December 2025 – Vote Democrat

Corruption Economy Wages Workers

How Economic Policy Trapped Workers in Impossible Choices

Americans face four interconnected economic contradictions that make upward mobility mathematically impossible: they must spend to fuel growth while saving for emergencies—but have no money for either. They were told to pursue professional credentials for security—but those white-collar jobs are now primary targets for AI automation, and credentials don’t protect women and people of color from systematic wage discrimination. They’re told the economy is growing—but that growth concentrates among the wealthiest 10% while wages stagnate and corporate profits double as a share of GDP. The result: only 25% of Americans believe they can improve their living standards, 74% have abandoned American Dream goals due to economic pressure, and faith in the fundamental promise of American life has collapsed to record lows. These aren’t puzzles to solve through individual action—they’re systemic features of an economic order designed to transfer wealth upward while blaming workers for failing to achieve an impossible dream.

Health Safety Workers

America’s 153–1 Vote Against Humanitarian Protection and What It Signals for Democracy

Vote Democrat 16 December 2025 aid workers American foreign policy China democracy diplomatic isolation European Union foreign influence foreign policy Gaza great power competition humanitarian aid humanitarian crisis international relations national security National Security Strategy political realignment Russia transatlantic alliance Trump administration United Nations

On December 10, 2025, the United States cast the only vote against a UN resolution protecting humanitarian workers—while Russia, North Korea, and 151 other nations voted yes or abstained. The vote came during the deadliest year on record for aid workers, with 383 killed in 2024 and 265 more by August 2025. The Trump administration justified its opposition by citing “radical gender ideology” in the text, reframing humanitarian protection as a culture war issue. This vote crystallizes a broader foreign policy realignment that isolates America from traditional allies while accommodating adversarial powers. As the National Security Strategy abandons great-power competition rhetoric and characterizes European allies in adversarial terms, analysts warn of structural vulnerabilities to foreign influence and the dismantling of oversight mechanisms. The transformation raises urgent questions about whether “America First” policies serve American interests—or something else entirely.

Hypocrisy Morals Safety

Trump Claims to Have Ended Eight Wars, The Reality Reveals a Pattern of Coercion, Credit, and Collapse

Vote Democrat 12 December 2025 Afghanistan war Cambodia-Thailand Caribbean deployment defense spending Donald Trump executive authority fact-checking foreign policy Gaza ceasefire George Floyd protests immigration enforcement investigative journalism Iran Iraq war Lafayette Square military deployment military policy military strikes National Guard peace negotiations political accountability presidential powers presidential rhetoric Qasem Soleimani Syria war Venezuela war claims war powers

President Donald Trump claims to have ended between six and eight wars during his second presidency—but the number keeps changing. An investigation reveals these “wars” include temporary ceasefires that have since collapsed, diplomatic disputes that never involved combat, and conflicts where Trump’s role was marginal. Meanwhile, his actual military record tells a different story: the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani that nearly triggered war with Iran, the largest U.S. Caribbean naval deployment since the Cuban Missile Crisis with lethal strikes killing dozens, and unprecedented use of National Guard troops against American protesters. Peace researchers and fact-checkers rate Trump’s claims as “mostly false” or “significant exaggerations.” Several celebrated peace deals have already fallen apart, with renewed fighting killing civilians just weeks after signing ceremonies. This investigation examines the gap between Trump’s peaceful rhetoric and his administration’s military actions.

Promises Made on Money Not Yet Collected How Trump Tariff Revenue Has Been Pledged Multiple Times Over

Economy Hypocrisy Taxes

Trump’s Tariff Revenue Has Been Pledged Multiple Times Over on Money Not Yet Collected

Vote Democrat 10 December 2025 agricultural policy appropriations budget analysis budget deficits campaign promises child care policy Congressional Budget Office constitutional law consumer costs debt reduction deficit spending economic analysis economic impact economic policy farmer bailouts federal budget federal spending fiscal policy fiscal responsibility household costs IEEPA import taxes international trade investigative journalism national debt political promises regressive taxation stimulus checks Supreme Court tariff revenue tariffs tax cuts tax policy trade policy Treasury Department Trump administration

President Donald Trump has promised to use tariff revenue to fund at least five major initiatives: a $12 billion farmer bailout, $2,000 direct payments to Americans, expanded child care assistance, $3 trillion in tax cut offsets, and paying down the $37 trillion national debt. The problem is mathematical impossibility. Even the most optimistic projections show tariffs will generate $2.3 trillion over ten years—far short of the $10+ trillion in cumulative promises. This investigation reveals how the same revenue stream has been pledged multiple times over, while Trump’s repeated claims that “foreign nations” pay tariffs contradicts economic evidence showing American consumers and businesses bear the costs through higher prices. Budget experts describe it as an “over-allocation problem” where every dollar has been promised three or four times, making it arithmetically impossible for any of the commitments to be fully kept.

Economy

50-Year Mortgages Shift Economic Pain Without Solving America’s Housing Crisis

Vote Democrat 1 December 2025 50-year mortgage construction costs consumer protection demand-side policy Dodd-Frank Act equity accumulation Fannie Mae Federal Reserve housing FHFA financial literacy first-time homebuyers foreclosure risk Freddie Mac generational debt home price inflation homeownership rates housing affordability crisis housing economics housing market dynamics housing policy reform housing supply shortage institutional investors interest-only mortgages Japan housing bubble mortgage debt mortgage default mortgage elasticity mortgage interest rates mortgage refinancing mortgage term length mortgage-backed securities National Association of Realtors NIMBY political economy predatory lending qualified mortgages real estate market retirement planning Richard Green USC supply-side economics Trump administration housing policy UBS mortgage analysis UK housing crisis wealth inequality zoning reform

The Trump administration’s proposal for 50-year mortgages promises to make homeownership more accessible through lower monthly payments—but at what cost? An investigation into the policy reveals it would save borrowers roughly $266 per month while adding nearly $400,000 in lifetime interest payments, barely reduce principal for the first two decades, and likely drive home prices even higher by increasing buyer purchasing power without adding supply. Housing economists warn the plan functions as political theater that monetizes desperation rather than addressing America’s 7-million-unit housing shortage. With first-time buyers now averaging 40 years old, a 50-year mortgage means payments until age 90—well beyond life expectancy—while building minimal equity and creating unprecedented vulnerability to foreclosure. International precedents from Japan’s catastrophic 100-year mortgage experiment and the UK’s worsening affordability crisis despite extended terms suggest such policies transfer wealth from struggling homebuyers to banks and sellers. As one expert concluded: “Borrowers will see through that. They will know that they will not generate any wealth.”

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31