On Tuesday, Trump lauded a House budget blueprint that may enable Congress to pass much of his legislative agenda in what he called “ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.” That budget, which passed a committee vote and could hit the House floor as soon as next week, lays out targets for legislation that would extend tax cuts and increase the federal deficit. It would also almost certainly make major cuts to programs that serve the poor.
The Cuts
Medicaid is likely to be the largest target for cuts to achieve the $880 billion in budget savings set out in the legislation.
But the committee also has the ability to include cuts to Medicare, and may also be able to find some savings by reversing Biden-era regulations.
Education and Work Force
Cut by at least $330 billion...
The instructions could require cuts to nearly half of all spending on programs the committee can consider.
The biggest category of spending for the committee is school nutrition programs. The budget document also suggested some cuts to school breakfasts, and to lunch programs for schools that serve low-income children.
Agriculture
Cut by at least $230 billion
The bulk of the spending overseen by the committee is on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and most of the rest is on farm programs like crop insurance. If the cuts hit the programs overseen by the committee equally, it would amount to a 13 percent cut. If they were directed to SNAP alone, that would amount to a 21 percent cut.
Spending increases:
The budget also includes a small amount of increased spending, primarily focused on border security and the military.
The largest spending item:
Tax cuts
Up to $4.5 trillion in tax reductions
Extending $4 trillion in expiring tax cuts passed during the first Trump administration represents the biggest policy priority in the bill, both in emphasis and dollars.
The budget would allow the tax-writing Ways and Means committee to decrease federal revenue by as much as $4.5 trillion over a decade, an allowance that may mean new tax cuts, too.
The tax cut extension benefits the wealthiest taxpayers the most, in raw dollars and as a share of their income.
Deficits and debt
Because the tax cuts and spending increases significantly outweigh the spending cuts in the budget, it would directly add $2.8 trillion to deficits over the next 10 years. (It could ultimately add an estimated $3.4 trillion to the national debt because of the costs associated with increased borrowing.) Tables released with the House bill assume aggressive economic growth that would help cover the bulk of this increase, but budget experts say the assumptions are unrealistic.
Also included in the bill: a $4 trillion increase to the debt limit.
For me, This budget plan reflects a stark betrayal of Trump’s campaign promises to protect families who struggle financially while providing tax windfalls for the wealthy...
“For me, This budget plan reflects a stark betrayal of Trump’s campaign promises to protect families who struggle financially while providing tax windfalls for the wealthy...”
We could all have seen this months before Trumps election without looking. Many of the dupes that voted for him will feel the pain as this budget will adversely affect them. It will be no less than what they deserve. The only sad part is that innocents will be within the blast radius.
So much for the BS of the Republicans being the fiscally responsible party…..
Doge running around indiscriminately slashing at programs and agencies is all in service of making this ludicrous budget seem palatable to people. I think it will fail in this form. Republicans are already quivering in their boots to bring this garbage to their constituents. We will see what they will be able to get over on the American people . The resistance is growing though.
The resistance is growing though.
Cheer me up, where do you see resistance?
Well we have some Republicans voicing concerns, going on record opposing the drastic cuts to Medicaid. And in the last few days there has been quite a backlash at Town Halls in Republican districts. The representatives are being blindsided by angry constituents that are spilling over into overflow rooms. Lots of heated exchanges concerning Musk's role, Trump's overreach and broken promises.
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) faced a large and testy audience at a town hall on Thursday, with Reps. Cliff Bentz (R-Ore.), Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) and Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.) also getting heated questioning.
Swing-district Reps. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.), Tom Kean Jr. (R-N.J.), Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) and Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) all had demonstrations outside their offices.
A lot of folks saying we didn't vote for THIS
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … rcna193164
https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-ra … al-2034011
Adding to with what I have read recently
House Budget Allows At Least $2.8 Trillion of Deficit Increases by The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (Feb 21, 2025)
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/house-budget … -increases
"The House of Representatives will soon consider a budget resolution for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, which was reported favorably out of the House Budget Committee on February 13. The budget’s reconciliation instructions pave the way for a bill that could add at least $2.8 trillion to deficits through FY 2034, or $3.4 to $4 trillion of debt including interest costs.
In this piece, we explain that:
** The marked-up House budget allows lawmakers to add at least $2.8 trillion to deficits through FY 2034 or $3.4 trillion including interest.
** As a result of this debt increase, debt held by the public would reach 125 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by FY 2034, compared with 117 percent under current law.
** Deficits under the House budget would average 6.8 percent of GDP over the decade, compared with 5.8 percent under current law.
