Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
psyduck____ said:
Like what cutting student loans?? Medicare? USAID? yk cutting that kills 14 million people. Literally bill clinton balanced the budget and then GWB ruined it and caused the great recession of 2008. Obama came in and fixed it and then trump again ruins everything by mishandling covid which iden ofc has to clean up. Literally 60 percent of the debt is caused by republicans and it’s more than n0% if you ignore the covid stuff biden had to sign to stabilize the economy. Believe what you wanna believe but calling social programs that help people out of poverty or help them succeed in life, entitlement program is just plain disgusting and republican program. The funniest part of all this is that republicans rely more on these programs and cutting it will indirectly kill their votes. So be my guest and believe the propaganda you losers consume. Yall will have to learn the hard way or maybe never. You're not for the American people. You're for yourself and not worth respecting.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure your TDS is allowing you to see straight. You’re talking out of your ass.

Here’s a breakdown of the last 5 presidents. And señor Biden racked up $7T in just one term! You simply can’t balance the budget without cutting some of these entitlement programs. That’s a fact. I’m guessing you’d support a very socialist society

  • Clinton: + $1.4 T
  • G.W. Bush: + $6.1 T
  • Obama: + $9T
  • Trump: + $6.7T
  • Biden: + $7T
 
Dragonite7 said:
If we're going to seriously address the deficit, maybe we shouldn't be handing out $5 trillion in tax cuts. We could have just paid for the stuff that was cut with that money. Instead, we're demolishing the most productive parts of government. Every $1 of NIH funding generates $2.56 within a year. It's always gathered bipartisan support before because it's an amazing deal for the US. Trump made sure to correct that and hand China the lead in science. You can do the same math for the rest of the cuts. I care about cutting the deficit, but I'm not blind to the facts. Republicans have added more to the debt than Democrats for decades, yet somehow you will still blame the Dems.
Click to expand...
That’s not true. See the breakdown above. Going back to Clinton, in total Dems have added more to the deficit.

I agree and believe we needed less tax cuts. Dems and some Reps up in the NE fought hard to increase the SALT tax cut. That however was primarily a result of the dems.

To be fair and honest, we’ll need some increased taxes as well as marked spending cuts to balance the budget. No one on the left however will allow cuts to the entitlement programs, despite them being financially unsustainable. Until this happens this conversation is a moot point
 
clubdeac said:
That’s not true. See the breakdown above. Going back to Clinton, in total Dems have added more to the deficit.

I agree and believe we needed less tax cuts. Dems and some Reps up in the NE fought hard to increase the SALT tax cut. That however was primarily a result of the dems.

To be fair and honest, we’ll need some increased taxes as well as marked spending cuts to balance the budget. No one on the left however will allow cuts to the entitlement programs, despite them being financially unsustainable. Until this happens this conversation is a moot point
Click to expand...
You're comparing total deficit from 5 Democratic terms to 3 Republican terms. Deficit increases at a higher rate under Republicans.
 
Dragonite7 said:
You're comparing total deficit from 5 Democratic terms to 3 Republican terms. Deficit increases at a higher rate under Republicans.
Click to expand...
Yes but I merely went back 30 yrs and looked at the deficit under each president. Over the last 30 yrs dems have increased the deficit more than republicans. The last 30 yrs are what’s most pertinent to our conversation.
 
I guess telehealth extensions were removed from consideration at some point for this bill, so there will need to be some separate act of Congress to address the expiration date September 30.
 
clubdeac said:
Yes but I merely went back 30 yrs and looked at the deficit under each president. Over the last 30 yrs dems have increased the deficit more than republicans. The last 30 yrs are what’s most pertinent to our conversation.
Click to expand...
Seriously? We need to explain middle school statistics now? It's not worth engaging further once you're trolling like this, but you've only backed up my point - Democrats are more fiscally responsible.
 
Last edited:
Dragonite7 said:
Seriously? We need to explain middle school statistics now? It's not worth engaging further once you're trolling like this, but you've only backed up my point - Democrats are more fiscally responsible.
Click to expand...
So you think it’s useful to talk about the budget before 1995 when the deficit made up 2% of GDP. What’s the point? You know what Buffett said right?

It’s much more useful to discuss what’s relevant to our current 33T deficit. everything else is pointless one-upmanship or first class trolling
 
clubdeac said:
So you think it’s useful to talk about the budget before 1995 when the deficit made up 2% of GDP. What’s the point? You know what Buffett said right?

