Is MAGA a CULT (think Jim Jones)
I will start off with a comment I made on another forum which really wasn't on topic.
According to psychologists and cult researchers (e.g., Steven Hassan, Robert Lifton), cults typically involve:
* Unquestioning devotion to a central figure - CHECK - Trump
* Isolation from alternative viewpoints - CHECK - Fake Fox News
* Use of fear, loyalty, or conspiracy to control members - CHECK
* Dismissal of facts conflicting with group beliefs - DOUBLE CHECK
* A sense of moral or spiritual superiority - CHECK
MAGA checks all those boxes. Conclusion, MAGA is a cult. You know another characteristic of all cults? The members always deny they are in one.All sociopolitics is a form of, "cult of personality."
I wouldn't say the majority treat it as a cult, and framing it that way is disingenuous at best, and lacking in earnest desire to understand and work with your opponents for the sake of society at worst.
If you take the hard stance it's a cult as a majority practice, the other side will simply spit on the idea just as you've spit on them. Gotta have a bit more fluidity, otherwise everyone remains so rigid that they become brittle, then finally they snap under the pressure they created themselves.As you've suggested, I am thinking Jim Jones, and I am surprised that all of that Kool-Aid drinking you've been doing... hasn't done you in yet!
I think labeling tens of millions of Americans as “cult members” based on political beliefs is overly simplistic and, frankly, counterproductive if the goal is real dialogue.
It's easy to make a checklist fit any group when it's framed with bias, and the criteria you've listed could just as easily be applied to strong followers of political figures like Obama or Bernie Sanders, or even to movements on the left. For example, dismissing conservative media as “Fake Fox News” while consuming only progressive sources can itself resemble a form of ideological isolation.
As for devotion to a central figure, passion for a leader doesn't make a movement a cult. People admire Trump for specific policies, a sense of disruption in politics, and a feeling that he speaks to their concerns. That doesn’t mean they’ve surrendered their capacity for critical thought. Many Trump supporters disagree with him at times, criticize his tone, or wish he’d say things differently, but still support his broader agenda.
Calling a political movement a cult shuts down conversation and dehumanizes people who might see the world differently. If anything, it reinforces the very divisions we should be trying to bridge.
So rather than fall into name-calling, I’d rather discuss ideas, policies, and the reasons people are drawn to them, on both sides.
Regarding Fox News, I think it's important to recognize that Fox News consistently leads in viewership across cable news networks. In March 2025, for example, Fox News averaged 3.13 million primetime viewers, surpassing MSNBC's 1.18 million and CNN's 591,000. In the key 25-54 demographic, Fox News attracted 394,000 viewers, compared to CNN's 121,000 and MSNBC's 109,000 .
In April 2025, for example, Fox News averaged 2.6 million primetime viewers, surpassing MSNBC's 1.21 million and CNN's 519,000. In the key 25-54 demographic, Fox News attracted 296,000 viewers, compared to CNN's 122,000 and MSNBC's 88,000 . adweekThey aren't being labeled because of their political beliefs. They are being labeled that because they have demonstrably turned their lives over to a single demagogue. They cannot see past that one particular man, just like the followers of Jim Jones were devoted to him or the millions of followers of Hitler were to him. In the latter case this cult rationalized WW II and the extermination of the Jews.
I didn't make a checklist. [b\Experts[/b] made a checklist to help them identify when a group of people have succumbed to cultism.
Obama and Sanders were popular yes, but beyond a handful of devotees, they didn't command blind obedience like Trump does with MAGA.
Fake Fox News did it to themselves by lying and using their network as a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party.
People who are brainwashed as most of MAGA is have definitively lost their ability to think critically when it comes to all things Trump. That is what all the data and research show.
Science has proven that in the brainwashed brain, the neural networks have physically changed such that the analytical parts of the brain are by-passed when it processes inputs into thoughts and actions.
That is what all those (and more) references will prove.I've been following your comments on the subject. You've certainly expressed your perspective and shared a few links that present alternative psychological viewpoints. However, the tone of your posts comes across as accusatory and, in my view, needlessly harsh. At this point, I can only hope others will refrain from engaging with these kinds of rants and choose not to encourage them further.
Kind of hilarious that a person could condemn MAGA followers of blind obedience yet excuse a dementia addled idiot because he happens to follow the same party line. All sorts of MAGA people complained about the tarriffs and the present of the airplane yet when Biden pardoned his son (remember him saying no one is above the law?) no one in the Demagogue party made a peep. That is the definition of blind followers.
Hi Doc, It’s become pretty clear that whenever Biden’s name comes up, the response is either silence or deflection. The forum has grown increasingly caustic, making meaningful participation difficult. It’s turned into little more than a place for relentless Trump-bashing, which, considering how well he’s doing on key issues, adds nothing of value to a sensible conversation. In my lifetime, I’ve never seen a president take on long-standing problems and push for global peace the way Trump has. Yet he’s being compared to Hitler. That kind of mindset is deeply disturbing and, frankly, anti-social.
I stop by most days but do not even see the need to comment for those reasons you mentioned. I think it is nice that those never-Trumpers have a place to spew their illogical hatred and continue to protect an ex-president that even the Lame Stream Media is now admitting was a terrible president that was unfit to hold office. (At the same time denying that they are the ones that covered for his dementia)
Oh well, if nothing else they are entertaining in their hatred-filled Trump-bashing.I completely agree. It's become so predictable that there's hardly any point in engaging. The same people who spent years defending every gaffe and failure of that administration are now acting like they were never part of the cover-up. It’s amazing how quickly the narrative shifts once the media decides it’s safe to admit what many of us saw all along, that he was unfit for the job from the start.
What’s interesting is that this performative outrage has almost become a coping mechanism for them. It’s like they have to keep bashing Trump just to avoid facing their own complicity or the consequences of the leader they actually propped up. And ironically, the more they rant, the more they highlight exactly why Trump still resonates with millions, because at least he doesn't pretend to be something he’s not. Their hypocrisy is on full display, and honestly, that spectacle has become more telling than any policy debate.If I and all those mental health experts are wrong, prove it. If I am right, say you accept it.
"How well he is doing"? You mean driving the stock market way down, the beginning of major inflation, and the precursor to recession? Or how about his out-of-control, inhumane immigrant policies that send innocent people to foreign prisons? I don't count those as "really well"
That so-called "dementia addled idiot" produced one of the most productive four years on any modern president, especially one like Trump.
I would rather have a president who forgets things once in a while as opposed to one like Trump is observably dangerously mentally ill.Not according to those who observed it with open eyes.
Observed what? Observed Biden being more productive that any first-term president in modern history ending his term with what economists said was a strong economy?
Or observe Trump mumbling and confusing people and places and even countries? While delivering hundreds of thousands of needless Covid deaths in his first term or in the process of driving inflation up and America into a recession.I think the comment you responded to with this reply is proof...
There is no place to begin a discussion with someone who believes Biden's Administration was "one of the most productive four years of any modern president"...
A person who can state that is either working with a completely fabricated reality (lets call it the false reality that CNN and MSNBC propagates) or they are part of the Globalist/NWO/UN-WEF effort to remake America...
The championing of Nationhood above International/UN Agendas, American Citizenship over Open Border Society and unimpeded Migration, and putting American interests above those of all other nations especially when it comes to industry, development and investment... that is the jist of what MAGA stands for... there is something seriously off with any American that wants to fight against that.Thanks, Ken, that provides a nice segue to this summary of some analysis I got ChatGPT to do.
The question I asked is:
Let's take the example of two people reading the same thing "Most economists say the economy under Biden was strong". One person was a brainwashed MAGA-type and the other just a normal conservative. Lead me through the two different paths that information takes?
Keep in mind, there is a lot of science to support what is to follow:
STEP 1: Perception and Language Decoding (Same in Both)
Visual Input: Occipital lobe (Visual Cortex) decodes the letters into words.
Then the Visual Word Form Area identifies familiar written language.
Wernicke’s Area comprehends the sentence structure and meaning: “The economy” → subject; “under Biden” → time frame; “was strong” → judgment.
Result: Both people understand what the sentence literally says.
Step 2: Evaluating Truth vs. Belief
Now the brain must determine:
“Is this statement true?” or
“Should I accept this as valid?”
Here's where the detail—economic consensus—matters enormously.
Normal Conservative: Belief & Truth in Tension
Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) engages to evaluate: “Okay, I’ve heard inflation was high… but job growth was strong, GDP recovered, markets held up.”
“If most economists say it was strong, maybe I’ve over-weighted inflation in my thinking.”
The Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC) flags some 'cognitive dissonance', but it’s manageable.
He or she may consult memory: “Things did seem better than 2020... even if prices were up.”
Emotionally, there's mild friction, but critical thinking overrides identity triggers.
Conclusion: He or she may still dislike Biden, but capable of accepting the statement as mostly true. Might say: Yeah, the economy did okay—even if I don’t like how he got there.”
Brainwashed MAGA-Type: Truth Routed Through Loyalty
The emotional salience of "Biden" triggers amygdala activation: threat response.
The brain doesn't ask “Is this true?”—it asks: “Does this help or hurt the cause?”
Dissonance is severe: the statement contradicts core identity and narrative.
Prefrontal cortex is disengaged or overridden by confirmation bias circuitry:
Memory selects for inflation, gas prices, and anti-Biden memes.
Evidence from economists is dismissed as deep state, liberal academia, or mainstream media lies.
DMN (Default Mode Network) aligns “Biden success” with identity betrayal. “I know in my bones he destroyed the economy.”
Conclusion: The statement is not processed as a challenge to evaluate, but as a hostile claim to be rejected—regardless of consensus.
One of the most frustrating things about this condition is that the victim (and that is what they are) has no idea their brain has been physically altered by the coercive words of Trump and the right-wing media. Even though science can show, through things like fMRI and other techniques this is true, that this physical alteration of the neural network is real, they will ignore the evidence and persist that their worldview is correct.
Now, if somebody has an alternative, science-based, explanation for the drastically different reaction to the same set of words, I am all eyes.The thing is, I have FACTS on my side. What have you got?
Facts ...
25% Inflation
12 million more migrants
13 Trillion more debt and 8% mortgage interest
Yep ...you got all the facts on your side.The worst inflation was 9.1%. - Truth matters.
We need all the migrants we can get to keep the economy going.
No idea where you got $13 trillion, probably the same place you get 25%.
Here is the TRUTH you should have reported:
- Trump's first term: $7.8 trillion increase in national debt
- Biden's term: $7.4 trillion
- Projected Trump second term if his BBTB passes: $8.48 trillion!
That is how to present FACTS and the truth.
Since you appear to be upset with the 8% mortgage interest rate, which was the result of the FED lowering inflation, then it sounds like you would have been happy with higher or longer lasting pandemic-caused inflation.
Now, this is what you should have reported:
- GDP Growth: The U.S. economy expanded by 2.8% in 2024, following a 2.9% growth in 2023, defying your recession forecasts
- Cumulative Growth: Over Biden's presidency, real GDP increased by approximately 11%, with a notable 5.9% surge in 2021, marking the fastest annual growth since 1984.
- The economy added 16.6 million jobs during Biden's term, surpassing any previous four-year period.
- Unemployment Rate: Fell from 6.4% in January 2021 to 4.1% by September 2024, maintaining levels below 4% for the longest stretch since the 1950s.
- Wage Growth: Average hourly wages increased by 19% over the term, though slightly lagging behind cumulative inflation. (well you can't set records all the time, but in the last two years wage growth surpassed inflation)
- Household Net Worth: Total household net worth rose by 28%, driven by gains in stock markets and real estate values.
- Inflation Trends: After peaking at 9.1% in June 2022, inflation moderated to 2.9% by December 2024, approaching the Federal Reserve's target. (Shortly, those are going to be the good ol' days)
- Market Gains: The S&P 500 Index increased by 29% from December 2023 to November 2024, reflecting investor confidence and economic resilience. (Which Trump just blew all to hell)
- Infrastructure and Manufacturing: Legislation such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act spurred significant investments, leading to over $388 billion in projects and the creation of more than 135,000 jobs by late 2024. (Biden got this done where Trump FAILED.)
- Entrepreneurship: New business applications surged by 30% compared to pre-pandemic levels, with notable increases among women and minority entrepreneurs.
Your turn.My turn for what?
You didn't disprove anything... no links... no agreed to facts..
You can't prove anything.... you can type whatever you want regarding GDP or Inflation... its only your opinion and one you cannot prove.Oh, give me a break. Each one of those numbers are EASILY verifiable or in the public record and you know it. If you think they are wrong, prove it. And it was your turn to provide truth, not made up numbers.
To help you do your own work like I did, type this into ChatGPT and ask for sources. You will get what I just reported: "What were the signs the economy was strong at the end of Biden's term..They may not be wrong, but they certainly lie. Meaning they present a picture that is not true - that Biden was the hero of the economy.
GDP for instance; the tiny little fact that the country was virtually shut down when Biden took office might, just maybe, have a part in increasing it instead of anything Biden did. Just as Bidens millions upon millions of illegal aliens he brought in reduces that wondrous GDP per capita to something considerably less.
Odd how the whole story is never presented, isn't it? When it is a viewpoint instead of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" it works well, though.Do you have figures to back up what you claim or just groundless accusations?
Do you doubt that much of the country was shut down when Biden took office? Do you doubt that it was "turned back on" during Biden's tenure? Do you doubt that the change had an impact on GDP?
Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Desperately introducing irrelevant facts to denigrate Trump?Still no real data. you know, the kind you ask everybody else for?
No, the economy was NO LONGER virtually shut down as you claim.
Your attempt to mislead by 1) focusing on just one of the indicators of a good economy and 2) by misrepresenting that by using the wrong timeframe just isn't going to cut it.Do you believe that shutting down the country did not affect GDP? Do you believe that shutting down the country did not affect employment? Do you believe that increasing the population via illegal aliens does not change the GDP per capita? That's three indicators I most certainly did address (do you need a copy paste?).
I understand you do not wish to address such matters, that they do not promote what you are trying to say, and that they should therefore be ignored. I just disagree; I prefer the whole picture, including the reasons behind whatever it is that happened. I do not look for "proof" of what happened, I look for what happened, and that includes the reasons. You have a different attitude, requiring that Trump and everything he has done or said be set aside as nothing in any discussion.
We will thus never agree on much in the political field.Still no data. But, so what if I agree or not. That was 2020 and 2021. I am referring to 2023 and 2024. Shouldn't you be to?
Regarding 2020 and 2021, Trump shut down the economy, caused a recession (this how you would put it Biden had been president then), caused unemployment to go sky high, And left America unprepared to put shots in arms (let's not forget the hundreds of thousands of needless deaths he is responsible for).
It was left to Biden to conquer Covid, put the country back to work and children back in schools and build the economy back up. All but MAGA agree he did that.Yes. 2023 and even 2024 saw the ending of COVID and the huge increase in GDP as a result of that. But it doesn't fit into your desired scenario (Biden great, Trump awful) so ignore it.
Trump close SOME of the economy. Biden did the rest. And then Biden kept it closed beyond what was necessary. And then he paid people not to return to work!
Biden "conquer" COVID??? Don't be ridiculous. Trump made the vaccine. Trump made the ventilators. Trump took care of the logistics. Trump did all but keep people home and increase the giveaways to a point that inflation raised it's ugly head. And it's arms and it's body and it's feet. Biden produced the highest inflation we saw since the 70's, all while lying through his teeth about how high it was.
Likewise, Biden didn't "put the country back together" - eventually he allowed people to work and quit paying them to stay home - hunger did the rest.So you consider ~2.5% growth in GDP as being "HUGE"? or is that simply exaggeration so as to mislead?
What Trump DID was lie to the public about how COVID WAS NOT dangerous and would be gone shortly. What Trump DID regarding ventilators is to NOT SEND OUT 6,020 of the available ventilators that stockpiled PRIOR to Covid.
You still ignore the facts I give you that [b]it was TRUMP who passed out the majority of what you call "giveaways" to keep people alive. SO, don't blame Biden for inflation, BLAME TRUMP! (although he wasn't responsible either - what BOTH were responsible for is keeping people alive which appears to be the poorer choice in your worldview).
TRUTH AND FACTS MATTER.Yep. Trump gave away about a Trillion. Then Biden came in and gave away another Trillion. And another supposedly to fix infrastructure. And another huge sum so people could stay home instead of work.
But it's all Trump's fault.
TRUTH AND FACTS MATTERDid I say that it is all Trump's fault? Aren't you making that up?
You try very, very hard to give that impression, just as you try very very hard to make Biden almost solely responsible for any recovery (but not the negative aspects he produced). Something that I'm sure is intentional.
Attempting to convince a reader/listener/viewer that something is true when it is false, whether by body language, hints, innuendoes, tone of voice, choice of terminology or any other method makes it a lie. Not an error; a lie. It does not have to be outright words; it is the attempt that makes a lie, not just words.
There’s a segment of Democrats today who seem incapable of having a rational conversation. Instead of engaging in thoughtful debate, they default to name-calling, labeling millions of Americans as ignorant, hateful, or worse, simply because they supported a candidate they disagree with.
They twist every achievement under Trump, whether it was record-low minority unemployment before the pandemic, the historic Abraham Accords, energy independence, or his fast-track vaccine initiative, into something bad, as if basic reality no longer matters. Now, in his second term, Trump has done what many said was impossible: he’s brokered a new border security deal that has finally reduced illegal crossings, stood firm on restoring American manufacturing, slashed bureaucratic overreach, and helped get inflation under control while returning power back to the states. Yet these same critics will still scoff, not because the results aren't real, but because their mindset no longer seems capable of separating good from bad, only red from blue.By brokered a border security deal do you mean the illegal actions he has taken? Ignoring our immigration laws? Other than that, he hasn't done a thing on immigration
Restoring manufacturing? Of what?
Inflation under control? It hasn't changed from months ago... Not in any meaningful manner.
Bureaucratic overreach? It seems that his administration gets slapped on the hands for that by the courts almost every day. And I don't think this country has ever seen a more politicized Department of Justice than under Bondi LOLI did not observe President Trump knowingly breaking any laws. While his initial use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants was deemed inappropriate, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, ruling that individuals targeted under the act must be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal in federal court before deportation can proceed.
Following the Court’s decision, the administration adjusted its procedures to comply with those legal requirements, ensuring due process protections are upheld.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has now allowed the administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 350,000 Venezuelans, paving the way for their potential removal. This reflects a continued effort to enforce immigration law within the framework approved by the judiciary. In short, while there were early missteps, the Trump administration corrected course and has operated within the bounds set by the Court.
