Trump Presidency

[matthewfarmery]

Looks like the Senate GOP aren't happy with the bill, and promise there will be changes.

Senate GOP Promises ‘One Big, Beautiful’ Rewrite

“Senate Republicans are vowing they will make changes to President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ after it passed the House early Thursday morning,” Politico reports.

“While the end product is likely to contain sweeping areas of overlap with the proposal negotiated by Speaker Mike Johnson, GOP senators made clear Thursday that the House bill can’t pass without major changes. Some of the member demands are contradictory, with some fiscal hawks demanding beefed-up spending reductions while others want softening of the House’s Medicaid language and to preserve more green-energy incentives.”

Trump won't be happy if the senate will do this, but at least some have sense that the bill as it stands isn't a good thing.

[Vertigo 7]

Don't fool yourself into thinking a republican is ever going to do the right thing.

[clakclak]

Republicans plan to cut 1 trillion (yes trillion) in medicaid and food stamps. The cuts are roughly equal to the GDP of a country like Poland or Saudi Arabia.

Not exactly. The $1 trillion would be spread out over 10 years. The annual GDP of Poland is approx. $811 billion and Saudi Arabia is around $1 trillion. Cuts therefore would amount to about $110 billion per year - not $1 trillion. Furthermore, the idea is to cut waste, fraud, and abuse and also focus on work requirements for some recipients.

Yup, So a large part of SS has been chopped, it was going to happen. But now it has.

Not true.

Show me where in my post I said that they were cutting 1 trillion in a single year? I did never say that. If they would cut 1 trillion in a year medicaid the headline would have been "medicaid abolished".

[Observe]

Show me where in my post I said that they were cutting 1 trillion in a single year?

You said "Republicans plan to cut 1 trillion (yes trillion) in medicaid and food stamps. The cuts are roughly equal to the GDP of a country like Poland or Saudi Arabia".

My point was, if you take Saudi Arabia GDP of $1 trillion and multiply it by 10 years, you have $10 trillion over the same period as the proposed $1 trillion Medicaid and food stamp cuts. So the comparisons that you provide re. Saudi Arabia and Poland are invalid by a factor of at least 10.

[Chips]

Show me where in my post I said that they were cutting 1 trillion in a single year? I did never say that. If they would cut 1 trillion in a year medicaid the headline would have been "medicaid abolished".

To be entirely fair, the way it is posted (comparing it to GDP, which is a per-year-measure), it would imply it's a per year cut. I understood it meant that and I went off to check how big the entire aid budget was to start. So it's a very easy misinterpretation to make.

If you're getting defensive, then the simple response is - you could have provided that clarification at the time. You didn't, so someone else did. Why not just say "yes, it's over a 10 year period" instead of getting combative?

It doesn't mean you need to agree it's okay, warranted, fair, just, or anything else. It's literally just clarifying a statement.

We've seen many a claim by the US Govt about how they're going to save $xxx. So far haven't remotely come anywhere close to the figures they talk about. Can they actually "save" that money as they claim, or is it they *say* that's where the "savings" are coming from, but in reality... that's (as experienced with them) misdirection and plain ol BS. It'll be landing by just cutting actual genuine support/claimants.

[clakclak]

The fact that this stuff always has to devolve into attempts at misdirecting is kinda sad. Instead of you guys being willing to talk to issue at hand, you are redirecting and reflecting by focusing on rhetorical nuances in this Ben Shapiro esque way, where if I would further engage you on it, suddenly the entire conversation is shifted from talking about the actual policies and what they entail, to instead focus on the way something was said. To me it seems like a cheap tactic to derail the conversation and try to discredit criticism of the police by attacking the rhetorics behind it, rather than the actual issue. I know it is an effective way to discredit the source of any given criticism without having to engage the issue at hand, but it just seems lazy and dishonest.

It also does nothing to change my opinion that these are extremely high cuts that will certainly be felt by the American people, especially in times where there is already a lot of wealth inequality and there are many working class people and unemployed people who are struggling a lot.

[Chips]

Literally just pointed out that I agree, the way you presented it, did not make it clear that it was over 10 year period - explaining why.

this is the outcome, that *I'm* misdirecting? Seriously?

I know it is an effective way to discredit the source of any given criticism without having to engage the issue at hand, but it just seems lazy and dishonest.

*facepalm*

Not discredited any source whatsoever. I've no doubt it's true and have just posted that I doubt it's really all just "savings from fraud etc" as has been claimed.