This entire rant is built on speculation, assumptions, and worst-case scenario predictions without actual evidence. First, Trump has been in office for only a month, and none of these proposed changes have been enacted. A House budget blueprint is not the same as actual legislation, and Congress still has to negotiate and pass any spending plans. Claiming that this budget is a "betrayal" of Trump's promises is premature at best and disingenuous at worst.
The claim that Medicaid will face massive cuts is based on a general budget outline, not finalized policy. The reality is that budget plans often suggest potential savings, but that doesn't mean every proposed cut will happen as written. Similarly, the claim that school nutrition programs will be slashed is another assumption. There’s a huge difference between suggesting budget adjustments and gutting essential services. The idea that Trump’s administration is going after low-income school lunches is an emotional appeal rather than a factual argument.
The tax cuts argument is also misleading. Tax relief is a fundamental part of Trump’s economic plan, designed to stimulate growth and benefit businesses and workers alike. The notion that tax cuts only benefit the wealthy ignores how they impact job creation, wages, and investment. Moreover, projections about deficits and debt are based on economic models that often fail to account for the positive effects of economic expansion. Trump’s policies in his first term led to significant economic growth, and similar strategies are being pursued again.
This entire critique assumes that Trump's supporters didn’t expect him to pursue these policies. That’s simply not true. His base elected him precisely because they wanted tax cuts, stronger border security, and economic policies that prioritize growth over government handouts. Jumping to conclusions about what will happen a decade from now while ignoring the full legislative process is nothing more than political fearmongering. Let’s deal with actual results, not doomsday predictions. Your OP offers no soucres.
Do you take issue with the data presented by Willow? Being factual and looking at the big picture, only you are saying that it is "emotional". Prove that the information she presented is incorrect before an attack on its content. Why is it wrong beyond your just saying so?
Doesn't everyone (take issue with the "data")? Does anyone, even you and Willow, actually believe that Trump will reduce income twice what he reduced spending, after making such an issue of cutting our deficit?
Where is your evidence to refute it or is just more of YOUR OPINION?
My opinion? I merely asked if anyone could believe the fairy story, with no indication that it was not true.
How about you? Do you actually think Trump has that in mind? I mean yes, TDS may be strong, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that it won't work...and regardless of TDS Trump is not stupid.
"How about you? Do you actually think Trump has that in mind? I mean yes, TDS may be strong, but it doesn't take a genius to understand that it won't work...and regardless of TDS Trump is not stupid."
I don't trust anything Trump says. Trump is stupid in my opinion. I am going to trust the New York Times data over fabrications from Trump and the Right.
"Do you take issue with the data presented by Willow? Being factual and looking at the big picture, only you are saying that it is "emotional". Prove that the information she presented is incorrect before an attack on its content. Why is it wrong beyond your just saying so?" Cred
I take issue when statistics are quoted without a source or when someone presents them as their own view. I have no problem with opinions on a given subject or sourced data that can be critiqued, especially when it comes to budget predictions. Not all economists are created equal—history has shown that many left-leaning economists predicted Biden would have a stellar economy, and we’ve seen how that turned out. I don’t need to prove anything—that’s Willow’s job. I didn’t attack her view; I debated it and presented a different perspective. You ask, “Why is it wrong beyond your just saying so?” Well, why is hers right just because she said so? It’s clear that Willow and I have very different mindsets, and frankly, it seems you align much more closely with her perspective, as shown by the analogy I just shared.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … print.html
Sharlee, you have to excuse me for favoring the information as presented by the "Grey Lady", New York Times, a professional and credible source of journalism, over the contrary opinions of Wilderness and yourself, which you can't or won't substantiate. Her "say so" is more correct than yours because it is supported by a reputable journalistic source, where's yours?
Beware, there may well be a formidable pay wall between you and the article.
I am satisfied with the direction the economy was taking during the Biden term and identify what negatives there were to the term of his predecessor. But, again that is just my opinion
And, yes, I share her perspectives in this matter and see Trump as a total fraud.
So, where's the beef, Sharlee?
You may have been satisfied with falling real incomes, with inflation going back up, with a gradual (or sometimes quick) decrease in our standard of living under Biden.
Most of us were not.
"Sharlee, you have to excuse me for favoring the information as presented by the "Grey Lady", New York Times, a professional and credible source of journalism, over the contrary opinions of Wilderness and yourself, which you can't or won't substantiate." Cred
Where are you going with this? Talk about a diversion... I never questioned the author's credibility as a journalist. The article was an NYT op-ed—keyword, 'op-ed.' I simply debated the viewpoint. and lacked sources. Keyword debated.