I’ve already listed the many investments along with their amounts, so I won’t repeat the long list. I don’t agree with your views on the DOJ. From what I’ve seen, I actually appreciate the new DOJ’s approach, it’s about holding lawbreakers accountable and sending a clear message, regardless of who they are.
You said Instead of engaging in thoughtful debate, they default to name-calling, labeling millions of Americans as ignorant, hateful, or worse, simply because they supported a candidate they disagree with." - I totally disagree with that assessment.
First, as you should easily tell, my research is thorough and comprehensive. I don't do any so-called "name calling". Instead, I ascribe a commonly accepted label to the characteristics exhibited by this cohort of people.
The fact that you cannot accept is that people, large groups of people can be brainwashed - the science is clear about that - doesn't make it any less true.
In order to defend ourselves against a madman like Trump, it is necessary to understand what motivates his followers and counter it. To understand how they can face a truth head-on and then deny it is true. So long as they remain in a cult, they are a danger to themselves, to others, and to our democracy.
As you can see, it has nothing at all to do with "a candidate they support". It has everything to do with their lack of critical thinking ability when it comes to anything about that candidate.
When have we EVER twisted his record-low minority unemployment, that is a fact and we recognize it.
When have EVER dissed the Abraham Accords?? If you remember, I have given Trump (or rather Kushner) credit for doing something pretty damn good.
I and others have also frequently applauded Trump for signing the Operation Warp Speed initiative (but not for setting a program to get a massive amount of shots in arms - Biden did that).
Energy independence - while "technically" gained net energy independence in 2019, it was President Obama that did the heavy lifting during his term which your side simply ignores (which in my opinion is how a cult would respond). So, if you don't give Obama credit, nobody should give Trump credit.
Border security - Trump "brokered" no such deals; he Bullied his way to the little he did get, destroying friendly relations with our two closest neighbors. What Canada and Mexico did was mostly set in motion during Biden's term. What was new was Mexico putting 10,000 national guard on the border and Canada appointing a fentanyl czar - that is it.
Trump's actual success in reducing the border crossing is because of his extra-legal executive orders. For example, his EO to suspend asylum applications is probably unconstitutional and is working its way through the courts.
Standing firm on restoring manufacturing - That is basically BS. He LOST manufacturing jobs during is first term (at least that is the way a couple of commenters here would phrase it). Me, I would put it this way:
Obama 1: Gain 610,000 manufacturing jobs.
Obama 2: Gain 400,000 jobs
Trump, pre-pandemic: Gain 414,000 jobs
Trump, post-pandemic: Loss 592,000 jobs
Biden: Gain 775,000 jobs
As to Trump 2.0, the betting is right now, American manufacturing will lose a lot of jobs due to the tariffs and other reasons. For example, Goldman Sacs is estimating a loss of 500,000 jobs.
Slashed bureaucratic overreach: REALLY? Tell Mattel, or Amazon, or Walmart, or Bruce Springsteen that, lol.
Getting Inflation Under Control??? Again Really? You mean the inflation that Biden already got under control? He is going to, hell, he already is, making inflation go up.
I chose "What were the signs the economy was ruined by Biden's term"
It got me a plethora of fact filled data like this:
"Inflation: Inflation has been far worse during the Biden administration, up 20.1% over the first 45 months of Biden’s term compared to 7.1% during Trump’s first 45 months"You must have used Grok. When I tried your question, I got basic right-wing talking points, but nothing even close you what you said you got.
Then I put what you claim you got as an answer and asked if ChatGPT would have given you answer you quoted without contextual caveats. It said NO, it would not have.
Therefore, I can only conclude you left out all the caveats in order mislead me. Wilderness would be upset with you for leaving out so much information.
This is what ChatGPT probably said:
First, its denial: ... and the answer is no, ChatGPT should not have presented that inflation comparison without caveats, especially in response to a question like “What were the signs the economy was ruined by Biden’s term?”
Then it followed with:
The 20.1% vs. 7.1% Comparison Is Contextually True, But Easily Misleading Without Explanation:
If someone asked me [ChatGPT] that question, I’d likely respond this way:
"Inflation rose about 20.1% during the first 45 months of Biden's presidency, compared to 7.1% during the same span under Trump — a much larger increase.
However, this spike was driven in large part by pandemic aftershocks, global supply disruptions, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — factors largely beyond the control of any single president.
The Federal Reserve also controls interest rates, which were historically low early in Biden’s term. By late 2023, inflation had dropped below 3%, suggesting effective containment."
That response:
1. Acknowledges the numbers
2. Explains why they occurred
3. Avoids attributing inflation solely to Biden’s policies
Now, doesn't that kind of presentation make more sense and is believable?You are awesome... I'm glad to see you are getting along so well with ChatGPT... you two are like bosom buddies.
---- "The 20.1% vs. 7.1% Comparison Is Contextually True, But Easily Misleading Without Explanation:
If someone asked me [ChatGPT] that question, I’d likely respond this way:
"Inflation rose about 20.1% during the first 45 months of Biden's presidency, compared to 7.1% during the same span under Trump — a much larger increase. ----
ChatGPT is helping in your replies immensely.Yes it is. Happily it helps improve my poor attempts to get the point across and get to the TRUTH.
A fun article for you:
Chatbots’ inaccurate, misleading responses about US elections threaten to keep voters from polls
https://apnews.com/article/ai-chatbots- … 5220fc4c69
This one is more flavorful:
Fervor Over a Liberal-Leaning Chatbot: How We Should Approach Political Bias in ChatGPT
https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/202 … n-chatgpt/
A telling example is when an X user (formerly Twitter) asked ChatGPT to “write a poem about the positive attributes of Donald Trump,” and did so similarly with a prompt to “write a poem about the positive attributes of Joe Biden.” ChatGPT declined to create a poem for Trump in the first instance, citing an intention to “remain neutral and avoid taking political sides,” yet it did not hesitate to craft a poem for Biden, singing his praises as a “leader with a heart so true … with empathy and kindness in view.”Here is what Brookings ACTUALLY said:
Brookings and others found that:
Yes, ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 can show alignment with liberal values in U.S. contexts. We are up to ChatGPT-4o. However, the model is not ideologically fixed — it responds differently based on phrasing, framing, and prompt structure. Therefore, it is possible to elicit conservative, libertarian, or centrist outputs with neutral or adjusted prompts. Brookings and other researchers emphasized the need for transparency, user control, and diversity of perspectives — not that ChatGPT is "politically corrupted."
Now, when I use ChatGPT I am aware that it can make mistakes (in fact, it says so in a little box), consequently, I always analyze its response to make sure it makes sense. This the same thing I do when ANY politician says something as well - unlike MAGA."I always analyze it's response to make sure it makes sense "
...to you.
...based on your beliefs.
...your perceptions, your biases.
In many ways then ChatGPT is merely providing you a mirror. One that you check to make sure provides you the answer acceptable to you.Actually, if you use ChatGPT properly, and I do, it does not act like a mirror at all.
And isn't ALL analysis based on beliefs, perceptions, and biases? The trick is, and I was well respected by my peers in this, is you set those aside or be willing to change based on the evidence that develops.
Have I changed my mind and preconceived notions when presented irrefutable facts and logic? Of course, and I have reported it in these forums several times as well as in my articles.
Can you say the same? For example, have you finally dropped that inflation was 25% nonsense? At worst, it was 20% (which ONLY makes sense if you had explained that was a cumulative number). But it is really meaningless unless you put it into context such as this;
Cumulative Inflation by President:
Richard Nixon - 33% or 6.6% per year (R) *- 9th
Gerald Ford - 25% or 8.3% per year (R) * - 8th
Nixon-Ford - 58% or 7.5% per year *
Carter - 48% or 12% per year (D) * - 10th
Reagan - 33% or 4.125% per year (R) - 5th
Bush I - 17% or 4.25% per year (R) - 6th
Clinton - 23% or 2.875% per year (D) - 3rd
Bush II - 24% or 3% per year (R) - 4th
Obama - 14% or 1.75% per year (D) - 1st
Trump 1 - 8% or 2% per year (R) - 2nd
Biden - 21% or 5.25% per year (D) * - 7th
Rs - 140% or 5% per year
Ds - 106% or 4.4% per year
* Influenced by external events.
So, the context is that Biden is near the middle of the pack and the 4 worst results were due to events mostly out of control of the presidents.
For good measure, I through in which presidents had a recession start in their term - those are bolded. Note, Nixon had two! Of the 6 recessions, 5 were Republican.
Maybe now you can understand why no economists believe Republicans do a better job at running an economy.A fair evaluation...
One worthy of a considered response.
First thing that comes to mind is how since 1976 (Nixon which is where your comparisons begin) the government has changed calculating inflation making several changes to the methodology used to calculate the Consumer Price Index (CPI)... these changes include excluding house prices from the inflation rate and adopting new methods for calculating food and energy costs (or excluding them).
So... while it looks like you are comparing apples to apples... those numbers really do not.
Historical Changes to the CPI
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-reso … hanges.htm
Is Inflation 5% or 14%? It Depends on How It’s Measured
https://www.fedsmith.com/2023/04/19/inf … e_vignette
Inflation was raging in 1980 and again in 2022. How the government measures inflation has changed, and you will be amazed at the difference.
According to Shadow Government Statistics, instead of a 5% inflation rate as of March 2023, the inflation rate would have been closer to 14.1% using the old methodology (1980-based). This chart displays the difference between the old and new calculation methods.
https://www.shadowstats.com/
So... once again... I say what is absolutely and provably true...
...based on your beliefs.
...your perceptions, your biases.
You will find the answers you are willing to accept... you will calculate the numbers in ways that best suit your argument.
Whether you realize it or not, your preconceived notions dominate the way you problem solve and analyze... you can't escape it...
That you believe that you can/do... is obviously false, very much so, to any impartial reader of what you type.
OK, here is the answer - with rebuttal - to your question "What were the signs the economy was ruined by Biden's term" - (I didn't miss the fact you were unable to ask the question I asked and we both know why.)
I'll put one per reply. First, Inflation:
1. Inflation Was High — But Global and Already Building
Criticism: Biden’s American Rescue Plan overheated the economy, causing inflation.
Rebuttal:
Global problem: Inflation surged worldwide, not just in the U.S. (Eurozone: 10.6%, UK: 11.1% in 2022).
Contributors: Supply chain shocks, pent-up demand, energy price spikes from the war in Ukraine.
The American Rescue Plan reduced unemployment faster than expected and prevented a prolonged recession.
By late 2024, inflation was below 3% — back near the Fed’s target — without a recession.
Summary: Biden arguably traded short-term inflation for faster recovery and long-term economic stability — and won that trade.
ALSO - I note your 25% was not supported by your answer and using "cumulative" inflation just to make a bigger number without explanation and context is simply disingenuous.2. Real Wages Lagged at First, But Recovered
Criticism: Wages didn’t keep up with inflation; real incomes fell.
Rebuttal:
True in 2021–2022, but real wage growth turned positive by mid-2023 and stayed that way through 2024
Low-wage workers saw the biggest gains, especially in hospitality, retail, and healthcare.
Wage growth outpaced inflation in the last 6 quarters of Biden’s term (as of Jan 2025).
Summary: Short-term pain, but long-term gain — especially for lower-income workers.3. Housing Affordability Crisis Isn’t Biden-Specific
Criticism: High mortgage rates and prices made housing unaffordable.
Rebuttal:
Mortgage rates are set by the Fed, not the president. The Fed raised rates to fight inflation — a necessary move.
Biden pushed for housing construction, with starts and permits reaching 15-year highs in 2023–2024.
The Inflation Reduction Act provided funding for affordable housing, energy-efficient retrofits, and rental assistance.
Summary: Biden didn’t cause high rates — the Fed did. Meanwhile, he backed long-term supply-side solutions.4. Debt Grew — But Less Than Trump’s by Policy
Criticism: Biden ballooned the national debt.
Rebuttal:
Biden approved ~$4.3 trillion in new 10-year debt. Trump approved $8.4 trillion.
Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act included deficit-reducing provisions like:
A 15% corporate minimum tax
Negotiated drug prices through Medicare
CBO projected deficits would have been worse without these provisions.
Summary: Biden’s net fiscal footprint was smaller than Trump’s, with more revenue offsets.5. Energy Prices Normalized; Production Hit Records
Criticism: Biden’s green agenda drove up energy prices and hurt independence.
Rebuttal:
U.S. oil and gas production hit all-time highs in 2023 and 2024 under Biden.
Gas prices peaked with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not Biden’s policies.
Biden released oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to bring prices down — successfully.
The clean energy transition attracted hundreds of billions in private investment and created thousands of jobs in solar, wind, EVs, and battery manufacturing.
Summary: Biden expanded energy production and accelerated the clean energy transition.6. Immigration Surged — But So Did Labor Force and Growth
Criticism: Biden’s border policies triggered chaos and overwhelmed services.
Rebuttal:
True: Border encounters hit records. But immigration also offset labor shortages and:
1 Helped sustain GDP growth
2. Boosted Social Security solvency
3. Expanded the tax base
The Biden administration deported more people in FY2024 than any year since 2010 and reformed asylum and parole pathways.
Cities faced challenges, but many also benefited from immigrant entrepreneurship and labor.
Summary: Immigration helped fuel growth — the challenge was coordination, not policy intent.FINALLY - 7. Industrial Policy Stimulated Long-Term Resilience
Criticism: Subsidies distorted markets and picked winners.
Rebuttal:
The CHIPS Act and Inflation Reduction Act were responses to:
China’s dominance in semiconductors
Climate imperatives
Pandemic-exposed supply chain fragility
They attracted over $600 billion in private investment and reshored jobs.
Polls showed broad public support, especially in swing-state manufacturing regions.
Summary: These were strategic national investments — not just spending sprees.
It gives them some comfort to continue to believe fabricated reality, só at least it keeps them off the streets!
Thank you. There are Democratic shills FAR WORSE than MAGA followers.
How do you say "MAGA is a Cult" and not be accusatory?
Do you have any links that show that MAGA does not fit the definition of a Cult?The Democrats are more cultish than MAGA has ever been.
He baits, never fostering actual serious debate, instead of just flinging labels. Saying “MAGA is a cult” is inherently accusatory because it assigns a highly negative psychological and social judgment to a political movement. A movement that includes tens of millions of Americans. People who support this president for a wide variety of reasons, which are rooted in legitimate political grievances, policy preferences, or distrust of the political establishment.
It’s become clear that many of us are fed up with the status quo. And frankly, it has to be hard for some Democrats to admit they’re party is done, left looking inept, defeated, and yes, even a little silly. They have nothing to share but obnoxious bait. This must be rather mind-blowing. Their party has no relevance at all.
Fox News Viewership Debunked.
Mathematically it works like this. Let A, B, and C equal the viewership of Fox, Newsmax, and OAN. Let D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K equal the viewership of CNN, PBS, BBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC.
What you rightly claim is that A > D and A > E and A > F and A > ... K. But that is not the point and is misleading.
The correct formulation is A + B + C is much less than D + E + F + G + H + I + K.
Here are some sources you can use to research this:
These are by forensic psychologist Dr. Bandy Lee along with over 40 other mental health professionals.
https://www.amazon.com/Profile-Nation-T … 1735553743
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=trump+contag … ltr-ranker
https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-D … amp;sr=8-2
https://www.amazon.com/More-Dangerous-C … amp;sr=8-1
Based on the above, I wrote several articles to summaries them:
A series that begins What Makes MAGA and CULTS Tik ...
http://hub.me/aqzJ1
http://hub.me/aqBtN
http://hub.me/aq9vu
http://hub.me/aqBu0
http://hub.me/am1ai
http://hub.me/akAnDWhile I will not join you in partaking of the Kool-Aid, I can join you in the tooting of my own horn! I, too, have several articles, including a series on HubPages, as well. I call it the "I Say, I Say Series". In these, I cover the lies, the deception, the hate and the cruelty... all unjustly directed at one man, to the point where two attempts have been made, to take this man's life!!! It all started the first time we heard that he, Donald J. Trump, would be running for President of the United States, and it has never subsided....
That's the real sickness; that's the cold, hard, truth!
Godspeed President Donald J. Trump.100%
Hi Angie, Unfortunately, it's become increasingly difficult to participate here. The rhetoric has gone completely over the top, bizarre, even. It's clear that engaging with much of what's being posted is a waste of time and energy. And I recognize that I've contributed to the problem by giving oxygen to the rhetoric. I've made myself a promise, I'm done participating or wasting any more time on these kinds of comments. The level of discourse has become unhinged. At this point, the forum feels like little more than a diversion for those fixated on hating Trump.Trump derangement syndrome yet continues ad infinitum.
I looked and couldn't find the series you mention. Do you have a link?
News of the Day: Trump's BBBP and Tariffs are making investors Sell America again.
If we change "* Unquestioning devotion to a central figure" to " Unquestioning devotion to a small group of people" you have a great fit for the Democrat party as a whole. Far better than for MAGA, for many of those points are a real stretch (such as isolation from other viewpoints).
Here is why I make the general claim that MAGA, by and large, are part of a cult.
There are two polls that estimate that 71% and 53% of Republican voters identify as MAGA. CBS News estimates that 15% of voters identify as "True Believers", i,e, cult members. Using 30% as the commonly accepted number of voters being Republican and doing the math you wind up with between 75% and 91% of MAGA being "true believers" or cult members.
That is why is is fair to characterized MAGA as a cult.Eso, I am not fond of MAGA. I am also not fond of Democratic shills who are like MAGA. Both are extreme fanatics. I believe in being truthful regarding the situation at hand.
Counterrevolutionaries - a person who advocates or engages in a revolution that opposes a previous one or reverses its results.
I would call the Progressives a Cult... the cabal in control of DC... the criminally corrupt in Congress (those who like the Clintons and Bidens have spent their entire lives gaming the political process) and in Federal Politics at large... are what MAGA stand against.
It is in fact very hard to label the collection that makes up what has been in Control of our government (foreign and domestic) for so long... but one should recognize them as very Powerful and Ideologically driven.
MAGA... Trump Supporters... are made up of many former Democrats (Tulsi Gabbard, RFK, Elon Musk) liberals and conservatives all of whom believe in trying to keep the American Dream alive
They are not a Cult... if anything they are Counter Revolutionaries...
They are the ones that have stood up and said enough insanity...
Enough with pretending little 5'2 Suzie can make a good Army Ranger....
Enough with pretending 6'4 Sam is a woman and it is OK for him to compete with women in sports...
Enough with pretending we can keep spending trillions of dollars more every year than we take in and not collapse our economy...
Enough with pretending Open Borders allowing in millions of non-Americans a year to access our social services and benefits is a OK...
MAGA is a rejection of all things the Biden Administration/Progressives decided to plant their flag on the hill for during the Biden Administration... from war with Russia to letting the Cartels run free throughout the country...Who is the Progressive's leader who they blindly follow? Answer that, then we will move on to the next cult identifier.
Trump was once a progressive Democrat - what is your point?
There is so much wrong with the rest of your comment, it is pointless to comment.Eso, Ken's comments are exactly right. The one about the rangers, the one about Sam in women's sports. The one about pretending debt will not collapse our economy, the one about open borders: these ARE the far left objectives and attitudes that are being blindly followed bye the left. They are not wrong - they are right, and they are exactly what you said does not exist (lefties equivalent to MAGA).
The you may think these things are alright, are good for the country, does not make them so. It just shows that you, too, are blindly following those lefties with power.And you thinking they are not right doesn't make them so either. I come down on the side of personal liberty like other "leftists" do and not right-wing Christian dogma.
Personal liberty?!?! You mean like forcing women to share locker rooms with men and compete against men? That kind of "personal liberty"?
Or do you mean the "liberty" of being forced to give up massive chunks of our earnings and what we own in order to give it away to someone else?
The "liberty" of stealing from our children to buy what we want but do not want to pay for? Is that "personal liberty"?
Those things I listed are not about "liberty", personal or not; they are about control and power. Control and power primarily by the far left.
(But I will agree that the control and power of the far right Christians is just as obnoxious, just as "wrong" as the idiocies of the far left.)Regarding #2, that is the reason why the BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL was instituted-to cut the waste of governmental programs. It was the Democrats who flooded America with inane social programs such as welfare to glut the middle class into paying exorbitant taxes & made the poor lazy & entitled, wanting to live off others, & refusing to better themselves.
I thought it was to stop taxes on the rich from going up and paying for it by kicking people of Medicaid and SNAP.
No it's not. You are wrong yet again. Trump wrote the bill in order to reduce government waste. There are able-bodied people who live off others' dime. It is time that this abuse is stopped. People are poor in America, for the most part, is because of UNINTELLIGENT choices, IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION, & because THEY WANT TO BE. Facts are facts.
But no one on the right has discussed the impact of kicking millions off of their Medicaid and ACA coverage... Is it smart, wise to increase the number of uninsured? Does it mean that they will just suffer in silence? Or will they then show up at emergency rooms to be treated at exorbitant costs for simple ailments that could have been addressed in a primary Care physician's office for under $100?
Does that really make sense?Just my view, as a supporter of the bill.
It's a fair concern to question the wisdom of policies that could lead to millions losing Medicaid or ACA coverage. However, there’s another view worth considering. Critics on the right often argue that the current system is unsustainable, both financially and structurally. They believe that expanding government-subsidized healthcare contributes to runaway spending, fosters dependency, and reduces incentives for individuals to seek employment or private coverage. From this view, scaling back programs like Medicaid isn't about denying care; it’s about restructuring the system to prioritize efficiency, personal responsibility, and market-driven solutions.
Proponents would argue that fostering competition among insurers and providers, coupled with price transparency and innovation in care delivery (like telehealth), could lower costs and improve access without needing a vast government safety net. Additionally, the new rules promote self-reliance by encouraging able-bodied individuals to return to the workforce or find alternative coverage options. Supporters see this shift as a step toward restoring a balance between temporary assistance and long-term independence, helping people not just survive within the system, but eventually thrive outside of it.No one is addressing the impacts though? What is the impact of millions losing their health coverage? The impact on hospitals? Especially rural hospitals. Many will be forced to close.
Able-bodied people not working? Yes, just like I had mentioned.. my neighbor, a voracious Trump supporter. Completely able-bodied but barely works because he cannot leave his adult child home alone for more than a few hours... She is a non-functioning individual who caused a small fire at one point in their home. I suppose he could lock her in a room. Maybe find a babysitter?
People will be forced to find "alternative coverage?" That doesn't exist though? The ACA WAS that alternative coverage but if the premium tax credits are removed then it also becomes completely unaffordable. Have you priced a healthcare plan?
On average, a single individual plan costs around $9,951 per year, and a family plan costs about $25,572 per year.... And those plans are high deductible/high out of pocket..
Also, you do realize that many jobs do not provide any form of healthcare? I think the term the "working poor" came about for a reason...re: your neighbor. My son works from home. My grandson works from home, where he cares for his 3 year old. My brother works from home. Tens of thousands of Americans now work from home.
For a year or two I was on ACA. The government paid most of the premiums for a bronze plan - a plan with a $5,000 deductible per person.
At the time it was unusable as I did not have the cash to pay that $5,000 before the insurance kicked in. A boon to the insurance company, a total loss to both the government and I.
Wonderful plan, the ACA...if you are an insurance company. We NEED such a plan - it is a great way to spend our children's future as we steal from them to give it to the insurance company.What is the alternative though? If the current budget plan goes through, millions will have no insurance at all and just show up in emergency rooms to be treated... At a very high cost to the government.
Responsibility. It's called Responsibility for one's self. The vast majority of Americans can earn enough to provide for their needs (children and very elderly excepted) - that over half of our people are deemed disabled either physically or mentally to the point they cannot provide for themselves is a perversion of the truth that so many have swallowed whole...perhaps because it means they can get "free" money that someone else has worked for and earned.
There are options. Provide an urgent care clinic as part of the E-room and you can send 90% of the people there. If not admitted to the hospital, charge the patient for the e-room visit. Charge the patient the same as insurance pays. Refuse to treat the indigent. There are ALWAYS options - the trick is to choose one you like AND can pay for. And if you cannot do that, lower your demands.
And always, always promote the quaint idea of responsibility, working and education. Instill that old idea of "family", with two parents, back into society. Put the shame back into begging from others for what we want. We've tried simply throwing money at poverty and found it produces more poverty than there was before - let's do something else! What do they say about repeating an action and hoping for a different result?What do you do when you are unable to work full time? Due to other responsibilities? What do you do when you do work full time but are not provided any type of health Care benefits?
I've been, what you call "responsible", my entire life. With the degree and always with a full-time job. But you know what? Not once did any of the full-time jobs ever come with health insurance....Oh my God, you as an adult are supposed to take care of yourself. Where is the accountability? Adults, or rather mature adults, take full responsibility for their lives. An able-bodied adult is able to work full-time-no excuses. Provisions can be made. I refuse to understand how adults can succumb to victimology. You make the choice & you MUST LIVE W/THE CONSEQUENCE of your choice. In other words, there is HEAVEN, PURGATORY, & HELL( I meant that figuratively). Whatever choices you make lead to either result-it is YOUR choice.
I don't think people should be made to suffer without health Care in order to provide a larger benefit to the wealthiest people of this country.
Let's say you, a mature adult, are in a foot race with a man. Other men hold you down and put a ball and chain on your leg and say - "now race".
It sounds like your position is that you are the one at fault for having that ball and chain on your leg and that you should not use that as an excuse for losing the race. Do I understand you correctly?Oh dear God man. VIctimology is your mantra. People treat others how others let people treat them. If one wants to succeed, one must fight. People respect strength & despise weakness. If you want to be weak, go head & be eaten. It is no one's fault but yours. I was taught not to be a victim early in life by my parents. They told that I was responsible & not let others take advantage of me. Didn't your parents teach you that? I am a Black woman.
You didn't answer my question. I'll repeat it:
It sounds like your position is that you are the one at fault for having that ball and chain on your leg and that you should not use that as an excuse for losing the race. Do I understand you correctly?
That it is not the fault of the men who put the ball and chain on your leg, but it is YOUR fault for letting them.
Young Americans are brought up thinking everything is a right... should be provided... work not required...
Food... Housing... Medical Coverage... water... electricity... internet...
I think you would be surprised at how many Americans feel all that and more is a Right... that they are owed it...
In fact, they have gone beyond that... haven't they?
They have put in place Victimology Rules in our society... DEI rules in government and throughout the workforce... they have adjusted plenty from grants to regulations, to ensure those of proper minority status can step up and get all the benefits... while denying those that do not fit the selection process as based on DEI and victimology guidelines.
What do WE do when one could work and doesn't? Pay them not to work, that's what we do. And then we do it again and again and again. Do you think it's time to stop doing that, or shall we just pay forever to those that don't want to work?
If you work full time and your pay does not include insurance, find another job. This is a really simple concept.
If you worked without insurance, I would ask why? The compensation was not adequate to support yourself; why were you working there for a lifetime? Did you have no skills? Did you refuse to GET skills? Why did you keep working for someone that did not provide what you needed?
Am I irresponsible if I work 40 plus hours per week and a job that does not provide healthcare?
But again, with this bill... Why is the idea that I should be comfortable with the idea of austerity as long as the wealthiest in this country receive the largest tax benefit?Did you equip yourself and find a job that provides your needs? No? Then you are not responsible for supplying your own needs. That is self evident and by definition.
They pay the most taxes, they get the biggest cut. You want a 50% cut while the get a 5%? Does that sound "fair" or just another method of taking their wealth from them?
Just like the ten other times you made the same argument, the facts simply don't support your pre-conceived notions.
1. The Majority of Low-Income Americans Do Work
It is a FACT that most working-age adults receiving public assistance are employed—often full time. According to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Over 60% of Medicaid recipients are in working families.
A large share of SNAP (food stamp) recipients have jobs, but earn too little to meet basic needs.
The problem isn’t unwillingness to work, as you maintain — it’s that many jobs don’t pay a living wage, and benefits help fill the gap.
2. Disability Benefits Are Not Easy to Get!
Far from “over half” of Americans being on disability, the actual number is about 8 million people receiving Social Security Disability Insurance and 4 million on Supplemental Security Income.
That’s around 3.5% of the U.S. population, not the 50% you claim without evidence.
The application process is strict: over 60% of SSDI claims are denied, and approval often takes months or years.
Again, the claim that "half the population is gaming the system" is factually false and feeds into a harmful stereotype.
3. Assistance Is Rarely 'Free'
Programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and housing assistance come with eligibility checks, income caps, asset limits, and work requirements. Most recipients of these programs still pay taxes, including sales, payroll, and property taxes (directly or indirectly through rent).
4. 'Personal Responsibility' Is Not the Whole Story
Structural barriers like: Geographic inequality (e.g., rural hospital closures, food deserts), Racial and gender wage gaps, Lack of affordable childcare and transportation, and health crises and economic shocks
— all contribute to poverty in ways beyond individual control.
While responsibility is important, but so is acknowledging that the playing field isn’t level.
5. The Safety Net Helps Everyone—Even the 'Responsible'
Most Americans, probably even you, will use at least one safety net program at some point in their lives — due to job loss, illness, disability, or aging.
Helping people through hardship prevents deeper poverty, reduces long-term public costs, and builds a healthier, more stable societyI am sorry to say this helping people through hardship ENABLES them to be dependent & entitled. The government isn't here to take care of people. People ought to have the wherewithal to take care of themselves.
Then what is government for in the modern age?
As to your claim, the TRUTH is that -
The idea that helping people through hardship “enables dependency and entitlement” misrepresents both the purpose and the real-world outcomes of support systems.
In truth, temporary assistance often empowers people to regain stability and reenter the workforce, especially when facing setbacks beyond their control—like job loss, illness, or economic downturns. Safety nets like unemployment benefits, food assistance, or child care subsidies are not designed to be permanent; they are tools that help people bridge short-term gaps and avoid long-term ruin.
Numerous studies show that most people who receive public aid use it temporarily and move off assistance when circumstances improve. For example, data from the Census Bureau and the Urban Institute show that the vast majority of SNAP (food stamp) recipients stop using the program within 1–2 years, and many are working while receiving it.
"The problem isn’t unwillingness to work, as you maintain — it’s that many jobs don’t pay a living wage, and benefits help fill the gap."
Well done. Once more you claim I said something that I did not. Here: let me quote myself for you. "The vast majority of Americans can earn enough to provide for their needs". See that bolded work? Non-workers do not earn anything.
If people are not disabled to the point they cannot support themselves, why in the world are we giving them money that someone else worked for and earned? Besides; you are again claiming I said something I did not. YOU said they are getting disability payments, not I. I said they were getting charity, which ranges from section 8 housing to food stamps to earned income credit. It covers "free" school lunches (paid for by others), "free" bus passes and medicaid. It even covers those disability payments (If you have not purchased insurance to do so).
If "geographical inequality" (love that we now have another made up term we can use to give money away with) is a problem, move. Don't sit on your haunches and cry about it; do something about it. And stop whining about gender wage gaps; that dog won't bark anymore. While we saw it years ago, it has died out to the point that the actual wage gap is less than 1% today.""The vast majority of Americans can earn enough to provide for their needs"." - And the vast majority of Americans don't need assistance either. You want to deny assistance to those who can work but don't earn enough to live on - which is what the vast majority of those receiving assistance do.
"And the vast majority of Americans don't need assistance either."
Than why do over half of Americans take charity from the government? Are they thieves or just greedy?I think that folks aren't accepting the fact that even if we throw people off of Medicaid and make the ACA even more unaffordable that these people aren't going to just disappear. We all end up paying the cost, a much higher cost, for the uninsured. These are the consequences that no one wants to talk about.
Not sure (even a little bit) what that has to do with what I said. Can you elucidate and explain how it concerns the percentage of Americans on the dole?
Whether 20% of Americans receive some sort of government assistance or 30%, it's irrelevant. In terms of these people's needs, they won't cease to exist just because they're thrown off of Medicaid. I notice that none of the Maga supporters here will touch the financial consequences of increasing the number of uninsured in this country.
Oh, it's relevant all right, for it's over 50%, not the 20 or 30 you propose.
That means that every other person you see walking down the street is unable to support themselves. It's hard to think of a more degrading circumstance...if it were true. It's not. Problem is, they are getting govt. charity, but not for being unable to support themselves - they are given charity because it ties them to government largesse and buys votes.Do you have some kind of credible source for the claim that over 50% of Americans receive some sort of government assistance?
Again, you do realize that we all pay for the uninsured whether it be in a more economical manner through Medicaid or through exorbitant costs when the uninsured show up to be treated in emergency rooms.. these people and their medical needs aren't going away. There are consequences to slashing medicaid. Real consequences that folks here don't want to face.Medicaid is not being slashed. What’s happening is that able-bodied adults may be required to work 80 hours a month or participate in community service to maintain the privilege of receiving Medicaid benefits. No one who truly needs Medicaid will be dropped; there are numerous exemptions in place. I’ve shared those exemptions before, and they fully protect individuals who genuinely rely on the program. Why do you feel asking some able-bodied people to work should be a problem?
Look it up yourself - you might believe it then. Be sure to include those getting EIC, school lunch subsidies, and free bus passes as well as section 8 housing, WIC, Food stamps and medicaid. Count those getting TANF, GA and CHIP, plus LIHEAP, WSP and phone subsidies. Don't forget the home repair assistance programs or weatherization/energy efficiency help. Remember to include emergency rent assistance as well as all those grants and loans for everything from starting your business to going to school. For goodness sake don't forget the people getting FEMA help (sometimes for years and years, while they complain it isn't enough).
When you have counted all those, move on to the rest of them; you aren't half done yet.
I gave you some options for those who might lose their medicaid; which did you choose (not counting simply paying for it all through the tax base)? If you didn't like any of them, what do you propose (outside of simply paying for it all from the tax base)?Didn't think you could. You made the claim, prove it or admit it is wrong.
Although you have said it many times and have been asked for proof, you refuse to back up your 50% number. Why is that? Because you know it is wrong but it sounds good anyway?
That would be terrible IF IT WERE TRUE. But it is not.
Oh it is true enough, you just don't want to hear it. When YOU count who is getting what you leave out many (most?) of the charity programs - while the conclusions then support your statement they are false to fact and truly only produce another lie.
"No one is addressing the impacts though? What is the impact of millions losing their health coverage? " willow
Why do you feel millions will lose Medicare?
First, let's keep in mind that these Medicaid changes must make it through the Senate. And then even if these changes are made, only those who do not follow the new requirements would lose their Medicare. And there are exemptions to the requirements. The new requirements are not unfair or out of the norm that could be expected. Medicare is a privilege.
New Medicaid Requirements (Ages 19–64)in the bill
1. Work Requirement
To stay eligible for Medicaid, NON-EXEMPT adults must: See the exemptions below.
Work at least 80 hours per month, or
Participate in approved activities like:
Job training programs
Education or vocational school
Volunteering (in some states)
Substance abuse treatment (if needed)
If they don’t meet this requirement, they could lose Medicaid coverage.
Exempt from Medicaid Work Requirements:
Children under 19
Adults 65 and older
Pregnant women
People with disabilities
This includes those who qualify based on disability or are receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Full-time students
Depending on the final rule, this often includes college students or those in vocational training.
Primary caregivers
NOTE --- People caring for a child, elderly family member, or disabled household member.
Medically frail individuals
People with serious health conditions, even if not officially “disabled.”
Those in substance abuse treatment programs
People experiencing homelessness
In many versions of these rules, states make exceptions for homeless individuals.
Native Americans in some cases
Tribes may be exempt or treated differently depending on state agreements.
I can comment on your neighbor’s unfortunate situation. It’s likely that his daughter is on Medicare and possibly receiving state assistance as well.
Some states offer programs that pay family members to care for a loved one at home, and pay them. If your neighbor is her caregiver, as it sounds as if he is -- he would qualify for an exemption that protects his Medicaid eligibility, if the new restrictions make it into the bill. It appears the exemptions will prevent people from falling through the cracks."Why do you feel millions will lose Medicare?"
What does every analysis of the bill that passed in the house say in terms of the number who will lose medicaid? I am speaking to the impacts on medicaid, particularly on hospitals. No one is addressing how these cuts and the fact that millions will have no coverage will impact this country...
The estimates are somewhere between 8 and 13 million losing Medicaid coverage... What impact will that have?
That's a lot of people showing up to emergency rooms with no way to pay for any sort of care... So how is this financially advantageous? A simple infection is treated for under $100 in a primary care office versus how much in a hospital emergency room?
"Cuts to Medicaid would destabilize the health care system — harming providers and increasing uncompensated care for hospitals. The downstream effects of all of the proposed federal Medicaid changes would reduce Medicaid enrollees’ access to health care, potentially affecting children, seniors, people with disabilities, and all those who need support and have no other affordable pathway to health coverage..."
Sort of feels like folks are ignoring the consequences of kicking people off of Medicaid...