Honestly

[Alan Phipps]

Points and counter-points have been made over the comparison statements. Back on topic now please.

[Vertigo 7]

This bill does a good job of exposing MAGA lies about protecting children. This bill lowers the age that dependents are eligible for coverage under Medicaid from 18 to 7. So disabled parents won't be able to have insurance for their children unless they somehow buy 3rd party insurance, which is incredibly expensive. So much for protecting the most vulnerable. Of course, MAGA morons have been trying to lower the age of sexual consent and kill off child labor laws too so, I guess the expectation is that parents should be marrying off their 8 year old children or making them get a job to pay for their own insurance.

[Observe]

This bill does a good job of exposing MAGA lies about protecting children. This bill lowers the age that dependents are eligible for coverage under Medicaid from 18 to 7.

If you are referring to the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" lowering Medicaid coverage for dependents from age 18 to 7, what you say is not accurate. The bill does not change the age eligibility for children to receive Medicaid coverage.

However, the bill does modify work requirement exemptions for parents receiving benefits under programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Currently, parents are exempt from work requirements if they have dependent children under the age of 18. The new legislation proposes to lower this exemption age to 7, meaning only parents with children under 7 would be exempt from work requirements.

Hopefully you will do your own fact-checking in future.

[Vertigo 7]

lol k, i suggest you go read it again. It sure as hell does. Or are you denying reality again like you denied your beloved RFK said COVID was engineered to be less effective against asians and jews?

[Observe]

lol k, i suggest you go read it again. It sure as hell does.

From what I've read, the explanation that I presented is correct. Could you point out what I may be missing?

On subject, my wife was a single mother working 2-3 jobs to make ends-meet. At the same time, she had friends who were also single moms, but they fenagled their way into government assistance and proceeded to sit at home watching TV, going to parties and affording new clothing that my wife could not afford. These women were perfectly capable of getting a job. Work shouldn't be a choice. If the person is able, it should be a requirement.

In the areas of "fraud, waste and abuse", this probably qualifies in the abuse category. So yea, the proposed changes re. work requirement make sense. The effect will be reduction in government cost, increase in national productivity and likely better all around health.

[Vertigo 7]

ok? and your MAGA chants don't take away from the single moms that have ALS or MS and can't work. But the sea of white folks in congress, they're the ones that get to decide who should and shouldn't be working? Just because your wife and her lazy friends made poor life decisions, that doesn't mean everyone getting assistance is doing the same. Theres a lot of people that genuinely need help that aren't going to get it because of this BS. Not to mention the impact to hospitals when they lose this revenue and have to shut their doors. The consequences of this proposed legislation are going to, yet again, pile up bodies under your Furer's administration.

[Observe]

ok? and your MAGA chants don't take away from the single moms that have ALS or MS and can't work. But the sea of white folks in congress, they're the ones that get to decide who should and shouldn't be working? Just because your wife and her lazy friends made poor life decisions, that doesn't mean everyone getting assistance is doing the same. Theres a lot of people that genuinely need help that aren't going to get it because of this BS. Not to mention the impact to hospitals when they lose this revenue and have to shut their doors. The consequences of this proposed legislation are going to, yet again, pile up bodies under your Furer's administration.

Wow. I see a lot of miscellaneous hyperbole, bigotry and fear-mongering. But I repeat one last time: Please point out specifically what I may be missing re. the proposed bill?

From what I can see, the bill mandates that certain Medicaid recipients must engage in at least 80 hours per month of work, education, or community service to maintain eligibility. This requirement is targeted at "able-bodied" adults without dependents or disabilities.

Exemptions: Individuals who are seniors, pregnant, under 19, or have disabilities are exempt from these work requirements.

Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't equate to bodies piling up as you dramatically suggest. Perhaps you are talking about some other, unrelated concerns?

[Mailo]

On subject, my wife was a single mother working 2-3 jobs to make ends-meet. At the same time, she had friends who were also single moms, but they fenagled their way into government assistance and proceeded to sit at home watching TV, going to parties and affording new clothing that my wife could not afford. These women were perfectly capable of getting a job. Work shouldn't be a choice. If the person is able, it should be a requirement.

In the areas of "fraud, waste and abuse", this probably qualifies in the abuse category. So yea, the proposed changes re. work requirement make sense. The effect will be reduction in government cost, increase in national productivity and likely better all around health.

