Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
If you stop consuming MSM and instead go to church, the belly of the beast of conservative racists, you might be pleasantly surprised.
Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...
Started by drusso
The stated purpose of the big ugly bill is to get near 1 trillion out of Medicaid.Again I’m not sure how enforcing work requirements for able bodied individuals is a bad thing. It’s astonishing that Medicaid pays for 40% of all births. Again the inclusion criteria are far too broad. That’s an excellent way to bankrupt a country and it seems to be working. I believe in giving a hand up, not a hand out.
Plus work is actually beneficial for those that are not truly disabled. Work provides numerous benefits, including financial stability, improved mental and physical health, a sense of purpose, and opportunities for social interaction. It also contributes to personal growth, skill development, and a stronger sense of community.
9 Benefits of Work for Teens and Young Adults - For Opportunity
The benefits of works for young people go beyond money. See how work impacts physical well-being, mental health, and more.foropportunity.org
8 Surprising Benefits of Work-Life Balance You Might Not Expect - WebMD Health Services
Discover the importance of work-life balance with 8 benefits, from reducing stress and boosting productivity to improving health and relationships.www.webmdhealthservices.com
The 6 Key Benefits of Working & Employment
Beyond financial stability, there are numerous benefits that come with working. This guide will discuss how working can improve one’s quality of life.www.atworkaustralia.com.au
The 7 benefits of work | Aktion Club
www.aktionclub.org
I think you know that this requires more than just work requirement. The vast majority are already working.
your statement doesn't make sense. On one hand you admit that they are racist, whilst trying to imply they aren't. Also, i dont consume MSM, ever since they all perpetrated the lie of WMD in iraq
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You cant say that you are Christian and cut 1 trillion off of Medicaid just to raise the debt ceiling 5 trillion to process a tax refund.
One of the most egregious examples of reverse Robin Hood that I have seen. They all know its wrong too...
Well I'm not Christian or Republican but trust Christianity to do good 100x more than Democrat politicians, or Republican politicians for that matter. You're free to disagree and put your faith in politicians but that's not the traditional spirit of America by any stretch.
I only brought in religion in response to below.
I really do think that faith and politics should be separate but as Christians we are only asked to love Jesus with all our heart and sole and to love our neighbor. Not to judge but cutting the poor including things like SNAP and global US AID just to raise the debt ceiling is not loving our neighbors.
We are asked to help all of those in need, not just Americans.
If you stop consuming MSM and instead go to church, the belly of the beast of conservative racists, you might be pleasantly surprised.
I had asked you in a prior post what specifically was in the bill that was negative for Medicaid patients other than the work requirements. Instead of answering the question you attached some article describing all the presumably negative effects of the coming “Medicaid cuts”
Nowhere in your response did you answer the question. From my own research I determined that there will also be more frequent eligibility checks which again shouldn’t be a problem for people that are truly eligible. But other than that, what else do you not like about the Medicaid portion of the bill? I’m honestly trying to understand your concern
Last edited:
You saying this is comical. He’s talking about you. Weren’t you the one screaming the sky is falling back in April when Trump started talking tariffs?
Whether frequent eligibility checks cause people to lose coverage depends on how those occur. Understaffed or unstaffed phone support, long lines at in-person centers, and long cumbersome forms built like insurance prior auth rules to trip you up absolutely will cause problems. If it’s a simple process where you can snap a picture of your paystub or something and upload it that should be fine.
It is the government so I’m sure it’ll be run like the dmv
Aside from paperwork and lines, are you worried about people being sicker and dying in your town?
Last edited:
This is exactly on point. @mille125
If $14 billion in Medicaid fraud doesn’t piss you off, you’re in on the grift.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐀𝐛𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜
While Democrats perform their ritualistic theater about Republicans “kicking millions off Medicaid,” the government just casually admitted to running what amounts to a $14 billion annual ghost town:
• 2.8 million Americans are double-dipping on taxpayer-funded health plans
• $14 billion flows annually to phantom patients, people who moved to Florida, died, or exist only in the fevered dreams of hospital billing departments
• Insurers cash checks for members who haven’t seen a doctor since Obama’s first term
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐛𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐠 𝐌𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞
This isn’t bureaucratic bumbling, it’s the system working exactly as designed. Like a Rory Sutherland thought experiment gone horribly wrong, we’ve created perverse incentives that reward failure:
• Biden’s team banned states from checking eligibility more than once yearly (because apparently, people’s circumstances never change)
• ObamaCare exchanges operate in blissful ignorance of Medicaid rolls, like two drunk accountants at separate bars
• “Nonprofit” hospital systems—those charitable bastions of community health—are getting rich off invisible patients
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞
Here’s where human psychology gets delicious: The GOP’s modest proposal to verify eligibility twice a year and use existing address data has triggered a meltdown that would make a toddler proud.
