- Joined
- Jul 22, 2024
- Messages
- 313
- Reaction score
- 505
Diddy acquitted on most serious of charges.
Biden Out of Race
- Thread starter DirtDocMD
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
It's my understanding the copay for dialysis is even higher for those on Medicare.
Google AI suggests original Medicare has a 20% copay, while Medicare advantage varies but is still some percentage of the cost.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,803
- Reaction score
- 26,092
Even the complete repeal of the 1934 NFA, which I'm in favor of, wouldn't be a big enough bribe to get me to support this ridiculous bill.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 18,549
- Reaction score
- 11,187
Ya, uuuuummmmmmm, this just seems a little screwy to me.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 526
Trump won low income voters in part by promising to reduce the cost of living. Medicaid cuts (and cuts to nutritional support programs) will almost certainly increase costs for that segment of the population.
It will be interesting to see how loyal that contingent remains, but Democrats should be hammering on this point day and night.
It will be interesting to see how loyal that contingent remains, but Democrats should be hammering on this point day and night.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 18,549
- Reaction score
- 11,187
Narrator: They didn't and lost the 2026 elections too.
Why are you so against the bill? when you will somewhat benefit from it.The BBB is adding a $35 copay for medicaid patients per treatment for dialysis. So an additional ~$105/wk to stay alive (~$5k/yr).
Big Beautiful Bill is Downright Ugly for Kidney Patients
www.kidney.org
On the bright side, the bill eliminates the $200 registration fee for silencers, short barreled rifles, and short barreled shotguns. So if you're looking at saving some long term costs, the GOP is giving you an out.
The bill is kind of a wealth transfer from the bottom 70% to the top 5% with the top 1% being the primary beneficiary.
Time to start buying investment properties since market will be flooded with cheap money, and interest rate will go down.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 18,549
- Reaction score
- 11,187
Can't believe it's actually coming to fruition, but the South actually IS rising again.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Empathy?
I suppose I could rationalize some long term self interested concern though as well. Countries with worse inequality tend to be worse places to live or something.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 16,803
- Reaction score
- 26,092
LOL
That line of argument has worked so well so far!
There's no point in making an argument or appeal based in morality and ethics to people who voted for Trump for "policy" reasons.
Yes, might have better luck with an approach that focuses on selfish reasons. The accelerated destruction of the middle class will make being upper class unpleasant and unsafe.
Of course, you've got to get them to understand that the "policies" they voted for will lead there. True believer MAGAs actually believe what the acronym stands for. Right up until the leopard visits them for a snack, anyway.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 18,549
- Reaction score
- 11,187
But he definitely deserved it right?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.211.3.pdf
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.211.3.pdf
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 7,266
i don't want to live in a country with such wealth inequality. i don't think i could enjoy my wealth if so many around me were poor. would it even be safe? i think not.
Dems and Republicans used to battle over who was better for the middle class. I guess we shipped the debate. Republicans don't even want a middle class!!
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 8,011
I thought you had a religious background given your abortion opposition. Does that only extend to that issue? You seriously want to build a real estate empire on the backs of hospitalized emergent dialysis patients having to sell off their homes and become homeless because they couldn't afford to stay alive? I know a lot of the right members here feel that way.
The pro lifers are notorious for that. They are only pro birth. Once the kid is born, they cut their food stamps, eliminate free school lunches and gut their medicaid.
And if the kid is a child of an immigrant, they separate them and deport them after keeping them in a jail cell.
And the poor? Same. Cut their medicaid, food stamps
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
I think most of the strict pro life people have the image in their heads, realistic or not, that people work their jobs, get married, stay married, and take care of the children they have. It's a shame that these ideas are not the norm in most people's decision making.
If you have read some of my posts, you would have seen that I said if I was voting on economic issues, I would always vote for democrats. I just think they are better than republicans in taking care of the less fortunate although I believe a lot people abuse the system.
Given all that, it does not mean I should not take advantage of opportunities that are presented to me.
I am not happy with the BBB because it's a transfer of wealth from the bottom 60-70% to the top 1% (mostly to the top 0.1%)
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Messages
- 18,549
- Reaction score
- 11,187
*cue it’s not a concentration camp because…
With all the polling data and stats available. Why doesn’t the govt want to fund polling on people on Medicaid more than 3 years who eventually are able to purchase commercial insurance. We are in year 12 of the ACA.
Do they not want to pursue that data?
Maybe trump and the republicans are gonna to force the issue by dumping people off Medicaid and seeing which ones can hatch on to commercial insurance Ain’t gonna to happen. But guess we will find out.