It’s much more useful to discuss what’s relevant to our current 33T deficit. everything else is pointless one-upmanship or first class trolling
Click to expand...
there is BOTH a spending problem AND a revenue problem.

it really seems that the right generally believes that there is only a spending problem.

you cant cut taxes AND increase spending. it is just frankly irresponsible.

you have to cut defense spending. just so much fat there. i wouldnt mind seeing the retirement age increased with social security. im coming around to a "small" surtax on incomes >1 million or somehow tax when billionaires borrow vs. stocks.
 
SSdoc33 said:
there is BOTH a spending problem AND a revenue problem.

it really seems that the right generally believes that there is only a spending problem.

you cant cut taxes AND increase spending. it is just frankly irresponsible.

you have to cut defense spending. just so much fat there. i wouldnt mind seeing the retirement age increased with social security. im coming around to a "small" surtax on incomes >1 million or somehow tax when billionaires borrow vs. stocks.
Click to expand...
I agree. To fix the deficit we will need to increase taxes AND cut spending. Again I think we should do what Europe does with their tax system. It would generate enough revenue and be more fair and equitable
 
SSdoc33 said:
there is BOTH a spending problem AND a revenue problem.

it really seems that the right generally believes that there is only a spending problem.

you cant cut taxes AND increase spending. it is just frankly irresponsible.

you have to cut defense spending. just so much fat there. i wouldnt mind seeing the retirement age increased with social security. im coming around to a "small" surtax on incomes >1 million or somehow tax when billionaires borrow vs. stocks.
Click to expand...
Just get rid of the step up basis. Probably billions in new tax revenue. biggest tax loophole in existence.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
Just get rid of the step up basis. Probably billions in new tax revenue. biggest tax loophole in existence.
Click to expand...
So I assume you also believe that one should not be able to gift money to a family member or friend without that money being taxed. It’s essentially the same principle
 
callmeanesthesia said:
Just get rid of the step up basis. Probably billions in new tax revenue. biggest tax loophole in existence.
Click to expand...
I would be ok with eliminating the step up basis for super duper high value situations, ie over a 100 mil.

But if your parents die and the 10 mil they have in capital gains from Apple stock they gift you in their will, I would just let you have it. If it's 20 billion dollars worth of stock, that has real implications for society and dynasty, etc.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
It’s not. If I gift money, it’s money I’ve paid taxes on. Do you not understand the step-up basis?
Click to expand...
Yeah I know what it is. Not sure how I feel about it. Probably not fair that family and relatives are hit with grandpa’s taxes but I see your point.

Personally I think aside from a base flat tax, compulsory taxes should be optional. The left leaning libs who push for higher taxes should certainly be allowed to pay them. In fact, I don’t think there should be a cap for anyone who’s in favor of higher taxes. They should be allowed to pay 50, 60, 70, even 80% of their income if they like. For the rest of us, a flat tax would certainly be more reasonable and sufficient

I think currently with half the country in favor of higher taxes, we would have no problem paying off the deficit
 
clubdeac said:
I would love a budget neutral bill but honestly the only way to significantly make a dent in the deficit is to make marked cuts in our entitlement programs including Medicare, Medicaid and social security. No one will do this because it’s political suicide. 3 trillion over 10 yrs isn’t egregious considering Obama added 9 trillion during his two terms and Biden 7 trillion during his single term.

Dems don’t like the current bill bc they say it includes too many cuts. These are absolutely necessary if you’re seriously going to address the deficit
Click to expand...
absolutely wrong.

we paid in to social security. why should there be cuts?
we paid in to medicare. why should there be cuts?

3 trillion over 10 years when the economy had been good is absolute suicide. what do you do when there is a recession? add 10 trillion?

i see you forgot to mention that trump in his first term added 8 trillion. obama did add 9 trillion over 2 terms.

the problem isnt as much the cuts as what was cut, all to maintain corporate tax cuts and cuts to the ultra rich. while everyone is supposed to get tax cuts, the ultra rich get disproportionately greater benefit.

adding $350 billion to border security and national security when he states he has already secured the borders is asinine.
 
Ducttape said:
absolutely wrong.

we paid in to social security. why should there be cuts?
we paid in to medicare. why should there be cuts?