Hospital executives and insurance lobbyists are shrieking like their cocaine has been cut with actual medicine.
Why?
𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢 $14 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐢 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬: 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲
This is the part nobody mentions at Georgetown dinner parties: American healthcare isn’t broken, it’s a perfectly calibrated wealth extraction machine.
Every phantom dollar flowing to ghost patients is a dollar not treating real humans with actual medical needs.
We’ve built a system where the incentive is to not verify eligibility,
not coordinate care,
and definitely not ask too many questions about where the money goes.
It’s genius, really.
Bureaucratic theater that makes everyone look compassionate while the meter keeps running.
If $14 billion in Medicaid fraud doesn’t piss you off, you’re in on the grift.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐀𝐛𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐡𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜
While Democrats perform their ritualistic theater about Republicans “kicking millions off Medicaid,” the government just casually admitted to running what amounts to a $14 billion annual ghost town:
• 2.8 million Americans are double-dipping on taxpayer-funded health plans
• $14 billion flows annually to phantom patients, people who moved to Florida, died, or exist only in the fevered dreams of hospital billing departments
• Insurers cash checks for members who haven’t seen a doctor since Obama’s first term
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐮𝐛𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐠 𝐌𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞
This isn’t bureaucratic bumbling, it’s the system working exactly as designed. Like a Rory Sutherland thought experiment gone horribly wrong, we’ve created perverse incentives that reward failure:
• Biden’s team banned states from checking eligibility more than once yearly (because apparently, people’s circumstances never change)
• ObamaCare exchanges operate in blissful ignorance of Medicaid rolls, like two drunk accountants at separate bars
• “Nonprofit” hospital systems—those charitable bastions of community health—are getting rich off invisible patients
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐬𝐲𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞
Here’s where human psychology gets delicious: The GOP’s modest proposal to verify eligibility twice a year and use existing address data has triggered a meltdown that would make a toddler proud.
Hospital executives and insurance lobbyists are shrieking like their cocaine has been cut with actual medicine.
Why?
𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘢 $14 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘱𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐢𝐛𝐛𝐢 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬: 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲
This is the part nobody mentions at Georgetown dinner parties: American healthcare isn’t broken, it’s a perfectly calibrated wealth extraction machine.
Every phantom dollar flowing to ghost patients is a dollar not treating real humans with actual medical needs.
We’ve built a system where the incentive is to not verify eligibility,
not coordinate care,
and definitely not ask too many questions about where the money goes.
It’s genius, really.
Bureaucratic theater that makes everyone look compassionate while the meter keeps running.
again, please cite the reference. looks like it is from matt taibbi, who has been drifting towards conspiracy theorist for upwards of a decade now.
You do realize it’s impossible to have an intelligent discussion with anyone who consistently cite their left leaning sources as dogma but discredit all opposing sources as right wing conspiracy theories. I enjoy lively educated debate but you sir are an intellectual sloth
the difference is that I ALWAYS include the reference (some of which may be left-leaning), i dont just copy and paste text or spam memes.
if i am an intellectual sloth, and im not really sure what that means, then you are an intellectual dung beetle
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Do you want a cookie?
One original thoughtful idea from you would be worth more than every reference you have ever cut/pasted.
Last edited:
Cmon now let’s be honest @Chrish and [USER=1184016]@bubaghanush. The references are for you sloth @SSdoc33. PBS dug their own grave. They slowly moved from those ideals to becoming a far left propaganda arm.
It was inevitable that Congress would defund NPR and PBS when the best argument their supporters could come up with was that all us poor folk in flyover country wouldn't have tornado warnings without taxpayer-funded media.
