- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/28/25 at 1:42 pm to ReauxlTide222
Have at it, I hear it's 1500 pages.
At the end of the day, it's not enough.
They all do.
At the end of the day, it's not enough.
quote:
Is the admin lying about the bill?
They all do.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 1:43 pm to jbdawgs03
Tax cuts will never cost the govt anything. Ever. It’s not govt money.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 1:47 pm to the808bass
quote:yes, discretionary spending was cut by $140 bbn (compared to 2025).
So the Big Beautiful Bill has actual decreases in spending?
Right?
Right?
Right?
That's why the discussion is always "deficit spending"
LINK
Posted on 5/28/25 at 1:50 pm to jbdawgs03
Other than his tax cuts in 2017, did Trump pass any meaningful legislation during his first term? Not just signing EOs?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 1:51 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
sure how to break this to you, but ALL INCOME DOES NOT BELONG TO THE IMPERIAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Completely agree not sure what this has to do with my comment.
quote:
Additionally - The Federal Government PRODUCES NOTHING.
I don't necessarily agree there. Our federal government provides many services today. Some it probably should like security services and some it isn't very good at like housing...
quote:
get it that the ruling unelected intelligentsia has fricked our language in the ear until it's practically unrecognizable, but when you call additional tax revenue received "tax savings" and American workers keeping more money that they earn "tax expenditures", then that reinforces the implicit belief that all income belongs to the government and we should be lucky they "allow" us to keep what they do.
frick. That. Sideways.
And frick you for running headlong into your Stockholm Syndrome
My commentary is about forecasting and why the CBO is staying like it is. These tax breaks were never permanent. Pretending they should be counted that way makes no sense. This is adding to the future deficit by extending them . Plain and simple.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 1:53 pm to BCreed1
quote:
DOGE cuts are to discretionary spending. (Eg the federal bureaucracy). Under senate budget rules, you cannot cut discretionary spending (only mandatory) in a reconciliation bill.
You have this wrong
DOGE has cuts to discretionary (like the bureaucracy) and mandatory (Medicare, SS, etc.) spending.
You can't cut mandatory spending via reconciliation (the byrd rule)
Posted on 5/28/25 at 1:56 pm to Seldom Seen
Not just a bot, an anti-American commie.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:13 pm to NC_Tigah
How can it be for the 2026 fiscal year when the 2026 budget has not even been submitted?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
Nope... Steven Miller is 100% correct. You are wrong.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:17 pm to Jjdoc
How much does Trumps big beautiful bill increase the national debt over time?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:19 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
That is a feature, not a flaw.
Also known as a Confusopoly.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:24 pm to Jjdoc
quote:no, that is correct (conditionally).
Nope... Steven Miller is 100% correct. You are wrong.
Senate has to change law with 60 vote majority to change MANDATORY spending, thus is virtually impossible (for the Senate ALONE) to change in reconciliation.
Discretionary spending does not require a law change, thus 50 vote majority, thus can be done by Senate in reconciliation because no law change.
ETA: that's why it was so damn important for the house to cut mandatory spending, or focus there, instead of discretionary. They didn't. They did $140 billion in discretionary cuts, which the Senate could wipe out and didn't do much on the mandatory side which the Senate would struggle to mess with.
This post was edited on 5/28/25 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:39 pm to I20goon
I've seen conflicting things online, and may be wrong, but this makes Miller's point even worse. If reconciliation can address Medicare and Social Security, then they had the best opportunity to cut hundreds of billions in spending annually.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:46 pm to oklahogjr
Not extending the tax plan reverts back to Obama's which is a huge increase. That is not good for anyone. Also having to supplement illegals is a huge costs to taxpayers as well.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 2:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:same here, seen a butt load of conflicting info.
I've seen conflicting things online, and may be wrong, but this makes Miller's point even worse. If reconciliation can address Medicare and Social Security, then they had the best opportunity to cut hundreds of billions in spending annually.
But, known 100% are the following:
A) Byrd rule is in effect
B) any changes to social security, period, are "extraneous". That's the whole 'lockbox' argument from back in the 80's & 90's.
C) if considered "extraneous" Senate can't touch it in reconciliation and requires law change, thus requires both houses AND 60 votes.
So the confusion likely exists in what spending or cuts (could be either) are considered "extraneous". Byrd rule, going off poor memory, doesn't really use the words mandatory or discretionary. It created a sub-set called 'extraneous'.
The word itself, extraneous, is part of the problem. We inherently think of it as "extra" or "not the main stuff" which means extraneous cuts/increases to us aren't that important and not subject to all the rules. BUT, the Byrd rule uses it to define something outside the norm and thus IS subject to the Byrd rule and can't be touched by reconciliation. The word itself is counterintuitive.
This post was edited on 5/28/25 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 5/28/25 at 3:28 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Perhaps you misread?
Estimates are the FY2026 budget will be $2T in the red.
---
How can it be for the 2026 fiscal year when the 2026 budget has not even been submitted?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 3:36 pm to NC_Tigah
I didn't. The CBO takes liberties that they should not. Example, how do they know what the tax receipts will even be? They do not know the job creation or wage increases. They also don't know what will be cut in Trump's proposed budget.
Posted on 5/28/25 at 3:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What happens when we collect less in taxes
Are we doing this?
Posted on 5/28/25 at 3:39 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Therefore, the bill cuts some $1 trillion in spending over the next decade
It needs to cut more. Maybe its not possible, given the corruption and current process in DC, but I'd hoped we see more effort to cut spending.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News