Trump 2.0

So Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" got through the Senate, but only after JDSports cast the deciding vote after 3 GOP Senators rejected it (making it a 50-50 vote).
It still needs to go back through the House for their approval, as it has been amended since last the House approved it. And given that some rejected it the first time for increasing the deficit too much, the Senate version increases it MORE than the original House version. So, will it pass? Sure it will, because the GOP are spineless, and they'll have been bought off by tiny concessions for their constituents. (Yay for tax relief on tanning beds!)

In this Senate-approved package:
The bill will add c.$650bn to the deficit each year. Personally I think that's conservative, and wouldn't be surprised if it's closer, or more than, $1tn once reality sets in. The debt ceiling will be raised by a mere $5tn as a result of the bill. So much for the party of fiscal responsibility!
It will, per estimates, see c.11m Americans losing their healthcare.
It will phase out many tax incentives for Green energy, and not only that but actually increase taxes on wind and solar projects. This will add to energy costs.

The general consensus is that this will likely stimulate the economy, but that the poorer will actually be worse off... not just gain the least while the rich gain the most, but that they will actually lose compared to now, once things like their healthcare is taken into consideration. But we'll see.
 
Sarkus said:
The bill will add c.$650bn to the deficit each year. Personally I think that's conservative, and wouldn't be surprised if it's closer, or more than, $1tn once reality sets in. The debt ceiling will be raised by a mere $5tn as a result of the bill. So much for the party of fiscal responsibility!
Click to expand...
I had heard different estimates, more around an increase of the federal deficit by $3.3 trillion over the next decade, that estimate according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. So I wonder where the 6.5 trillion figure came from. The CBO is nonpartisan, and so designed, which means it arouses 47's loathing.

And of course there's some absurd bit of bookkeeping sleight of hand out there now from the Rethuglicans that the bill produces zero deficit increase. These people really have no shame.
 
TheVat said:
I had heard different estimates, more around an increase of the federal deficit by $3.3 trillion over the next decade, that estimate according to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report. So I wonder where the 6.5 trillion figure came from.
Click to expand...
It came from my misunderstanding... the issue is that the Senate bill adds a further $650bn compared to the House version. And not annually, but in total. So my bad. ;)
TheVat said:
The CBO is nonpartisan, and so designed, which means it arouses 47's loathing.
Click to expand...
The GOP were happy to claim the CBO accurate when they produced a result they could bash the Dems with. Now that it produces a detrimental result to the GOP, they dismiss it as inaccurate.
TheVat said:
And of course there's some absurd bit of bookkeeping sleight of hand out there now from the Rethuglicans that the bill produces zero deficit increase. These people really have no shame.
Click to expand...
Yeah, which raises the question of why the $5tn increase in debt ceiling. :)
 
Indeed. Well, there's always those extra barrels of pork and subsidies they need to buy off swing votes. Lisa Murkowski received some yesterday for Alaska, and cast the deciding yes for the Frankenbill. It would be funny - it's now back in the House - if the cadre of budget hawks there torpedoes it.
 
TheVat said:
Indeed. Well, there's always those extra barrels of pork and subsidies they need to buy off swing votes. Lisa Murkowski received some yesterday for Alaska, and cast the deciding yes for the Frankenbill. It would be funny - it's now back in the House - if the cadre of budget hawks there torpedoes it.
Click to expand...
Something like 7 House Republicans have publicly stated that they will oppose the Bill from the Senate. Even Senator Murkowski, after voting in the Senate to approve the Bill, said that it was bad and that she hoped it would get sent back to them by the House for revision... so wtf was she doing voting FOR it in the first place??? Sure, she made a "bad bill better..." for Alaska while sticking the knife in the back of other Americans, rather than seek a deal that was equally "bad but better" for all Americans.

And it's not all for the same reason, with some saying that they should stick with an agreed House rule that limits the deficit in the Bill to $2.5tn, and others saying that they should stick to Trump's campaign pledge that there would be no cuts to Medicaid/Medicare, something that Trump himself has repeated recently. Yet here we are, with the original House Bill making sweeping cuts, and the Senate version making deeper cuts.
Of course it is those "pledges" that they choose to steamroll over rather than removing, or heck just reducing, the tax cuts to the most wealthy (which they of course could do while retaining it for lower incomes).
 
Sarkus said:
… so wtf was she doing voting FOR it in the first place??? Sure, she made a "bad bill better..." for Alaska while sticking the knife in the back of other Americans, rather than seek a deal that was equally "bad but better" for all Americans.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time, Murkowski had rejected this sort of dealmaking. But Donald Trump wants something, so this time she was willing to make that deal, except it violates the rules so she can't have it, but she voted for the bill anyway and then complained that it's a bad bill.