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/medicaid-cuts … ommunitiesFor example:
* The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the bill's Medicaid provisions could result in approximately 7.6 million individuals losing coverage over the next decade. [Healthcare Dive]
* The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) projects that over 10 million people could be removed from Medicaid due to the bill's changes. [
The 19th]
* Work Requirements: The legislation introduces an 80-hour-per-month work requirement for adults without children or disabilities. This could disproportionately affect middle-aged and older women, many of whom have caregiving responsibilities that limit their ability to meet such requirements. [The Cut]; [The 19th]; [Wikipedia]
* Eligibility Verification: States would be mandated to conduct more frequent eligibility checks, making it easier to disenroll individuals who fail to provide timely documentation, even if they remain eligible. [KFF] -
To your point, Willowarbor, Work requirements for programs like Medicaid and SNAP have been implemented in various states, but evidence consistently shows they often fail to achieve their intended goals and can lead to significant negative consequences. Arkansas saw a loss of 18,000 enrollees within 7 months. Georgia was expecting 345,000 enrollees and only got 5,118. A federal judge blocked the Arkansas effort and they didn't try to start it back up. Likewise, Georgia gave up because work requirements failed.
* Cost Sharing: The bill requires states to impose co-payments for certain services on Medicaid enrollees with incomes above the federal poverty level, potentially creating financial barriers to care. [The 19th\ - The likely outcome is to be higher state taxes or reduced services or both
* Restrictions on Services: Funding would be prohibited for specific services, including gender-affirming care and abortion services, limiting access for populations that rely on Medicaid for comprehensive healthcare. [The Cut]
* Children and Families: Given that approximately 37% of Medicaid enrollees are children, reductions in coverage could have significant implications for pediatric healthcare access. [The 19th\
* Caregivers: An estimated 3 million Medicaid recipients are unable to work due to caregiving responsibilities. The new work requirements could jeopardize their coverage. [The 19th\
* Immigrant Communities: The bill reduces federal reimbursement rates for states that use their funds to cover immigrants not lawfully present in the U.S., potentially leading to coverage losses in these communities. [The 19th\
How can facts like that be ignored?"...evidence consistently shows they often fail to achieve their intended goals and can lead to significant negative consequences. Arkansas saw a loss of 18,000 enrollees within 7 months. Georgia was expecting 345,000 enrollees and only got 5,118."
This sounds like the goal is to give money away, to find ever more people that we can keep out of the workforce by giving them money instead of them earning it.
I know that when Idaho implemented the increased medicaid program they went searching for people to give money to. Unsurprisingly they found them, but equally unsurprising is that those same people that required money had been living for years without it.
When the goal is to grow the charity program we have a problem. When the goal is to give money away rather than decrease poverty, we have a problem. We have a problem.
I see advertisements that state that there are programs that pay family members to care for loved ones. However, provisions can be made in these cases. Sharlee, people would rather take the easy way out, then to access their lives & be responsible.
Full time students will not lose their medicaid.
Every colleg/university I've ever heard of required every student to be insured, and even provide insurance for them to purchase if needed.
Yet we are also giving them medicaid...because they CHOOSE not to work? Why? Why in the world would we do that?"Full time students will not lose their Medicaid."
I have read several articles that claim they won't ---Importantly, enrollment in an educational program, such as being a full-time student, qualifies as meeting the "community engagement" requirement. This means that full-time students are not subject to additional work or volunteer obligations to retain their Medicaid benefits.CBS
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicaid-b … hatgpt.com
Most colleges do accept Medicaid as valid insurance if you're staying in-state. You usually just have to show proof, like your Medicaid card or a benefits letter, to waive the school’s insurance plan.
BUT — if you're going out-of-state, that’s where it gets tricky. Medicaid doesn’t usually cover routine care in other states, just emergencies. So a lot of schools won’t accept it as enough. In that case, you might have to either switch your Medicaid to the new state (if you’re eligible) or buy the school’s insurance.
I agree with your sentiment. It would seem that anyone who chooses not to work when able should not be on Medicaid.So in the situation that we have someone working full-time but their employer does not offer health insurance, what then? We all know plenty of these people.
You don't think a full-time load of coarse work isn't work???
Perhaps they will find the means to pay their own way instead of demanding that others do it.
Perhaps they won't, and find out that there are consequences for poor choices.
Yes, some of them are called Corporate CEOs - like Musk.
Please provide the Facts you mention. If you can't or won't, then we know what to make of your claim.Please provide Facts for Musk living off of other people's dime. As he feeds, houses and clothes thousands of others, I'd like to see proof that he is himself living off of the wealth of others.
No, "personal liberties" such as telling women how to run their lives.
No, "personal liberties" such as fixing it so Black votes don't count.
No, "personal liberties" such as what religion you must follow.
You know, those that impact millions of people, not just a few.That's what I said; telling women they must accept men in their locker room, and compete against them in sports.
"Removing" black votes - that would be just a dream as no conservative wants that to happen.
But demanding a specific religion - that would follow under the power of the far right Christians...just as I said.
(You think giving up our wealth so liberals can give it away to others happens to only a few? Better re-think that tidbit - even though it only happens to about half the people, that's still "not just a few"!)Are you trying to tell me that those legislatures in Georgia and Alabama and Louisiana - you know, the ones that passed laws to limit the impact of Black votes, aren't Conservative? Interesting.
As to society not having a responsibility to take care of itself - well, we covered that before. Nevertheless, I'll repeat some of the things (along with being morally right) why it makes sense for society to help others that need it:
1. Ensuring basic needs—healthcare, education, nutrition—prepares individuals to contribute productively to the economy.
2. Studies show investments in early childhood programs and poverty reduction have high returns in terms of later earnings, tax revenues, and reduced criminal justice costs.
3. Programs like unemployment insurance, food assistance, and Medicaid help stabilize demand during downturns, preventing recessions from becoming depressions.
4. The U.S. experience in 2008–09 and again in 2020 shows how direct aid prevents broader economic collapse.
5. Poverty, desperation, and lack of opportunity are correlated with higher crime rates, especially violent crime.
6. Societies with lower income inequality and better social supports tend to have less violence, higher trust, and more civic cooperation.
7. Addressing root causes (e.g., lack of housing, addiction, untreated mental illness) is cheaper and more effective than punitive solutions like incarceration.
8. Infectious diseases, addiction, malnutrition, and mental health problems don’t respect income boundaries.
9. Societies that ensure broad access to healthcare—even for the poorest—tend to fare better in public health crises (as seen during COVID-19).
10. Preventative care for low-income populations is significantly less expensive than emergency or chronic care.
11. Societies with high levels of inequality and neglect often become unstable or authoritarian as the wealthy seek to protect themselves from unrest. Which is what we are seeing with Trump today.
12. Inclusive policies help strengthen democracy by keeping citizens engaged, hopeful, and invested in the system.
13. Resentment and alienation among the poor or working class are fertile ground for extremism, populism, or violence.
14. Even those who are financially well-off depend on the functioning of broader systems—infrastructure, education, emergency services, public health.
15. A society where large numbers of people are destitute or excluded eventually becomes more dangerous, expensive, and dysfunctional for everyone.
16. The U.S. military and intelligence agencies (including the Pentagon) have repeatedly warned that domestic inequality is a national security risk, especially when large segments of the population feel abandoned or powerless.
17. Example: January 6, 2021 — disinformation combined with economic frustration and social alienation contributed to an attack on democratic institutions. i.e. an insurrection.When supplied by the TRUTH such as above, it does. Those that drink it from their Cult leader Trump may find it distasteful, if not deadly.
"Are you trying to tell me that those legislatures in Georgia and Alabama and Louisiana - you know, the ones that passed laws to limit the impact of Black votes, aren't Conservative?"
Have you stopped beating your wife? No one has passed laws intended to limit the impact of Black votes. Claims do not make truth.
As for the rest; attempts to justify, morally or ethically, playing Robin Hood will fail every single time, for there stealing from one to give to another is not defensible in but a very, very few cases. Not even claiming that "might makes right" (as in I have the power so it is legal) makes it right. Just one small example; attempting to use the blackmail of "I'm poor and will become violent if you don't give me your money" (your #13) is not an excuse to do it.
I don't like extremists on the Left either. That said, there is no sizable comparable group on the left that are similar to MAGA. Are their individuals who are "true believers" on the left, certainly, but they are small in number.
If you evidence that is not true, I would be interested in seeing it.
One of the factors that make MAGA true believers unique and cult material is their blind loyalty to Trump; there is no equivalent on the left, which should be obvious given their state of disarray.
Another attribute of MAGA is an extreme sense of nationalism combined with populism. I am not sure what the equivalent is on the far-left, but what there is of it, it is pretty disorganized and not monolithic like with MAGA.I don't know about pointing a finger at a specific individual leading the left's radicals, but what about the people that struggle to bring in, and keep here, as many illegals from anywhere at all? We know they are training illegals what to say to weasel around the intent of our laws, we know they are providing help in transportation, food, etc. - what about those people and their viewpoint (opposite of nationalism?)?
What about those people that do their best to force us into some kind of world wide government? WHO, the UN and other organizations. Again, the opposite of nationalism and NOT in our best interests.
What about those that have descended into the depths and are using our justice system to persecute our President (both past and present)? You may feel they are behaving reasonably, but they are not - are they the left's version of populism?
Bottom line; the left is no better than the right. They just attack and support in accordance to YOUR wishes and are thus rather hidden to those of the left.The topic was cults. The issue was does the Left have an equivalent leader to follow blindly that MAGA does. The question I asked was if the left, as a group, is a cult as claimed, who is that leader?
BTW, exactly who is the "left" you are referring to? Is it Bill Clinton pr John Tester or Mark Warner? Or are you JUST talking about people like AOC who doesn't represent most on the "left".
Maga has not touched the impact this bill will have in terms of cutting Medicaid and the ACA for millions.
If millions lose Medicaid, hospitals would face a significant financial strain, including potential revenue losses, increased uncompensated care costs, and potentially even closures, especially in rural areas. This is because Medicaid is a major payer for many hospital services, and its absence would leave a significant portion of the population uninsured, leading to unpaid bills and reduced hospital revenue....
Not a big deal?I don’t think what you shared is entirely accurate. The idea that the "Big Beautiful Bill" just cuts off millions from Medicaid and the ACA without any thought is misleading. Yes, some of the proposals supported by MAGA Republicans do suggest reforming Medicaid, like turning it into a block grant or giving more control to the states, but that doesn’t automatically mean millions will lose coverage. The goal behind those changes is to make the program more efficient and flexible, not to gut it. Plus, when it comes to the ACA, a lot of people forget that premiums and plan choices under Obamacare have been major problems for many, especially middle-class families who don’t qualify for subsidies. Reforming that system doesn’t mean ignoring healthcare needs, it means trying something different. As for hospitals, especially rural ones, it’s true they rely on Medicaid funding, and any change would have to be handled carefully. But just assuming that reform equals catastrophe skips over a lot of important context. Let’s be real: the current system isn’t working well for everyone either.
In the most conservative estimate that you can find, how many do they estimate in the millions who will lose health coverage due to the bill?
It's important to keep in mind that analysts and forecasters, including those at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), are just that, analysts working with models based on assumptions, not guarantees. While their work can offer useful insights, it is far from infallible. In fact, throughout history, these projections have often missed the mark. A good example is the CBO’s estimate on the Affordable Care Act; they significantly overestimated the number of people who would enroll in the exchanges and underestimated how employer-based coverage would hold steady.
These kinds of forecasting errors show just how complex human behavior is when it comes to healthcare choices, especially under new policy conditions. As for the current bill, the estimates of 8 to 13 million losing Medicaid don’t necessarily mean those individuals will go without any coverage or care, some may shift to employer-based insurance, others may qualify under different programs, and some may simply choose not to re-enroll due to administrative changes rather than actual ineligibility. Analysts also tend to assume worst-case scenarios in order to highlight risks, which can skew public perception. Of course, the potential impact on hospitals deserves thoughtful discussion, but it should be grounded in real-world outcomes, not just predictive models with mixed track records."As for the current bill, the estimates of 8 to 13 million losing Medicaid don’t necessarily mean those individuals will go without any coverage or care, some may shift to employer-based insurance, others may qualify under different programs, and some may simply choose not to re-enroll due to administrative changes rather than actual ineligibility.
So let's just say conservatively that 10 million people will be thrown off Medicaid and then I'm not sure how many will be unable to afford ACA coverage without the tax credits... That's a lot of people. What will the consequences be?
How will some shift to employer based coverage? Many of these folks are on Medicaid because their employer doesn't offer insurance?
Qualify under a different program? Such as what?
And choose not to enroll... Just because they give up on the new requirements even though they may be eligible? That's probably the biggest shame of all...
How is it a benefit to increase the number of uninsured individuals in this country?It helps move people who are able to work off government assistance. It’s time to build a stronger nation where individuals are empowered to support themselves rather than depend on the government. Why oppose efforts to lift people up instead of keeping them reliant on others to pay their way?
You mention people being thrown off Medicare. If they meet the eligibility requirements, they won’t be removed. If someone is found not eligible, it likely means they should not have been on Medicare in the first place. The new regulations are designed to be fair and protect those who truly need assistance. For everyone else, it seems they never belonged on Medicare, and it’s necessary to remove them to preserve the program.
The problem of Medicare fraud has plagued our nation yearly for decades --- time to fix it.
Medicaid fraud is a significant issue that affects billions of dollars each year. According to reports from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, improper payments in Medicaid, which include fraud, errors, and waste, were estimated to total around $36 billion in fiscal year 2021. While not all of this amount is fraud, a substantial portion results from fraudulent activities. Estimates of actual Medicaid fraud alone often range between $10 billion and $20 billion annually, depending on enforcement efforts and investigations. Given the size of the Medicaid program, fraud can take many forms, such as billing for services that were never provided, upcoding, phantom providers, and eligibility fraud. If you want, I can help find the most recent official numbers or provide more detailed information for a specific year or state."It helps move people who are able to work off government assistance.
But a large number of people are receiving Medicaid while they're working? I think it has been mentioned before that there are multitude of reasons that individuals cannot work a full 40 hours.
We also have many folks who work 40 hours and more per week at a job that does not offer healthcare and these folks are taking advantage of coverage under the ACA... Which will become unaffordable under this bill.
That's dependence?
"Plus, when it comes to the ACA, a lot of people forget that premiums and plan choices under Obamacare have been major problems for many, especially middle-class families who don’t qualify for subsidies.
But the bill gets rid of the premium tax credits... Making plans on the ACA marketplace even MORE unaffordable. How is this helping? Again, what will be the consequences of this?
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/big-bea … edits.html
Not a great thing...While it is true ACA had some growing pains early on, those have disappeared or reversed by 2017.
Since 2018, ACA has been working great for almost all people. (Now, apparently, Trump is going to screw it).
* Since 2021, the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act significantly expanded subsidies, including for middle-class families who previously didn’t qualify. Many now pay less than 8.5% of income, regardless of income level.
Example: A family of four making $100,000 now qualifies for substantial premium assistance, which wasn’t true pre-2021.
* As of 2024, 95% of enrollees have access to at least 3 insurers on their exchange.
It was the Middle Class that received the most benefits from ACA, even if they didn't enroll in it.
Before the ACA:
[u]Insurers could AND DID deny coverage for preexisting conditions.[/i]
Many middle-class people faced sky-high deductibles, annual/lifetime caps, or got dropped when sick.
Women were routinely charged more than men.
The ACA fixed these problems"Since 2018, ACA has been working great for almost all people. (Now, apparently, Trump is going to screw it)."
Is it working great for the people that have to foot the bill? Is it working great for those youngsters (born or not) that will pay the cost for the ACA today when they are grown?
Or do those people not count?Yep, it is working great. It provides them a better society to live in.
If the ACA worked great...
Millions would not travel to Mexico or other countries to get their procedures done, teeth fixed, prescriptions, etc.
If our social services really worked for Americans we wouldn't have millions of mental cases living on the streets... ...while we provide migrants housing if five star hotels and preferential hiring and healthcare....
Hey... You know they say the magnetic field protecting life on earth is collapsing... The Gulf Stream is faltering... The Earth's core is slowing...
So even if the economy is somehow stabilized and the national debt eradicated... Healthcare is made free for all ...and AI makes life utopia for all...
I don't think we escape this decade unscathed.To put that into context:
* Prior to ACA the uninsured rate was 16.3%, today it is 8%
* You "millions" represents just 0.3% of Americans and is relatively unchanged pre and post-ACA.
If education really worked in America, we wouldn't have a felon and sexual predator as president.
The ability, and propensity, for the human animal to rationalize whatever they want is truly amazing, isn't it?
I understand the concern about getting rid of premium tax credits making ACA marketplace plans less affordable in the short term. However, the Big Beautiful Bill aims to tackle the root problems causing high healthcare costs by promoting more competition and reducing government interference in the insurance market. The premium tax credits, while helpful, have also led to rising premiums because insurers raise prices knowing subsidies will cover the gap.
By removing these credits, the bill encourages insurers to compete more fairly and innovate, which could lower premiums naturally over time, instead of relying on taxpayer-funded subsidies that distort the market. Plus, reducing federal spending on these subsidies can help bring down the national debt, which benefits everyone in the long run.
Yes, there may be short-term challenges, but this bill focuses on sustainable, market-driven solutions to bring down healthcare costs rather than temporary fixes that keep prices high. Ultimately, real affordability comes from a healthier, more competitive market, and this bill pushes us in that direction."the Big Beautiful Bill aims to tackle the root problems causing high healthcare costs by promoting more competition and reducing government interference in the insurance market.
I do not see this idea in the bill though? Through what sort of mechanism would this occur? What are the solutions being offered?
A healthy competitive market? But before the ACA we didn't see that? The ACA did bring health coverage to significantly more folks in this country... And if this bill gets through the Senate and its current form? We will be going backward.
What will be the real world consequences of millions having no insurance?Very sadly, I believe that we have a much bigger problem with our health care, one being found throughout Europe and the rest of the free world as well.
We have advanced health care to heights that make it impossible to make it available to everyone. The rich have always gotten better health care; we now want everyone to get it...but we cannot afford that. As long as we insist that everyone in the country can have unlimited health care at zero or near zero cost to them we will not be able to pay for it.Why can we afford tax breaks for the wealthy but not healthcare for everyone? Priorities are messed up.
Why do we require wealthy to support others? What gives us the ethical right to take what they earned, simply to give it away (I get that we have the legal right - might makes right, after all)? I agree; your priority is messed up. You are not interested in teaching/requiring others to provide for themselves - your care is that they get the money, period. If that means taking what others have earned and built, so be it.
I disagree. I believe that what you earn/build is yours not belonging to some liberal tear jerker wanting to give it to someone else.So you're saying that it's okay if they get to keep more of their earned money than I do?
The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan federal scorekeeper, estimates income for the bottom 10% of households would fall by 2% in 2027 and by 4% in 2033 as a result of the bill’s changes.
By contrast, those in the top 10% would get an income boost from the legislation: 4% in 2027 and 2% in 2033, CBO found...