Here is my comment regarding the article--- I take issue when statistics are quoted without a source or when someone presents them as their own view. I have no problem with opinions on a given subject or source data that can be critiqued, especially when it comes to budget predictions. Not all economists are created equal—history has shown that many left-leaning economists predicted Biden would have a stellar economy, and we’ve seen how that turned out. Sharlee
I have no beef--- In my view, some here have come to not respect any form of debate where others share their views that conflict. My re[ly to Willows OP was nothing but a very, actually lightweight debate. It is hard to communicate with the leftists here on HPs. Just my view, but some don't want to debate. This is very, how can I even say this, odd.
What happened to no tax on tips and no tax on social security? Did I miss something or those things didn't make it into the budget?
Odd?
This is not an opinion piece where am I missing that it was labeled as such?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 … print.html
You are certainly welcome to debate the points raised in the article. Certainly welcome to provide anything that refutes those points.
Could you add sources that dictate facts? I am not interested in the predictions represented. This is why the piece is an OP. It represents views, of what could come from economists. The article you posted presents a perspective on what COULD happen if the House successfully passes the proposed bill containing Trump's agenda, but it doesn’t reflect any form of reality that has or will fully come to fruition.
It's essentially speculative, outlining the potential provisions and consequences, an 'if come". The article provides an analysis based on current discussions, views, and proposed plans, but until the bill passes and is enacted, it remains a prediction or outlook on what might come to be. And as I mentioned we saw all these types of predictions in Bidens first weeks, and before each of his legislation was passed--- we all know how off the predictions were. That is those that followed predictions.
What source do you find acceptable?
The First source from the New York times, did not offer predictions it simply outlined what was in the bill. Which coincides with every other source I've seen .
Since when do we not follow the predictions of experts?
When one presents nothing but what could happen, on a bill that no one has seen, that is called predicting. When one predicts they share their opinion. The NYT posts a large majority of OP's.
I visited your thread, I joined in and critiqued then debated the NYT article.--- Here is my first post, in which my context indicates I sharing my view. ----
This entire rant is built on speculation, assumptions, and worst-case scenario predictions without actual evidence. First, Trump has been in office for only a month, and none of these proposed changes have been enacted. A House budget blueprint is not the same as actual legislation, and Congress still has to negotiate and pass any spending plans. Claiming that this budget is a "betrayal" of Trump's promises is premature at best and disingenuous at worst.
The claim that Medicaid will face massive cuts is based on a general budget outline, not a finalized policy. The reality is that budget plans often suggest potential savings, but that doesn't mean every proposed cut will happen as written. Similarly, the claim that school nutrition programs will be slashed is another assumption. There’s a huge difference between suggesting budget adjustments and gutting essential services. The idea that Trump’s administration is going after low-income school lunches is an emotional appeal rather than a factual argument.
The tax cuts argument is also misleading. Tax relief is a fundamental part of Trump’s economic plan, designed to stimulate growth and benefit businesses and workers alike. The notion that tax cuts only benefit the wealthy ignores how they impact job creation, wages, and investment. Moreover, projections about deficits and debt are based on economic models that often fail to account for the positive effects of economic expansion. Trump’s policies in his first term led to significant economic growth, and similar strategies are being pursued again.
This entire critique assumes that Trump's supporters didn’t expect him to pursue these policies. That’s simply not true. His base elected him precisely because they wanted tax cuts, stronger border security, and economic policies that prioritized growth over government handouts. Jumping to conclusions about what will happen a decade from now while ignoring the full legislative process is nothing more than political fearmongering. Let’s deal with actual results, not doomsday predictions. Your OP offers no soucres.
You have yet to offer any sources that would indicate facts. yes, predictions were given, nothing more. It did offer what was being again predicted to be in the bill. As of February 23, 2025, President Donald Trump's proposed "big, beautiful bill" has not yet been formally introduced to Congress or the public. The authors were working with pure speculation. Which is fine in an OP. I did no more or less than debate their article. As my very first comment indicates.
This is a political forum, when a thread is posted on any given subject it is up for debate or agreement. Hey, Cred took the article as factual, as he shared in a reply.
Regarding The New York Times or any news outlet—if an opinion piece (OP) in The New York Times is not a source itself, the author cannot simply say, "The NYT is my source" as a defense. The NYT publishes a range of opinions, many of which are not fact-based but instead rely on personal interpretation, speculation, or ideology.
The article you posted was ultimately an opinion piece, speculating on what might be in the "Big Bill" and throwing out possible scenarios of what could happen. It was a hit piece—a “Hey, everybody, look what could happen!” piece, meant to stir up panic and get people wringing their hands.
