The House passed the big, beautiful bill, which means the Trump tax cuts are made permanent

Wait for it!

Democrats couldn't even stay awake for Temu Obama's blathering before it was passed.

Dems drag rep from camera view after she dozed off during Hakeem Jeffries’ grandstanding speech

nypost

Her fighting to stay awake was great theatre.  

Better tv than anything Jeffries said. Watching to see if she would fall over was on the edge of your seat thrilling tv than the dems have done in years.

I was wondering which way he would fall. Falling face down may have improved his appearance.

The President will celebrate the passage of the bill when he arrives very soon in Iowa.

President  Donald Trump  campaigned on a promise to deliver a “spectacular” yearlong birthday party to mark 250 years of American independence. On Thursday, he will be in the U.S. heartland to kick off the patriotic festivities leading up to next year’s anniversary.

The event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines will feature “dazzling” displays of Americana and American history, musical performances and a fireworks show to cap the night, said U.S. Ambassador Monica Crowley, Trump’s liaison to the organizing group, America250.

Trump will kick off a yearlong celebration of America's 250th anniversary with event in Iowa

It is a great day for the country.

Monica Crowley

She has a 'reputable' history ... /s 

A remnant of the McLaughlin Group. 

Ah, no wonder y'all have a hankering to defund PBS.

My big hankering would have been for Firing line.

A much better show than McLaughlin Group ... Watched it religiously for the icy wit of W.F.B jr. ... have yet to watch Margaret Hoover in the seat.

Many of those episodes have been preserved for posterity on You tube. They are still relevant to this day.

Buckley was a huge fan of Reagan, I doubt he would have liked anything about Trump or the modern manifestation of Republicans. Maybe it is the 80's you wish to return to and not the 50's.

Buckley was a huge fan of Reagan, I doubt he would have liked anything about Trump or the modern manifestation of Republicans.

I agree. He wouldn't have appreciated Trump's manner, but he would have been even more concerned with the demise of American civility. Buckley never got to see what happened to America's big cities. Today the nation's largest city is very likely to elect an antisemitic Socialist. I'm sure that would have concerned Mr Buckley far more than the way the only antidote speaks.

Maybe it is the 80's you wish to return to and not the 50's.

Let me be clear about that. I had the rare luxury of living through America's highest point, when one person's salary could support an entire family, buy a home, and was able to leave doors unlocked. Young children were able to go out and play without adult supervision. America controlled most of the world's steel and built most of the world's cars. We were a nation of goodwill. That moment will likely never happen again here or anywhere else.

That idyllic TV family life you describe depicted in 1950s and 60s television shows like Leave It To Beaver and Father Knows Best never really happened for the vast majority of America. Real life for most people was harder. It was more like Roseanne. There have always been a top one or two percent who were considered rich, but there were no RICH like today in 1960. Even the Rockefellers and the Fords were poor in comparison to Musk and Bezos. Cutting taxes on the rich is not what ended in the relative prosperity of white men in the post war 1950s and 60s. Taxpayer subsided higher education and low rate VA mortgages did...

Maybe it is the 80's you wish to return to and not the 50's.

Actually I'm looking forward to one more year and my grandchild's first words. Other than that I fear a decade of hard times is knocking at the door.

"Congratulations, Republicans!! On top of tax cuts, deregulation, and unleashing American energy, you just restored American sovereignty."  ... Charlie Kirk

On top of tax cuts,

For who? Be specific. 

"The Big Beautiful Bill aims to deliver the most significant tax relief in decades for working- and middle-class families. According to the latest legislative updates, those earning between $30,000 and $80,000 per year would see a 15% cut to their federal tax burden. That means more money in paychecks for teachers, nurses, factory workers, and small business owners. The bill also makes tips and overtime pay tax-free for service industry workers, a move that could save them nearly $2,000 annually."

Big Beautiful Bill Tax Cuts by Income: 2025’s Historic Relief for Workers and Families

Try reading it yourself.  

congress

The bill also makes tips and overtime pay tax-free for service industry workers

Isn't that just for those making 100k or less a year? 

A special congrats to Speaker Johnson on doing what was nearly impossible.

This could make the 2026 midterms somewhat interesting. Before none of y'all ask, that's as far as I go with predictions.

I give you credit for courage.

Yes, the democrats intend on running against this. Probably on the Medicaid requirements.

I think able-bodied people should help pull the wagon instead of trying to ride on it. I think most people will agree

We seem to have read different books growing up. Predictions stem from hubris, not courage.

I didn't give you credit for having courage to make a prediction. I gave you credit for having the courage to show up on this group seed, which your brothers & sisters seem to lack.

They generally don't wander off of seeds they don't control, they need the protection from facts that disagree with their opinions.

That's a fair assessment.

I would add that they get to control their groups a lot more than the rest of us.

This is politics George, disinterest is awol and facts are opinions.

I would add that they get to control their groups a lot more than the rest of us.

If that were the case I would have 90% fewer tickets.

I would post statistics that prove that, but we know what happens then. 

Oh yeah, coming off four years of; war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.    This is very refreshing for the non TDS afflicted. 

