Post New

So says Mike Johnson. Do all Republicans take lying lessons from Trump?

Kristen Welker: “if the big beautiful bill does add to the debt, will Trump own it?”

Holy Mike: “it’s not gonna add to the debt.”

Welker: “experts say this will add trillions to the deficit. can you really guarantee this will not add one penny of debt?”

Holy Mike: “I’m telling you this is going to reduce the deficit.”

But...

Six Nobel laureate economists said a massive budget bill passed by House lawmakers last month and backed by President Trump would weaken key safety-net programs while greatly lifting the federal debt.

The tax and spending package, which Republicans have dubbed the “one big beautiful bill,” would hurt millions of Americans by slashing Medicaid and food stamps, the economists wrote in a June 2 letter on behalf of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

would hurt millions of Americans by slashing Medicaid and food stamps, the economists wrote in a June 2 letter on behalf of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. As far as adding o the debt goes, the "cost" = ges

------------------------

The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working and by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place. There remains plenty of money to assist American citizens who qualify for it.

The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working and by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place.
I am so curious how this is going to play out. Currently illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid so something else would need to change besides the "funding". Here in CA there is some funding for kids and pregnant women, but the PR on taking this away might be ugly. I think most states don't even fund this.

If somebody is a "healthy able bodied recipient", their health care costs should be zero, so no savings there. OTOH, there is a class of people who take very expensive medications for specific diseases. In my circle I know of people with expensive Crones disease meds, and expensive meds for depression. If a person with either of these conditions lost access to their medication the results would be catastrophic. I suspect there are many other diseases that are similar.

There is a lot of "wishful thinking" here.
Alan

The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working and by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place.

The other main category of people who will mostly feel the effects of this are those who rely on the same hospitals and other medical providers (mostly in rural and exurban areas) that will get crushed by this change. The population that will lose their Medicaid coverage is still going to need medical care. They're still going to get sick, they're still going to get into accidents. They're still going to go to the hospital. And they're still going to get treated for emergency care there.

What's going to change is that the hospital will no longer get reimbursed for that care under Medicaid. The hospital is going to have to eat the loss of coverage. Prior to the ACA Medicaid expansion, this was done through massive Disproportionate Share Hospital payments (DSH) - bulk payments from the federal government to reimburse hospitals with high rates of uninsured patients to reimburse those losses. The change under the Medicaid expansion wasn't entirely new federal payments to cover the medical costs of health able-bodied uninsured folks - a lot of it was just shifting money from the DSH bucket to the Medicaid bucket. The hope (and somewhat the experience) was that by giving these folks actual insurance, rather than just paying the hospital, that the recipients would have better health outcomes and overall costs would be lower, and that the medical infrastructure in poor and rural areas would improve.

That's why you're seeing resistance to the Medicaid changes from Senators in states with large rural populations, and of course from hospitals. If Medicaid eligibility is restricted and the DSH funds are not reinstated, it's going to be a big problem for many rural hospitals, as well as those serving areas with a disproportionate number of poor people using their facilities.

Going to be a lot of collateral damage from this one, in the short term. In the longer term, of course, the savings from the Medicaid cuts will be entirely illusory - there will have to be a later reinstatement of DSH payments (or something like it), else you'd see a wave of hospital closures throughout the country. That's not going to be allowed to happen, but the funding will be restored in a different bill (and probably in a way that can be blamed on Democrats). And we'll be back to the pre-ACA days - where the federal government still spends a ton of money on medical services for the healthy able-bodied (but poor) uninsured, just not by providing them actual health insurance through Medicaid.

The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working and by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place. There remains plenty of money to assist American citizens who qualify for it.

Good to see you posting. Amazing how facts tend to demolish their narratives.

I also remember a time when democrats used to ritually deny that illegal aliens were getting free health care…

BBB will not reduce the deficit.
"I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.
Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." ~Elon Musk
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will increase the deficit by $3.8 trillion;
the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates $3.1 trillion;
the Wharton Budget Model estimates $2.8 trillion.
Why does MAGA want to bankrupt America?