What organization would provide an accurate analysis in your opinion
CONGRESS after the bill is presented. Maybe we wait for that... Or maybe just do what the NYT did write a hip piece.
Congress relies on the CBO though... As, I believe, none of them are economists. Sadly, many of them aren't very educated at all.
Trump's tax scheme didn't really work out very well during his first term though did it? It really failed to deliver on its promises. Why would we do something again that didn't work the first time?
I disagree, I did great under Trump's taxes. I will keep it that simple. You see how simple it can be to just disagree with another's view.
You must be in the top 10%?
"Evidence suggests that the TCJA's corporate tax changes failed to produce the promised investment or wage increases for the majority of U.S. workers. The benefits of the tax changes disproportionately favored high-income households and profitable corporations. Claims made by the Trump administration that the average household would see a substantial increase in income did not materialize. Research indicates that earnings did not significantly change for workers in the bottom 90% of the income distribution, while those in the top 10% saw increase.
The TCJA's business tax changes have permanently reduced federal revenues. Claims that the tax plan would pay for itself have not been substantiated. Studies indicate that increases in economic activity only offset a small fraction of the revenue loss attributable to the tax cut.
CBO Finds TCJA Expirations Would Boost The Economy. (2024). https://taxpolicycenter.org/daily-deduc … st-economy
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 introduced significant changes to the U.S. tax system during President Donald Trump's tenure. Here's a detailed overview of its impacts, supported by key sources: Yes, I am in the top 10% due to hard work, and thriving well in my ventures.
1. Tax Reductions Across Income Groups:
General Impact: Approximately 65% of households received a tax cut in 2018, averaging about $1,260. Conversely, around 6% experienced a tax increase.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
Middle-Income Households: Those earning between $48,000 and $86,000 saw an average tax reduction of $800.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
High-Income Households: The top 1% of earners, with incomes over $733,000, benefited from an average tax cut of $33,000.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
2. Corporate Tax Rate Reduction:
Rate Change: The TCJA permanently lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
Investment Response: Initial analyses indicated a modest increase in business investments post-enactment. However, studies suggest that the TCJA's corporate tax cuts did not lead to significant wage growth for workers, with benefits largely accruing to shareholders and top executives.
AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG
3. Economic Growth and Employment:
GDP Growth: The U.S. economy experienced a growth rate of 2.9% in 2018, up from 2.4% in 2017. This uptick is partially attributed to the TCJA's stimulus effects.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
Unemployment Rates: The unemployment rate declined to a 50-year low of 3.5% in 2019, reflecting a robust labor market during this period.
4. Federal Deficit and National Debt:
Deficit Increase: The TCJA significantly impacted federal revenues. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that the act would increase the total deficit by about $1.9 trillion over the 2018–2028 period.
CBO.GOV
Long-Term Debt Projections: In 2024, the CBO projected that extending the TCJA's individual tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration would further increase deficits by approximately $4 trillion over the subsequent decade.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
5. Small Business and Middle-Class Effects:
Pass-Through Entities: The TCJA introduced a 20% deduction for qualified business income from pass-through entities (e.g., sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations). This provision aimed to reduce the tax burden on small business owners.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
Middle-Class Benefits: While middle-income taxpayers received tax cuts, analyses indicate that higher-income households benefited more significantly, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of after-tax income.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
6. Long-Term Considerations:
Expiration of Individual Tax Provisions: Many individual tax benefits under the TCJA are set to expire after 2025, potentially leading to tax increases for individuals if not extended.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
Corporate Tax Provisions: In contrast, the reduction in the corporate tax rate is a permanent change, continuing to influence federal revenues and business taxation.
TAXPOLICYCENTER.ORG
In summary, the TCJA provided tax relief across various income levels, with more substantial benefits for higher-income individuals and corporations. While it stimulated short-term economic growth and reduced unemployment, it also contributed to increased federal deficits and raised concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability.
Less have a look at the 1 percenters
The top 1% benefited more from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) primarily because they earn significantly more money, pay higher absolute amounts in taxes, and disproportionately benefit from certain tax provisions. Since the U.S. tax system is progressive, high earners already pay a larger share of taxes. When tax rates were reduced across the board, they naturally saw greater savings in dollar amounts, even if the percentage reductions were similar for all taxpayers. One of the biggest changes under the TCJA was the reduction of the top individual income tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, which resulted in direct tax savings for wealthy individuals. Since their taxable income is much higher, even a small percentage cut meant tens of thousands of dollars in savings.
