Trump's Role In The Election Of Donald J. Trump

The debates on tax cuts are making their way to headlines of every radio station, newspaper, and television station in America. Today, tax cuts would only benefit the wealthy and wouldn’t really benefit the lower class. “The administration and it’s congressional alleys are proposing to sharply reduce taxation of the business income primarily benefiting

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

Citizens United impacted the Political Institutions by allowing unions, corporations, and associations to spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. Saying that they won't coordinate their efforts with a candidate. Citizens United helped unleash unprecedented amounts of outside spending in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. Before Citizens United was created, outside groups legally limited they ways they could use the money to influence elections. Citizens United teamed up with a lower court case and they cleared the way for direct corporate spending and created the super PACs, which accepts unlimited contributions from different corporations or individuals in making expenditures. They accept unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations

‘Citizens United’ overturns Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sentencing that its related clauses go against to the principle of freedom of speech in the constitution. The ruling follows a bitter boardroom dispute in all sides in America, which has profoundly affected the average American citizens, the country at large and other stakeholders. Firstly, it affects American citizens. On the one hand, in the year of Occupy Wall Street, large amount of the public protested this ruling, for that this ruling may lead to the corruption and make normal people lose their political rights gradually. But on the other hand, they are allowed to collect for the election without limitation, which is supported by many young people especially the supporter of the Democratic Party. Secondly, it affects the country at large. Even in America with classical liberalism and neo-conservatism,

‘Citizens United’ overturns Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, sentencing that its related clauses go against to the principle of freedom of speech in constitution. The ruling follows a bitter boardroom dispute in all sides in America, which has profoundly affect the average American citizens, the country at large and other stakeholders. Firstly, it affects American citizens. On the one hand, in the year of Occupy Wall Street, large amount of the public protested this ruling, for that this ruling may leads to the corruption and make normal people lose their political rights gradually. But on the other hand, they are allowed to collect for the election without limitation, which is supported by many young people especially the supporter of Democratic Party. Secondly, it affects the country at large. Even in America with classical liberalism and neo-conservatism, there is still

Trump’s plan for tax reform, at its simplest, is to cut taxes for most people, with focus in certain incomes. In the

Right now, His plan would increase the standard deduction to $15,000, up from $6,300 for single filers and to $30,000 for married couples filing jointly, up from $12,600. (Anderson 1).Trump's plan also calls for the repeal of the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax. With the elimination of the AMT (alternative minimum tax), itemized deductions would be worth more, Spiess said. "For many middle-income taxpayers, the new standard deduction may exceed their itemized deductions, thus allowing a higher deduction," said Timothy Speiss, chairman of personal wealth advisors at accounting firm EisnerAmper.Trump's plan also calls for the repeal of the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax. With the elimination of the AMT, itemized deductions would be worth more, Spiess said. There are a couple of reasons Trump's plans for Taxes are not very smart for the economy. The first reason is about 20 percent of households and more than half of single parents would pay more in taxes under Trump's tax plan even with the child-care breaks Raising taxes for the middle-class families is bad because that family probably do not have room to pay more taxes because it is already high enough. The last reason Trump needs to focus on the economy is because not all taxpayers would benefit from Trump's proposals. His plan calls for repealing personal exemptions for taxpayers and

As previously stated in the second paragraph, Citizens United claimed certain amendments unconstitutional because, in the long run they were trying to show what they thought about certain candidates. In the book Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz discuss one of the most powerful institutions, Citizens United. In Tribe and Matz’s book, Stephen Colbert from Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report, focuses on the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case and found that “...the corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend as much money as they choose when advocating the election or defeat of political candidates, so long as they do not coordinate their advertising with the candidate's' campaign" (Tribe and Matz 88). After Colbert did some research, he aired clips showing how anonymous millionaires were privately funding specific secretive super PACs, even though super PACs are required by law to disclose their donors but nonprofit groups do not have to. Corporations have the same right as citizens do with voting, it is anonymous. In the book, “Colbert explained how to manipulate disclosure rules...And to prove that ‘shady, out of state group[s] whose intentions are not clear’ can influence elections…”(Tribe and Matz 89). So, the fact is that whether or not the money is from a nonprofit group, the majority of the money that is spent in elections is disclosed. But, at the same time, because they remain anonymous it tests the First Amendment due to freedom of speech. Huge corporations and groups have a ridiculous amount of money that they can put their money towards ads and propaganda with hidden messages, negative comments, or anything in their beliefs. Not knowing where specific money comes from or what the intentions really are damages our political

