Veterans

Project 2025 will...

...eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and distribute its functions to other departments: This could negatively affect veterans by making it harder for the government to coordinate services for veterans, such as those related to immigration, naturalization, and border protection. Many veterans rely on DHS for support in these areas. [133]

...eliminate the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP). This means it will be harder for veterans to report problems at the VA. [653]

...restrict eligibility for first-time homebuyers: Project 2025 proposes to change the Federal Housing Administration's statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers. This could negatively affect veterans by making it harder for them to buy homes. Many veterans rely on FHA loans to buy their first homes. [510]

...eliminate many of the health conditions that qualify veterans for disability benefits: Project 2025 additionally criticizes the 1991 Agent Orange Act and the 2022 PACT Act, which aid veterans exposed to toxic substances. This will greatly restrict disabled veteran's access to life-sustaining benefits. [643] [649]

...put at risk the jobs of the nearly 637,000 veterans working for the federal government by making it easier to fire federal employees, disbanding agencies like the Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security and privatizing the TSA: This will jeopardize the livelihoods of veterans and undermine the effectiveness of the government. [80] [133] [319]

See this:

."It was March 2018, and then-President Donald Trump was meeting with his Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary, Dr. David Shulkin, about how to reform veteran health care. But it was Hegseth, then a Fox News personality, whose opinion Trump really wanted.

Hegseth, now Trump’s nominee to serve as secretary of defense, had been a vocal and persistent advocate for veterans having unfettered access to private health care, rather than having to go through the VA to keep their benefits. He’s also lobbied for policies that would restrict VA care and believes veterans should ask for fewer government benefits.

“We want to have full choice where veterans can go wherever they want for care,” Hegseth told Trump on speakerphone as Shulkin listened, according to Shulkin’s 2019 memoir.

Trump’s pick to serve as the next VA secretary, Doug Collins, has also expressed support for greater privatization of veteran health care, which advocates characterize as giving veterans greater choice over their doctors. If veterans “want to go back to their own doctors, then so be it,” he told Fox News last month.

For Shulkin, a rare “holdover” from President Barack Obama’s administration to Trump’s, this was “the worst-case scenario” for veteran health care, and one he had repeatedly warned Hegseth against.

“Your version of choice would cost billions more per year, bankrupting the system,” Shulkin recalls telling Hegseth in his memoir. “How can we responsibly pursue this? Unfortunately, he didn’t want to engage at the level of budget and other aspects of day-to-day reality. He seemed to prefer his sound bites on television.”

See more:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/hegseth-and-collins-push-for-cutting-veterans-health-benefits-alarms-servicemembers-and-veterans-groups/ar-AA1vrdU0?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=eaa2b39f0bee47b08aca59a422237177&ei=21

Web developers needed!

I posted a while ago about creating a website for constitution violations and having a tracker. We have a team of writers and researchers but I do need more web developers.

Anyone interested in joining? The more people the better! We are hoping to have the site up and running by the beginning go the 2025.

Any input on the project overall is welcome!

Here's what Trump's Project 2025 has to say about the program:

How will Project 2025 affect me?

Medicaid

Project 2025 will...

...shrink the scope and scale of Medicaid. This could result in millions of Americans losing access to affordable healthcare, potentially leading to a decline in overall health outcomes. [466]

...make it easier for states to kick people off Medicaid. This means that people could lose their health care if they don't follow all the rules. [467]

...let states make people work to get Medicaid. This means that people who can't find a job could lose their health care. [468]

...let states charge people more for Medicaid. This means that people will have to pay more for their health care. [468]

...let states put time limits on how long people can be on Medicaid. This means that people could lose their health care after a certain amount of time, even if they still need it. [468]

...make it harder for people to get on Medicaid if they have some money saved up. This means that people who have saved some money might not be able to get health care from the government. [467]

...allow states to charge premiums and co-pays to people who receive Medicaid. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would have to pay for some of their health care costs. [468]

...allow states to eliminate certain benefits from Medicaid. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would no longer be able to receive certain health care services. [468]

...allow states to use Medicaid funds to provide private health insurance. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would be enrolled in private health insurance plans instead of the traditional Medicaid program. [468]

...cap Medicaid payments to states without regard for their actual spending needs on health and long-term care. This could force states to outright deny coverage of particular benefits, especially costly services such as long-term care. [466]

© Getty

With Donald Trump returning to the presidency of the United States, the Affordable Care Act or ACA, which promoted the expansion of Medicaid in various states across the country, could be in jeopardy.