No more partying like it’s 1984 …..

Yep.   Projection, redirection, disinformation…..

Read it in 1963 when it had some contemporary meaning ... probably a good thing as it taught me about the coming failures of Trump Devotion Syndrome. What's next on maga's reading list, Lord of the Flunkies?

... by mostly unsatiated escalator egos.

Nope but how did you enjoy non-stop reading of Fear and Loathing in Liberalville for the last decade or so?    Tired of it yet?

Redeploying the P of the PR&D.    Outstanding!

I think able-bodied people should help pull the wagon instead of trying to ride on it.

Of course, we should prevent all fraud.    And we should also not just believe what Trump and his minions claim.

Focus on the facts ;  what percentage of Medicaid recipients are able-bodied individuals who are defrauding the system?:

In 2024, Medicaid paid an estimated   94.9%   of total outlays   properly , representing $579.73 billion in proper federal payments (Figure 1) . The overall Medicaid  improper  payment  rate was 5.1% (or $31.10 billion in federal payments). However, 79.1% of the improper Medicaid payments were the result of insufficient documentation or missing administrative steps (Figure 1).

Does this legislation target fraud or will it ultimately remove Medicaid from those who truly need it?

help pull the wagon

How do you measure pulling the wagon? There are so many ways to contribute to society.

Trump Devotion Syndrome.

At least try to be original.

Does this legislation target fraud or will it ultimately remove Medicaid from those who truly need it?

It targets fraud, but it also goes after what should have NEVER HAVE BEEN LEGALIZED: Obama's Medicaid expansion:

"The massive new welfare cliff created by Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion is sure to discourage employment. Research shows that expanding Medicaid to this new population will discourage work, depress earnings, reduce labor-force participation and hurt the economy.

A  comprehensive study  released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, for example, found that past Medicaid expansions to enroll able-bodied, childless adults reduced the likelihood of working by up to 10 percentage points. This means Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion could cause up to 2.6 million Americans to drop out of the labor force entirely.

The Congressional Budget Office  confirms  that Obamacare will discourage work and cause millions of working-age adults to drop out of the labor force or reduce their hours, ultimately reducing economic output. Indeed, there is  strong evidence  of that happening after  previous Medicaid expansions  to able-bodied adults in Arizona, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah,  Washington , D.C. and Wisconsin.

Obama Administration Says No To Work Requirements

Some states have tried to put window dressing on Obamacare expansion plans by requesting permission to require the Medicaid expansion population fulfill work requirements. The Obama administration has rejected every single one of these requests. In fact, even watered down “work search” and “work effort” provisions have been flatly denied.

Despite these fruitless negotiations, other pro-expansion governors have expressed interest in covering their Obamacare expansion plans in a veneer of work requirements. But even if states were able to secure approval from the Obama administration to impose work requirements, Medicaid expansion is still not worth the price."

Obamacare's Medicaid Expansion Could Cause 2.6 Million Able-Bodied Adults To Drop Out Of Labor Force

That is the heart of the problem with Medicaid, far more than fraud of blue states putting illegals into the system.

How do you measure pulling the wagon?

If one can work, they must do so. The wagon is reserved for the elderly and the disabled.

The wagon is reserved for the elderly and the disabled.

The TRUELY disabled.  Not the lazy.

If one can work, they must do so.

You’re just restating without defining. So, I have the same basic question. What is work? How do you measure it? Consider a mother raising kids. Is she working? How about someone who volunteers at a shelter, or helps neighbors with repairs? What about a lawyer that does pro bono work? 

None of those examples involve an hourly wage, or a W2. But they do contribute to society. So how do you measure work, pulling the wagon, or whatever? What do people have to be doing, in your mind, to be worthy of medical care?

Contributing to society and earning their own way are two different things. 
One is based on socialism ideology, the other capitalism.

Which would you prefer?

Providing low-income, able-bodied, low-income adults with a means to get medical treatment is good.   Rather than take this away and leave these people in limbo, a responsible administration would provide an alternative program.   We are talking about human lives.

I agree with sensible, reasonable work requirements, but given how Trump and his minions work (do not give one shit about people), I am expecting the details will reveal that this is an irresponsible slashing that will result in abrupt cuts to necessary coverage with no alternative.   And much of the (diverted) funds are going to pump up ICE to go after illegals who are not criminals, not insane, but working individuals contributing to our society.   

So damage to a class of low-income people to disrupt the lives of other low-income people rather than deal with long-term illegals humanely and sensibly.   When will Trump supporters realize that Trump dispassionately views people as mere resources?

Contributing to society and earning their own way are two different things.

Why so? Drug dealers earn their own way. They can probably afford insurance premiums. Are they therefore more worthy than someone who volunteers?

The political right always claims to follow Christ, but I don’t remember him checking to see if someone had a regular paycheck before healing them.

roviding low-income, able-bodied, low-income adults with a means to get medical treatment is good.   

Good thing we do. They can work or volunteer and they can get free medical treatment that other people pay for.  Not a bad arrangement for them. 

Why so? Drug dealers earn their own way. They can probably afford insurance premiums.