I haven't actually read the bill (1100 pages? WTF?), so I am not stepping into that discussion, but just want to point out one thing:
Regarding the "fraud, waste and abuse", there are two factors contributing to the overall cost, and you are ignoring one of them. It requires additional bureaucracy and government workers to actually implement these new requirements, they need to be checked and followed up on. And the more the fraud level has already been reduced, the more expensive it gets to reduce it further. At some point, it will become more expensive to reduce it than what would be saved.
Thus, it is in the best interest of a nation to ignore a certain level of grift, as the costs to eliminate it far outweigh the potential gains, by orders of magnitude.
Unfortunately, the impression I get from the US is that the best interest of the nation is not really something most people care about, as long as their righteous thirst for punishment and vengence is sated (for reference, see the idiotic criminal punishment system )

Also, considering DOGE just dramatically decreased the number of federal workers, how will these new hurdles to access actually be checked? In all likelihood they won't, at least not sufficiently, which means one of two things: Either the level of grift remains unchanged (not enough checking, anyone unchecked will be accepted), or people who should qualify will get rejected (not enough checking, anyone unchecked will be rejected)
In either case no, it is unlikely that "reduction in government cost, increase in national productivity and likely better all around health" will be the result.

[matthewfarmery]

So Trump is going to impose a 50% tariffs on EU goods again, I'm sure that the markets will respond badly to that.

Also, Trump is now targeting Apple, demanding that Apple makes the Iphone in the US Trump is saying, its ok for Apple to make stuff in India, but if you sell to the US, we will impose tariffs on any imports.

I'm sure this will get reversed at some point. Trump will likely U turn, once there is another outrage. What a buffoon.

[chew-ie]

I've no idea how markets react - but since Trump started this bullying I'm getting rid of as much US products as I'm able to (not much left but I started yet another re-evaluation). Also, as part of my professional life (IT) I too migrate as much stuff towards EU products / non-US products as possible.

US simply isn't a reliable partner anymore. Not as inhuman as russia (yet) but the behaviour of the current US administration is no basis for cooperation. The sooner US citizens realize that and change their government the better.

[matthewfarmery]

And here is a funny story.

‘The Food Sucked’ at Trump’s Meme Coin Dinner

CNBC spoke to 25-year old Nicholas Pinto, who was one of the 220 guests invited to Donald Trump’s crypto dinner.

Said Pinto: “The food sucked. Wasn’t given any drinks other than water or Trump’s wine. I don’t drink, so I had water. My glass was only filled once… He didn’t talk to any of the 220 guests — maybe the top 25.”

“All in, the president was there for 23 minutes, Pinto said. Trump delivered a brief address rehashing old crypto talking points then left on a helicopter before taking any questions or pictures with his meme coin contest winners, he said.”

What did he and the other 200 odd expect? Trump doesn't give a rats arse about them. Just there money. They should have saved their money and spent on something better. then being conned by Trump. But these idiots never learn.

[Observe]

Regarding the "fraud, waste and abuse", there are two factors contributing to the overall cost, and you are ignoring one of them. It requires additional bureaucracy and government workers to actually implement these new requirements, they need to be checked and followed up on. And the more the fraud level has already been reduced, the more expensive it gets to reduce it further. At some point, it will become more expensive to reduce it than what would be saved.

Good points.

Unfortunately, the impression I get from the US is that the best interest of the nation is not really something most people care about, as long as their righteous thirst for punishment and vengence is sated (for reference, see the idiotic criminal punishment system )

It is indeed sad that our society has become so polarized that hatred of the 'other side' dominates discourse. The use of disinformation and misinformation has become the favorite weapon of the land.

Also, considering DOGE just dramatically decreased the number of federal workers, how will these new hurdles to access actually be checked? In all likelihood they won't, at least not sufficiently, which means one of two things: Either the level of grift remains unchanged (not enough checking, anyone unchecked will be accepted), or people who should qualify will get rejected (not enough checking, anyone unchecked will be rejected).

Another good point.

[Observe]

Great news! The federal government has (finally) removed COVID-19 vaccines from the list of shots recommended for healthy pregnant women and children. There's no evidence healthy kids need it today and most countries have stopped recommending it for children. Go RFK!

It's past time to stop vaccinating children AND healthy adults with COVID vaccines. The science indicates that there is no real benefit to continue imposing these vaccines on healthy people.