It's interesting, in the U.S., how this go'round never stands out in the discourse. Remember, this is one that House Republicans passed, then complained about, and demanded the Senate fix the bill, but the Senate didn't fix the bill, and went on to pass it before some Republican senators expressed hope that the House could fix the bill during reconciliation. We don't need a narrator to tell us they're not going to fix the bill.

Republicans are also the party long known to argue that government just doesn't work, and now stand at the precipice of their long-sought goal of murdering government. They've been at it the whole time, but, you know how it goes, in order to be "fair", we're obliged pretend they're not really so evil. Maybe it's affirmative action, or perhaps reasonable accommodation of disability: It is as if American conservatives are somehow incapable of honesty, but it would be too political to say so, thus we are to keep making excuses in order to drag everyone else down and pretend it's a bothsides thing.
 
So the Trump administration have once again halted supply of arms to Ukraine. They seemingly did not tell Ukraine until it had happened, or any of their other allies, and, needless to say, Ukraine aren't best pleased, fearing increased Russian aggression. The US say that it is all about putting "America first". Apparently the stockpiles of some ammuynition is too low, and, well, the US might need them to fight all the other wars they intend to start? Of course, Trump personally blamed Biden for it (I kid you not).
For their part, Russia appear delighted with the news, as they see a reduction in supply of weapons to Ukraine as helping end the conflict faster. And by that they mean the easier it will be for them to fully defeat Ukraine. And in response they have just launched their biggest drone strike against Kyiv. Go figure.
Russia have also rejected Trump's truce bid. And Trump is said to be "very disappointed" with the call. He doesn't think Putin wants to stop... but he's also not willing to really do anything to encourage Putin to want to stop.

"Hey, Zelensky! Stop!"
"Um. Okay, if Russia do."
"Hey, Putin! Stop!"
"No."
"Oh. Okay. I guess I tried. Now, where's my Nobel Peace Prize?"
 
Sarkus said:
And Trump is said to be "very disappointed" with the call. He doesn't think Putin wants to stop... but he's also not willing to really do anything to encourage Putin to want to stop.
Click to expand...
Perhaps he could write them a strongly worded letter?

Thinking of the classic Peter Cook and Dudley Moore sketch, Frog and Peach. Cook mentions World War II in passing –“absolutely ghastly business. I was completely against it” , to which Moore replies “Yes, I think we all were."
And Cook replies, "Yes, but I wrote a letter.”
 
Seattle said:
I'm not worried. The EU will handle it, right?
Click to expand...
Perhaps
anecdote
Before our civil war, the united states of america was commonly referred to as
these united states...
after the war, the united states of america was commonly referred to as
the united states

it seems that the eu is still very much
these united states
?
 
Sarkus said:
The more that "handle it", the better. And would be better if one of those doesn't just up and leave without warning.
Click to expand...
That would be better but a more robust scenario would be for all the nations to have strong militaries and then it matters less.
 
Seattle said:
That would be better but a more robust scenario would be for all the nations to have strong militaries and then it matters less.
Click to expand...
Sure. But that takes time to achieve. Countries can't just click their fingers and have a stronger military. In the meantime, weakening the status quo is detrimental to global security.
But, hey, "America first", as long as the Turnip can make a personal profit out of it.
 
Sarkus said:
Sure. But that takes time to achieve. Countries can't just click their fingers and have a stronger military. In the meantime, weakening the status quo is detrimental to global security.
But, hey, "America first", as long as the Turnip can make a personal profit out of it.
Click to expand...
Yes, we wouldn't want to weaken the status quo.
 
Sarkus said:
Sure. But that takes time to achieve. Countries can't just click their fingers and have a stronger military. In the meantime, weakening the status quo is detrimental to global security.
But, hey, "America first", as long as the Turnip can make a personal profit out of it.
Click to expand...
Следующей фразой должно стать:"Государство - это я!"

Вообще, что это за тенденция создавать культ личности снова наблюдается в мире? Человечество до сих пор не излечилось от этого?
 
ольга said:
The next phrase should be: "The state is me!"

In general, what is this tendency to create a personality cult that is again observed in the world? Humanity has not yet recovered from this?
Click to expand...
Some humans cannot get past the comfort of a cult built around what they see as a strong powerful person who will protect them. This is why autocracy keeps arising over and over again. What is sad and sometimes grotesquely funny is that some people can be persuaded that Turnip is such a strong person, and that the brown people who nailed an affordable roof on to their house or helped put food on their table are some kind of existential threat. When these people vote, they embody Hanlon's Law: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Though I will add, Turnip seems to have a remarkable ability to birth and nurture malice in the hearts of some of his followers. To the point where people will agree to dump democracy and view it as a flawed system that allows dangerous radical people to vote. Trump and his oligarch buddies will take care of things.
 
Теват, почему некоторые люди так стремятся к власти? Вот я спросила Джеймса : "что бы он сделал, если бы стал всемогущим"? И он не ответил. Наверное, не знает. Я вот тоже не знаю. А вы знаете, Теват?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top