Do they not want to pursue that data?
Maybe trump and the republicans are gonna to force the issue by dumping people off Medicaid and seeing which ones can hatch on to commercial insurance Ain’t gonna to happen. But guess we will find out.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 2,866
- Reaction score
- 1,847
The term is “anti-choice,” not pro life.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,760
- Reaction score
- 24,219
When you love Trump more than you love your wife 😂. Who still has flags up?
www.foxla.com
California husband says he'll continue to support MAGA movement after wife taken into federal custody
An Iranian woman in Diamond Bar, who supports President Trump, was detained by federal agents due to immigration issues stemming from a past conviction.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 2,866
- Reaction score
- 1,847
Guessing there were other marital issues, right? Like, what better way to have a clean exit than for your spouse to get deported. He seems pretty chill about it.When you love Trump more than you love your wife 😂. Who still has flags up?
California husband says he'll continue to support MAGA movement after wife taken into federal custody
An Iranian woman in Diamond Bar, who supports President Trump, was detained by federal agents due to immigration issues stemming from a past conviction.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 13,760
- Reaction score
- 24,219
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Focusing on the tax and budget implications of the OBBB:
"Our analysis of the major tax provisions included in the Senate bill finds it would increase long-run GDP by 1.2 percent. The major tax provisions would reduce federal tax revenue by $5 trillion between 2025 and 2034, on a conventional basis. On a dynamic basis, incorporating the projected increase in long-run GDP of 1.2 percent, the dynamic score of the tax provisions falls by $970 billion to $4 trillion, meaning economic growth pays for about 19 percent of the major tax cuts.
Combined with the nearly $1.2 trillion in spending reductions estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we estimate the Senate version of the OBBB would increase federal budget deficits by nearly $2.9 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a dynamic basis. Further, we estimate that on a dynamic basis, increased borrowing would add $705 billion in higher interest costs over the decade, resulting in a total deficit increase of nearly $3.6 trillion on a dynamic basis.
The increased borrowing from higher deficits would reduce long-run American incomes as measured by GNP by nearly 0.6 percent, driving a wedge between the long-run effect on GDP of 1.2 percent and on GNP of 0.9 percent.
The debt-to-GDP ratio would rise by 9.3 percentage points, going from 117.1 percent in 2034 without the bill to 126.4 percent in 2034 on a conventional basis with the bill.
Overall, the bill would prevent tax increases on 62 percent of taxpayers that would occur if the TCJA expired as scheduled and significantly improve incentives to invest in the American economy. Though long-run GDP would be 1.2 percent higher under the OBBB, dynamic debt-to-GDP would increase from 162.3 percent to 174.7 percent in about 35 years, indicating the bill would bring higher economic growth as well as higher deficits and debt."
taxfoundation.org
Republicans ballooning the national debt. I never want to hear that Republicans are the financially prudent party again, it has been a lie since Reagan.
"Our analysis of the major tax provisions included in the Senate bill finds it would increase long-run GDP by 1.2 percent. The major tax provisions would reduce federal tax revenue by $5 trillion between 2025 and 2034, on a conventional basis. On a dynamic basis, incorporating the projected increase in long-run GDP of 1.2 percent, the dynamic score of the tax provisions falls by $970 billion to $4 trillion, meaning economic growth pays for about 19 percent of the major tax cuts.
Combined with the nearly $1.2 trillion in spending reductions estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we estimate the Senate version of the OBBB would increase federal budget deficits by nearly $2.9 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a dynamic basis. Further, we estimate that on a dynamic basis, increased borrowing would add $705 billion in higher interest costs over the decade, resulting in a total deficit increase of nearly $3.6 trillion on a dynamic basis.
The increased borrowing from higher deficits would reduce long-run American incomes as measured by GNP by nearly 0.6 percent, driving a wedge between the long-run effect on GDP of 1.2 percent and on GNP of 0.9 percent.
The debt-to-GDP ratio would rise by 9.3 percentage points, going from 117.1 percent in 2034 without the bill to 126.4 percent in 2034 on a conventional basis with the bill.
Overall, the bill would prevent tax increases on 62 percent of taxpayers that would occur if the TCJA expired as scheduled and significantly improve incentives to invest in the American economy. Though long-run GDP would be 1.2 percent higher under the OBBB, dynamic debt-to-GDP would increase from 162.3 percent to 174.7 percent in about 35 years, indicating the bill would bring higher economic growth as well as higher deficits and debt."
