On the surface, it might appear that this bill increases spending and adds to the national debt at an increasing rate. However, this is just another case of Trump playing the game on a different level. More is less. Spending money saves money. Just because you borrow money, that doesn't mean you have to actually pay it back. In fact, it's just good business. Draining the swamp costs in the short term. Bill

quote:

More is less.

More for the billionaires, less for the poor.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
On the surface, it might appear that this bill increases spending and adds to the national debt at an increasing rate. However, this is just another case of Trump playing the game on a different level. More is less. Spending money saves money. Just because you borrow money, that doesn't mean you have to actually pay it back. In fact, it's just good business. Draining the swamp costs in the short term. Bill

"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
George Orwell 1984

"More is less. Spending money saves money. Borrowed money doesn't mean having to pay it back."
Bill Leeper 2025

In George Orwell's 1984, doublethink is the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously and accept both of them as true.

"Irony, which is when the expected outcome is the opposite of what really happens, is hugely prevalent in 1984. The Party itself is basically made up of different levels of irony, and the language they have created even has a word for it--doublethink--that shows how the Party expects its members to accept these ironies without question, with ''doublethink'' meaning you're supposed to separate your mind so that, if the Party wants you to, you can accept two completely contradictory things at the same time."

This analysis describes cause and effect:

"In essence, doublethink is a powerful tool of manipulation that allows the Party to maintain its control by making citizens accept contradictory ideas as truth and abandon critical thinking."

What if the cause and effect was flipped?

Rearrange the sentence to read:

In essence, doublethink is a powerful tool for manipulation that allows the Party to maintain control, by citizens accepting contradictory ideas as truth, having abandoned critical thinking.

The cause in the second sentence is the citizens. The effect is the same. The Party in this case didn't "make" them. They made the party.

. . . I should have tried baiting the MAGAts with some title slamming transgenders, queers or immigrants, that would have brought them out in droves. The direct approach hardly ever works . . . just sends them running off to their dens.

That may be because so many "fiscal conservatives" are having an ID crisis, and are trying to mitigate the hypocrisy of the oxymoron in the closet of Trumpism.

But really, Mike, isn't it nice to have the: "Separating the signal from the noise" means identifying and focusing on what is truly important or relevant while disregarding what is extraneous, distracting, or irrelevant. It's about distinguishing the meaningful information (the "signal") from the background chatter or static (the "noise").

One "noise" in particular is absent.

Giving more tax cuts to those who don't need them when your system is already revenue deficient is about as fucking stupid as fucking stupid can be.

$85 million to move the space shuttle to Texas?

We are borrowing money to pay for STUPID STUPID SHIT.

The Texas Contingent has lost their minds. They are in the same boat as Congress. We don’t like it, but.

I can only hope the BBB does to the GOP what the ACA did to Dems.

Health Care to Americans was reduced, harmed for this bill.
I do not care if there was money to the border, no continuing resolutions on speeding for awhile, and massive international cooperate welfare.

Fiscal responsibility, what's that?
What was it, 1835, the last time we didnt have a debt?
Clinton did a good job of getting things under control. Then Bush said the government shouldnt have the peoples money and gave tax breaks.
All well and good, except things change.
9/11/01 happened and a recession, goodby surplus.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . I should have tried baiting the MAGAts with some title slamming transgenders, queers or immigrants, that would have brought them out in droves. The direct approach hardly ever works . . . just sends them running off to their dens.

You libturds love to embrace the mentally ill and droves of illegals. I guess someone has to do it.

Not much good in the bill. Maybe just the tax cut freeze. The rest, nothing.

Why are there able bodied people on medicaid and why do they get years to be living off the taxpayers before having to work a paltry 20 hours a week? None of this makes sense at all. If one can work then they need to do full time like the rest of us. A continued rip off of hard working Americans. Our congress is useless.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Fiscal responsibility, what's that?
What was it, 1835, the last time we didnt have a debt?
Clinton did a good job of getting things under control. Then Bush said the government shouldnt have the peoples money and gave tax breaks.
All well and good, except things change.
9/11/01 happened and a recession, goodby surplus.

Bush was blowing up the deficit well before 9-11

quote:

Why are there able bodied people on medicaid and why do they get years to be living off the taxpayers before having to work a paltry 20 hours a week?

Is there any truth in that?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Why are there able bodied people on medicaid and why do they get years to be living off the taxpayers before having to work a paltry 20 hours a week?

Is there any truth in that?

Why do I not know anyone who falls in that category and lives like that?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Why are there able bodied people on medicaid and why do they get years to be living off the taxpayers before having to work a paltry 20 hours a week?

Is there any truth in that?