3 trillion over 10 years when the economy had been good is absolute suicide. what do you do when there is a recession? add 10 trillion?

i see you forgot to mention that trump in his first term added 8 trillion. obama did add 9 trillion over 2 terms.

the problem isnt as much the cuts as what was cut, all to maintain corporate tax cuts and cuts to the ultra rich. while everyone is supposed to get tax cuts, the ultra rich get disproportionately greater benefit.

adding $350 billion to border security and national security when he states he has already secured the borders is asinine.
Click to expand...
There definitely needs reform of social security. Social security first paid out to people at 65 when it started. That was despite Male life expectancy at 65 or less. Now we are living longer we need to raise the retirement age. It wasn’t supposed to pay people for decades
 
clubdeac said:
Yeah I know what it is. Not sure how I feel about it. Probably not fair that family and relatives are hit with grandpa’s taxes but I see your point.

Personally I think aside from a base flat tax, compulsory taxes should be optional. The left leaning libs who push for higher taxes should certainly be allowed to pay them. In fact, I don’t think there should be a cap for anyone who’s in favor of higher taxes. They should be allowed to pay 50, 60, 70, even 80% of their income if they like. For the rest of us, a flat tax would certainly be more reasonable and sufficient

I think currently with half the country in favor of higher taxes, we would have no problem paying off the deficit
Click to expand...
You can absolutely gift any amount of money to the IRS. You can even specify where you want it to go, what program, to pay off debt, etc.

Of course, socialists would never dream of doing that. It's OTHER people's money that they're after.
 
hyperalgesia said:
I would be ok with eliminating the step up basis for super duper high value situations, ie over a 100 mil.

But if your parents die and the 10 mil they have in capital gains from Apple stock they gift you in their will, I would just let you have it. If it's 20 billion dollars worth of stock, that has real implications for society and dynasty, etc.
Click to expand...
This is not a far cry from "tax the rich." Then who qualifies as "rich" is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't disagree with your idea, but it is somewhat contrary to your typical assertions about taxation.
 
cowboydoc said:
This is not a far cry from "tax the rich." Then who qualifies as "rich" is in the eyes of the beholder. I don't disagree with your idea, but it is somewhat contrary to your typical assertions about taxation.
Click to expand...
My personal preference would be a flat tax with zero deductions for anything.

But if we're parsing apart income brackets, it doesn't make sense to me that we have 6 brackets between 30k and 3 million, every cent of which is WORKING CLASS, survival income. And then we have no brackets between 3 million and a trillion.

I would maybe have 3 brackets, more widely distributed.
 
hyperalgesia said:
You can absolutely gift any amount of money to the IRS. You can even specify where you want it to go, what program, to pay off debt, etc.

Of course, socialists would never dream of doing that. It's OTHER people's money that they're after.
Click to expand...
that is an inconsequential argument.

asking 1 person to solve a societal problem is puerile and conservatives who spout that are just using it as a nonserious talking point.

hyperalgesia said:
My personal preference would be a flat tax with zero deductions for anything.

But if we're parsing apart income brackets, it doesn't make sense to me that we have 6 brackets between 30k and 3 million, every cent of which is WORKING CLASS, survival income. And then we have no brackets between 3 million and a trillion.

I would maybe have 3 brackets, more widely distributed.
Click to expand...
this regressive tax program means that the lower classes, those with less equity and worth, get taxed the same percentage but get hurt significantly more because they own/have significantly less equity and worth.


joe has one sandwich to eat for the day. take away (ie tax) him 1/4 of the sandwich, he has 3/4 sandwich to eat for the day.
mike has 1,000,000 sandwiches. tax him 1/4 of his sandwiches, he will still have 750,000 sandwiches to eat for the day.
but that could be used to feed 250,000 joes.
 
geauxg8rs said:
There definitely needs reform of social security. Social security first paid out to people at 65 when it started. That was despite Male life expectancy at 65 or less. Now we are living longer we need to raise the retirement age. It wasn’t supposed to pay people for decades
Click to expand...
or one could eliminate the social security cap and reduce benefits for high earners.

the French hated raising the retirement age
 
Ducttape said:
this regressive tax program means that the lower classes, those with less equity and worth, get taxed the same percentage but get hurt significantly more because they own/have significantly less equity and worth.

joe has one sandwich to eat for the day. take away (ie tax) him 1/4 of the sandwich, he has 3/4 sandwich to eat for the day.
mike has 1,000,000 sandwiches. tax him 1/4 of his sandwiches, he will still have 750,000 sandwiches to eat for the day.
but that could be used to feed 250,000 joes.
Click to expand...
We see totally different problems and have different goals.