Do they buy a lot of insurance?  

What is work? How do you measure it? Consider a mother raising kids. Is she working? How about someone who volunteers at a shelter, or helps neighbors with repairs? What about a lawyer that does pro bono work? 

All very fair questions.

to be worthy of medical care?

Let's be accurate here... "to be worthy of somebody else being forced to pay for your medical care?"

Contributing to society and earning their own way are two different things. One is based on socialism ideology, the other capitalism.

I'm not sure I follow.

My wife stayed home for over 20 years while she raised our children.  One has a graduate degree in mathematics and the other is buying out a commercial electrician firm (at age 26).  She's currently on the board of two different non-profits.

So did she "earn her own way" in any financial sense?  No. That's my job. 

Did she "contribute to society"?  Abso-fuckin'-lutely.

So how does that align with what you're saying here?

Do they buy a lot of insurance?

I don’t think I’ve ever asked one, but everyone can use it. I don’t know why they wouldn’t, if they had the means.

Let's be accurate here... "to be worthy of somebody else being forced to pay for yourmedical care?"

But this is the very nature of civilization. People come together in community for the benefit of all.

Somebody grows food. Somebody builds a road. Somebody brings in water. Somebody heals the sick. Somebody preaches. Somebody trades. Somebody is a counselor or advisor. Somebody defends it. Somebody teaches. Somebody administers it all. Everyone contributes in different ways and in different amounts. No one of these things is intrinsically more valuable or money worthy than the others.

All of it is done by people, and they are all children of God, and equally worthy of healthcare.

But this is the very nature of civilization. People come together in community for the benefit of all.

OK.  I'll go with that. 

I'm not opposed to social safety nets.  They benefit all of us.  But there is certainly room for discussion about what level is appropriate.  

Somebody grows food. Somebody builds a road. Somebody brings in water. Somebody heals the sick. Somebody preaches. Somebody trades. Somebody is a counselor or advisor. Somebody defends it. Somebody teaches. Somebody administers it all. Everyone contributes in different ways and in different amounts.

Yes.  Absolutely

No one of these things is intrinsically more valuable or money worthy than the others.

Meh... we're gonna diverge here.  All contributions not the same, and not all talents and abilities have the same value. 

A chemist who develops a life-saving drug does not have the same value to society as the salesman who sells that drug or the guy who cuts the grass outside the lab. They are not better people, but they have rarer and more valuable skills. 

All of it is done by people, and they are all children of God, and equally worthy of healthcare.

OK.  That's lovely philosophy, but it's not necessarily practical.  Who's paying the bills? 

How many times do we go back to the same 10% of our society and make them pay for everybody else?  How long are we going to keep going back to the top earners in our society and tell them "we overspent again .... we need more money"?  I'm not talking about billionaires here.  There aren't enough of them to matter.  I'm talking about the top 8-10% of wealth and income. 

At some point it's not unfair to see them as actual people who are killing themselves to make a buck, and view them as more than walking checkbooks we can't stand like we're their bratty teenage daughters.

OK.  That's lovely philosophy, but it's not necessarily practical.  Who's paying the bills? 

We all do. That’s how we pay for everything that we all use. It is impossible that everyone could contribute equally, if that is measured by how much money they have. It is also impossible that each person will draw from the collective purse in a way equal to what they contributed. For example. A rich man’s taxes might contribute most to the building of a road, but the truck driver will use it the most to make his living. Or the housewife will use it more to transport her family.

I imagine it will probably always be this way, to some extent. Read the Bible and you will see there have always been rich people and poor people.

I think some things should be basic to civilized living, but different civilizations have made different decisions about what those things are. We tend to think that the way we live or the choices we make are timeless and universal, but they aren’t.

A place to live, food to eat, protection from enemies, access to justice, or basic healthcare. In various societies, all of these things have been available to all, or available only to the rich and powerful. If we can make the choice to allow our people access to basic healthcare without having to worry about the cost, I think we should try to do it.

people who are killing themselves to make a buck

I don’t want to raise their taxes. I want to lower them, if we can. People whose income can be measured in the billions - or even millions - are not killing themselves to make a buck, and likely could contribute more without being hurt by the effort.

Drug dealers earn their own way.

Do you also think they are contributing to society in a positive way?

Yes, of course, stay at home mothers are contributors to society, especially if the children are raised right.

I was speaking more along the lines able bodied people that rely on the government for their way of life, but do not contribute anything to earn the taxpayer handout as return. 

In other words....moochers.

I agree with sensible, reasonable work requirements

I'm glad to hear it. It took guts to do it.

You believe it takes guts to hold the view that able-bodied individuals should have some level of work requirements before receiving benefits??

What an odd belief.

This is equivalent to people working to earn money.   An extremely common practice (and necessary) except for those who are independently wealthy.

We all do.

Stop it.  We absolutely do not.  About 40% of us don't contribute a dime.  You know this. 

It is also impossible that each person will draw from the collective purse in a way equal to what they contributed.

Obviously. That has never been anybody's point.

If we can make the choice to allow our people access to basic healthcare without having to worry about the cost, I think we should try to do it.