Also we just got the weakest ADP employment since March 2023, or as MAGA would say, "Prosperity!"

bighairymike: The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working and by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place.

Most Medicaid enrollees are already working, in school or too sick to be employed. Unemployed Medicaid enrollees are more likely to be older women but sure, kick those slacker Grandmas off of Medicaid... teach 'em a lesson.

"Illegal" immigrants do not qualify for Medicaid. Nor SNAP, unless they meet strict eligibility requirements, like being victims of human trafficking. But f*ck those leeches, right Mike!


https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/upshot/medicaid...

by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place.

Still waiting for the migrant workers to start picking the 2025 crops.

Let's see Spankee picking grapefruit out of his butt....

they're still going to get treated for emergency care there.

At the rate they are closing hospitals, healthcare STAFFING will be limited to ONE LPN PER RED STATE. All the rest of the healthcare staff will be in the blue states--or overseas.

Red state funeral homes are adding additions, crematoriums, AND RAISING PRICES to accommodate the upcoming flood of dead conservative voters (LOL !!!).

old? undereducated? poor?
there there, criminal billionaire trump is here to help MAGA.
gop is delivering for their base in ways they will never understand.

https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/when-bra...

The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working

And you know this how?

and by illegal imimgrants who shouldn’t be here in the first place

Illegal immigrants do not get food stamps or SNAP benefits. They are also ineligible for Medicaid or other health benefits. You can look it up rather than relying on Fox News for your information.

There remains plenty of money to assist American citizens who qualify for it

I repeat, you know this how?

Irony: illegal immigrants contribute to taxes but are ineligible for benefits. This attitude actually increases the costs to you of these programs, since they are subsidized by those not eligible for them.

Illegal immigrants do not get food stamps or SNAP benefits. They are also ineligible for Medicaid or other health benefits. You can look it up rather than relying on Fox News for your information.

Heh. California is able to launder Medicaid money and give some to illegals:

https://paragoninstitute.org/medicaid/californias-...

California’s “Money Laundering” Tactics: The state taxes Medicaid insurers and then makes higher payments to those same insurers with that tax revenue. The higher payments enable the state to claim additional federal matching dollars. These federal funds leave California with surplus money to spend elsewhere. This scheme effectively allows the state to “launder” federal Medicaid funds without spending any of its own money.

That sounds kinda illegal.

That sounds kinda illegal.

Are 30+ felony convictions proof of illegality?

"The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working and by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place. There remains plenty of money to assist American citizens who qualify for it." - BHM

LOL Once I saw congressional Republicans come out defending their vote on the BBB I knew it was because they needed get their ignorant base behind it. You are the first person I thought of.

Your being taken for a ride once yet again and your political masters are making you look dumb and foolish once again.

Seriously, do you like playing the fool?

Do better. Stop destroying the country with your ignorance.

The "slashing" will be felt mostly by able bodied recipients who are healthy and should be working and by illegal immigrants who shouldn't be here in the first place. ~Fox News Bot

For years we've heard from the right about "lazy, welfare queens" and other so-called "freeloaders" pulling one over on the government.
But actually, it's the wealthy who are the real freeloaders — pulling one over on us all by skirting their taxes.
Where is the outrage?...

"Tax evasion by millionaires and billionaires tops $150 billion a year, says IRS chief."

"The nation’s millionaires and billionaires are evading more than $150 billion a year in taxes, adding to growing government deficits and creating a “lack of fairness” in the tax system."

"Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act gave the IRS an $80 billion infusion, yet congressional Republicans won a deal last year to take $20 billion of the funding back. Now they’re pressing for further cuts.
The Treasury Department said last week it estimates greater IRS enforcement will result in an additional $561 billion in tax revenue between 2024 and 2034 — a higher projection than it had initially stated.
The IRS says that for every extra dollar spent on enforcement, the agency raises about $6 in revenue."

