One Big Beautiful Bill or a Ball of BS?

Jump to Last Post 1-4 of 4 discussions (33 posts)
  1. Willowarbor profile image60
    Willowarborposted 7 weeks ago

    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.


    https://hubstatic.com/17390393_f1024.jpg

    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...

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      “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…..

      1. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          The resistance is growing though.

          Cheer me up, where do you see resistance?

          1. Willowarbor profile image60
            Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            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

    2. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/17390433_f520.jpg

  2. Sharlee01 profile image86
    Sharlee01posted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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?

      1. wilderness profile image75
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Where is your evidence to refute it or is just more of YOUR OPINION?

          1. wilderness profile image75
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              "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.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        "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.

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          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?

          1. wilderness profile image75
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "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.

  3. Willowarbor profile image60
    Willowarborposted 7 weeks ago

    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?

  4. Willowarbor profile image60
    Willowarborposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Willowarbor profile image60
        Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Willowarbor profile image60
            Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            What organization would provide an accurate analysis in your opinion

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              CONGRESS after the bill is presented. Maybe we wait for that... Or maybe just do what the NYT did write a hip piece.

              1. Willowarbor profile image60
                Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Congress relies on the CBO though... As, I believe, none of them are economists.  Sadly, many of them aren't very educated at all.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I will let you and Cred figure this all out.

              2. Willowarbor profile image60
                Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. Willowarbor profile image60
                    Willowarborposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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.



                    https://hubstatic.com/17392641_f1024.jpg

                    CBO Finds TCJA Expirations Would Boost The Economy. (2024). https://taxpolicycenter.org/daily-deduc … st-economy

          2. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            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?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

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 Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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 ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis 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 LibrariesJavascript 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 SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis 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 YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis 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 LoginYou 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)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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 AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore 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 PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)