We're back to lovely philosophy.  Still haven't started a realistic conversation about who pays for all this.

I don’t want to raise their taxes. I want to lower them, if we can.

You can't begin to pay for what you want to offer without raising their taxes.   Again.  Even higher.  And they're smart enough to see that math right away.  That's the issue.  

The top 10% of earners in the USA are already paying nearly 3/4 of all the income tax.  At what point are you willing say "enough it enough"?

People whose income can be measured in the billions - or even millions - are not killing themselves to make a buck,

I don't think you've read much about the personal habits of most of these people. In many cases we're talking about people who can't sleep, rarely see their families, work from 4am-10pm, and have massive health issues from stress and the physical abuse their schedules inflict.

That's beside the point.  It's still their money.  

No. That was my point. You can contribute to society in a positive way that generates little or no income. And conversely, just because you make money, that does not mean you are contributing in a positive way. Wealth does not equal human value. And lack of wealth does not measure it either.

About 40% of us don't contribute a dime.

Not so. Income tax is not the only way in which a person may contribute dimes. There are other taxes. Even basic spending drives the economy. And there are ways we can contribute that have nothing to do with spending or taxes.

That has never been anybody's point.

Oh, it definitely is. I hear people whine all the time about paying taxes for services they don’t use - or believe they don’t use. Or paying insurance premiums for services they think they don’t need. People live in this fantasy that there is - or should be, or can be - some perfect dividing line between what we contribute and what we use.

We're back to lovely philosophy.

That seems very dismissive. What’s wrong with philosophy? Our society is based on philosophies. But if philosophy is too woke or something, just consider it priorities.

Still haven't started a realistic conversation about who pays for all this.

This conversation is already about that. All you have to do is listen with an open mind instead of reflexively saying “no” or “it can’t be done” to everything. The key is to see the value of it and then actually try.

You can't begin to pay for what you want to offer without raising their taxes.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends on what you want to spend on and how you can manage costs.

At what point are you willing say "enough it enough"?

We could ask the same question about their wealth. We could also ask the same question about our fellow citizens who forego medical treatment they need but can’t afford.

It's still their money.

Ok well that’s an argument for anarchy. No government at all. People just preying on each other.

Not so. Income tax is not the only way in which a person may contribute dimes.

It's the primary source of Medicaid funding, which is what you were talking about.

There are other taxes.

There are also tax credits, which reimburse millions of families more than they pay in payroll, sales, and property taxes combined.

Even basic spending drives the economy. And there are ways we can contribute that have nothing to do with spending or taxes.

None of which addresses the original question... who is going to pay for this healthcare everybody "deserves"?

Oh, it definitely is. I hear people whine all the time about paying taxes for services they don’t use - or believe they don’t use.

That's not the same thing.  

That seems very dismissive. 

Yes.  Because you keep dodging the question.

What’s wrong with philosophy? Our society is based on philosophies.

There is more in heaven and earth that is dreamt of in your philosophy.....

But if philosophy is too woke or something, just consider it priorities.

Fine.  When does the priority of people keeping their own money start to eclipse the priority of forcing them to pay poor people's expenses?

This conversation is already about that.

Zero part of your contribution to this conversation has been about that.

All you have to do is listen with an open mind instead of reflexively saying “no” or “it can’t be done” to everything. The key is to see the value of it and then actually try.

Do cite me saying it can't be done.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Depends on what you want to spend on and how you can manage costs.

There is no perhaps about it.  You're already $1.9 trillion/yr underwater before you even start.

We could ask the same question about their wealth.

It's their money.  Why should they be any less entitled to it than the poor people you want to give it to?

We could also ask the same question about our fellow citizens who forego medical treatment they need but can’t afford.

Converse question.  At what point do you require poor people to change the behaviors that contribute to their poverty?

Ok well that’s an argument for anarchy. No government at all. People just preying on each other.

Oh FFS.  Riiiiiight.  People getting to keep more of what they earn is "anarchy".  WTF.  

who is going to pay for this healthcare everybody "deserves"?

We. I have already answered this. Our civilization will pay for it. Would it be difficult? Maybe. But you have to want to do it first. You don’t even want to try.

You're already $1.9 trillion/yr underwater before you even start.

Republicans are raising the debt by $4 Trillion to give billionaires a tax cut they don’t even need. But you want to pretend what I want is a bad thing.

It's their money.

They had lots of help from the rest of us in acquiring it. They can give some back. I don’t know why you keep on with this pointless point. You repeat something I already know. If their wealth is so awesome, they can go find an island in the middle of the ocean and live there by themselves. I wonder why they don’t.

At what point do you require poor people to change the behaviors that contribute to their poverty?

You assume they are solely responsible for their poverty. That’s naive and wrong. We already regulate their behavior. But nothing is guaranteed. Why don’t we do something to stop letting people like Trump declare bankruptcy and hide from their failures?

People getting to keep more of what they earn is "anarchy".  WTF.

Yes it is. “What’s mine is mine and you can’t have any of it” is the credo of someone who wants to live alone. Zero government. Zero group effort. Zero infrastructure. Zero law enforcement. Zero military. Free wheeling, destructive, and greedy.