Inferring that she's lying about an easily referenced fact. That's a YOU tactic. Go read the bill

It was an open question, particularly in an effort to avoid inferring that she's lying.

I don't know the answer for sure. I suspect the answer.

If I have a tactic, it's to hold the one making the claim to show it's true.

It's real simple:

Hitchens's Razor is an epistemological principle stating that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's a rule for evaluating claims, particularly those lacking supporting evidence. The principle emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If someone makes an unsupported assertion, the burden of proof isn't on others to disprove it; the claim can be dismissed outright.

In essence, Hitchens's Razor argues that:
Claims without supporting evidence are not automatically accepted as true.

Those making unsupported claims bear the responsibility of providing evidence.

If evidence is lacking, the claim can be rejected without further debate.

=============================================

I was politely asking her to show evidence. That's all.

I didn't dismiss her claim outright.

The lack of evidence dismisses it.

And if it's so easily proven as fact, then go ahead, jeffee.

I have not, of course, read the BBB and won't. I am 100% certain, there is a zero% chance that it will be of any benefit to the people who actually produce the goods that drive the economy (and they are becoming a smaller percentage of the population all the time). I am 100% certain, when Trump talks about it, he will lie quite a bit. Bill

I think it’s a good bill
Time will tell
So remind me, which president didn’t pass a bill the other side didn’t complain about and sky was always falling?
Please Dems and your ilk, remind me how you flooded hospitals with illegals over the years? ( who don’t pay for nothing ) Just to name a few of your idiotic moves.

. . . you need to turn in your conservative card. No conservative can support legislation estimated to increase the primary deficit by $2.4 trillion over the 2025-2034 period.

CBO Estimate for Deficit Impact of OBBB

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Time will tell

The third certainty after Death and Taxes...

I am not too pleased with it.

I do think that its better than what has happened under Biden the last several years.

For the GOP to be in charge and not get something more than conservative in name only passed is an embarrassment, especially given most of them ran under fiscal responsibility.

I get Trump's desire to embrace populism by pushing for largess for his groups... it is the American way in politics since god knows when.

Getting a big increase in the debt limit is something that avoids that third rail of politics while he is in office... and to hell with how it is abused afterwards, he got his.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
. . . you need to turn in your conservative card. No conservative can support legislation estimated to increase the primary deficit by $2.4 trillion over the 2025-2034 period.

CBO Estimate for Deficit Impact of OBBB

$2.4 trillion over 10 years, that's $240 billion per year. Since a lot of the budget is probably estimates it's almost a rounding error [3%] in a $7 trillion dollar budget and would be chump change connsidering the $7.8 trillion deficit Dementia J. Taco ran up during his first term. The biggest travesty in it is the tax cuts. I suppose someone low on the totem pole might go apeshit over another $300, but why does some corporation need billions more to buy back shares?


https://www.propublica.org/art.../national-debt-trump

All I needed to know was that the bill added trillions to the debt. My vote was no.

Trump wasn't fiscally conservative last time we had no reason to think he'd be fiscally conservative this time. One of many reasons why I've never voted for trump.

And millions are slated to lose health care, with a literal barrage of rural hospitals & clinics going under as well.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
And millions are slated to lose health care, with a literal barrage of rural hospitals & clinics going under as well.

yep, dems voted out DOUBLING rural health care by an amendment .. that also increased taxes on the super high income people ... aint that weird

quote:

dems voted out DOUBLING rural health care by an amendment

And the rest of the story:

https://www.wmtw.com/article/s...spital-fund/65263151

Sen. Collins blames Democrats for blocking amendment to boost rural hospital fund
The Maine senator's amendment to the GOP mega-bill failed by a vote of 22-78.

Democrats voted against the bill, arguing that it is a "Band-Aid on an amputation."

"It provides just a tiny fraction of the nearly $1 trillion in cuts the bill makes to Medicaid," said Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. "It would be much more logical to simply not cut $1 trillion from Medicaid in the first place. This amendment doubles down on that flawed plan that's going to set rural hospitals adrift."

===================================================

https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Yes, based on the search results, Senate Democrats voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that aimed to double the amount of money in a rural hospital relief fund.

Specifically:
The amendment proposed increasing the rural hospital fund from $25 billion to $50 billion over five years.

It also proposed raising taxes on wealthy individuals to pay for this increase.

The Senate ultimately voted 22-78 against a procedural motion related to the amendment, with few members of either party siding with Collins.

Only four Democrats joined 18 Republicans in supporting the amendment.

However, despite the initial defeat of Collins' amendment, Republican leaders did ultimately include a provision doubling the size of the rural health fund to $50 billion in the final version of the bill.

