck down and stoned to death by 50 men. The reason? She had been raped by three men and was instead accused of adultery.
Our fear has not been the manifestation of a phobia of Islam; it comes from these real life tragedies.
Yet, this is not to be mistaken for a generalization that all Muslims are violent. The issue here is a misrepresentation that the religion itself invokes peace and that instead, a few extremists have reformed its ideologies and have become violent.
There is something innately violent within the religion, but that does not mean that all who follow the teachings of the Koran are violent.
This misconception comes from a lack of education and discussion on the topic. Words like Islamophobia allow this misrepresentation to exist because of the absence of communication about the violent qualities of the religion.
Both protecting and blaming an entire race is not constrictive, and it destroys any kind of productive conversation with regards to a controversial ideology.
But, disapproval of these characteristics still do not warrant the kind of blind, racist bigotry demonstrated by Donald Trump and his supporters.
The Koran, like the Bible or the Torah is a sacred text to those who read its teachings. Religion, for those who believe in it, should serve as a personal tool to connect with God or a higher being(s) in order to find support and lead a good life.
However that is not all that makes up religion.
Like any ideology, religion’s goal is to dictate and hide certain truths in order to obtain power over a population. It enforces certain beliefs, and rejects others.
This is a solidified quality of all religion, and it enables people to exclude others and their philosophies in order to support their own.
Ignoring oppressive aspects of Islam by calling anyone in opposition to the religion “Islamophobic” eliminates our ability to point out pieces of a culture that need changing for the greater good of humanity. You can disagree with something, you can even find it unacceptable, but that alone does not make you racist and it does not make you hateful.
Racism and hate come from an irrational blind assumption that all who are Muslim are also violent; xenophobia that encourages that kind of thinking proves ones stupidity.
Fear of reprimanding Islam cements the topic in mud and watches people drown in prejudice and oppression while everyone else ignores them to avoid controversial discussions.
The word, Islamophobia is not protecting Muslims, it is systematically harmful.
An individual should be able to be Muslim and not face stoning if they choose to sleep with someone before marriage or get an educating, or want to live their life differently than their parents had. That is their prerogative.
Liberals’ efforts to avoid political incorrectness allows this kind of practice to exist without reprimand, it is not protecting anyone.
However, let’s make one thing perfectly clear. By deliberately othering a religion and prejudicially demanding that they be kept from living in the U.S. is not an example of simply foregoing political correctness, it is just racism.
Donald Trump is not a leader in real discussion of controversial topics he is just racist.
Islamophobia and Islamic racism have been frequent and popular ideologies ever since 9/11, and it has kept the stigma of Muslim Americans alive.
It is acceptable to discuss the fundamental problems with Islam if they could be reasons for oppression and murder.
Just like it is acceptable to discuss gun regulation if a lack of background checks and restrictions could be the reason for massacre.
It’s time to stop speaking for other people and to instead, speak for the issues and find solutions.
If there is an inherent violence within a religion, we can talk about it without saying all Muslims are violent.
On the other hand, violence does not make it acceptable to completely omit a religion from this country, and it certainly does not warrant racism.
It is time to find the medium between both sides, to recognize that this religion of peace might not be so peaceful after all, but to also understand that that does not disregard all those who use its teachings to lead moral lives.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.Post Views: 86
What Do You Think?
By John Massey
Russian state TV has “accidentally” leaked several images of a potential nuclear torpedo, complete with large easy to see images and text.
Other than the cartoonish size of the schematics, one should also be highly skeptical of the accidental nature of this leak due to other recent attempts to frighten Western media by the regime.
This includes claims by Mr. Putin that Russia will develop qualitative means to defeat the NATO Missile Defense System, despite the system already being easily defeated by the sheer quantity of Russian delivery systems and easily developed countermeasures.
Of more immediate interest is the weapon system itself. Nuclear Torpedoes are not new, as both the United States and the Soviet Union developed torpedoes capable of carrying a 3-11 kiloton weapon at a range of a couple dozen miles or so.
However, the “Status-6” will be much more powerful than that. With a range of 10,000 Kms (6,200 miles), about the distance from London to Lima, the autonomous unit can deliver its cargo of uranium-238 and cobalt-59 most anywhere, according to state media outlet Russia Gazette.
The system is compared to the Deadhand system in mission, meaning that the intention is likely deterrence and not first strike, if it is even developed. However, the curious claim is made that a number of Cobalt Bomb, meant to maximize radiation output, would be able to exterminate all life on Earth. Russia Gazette estimates that 510 tons of cobalt would be necessary. To date, no “salted” weapons of any kind have been tested, but a cobalt based weapon would be particularly nasty, due to the half-life of Co-60 being 5.26 years.
The information on the specifics of cobalt weapons, and further information on nuclear weapons, was provided by Carey Sublette and can be further accessed at their site, Nuclear Weapons FAQ.
Like this piece? Rise News just launched a few weeks ago and is only getting started. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up to date with global news. Have a news tip? (No matter how big or small!) Send it to us- email@example.com.
Cover Photo Credit: Pavel Kazachkov/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)Post Views: 65
What Do You Think?