Here’s the real question. I want to find a way to help as many people as possible. Why is your attitude basically, “fuck those people, hooray for billionaires?” Why are you desperately - and I mean really desperately - trying to find a way to help as few people as possible?

You believe it takes guts to hold the view that able-bodied individuals should have some level of work requirements before receiving benefits??

In the world of politics, it absolutely takes guts. Why do you think Republicans had trouble getting their own members on board. They may be in favor of it but a Representative or even a Senator has to consider how many of their constituents are benefiting from the Medicaid expansion. Such a vote could end a political career.

I am not a politician nor do I care about what any political party deems to be correct.

My position has always been that we should as a civil society ensure that nobody who is willing to contribute to the best of their ability be in positions where they are unable to get medical care, housing, etc.   The USA should have a basic safety net and everyone who can should contribute to society.

So if Trump’s bill takes away medical care for those who need it and are willing to contribute as best they can then it is fundamentally wrong, irresponsible, (and cruel).

We shall see, but I already know Trump does not give a shit who he hurts (including his supporters).   So I will be surprised if this winds up being good for lower earning individuals.

We. I have already answered this. Our civilization will pay for it.

You haven't. You've given obviously false platitudes that would make AOC proud. Apparently you're just going to evade every ounce of this topic.

How much of this are you personally willing to pay for? How big a tax increase are you personally willing to stomach for this?

Would it be difficult? Maybe. But you have to want to do it first. You don’t even want to try.

Bullshit. I want to have an honest discussion about real numbers. You appear desperate to avoid that.

But you want to pretend what I want is a bad thing.

Cite me saying it's a bad thing.

They had lots of help from the rest of us in acquiring it. They can give some back.

They do.[✘]

The USA should have a basic safety net and everyone who can should contribute to society.

The US had a basic safety net. We have gone beyond that. We are in danger of becoming a European Socialist state. Able bodied people must find work. 

Remember Tocqueville's great fear for America.

There are many ways to accomplish a safety net.   The idea remains critical for a stable civil society.

And yes, Vic, able-bodied people need to contribute... no need to repeat something we agree on.

Stop thinking in terms of labels.  That is both simplistic and errant.   Think instead in terms of ideas, objectives, methods to pursue the objectives.

While I am painfully aware that current politicians are incapable of shaping policies that would accomplish something like what I described, the idea still, IMO, is correct.  Our nation could certainly evolve a system where people are motivated to contribute in a manner commensurate with their capabilities and ensure that basic, modest needs are properly met, such as housing, food, education, and healthcare.

The key issue from your writing is the idea of lazy people living off tax funds of those who are contributing.   We agree that this is unacceptable.   Now, for those who are contributing as best they can, should a civil society not ensure that if a low-income working family member gets sick with an expensive affliction like cancer, Parkinson's, is paralyzed from an accident, etc. that they can get proper care without bankrupting the family?   That life-critical drugs are available for those who need them?

In other words, should we not have programs like Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Grants, Loans, Public housing, School meals, etc.?   Or do you consider these to be 'socialism' and thus (in your view) bad?   And should we not ultimately provide a clean, sensible, effective universal healthcare solution (e.g. federated with government standards and private sector execution), for example, designed to keep people healthy and help those who are not?

And yes I know that there will always be those who game the system (usually about 3%).   Put them aside for the moment and consider those who are contributing but whose skills / opportunities / luck keep them on the paycheck-to-paycheck treadmill.

The US had a basic safety net. We have gone beyond that.

There is no objective standard for such a thing. You speak of it like it’s some kind of universal constant, when it’s not.

We are in danger of becoming a European Socialist state.

Hysterical red scare propaganda. What country are you afraid we might emulate?

There are many ways to accomplish a safety net.   The idea remains critical for a stable civil society.

Gee, that was never something I thought of as a goal, especially after all the safety netting that has been constructed in America since the Great Depression, when there was none. Let's see FDR created Social Security in 1935. That became the most popular social program in the world. Supposedly you paid into it over so many quarters of your working life and it sort of served as retirement safety net when you became too old to work. In 1956 Social Security Disability was added to the program. Social Security's trust funds are projected to be depleted by 2034. Nobody has moved a muscle to fix the problem.

Then came welfare and the Great Society programs of LBJ. Assistance for the poor. Unfortunately, welfare had many negatives. It created generations of people dependent on it and likely destroyed many black American families. Bill Clinton was able to reform it, but Barack Obama kind of brought it back through Medicaid expansion. Medicaid has grown so fast that it has had a serious effect on the federal budget.