A Harris Poll study in 2024 found that “3-in-10 audience members familiar with NPR said they associate NPR with the characteristic ‘trustworthy.’" 3-in-10!
Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.
NPR suspended him for writing about his experience in 2024.
I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust.
Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think.
app.thefp.com
"It’s a self-inflicted wound, a product of how NPR embraced a fringe progressivism that cost it any legitimate claim to stand as an impartial provider of news, much less one deserving of government support," says Uri Berliner, who worked at NPR for 25 years.
Happy Independence Day, NPR
The Senate just voted to cut federal funding for the news organization Uri Berliner worked at for 25 years. It only has itself to blame, he writes.
www.thefp.com
But if you like NPR and PBS, look up Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman's 10-part 1980 PBS series "Free to Choose" on YouTube and try the first episode. It will blow your mind. And if you can't get enough of British drama on PBS, you can subscribe to BritBox for $8.99/month.
Last edited:
so how much waste has DOGE actually found? the most i have ever heard was $160 billion. thats a whopping 1.8%. fwiw, one organization found that those DOGE cuts actually cost the fed govt $135 billion.
good faith statistics show that the number of able bodied people who are not working and getting medicaid number approximately 4 million, or 5% of the people on medicaid. it is understood that a sizeable portion of these are women who have left the workforce to care for sick family members.
i posted before:
Is There Really an Epidemic of Workless Medicaid Recipients?
A deep dive into the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
==
this is not the flex you think it will give.
you do know that Arkansas did institute work requirements for Medicaid in 2019, right? there was in increase in uninsured (which could impact how much the average Arkansan paid for insurance) and there was no increase in work percentage.
Arkansas is a model of what will happen elsewhereso how much waste has DOGE actually found? the most i have ever heard was $160 billion. thats a whopping 1.8%. fwiw, one organization found that those DOGE cuts actually cost the fed govt $135 billion.
good faith statistics show that the number of able bodied people who are not working and getting medicaid number approximately 4 million, or 5% of the people on medicaid. it is understood that a sizeable portion of these are women who have left the workforce to care for sick family members.
i posted before:
Is There Really an Epidemic of Workless Medicaid Recipients?
A deep dive into the Survey of Income and Program Participation.www.peoplespolicyproject.org
==
this is not the flex you think it will give.
you do know that Arkansas did institute work requirements for Medicaid in 2019, right? there was in increase in uninsured (which could impact how much the average Arkansan paid for insurance) and there was no increase in work percentage.
Any waste should be exposed and corrected. The fact that you scoff at $160 billion is evidence that our deficit and spending is out of control and that you don’t really careso how much waste has DOGE actually found? the most i have ever heard was $160 billion. thats a whopping 1.8%. fwiw, one organization found that those DOGE cuts actually cost the fed govt $135 billion.
good faith statistics show that the number of able bodied people who are not working and getting medicaid number approximately 4 million, or 5% of the people on medicaid. it is understood that a sizeable portion of these are women who have left the workforce to care for sick family members.
i posted before:
Is There Really an Epidemic of Workless Medicaid Recipients?
A deep dive into the Survey of Income and Program Participation.
==
this is not the flex you think it will give.
you do know that Arkansas did institute work requirements for Medicaid in 2019, right? there was in increase in uninsured (which could impact how much the average Arkansan paid for insurance) and there was no increase in work percentage.
And if the number of able bodied people not working who are on Medicaid is only 5%, that should make us all very happy as the new requirements will have little negative impact. Thank you for proving my point
that amount has not been verified by anyone else, btw. and $160 billion out of a federal budget of $7000 billion is a drop in the bucket. lose sight of the forest for staring at a tree much?
the medicaid restrictions did have a significant impact in arkansas - there was an increase in uninsured population.
meaning that ultimately people who are insured would end up paying more for their health insurance. and every organization that has looked at medicaid restrictions has noted that premiums of the average american is expected to go up.
so in your attempt to essentially penalize a very small percent of the people, you are willing to harm a large group of people.
talk about blinders.
congrats. you use them well.
and you do know that 43% of americans want to continue funding PBS and NPR, while 24% want it cut?
