Perhaps all those people on Medicaid and SNAP should hurry to sell their stock portfolio while it's up? Is that where you're going?
Good below was removed. Fortunately, it impacted Repub districts. That’s the only reason they took it out. Slows for now Trump’s degrading our parks and allowing more pollution. Just one more area he’s making our country worse. “They removed the sections that authorized the sale of hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands in Nevada and Utah. Some Republican lawmakers from Western states had objected to the sales.” https://apnews.com/article/trumps-b...requirements-20a4cce877bdb411056578139e405986
Maybe, but only one party wants a shiny new flying palace. And a multi-million dollar birthday parade. And lives bigly on taxpayer money. Anyway, doesn't the deficit always go down under Democratic administrations?
Trump is an unrepentant liar. He's said many times that the social entitlements wouldn't be touched, except, of course, reductions in fraud, waste and abuse. Does he expect to find $800 billion in FW and A? Because that's how much his Big Beautiful Bill cuts from Medicaid. Deceitful, dishonest, deplorable Donald. Those other times included during a Feb. 18 interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity, when, while referring to Medicaid and Medicare, Trump said, "None of that stuff is going to be touched." "We're going to love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid," Trump also said in the Oval Office on Jan. 31. "We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something, but the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better."
Which party wanted a Green New Deal with a 6 Trillion price tag? No, it does not. The Obama Admin budget deficit the last year was higher than the last year of the Bush Admin. If you exclude the two COVID years of '20 & '21, the Biden Admin deficit ended up being $.9T higher in '24 than the Trump deficit in '19. Fiscal Data Explains the National Deficit Both parties have a spending problem. As @ufhomerj31 stated, we are better off as a country when there is divided government. The deficit tends to shrink when the that happens. U.S. Presidents and the Federal Deficit
I don't agree that a thread about executive overreach should be combined with a thread about Medicare budgetting. (this post was its own thread that was merged into this one) These are two completely different topics regardless of the fact that they're in the same bill and I think they should be discussed separately on their own merits.
You can't be comparing a multi-decade, planet-saving program with Trump's grotesque personal expenditures. That would be like comparing lightning bugs with lightning. The deficit numbers by parties are pretty much a wash when averaged, but it's instructive to look at recent deficit increases: Trump raised it by 7.1 Trillion in his first term, Biden by 2.8 Trillion. I agree wholeheartedly with the desirability of a divided government. I prefer a Republican (non-MAGA) president and a Democratic Congress.
I don't know how real this is, but let's say it is relatively accurate. US clearly has a spending problem and the need to cut first, and maybe raise taxes slightly. We can't keep adding to the deficit like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Defense budget needs to be cut 5-10 percent. Health care needs to be overhauled, we simply spend to much there. Every other category needs at least a trim. Where's DOGE?
We'll have to agree to disagree on the Green New Deal. I'm sure we probably need to do the same on the Golden Dome. Trump also had COVID spending in his last couple budgets, so we are kind of comparing apples to oranges there.
A provision "hidden" in the sweeping budget bill that passed the U.S. House on Thursday seeks to limit the ability of courts—including the U.S. Supreme Court—from enforcing their orders. "No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued," the provision in the bill, which is more than 1,000 pages long, says. The provision "would make most existing injunctions—in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases, and others—unenforceable," Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, told Newsweek. "It serves no purpose but to weaken the power of the federal courts." Why It Matters The provision would prohibit courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders—the main types of rulings that have been used to rein in President Donald Trump's administration—unless the plaintiffs have paid a bond, something that rarely happens when someone sues the government. 'Hidden' provision in Trump's big bill could disarm US Supreme Court Looks like they are looking to give the POTUS even more power.
So let’s assume this bill with that provision gets passed into law. What prevents the USSC from ruling it unconstitutional?
We are staring at one current bill increasing the total National debt by nearly 10%. The deflections do nothing to change that.
Ultimately nothing but good faith. Trump's entire aim is remove people of good faith from positions of power and replace them with people who are loyal only to him.