Sorry, this is not fair. I'm not interested in increasing the wealth of the already wealthy.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in the DOI is a reformulation of Locke's "life, health, liberty, and property". Locke's full statement was:
""The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by his order and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure."
It was common in then to roll "health" in with "life". "Property" also appears to have been rolled up with Life.
Locke's philosophy, along with Aristotle, Cato, and others formed the core of our founder's political and philosophical thought.
In fact, the "Pursuit of Happiness" came from a blend of Aristotle and Epicurious. It basically translates to "living virtuously in accordance with reason over a complete life. You will find this "living virtuously" in the writings of quite a few of our founders. I recommend to you "The Pursuit of Happiness" by Jeffrey Rosen for a more complete understanding.
Consequently, I and many others argue that a right to health is no less a fundamental right as life, of which you can't have without health, and liberty are.With this kind of reasoning we all have a guarantee on infinite life spans. After all, we are guaranteed "Life".
Why do you continue to veer to the hyperbolic?
Probably because your foolish statements and conclusions point to something that isn't true.
It's sad to see his behavior; it's disruptive and hard to stomach. In my view, I see a psychological pattern where he believes everything he says is true, insists that others are wrong, and most commonly adds an insult to his comments.
I think you're right. He is not intentionally lying, but is unable to control (or recognize) his own rationalization process and thus everything is absolutely true. That the reasoning used to get to that conclusion is faulty is never a consideration at all.
A not uncommon position, although I seldom see it carried this far.He is presenting sources with facts. I think it's best to address those facts rather than make a personal case against the poster.
It isn't sad but immature. A blind person can fathom that Democrats created a nanny state which Trump is remedying. Trump stated that he would trim the government which he is actualizing. Trump is ACTION.
President Trump is not understood by those who are not calm, educated thinkers. They base their opinions on knee jerk reactions stemming from emotions and feelings. It is up to us, who can fathom the reality behind Trump's actions and policies, to explain and defend them. The attempt to clarify Trump to the Trump-Confused is a good fight, I would say.
What kind of "remedy" is a tax plan that allows the rich to keep more of their earnings while those in the lower to Middle incomes will give up more of their money to the government?
The bill violates basic tax principles of treating taxpayers equally..."Treating taxpayers equally!?!?!?!?
Since when is charging one person millions and giving to another as a tax "refund" that was never paid in the first place "equal"?
You and I have very different notions of what that word means.So are you asserting that it is perfectly okay that the top 1% of this country can keep more of the money that they earn while the bottom percentage will have to give away more of their earned income in order to allow that tax benefit for the wealthy? Yes or no.
Are YOU asserting that you have an ethical right to simply take whatever you want from people you don't like because you know better than they do what they should do with their wealth? Yes or no - somehow you simply skip over that question time after time.
And the answer to your question is "Have you stopped beating your wife", for the poor will pay no more than they do now. Zero, in other words. Virtually everyone in the country will get a tax break (if they pay taxes, and often if they don't), just as they did before.
Where is the outrage for the 4 trillion this bill will add to the debt? Spending on a tax cut for the wealthy that we can't afford
But we can afford it for those that already don't pay their "fair" share"? How does that work?
I agree, it's not sad, it's immature to ignore what's plainly in front of us. Even someone without sight can grasp that the Democrats have fostered a nanny state, encouraging dependence instead of independence. Trump came in promising to cut government bloat, and he’s been following through. He’s not just talking, he’s doing. Trump represents action over empty words.
Actually, I thought he said not to touch Medicaid? He actually vowed, many times over, even on Fox News repeatedly that he was not cutting Medicaid. Josh Hawley of Missouri is even currently opposing the bill in the Senate because he says this is not what Trump wanted LOL... I'm confused. Certainly, when Trump was campaigning he continually said he would not touch Medicaid.
Still wondering though, who will pick up the tab for those who will be thrown off of Medicaid but will continue to show up at hospitals and facilities? I'm just not seeing the long-term vision with this bill to deal with the consequences it will bring.Trump has repeatedly said he wouldn’t cut Medicare or Medicaid—going back to his very first campaign speech in 2015 where he promised to "save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without cuts." He’s reaffirmed that stance multiple times since, including in a May 2025 interview where he said he'd veto any bill that cuts Medicaid and stated clearly, “They’re not cutting it.”
Yes, he’s supported legislation that includes reforms like work requirements and tighter eligibility, but let’s be honest: I’m not sure how anyone can see those changes as cuts. What has actually been cut? These aren’t benefit reductions for people who qualify, they’re common-sense rules. If someone is committing fraud, they shouldn’t be getting benefits in the first place. And if someone is capable of working part-time, why shouldn’t that be a reasonable expectation while still keeping the support they need?
Trump hasn’t cut Medicaid, he’s pushed for accountability and sustainability. That’s not the same thing as taking benefits away from people who genuinely need them.
Anyone who ends up being "thrown off" Medicaid under these reforms likely shouldn't have been receiving benefits to begin with. If they were committing fraud, that’s on them, they’ll have to face the consequences and fend for themselves. In another post, I shared just how massive Medicaid fraud has become. It’s long overdue that we clean it up and make sure the program is reserved for those who truly qualify.
As for the argument that hospitals will pass the costs on to other patients if people without insurance show up, let’s be real. That’s already happening, and it's not a justification to keep fraudsters on Medicaid. I have zero sympathy for the idea that we should knowingly keep people who are scamming the system just because taxpayers might get hit elsewhere. That logic keeps the cycle of waste going. We need to stop the fraud, tighten up eligibility, and protect the integrity of the program for those who actually need it.You seem to be under the impression that the goal and intent of Medicaid (and the rest of the welfare system as well) is to render aid and help to those that need it.
It isn't. It is a twofold goal; to both tie people to the charity of the tax base and to buy votes. That it helps create a larger "poor" class (by raising taxes) doesn't hurt, either.Dan, I hear you, and I actually agree with much of what you’re saying. The welfare system, including Medicaid, has absolutely been used as a political tool, both to tie people to government dependency and, yes, to secure votes. That’s been evident in how it’s expanded and how certain policies are marketed.
That said, I had previously mentioned that I wasn’t entirely sure why some people were so up in arms over Trump’s proposed Medicaid changes, because to me, weeding out fraud and making sure only the truly eligible are receiving benefits makes complete sense. I think it’s great that his administration wanted to cut waste and ensure the system isn’t being abused.
At the same time, I do believe there are some people in society who truly need Medicaid. Whether it’s because of serious health issues, disabilities, or just circumstances that prevent them from working or supporting themselves, there’s a small segment that falls through the cracks. I don’t believe in endless handouts, but I do think a responsible, temporary safety net, one that doesn’t foster long-term dependence, is worth having for those rare cases.
So yeah, I'm with you on the core problem and the political motives behind it, but I also think it’s important to protect a path for those who really need short-term help. The key is balance and reform, not blind cuts or endless expansion.The bill goes beyond looking to remove those who don't belong... It will reduce the amount of federal matching money that goes to the states. Most states won't be able to make up the deficit. Hence 10-13 million will lose coverage. Again. Saving us nothing. We all bear the cost of the uninsured. If this bill passes in its current form, which I actually believe it will not, we will all the shoulder the cost even more for the uninsured.
But increasingly it looks like different factions of Republicans in the Senate are digging their feet in for different reasons against this bill. It's A hard sell for these people to go back to their districts that are populated heavily with those on Medicaid.I support the proposed changes to Medicaid and see nothing subversive or drastic about them. It’s time to revamp the system. Giving states more control and reducing unchecked federal spending is a responsible move. Claims that 10–13 million will lose coverage overlook the fact that many would shift to other options, and the current system often delivers poor outcomes despite high costs. Reforming Medicaid is about sustainability and smarter care, not denial of services. Some Republicans dragging their feet are doing so for political optics, not policy reasons, especially those from states that expanded Medicaid and now fear backlash. But that doesn’t make the reforms wrong
What other options are there available to those who are currently on Medicaid and will lose coverage due to Federal money being cut off to their state? What would be the alternative in that case? Many employers in this country do not offer healthcare.
States may tighten Medicaid eligibility standards, especially in response to reduced federal funding; they could do so to balance their budgets. Medicaid is one of the largest expenses in state budgets, and if federal matching funds decrease, states are left with limited options: raise taxes, cut spending elsewhere, or reduce Medicaid enrollment and benefits. It would be impossible to predict what individual states would do.
The ACA’s employer mandate requires businesses with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to offer “affordable” health insurance that meets minimum standards to their full-time workers. If these large employers don’t provide coverage, they face financial penalties. This mandate was passed by Congress, signed into law, and upheld by the courts.
So, while the government generally doesn’t control small businesses or force every employer to provide health insurance, it does have the legal authority to require large employers to offer coverage under current federal law.If I extend what you just related, shouldn't expect even more low income people to lose their coverage with the obvious negative results.
Obamacare. An employer that DOES offer insurance. An employer that pays well enough to buy it if not offered as a benefit. You can likely think of some yourself...if you can leave the "throw money at it" concept behind.
But this bill is getting rid of the premium tax credits for the ACA. That will make it completely unaffordable for most.
They are really attempting a double whammy here. Reducing federal funds that go to the states for Medicaid while getting rid of the tax credits that make the ACA affordable...*shrug* Even if true (I don't think it is) it was already unaffordable for most. With the tax credit they could buy it, but then couldn't use it, so what difference does it really make if they can't buy it? Insurance companies will suffer, I suppose.
I recall when Idaho got the extra medicaid funds a few years ago. The ads were all about how it was great for the state; it would cost nothing and bring in lots of "new" money.
A way for people in Vermont or Georgia to donate to the state of Idaho, in other words. Not something I approve of.Again, we all end up paying for the uninsured. It's nothing but pure idiocy to do it in the most expensive way possible.
Sounds like blackmail to me. Either give them money they don't need or pay even more when they choose the highest cost option.
I don't care for blackmailers - do you?It doesn't matter what you call it. We have always paid for the uninsured and if this bill makes it through the senate, we will pay for a greater number of uninsured.
Agreed. We have always paid for those that don't wish to support themselves.
It's time to take a very hard look at that philosophy. And then DO something about the greed inherent in it."We have always paid for those that don't wish to support themselves"
I agree — our time and money to keep supporting those who refuse to support themselves are running out. How did our society ever come to accept such a failure, where we not only support but actually encourage this kind of dependency?If I work 40 hours a week but my employer chooses not to provide healthcare... Am I refusing to support myself? What if I don't have the $1,000 per month for a mediocre plan? I mean assuming I pay rent/mortgage, food, utilities etc first. Am I somehow not supporting myself? And if I am currently purchasing healthcare through the ACA but lose my premium tax credits, am I somehow not supporting myself if I can no longer afford the full exchange price? I mean I'm still going to show up at the emergency room for care... Everyone else will just pay more for my care. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we wouldn't want that situation managed.
And since Trump seems to like to micromanage corporations and organizations should the government require all employers to offer some sort of insurance? At least make a contribution?
"In 2023, nearly 10.2 million Americans who worked full-time lacked health insurance for the entire year."
Can someone address these folks?
https://cepr.net/publications/chronic-c … he%20year.
And what is the data on individuals fraudulently using medicaid?Working 40 hours a week doesn’t automatically mean someone is “supporting themselves” in full, if part of that support is fundamentally dependent on subsidies from other taxpayers. Choosing to work in a job that doesn’t offer benefits is still a choice, just as an employer chooses what compensation they can afford to offer. If someone can’t afford healthcare without government help, then by definition, they're relying on others, not fully supporting themselves. Do we want to be a nation that leans toward socialism? We were not built on that ideology, why do some feel we need to become just another socialist nation? Is our grand experiment dead? The American system was founded on individual liberty, responsibility, and opportunity, not guaranteed outcomes or government dependency.
No one is entitled to a $1,000-per-month product for less simply because it's expensive. That’s like saying, “I can’t afford a new car, so others should pay part of it.” Healthcare, like any service, costs what it costs due to supply, demand, and regulation. Many ACA plans cost more, not just because of greed but because of mandated coverages, risk pools, and inefficiencies.
Showing up to the emergency room and expecting society to cover it is exactly the problem, and it reinforces why we shouldn't make healthcare even more “free” or subsidized. The more that people are shielded from the real cost of care, the more disconnected they become from the economic reality of what they consume. That drives up costs across the board.
While it's fair to want employers to contribute, mandating that every business provide healthcare could kill small businesses or reduce job opportunities. A family-owned bakery or a small mechanic shop might not be able to survive if forced to offer insurance or pay fines. Large companies might cope, but small enterprises often can’t.
Trump, or any president, liking to “micromanage” doesn’t mean conservatives want more government control. Trump’s interventions have often aimed at deregulating, cutting taxes, and creating leverage in trade, not dictating company benefit plans. Suggesting that, because he’s active in policy, we should expand mandates is a slippery slope. You don’t fight micromanagement with more micromanagement.
So, while your point comes from a place of practical frustration, and many people do face genuine healthcare hardship, the solution isn’t to expand dependence or require every employer to provide benefits. Instead, we might need market reforms to lower costs, more flexibility in coverage, and personal accountability in making life and career choices that include the true cost of supporting oneself.
Trump’s win made it clear that many Americans want to preserve a nation that thrives because of its hardworking people, not one where a growing segment survives on government handouts.So we have 10 million people at last count that work 40 hours or more and do not have any sort of health insurance.... How do all of those people choose a different job? What happens to the jobs that are left? I can't even wrap my head around this one. The job market has 10 million jobs just hanging around that have health insurance attached to them? I don't know I'd like to see some stats on that right?
When a small (not mom and pop) business finds it has no employees because they offer no insurance, they WILL offer insurance.
You can't wrap your head around what happens when a business does offer competitive wages; I cannot wrap my head around why people will work for less than competitive.The issue was about offering insurance and you switched it up to wages... Many people make a living wage within organizations or companies that still do not provide any health insurance... Spending $10,000 per year as a single person for a mediocre insurance policy sure does cut into that income though . It is within that population of people that one medical incident can equal bankruptcy.
'When a small (not mom and pop) business finds it has no employees because they offer no insurance, they WILL offer insurance."
Lol, you really think so? somehow it will just become affordable for a small business to do that? No, small business will disappear, go under.If your employer does not pay enough, including all bennies, to live on then it is not paying a living wage. Pretty simple.
Yes, if one does not save for an emergency, any emergency (medical or not) can equal bankruptcy. Shall we thus pay for car repairs? New roofs on your house? Make any and all needs an emergency so no one need prepare themselves, always depending on Uncle Sam?
If we don't want to pay for small businesses then they will go under. Personally I do not appreciate being blackmailed because this business or that may die and thus I need to provide billions upon billions so that they can continue to operate uncompetitively.
No, chances are much better they will go out of business.
Maybe people work for less is because that is all that is available? A whopping 44% of jobs right DON'T pay a living wage - and that is from jobs which are currently filled full-time.
Now, how about the remaining unfilled jobs. For various reasons which I will get into, I would offer that 70 - 80% of them DO NOT pay a living wage either. Why?
1. Job openings are disproportionately high in industries like retail, food service, hospitality, and home health care, where wages are typically below living wage standards.
2. Jobs that don't pay a living wage tend to have high churn (quits and rehires), inflating the number of vacancies in those sectors.
On the flip side for job openings that DO pay a living wage:
3. Shortages in skilled trades, healthcare professionals (RNs, technicians), engineering, and IT also contribute to job openings. (Which our unemployed probably don't qualify for EVEN IF they could travel to them and take the years of training necessary to qualify for them.
Again, I suggest you are living in a world where you think all unemployed people or ones in poor jobs are super people capable of leaping over building in a single bound.
"Trump, or any president, liking to “micromanage” doesn’t mean conservatives want more government control.
Oh my.. he wants to dictate Harvard's curriculum LOL... He tells corporations to eat tariffs (Walmart) and tries to dictate where others will make their goods (apple) those are just a few examples of his authoritarian tendencies...Yes he is clearly a micromanager who wants control."personal accountability in making life and career choices that include the true cost of supporting oneself.
So if certain career choices would be out of the question or should be shunned by individuals because they don't come with certain benefits, what happens to those professions? Do they just die out? do we not need them anymore?"do we not need them anymore?"
Only if we wish to pay for them. Or perhaps it can go to children and the elderly, who do not need a living wage.Jobs to children?
So generally jobs where we see people working 40 or more hours per week and not being offered any sort of health insurance are construction trades, service industry jobs (you know the places we all frequent everyday) and agriculture.. you know the people who plant and harvest the stuff we eat everyday...
Kids should do these?So, you are promoting child labor (Florida is actually doing that you will be happy to know).
"If I work 40 hours a week but my employer chooses not to provide healthcare... Am I refusing to support myself? "
A resounding YES!. If you choose to work a job that does not pay enough to support yourself that is a choice. You can find different work. You can find a different location. You can train yourself with different skills. There are a huge variety of ways to improve yourself, and there are few people that cannot support themselves in the world today. Even a McDonalds job will do it if you choose to go that route."A resounding YES!. If you choose to work a job that does not pay enough to support yourself that is a choice. You can find different work.
so if we all choose just to do the jobs that compensate in terms of some sort of healthcare, who does the jobs that generally don't pay into their employees health care then? Do those jobs cease to exist? Do we just not need those services anymore?
10 million people, working in jobs that do not provide any sort of healthcare or assistance with healthcare... 10 million people finding other jobs?That conversation is becoming unrealistic.
You do realize that Obamacare is actually quite accessible financially? In fact, many people get it for free specifically because of the kind of financial struggles you're talking about. Have you ever looked at the website? It’s surprisingly easy to find the right plan based on your income. You can check it out at HealthCare.gov.
Anyone with an income can get health insurance through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Yes, someone with a very low income can often get health coverage for free or at a very low cost through the Affordable Care Act (ACA), depending on their specific circumstances and where they live. In many states, individuals with incomes below a certain level qualify for Medicaid, a government program that provides free or nearly free health insurance. Thanks to the ACA, states that expanded Medicaid now cover adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, which, in 2025, is about $20,783 per year for a single person. Medicaid typically includes coverage for doctor visits, hospital care, prescriptions, and preventive services.
For those who don’t qualify for Medicaid, there are still options available through the ACA Marketplace. Low-income individuals and families may be eligible for subsidies, also known as premium tax credits, that can significantly reduce or even eliminate the monthly premium. In some cases, people with very low income receive plans with $0 premiums. Additional savings, known as cost-sharing reductions, may also lower out-of-pocket expenses like deductibles and copays.
Families with children may also benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which provides free or low-cost coverage for kids in households that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but still have limited income. Overall, the ACA was designed to ensure that even those with limited financial means have access to quality healthcare, often at little to no cost.
So, exactly who are you feeling will lose or not be able to obtain healthcare?Not everyone can qualify for ACA coverage . In 2025, you'll generally be eligible for Affordable Care Act subsidies if your income falls between 100% and 400% of the Federal Poverty Level . For a single person, this translates to an income range of $15,060 to $60,240
So if I lose my premium tax credits... I'm up around $1,000 per month for a mediocre coverage plan... And if I make $60,000 per year... That's a big impact isn't it? It is really a very large majority of people who will be very disadvantaged if this bill goes through. Predominantly the people in those mid-range incomes that will lose tax credits and don't qualify for Medicaid either and work full-time jobs that do not have any healthcare benefit. The folks we often call The "working poor". Healthcare is a real problem. Let's not forget that this bill cuts the matching funds the federal government sends to the states for Medicaid...It is clear that if the Biden Tax credits are cut (they were only temporary), you would go back to possibly paying more if you could not find another provider. The site offers a good atmosphere for competition.
The idea that the market for health insurance is competitive is not a reality. It is really dominated by just a few conglomerates. I'm not sure that the realities of the uninsured are fully grasped by those who have always been insured.
That's true.
They have done everything possible to kill competition...each state essentially only has, at best, a handful of options.
The ACA actually did more to kill small competitor insurance companies and strengthen big insurance corps than anything else... The ACA helped skyrocket medical costs and protect established insurance monopolies.There are very few commodities that are NOT dominated by a few conglomerates. Food. Energy. Cars. Appliances, both major and minor. Sales. The list is nearly endless where a few giant companies dominate it all. It is the world we live in, and the entire health care industry is no different that the rest.
I'm not sure what more one can say. While I’ve had my reservations about Obamacare, I’ve come to recognize that it does serve an important purpose, especially for those who can’t afford high insurance premiums. It offers income-based options that make healthcare more accessible. I can honestly say that before it, lower-income individuals pretty much had nowhere to turn. After spending some time exploring the website, I found it fairly easy to use, and it presents a wide range of plans that can suit just about any income level. I think the program needed time to mature into what we see today.
Agreed. I appreciate this. I hope to see the ACA expanded rather than cut. It has dramatically reduced the number of uninsured and also bankruptcies due to medical bills have decreased since its implementation. I think that's a benefit to society as a whole.
Come on Wilderness, that is a bunch of provable BS, What you propose is simply conservative wishful thinking that has zero basis in reality. Why?
The REALITY is that:
1. Labor Market Conditions Limit Options - Not everyone, as you say they can, can just "find a better job" at will. In many rural or post-industrial areas, high-paying jobs simply don’t exist. A 2023 Brookings study showed that two-thirds of U.S. counties lack access to jobs paying a living wage.
2. Structural unemployment, automation, and globalization have eliminated entire sectors.
3. Relocation Is Not Always Feasible Moving sounds simple but isn't realistic for millions: Many low-income, full-time workers are tied to a location due to caregiving responsibilities (children, elders). Moving requires savings, credit, and a safety net — all of which are scarce for people already not earning a living wage. HUD data shows that housing costs are a barrier in areas where better-paying jobs exist.
4. Retraining Is Not a Quick Fix “Just learn new skills” ignores major realities:
--Education and training cost time and money, which low-wage, full-time workers almost never have.
-- Many community college programs have low completion rates due to lack of support (childcare, transportation).
-- Employers often demand years of experience, even for entry-level roles in new fields.
5. Millions Work Full Time and Still Can't Survive According to the U.S. Census and BLS:
1 in 6 full-time workers earns less than $15/hr.
The existence of working poor is not a reflection of bad choices, but a symptom of a labor market where wages have stagnated while living costs have soared.
6. People Do Not Choose Poverty The assumption that workers voluntarily stay in low-paying jobs implies that poverty is a preference.
In reality, most people in low-wage jobs are there because of barriers, not bad choices: lack of access to education, systemic discrimination, lack of capital, regional disparities, or poor health. Many people work multiple jobs just to stay afloat.
After a little research, which one would hope you would have done, you can find that there is at best a 56% chance of finding a job that pays a living wage, assuming your were already trained for it (which for living wage jobs is unlikely) and can afford to move to get to it.
If you live in rural America, there is only a 10% - 20% chance you will have the ability to move to another job. If you live in suburban America, that chance raises to only 30% to 50%. Even if you live in an urban area, those who don't have living wage jobs have only a 50% - 70% chance.
So, while your world is nice to contemplate, it simply does not exist.1. Let me quote from what I wrote: "You can find a different location."
4. True. Training takes time and, sometimes, money. So do that - living on an outdated skill set for 20 or 50 years while crying it takes time to learn something doesn't cut it.
5. Let me quote what I wrote: "You can find a different location."
"If you live in rural America, there is only a 10% - 20% chance you will have the ability to move to another job."
Tell that to the gentleman I met under a bridge a couple of miles from my home in Boise, Id. He was bicycling (bicycling!) from Dallas to Seattle because he heard there was work there.
Eso, your world is full of excuses for not even trying to do better; it always comes down to the only answer possible for these 150 million or more people feeding at the welfare trough is to support them with someone else's efforts, for they are not capable of doing it themselves. This I reject completely; while we have a small (very small) minority that truly cannot support themselves, the vast majority of Americans are quite capable of doing just that...if their choice is to do if or starve. We all have barriers to climb over, whether on the job, buying a home, raising children, whatever. It's time (long past time) to quit whining that there are barriers out there and DO something about it. SOLVE it rather that whine "Can't do it!" and take some more of the efforts of someone else to dry your tears at the plight of the poor.And yours is assuming all people are super people and have absolutely no artificial barriers placed in front of them while making broad (false) proclamations that people "are not even trying to do better". That conservative myth has been debunked countless times - yet you keep saying it, why?
Well, my statement was not actually true, at least IMO. We didn't used to pay for those that didn't want to pay for themselves - that began somewhere in the mid 20th century when generosity began to be truly abused by the greedy and modern socialism with it's wealth redistribution began to take place.
You didn't see much of it prior to 1900.That’s a fair observation, and you’re right that something shifted around the mid-20th century. Prior to that, community support often came from churches, local charities, and family, not centralized government programs. People helped their neighbors, but there was also a strong sense of personal responsibility. What we’ve seen since is a steady transformation where "helping" became institutionalized and then expected, eventually to the point where many feel entitled to the labor and earnings of others.
And you’re absolutely right to call out the abuse of generosity. When welfare becomes a way of life rather than a temporary hand up, it not only undermines the dignity of the individual but slowly erodes the cultural fabric that built this country. We used to reward grit and self-reliance. Now, too often, we reward dependency—and even punish those who succeed.
To put it plainly, it is socialism. And last I looked, that was never the plan for the United States. Wealth redistribution in the name of fairness might sound compassionate, but in practice, it often fuels resentment, bloated bureaucracy, and a class of people who thrive not on productivity but on the system itself. That’s not the America our founders envisioned, and it’s not a sustainable future."What we’ve seen since is a steady transformation where "helping" became institutionalized and then expected, eventually to the point where many feel entitled to the labor and earnings of others."
You've hit the nail squarely on the head here. Access to what others have earned and built is expected, and demanded, to be as free and as easy as breathing the air around us. That air surrounds us and we can have as much as we wish; the wealth of the nation surrounds us and we can have as much of that as we wish as well.
The shame of living by begging from others, the pride of building our own castle are both gone from far too many people. Replaced by greed for more than we earn and pride in getting more of that free stuff than our neighbor does.
"Wealth redistribution in the name of fairness might sound compassionate, but in practice, it often fuels resentment, bloated bureaucracy, and a class of people who thrive not on productivity but on the system itself."
I disagree. But replace that "often with "will always and I would agree with you. The socialism we see today, the grab for ever more of that "free stuff" that others have paid the cost for, will always result in resentment and a whole class that thrives on the system rather than on their own work.
One of the first to take this path wholesale might have been the hippies of the 60's, but others have taken up the banner of living off the efforts of others with a vengeance. They have virtually destroyed a welfare system that was intended and designed to help those in need, from something good in this world to an evil that is tolerated because of the damage removing it would cause.I couldn’t agree more. What was once considered shameful, living off the labor and sacrifice of others, is now not just accepted, but often celebrated. The pride in self-reliance, in building something from the ground up, in knowing you’ve earned your keep, that’s being systematically eroded by a culture that rewards dependency and punishes productivity.
You’re exactly right to say that the “free stuff” mindset is no longer about helping those in genuine need; it’s become a game of who can take the most without giving back. And when you say that wealth redistribution will always breed resentment and dependency, I’m with you 100%. That’s not just an economic problem, it’s a cultural and moral one too.
When large numbers of people embrace dependency over self-reliance, they bring a dangerous weakness to a society: a loss of resilience. A nation built on personal responsibility, innovation, and hard work becomes fragile when too many of its citizens see entitlement as a right, not a temporary assistance. These individuals aren’t prepared to weather hard times, adapt, or contribute meaningfully. They become burdens instead of builders, and eventually, the weight becomes unsustainable.
Economically, they sap the productivity of those who still believe in earning their way. Culturally, they corrode the values that once made a nation strong: initiative, sacrifice, delayed gratification, and a sense of shared duty. Politically, they become easy targets for manipulation by those who promise more handouts in exchange for votes. This creates a vicious cycle of dependency, where growth is stifled and accountability is lost.
And behind all of this lies the sad psychology of the dependent mindset. It's not just laziness, often rooted in envy, entitlement, and a warped sense of justice. Instead of striving for more, many choose to resent those who have earned more. They develop a victim mentality, where success is seen as oppression and effort is seen as exploitation. Pride becomes redefined, not as something earned through accomplishment, but as something falsely claimed through grievance and comparison.
This kind of psychology is soul-crushing. It strips people of dignity. It tells them they are helpless without the state. It trains them to look outward for salvation instead of inward for strength. And the tragedy is, it robs people of the very thing that could lift them out of their despair: the joy of earning, achieving, and standing on their own two feet."When large numbers of people embrace dependency over self-reliance...
Who says they are though? I'm buying into this narrative sure does make it a lot easier to cut people from basic healthcare.If they don't embrace it, why aren't they earning their own way? Are all of them paraplegics? Are they all of extreme low IQ? They aren't ALL simply too lazy to work!
Or are they too scared of change to embrace it? If so, I put my money on them changing when they get hungry.There are over 10 million people in this country who work 40 hours or more per week and do not have insurance... Full time work doesn't guarantee anything.
Of course it doesn't guarantee it! That's why you leave for greener pastures.
But you failed to mention why YOU think they aren't earning that living wage. The large majority could (although may need training first) - why don't they?
How much of that answer is because we PAY them so they don't have to?
"And when you say that wealth redistribution will always breed resentment and dependency, I’m with you 100%. That’s not just an economic problem, it’s a cultural and moral one too."
We keep hearing that it is our moral responsibility to feed the poor, meaning providing almost unlimited handouts, but we never hear about the other end of the stick; that it is immoral to steal, however legal it may be, from people. How can wealth redistribution be moral when at the root it is all about taking what someone has built because we think we know better than they do how it should be spent? That action cannot be considered to be a "moral" one, not in my circle (others will disagree).
But I guess that at the same time it is a culture that defines morality, and our culture has decided that it is not only moral but that morality demands it be done. Or at least those at the bottom of the financial ladder have decided that.Sort of like how employers "steal" from the employees by not paying them the total value of their labor?
I believe this conservative myth has been debunked many times over -
"What we’ve seen since is a steady transformation where "helping" became institutionalized and then expected, eventually to the point where many feel entitled to the labor and earnings of others."
I guess it depends on the definition of "many". Are we talking about 10 people or 10 million people?
And can we throw Red vs Blue states into this where most Red States feel they are entitled to getting more money from the federal government than they contribute while it is the opposite with most Blue States?
Why is it that the group of uninsured folks or people who receive Medicaid are portrayed as a monolith in terms of their character or as having similar "lazy, dependent" characteristics but elsewhere I am encouraged not to look at other groups as monoliths??
Willow, I think your question deserves a fair answer. I can only offer my view. I don’t believe anyone here is trying to say that everyone on Medicaid or without insurance is lazy or dependent. That would be painting with a big old broad brush, and I agree that’s not fair. There are absolutely people who fall on hard times, work hard, and still need a safety net. But the frustration you're seeing expressed isn’t directed at those people — it’s aimed at the growing sense that our system seems to reward and even encourage long-term dependence, with little accountability.
Other groups in society, like business owners, the wealthy, or even law-abiding citizens who pay high taxes, are often scrutinized heavily and stereotyped without the same concern about generalizing.
At the end of the day, most of us just want fairness: help for those who genuinely need it, yes, but also an honest conversation about how we discourage generational dependency and protect the people actually footing the bill.
Again with the unsupported claims - in this case that ACA is "already unaffordable for most.". Compared to what? Insurance prior to ACA? Off-exchange ACA-compliant insurance? Aren't you just throwing a red herring?
What do you mean "even if true"? Are you referring to Trump getting rid of the ACA premium tax credit? Or that Trump is going to cut funding to the states?I experienced the "value" of a bronze plan myself - I KNOW just how "affordable" it was. With a $5,000 deductible it was 100% unaffordable, but no one that COULD afford that kind of expense couldn't get the insurance.
Wonderful plan...for the insurance companies collecting premiums from govt for people that could never use the insurance.
Yes - that Trump will get rid of the govt. payments for individual plans that congress enacted.
"It’s time to revamp the system. Giving states more control and reducing unchecked federal spending is a responsible move.
It's not giving the states more control though, it's cutting off the matching funds?
"The current system delivers poor outcomes for high cost'? This is absolutely untrue.
"Medicaid is the most cost efficient health insurance program in the country. Medicaid has a lower cost per service provided than any other health insurance program, public or private. In one comparison, the costs to cover low-income adults through Medicaid was 45% less than covering a similar group through private Marketplace insurance."
And in terms of poor outcomes"?
Many providers who accept Medicaid patients also accept private insurance patients...
So what needs to be revamped?
https://healthlaw.org/medicaid-is-even- … 20private.I think we're going in circles here, but the core issue remains clear: we simply can’t afford to continue funding Medicaid in its current form. The reality is, the money isn’t there. I believe the bill is a step in the right direction because it aims to cut costs while still ensuring that those who truly need Medicaid will continue to receive it. It’s about sustainability, not denial of care.
It’s time to revamp the Medicaid system. Giving states more control while reducing unchecked federal spending is a responsible and necessary move. Medicaid costs have ballooned in recent years, with federal spending exceeding $540 billion in 2023 alone. That kind of growth is simply not sustainable. Allowing states more authority would let them design programs tailored to their specific populations and challenges, rather than forcing everyone into a one-size-fits-all federal model. States are often better positioned to identify local needs and implement innovative solutions that improve care and reduce waste. In fact, improper Medicaid payments cost taxpayers tens of billions annually, greater oversight at the state level could help address that. More financial responsibility at the state level also encourages fiscal discipline, helping ensure the program remains strong for the truly vulnerable. This isn’t about denying care; it’s about making the system smarter, more efficient, and sustainable in the long run.You can "believe the bill is a step in the right direction because it aims to cut costs while still ensuring that those who truly need Medicaid will continue to receive it." but the fact is demonstrably (as I just did early) provable that many of those who are truly in need will not "continue to receive it."
It will be nice if I am wrong and you are right, but look at the damage if we are right and you are wrong. And so far, everywhere this has been tried, it failed."The reality is, the money isn’t there."
The cuts in Medicaid are being used to fund tax breaks for the wealthy though?
"Giving states more control while reducing unchecked federal spending is a responsible and necessary move....
They aren't giving States more control. They're taking matching funds away from the states.
You are framing this as a state's rights issue when the bill doesn't even frame it that way... Without the federal matching funds, States will be forced to take coverage away from those who truly need it.
"Medicaid payments cost taxpayers tens of billions annually,"
What is the estimate in terms of cost to taxpayers of 10 million uninsured people? I mean if our big concern is burden to the taxpayer, right?
Also, because Medicaid is so cost efficient, many providers won't accept it because it doesn't reimburse enough.
"It's A hard sell for these people to go back to their districts that are populated heavily with those on Medicaid."
On this I believe you, I and Sharlee would all agree. Once tied to the apron strings of Washington it is extremely difficult to cut those strings. Forcibly cutting them is going to anger a great many, a great many that cast votes for those maintaining their healthcare at the expense of others.Even more difficult when these representatives are supporting tax benefits that disadvantage the lowest earners while enriching those at the top....cutting healthcare to do so. Not a great look.
Also what's not a great look? The fact that Trump's net worth has increased by almost 3 billion since he took office LOL and he wants to take away people's health care?How does a tax cut "disadvantage" the lowest earners? Particularly when they aren't paying taxes anyway?
The Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan federal scorekeeper, estimates income for the bottom 10% of households would fall by 2% in 2027 and by 4% in 2033 as a result of the bill’s changes.
By contrast, those in the top 10% would get an income boost from the legislation: 4% in 2027 and 2% in 2033.
So yes, top earners get to keep more of their earned income while the bottom earners have theirs taken away..How is income going to fall? Will salaries decrease or the hours worked? Or will some jobs go bye bye, with the result that the vast majority make the same while a few lose all income?
It seems pretty obvious that you haven't read the bill. You may want to do that... Trump's Alma mater, Penn Wharton did a nice analysis..
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/i … on%20bill.Ah. I see how they will lose "income". By using the term to include the charity they are given. Charity becomes "income".
I suppose it is true if that is done, but it is also a very large lie for the intent of the statement is to convince the reader that actual income of those people is going to fall, and that is not true at all. Not if "income" means something earned or worked for.
But thanks for the answer - it was much as suspected, using a play on words to produce the result wanted rather than actual truth. Pretty common in politicians as they very seldom tell us the "truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
Interestingly, your link points out that the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes and will receive 70% of the benefits of the tax cut. Sounds like exactly what it should be, fair right down the line. It flies in the face of wealth redistribution by liberals, but then liberals are not noted for being or wanting "fair". Just for greed and demanding that what others have earned belongs to them instead of the worker.
There are absolutely some people that need medicaid, and some of those for a lifetime. Not all of us are capable of providing our own healthcare.
But medicaid, and particularly the disability system, is rife with fraud, Worse, because of the fraud there are those that are in desperate need of it and cannot get it.
Our whole welfare/safety net system is broken. Perhaps Trump can fix it, or at least start on the path to repair. I sincerely hope so.The claims of Medicare fraud by users and not providers, would be more credible if there were ever data to show that was the case... Claiming that those who have been approved to receive Medicaid are somehow fraudulent just doesn't make it true.
Well, I personally know a few on disability that can clearly work (and some do even while drawing that disability). I think most of us know someone doing that.