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/22/tax-evasion-by-wea...

More on the BBB. One area of confusion is the status of the 2017 Trump tax cuts.

Right now they're the law of the land as in, they *are* the tax rates. This bill extends them into forever.

One thing that the CBO is evidently doing is assuming that the "real" tax rate is the one that existed prior to 2017 and is using that to forecast the deficit. That's a no-no, if that's what they're doing: the plan was ALWAYS to make the 2017 rates permanent, which this bill does.

Also, per Senate rules you can only do mandatory spending with the reconciliation thing...so they have to pass any DOGE cuts via a recission bill later.

One thing that the CBO is evidently doing is assuming that the "real" tax rate is the one that existed prior to 2017 and is using that to forecast the deficit. That's a no-no, if that's what they're doing: the plan was ALWAYS to make the 2017 rates permanent, which this bill does.

It's not a no-no. It's what's required.

In 2017, when the original tax rates were scored for budget purposes, the CBO was required to calculate the effect on the budget deficit based on what the bill actually said. The bill said the tax rates were temporary, and would revert back to prior rates in 2025. So the CBO scored it that way. So only 8 years of lower tax rates were included in the calculation, instead of ten years' worth. That lowered the budget impact in the 2017 assessment.

Now, the proposed bill would change what the law says - instead of the tax rates reverting in 2025, they would be extended again. Which Congress, can certainly do, but that has a budget impact compared to what the law currently says. Regardless of whether the "plan" was to always make them permanent, that's not what the law said was going to happen back in 2017. So CBO scored the bill according to what the actual bill said back in 2017, and they're scoring the current bill today according to what the law says today.

Those are the scoring rules. One doesn't get to have it both ways. If the first bill is scored in 2017 with the tax cuts going to expire, then the second bill gets scored in 2025 with the tax cuts expiring as well. You don't get the "credit" for having the cuts be temporary in the 2017 bill score without getting the "debit" for having the cuts be temporary in the 2025 bill score.

It's not a no-no. It's what's required.

Except that what results is the kind of pretzel logic that makes people hate accountants and accounting in general.

In 2017, when the original tax rates were scored for budget purposes, the CBO was required to calculate the effect on the budget deficit based on what the bill actually said. The bill said the tax rates were temporary, and would revert back to prior rates in 2025. So the CBO scored it that way. So only 8 years of lower tax rates were included in the calculation, instead of ten years' worth. That lowered the budget impact in the 2017 assessment.

And this made sense. In 2017, when what was being proposed was a significant change in the tax code (via SALT limitations and changes in the marginal rates), and therefore, what revenues the federal government would collect. This year's bill IIRC doesn't propose any significant changes to marginal rates (other than No Tax on Tips or Overtime, neither of which will move the needle much in collections).

Now, the proposed bill would change what the law says - instead of the tax rates reverting in 2025, they would be extended again. Which Congress, can certainly do, but that has a budget impact compared to what the law currently says.

And this is where the pretzel knot-tying comes in: The CBO is going to say "The 2017 law says the original tax cuts expire in 2025, so we're scoring the bill based on taxes going way up and therefore our projections of revenue are X". But that's misleading, because when the bill passes there will be...no change in the tax rates, no change in the equilibrium that's been established for the last 8 years.

Those are the scoring rules. One doesn't get to have it both ways.

The only folks "having it both ways" are the ones claiming the bill would somehow explode federal deficits. COVID was what did that (see below).