While the president-elect has not made clear what his plan is for Medicaid, since its passage in 2010, the ACA has faced significant opposition from conservatives, who now control the new Congress.

This suggests a possible cut in additional Medicaid funding, with benefits of at least three million beneficiaries in nine different states at risk.

There's more:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/bad-news-for-medicaid-recipients-if-you-live-in-one-of-these-9-states-you-could-lose-your-health-plan/ar-AA1vm2GA?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=f97609e0beac48d6b5bc8e08cb416938&ei=127

What aren't they speaking up?

Why did they let musk buy the election? Why did none of them do their own bribery campaigns?

Why didn't billionaire celebrities like Taylor Swift sound the alarm about project 25 to her millions of fans? It was a fucking mistake for her to have waited until the last minute to endorse Harris. The billionaires should have endorsed Biden way before he stepped down if they truly cared .

I warned people about that before the election but everyone jumped in on defending the billionaires because it "had more impact" to do it so close .

Why aren't Hollywood Dems forming their own Trump resistance pac? How the hell can you consider yourself progressive or liberal if you are just going to sit on your billions and do nothing?

I know they plan to ban "porn", but what about the way back machine? Will we still be able to access it if Trump's internet censorship succeeds?

I think we all agree that the new administration will do everything they can to control the flow of information. But what about sites like Wikipedia? We tend to trust the site, but is there any way they can take over, either directly or behind the scenes? Do we have any planned alternatives?

There are so many splinter groups that want to save democracy and ensure irreversible progress. When Harris and Walz ran, we all had one cohesive group to support. What/who can we supoort so we come out strong for and special elections, the 2026 midterms, and governor elections? We need to march in lockstep together to defeat the maga virus and I worry chasing too many rabbits will leave us hungry.

It is multifaceted but we need a strong foundation. I was thinking of donating to the squad because we need strong and bold progressives to defeat Maga. I am donating to the ACLU because it is imperative at this time and they have a blueprint to stop this insanity. I am donating to Chorus which is an outfit that progressive YouTuber, Brian Tyler Cohen, put a video out about. It is helping to solidify a cohesive progressive media to help fight against the right wing propaganda and disinformation machine.

The Democratic National Committee needs to do be proactive and robust now, and start seeding a blue tsunami for any upcoming special elections and the mid-terms and subsequently 2028. We can not hope to win with another 100 day election grasping at straws.

I really need a focal point to where I can donate that will produce dividends.

Open to all advice.

The common misconception among MAGA types is Trump and his band of oligarchs are out to screw the libs; looks like you drank the Kool Ade.

While the 'Blue' states have the best economy and contribute more to the Federal government than they get in return, the same is not true for the 'Red' states who depend of 'Blue' money for their survival. Beyond that, take a look at Project 2025 and how it will further devastate your marginal communities.

How will Project 2025 affect me?

Project 2025 will...

...abolish the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This would make it harder for people to get life-saving forecasts and information about hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, heat waves, and other extreme weather events [674]

...raise the FEMA threshold for public assistance and end Small Business Administration (SBA) direct lending such as disaster loans, which help businesses and homeowners recover from declared disasters. This would leave communities with fewer resources to rebuild after disasters like catastrophic hurricanes and tornadoes. [153] [750] [754]

...promote "school choice" and erode public education. This has been shown to subsidize wealthy families who were already sending their children to private schools while blowing giant holes in the funding for public schools, leading to worse academic outcomes for both private and public school students. [5] [319] [350] [351] [analysis] [analysis] [analysis]

...significantly restrict the free school lunch program. This would mean that many children may not have enough to eat at school. Some children who currently get free school meals would have to pay for them. [303]

...eliminate the Head Start program. This would mean that many children from low-income families would not have access to preschool. [482]

...re-evaluate regulation for baby formula. This could lead to unsafe baby formula. [302]

...defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds PBS and NPR. This would remove a vital source of educational and cultural programming, especially in rural and underserved communities where commercial options are limited. [246]

...eliminate federal rules that protect children from working in mines, meatpacking plants and other dangerous workplaces. This could lead to exploitation, interference with education, normalization of child labor, and an increased risk of injury or death for children. [595]

...make it harder for students to get financial aid for college. This would mean that fewer students from low-income families would be able to go to college. [327]

...attempt to eliminate farm subsidies like the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) program and the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program. This means that farmers will no longer get money from the government to help them when prices for the crops they grow go down or when they do not harvest as much as they expected. [296]

...reduce how much the government pays to help farmers buy crop insurance. This means that farmers will have to pay more to buy crop insurance to protect themselves against bad weather or low prices. [297]

...capping and then phasing down the H-2A visa program: This could lead to higher labor costs for farmers, which would make it more difficult for some farmers to stay in business, especially those who operate on thin margins. This could also lead to labor shortages, reduced food production, and higher food prices for consumers. [611]

...apply cuts and work requirements to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This means that many people who need help buying food would no longer get money from the government to buy food. [298] [299]

...shrink the scope and scale of Medicaid. This could result in millions of Americans losing access to affordable healthcare, potentially leading to a decline in overall health outcomes. [466]

...let states make people work to get Medicaid. This means that people who can't find a job could lose their health care. [468]

...allow states to charge premiums and co-pays to people who receive Medicaid. This means that many people who are currently eligible for Medicaid would have to pay for some of their health care costs. [468]

...repeal the drug price negotiation program in Medicare. This program lowers the cost of prescription drugs, and getting rid of it will likely mean that prescription drugs will cost more. [465]

...eliminate the Medicare Shared Savings Program. This program helps to lower the cost of Medicare, and getting rid of it will likely mean that Medicare will cost more. [465]

...push more of the 33 million people enrolled in Original Medicare towards Medicare Advantage by making it the "default enrollment option". Medicare Advantage plans can require prior authorizations, making it harder for patients to access care, and they can restrict enrollees' choices of physicians and hospitals. [465]

...reform U.S. healthcare into a free market mostly regulated by states. Healthcare services would then be provided by companies whose whole goal is to make a profit off you. This means patients will need to develop more healthcare expertise, rural areas may be underserved, low-income and vulnerable populations may be underserved, sicker patients may pay more, the system may be ill-equipped to handle public health emergencies, and it could lead to an overall decline in quality and safety standards. [450]

...eliminate the requirement that health insurance plans cover birth control and male contraceptives such as condoms. This means that women and men may have to pay more for birth control. [483] [485]

...make it harder for women to get birth control through Title X family planning clinics. This means some women might have fewer choices for where to get birth control. [491]

...prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. This would make it harder for women to get affordable health care, including cancer screenings and contraception. [471]

...promote "fetal personhood" from the moment of conception. This could threaten procedures like IVF (In Vitro Fertilization). [450]

...reverse guidance that enables hospitals receiving Medicare funds to perform emergency abortions. This would enable hospitals in pro-life states to refuse to perform abortions, even when it is necessary to save a woman's life. [473]

...tax employers on workplace benefits that exceed $12,000 per worker annually. This would lead to employers cutting back on these benefits and workers paying more taxes and would be damaging for millions of families who rely on one working adult's employer-provided health insurance to cover dependents, such as children. [697]

If you think the facts stated here are fake leftist news, click on the page numbers and you'll see the actual text.

They are the ones financing it, showering in money those who are trying to destroy our country. This is something that gets censored and downvoted in mass here in Reddit because of the massive amount of bots they have working in this site.

https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html

I’ve seen this claim a few times and I haven’t had the time or headspace to sit down and read this document.

Can someone hit me with the source?

This space provides our community with a place to share articles and discussion topics not directly related to the defeat of Project 2025 but are still relevant to achieving that goal.

Before posting here, please read the "community info" for the sub. The usual rules apply.

There have been a few posts from people lately promising easy apps, videos and websites that will tell you who donated to the worst political candidates and why you should never buy from them again.