Last but not least is Obamacare, which insures people who never paid a dime into medical insurance. The American people were lied to about the way it worked and once people started getting coverage, it became a popular program. The main problem with it is fraud. It has been estimated by the Paragon Institute that fraudulent enrollment is likely upwards of 4-5 million people in 2024. It has encouraged the following:

1. Brokers and insurers have enormous incentives to encourage ineligible applicants to misstate income when applying for coverage.
2. Lead generators are misleading enrollees with promises of free coverage and other enticements.
3. Unscrupulous brokers are fraudulently enrolling people in coverage, leaving some Americans unaware of their enrollment.
4. People may face tax penalties for plans in which they were enrolled without their consent.
5. Rogue brokers are fraudulently switching enrollees’ coverage without their consent.
6. Virtually anyone, including unscrupulous brokers, can abuse special enrollment periods and enroll at any time.
7. People are losing plans they selected, preferred doctors, and needed prescriptions.
8. Automatic re-enrollment amplifies fraudulent enrollments.
9. Many people have duplicate enrollments in public programs.
10. Sophisticated crime in south Florida has reaped windfall profits from enrollment fraud.
    
    Unpacking The Great Obamacare Enrollment Fraud: How the Exchanges Became the Wild West

  In other words, should we not have programs like Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Grants, Loans, Public housing, School meals, etc.? 

We should fix the programs we already have (listed above.) Make them solvent, less expensive to the taxpayer and less intrusive on the federal budget.

The American people were lied to about the way it worked and once people started getting coverage, it became a popular program.

IT wasn't popular because people liked it.  It became "popular" because it was forced on the people via fines and penalties for not having it.

We should fix the programs we already have

You wasted a lot of time making the point that the USA has had safety nets when I already made that clear in my post by enumeration.:

TiG@7.1.45 ☞ In other words, should we not have programs like Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Grants, Loans, Public housing, School meals, etc.? 

So by you enumerating a history of social programs you make the point that we have a safety net.  Yes, Vic, we do.   The USA is a weak social democracy.  My point was that what we have is inadequate.

You end your post with this:

We should fix the programs we already have (listed above.) Make them solvent, less expensive to the taxpayer and less intrusive on the federal budget.

Which is restating my point (inadequate) and adding a requirement that they be done more cost-effectively.   I agree with that too;  it should be possible given the normal inefficient execution of government programs.

You wrote a post structured to look like a rebuttal yet you are (surprising to me) agreeing with my point.   In other words, you do indeed recognize the need for a civil society to ensure everyone has adequate medical, housing, education, nutrition —cost-effectively— and that everyone should contribute to society as best they can.

This could make the 2026 midterms somewhat interesting.

They were always going to be interesting.

I'm not sure how much of this anybody will remember 15 months from now.  Hell, I'm not sure we'll still be talking about it a week from now.  The news cycle is quick.

They were always going to be interesting.

The proverbial curse lives on.

Although "May you live in interesting times" is a curse that notwithstanding is purported to be ancient and Chinese, it is neither.

"Today was my last vote in Congress. My time here started with a fire to serve veterans, it continued with leading the historic impeachment of a cabinet secretary, and now it ends with achieving real border security. I am grateful my last vote was for the one Big Beautiful Bill ." ...Rep Mark Green



Mark, this reporter didn't agree with everything you did, but you went out as a Republican. You didn't go against the American people and your party out of spite like McCain.

I hope that my son will encourage my grandchildren to settle in Canada. 

I'm quite looking forward to seeing if Musk is just yet another blowhard or if he will start doing what he threatened.  As for the future, I wonder if the description "The land of opportunity" mignt eventually change to "Feed the rich, fuck the poor".  

As for the future, let’s hope not. The US is the major actor in keeping israel safe from iran and it’s allies, like china.

"The US is the major actor in keeping israel safe from iran"

I agree with you, Gazoo, but I must admit that as much as I wish for Israel to survive within a Middle East that wishes to destroy it I am more concerned about the future of my grandchildren in Wisconsin.

I don’t blame you, Buzz. Family first.

buzz being the land of equal opportunity will never really change , but some seem to think equal opportunity means equal outcome, which has never been the case . 

"Feed the rich, fuck the poor".

A ridiculous comment.    Not worthy of more discussion than that.

You're denying the "Big Beautiful Bill" provides benefits to the wealthy and detriments to the poor?  If so, I believe you have either ignored or misunderstood its provisions. 

Buzz can you point out exact passages of where this bill does what you accuse. Listening to liberal hyperbole is not healthy for the mind.

Not wanting to cast a doubt, but are Canadians a good source to discuss U.S. politics - with authority and understanding??

True, I stand corrected.

"Buzz can you point out exact passages of where this bill does what you accuse."

I don't have to.  Others have done it for me.

1. The president's “big, beautiful bill” will benefit the wealthy by  raising taxes on the poor, gutting the safety net, and increasing health care costs

   Republican Tax  Bill : 10 Ways It Helps  the Rich  and Hurts  the P …

   

   www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/republican-tax-bill-helps-rich- hurts-poor-1235338…
    
2. 

   The Hill

   › ... › congress-blog

   Trump's ' big beautiful bill ' steals from  the poor  and gives …

   2025年6月2日 · Middle-class Americans helped Trump take back the presidency, but he has focused on serving the rich, notably including himself. The bill he considers beautiful, which …

"Not wanting to cast a doubt, but are Canadians a good source to discuss U.S. politics - with authority and understanding??"