again, the wishes of majority is out the window. hurt the majority for the less than 1 in 4 americans.
cool.
the medicaid restrictions did have a significant impact in arkansas - there was an increase in uninsured population.
meaning that ultimately people who are insured would end up paying more for their health insurance. and every organization that has looked at medicaid restrictions has noted that premiums of the average american is expected to go up.
so in your attempt to essentially penalize a very small percent of the people, you are willing to harm a large group of people.
talk about blinders.
congrats. you use them well.
and you do know that 43% of americans want to continue funding PBS and NPR, while 24% want it cut?
again, the wishes of majority is out the window. hurt the majority for the less than 1 in 4 americans.
cool.
I didn't know about this...
"The [BBB] officially designates DPC (direct primary care) as a form of healthcare (rather than healthcare insurance), allowing patients who enroll in these practices to own an HSA and pay their DPC membership fees with HSA dollars."
"The [BBB] officially designates DPC (direct primary care) as a form of healthcare (rather than healthcare insurance), allowing patients who enroll in these practices to own an HSA and pay their DPC membership fees with HSA dollars."
Duct cmon now. The majority has spoken. And I understand your side did not win and you’re not very happy about that but let’s be real. Most of the country voted for what’s happening right now. It's a good thing and likely won’t result in all these “The Sky is falling” scenarios that you read about in your left wing, Trump hating sources. It’ll work out fine. Unfortunately we don’t have unlimited funds. I too would love unlimited healthcare for everyone. In an ideal world we could have that but that costs money and not sure if you remember but we’re 36 trillion in debt. You’ve got to make concessions. You can’t just keep spending money you don’t have
Yes we are 36 trillion in debt but even you have to admit that cutting programs to the needy AND raising the debt ceiling another 5 trillion does not make sense if you are truly worried about the deficit.
Most of the country did not vote for what is happening right now. Current polling suggest that.
I’m glad you brought up polling. Yes I did not like the amount of spending in the bill. I would like to see more cuts. And regardless of what the polls show, the polling for the alternative is worse. Dems are at the lowest they’ve been in 35 yrs! Honestly I’m not sure why they’re polling so badly right now
Attachments
No matter what you say, Republicans lose all credibility about the deficit when the add 5 trillion to the debt.
Cutting programs have nothing to do with it. This whole ploy was to raise the debt.
I don't think they intended to raise the debt. Politicians on both sides of the isle have indirectly increased the debt for decades due to their inability to make necessary cuts fearing this could jeopardize re-election. When looking at the BBB you have to remember that the estimate is over a 10 yr period. The estimates I've seen state it "may" raise the debt by 3 not 5 trillion over the next 10 yrs. Again, as stated previously, dems would've axed the spending cuts had they been able to which would've likely increased the deficit. One could argue they would offset this with taxe hikes
You must also remember that the last 3 presidents increased the debt more than all past presidents combined. Obama increased it by 9 trillion in two terms. Trump by 7 trillion and Biden by another 8.5 trillion during his one term. Obama actually added more to the national debt than any president in history (in 2 terms). Biden's American Rescue Plan Act added 1.9 trillion to the national debt due to extended unemployment benefits, direct payments to Americans, and increases to the Child Tax Credit and subsidies for Covid 19 testing and vaccine programs. His student loan forgiveness program was expected to add 300 billion to the debt over 10 yrs. Fortunately this was overturned by the Supreme Court. He tried another plan, SAVE which also was ruled unconstitutional.
You're statement is overly simplistic and inaccurate when put into historical perspective
The facts do matter...
- Donald Trump added the most national debt in dollar terms during his four-year presidency, increasing it by $8.18 trillion.
- Barack Obama added $8.3 trillion over his eight years in office
I’m not sure I’d trust all AI models just yet. Be careful where you get your info. Regardless, these numbers do not change the point of the post
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
What do you disagree with exactly?
I dont need AI because I lived thru this.