There is no part of my goal that seeks to redistribute/equalize wealth. That is your entire goal, it seems.

That's why our solutions are completely different.

Again, I have zero objection to wealth/income disparity. It's not any kind of indication of a problem. It represents a HEALTHY and free society.
 
Last edited:
clubdeac said:
Socialism has never worked. Why do you think it will work now. It’s baffling
Click to expand...
1751582861469.png
 
I’m sorry guys, but the no tax on tips, no tax on overtime thing is just stupid. It creates far more bureaucracy and far more work for employers if you’re actually going to track and enforce it, when they could have created more benefit for working class people with less complexity by just lowering the tax rates on the lower brackets, or raising the standard deduction
 
callmeanesthesia said:
I’m sorry guys, but the no tax on tips, no tax on overtime thing is just stupid. It creates far more bureaucracy and far more work for employers if you’re actually going to track and enforce it, when they could have created more benefit for working class people with less complexity by just lowering the tax rates on the lower brackets, or raising the standard deduction
Click to expand...
Generally I agree with you, especially about overtime. Just a naked political promise. Not sure if it even worked with that demographic.

But remember Democrats supported it too. Even Kamala supported it.

Finally, Democrats totally boycotted negotiation on this bill. No complaining allowed.
 
hyperalgesia said:
Generally I agree with you, especially about overtime. Just a naked political promise. Not sure if it even worked with that demographic.

But remember Democrats supported it too. Even Kamala supported it.

Finally, Democrats totally boycotted negotiation on this bill. No complaining allowed.
Click to expand...
I don’t care who supported it. It’s wasteful political pandering at its most blatant.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
I’m sorry guys, but the no tax on tips, no tax on overtime thing is just stupid. It creates far more bureaucracy and far more work for employers if you’re actually going to track and enforce it, when they could have created more benefit for working class people with less complexity by just lowering the tax rates on the lower brackets, or raising the standard deduction
Click to expand...
Hard to decrease taxes on the 50% that already pay 0
 
Ducttape said:
absolutely wrong.

we paid in to social security. why should there be cuts?
we paid in to medicare. why should there be cuts?

3 trillion over 10 years when the economy had been good is absolute suicide. what do you do when there is a recession? add 10 trillion?

i see you forgot to mention that trump in his first term added 8 trillion. obama did add 9 trillion over 2 terms.

the problem isnt as much the cuts as what was cut, all to maintain corporate tax cuts and cuts to the ultra rich. while everyone is supposed to get tax cuts, the ultra rich get disproportionately greater benefit.

adding $350 billion to border security and national security when he states he has already secured the borders is asinine.
Click to expand...
Yeah I didn’t like Trumps first term spending either but 3T over 10yrs is nothing compared to the spending spree we’ve been on over the last 12 yrs. What was it again, 24T? It’s funny how the left is now all of a sudden worried about spending

And you’re wrong. 1/2 of the population did not pay into Medicare or social security. You do know this right? And the ultra rich aren’t getting a tax break. Why do you keep repeating this lie? Your statements are not in the least bit factual
 
Trump just keeps winning….
1751606408223.png

And in December, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit with Trump for $15 million, to be paid towards his presidential library and museum. Additionally, ABC agreed to pay $1 million to cover Trump's legal fees and publish a statement of regret on their website regarding statements made by George Stephanopoulos during an interview on March 10, 2024. The lawsuit stemmed from Stephanopoulos' inaccurate on-air statements claiming that Trump had been found liable for rape in a lawsuit brought by E. Jean Carroll.
 
callmeanesthesia said:
I don’t care who supported it. It’s wasteful political pandering at its most blatant.
Click to expand...
It's minor. It's not remotely the level of pandering as trying to use taxpayer money to pay off student loans.

Having said that, I think politicians really underestimate their constituents. If they honestly committed to paying down the national debt and explained it to people and worked together to make sacrifices across the board, people would embrace it.

I agree with you about raising the standard deduction. That's one of the GREAT things the BBB actually does.
 
hyperalgesia said:
We see totally different problems and have different goals.