Maybe not as educated in the American political system as Americans SHOULD be, but at least free from the bias of American left and right extremes and political party bias.  Do you deny that most American members of NT are biased either left or right, most with political party loyalty?  Are you so afraid of a totally independant opinion?

Well, since that is what I am and do, I guess not.

Luv being a very proud and vocal INDEPENDENT, but I notice that there are some on NT that don't approve

Your comment ignores significant portions of this bill that specifically help lower income Americans and the elderly.    You are way off base.    If you want to get on base, start by bitching about how it might raise the National Debt.

You would sound more informed.

"If you want to get on base, start by bitching about how it might raise the National Debt."

That was why my FIRST comment above was "I hope that my son will encourage my grandchildren to settle in Canada" and then said later "I am more concerned about the future of my grandchildren in Wisconsin." [Yes] [removed][,] [✘] I STARTED bitching about the national debt THEY would be faced with. You know, just a couple of comments from this dumb Canadian.

[removed]

[✘] As far as your son goes do you think you raised him well? Perhaps you should give him some more credit for knowing what’s best for him and his family. Better than you could possibly judge from China.

And to reiterate. Your comment I was responding to totally ignores significant components of this bill designed to make life easier on low to middle class Americans. Any comment on that?

Hate to tell you Buzz, but these "sources" are opinion pieces by bloggers on far left sites, not to be considered sources of truth.

Quite the contrary. In truth there are probably very few people who had actually read the nine hundred something page bill, and these bloggers are no different. Probably getting their talking points from left wing lawmakers.

There are hundreds of articles about tha Bill as indicated by a Microsoft Bing search, the VAST majority of them, including ALL of the foreign news sources that have no loyalty to American party politics, AGREE with what I posted.  I have no loyalty to either the American political left or right.  How about you?

There are hundreds of articles about tha Bill as indicated by a Microsoft Bing search, the VAST majority of them, including ALL of the foreign news sources that have no loyalty to American party politics, AGREE with what I posted.

The bill does not raise taxes on the poor.  That's just not true.  I'm not sure what sources you have saying that, but it would seem it may be time to find ones that report facts instead of emotion.

I never said anything about raising taxes of the poor.  About 90% of the articles refer to the facts that millions of people will lose Medicaid and poor kids will lose out on food benefits.  It's pretty plain to see what side YOU'RE on.  

From today's China Daily....

Interesting thing i noticed in that political cartoon , many of the smaller objects are not labeled .

 lets label some of them , 

 ineligible recipients , take those out of the load , fraudulent recipients , take those out of the load ,  non citizen recipients .  overpayment .

 remove all that and those other things become lighter and more possible to carry ,. what i am seeing is a very long overdue matter of accounting and reconciliation .

I never said anything about raising taxes of the poor. 

You put it in bold face, buddy.  10.3.5

The president's “big, beautiful bill” will benefit the wealthy by  raising taxes on the poor,

Y'know.. while you were citing those very liberal sources.

It's pretty plain to see what side YOU'RE on.

The side with the adults, who look at facts instead of propaganda.  The side with the people who don't panic every time they hear another news story.  

From today's China Daily....

OK... at this point I'm very curious about what you think "unbiased" sources are.

You're saying I shouldn't take RollingStone's word for it.  Okay, you have a point there.  But then I guess you also deny this....

"About 90% of the articles refer to the facts that millions of people will lose Medicaid and poor kids will lose out on food benefits."

That is mostly what I was focused on, and since there are hundreds of articles that make that point I guess you are saying the whole world is wrong.  Thank God I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or I would have to bend to a party line. 

Sorry Buzz but your articles are 1.) Rolling Stone? No left bias there and May 14th? 2.) The other is an opinion piece from June 2nd.

Let's see what they say now that it has passed and been examined and approved, and amended by both houses of Congress.

This is the old playbook: Cherry-pick and an attempt to de-pit it with bullshit scare tactics.

Don't bother trying to convince me that everyone is going to benefit from your hero's Big Bill.  Tell it to the millions who are going to lose their Medicaid and the kids who are going to be hungry, and to those next generations who are going to have to deal with a massive national deficit.  

I'm through with this discussion.  Any further reply will earn an impasse.

About 90% of the articles refer to the facts that millions of people will lose Medicaid and poor kids will lose out on food benefits."

A left wing talking point since the days of Reagan. To this day, none of it has ever happened, but because Trump is president, it really, really, really going to happen this time s/

A left wing talking point since the days of Reagan. To this day, none of it has ever happened, but because Trump is president, it really, really, really going to happen this time s/

[✘] No place is ever as good as the patriots claim it is or as bad as it's portrayed in the media of a rival nation.

The question nobody has asked that at least deserves some attention it: How many of these people probably should not have ever been on Medicaid in the first place?

the Trump tax cuts are made permanent,

I mean thank God we were able to give billionaires a break on their taxes. Those people are truly struggling. They never know where their next Lamborghini is coming from.

illegals are kicked off Medicaid, and the immigration enforcement agenda is fully funded

They already weren’t eligible to enroll, but ok. If the rest of us have to lose healthcare coverage or see local clinics and hospitals close so that billionaires can give their butlers a raise, then it’s totally worth it.

thank God we were able to give billionaires a break on their taxes. Those people are truly struggling

I always enjoy progressives rolling out the same tired talking points no matter how little they have to do with reality.  