It is not this simple. Dig into these and you immediately find all sorts of things that don’t add up. This is because it’s difficult.

Here is a brief breakdown of how to do your own research using a company that’s appeared on a bad list lately, Lowe’s.

Step 1: See if the company has any statement about how they donate money to political campaigns

Theirs is long, but they reveal they have a PAC - and they say they don’t generally donate directly to campaigns. This is important as the only way a company can actually donate is through a PAC.

2. But Open Secrets shows big money! Like over a million dollars!

When you, as a person, donate to something political, you are asked who you work for - not to be too nosey, but because there are limits on how much you can donate to individual candidates vs PACs and they keep track of stuff. In Open Secrets, the “From Individuals” column is employees all added together. “From Organization” is what the Company donated through their PAC.

Lowe’s, like many companies, spends a small amount of their PAC money to support both parties.

3. While we’re here, scroll down and you can see a link to their annual lobbying efforts.

Not very exciting, right? Except we know that the lobbying is done under the name Lowe's Companies.

4. This is where we leave Open Secrets and go to the Federal Election Commission. What you want to do is get to their PAC and select disbursements to see where they spend this money in 2024

The good news is that this can be exported. The bad news is that a lot of this isn’t obvious.

Pivot Tables are your friend. This is where you find out the following:

• Lowe’s PAC donated to 78 Campaign Committees for Senators and Representatives across the United States. Amounts as low as $1500 and high as $7500. Across both parties.

• They donated to 74 other committees, most under $1000. A few under $5000. Less than 8 between $6400-10,000. 3 at $25,000. The Democratic Governors Association, The Republican Governors Association and something called NewDeal.

• Look up NewDeal and you find out it’s a coalition looking to be bipartisan and build up new leadership. While they’re into school choice, they also support reproductive freedom and climate change.

• Lowe’s gave 15K to the Democratic and Republican Senate and House Campaign Committees.

• Leaving $214K that went to other PACs. Yes, PACs giving to PACs. See how complicated this gets? And you really have to DIG. Most of the 88 PACs got $5000. PACs like the LGBTQ Victory Federal Fund, The Equality Fund, The Freedom Fund, Blue Dog Political Action Committee…and, sure the Republican Mainstream Partnership PAC.

• The biggest donation went to DAGA PAC which was $25,000 to a PAC dedicated to donating Democratic Attorneys General.

5. Well - now your head is spinning, right? Is Lowe’s good or bad? Well, these are donations. They don’t donate to the presidential candidates.

They also aren’t donating to anything super controversial.

• But Lowe’s also scaled back on their DEI programs and won’t survey their employees on the Human Rights campaign for LGBTQ+ issues anymore because, well, they want everyone to buy their stuff.

Anyway. I wanted to let you know that a lot of the videos promise it’s easy and I skipped the optional steps of looking up the C-Suite to see who they donate money to or who they show up to in terms of their individual support.

That last one is rougher. And it’s up to you. Frankly, a $2500 individual donation from someone in the C-suite? Meh. Are you a megalomaniac who thinks $100 million of his fortune which is built on a lot of public money that gets funneled into your businesses means you get to wreck the lives of that public? OH, WE HAVE OPINIONS.

I know this is long, but this is why people claiming they’ve researched hundreds of companies or apps that scrape a couple of data points from another site may not be as accurate as we think.

Do you think that a consequence of a porn ban will be more rape? Men who have no usual outlet in the distant past just did what? I know there were some taboo underground pictures...

Prostitution would obviously be illegal, but would be harder to ban. Do you think another consequence to women could be that human trafficking may go up?

He sets out to appear idiotic. It's all part of his grand vulgar scheme to craft the cult of ignorance, the personality cult. He whips up a sentiment. He stirs up people’s frustration, rage and resentment. He taps into people’s intense emotions. He takes advantage of people’s vulnerability at a time of horrible economy and contorts it into an engine for his own cause. He engineered this cult and insidiously inflammatory and provocative rhetoric to fool and manipulate people, dragging the entire nation down into a spiral of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, division and insanity. He invented the MAGA narrative, the slogan, the gesture. He makes himself out as some sort of demi-god, savior and the chosen one. The idolatry of Trump is calculated.