There is no part of my goal that seeks to redistribute/equalize wealth. That is your entire goal, it seems.

That's why our solutions are completely different.

Again, I have zero objection to wealth/income disparity. It's not any kind of indication of a problem. It represents a HEALTHY and free society.
Click to expand...
Income inequality is fine. Extreme income inequality is not. See 1789 France and 1917 Russia.

You do want a strong middle class, though. I don’t mind the uber billionaires as long as there is also a growing middle class. We seem to be heading the other direction
 
SSdoc33 said:
Income inequality is fine. Extreme income inequality is not. See 1789 France and 1917 Russia.

You do want a strong middle class, though. I don’t mind the uber billionaires as long as there is also a growing middle class. We seem to be heading the other direction
Click to expand...
It's just another bs excuse to rationalize liberal emotions like jealously and guilt.

No one casts their vote because they want to orchestrate some kind of class structure in society.
 
hyperalgesia said:
It's just another bs excuse to rationalize liberal emotions like jealously and guilt.

No one casts their vote because they want to orchestrate some kind of class structure in society.
Click to expand...
Meaningless commentary, as usual. Nothing to do with guilt or jealousy, everything to do with history
 
SSdoc33 said:
Income inequality is fine. Extreme income inequality is not. See 1789 France and 1917 Russia.

You do want a strong middle class, though. I don’t mind the uber billionaires as long as there is also a growing middle class. We seem to be heading the other direction
Click to expand...
You do realize this is completely false. The middle class has been increasing since the 1950s and those that live below the poverty line actually diminishing. Why do liberals keep pushing these insane lies over and over and over and over… it gets so old 🤦🏻‍♂️
 
SSdoc33 said:
Meaningless commentary, as usual. Nothing to do with guilt or jealousy, everything to do with history
Click to expand...
Your lack of self-awareness in this context is constantly jarring and you lash out at people who point it out.

You would have us believe you are a detached intellectual historian and vote accordingly ("BUT ORANGE MAN IS A TUB OF GOO!!!").

I'm guessing that in your personal life, your emotional drive is an advantage. Emotional people are a pleasure to deal with on a personal level.
 
Most “poor” people are living well. When I was a kid, several of my classmates didn’t have home phones, didn’t eat on the weekend at the end of the month, didn’t have air conditioning. Family had one car that constantly broke down. They never left the county. Some of their grandparents still slept outside in tipi’s. That doesn’t happen at all anymore.
 
Dr. Ice said:
I hear you man, 46, kids 3 and 7, don’t forget the Amazon packages on your doorstep daily…
Click to expand...
SSdoc33 said:
if i want to be pissed off, i will look at the "recent orders" tab
Click to expand...
buddababa said:
Same similar ages, double the amazon packages since i have an addiction
Click to expand...


I have kids ages 3, 6, 9. I went to look for my cumulative Amazon order history. They make it intentionally obtuse - request data, send you email link, get it in .zip form and get a confusing spreadsheet.

Anyway after I figured it out I had 2300 orders for 60k+ in 10 years. I'm sure it's increasing year by year..
 
bubaghanush said:
I have kids ages 3, 6, 9. I went to look for my cumulative Amazon order history. They make it intentionally obtuse - request data, send you email link, get it in .zip form and get a confusing spreadsheet.

Anyway after I figured it out I had 2300 orders for 60k+ in 10 years. I'm sure it's increasing year by year..
Click to expand...
But think of the nice things you could buy with their 5% cash back credit card.

They are terrible about giving you your own data. For me, $11k in the last year, so I can’t stand to go back any further.

I better get back to RVU pellet collecting. With g2211, I may someday be able to experience the lifestyle my wife and children are able to enjoy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

drusso
Oregon Passes Bill to Restrict Private Equity: Implications for Pain?
Replies
5
Views
669
Status Sciaticus
Status Sciaticus
drusso
Culture of Cover-Ups: Implications for Pain?
Replies
48
Views
2K
drusso
drusso
drusso
Closing Medicaid/SOS Loophole: Implications for Pain?
Replies
14
Views
1K
SgtThunderfistMD
SgtThunderfistMD
drusso
Stryker BVNA Product has Landed. Implications for Pain?
Replies
21
Views
2K
Taus
T
drusso
Casey Means, MD, for Surgeon General...Implications for Pain?
2
Replies
79
Views
3K
Ducttape
D
Top