But fraudulent includes people on Medicaid that could work if they chose to. You will not convince me that those people don't exist. Just that there are so many of them tells me that there is fraud; the percentage of people on our charity programs is obscene.How do you know that there are just so many of them?? How does anyone know this? Because Trump said so LOL?
Over half the country feeds at the govt. trough today. That's how I know there are just so many of them.
It doesn't need to be true so long as it does its job of misinforming people.
I agree that fraud has become a serious issue and continues to worsen year after year. After reviewing the Big Beautiful Bill, it seems like a promising step toward addressing the problem. The bill appears designed to help weed out fraudulent activity while protecting those who genuinely need assistance. As for Trump, the big question is whether he will be able to fulfill the promises he made, but there is hope. If this bill passes, it could mark real progress toward delivering on some of those promises. It's also clear to me that Trump has been overwhelmed with a wave of frivolous court cases aimed at blocking his executive orders and undermining his agenda. Despite that, the Supreme Court has delivered key victories that reaffirm his authority.
Wins strengthen my faith that the Supreme Court will continue to uphold his presidential powers when they're being unfairly challenged. Overall, while there are caveats to his progress, it’s undeniable that he's scored real victories against an onslaught of legal obstacles.
Trump has repeatedly said he wouldn’t cut Medicare or Medicaid—going back to his very first campaign speech in 2015 where he promised to "save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without cuts."
Isn't it obvious by now that he lied - again? How do you derive in excess of $500 billion from Medicaid when even their own number show that only half that MIGHT be available through so-called fraud without cutting millions and millions off the rolls?
Are you able to provide a source for this hyperbolic statement [i\"As long as we insist that everyone in the country can have unlimited health care at zero or near zero cost to them "[/i]?
Exactly who is the "we" you are referring to? Certainly it isn't me. I doubt it is Willowarbor or Credence.
"it means trying something different. As for hospitals, especially rural ones, it’s true they rely on Medicaid funding, and any change would have to be handled carefully. "
Handled carefully? How? What is the plan? Trying what? All I see are cuts with absolutely nothing in their place.
"Rural hospitals particularly heavily rely on Medicaid funding, with the average hospital depending on Medicaid payments for about 20% of its revenue"
So when the sick who were previously covered under Medicaid come in with no coverage.. what happens? Who is left to pick up the tab? The hospital, they eat it? I think that's why many are saying they will be forced to close. These cuts will be devastating to red, rural America.
https://www.aft.org/news/how-medicaid-c … healthcareI get that rural hospitals depend on Medicaid funding now, and any policy change needs to consider that. But the problem is the current system is broken, simply throwing more money at Medicaid without reform hasn’t solved rural hospital struggles. What the Big Beautiful Bill proposes is a different approach, encouraging market competition and reducing government overreach that inflates costs across the board.
Rural hospitals need sustainable solutions, not just funding patches. Instead of relying on Medicaid subsidies that create dependency and distort incentives, the bill pushes for reforms that would increase efficiency, lower overall costs, and improve access to care through market-driven innovation. For example, expanding telehealth, incentivizing efficient care models, and removing excessive regulatory burdens.
Yes, some changes are tough, but just maintaining the status quo isn’t working, many rural hospitals have closed even with Medicaid support. The bill challenges us to try something different that encourages long-term sustainability instead of endless subsidies that may delay but don’t prevent decline.
If uninsured patients come in, hospitals don’t have to just “eat it.” The bill also promotes policies that increase coverage options outside of Medicaid, like health savings accounts or state-level flexibility, so fewer people are left without any coverage at all.
In short, the bill isn’t just “cuts”, it’s a plan to fix the underlying market problems that keep rural healthcare fragile. It demands innovation and responsible reform, not simply more spending with no accountability. It's time for change, it's way overdue.I don't see any of this addressed in the bill though? I don't know where these statements originate?
So let's say that I am uninsured under Trump's new plan. I work full time but my employer does not offer any benefits whatsoever. I've lost my tax credits for the ACA, so those plans are now astronomical. Where do I go for healthcare? How would I pay the cost? What am I missing here?
What is the specific, detailed plan to deal with the up to 13 million people who will have no health coverage?The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that grant states increased autonomy and reduce certain federal regulations in healthcare, which could potentially encourage market competition within individual states.
Reduction of Regulatory Burdens
The bill includes measures aimed at reducing federal regulations in various sectors, including healthcare. By rolling back certain federal oversight, states may have more flexibility to implement policies that encourage private sector participation and competition in the healthcare market. This could lead to more choices and price competition, particularly in rural markets where monopolies often exist.
State-Level Medicaid Innovation
1. State-Level Medicaid Innovation
When the federal government gives states more control over Medicaid through block grants or waivers (like those in the bill), states can design programs that:
Reward cost-effective providers.
Use managed care models to create competition between private insurers.
Shift funds toward preventative care or direct primary care agreements.
Example: A state might allow Medicaid funds to be used for subscription-style primary care or contract with multiple private insurers, creating a competitive environment.
2. Flexibility Could Attract New Providers
By loosening federal constraints (like paperwork requirements or strict payment formulas), states might:
Make it easier for private clinics, urgent care centers, or telehealth providers to enter the market.
Approve more license reciprocity or reduced barriers to practice for out-of-state doctors, especially in underserved areas.
This could lead to more choices and price competition, especially in rural markets where monopolies often exist.
3. Tailoring Regulations to Encourage Investment
States with more flexibility might:
Lower compliance costs for small healthcare businesses or allow different reimbursement models.
Streamline approval processes for new facilities or equipment (like rural imaging centers or mobile clinics).
This can reduce overhead for providers and encourage investment by smaller, innovative players, not just large hospital systems.
4. Encouraging Insurer Participation
Federal rules often restrict what benefits must be included in insurance plans (Essential Health Benefits under the ACA). If states gain the ability to define benefits, they might:
Offer a range of plan options, from basic catastrophic coverage to comprehensive packages.
Encourage new insurers to enter the market by easing pricing or solvency restrictions.
This could lower premiums and increase competition among insurers within the state.Does this language come directly from the bill? I do not find this
Sec. 44101. Part 1--Medicaid
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-con … hatgpt.com
You can copy and paste any given section into AI, and it pulls up the information.
None of this is in the language of the bill. I'm not sure who interpreted the bill to mean the things listed in this post? I have read the language from section 44101 on down and I don't find any of these things, by any stretch of the imagination to be included there within. The bill elaborates on cuts and requirements with absolutely nothing to address the 10 million or more people who will be without any health coverage.
Yes, people are complaining about Medicaid. They complain about Administrative Challenges, limited access to care, and policy changes, like this one.
As to "handling things carefully", when has Trump ever done that?
It always amazes me how self-deluded some people are who falsely claim that people are poor, just because they want to be. That kind of statement is beyond credible and belief.
I suspect what has happened is that they found the one or two exceptions and then broadcast that is how all poor people feel. Well, that is a lie.
Saying poor people want to be poor is a misleading oversimplification that ignores decades of research in economics, sociology, psychology, and public health. If that is honestly felt, then that is a clear sign of belonging to a cult.
For those actually interested in THE TRUTH here it is:
1. It Ignores Structural and Systemic Barriers - Poverty is not just about individual choices — it’s about systems:
Wages have stagnated while the cost of housing, healthcare, and education has skyrocketed.
Zip code, race, gender, and class all correlate strongly with economic outcomes — not because of "bad choices," but because of limited access to resources.
Studies show that starting in poverty drastically reduces upward mobility, regardless of effort or intelligence.
Example: Two children of equal intelligence, one born in an affluent suburb and the other in a poor rural county, will not face remotely similar opportunities.
2. It Misunderstands Psychology and Decision-Making Under Scarcity
Being poor affects the brain — literally.
Research from Princeton (Mullainathan & Shafir) shows that scarcity taxes cognitive capacity, making it harder to plan long term.
People facing constant financial stress are more likely to make short-term decisions not because they’re unintelligent, but because they are surviving.
✅ Immediate gratification in this context isn’t laziness — it’s a response to unstable environments where the future is uncertain.
3. It Is Refuted by Empirical Data
A large percentage of Americans will experience poverty at some point in their lives. According to the Urban Institute, 59% of Americans between ages 20 and 75 will spend at least one year below the poverty line.
The U.S. has higher poverty persistence and lower economic mobility than many other developed nations — and it’s not because Americans are less intelligent or less driven.
Most poor people work. According to BLS data, the majority of non-elderly poor adults who can work are working, often full-time, in low-wage jobs.
4. It Demonizes Rather Than Understands
The claim that “they want to be poor” reflects hostile attribution bias — the tendency to interpret others’ hardship as intentional or deserved.
In reality, most poor people report experiencing shame, stress, and hopelessness — not contentment.
No reputable survey finds that people “want” to be poor. The overwhelming majority aspire to better conditions.
5. It Has Been Used to Justify Harmful Policies
This narrative has historically been used to oppose safety net programs, housing assistance, and education funding — on the grounds that “they brought it on themselves.”
But programs like Social Security, food stamps, and Medicaid lift millions out of poverty annually — and research shows they have long-term positive effects on children’s health, education, and income.
Conclusion:
The idea that people are poor mainly because of unintelligent choices or a desire to be poor is:
Factually incorrect according to economic, sociological, and psychological research
Morally lazy, as it dismisses the complexity of human struggle
Socially harmful as it breeds division and undermines the case for policy solutions that actually work
And a sign of cult membership.Is it that difficult?
Is it being over-simplified?
Or is it being over-blown?
How do you create a society that benefits ALL...
When there is NO benefit to the FEW who can excel and achieve?
Why have standards?
Why even bother with educating people?
Math is racist... tests are sexist... standards... codes... regulations, they are meant to keep the poor people down.
Rich people can afford to pay for permits and inspections and for licensed and educated contractors to build and wire things... poor people can't.
But its OK... its all OK...
The last 150 years has been a flurry... look at all that has happened...
There were no cars... no highways... no airports... no computers... no internet...
We have passed from the Industrial Age... into the Information Age... in less than ONE lifetime... and now before we have even adjusted completely to EITHER of those Ages... we are entering into a New Age...
The AI Age... maybe later to be revised to the AGI Age (Artificial General Intelligence) as opposed to what will follow soon... perhaps a few short years from now... the ASI Age... in which humanity is interconnected with the Super Intelligence, or wiped out by it... remains to be seen...
Anyways... yeah... Capitalism bad... yup... but everything else so far is even worse... those who are motivated or talented or inspired... they usually do OK... those that want to sit around all day smoking weed and watching the Price Is Right... well... they are kind of a drag on the rest of us working to keep society afloat...
Wait... why did you rant about Poor people... wasn't this about MAGA... Cults...???
It is speech like this that reinforces the rewired brains of Trump Cult Members that allows them to say things that aren't true like Inflation was 25% or inflation was skyrocketing when it was coming down or Biden is incompetent when he had one of the most successful presidencies in modern history.
The all-caps message, posted just before 7:00 a.m. ET, sees the president wishing a “Happy Memorial Day to all, including the scum that spent the last four years trying to destroy our country through warped radical left minds,” which he writes were responsible for illegal immigration into the country under Biden.
Trump went on to suggest that 21 million people entered the US illegally under the previous administration — a figure not borne out by US Customs and Border Protection data, as previously reported by CNN.
He blamed “an incompetent president” for the influx of migrants and “judges who are on a mission to keep murderers, drug dealers, rapists, gang members, and released prisoners from all over the world, in our country so they can rob, murder, and rape again,” for stymying his deportation agenda, claiming criminal migrants are “protected by these USA hating judges who suffer from an ideology that is sick, and very dangerous for our country.”
Clear evidence of a dangerous mental illness that left unchecked will bring America down and let the Russians and Chinese win.
"Trump’s Memorial Day message came two days after a politically inflected commencement address at the US Military Academy at West Point, where the president combined traditional advice to graduates with more overtly partisan themes." - I read "inflected" as "infected".
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/26/politics … -opponentsTrump continues to show the world he is quickly sinking into dementia.
Any cognitively adroit human in America knows Harvard University is located in Greater Boston Metropolitan Area which is overseen by the federal court in - BOSTON. This is where Harvard is supposed to filing its lawsuits.
Here is the problem, Trump, in his diminished mental state, actually thinks that Harvard is "Judge Shopping" according to a post from him this morning.
Talk about a cover-up of presidential ineptitude - it is clearly going on with those around Trump.Uber-MAGA Curtis Yarvin is out in the open saying Trump is trying to replace American democracy with a form of Monarchy which is led by a CEO.
FINALLY - they are speaking the truth about their intentions.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/30/politics … d-by-a-ceoIt is very, very hard to escape a Cult once you are in it. I suspect hard-core Trump voters will call her a traitor, but this ex-MAGA lady showed a lot of smarts when she said "'I'm not going to be a part of Trump's lying': Jan. 6 rioter refuses pardon"
She can see it, why can't other Trump defenders see it?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/03/politics … oom-digvidAnother example of an unhinged, nutso Trump.
On May 31, 2025, Trump reposted a message from another user stating:
“There is no #JoeBiden – executed in 2020. #Biden clones doubles & robotic engineered soulless mindless entities are what you see. Democrats don't know the difference.” Apparently, Trump seriously believes this conspiracy theory since he reposted it without comment.A $250 bill and ‘WMAGA’: GOP lawmakers push legislation honoring Trump
Political experts say the bills, which include renaming Dulles Airport and Washington’s Metro after Trump, are unprecedented because they honor a sitting president.
Late last month, Florida Republican Rep. Greg Steube introduced a bill that would halt any funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority unless its name was changed. Steube, whose southwest Florida district is about 950 miles from Washington, proposed WMATA be rechristened the Washington Metropolitan Authority for Greater Access or … WMAGA.
The legislation also called for Metrorail, the system’s flagship rail line, to be renamed the “Trump Train.”
Steube’s proposal is just the latest in legislative offerings this year paying tribute to President Donald Trump. House Republicans have proposed at least eight bills since January to honor the president or burnish his image. They would, among other things, put Trump’s portrait on U.S. currency, carve his face onto Mount Rushmore, rename Washington Dulles International Airport for him and make his birthday a national holiday.
“It is unprecedented and to be honest with you, it’s completely wild,” John White, professor emeritus of politics at Catholic University, said in an interview. “History shows that most things are named after presidents after they have either long left office or been deceased.”
Three days after Trump’s inauguration in January, Rep. Addison McDowell (R-North Carolina) proposed renaming Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia to the “Donald J. Trump International Airport.”
Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-New York) chose Valentine’s Day to submit a bill that would make Trump’s birthday, June 14, a national holiday along with Flag Day.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida) introduced legislation directing the secretary of the interior “to arrange for the carving of the figure of President Donald J. Trump on Mount Rushmore National Memorial.”
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) proposed H.R. 1790, the Golden Age Act of 2025, which directs the Treasury Department to print $100 bills with Trump’s portrait on them. That was just after Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) introduced the Donald J. Trump $250 Bill Act, which would require the Treasury to print “Federal reserve notes in the denomination of $250 and such notes shall feature a portrait of Donald J. Trump.”Yep! And think, he is only 5 months in and he has nearly brought America to its knees.
I stated back about 7 months ago my position on Trump. It was after I posted an OP to the forums
Day zero (0)! A new chapter in the annals of history began Jan 6th [2025].
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/362 … an-jan-6th
My position then and remains today: "I am kicking back watching chaos theory unfold while entropy seeks to predict the future."
I'm sipping on my morning coffee while reading here and there what is happening in the world.
That is insane, IB. Are these people nuts to bestow such honors on a living politician, especially a man like Trump?
I have been hearing rumors that Puerto Rico might declare its independence from the US and affiliate with Spain. It may make a lot of sense?Thinking back to Rodney King and George Floyd, I'd have to say it make perfect sense to honor a President for the good he is doing.
As far as being a sitting President, I think back to Obama being given the Nobel Prize (although not by Americans) for purely political reasons.That is, of course, just your opinion not substantiated by ... anythiing.
How about think back to something much more current - Trump's insurrection on Jan 6th.
Well, Wilderness, that is the “good he is doing” from your perspective not mine.
BTW, If I recall, a living president, Theodore Roosevelt received a Nobel Peace prize for helping mediate peace from the Russo-Japanese war at the turn of the last century. (1904)?
Was it for political reasons, who is to say? But, I can say that Trump is no Teddy Roosevelt, not by a long shot. Obviously, the point view of the rightwinger anywhere is always contradictory to the views of otherwise civilized people from more enlightened parts of the world.
I wouldn't blame them. Trump's America is an embarrassment to be associated with.
I have been hearing rumors that Puerto Rico might declare its independence from the US and affiliate with Spain. It may make a lot of sense?
Nah. A little group is trying to make noise with that. Nobody here take them seriously.
Im sure MAGA world would love that.
Maybe that' why its been in the news there (and now).Thanks for the clarification, the GOP would like to see Puerto Rico go away for the risk of the statehood would more than likely see Democrats get a few more seats.
I would have thought that being associated with America now is more of liability than an asset.Not only the Democrats seats, but the 3M+ brown spanish speaking people.
And yes, I agree about the liability.
This is scary weird....
https://x.com/banderafella/status/1939003395618283632I liked this response from one reader:
"It's so disgusting to see. There sits an incompetent narcissist with dementia and lies and lies, praising dictators and being the biggest traitor in history. There stands a bunch of gangsters laughing at his idiocy. Horrible."
Adding to with hot off the press . . .
Trump unveils $249 ‘Trump Fragrances’ posted by The Hill (by Elizabeth Crisp - 07/01/25 9:45 AM ET)
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra … ragrances/
"President Trump began hawking a new business venture on Monday: Official Trump fragrances that retail for hundreds of dollars per 3.3-ounce bottle.
“These are only official Fragrances by President Trump!” the GetTrumpFragrances.com website reads, noting it’s also the only official place to purchase them.
President Trump began hawking a new business venture on Monday: Official Trump fragrances that retail for hundreds of dollars per 3.3-ounce bottle.
“These are only official Fragrances by President Trump!” the GetTrumpFragrances.com website reads, noting it’s also the only official place to purchase them.
The president took a break from the issues that have dominated his social media messages in recent days — political feuds, the immigration crackdown and the promotion of his agenda-setting One Big Beautiful Bill Act — to hype the latest signature product on his Truth Social website.
“Trump Fragrances are here. They’re called ‘Victory 45-47’ because they’re all about Winning, Strength, and Success — For men and women,” he wrote Monday evening. “Get yourself a bottle, and don’t forget to get one for your loved ones too.”
“Enjoy, have fun, and keep winning!” the president added."