Today’s American society is plagued by the concept and the idea that the wealthy are secretly pulling the strings behind every political action and every policy move made by our national government. The government has preventative measures that prevent obscenely large donations from wealthy businesses, labor unions, and individuals, right? Actually, that all changed in 2010 in a court case called “Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission” (Hasen). The Supreme Court ruled that “the First Amendment barred a federal law preventing corporations and unions from spending their own funds to influence the outcome of elections,” which does not sound too horrific or detrimental does it (Hasen)? Well, as Mr. Donald Trump would say: “Wrong!” This ruling allowed for the creation of a horrific creation of what are now referred to as “Super PACs.” Super PACs are organizations that operate independently from any candidate or political party. These organizations are allowed to receive any amount of money from any person or organization, which they can they allot towards their own support of a political candidate. A good example of this would be Mitt Romney’s Super PAC entitled “Restore America,” which spent over twelve million dollars launching an ad campaign that attacked Newt Gingrich (MacMillen). These new Super PACs have no purpose other than to allow the rich and wealthy to gain leverage in politics and to push their own agenda by throwing money at candidates. Super PACs and PACs

“Considering that the top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans today is 35 percent, that figure seems astounding. But it's true that in the 1950s, the top marginal tax rates were over 90 percent” (Farley). Many may think, how does lower taxes on the highest income earners have an effect on them. Simple, less funding of programs that enrich the quality of one’s life. When the government does not receive the needed funding spending cuts must be made. Unfortunately, these spending cuts are more often than not are on government programs that help those who are

In the past 12 months the global community has witnessed many chaotic and tragic events, amidst all the craziness, the presidential race in the US remains to be one of the most critically important events that the world needs to keep a close eye on. Because it is an undeniable fact that the US has great influences in world affairs, and whoever gets elected to the office of President of the United States is a matter of concern not just among the American people but for other nations as well.

The George W. Bush administration is remarkably renowned for passing a major tax-cuts package, known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, (Bartels, 2005, p. 19). The package postulated a reduction in the federal income tax rates, increment in the child credits, augmented tax-free retirement contributions and the educational savings account, as well as a gradual elimination of the US estate tax. The entire tax package was to cost the US Treasury over $1.3 trillion (excluding interest) up to 2010, the expected expiry time of the package. If the system was to continue in the later years, the Treasury could end up spending over $200 billion each year. According to Bartels (2005), The Bush move was supported by the ordinary citizens before the passage of the package. The people’s support was not meant to imply the way they were impressed with the package as contributing to inequality, as they were mainly concerned with their own individual welfare. Notably, they wanted a system that could relieve them from paying massive or burdensome amounts of taxes. Though contrary to the perception of the legislation by the people and their personal preferences regarding it, 36% of the tax benefits were to accrue to the richest, who comprised only one percent of the American population. The share was almost equal to the one that was received by those in the bottom who constituted around 80% of the population (Hacker & Pierson, p. 33).

Donald Trump is not the only one responsible for what he has created in president elections. “The media made a mistake by covering Trump’s candidacy at the start as some sort of joke or media prank,” notes Danielle S. Allen, a political scientist at Harvard (Kristof, 2016). Donald Trump can’t do it alone in becoming president of American. The people are influencing the politic election. In being a part of the non-serious issues that Donald Trump created made it easy to forget about the real issues our country is currently facing. “The repeated use of references to ‘the Donald’ across all platforms structured the conversation around ironical affection for a celebrity rather than around serious conversation of character and policy” (Kristof,

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people. (“Here’s Donald Trump’s Presidential Announcement Speech”)

Donald Trump 's victory in the 2016 presidential election took many people by surprise. Pollsters, political analysts, news anchors and even celebrities expressed shock that a Washington outsider could triumph over a candidate with Hillary Clinton 's history in politics. Clinton and Trump expressed views throughout their campaigns that were in direct opposition, including their opinions on the Dodd-Frank Act, the legislation that spawned the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. As you may know, the CFPB has proposed sweeping new regulations for short-term, small-dollar installment loans that could effectively eliminate these types of loans. Although the Dodd-Frank and the CFPB have received a great deal of support from President Obama as well as Clinton, Trump has repeatedly vowed to "dismantle" both the agency and the Dodd-Frank. This has led to speculation that Trump 's election may be a death blow to Obama 's plan to kill non-collateralized personal installment loans.