"Big Beautiful Bill" Senate GOP Tax Plan: Details and Analysis
Our preliminary analysis of the Senate Finance tax plan finds the major tax provisions would increase long-run GDP by 1.1 percent and reduce federal tax revenue by $4.7 trillion over the next decade.
taxfoundation.org
Republicans ballooning the national debt. I never want to hear that Republicans are the financially prudent party again, it has been a lie since Reagan.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Focusing on the ballooning Immigration enforcement budget:
The total budget will be increased to $170 billion.
- $45 billion going to new immigrant detention centers. A budget 62% larger than the federal prison system and will be capable of holding 116,000 people.
- $30 billion to ICE operations budget, a three-fold increase.
-$46.6 billion to the border wall.
-$8 billion to hire 10,000 ICE agents ($800k per agent for 4 years of service)
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
I don't think America is prepared for how this is going to change the country. We could see how ICE was somewhat feeble in California and how Trump resorted to calling in the national guard as a show of force. That's very likely to change in the future with thousands more secret police available to grab kids and moms for what is often the moral equivalent of unpaid parking tickets.
The total budget will be increased to $170 billion.
- $45 billion going to new immigrant detention centers. A budget 62% larger than the federal prison system and will be capable of holding 116,000 people.
- $30 billion to ICE operations budget, a three-fold increase.
-$46.6 billion to the border wall.
-$8 billion to hire 10,000 ICE agents ($800k per agent for 4 years of service)
Congress Approves Unprecedented Funding for Mass Deportation
This marks the largest investment in detention and deportation in U.S. history; a policy choice that will sow chaos and tear families apart.
www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org
I don't think America is prepared for how this is going to change the country. We could see how ICE was somewhat feeble in California and how Trump resorted to calling in the national guard as a show of force. That's very likely to change in the future with thousands more secret police available to grab kids and moms for what is often the moral equivalent of unpaid parking tickets.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
OBBB changes to federal student loans:
- Fewer students will qualify for Pell grants, eliminating part-time student access to these grants.
- Eliminates graduate plus loans altogether and caps unsubsidized loans at 100k, meaning if you want to attend med school and you can't afford it (and med schools aren't going to reduce tuition by a significant amount) you're going to have to take out private loans at higher interest rates.
- Eliminates economic hardship and unemployment deferment options
www.elfi.com
This is going to increase the cost of attending med school (barring substantial reductions in tuition) while also reducing the opportunity for poorer students to afford to attend.
- Fewer students will qualify for Pell grants, eliminating part-time student access to these grants.
- Eliminates graduate plus loans altogether and caps unsubsidized loans at 100k, meaning if you want to attend med school and you can't afford it (and med schools aren't going to reduce tuition by a significant amount) you're going to have to take out private loans at higher interest rates.
- Eliminates economic hardship and unemployment deferment options
What Student Loan Borrowers Need to Know About the "Big Beautiful Bill" - ELFI
President Trump's bill makes many significant changes to the federal financial aid system. How might it impact you?
www.elfi.com
This is going to increase the cost of attending med school (barring substantial reductions in tuition) while also reducing the opportunity for poorer students to afford to attend.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2022
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 1,006
Good.
This will reduce abuse of federal student loans and prevent exhobitant borrowing to attend expensive schools to major in nonsense degree programs.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,534
- Reaction score
- 8,011
Or just reduce opportunities for people who can't self fund it. The right seems to have this magical thinking that just because they think something should cost less that choking money out of it will make that happen. Have yet to see this happen for anything serious, it either just becomes less available or dies.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
What are you referring to by "abuse of federal student loans"? Like fake students?
There will still be exorbitant borrowing, especially among poorer students, it will just be private loans from banks. Maybe schools will lower tuition (or stabilize it) to some extent, but I'm skeptical.
I think we're just going to see fewer people going to college in general, especially poorer people. Which doesn't seem good to me.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2022
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 1,006
That's on them. No one is forcing anyone to take out private loans. Cost of instate public school is very affordable. Not everyone needs to go to college. Trade schools are an option and likely would lead to greater financial success for most people than majoring in marketing or whatever.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2022
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 1,006
Abuse is taking out a large amount of loans knowing you have no intention of paying them back, or that "it will just be forgiven."
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Well... that didn't happen did it. I was never a big proponent of student loan forgiveness outside of PSLF myself.
I think it's fine to point to individual students who have had a tough time with repayment and say that's on them. I think you run into more problems when you generalize out into picking on specific majors, and I think marketing majors don't do that bad.