Trump 2016 and Obama added the same amount to the deficit roughly but Obsma was 8 years and Trump was 4. Obama had to immediately deal with the Great Recession of 2008 which began from policies in previous times. Trump cut taxes exploding the deficit without spending cuts and then had to deal with COVID. COVID was not related to Trumps actions obviously and added 3 trillion to the deficit but 5 trillion was already added by Trump. We went from 20 trillion to 28 trillion under Trump which is the third highest increase compared to our economic size ever (the two others involved wars and both were Republican)
This time Trump wants to explode deficit again but learned his lesson and is going to offset somewhat with cuts to the ultra poor which I think is absolutely deplorable.
You and others try to defend Trump at all costs but the facts do matter.
Last edited:
When and if the tariffs are fully implemented and not just enacted and repealed to make some people and Presidents rich from the market., the sky will be falling.
I’m disagreeing with your little AI generated answer 🤦🏻♂️ Again I ask what are these cuts to the ultra poor other than work requirements for able bodied men and periodic eligibility checks? You just keep parroting lies
Now let’s go to a source you trust. Per NPR, “The national debt nearly doubled under Obama: It was $10.6 trillion when he took office and was nearly $20 trillion when he left. The rise has been blamed on factors from the Great Recession to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rising costs of Social Security and Medicare. Many of those pressures still exist”
And the Heritage foundation states Trumps first term actually resulted in an increase of 6.5 trillion, not 8 trillion. Yes, unfortunately for you facts do matter
The Left’s $7 Trillion Lie: Biden Far Outpaces Trump in Racking Up the National Debt
Projection is blaming someone else for your own bad behavior. We saw a classic case of projection in Thursday’s presidential debate, when President Biden—who is overseeing annual budget deficits of $2 trillion—asserted that his predecessor, Donald Trump, added more to the federal debt than...
www.heritage.org
Just saw this. I wasn't ignoring you. There are major "negatives" that many have talked about. A really big issue that hasn't already been discussed is states with lower per capita incomes get very high federal matches. The federal govt is dropping the percentage on its matching funds so these states will have very tough decisions about coverage. Ironically, the hardest hit states are squarely in "Trump country" and include, Alabama, Arkansas, ,Louisiana, Oklahoma, Missisissippi, West Virginia, etc
The downstream effects on states and hospitals, especially rural hospitals, mostly due to not being able to raise money to help fund state costs will have devastating effects especially in the aforementioned states. All of this will flow down to all of us as increased premiums.
It wont happen all at once but when it does it will be catastrophic to the Medicaid recipients and their hospitals (with exaggerated effect in red states).
Non-partisan sources support what I said.I’m disagreeing with your little AI generated answer 🤦🏻♂️ Again I ask what are these cuts to the ultra poor other than work requirements for able bodied men and periodic eligibility checks? You just keep parroting lies
Now let’s go to a source you trust. Per NPR, “The national debt nearly doubled under Obama: It was $10.6 trillion when he took office and was nearly $20 trillion when he left. The rise has been blamed on factors from the Great Recession to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rising costs of Social Security and Medicare. Many of those pressures still exist”
And the Heritage foundation states Trumps first term actually resulted in an increase of 6.5 trillion, not 8 trillion. Yes, unfortunately for you facts do matter
The Left’s $7 Trillion Lie: Biden Far Outpaces Trump in Racking Up the National Debt
Projection is blaming someone else for your own bad behavior. We saw a classic case of projection in Thursday’s presidential debate, when President Biden—who is overseeing annual budget deficits of $2 trillion—asserted that his predecessor, Donald Trump, added more to the federal debt than...
Just doing a Google search uses AI. You obviously used AI to pull your NPR and Heritage Foundation info here but per usual the pot calls the kettle black.
I assume that you would agree that Obama's full term was 8 years and Trump's was 4 (I can't make any assumptions on what you object to because there is no rhyme or reason).
Let me make it simple...
Trump did add $8.4 trillion and here is the math. 3.6 trillion from COVID relief laws + 2.5 trillion from tax cut laws + 2.3 trillion from spending increases (mostly from the Bipartisan Budget Acts prior to COVID onset). This was in 4 years and was 4.8 billion excluding COVID relief.
We're talking in circles. The point I made several posts above is that you misspoke, miscalculated or exaggerated when you said the BBB will add 5 trillion over 5 yrs. It's closer to 3 and again it's over 10 yrs! My point was to put that into perspective. I have already conceded that the last 3 presidents (yes that includes Trump) added significantly more to the national debt than this bill will. But I agree with you. I'd prefer more cuts.