It is important to note: Collins stated that even with the doubled funding, the amount was not "sufficient to offset the other changes in the Medicaid system". The overall bill contained significant cuts to Medicaid spending, which experts warn could still negatively impact rural hospitals.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
And millions are slated to lose health care, with a literal barrage of rural hospitals & clinics going under as well.

quote:

To offset any negative impact on rural hospitals, the bill creates a Rural Hospital Stabilization Fund of $50 billion. The funds are allotted at $10 billion per year from 2026 through 2030.

“Dr. [Mehmet] Oz is going to work with states, work with governors of all types, to be able to deploy those dollars in a way that will bend the cost curve,” Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) told reporters on July 2, referring to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

When reaching out for information or help I always, always start with an insult. That way we can ensure I get what I really want. To quibble and argue as children.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
And millions are slated to lose health care, with a literal barrage of rural hospitals & clinics going under as well.

yep, dems voted out DOUBLING rural health care by an amendment .. that also increased taxes on the super high income people ... aint that weird

And the rest of the story:

...

Democrats voted against the bill, arguing that it is a "Band-Aid on an amputation."

...
Yes, based on the search results, Senate Democrats voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that aimed to double the amount of money in a rural hospital relief fund.

Specifically:
The amendment proposed increasing the rural hospital fund from $25 billion to $50 billion over five years.

It also proposed raising taxes on wealthy individuals to pay for this increase.

The Senate ultimately voted 22-78 against a procedural motion related to the amendment, with few members of either party siding with Collins.

Only four Democrats joined 18 Republicans in supporting the amendment.

However, despite the initial defeat of Collins' amendment, Republican leaders did ultimately include a provision doubling the size of the rural health fund to $50 billion in the final version of the bill.

oh, honey ... remember that little "lecture" you attempted to give me on using the tools available in the forums? you forgot it, i guess, and then left out all the context -- i know, it was just a silly mistake

FACTS:
Collins proposed the amendment, as I stated
over 90% of dems voted AGAINST it

Just as i reported, the DAY it happened --

"based on search results" .. you mean, "you googled it"

Did you have a point, ma'am, or shall i just get the manager?

quote:
To offset any negative impact on rural hospitals, the bill creates a Rural Hospital Stabilization Fund of $50 billion. The funds are allotted at $10 billion per year from 2026 through 2030.

“Dr. [Mehmet] Oz is going to work with states, work with governors of all types, to be able to deploy those dollars in a way that will bend the cost curve,” Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) told reporters on July 2, referring to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.

-----------

50 billion does not "offset" the loss of a trillion. Maga math at it peak.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
And millions are slated to lose health care, with a literal barrage of rural hospitals & clinics going under as well.

Hey, close enough, this is the problem YOU reported .. I know millions, billions, trillions is all confusing. You complaint has been resolved, withiut the help of a single dem.

Good luck

That "lecture" wasn't for you. It was for those who might be misled by you. It was for their info.

I just used your BS as a springboard.

And you thought it was about you. Silly.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
And millions are slated to lose health care, with a literal barrage of rural hospitals & clinics going under as well.

yep, dems voted out DOUBLING rural health care by an amendment .. that also increased taxes on the super high income people ... aint that weird

And the rest of the story:

...

Democrats voted against the bill, arguing that it is a "Band-Aid on an amputation."

...
Yes, based on the search results, Senate Democrats voted against an amendment proposed by Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) that aimed to double the amount of money in a rural hospital relief fund.

Specifically:
The amendment proposed increasing the rural hospital fund from $25 billion to $50 billion over five years.

It also proposed raising taxes on wealthy individuals to pay for this increase.

The Senate ultimately voted 22-78 against a procedural motion related to the amendment, with few members of either party siding with Collins.

Only four Democrats joined 18 Republicans in supporting the amendment.

However, despite the initial defeat of Collins' amendment, Republican leaders did ultimately include a provision doubling the size of the rural health fund to $50 billion in the final version of the bill.

oh, honey ... remember that little "lecture" you attempted to give me on using the tools available in the forums? you forgot it, i guess, and then left out all the context -- i know, it was just a silly mistake

FACTS:
Collins proposed the amendment, as I stated
over 90% of dems voted AGAINST it

Just as i reported, the DAY it happened --

"based on search results" .. you mean, "you googled it"

Did you have a point, ma'am, or shall i just get the manager?

So, back to the OP question:

Here's a psychiatrist's analysis:

https://youtu.be/TURjoB5kVwc?s...HhEzcZ0zJO6PZh&t=102

In Passing The Big Barbaric Bill The Republican Party Has Effectively Made Itself Extinct

https://youtu.be/BXXi5Mzj9tQ?si=KERRaumKlzhHZ1Kk

Brooks and Capehart on Trump's total control over Washington