I was primarily talking about the broader societal implications associated with these policy decisions. Having fewer people in college in general reduces your labor pool of smart people to do smart jobs, reduces economic growth, lots of negative externalities associated with this.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2022
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 1,006
Lots of these "smart jobs" will be done by AI.
Many functions do not require a college degree. "More educated" does not necessarily mean "better".
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
More educated usually translates to higher paying, but I can agree that higher paying doesn't always translate to better.
I guess we can just say AI will solve the problem and not worry about it. But that's not what China is doing, they've caught up to us in terms of overall college enrollment rate (~60%). Limiting Pell grant access will affect poor students.
I think students are still going to go to med school, we're just making it more expensive by forcing them to take out private loans. There is definitely going to be more pressure on poorer students not to attend as well. Maybe this will have a dampening effect on tuition to some extent, we'll see. (I'm referring to med school here, if that wasn't obvious.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Getting to the politics of this OBBB:
"At the core of Republicans’ newly finalized domestic policy package is an important political calculation. It provides its most generous tax breaks early on and reserves some of its most painful benefit cuts until after the 2026 midterm elections."
"Alex Jacquez, who served on the National Economic Council under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said the setup would also allow Republicans to avoid blame for what he described as a set of “fairly disastrous and incredibly unpopular” spending cuts before the midterm election, when future control of the House and Senate will be on the ballot.
“They want to try to get past elections and try to hide the ball on the damage they’re imposing on health care and food assistance,” added Mr. Jacquez, who is now chief of policy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal advocacy group..."
"Republicans have also included a number of substantial spending cuts targeting safety net programs. As a result, millions of Americans may find their financial situations worse over time."
"At the core of Republicans’ newly finalized domestic policy package is an important political calculation. It provides its most generous tax breaks early on and reserves some of its most painful benefit cuts until after the 2026 midterm elections."
"Alex Jacquez, who served on the National Economic Council under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said the setup would also allow Republicans to avoid blame for what he described as a set of “fairly disastrous and incredibly unpopular” spending cuts before the midterm election, when future control of the House and Senate will be on the ballot.
“They want to try to get past elections and try to hide the ball on the damage they’re imposing on health care and food assistance,” added Mr. Jacquez, who is now chief of policy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal advocacy group..."
"Republicans have also included a number of substantial spending cuts targeting safety net programs. As a result, millions of Americans may find their financial situations worse over time."
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
I don't think we will lose anyone who is talented because of this. In the modern age, cream rises to the top far more easily in every industry, and great students always have gotten merit scholarships, especially poor students who do well.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
Only if you get a degree. "Some college," which encompasses a large number of people with big student debt, is a catastrophic place to be when it comes to one's financial health.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
The OBBB really doesn't seem like its going to affect undergrad students or their student debt as much as its going to affect graduate students. I tried to make that clear in my initial post, but got sidetracked with the person I was responding to.
Limiting Pell grants will impact poor undergrad students though.
Ibid.
The only thing I would add is that we've bailed out financially worse decisions in this country's history.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
I guess I need it explained to me why Pell grants are so necessary when federal and private loans exist and Pell grants are a relatively small amount for each student.
Cover remaining cost of attendance with loans, work study, cheaper school, what am I missing here?
Anything that forces colleges to cut costs is good in my view. With the enrollment cliff this will accelerate that process too. Pretty soon schools will be throwing money at students to attend.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Didn't say they were "necessary". Its also a modest change to Pell grants. It's still a decision by the GOP that negatively affects poorer students. If you want to say "negatively affecting poorer students modestly" is fine, I think that's bad.
I don't think this OBBB will force undergrad schools to cut tuition costs. That seems like wishful thinking. Existing trends outside of the bill might though.
Again, the problems as I see them are mostly with grad school. Med school and law school tuition being substantially paid for by private loans seems... very bad.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
I think the commodification of all these educational institutions is the problem. We all know that a ton of the cost is unnecessary especially the classroom portions of med and law school. More governmental pressure to cut Costs is necessary but this is a start imo.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
I don't see bill this as doing really anything to reign in tuition costs.
The costs are (probably) going to be born by med students still in the form of bank loans at (probably) higher interest rates.
I think the existing trend of fewer men going to college will likely affect tuition costs more than these changes (as you suggested this is an ongoing trend).
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
It may work in the form of fewer people being willing to foot the cost of the schools by taking out private loans. I know at these current prices there’s no way I’d attend a non state medical school. I think applications are currently driven up by the government guaranteeing cost of attendance in the form of the predatory grad plus loans.