Another major factor was the corporate tax reduction from 35% to 21%. The wealthy benefited the most from this change because they own a majority of corporate stocks, meaning their investment returns increased. Additionally, the TCJA introduced a 20% deduction for pass-through business income, which applies to entities like LLCs and S-corporations. Many high-income individuals operate businesses structured in this way, allowing them to shield more of their income from taxation compared to wage earners. The tax law also left capital gains and dividend taxes unchanged, which was significant since investment income is a major source of wealth for the top 1%. Unlike wages, which are taxed at higher rates, capital gains are taxed at lower rates, allowing wealthier individuals to keep more of their earnings.
Another major advantage for high earners came from the estate tax exemption, which doubled under the TCJA. This meant that individuals could pass down up to $11.18 million tax-free ($22.36 million for married couples), allowing the wealthiest Americans to preserve more generational wealth. The absolute dollar effect also played a role—while middle-class taxpayers saw average tax savings of $800 to $1,500 per year, high earners saved tens of thousands simply because their tax liability was much greater to begin with. Even if a middle-class worker and a millionaire received the same 2% tax cut, the millionaire’s savings would be dramatically higher in dollar terms.
Although the wealthy gained the most under the TCJA, supporters argue that lower corporate taxes and business incentives led to job growth, wage increases, and economic expansion, benefiting the broader economy. Critics, however, contend that much of the benefit went to stock buybacks rather than higher wages for workers. While the tax cuts provided relief across various income levels, they ultimately had a more substantial impact on high earners due to the structure of the tax system and the nature of their income sources. Would you like a breakdown of how the tax cuts impacted specific income groups?
I feel I also made mine. I went into detail about why the top 1% and top 10% did a bit better but were treated fairly under Trump's taxes. I posted the good the bad, and the ugly on Trump's taxes. Just facts. It is easy to say one did better than another--- but it is also important to know the whys of it.
Its about arithmetic, Sharlee not opinion. Is the breakout that was presented what Trump would prefer be the outcome of the legislative process? Whether he gets his wish or not is speculation, but he made it clear that that what was presented in the Times was his preference.
And it certainly is not mine,....
"On Tuesday, President Trump lauded a House budget blueprint that would enable Congress to pass much of his legislative agenda in what he called “ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL.” That budget, which passed a committee vote and could hit the House floor as soon as next week, lays out targets for legislation that would extend tax cuts and increase the federal deficit. It would also almost certainly make major cuts to programs that serve the poor."
Seems pretty clear cut to me, did I miss something?
Yes, you missed me just joining in and giving my view of an article. And it seems some are not willing to just leave it at that --- LOL Ya know liberals just can't take rejection of their views. That is not my problem. I took time to debate what I read. Hey, I guess those who don't care for my view, could keep it simple --- Just say ---"I don't like your view".
No one can do the asthmatic until we see the numbers. No one has seen the bill. We can assume all over the place, but why do that? All about ringing hands... We think differently I don't wring my hands until I find a fact that would get me to wringing my hands.
by Tim Mitchell 6 months ago
How the Plans of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump Could Affect the Deficit by Investopedia (Sept 17, 2024)https://www.investopedia.com/trump-harr … on-8710401The bottom line . . ."According to separate analyses by nonpartisan think tank the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and...
by Quilligrapher 12 years ago
From a CNN report GOP divide over Obama tax plan goes public, November 28, 2012:"A CNN/ORC International poll released Monday also showed that a solid majority of respondents -- two thirds -- supports the Democratic stance that any agreement should include a mix of spending cuts and tax...
by Stump Parrish 9 years ago
The tax cuts that are being debated in Washington have been described as a jobs creating nessessity by the republicans. These tax cuts have been in effect for 10 years now and I have to wonder where all the jobs they created during their existence, have gone. Are we to believe that they will...
by Nickny79 16 years ago
HIGH tax rates reduce economic growth, because they make it LESS profitable to work, save, and invest. This translates into less work, saving, investment, and capital--and ultimately fewer goods and services. Reducing marginal income tax rates has been shown to motivate people to work more. Lower...
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
Paul Krugman:" Back in 2010, self-styled deficit hawks — better described as deficit scolds — took over much of our political discourse. At a time of mass unemployment and record-low borrowing costs, a time when economic theory said we needed more, not less, deficit spending, the scolds...
by kerryg 14 years ago
Republicans have repeated the lie that tax cuts are always good for the economy so often that all of Washington seems absolutely convinced that it's true. The conventional wisdom is so established on this that all a Republican has to say is, "Everyone knows you don't raise taxes in the middle...
Copyright © 2025 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2025 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |