America’s Richest 5% Donating More to Charity Due to Political Climate

Politics

In the current political climate, it has been found that America’s richest 5% is donating more money. 97% of all wealthy Americans gave something in the past year. This is higher than previous years. Not only are more giving, 40% are actually giving more money. This comes at a time when the political climate is shifting.

“We are seeing more demand for more conversations around philanthropy and its impact,” said Beth Renner, national director of philanthropic services for Wells Fargo Private Bank. “People want to do good, but they want to do good better. Philanthropy is a values guardian. Individuals are motivated to give based on how they want their values to be reflected in the world around them.”

These types of donations are non-religious in origin. In fact, they relate directly to the political climate. Currently, left-leaning millionaires and billionaires are giving more. This is because Republicans control the Senate and White House. It’s clear they are ready for new leadership in the White House, so they’re giving more to Democratic candidates.

“If it were flipped, the giving may be flipped as well,” Renner said. There’s another reason more are donating. It has to do with the fact that most people have more disposable income. The new tax laws have something to do with it as well. The new laws increase the standard deduction. “We are in an economic period where people feel they have more disposable income to share with others,” said Renner.

Women Donating More than Men

Women appear to be donating more than men. That’s likely because they care a lot about women’s issues which have been coming to the forefront. “Women are making more of the charitable decisions in the household,” said Renner. Giving is very important to women and they seem to want their charity dollars to stretch further.

In point, they want to create change. They value more than men giving of their time and money to take care of the needs of others. Women find giving more of a moral obligation they have. This is determined by 75% of women, verses 60% of men, who say it’s important that they teach their children to donate to causes. 68% of women verses 51% of men say their kids should do work within the community.

“An individual’s level of philanthropic engagement is greatly influenced by their parents’ actions, and these findings reinforce that our past is present in our giving,” said Renner.

Read More

China Says They’ve Reached a Deal with the U.S. to Cancel Tariffs in Phases

Politics

After the 16-month standoff between the U.S. and China, it appears tensions are finally settling. In fact, China and the U.S. has agreed to start canceling the tariffs that are currently in place. They will do it in phases, effectively ending the trade war. There was no specific timetable laid out, but negotiations are still ongoing.

Part of this deal would no doubt be to scrap current plans for additional tariffs in December. Trump pledged to tariff an additional $156 billion in Chinese goods by December 15th if a new deal wasn’t made. Those tariffs would be placed on items we buy and use every day, like toys, phones, and computers.

Chinese Commerce Secretary Gao Feng said that both sides cancelling tariffs had to be part of any ongoing negotiations. If both sides are agreeing to cancel tariffs, that only bodes well for future negotiations. It also means prices will begin to ease a bit. These tariffs are often a tax placed on goods that are passed down to the consumer.

This is also great news for consumer excitement going into the holiday shopping season. Many economists were worried about how the trade war would impact enthusiasm. So far, enthusiasm has remained strong and the economy is still roaring.

“The trade war started with tariffs, and should end with the cancellation of tariffs,” Gao told a regular news briefing.

Tariffs Will Be Canceled by Both Sides

China says the deal will only work if the two sides cancel out an equal number of tariffs. They can negotiate together to decide what that number should be, but it has to be equal.

“Both sides have agreed to cancel additional tariffs in different phases, as both sides make progress in their negotiations,” Gao said. “In the past two weeks, the lead negotiators from both sides have had serious and constructive discussions on resolving various core concerns appropriately.”

China also isn’t above kind gestures and reaching out to the U.S. They’ve also announced they plan to remove restrictions on U.S. poultry. This would be a massive boost to that the industry. It is also great optimism for U.S. agriculture that has been majorly hit by the tariffs. China banned all U.S. eggs and poultry back in 2015 as a result of the avian flu outbreak.

As of right now, stocks are surging upward at this news. It looks more and more likely that a new trade deal will be signed between the two country’s presidents when they meet next month.

Read More

Seth Meyers Asks Netflix to Allow Users to ‘Skip’ Trump Jokes in New Special

Politics

Comedians making fun of the president is no new thing. We love the right to free speech and being able to make fun of any leader goes along with that territory. In some countries, it’s illegal and even punishable by death. It’s almost even a tradition. You can look at any season of SNL and you are guaranteed to find jokes at the expense of every president.

The same is true for Seth Meyers. He recently put on a show for Netflix called “Lobby Baby.” As many other comedians have, Meyers admits to a part of the show devoted to making fun of President Trump. In fact, Trump is quite often a punchline during his NBC show “Late Night.” This time around, Meyers has a different idea.

He has asked Netflix to allow users to skip the Trump jokes. It’s not that he cares much about Trump, but rather the current climate. In his mind, he feels as if we’re so burned out on politics. No comic can seem to resist the urge to bash the president for one reason or another. Many feel it’s their constitutional duty.

While that’s well within their rights, there is certainly a lot of burnout. Trump is in the news every single day. That’s all the pundits talk about. Trump this, impeachment that. He’s everywhere and people are just plum exhausted talking about him and politics in general. Many people want to be able to relax without it being brought up.

Netflix Allowing Users to Skip the Trump Jokes

If you enjoy a good punchline about the president, then you can certainly watch without interruption. But if you’re sick of the jokes, Meyers asked Netflix to do something about it. It will work a lot like the “skip intro” button that often appears. If you don’t want to watch the same, repetitive introduction to a show, you have the option to skip it. Same would be true here.

“It dawned on me that because it was on Netflix, there would be this opportunity to put in technology that would allow people to skip it,” he said. “It was a way to build in the response to anyone who would say, ‘Oh, let me guess there’s going to be jokes about the President.'”

Netflix’s direction of comedy programming, Robbie Pray, said he’s happy Meyers was able to think of this idea. It’s all about providing an experience for every fan, whether they like political jokes or not. “We’re thrilled he was able to take advantage of the Netflix experience in such a funny and innovative way,” said Pray.

In the end, Meyers says the “skip” idea is another joke in the show. He doesn’t think anyone who watches it will actually skip the jokes.

Read More

Twitter Set to Block All Political Ads

Politics

In what is being considered a bold move, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has announced that his site won’t accept money for political ads. While Facebook is facing scrutiny for allowing bought fake ads, Twitter is doing something different. Dorsey doesn’t feel as if politicians should be able to buy influence. Instead, they should earn it.

“We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought,” Dorsey tweeted. “A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people. We believe this decision should not be compromised by money,” he added.

Twitter is leaving millions of dollars on the table by making this move. In 2018 alone, Twitter made around $3 million. Before the November 2020 election, politicians are expected to spend billions in ads. But to Dorsey and Twitter CFO Ned Segal, it’s not about money. They’re more focused on substance and having the candidates earn their stripes.

“This decision was based on principle, not money,” he said. This decision runs contrary to Facebook’s views on the matter. A lot of Silicon Valley’s scrutiny has come in how all these social media sites handle political ads.

Twitter and Facebook Have Different Philosophies

While Dorsey says a politician should earn their support, not buy it, Facebook feels differently. They know they have a lot of money to gain by allowing political ads. For Mark Zuckerberg, it’s all about free speech. How much should these companies interfere in what is being said? Who is to say what needs to be fact checked? And what is the bias of the people doing the checking?

“In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for private companies to censor politicians or the news,” he said. Zuckerberg does have a great point. Even politicians should have the right to say whatever they want. It’s not up to them to fact check every point. Even on Twitter, everyone has the right to say whatever they want. But he may be doing what Twitter is doing soon.

In a speech in Washington D.C. earlier in October, Zuckerberg said, “Given the sensitivity around political ads, I’ve considered whether we should stop allowing them altogether. From a business perspective, the controversy certainly isn’t worth the small part of our business they make up. But political ads are an important part of voice — especially for local candidates, up-and-coming challengers, and advocacy groups that may not get much media attention otherwise. Banning political ads favors incumbents and whoever the media covers.”

Read More

House Votes Today on Whether to Open Impeachment Inquiry on President Trump

Politics

While many of us are enjoying the Halloween holiday, there’s something spooky developing in Washington. The Democrat-held House of Representatives is holding debates and eventually a floor vote on impeachment. They’re trying to determine if President Trump withheld foreign aid to force a foreign country to dig up dirt on his political rival.


For several weeks, the House has been interviewing witnesses. Yet, they never officially opened an impeachment inquiry. It’s a significant move both for those investigating and the president himself. If an impeachment inquiry is open, it allows the president and his legal team the opportunity for due process. Mainly, he gets to face his accuser and have subpoena power themselves.

The Democrats might hate Trump, but this isn’t a simple move. It’s fraught with walking tight ropes and careful negotiation about the next move. The last time an impeachment took place, the political party that did voted to impeach lost their power. The Democrats remember this all too well. When President Clinton was impeached by the House, he got to stay in office and the republicans who impeached eventually lost their seat majority.

Of course, we’re also heading quickly into the 2020 political season. This might just be smoke and mirrors to keep pressure on the president. These types of headlines have been frequent and have stolen his thunder as of late. The Democrats might just continue their investigation up until the election to keep the pressure on Trump.

The Impeachment Process

This is really the first step in determining whether the House will formally vote on impeachment. The inquiry is really a long investigation. Both sides will get their opportunities to question witnesses. Already the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs committees have been doing that already. That’s mainly just to see if there’s enough evidence to open the inquiry. This doesn’t mean impeachment is a forgone conclusion.

Even though it’s Democrat-held, the House may not have enough votes to recommend impeachment. Many of the Democrats are in Trump-won states and districts. These Democrats try to lean as far center right as they can to appease their base while remaining a Democrat. Others fear what might happen if articles of impeachment are recommended.

Even still, the Senate would then have to choose to convict or acquit the president. It’s why President Clinton got to stay in office despite being impeached by the House. The Senate has never voted to remove a president from office. Considering that the Senate has a strong Republican majority, it’s even less likely.

It appears as if this inquiry will go on the next few months and the Democrats will decide to hold their impeachment vote by Christmas.

Read More

Another of Trump’s Student Loan Officials Quits, Calls for Reform

Politics

Earlier in the year, we reported on the student loan watchdog quitting from his post. He felt that the federal government wasn’t doing enough to help people. In fact, the Trump administration seems to be doing whatever it can to prevent struggling people from receiving help. Of course, it’s a matter of politics. The president believes that the taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to face the brunt of the $1.56 trillion they accumulated.

Yet, on the Democratic side, nearly every candidate has embraced offering some type of student loan forgiveness. They aren’t the only ones who see there’s a problem. One of Trump’s own appointed officials recently resigned in frustration. A. Wayne Johnson, a republican, was brought on as a financial services executive. He was appointed by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

When Johnson resigned, he said something needs to be done. He called for wiping out at least the first $50,000 of student loan debt. By doing this, it would tremendously spur on economic growth. Around $900 billion worth of this type of debt would evaporate, freeing millions of Americans from its burden. They would then use that money on better things, stimulating the economy.

“As a banker, you recognize problematic situations and you deal with it through write-offs,” Johnson, who formerly worked at financial companies including First Data Corp. and Visa Inc., said in an interview. “From an economic standpoint, it is absolutely the right thing to do.”

The Student Loan Crisis

While Johnson is a registered Republican, he is joining sides with presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on this issue. They’re calling for complete student loan forgiveness. There’s a growing movement around this debate. There’s a large and growing number of Americans who feel the cost of a college education isn’t worth the boost in earnings by obtaining a degree.

Johnson feels as if republicans are also going to join the fray. He agrees with the numbers that says a 1% tax on employers’ earnings would get the job done. While many don’t want a new tax, it would be much better than what’s happening right now. There’s a growing student loan default rate, meaning the government isn’t getting what it’s owed.

“Like millions of Americans, every day he woke up owing more than the day before,” Johnson said. “That’s when I said, ‘This is nuts.’” It’s unknown as of yet what will happen. Will 44 million Americans with student loan debt vote Democrat just to get out from under the debt? Will there be a fight in the House or Senate over forgiveness? We can only wait and see.

Read More

Betsy DeVos Held in Contempt for Violating Court Order to Stop Student Loan Payments

Politics

In a fresh controversy for the Trump administration, his education secretary is in trouble. Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, was recently held in contempt of court. A federal judge ordered DeVos to stop collections on student loans for defunct Corinthian College. The school closed back in 2015 after being found to use dishonest advertising to enroll students.

As of now, DeVos and the Department of Education as continued to collect on those loans. This violates the judge’s order. Not only have they continued to collect, they have gone ahead with typical collection practices. That includes garnishing wages and keep the tax returns of the borrowers caught up in the scam.

As a result of this, a judge has imposed a $100,000 fine. DeVos herself will not be paying this fine, but the department. They stated how disappointed they are in the court’s decision. They also stated: “We acknowledged that servicers made unacceptable mistakes,” the department said. “Betsy DeVos directed FAFSA to take immediate action to help every impacted borrower. As of today, FAFSA has taken the actions needed to make every impacted borrower whole.”

The DeVos Violation

Sallie Kim, a federal magistrate judge in California, said, “Defendants have not provided evidence that they were unable to comply with the preliminary injunction, and the evidence shows only minimal efforts to comply with the preliminary injunction,” she issued in 2018, which ordered the Department stop collecting the loans.

“Here, there is no question that Defendants violated the preliminary injunction,” the court order reads. “There is also no question that Defendants’ violations harmed individual borrowers who were forced to repay loans.”

Still, Kim has also stated she will take further steps of the department continues to ignore her ruling. That might include sanctions being imposed on them or even the judge appointing someone to ensure the ruling is being complied with. She even threatened that someone could end up in jail if it continues.

Read More

Elizabeth Warren’s Plans Would Cost $4.2 Trillion Per Year

Politics

Elizabeth Warren is currently emerging as the potential frontrunner as the Democrat’s 2020 candidate. With that position comes a lot more scrutiny about what she stands for. As of late, Warren has been making a lot of promises. That’s typical for any politician fighting hard in the race of their life. The problem is, she didn’t have any answers to how much her plans might cost.

Even those on the left have been taking shots at Warren over the past week. When asked about whether the middle class would have their taxes raised to pay for her plans, she refused to answer. Instead, she kept saying their overall costs would go down. She could never answer how much the plans cost. Well, now there’s an answer.

Yahoo Finance took a look at the books and found that Warren’s plan would double the current federal spending rate at $4.2 trillion per year on top of the $4.4 trillion we currently spend. That’s a lot of money! That means under Elizabeth Warren, spending would total $8.6 trillion. That amount all but guarantees her promises won’t be fulfilled. Already running a $23 trillion deficit, there’s no way to justify it.

To pay for her plan, of course Warren would have to increase taxes. But not just on the wealthy like she says. She’d have to increase the federal taxation rate by 124%. We’re already running a trillion dollar per year deficit, so she clearly has no answers without raising taxes significantly. By significantly, we mean it’s not possible to raise taxes high enough.

Warren’s Medicare-For-All

The biggest weapon in Warren’s arsenal is wanting a Medicare-for-all system. Her supporters think it’s a great idea. It would completely replace the private healthcare system we have right now. Yet, she has no clue how we will pay for it yet. Every time she’s asked, even by fellow Democrats, she changes the subject. It’s almost as if she’s afraid to admit she would have to increase taxes on the middle class.

The Urban Institute found that this type of single-payer system would cost us $3.4 trillion per year. That’s a massive chunk of change. This is nearly equivalent to all of our tax revenue in 2019. Healthcare costs might go down, but how do you feel about paying double the taxes? And that’s before any of Warren’s other ideas see the light of day.

It’s possible she could raise a few hundred billion per year by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Many businesses and corporations do what they can to push their tax liability down to zero. There are plenty of loopholes Warren says she’ll close. That might help a little bit, but so far, she has yet to provide answers on how this plan will be sustainable or covered in full.

Read More

How the Hong Kong Protests Can Impact a New Trade Deal with China

Politics

There’s no doubt that the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong are a sore spot for China. They have a strong dictatorship and any Democratic ideas threaten their hold. That’s why they go out of their way to burn and destroy any symbols of free speech. They burn churches and shoot protestors. This is what’s going to lead the trade talks into being more awkward than usual.

If you didn’t know already, the Hong Kong protestors are looking towards America for support. They’re carrying American flags and want the same freedoms we enjoy. Obviously, the U.S. is in support of Democracy and the people of Hong Kong. It’s a discussion that must be had among diplomats and negotiators when everyone comes back to the table for trade talks.

The protests are now in their 17th week and don’t appear to be going away anytime soon. Images of previous protests that turned violent are in everyone’s memory. Now, we live in a very different time and China won’t be able to get away with using violence to stop the protests. Yet, new violence is erupting. A Chinese officer recently shot a protestor in the chest. He’s now in critical condition, fighting for his life.

Another issue China is dealing with is a collapsing economy. They are being heavily impacted by the trade war, more so than the U.S. Things in the U.S. have slowed down slightly, but in China, they are slowing down a lot. They are in a much more vulnerable position and ready to come to the table. President Trump can afford to hold out longer, but needs a bit of good news. Talk of impeachment are weighing heavy on the news cycle. Ending the trade war would bode well.

Ending the Trade War with China

So, how exactly would the protests in Hong Kong impact trade negotiations? Certainly, the U.S. isn’t going to leave them off the table. They’re going to want China to give in to their demands. Hong Kong is also an important international trading port for China. Whatever they offer is going to be dependent on how the protests play out.

“It probably will have some impact on the Chinese side, even despite whatever it has on ours, because this is a sign of domestic dissent within their community and Hong Kong is quite important for the international trading activities of China,” said Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross when discussing the protests on “Varney & Co.”

Whatever happens, it would appear as if China is ready to return to the negotiating table. The trade war is hurting their economy and they would rather get a deal done. Still, that doesn’t mean China isn’t willing to sit back and wait to see what happens with the election. Their hope is that Trump is voted out and they can go back to the status quo. More tariffs are coming if a deal isn’t made.

“At least for now, more tariffs are coming on the 15th of October and again in December, and some of the talk about the delisting of Chinese companies and less U.S. investment into China, that if anything, suggests to us that if the trade war is doing anything at the moment it is going to escalate rather than deescalate,” he said.

“The president has indicated he wants a complete deal,” Ross said.

Read More

Trump to Host the 2020 G7 at His Florida Resort

Politics

Just yesterday, Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s acting Chief of Staff, announced the location of the next G7 Summit. It will be at none other than the Trump National Doral in Florida. This has stirred a bit of an outrage from the president’s opponents. They believe that this decision will only allow the president to profit from having the G7 at his property.

Mulvaney appeared to quell any controversy by stating they followed the same procedures to choose a location as they would any other. “We used the same set of criteria that previous administrations have used,” Mulvaney said. “Doral is far and away the best physical facility for this meeting.”

This isn’t the first time the president was criticized for using his property to host world leaders. He once asked President Xi Jinping from China to stay at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. The two leaders played golf and enjoyed their time together. Mulvaney further addressed the controversy by stating President Trump won’t profit in “any way, shape or form.”

Is the G7 at Doral Even Legal?

The big question now, even among Democrats, is whether Trump hosting the G7 at his resort is even legal. That’s a point brought up by Jerry Nadler, the current House Judiciary Chairman. They want to investigate whether this would violate any of the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses.

“Hosting the G7 Summit at Doral implicates both the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, because it would entail both foreign and U.S. government spending to benefit the President, the latter potentially including both federal and state expenditures,” said Nadler. “More importantly, the Doral decision reflects perhaps the first publicly known instance in which foreign governments would be required to pay President Trump’s private businesses in order to conduct business with the United States.”

Nadler isn’t the only one who is questioning the move. Even former White House ethics director Walter Shaub said there would be a conflict of interest.

“This is a conflict of interest because he’s going to benefit by the outcome of this. In fact, if he was any federal employee other than the president of the United States, it would be a crime for him to be involved in this activity,” Shaub said. “He’s exempt from the criminal conflict of interest law but that wasn’t intended as a perk of high office and it was expected that he would act as though he were covered by it.”

Read More