My defense of the bill and Trump's current policies pale in comparison to your exaggerated and negative ill informed response to it = TDS. You're exaggerating most of your points based on political persuasion. It clouds your judgement and critical thinking skills.
Boy.....so many unfounded accusations!!!
The real answer is that nobody knows because there are many factors that no one can predict. Most of the non-partisan sources say that the BBB would raise the deficit by 3.0 to 3.4 trillion over 10 years (which is where you are getting your numbers) but it is assuming that the economy will not contract. With tariffs, loss of labor pools, state responses to the Medicaid and SNAP proposals as well as other executive actions there is absolutely no reason to think that the economy will grow. Labor is already stressed and we haven't even gotten started really. Deporting workers does not help the economy especially in a labor shortage. You then ask those same businesses to pay tariffs and eventually higher med insurance rates. All of this will make the true estimates more likely closer to my numbers then yours but in the end nobody knows, Nothing here is exaggerated. Some of this is already playing out in real time especially the labor stuff. Look at the jobs report that Trump is upset about. It is just going to get worse. Nothing partisan or political about it. It is just bad policy. I know a farmer in Nebraska who voted for Trump enthusiastically and didn't think about how all of these policies would affect them personally. As many of their workers have fled they are regretting their choices.
My main point is that if you really want to decrease the deficit you cut spending without adding unnecessary expenses like the 5 trillion dollar tax decrease.
The real answer is that nobody knows because there are many factors that no one can predict. Most of the non-partisan sources say that the BBB would raise the deficit by 3.0 to 3.4 trillion over 10 years (which is where you are getting your numbers) but it is assuming that the economy will not contract. With tariffs, loss of labor pools, state responses to the Medicaid and SNAP proposals as well as other executive actions there is absolutely no reason to think that the economy will grow. Labor is already stressed and we haven't even gotten started really. Deporting workers does not help the economy especially in a labor shortage. You then ask those same businesses to pay tariffs and eventually higher med insurance rates. All of this will make the true estimates more likely closer to my numbers then yours but in the end nobody knows, Nothing here is exaggerated. Some of this is already playing out in real time especially the labor stuff. Look at the jobs report that Trump is upset about. It is just going to get worse. Nothing partisan or political about it. It is just bad policy. I know a farmer in Nebraska who voted for Trump enthusiastically and didn't think about how all of these policies would affect them personally. As many of their workers have fled they are regretting their choices.
My main point is that if you really want to decrease the deficit you cut spending without adding unnecessary expenses like the 5 trillion dollar tax decrease.
Bolded below is a very very recent post in the Washington Post that supports my earlier statements concerning the future economy. It this continues it will have a deleterious effect on the deficit and our country as a whole and it is all self inflicted by bad policy.
Friday’s disappointing jobs report revealed a labor market that is much weaker than either the White House or Federal Reserve understood. Inflation, the voter irritant that helped return Trump to the Oval Office, is proving newly stubborn. And consumers are growing more cautious with their spending.
After campaigning on a pledge to free business from worrying about Washington’s dictates, Trump has made public policy - and his own norm-busting behavior - the primary variables affecting the $30 trillion U.S. economy, economists said.
It all adds up to an economy that grew at an annual rate of 1.2 percent over the first half of the year, a notable downshift from its 2.4 percent pace at the end of 2024. The S&P 500 index, which has been on a tear since mid-April, reacted by shedding 2.5 percent of its value this week.
Friday’s disappointing jobs report revealed a labor market that is much weaker than either the White House or Federal Reserve understood. Inflation, the voter irritant that helped return Trump to the Oval Office, is proving newly stubborn. And consumers are growing more cautious with their spending.
After campaigning on a pledge to free business from worrying about Washington’s dictates, Trump has made public policy - and his own norm-busting behavior - the primary variables affecting the $30 trillion U.S. economy, economists said.