The higher the prices go the less appealing it becomes as an option for people, rich and poor. Why bother with med school when you could not be 500k in debt and make reasonable money doing something else? If your parents will front the cost just ask them for the 500k to sit in an index fund and do literally whatever you want, knowing that retirement is taken care of perpetually.
At some point colleges and grad schools have to prove their value proposition for the cost. It probably works against regular people going to these schools but the number of people in default on their student debt without the payment freeze would suggest that the value is not there for these institutions.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
I think you're making an argument that this is going to result in fewer doctors/lawyers/grad students more than an argument that this will lower tuition costs, and the students who remain will come from predominantly wealthier backgrounds.
Maybe it will lower med school tuition costs, I don't think it's impossible, but it isn't a direct effect and I'm thinking its much more likely med schools will have their students take out private loans before they lower tuition costs significantly.
"the number of people in default on their student debt without the payment freeze would suggest that the value is not there for these institutions."
- This bill won't really affect that number. There aren't many med students and law students in default are there? At least compared to undergrad debt.
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
It seems your main worry is about the delta from previous grad plus loans going to now private loans.
What are we really worried about in regards to that? Is the problem that private loans have much higher interest rates, or higher origination fees?
Wealthy people have always been more likely to attend med and grad schools. If the schools really want diverse socioeconomic backgrounds in their classes then they will have to put their money where their mouth is.
They do their best to make the balance of ethnicities resemble the population, I don’t know why this would be any different. They can lower costs or start recruiting low SES students with school based loans and grants.
In any case, it probably shouldn’t be on the taxpayer to provide PSLF and interest subsidies in ever increasing figures as infinitum to physicians and lawyers.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Yes, I think thats the most costly change to the system. I think reducing access to Pell grants is bad too.
Yes.
Yes, and most agree it's a bad thing to have a society that doesn't work to correct this. Most agree that we should minimize the impact one's family's wealth has in determining one's future station in society. Most people subscribe to this degree of egalitarianism IMO.
Schools should work to correct this too, doesn't mean the government shouldn't help correct this as well.
Sure. We can spitball ways schools can correct this change I suppose. Doesn't negate the fact the law is resulting in changes I disagree with.
This bill, as far as I know, didn't impact PSLF as much as it was predicted (if at all). I know they were going to stop dental/medical residents from qualifying for PSLF while they were residents, and I actually would have been OK with that change, but it didn't make it into the final bill as far as I know. But we werent really talking about PSLF.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2019
- Messages
- 701
- Reaction score
- 785
The last bit is mainly that increased borrowing leads to more burden on other people to finance these loans when they’re not paid or to account for unpaid interest that existed during the by repaye and save programs.
We do disagree on the merits of changes to the student loan programs but I think a big complaint people had about bidens loan forgiveness push was that people who paid or didn’t use student loans were now getting the short end of things so that relatively high earners could get off easy. I am in that group and i always thought the student loan pause was wrong.
Say what you will about the methods, but the student loan changes and immigration control funding are direct results of the populations desires when voting for Trump. He’s nothing if not very responsive to at least some of the voters requests, with huge benefit to himself and his cronies included in the sausage.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2022
- Messages
- 1,856
- Reaction score
- 2,332
Sure. I'm fine with restructuring PSLF to benefit physicians/lawyers who only did legitimate public service work or something. Congress didn't do that today.
I was 55:45 in favor of Biden's forgiveness plan. I think it would have benefited a lot of deserving people and the people who would have benefited who didn't necessarily deserve it were probably an acceptable cost. I do think the SCOTUS case ruling against it was a travesty.
Whoa whoa whoa. I don't know if many voters chose Trump because of his nebulous desires for student loan reform or even if this bill is representative of them.
People, on both sides of the aisle on this forum, have been giving Trump credit for his actions to reduce illegal immigration and increase border security. (I personally didn't care about it as an issue until we started seeing blatant injustices wrt sending legal non-citizens to gulags.)
Congress is now tripling ICE funding and giving an additional $60B to build a wall... to correct something Trump (and members of this forum) have basically said he fixed and to also have the power to corral >100k immigrants (both legal and illegal) and potentially deport them to places like South Sudan.
These policies aren't popular with the general public and I don't think he has a strong mandate for them. He could have taken his W (that I don't really care about) and said "job well done", but now we're spending billions more to raid every Home Depot and Lowe's in the continental US.
Edit: Or potentially more nefariously... we'll be seeing some of our new ICE agents "patrolling" voting stations in minority neighborhoods next year. (Half joking)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 282
- Reaction score
- 514
You sound like an ahole who has never met someone outside your country club.
So only people from rich families should be able to go to college, got it 🙄