BTW, for those curious, this is the data from Treasury for the last ten years. The 10 year period runs from May 31, 2015 to May 31, 2025 (so each "year" is May to May):

In Billions $
Total Outlays Total Receipts Def
2024 $7,086.29 $5,064.90 $(2,021.39)
2023 $6,342.58 $4,716.88 $(1,625.70)
2022 $6,537.16 $4,597.33 $(1,939.83)
2021 $6,088.90 $4,888.50 $(1,200.39)
2020 $7,300.13 $3,717.71 $(3,582.42)
2019 $5,199.74 $3,264.74 $(1,935.00)
2018 $4,288.55 $3,364.13 $(924.42)
2017 $4,100.35 $3,393.60 $(706.74)
2016 $3,856.55 $3,280.78 $(575.77)
2015 $3,779.50 $3,271.77 $(507.73)


In June of 2020 the federal government ran an $864 billion deficit in just that month alone.

For just this year:


Month Outlays Receipts Def
4/30/2025 $592 $850 $258
3/31/2025 $528 $368 $(161)
2/28/2025 $603 $296 $(307)
1/31/2025 $642 $513 $(129)

This year's bill IIRC doesn't propose any significant changes to marginal rates (other than No Tax on Tips or Overtime, neither of which will move the needle much in collections).

Yes, it does. It has significant changes to the marginal rates.

Remember, the CBO score isn't comparing what's going to happen over the next ten years with the bill to what's happened last year. It's comparing what they project will happen over the next ten years compared to what would happen if the bill weren't adopted. It's not whether 2026 will be different than 2025 - it's whether the bill will change the government's revenues and spending in 2026 compared to what would happen if the bill weren't passed in 2026. That's why they score temporary measures the way they do.

To illustrate, suppose the revenues for a given tax are currently at 100 per year (an index). You propose changing that tax permanently to 90 starting in 2026. The effect on revenue over the ten year window is -100 (-10 per year for 10 years).

Suppose instead, though, you provide that the tax change will only last three years. The effect on revenue over the ten year window is now only -30, instead of -100. That's because the bill you passed only has three years of 90, and the remaining seven years will be the same 100 that would have existed without the bill.

Now, if you get out to 2028 and near the expiration of the "temporary" tax cuts, and make them permanent, suddenly you're having a greater impact to the budget than was previously scored. Your original score only showed you reducing revenues by -30 because there were only three years of reduced revenue, but now you're reducing revenue for every year. So your second bill is changing what's going to happen in years 2029, 2030, 2031, etc. from what was originally scored. That additional ongoing reduction of revenue has to be scored in the impact of the second bill, because it wasn't part of the first bill.

And when you step back, that makes total sense. If I adopt a permanent tax cut, it has a long-term reduction in revenue. If I adopt a one-year tax cut, and then change that to a permanent tax cut after one year, it also has a long-term reduction in revenue - so you would get an irrational analysis if you only scored it as being a one-year reduction followed by zero change at all.

Six Nobel laureate economists denounce the Trump tax bill because it will add to the debt and redistribute wealth and income from the middle-class and the poor to the wealthy.
But Dope says by his calculations it probably will not.
It can be hard to know who to believe.

An open letter from six Nobel laureate economists:
"U.S. structural deficits are already too high, with real debt service payments approaching their historic highs in the past year. The House bill layers $3.8 trillion in additional tax cuts ($5.3 trillion if all provisions are made permanent) on top of these existing fiscal gaps—and these tax cuts are overwhelmingly tilted toward the highest-income households. Even with the safety net cuts, the House bill leads to public debt rising by over $3 trillion in coming years (and over $5 trillion over the next decade if provisions are made permanent rather than phasing out). The higher debt and deficits will put noticeable upward pressure on both inflation and interest rates in coming years.

The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households."

Of course facts can be inconvenient, so feel free to ignore them if they make your head hurt.

https://www.epi.org/publication/the-upside-down-pr...

But Dope says by his calculations it probably will not.
It can be hard to know who to believe.

Trust in Dope. He uses only the most reliable sources. /s

Of course facts can be inconvenient, so feel free to ignore them if they make your head hurt.

MAGA can't tell. They jammed their head HARD up Spankee's butt--and haven't been able to find it ever since.

Trust in Dope. He uses only the most reliable sources. /s

Instead of the /s, I think you meant to use 💩.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.