It all adds up to an economy that grew at an annual rate of 1.2 percent over the first half of the year, a notable downshift from its 2.4 percent pace at the end of 2024. The S&P 500 index, which has been on a tear since mid-April, reacted by shedding 2.5 percent of its value this week.
the majority does not like the big beautiful bill.
your majority, which was not the majority of the american voter, voted in 2024. that was last year. he got 49.8% of the popular vote, which was 1.62% more than harris.
fwiw, i do not look at cnn or other left leading publications anymore. stopped washington post when they sold out. stopped looking at NYT (never had a membership anyways).
we definitely can pay for universal healthcare.
we spend more on the defense budget than the next 9 countries - combined.
we could increase the payroll tax on the ultra wealthy by 0.5%.
we could cut out the various tax shelters that the ultra wealthy use to avoid paying taxes.
we could increase the taxes on unhealthy habits. there is already a considerable tax on cigarette smoking, but it is still an 82 billion industry. some people have called for taxes on sugary beverages (tho that may lead to unintended consequences).
we could use all the money employers and employees pay for their healthcare and apply it to this universal healthcare. employers apparently paid about $521 billion for employee healthcare premiums.
I am confident Trump can reduce the deficit by firing and replacing whichever economist is in charge of reporting it.
why would we trust the heritage foundation, a decidedly conservative biased organization?And the Heritage foundation states Trumps first term actually resulted in an increase of 6.5 trillion, not 8 trillion. Yes, unfortunately for you facts do matter
The Left’s $7 Trillion Lie: Biden Far Outpaces Trump in Racking Up the National Debt
Projection is blaming someone else for your own bad behavior. We saw a classic case of projection in Thursday’s presidential debate, when President Biden—who is overseeing annual budget deficits of $2 trillion—asserted that his predecessor, Donald Trump, added more to the federal debt than...
the same organization that has established that a christian nationalist country is the desired goal, and authored and implemented Project 2025?
interestingly, the money in reserve was not included in anyone elses measurement of the total debt. and of note it significantly increased the amount of debt that accumulated due to interest, because it was in cash and not used to spend down the debt.
How Much Did President Trump Add to the Debt? | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
2024-01-10-Note: We published a more comprehensive, up-to-date
you rail against anyone quoting CNN or Washington Post. the Heritage foundation is worse than any media source.
Hmmm everything you just said is speculation. I hope you’re wrong but we’ll see
And there was a 5 trillion dollar tax cut in the bill? That’s news to me. What specifically are you referring to
Agree with most of what you’re saying. Sure, again closing loopholes for the top 0.01% won’t accomplish what you think it will. There’s just not enough of them.
You need to look at the other 80 million working age adults that essentially pay no taxes. Unlike your proposal, we could accrue significant tax revenue if we, like most all other developed nations, taxed the bottom 50% of our population. It’s crazy to think that 1/2 the country effectively pay 2-3% in taxes
That IS the accomplishment for ducttape and other socialists. Removing prosperity for the wealthy decreases the wealth gap. That's the end goal.
Last edited:
not to correct everything but enough to make a sizeable difference.
if 0.1% of the population owns $11 trillion in assets, yet they on average only pay an effective tax rate of 23% - where you as a middle-class person is paying 25-32%.
are you serious about taxing the bottom 50%?
you do realize that the bottom 50% own 2.4% of the total wealth in the US?
you want to squeeze pennies out of 2.4% of the wealth, vs squeezing 15% of the top 0.1%, or 30% out of the top 1%?
the average salary of the bottom 50% of the US population is 35k. thats less than $3000 per month after taxes; take out rent, car insurance and utilities, their take home pay is <$800 per month.
if you took all their remaining money, you would generate $53 billion.
this is not the flex you want.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Those are some of the best ideas that I have heard...
Is there any period of time that we can revisit this post and verify that the WaPo is either a reliable economic predictor or an unreliable one?
For example, if we revisit this post in 3 months or 3 years and the market has been in a steady decline since now, that would validate the economic analysis. OTOH, if the market is soaring, that would discredit it.
Is there a time frame you would feel comfortable revisiting this?
Your numbers are so far off I don’t know where to start
And we are the top 1% and I sure pay above 30%.
The WaPo article is just talking about the jobs report from Friday that includes inflation number and the labor markets.
I don't understand what you want to revisit. Its in the report.
Trump fired the author. That should tell you all that you need.
He wants to circle back to this in a yr so you can eat crow