Failing to extend the Trump tax cuts would have cost the median family of four 1,700 dollars a year.  And only fools think that doesn't matter to a family making $80,000 a year. 

But I get it, the concerns of working class people aren't really important to Democrats anymore.

They already weren’t eligible to enroll, but ok

Didn't stop states from enrolling them, did it? 

Failing to extend the Trump tax cuts would have cost the median family of four 1,700 dollars a year.  And only fools think that doesn't matter to a family making $80,000 a year. 

That's the problem when someone thinks that 'equity' is the way to go and that everybody should get the same dollar amount as the billionaires. 

Failing to extend the Trump tax cuts would have cost the median family of four 1,700 dollars a year.  And only fools think that doesn't matter to a family making $80,000 a year. 

Yeah, except I didn't say shit about a family of four making 80K a year, did I Sean? Hmmm? What, in fact, did I say?

I'll tell you. I said BILLIONAIRES!

NOT some 80K bullshit. But BILLIONAIRES. "Straw man" does not begin to touch how dishonest it is for you to respond to "Billionaires" as if I were talking about families making 80K a year. But this kind of deflection and lying is how we get to people supporting something so dumb.

Please stop lying.

Didn't stop states from enrolling them, did it? 

Yeah, in rare cases, generally using state money, it does happen. I think an honest debate could be had about whether or not that's a good idea, and how we could change things, but that is not what is happening.

The enrollment of some undocumented immigrants in these programs in NO way justifies cutting a TRILLION dollars from the larger program. And this is especially so when Republicans are paying for it by trying to minimize the tax burden on BILLIONAIRES.

I didn't say shit about a family of four making 80K a year, did I Sean?

Of course you didn't. As I said, almost all Democrats don't give a shit about them, so you why would ever talk about them? SOP to just ignore the very real benefits extended to working class families. Why celebrate families retaining enough money to buy groceries for a couple months right?

[✘] n NO way justifies cutting a TRILLION dollars from the larger progra

Medicaid was not designed to cover healthy people who don't work. If entitlements are going to survive long term, these are the sort of cuts that absolutely have to be made. Raising taxes on billionaires isn't going to cover trillions in unfunded liabilities.

[deleted][✘]

‘They already weren’t eligible to enroll, but ok’

Not eligible but states are doing it anyway. 

Congress.gov

They already weren’t eligible to enroll, but ok.

Except they were.  In California.   Among other places.

If the rest of us have to lose healthcare coverage

Are you on Medicaid?  Seems unlikely for a lawyer, but OK.

or see local clinics and hospitals close so that billionaires can give their butlers a raise, then it’s totally worth it.

.....  which would mean..... that Trump supporters are correct... tax cuts for the wealthy mean more and better paying jobs for the middle class.... (historically that's actually not the case)

I'm not sure that comment works how you hoped it might.

Are you on Medicaid?

Do I have to be to care about those who are?

There is zero defense for taking money from the poor do that the super wealthy can have more. Status quo is difficult enough, but going out of our way to make it worse is unconscionable.

Do I have to be to care about those who are?

You said "us".  "The rest of us have to lose healthcare coverage" were your exact words.  So are you losing coverage because of this law? 

There is zero defense for taking money from the poor do that the super wealthy can have more.

If we're going to be accurate instead of dramatic, the statement would be "there is zero defense for giving the poor less so that the super wealthy can keep more."

We're not "taking money".  We're paying less.  Nowhere outside the realm of liberal politics are those things the same.

The primary defense would be "it's their money".  I realize that's not something you want to hear, but it is, in fact, their money.

You said "us".

You are focusing on the wrong thing. The thread is not about me. Period.

The thread is not about me. Period.

Then you shouldn’t have used “us”   No biggie but a bad choice of words.

One simple question.    Do you have a problem with people scamming Medicaid?

Then you shouldn’t have used “us”

Unless you want me to start making harassment complaints, I highly suggest you get over it and focus on the topic.

Do you have a problem with people scamming Medicaid?

Oh yeah. 100%. But cutting a Trillion dollars from healthcare was not based on presented evidence that there was a Trillion dollars in fraud taking place. And, in fact, “people” are not the primary scammers in healthcare. Providers are. Doctors, labs, hospitals, etc. are the problem, not the families who are actually in need of basic medical care.

So we probably need reform and enforcement in public healthcare (private, too, for that matter). And I definitely think we need a whole better system. But defunding Medicaid - without more thought than that - is just as stupid and dangerous as the calls to defund the police were.

I highly suggest you get over it and focus on the topic.

And I suggest you man up and simply admit you made a bad choice of wording.

As far as the cuts go it’s amazing how much some of you seem to know what the effects are going to be.    I’m mean, it just got passed yesterday.    I salute the ability to prognosticate so accurately.

locked to keep it from getting worse

"Those people are truly struggling. They never know where their next Lamborghini is coming from."

Loved that line - did you make it up?

Lol. Yeah.