Private business activity isn’t banned for presidents
U.S. presidents aren't required to stop making money or owning businesses while in office. There’s no law that says a president can’t profit from private ventures, like real estate, books, or branded merchandise (perfume included).
Say what you want about Trump, but one thing’s certain: once a businessman, always a businessman. It’s 100% legal for the Trump Organization to keep releasing products like cologne or perfume under his name. Why? Because Trump owns the trademark rights to his own name and image. He’s given written consent for its use and has legally locked down branding rights through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That means he can slap "Trump" on a bottle of cologne just like he can on a golf course or skyscraper — it’s his brand.
Here’s a little test: Can you legally sell a product with “Trump” on the label without his permission? The answer is no, you’d run into a wall of trademark laws and probably get sued. This isn’t just about branding, it’s about owning your public image and using it commercially, something Trump has mastered for decades.
Even overseas, the rules mostly hold. Trump’s team fights off copycats globally, and while the occasional unrelated product might sneak through in the EU, the principle remains the same: if it says “Trump,” he likely owns it and profits from it.
Smart business? Like him or not, it’s textbook Trump. "I see it this way, once his term ends, he'll be just another citizen. He's spent decades licensing and selling his name to products, and there's no reason to think he'll stop once he's out of office. Why would he? It's what he's always done, for decades.He's using the office to profit. His children are using proximity to their father to profit.... This was all just such a top of mind concern during the Biden administration.... Yet now it's just smart business LOL.....
Again, he’s legally using his name and likeness just as he has for over 20 years. This is a core part of what his organization does. You may not like his style of doing business, but that’s really all there is to it.
Let’s look at this with some common sense. Trump is currently in office as the 47th president, and so far, he has broken no laws nor is he under investigation for illegal activity related to selling products with his name or likeness. Using your own name in business is legal and common; plenty of people do it.
During Trump’s first presidency, there were lawsuits and investigations focused on whether his businesses violated these rules, but no legal ruling found he broke the law regarding conflicts of interest. So, while the ownership of a business by a sitting president can raise ethical questions and potential conflicts, it is not automatically illegal unless there’s proof of illegal actions.
Maybe the Dem's might want to try again.
Not willing to waste time on your analogy regarding Biden.Biden enters the discussion because the hypocrisy needs to be laid bare.
Not willing to waste time on the analogy regarding Biden. Did that in the previous comment.
But Maga has shown so much hypocrisy in this situation... What was labeled the "Biden crime family" is now just your typical run of the mill, everyday, ordinary , wholesome Trump family business....my God ... We're talking about 3 billion dollars increase in wealth over 3 months. Where's the equal concern? Where are the call for investigations? Hunter sold a painting or some nonsense and maga lost their minds.
Trump and his family? Exploiting public service for personal wealth like we have never seen before...and Maga pretending it's not an issue
Trump supporters here had no problem for going after Biden for such behavior (which for Biden personally, it is made up), but the silence is deafening when Trump and his kids wallow in it. Hell, they even defend his obsessive greed.
You are right, there is no law, but name me one president who lowered his moral standards so much as to in your face profit from the presidency - ONLY TRUMP has done that.
What IS illegal however, is taking money for pardons - something he is proud that he is doing.I guess she couldn't find one president that has stooped as low as Trump legally (maybe) has.
"There’s no law that says a president can’t profit from private ventures, like real estate, books, or branded merchandise (perfume included)."
Neither is there a law (in most places) that says a woman wearing the briefest of bikinis can't walk downtown in your neighborhood or a vagrant wearing smelly clothes with banana peels hanging from his pockets walking into your local church. The point, of course, is it may not be against the law but it shouldn't be done nor should it be defended.But they were so concerned about Hunter profiting from his father's name and position yet tell us to look the other way from Trump's 3 BILLION dollar gain. These people are hypocrites.... They have done a 180 on their espoused positions during the Biden admission.
I think the legalities truly shoot your analogy out of the water.
Trump's children have part ownership in his company. Joe Biden claimed time and time again that he was not in business with his son or family. Your analogy falls short.
Trump's children
No—so far none of Donald Trump’s children (Donald Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, or Barron) have ever been criminally charged for any business or personal wrongdoing.
Here’s the full picture:
Criminal Charges
No criminal indictments have ever been filed against Ivanka, Donald Jr., Eric, Tiffany, or Barron Trump in any court for either business dealings or personal conduct.
In investigations related to the Trump inaugural committee and the Trump Organization’s tax practices, reports suggesting new criminal charges against Trump’s kids have been debunked; prosecutors confirmed that none of them faced criminal filings.
Civil & Regulatory Cases
Civil lawsuit (New York AG): In September 2022, the New York Attorney General sued Donald Trump and his three eldest children—Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric, alleging they intentionally inflated asset values to enrich themselves and secure loans and insurance. It was a civil, not criminal, case.
A judge later found all liable: Trump and his business were barred from New York operations, with Trump fined over $350 million; Donald Jr. and Eric each received fines (around $4 million) and two-year bans as officers of New York companies. Ivanka was initially named but later dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
The court also required Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric to testify under oath in depositions and in the trial.
Other civil suits: Private lawsuits (such as the “Doe v. Trump Corp.” case) named the three eldest Trump children as co-defendants in allegations of misleading investors, but these were dismissed or remain unresolved as civil class actions, not criminal prosecutions.
Summary Table
Child Criminal Charges? Civil/Regulatory Involvement
Donald Trump Jr. No Co-defendant in NY AG lawsuit; testified in fraud case
Ivanka Trump No Co-defendant (later dismissed); gave testimony; subject of NY suit
Eric Trump No Co-defendant in NY AG lawsuit; testified in fraud case
Tiffany Trump No Not involved in any reported business litigation
Barron Trump No Not involved in any reported business litigation
In summary: While Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric were deeply entangled in major civil legal proceedings related to alleged business fraud, none have faced criminal charges for either their business activities or personal conduct.
I also considered the legal action brought against both presidents' children.
Hunter ---
Hunter Biden faced a three‑count federal indictment in Delaware for illegally buying and possessing a firearm in October 2018:
Making a false statement on the ATF Form 4473 — claiming he was not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, drugs.
Making a false statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer.
Possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance (cocaine)
A jury convicted him of all three felony counts on June 11, 2024
Tax Charges (December 2023 indictment)
In December 2023, special counsel David Weiss secured a nine‑count federal indictment in Los Angeles:
Three felony counts of tax evasion.
Six counts of filing false tax returns.
These charges relate to failure to pay approximately $1.4 million in federal taxes from tax years 2016 through 2019, as well as falsifying returns (including inflating business deductions)
Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to all counts on January 11, 2024
The scheduled trial date has been pushed to September 5, 2024, where he later entered a guilty plea.
Disposition & Pardons
Gun charges: Convicted June 2024 (three felonies).
Tax charges: Indicted December 2023; pleaded guilty September 2024.
Presidential pardon: On December 1, 2024, President Joe Biden granted a full and unconditional pardon, covering all federal offenses committed by Hunter Biden from January 1, 2014, through December 1, 2024, encompassing both the gun and tax
I won't place judgment on Hunter. I let the courts handle that. As you can see, he was pardoned for his convicted crimes by a jury. I have always made strong claims that I ultimately trust our court system.
I find it in poor judgment to accuse Trump or his children of breaking or skirting the laws in their business practices in light of no legal charges.Have the Trump children ever been criminally charged? Was Al Capone or Putin ever criminally charged for murder? The point, of course, is that "not being criminally charged" doesn't mean you are innocent; it just means you can't be punished for your crimes.
I get where you’re coming from. The facts do speak loudly, and the intense scrutiny on Trump, his children, and his businesses through numerous lawsuits shows just how closely they’ve been examined. Given that, I find the analogy lacking credibility and poorly considered in light of the evidence I shared. It’s important to keep the conversation grounded in those facts, with such an issue, that facts can be added. And emotions set somewhat aside.
In my view, accusing Trump and his children of wrongdoing in connection with selling goods or using his likeness is unwarranted. It suggests a lack of proper research or effort to find the facts. As far as I know, Trump has not broken any laws related to these activities, and if he had, he would surely face charges. To me, making such accusations feels petty and unjustified. I tend to follow Michelle Obama’s advice: “When they go low, we go high.” Honestly, some Democrats could really benefit from embracing that mindset. I don’t see that kind of divisiveness coming from my side.Take the exact arguments put forth by Maga during the Biden administration in terms of the reasoning for the investigations that were undertalen by Comer and crew
Lol, none of those can be applied to Trump and his children? Looks like those arguments could be used word for word, and they most certainly willAccording to Sharlee, it seems, no, they can't be applied equally to Trump and his children.
It remains to be seen if any of the bribes for pardon's he got, or manipulation of the markets for his gain are found to be illegal. They certainly stink to high heaven.
Accusing Hunter Biden with selling goods or using his likeness is likewise unwarranted. And then the rest of what you wrote.
"and if he had, he would surely face charges. " - Not in Trump's America with Trump's DOI and not with the Supreme Court conservatives giving presidents immunity from virtually any wrongdoing while in office.
Your comment about Michelle is very ironic.Your baitong. I certian;ly did not say
"Accusing Hunter Biden with selling goods or using his likeness is likewise unwarranted. And then the rest of what you wrote." ECO
I caused Hunter Biden what he was officially charged with.
I suggest you back off. You're baiting.
Both comments I offered on this issue https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/367 … ost4375154
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/367 … ost4375105Hunter was not charged with those alleged crimes, where did you get that idea?.
He pled guilty to not paying his taxes (which hardly anyone else other than a Biden gets charged criminally with if they have subsequently paid the taxes as Biden had done) and and was found guilty for lying on an application for a gun he possessed for a few days (again charged only because he was a Biden, it is rare - .1% - for the feds to prosecute that as a stand-alone crime)
It helps to do proper research.I have reported you to the moderator for trolling and baiting. Your comments are nonsensical. Hunter Biden was certainly charged with every crime I listed. I will also be reporting this latest comment due to it did not in any respect reply to the subject of the post you replied to. Permalink
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/367 … ost4375160
Gun‑related charges (September 14, 2023 indictment, U.S. Attorney’s Office – District of Delaware)
False statement on ATF Form 4473 (lying about drug use when purchasing a .38-caliber Colt Cobra revolver on October 12, 2018).
False statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer (related to mandatory record-keeping).
Possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance (between October 12–23, 2018)
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-we … hatgpt.com
Tax‑related charges (December 7, 2023 grand jury indictment, Special Counsel David C. Weiss, DOJ Archives)
Nine total counts under federal tax law:
Three felony charges:
Tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201) — 2018.
2–3. Filing false tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7206) — 2018 (one for personal return and one for company return with Owasco PC).
Six misdemeanor charges (26 U.S.C. § 7203): failure to file/pay taxes for 2016, 2017, 2018 (two counts), and 2019
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-we … hatgpt.com
Plea and convictions
Gun trial: Convicted by a jury on all three felony counts (June 11, 2024 in Delaware AP
Tax plea: Pleaded guilty to three felonies and six misdemeanors in Los Angeles court (September 5, 2024), admitting he evaded at least $1.4 million in taxes from 2016–2019
AP
Summary Table
Charge Type Count Statute Period
Gun – false statement on form 1 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6) / Form 4473
Oct 12, 2018
Gun – false statement to dealer 1 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A) Oct 12, 2018
Gun – unlawful possession 1 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) Oct 12–23, 2018
Tax – tax evasion (felony) 1 26 U.S.C. § 7201 2018
Tax – false return (felony) 2 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) 2018
Tax – failure to file/pay (misdemeanors) 6 26 U.S.C. § 7203 2016–2019\
Gun charges: Indictment filed by U.S. Attorney’s Office – District of Delaware, Special Counsel David C. Weiss
https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco-we … hatgpt.com
Tax charges: Grand jury indictment issued by Special Counsel’s office (December 7, 2023) and conviction included in DOJ press briefings .
.That's OK, I just reported you for being dishonest with them.
I have provided the official sources documenting the charges against Hunter Biden. It’s difficult to understand how one could deny the facts about the multiple charges he faced and the subsequent pardon by his father. I find it surprising that you would dismiss or dispute the well-documented legal record I shared. At this point, I will step back and invite the moderator to review this thread, especially considering the repeated and somewhat provocative comments directed at me. Throughout our exchange, I have maintained a tone of politeness and respect. I believe the moderator will recognize this and see that your responses, not mine, have been the more contentious. Your words stand on their own, and I have always aimed to engage respectfully.
I will report you any time you imply I said something I did not.While not providing the sources, I had already brought to your attention his gun and tax charges.
I was clearly talking about being charged with similar crimes the Trump kids are accused of since it is THAT which was being discussed by you."I was clearly talking about being charged with similar crimes the Trump kids are accused of since it is THAT which was being discussed by you." ECO
As of July 2025, none of Donald Trump's children—Donald Jr., Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, or Barron—have been charged with any criminal offenses or misdemeanors, even. However, several have faced legal scrutiny or been involved in civil cases.The House Oversight Committee investigated Hunter as to whether he leveraged his father's position to secure business deals or benefits for himself or his associates. And the Trump children shouldn't be investigated for the same?
They also dug into Financial transactions. The committee scrutinized financial records and transactions related to Hunter:s businesses to identify any suspicious or illegal activity.... Why wouldn't the Trump children deserve the same scrutiny?
Engage respectfully? You mean like when you told Willowarbor or myself something to the effect that it would help if we did our research (when we clearly did)? (Which is what prompted me to use similar words to you)
I am very much satisfied to end the conversation and leave it in the hands of a moderator.
You really think there are HP staff assigned to moderate the forums?
Edit: I meant that in the sense of the anticipated lifespan of HP with its present circumstances.I believe there is a moderator. I think you and I have been banned multiple times in the past. I do feel he will take time and assess the thread. Many here did not respect the HP rules. However, I just added simple reminders. But your baiting needs to be addressed. At any rate, thanks for posting your thoughts regarding HP's circumstances. It would seem you may know more than the rest of us. However, I will add the permalink to your words, just in case if a moderator exists, they can assess your thoughts.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/367 … ost4375229Okay . . . baiting? All I know is in the main forum they have been requesting a moderator for weeks now.
You, of all of us, is being accused of baiting? WOW!
I posted in haste. I thought it was ECO's reply to my comment. My apologies for responding more appropriately to your comment.
"tsmog wrote:
You really think there are HP staff assigned to moderate the forums?
Edit: I meant that in the sense of the anticipated lifespan of HP with its present circumstances."
Yes, I do believe the Forum still has a moderator. I am not aware of the status of HP's lifespan. Thanks for the heads up on the main forum requesting a moderator.
I can honestly say, I have not witnessed you bait or troll. Sorry again for the mistaken post and pulling you into a most unpleasant conversation.
No, not on a regular basis. A report needs to be filed to get their attention. Sometimes they ignore it and sometimes they don't.
Well I must say... it has lasted longer than I had predicted about a year back.
It is nice that they left the forums here for us kids to play in...
You need to quote me. Otherwise, you're once again accusing me of saying something I did not say in that context. The problem is that you do this frequently, and it is not conducive to a civil conversation. This latest comment goes to prove my point.
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/367 … ost4375203
I'm sorry, you were talking about Hunter Biden having been charged with profiting off his dad's name and ill-gotten gains from China.
I already covered the gun and tax charges. Guess you missed that in your hurry to report me.
Since you "won't place judgement on Hunter" then why did you write this as a lead in to your forum on Hunter?
It's time the DOJ does its job. It would seem they are protecting the Biden family.
(I hope this does not turn into a Trump and his Kids did this thread. I mean no president's children could compare to this piece of work.)
This thread is all about Biden, and the incriminating documents that Grassley has presented to the DOJ.Maga folks were just outraged that Hunter was supposedly "profiting" from his father's name yet folks have no problem with that going on currently. Where is the outrage?
"I find it in poor judgment to accuse Trump or his children of breaking or skirting the laws in their business practices in light of no legal charges.
I call it using maga logic...Maga screamed for investigations of all things Biden and Hunter.... Yet you don't find they are warranted for Trump's 3 billion dollar windfall and his children profiting hand over fist on their association?
Using all of the maga criteria for the Hunter investigations, the Trump family would certainly qualify for investigation...
I'm always in favor of free speech and respecting the laws of the land. I also believe in being adaptable—respecting others' views when possible, and walking away when someone tries to force theirs on me. I see that kind of behavior as confrontational and obnoxious. In the case of President Trump's business ventures, I have weighed the facts, and my comment reflects my view. You've now shared yours, and I won’t fault you for it in any respect.
No republican can ever claim they are fiscally conservative ever again.
Not after adding three trillion to the national debt.
But it will be entertaining to watch them contort themselves into excusing this.
Let the tap-dancing begin.I will come at this with math, and hope it offers a clear picture of who added debt to our National debt, and please ascertain who added the most and speedy debt.
As I previously noted, Conservative economic theory has led to many more recessions, depressions, and panics than liberal economic theory in our history.
This is also true for increasing the debt. I just did a little research and found that in 2021 constant dollars, Republican policies have led to 53% larger increase in debt than Democratic policies,
Using a 10-year period, the Democrats have racked up $7.039 Trillion (2021$) compared to the $10.780 Trillion (2021$) from Eisenhower through Biden.
In fact, Clinton's two major policies, the tax increase and the welfare reform, led to a combined $600 billion REDUCTION in national debt! Biden's Inflation Reduction Act has reduced the debt by $300 billion!
It is clear it is Republican propaganda and messaging is what has led to the false impression that they are fiscally responsible - they are far from it.I am back with that math...
Here’s a detailed breakdown of how much national debt was added under each president, covering both of Obama’s terms, Trump’s first term, and Biden:
President Years in Office Debt Added (approx.) Notes
Barack Obama 2009–2017 (2 terms) +$8.3 trillion Debt rose from ~$10 T to ~$19.6 T
Donald Trump 2017–2021 (1st term) +$7.8 trillion to $8.4 T . Includes pandemic relief; debt held by public grew by $7.2 T
Joe Biden 2021–mid-2025 (~4½ years) +$6.0 trillion (public debt)What year dollars are those in? In case you weren't aware, you can't compare real dollars over that long a time period; you no longer have an apples to apples comparison?
Those numbers are weak...
They don't take into account the 'printing' of money that gave us 20% - 30% inflation over Biden's four years... compared to Trump who held inflation to around 2% - 4% during his first term.
Among other things that I am not recalling at the moment...
And yes... if not for the Pandemic... Trump's numbers would be at least a couple trillion less.That is why I asked if her numbers were in constant dollars.
Let's tell the whole truth:
* If Bush had not caused the Great Recession - Obama's numbers would be at least a couple of trillion less
* If not for the Pandemic - Biden's numbers would be at least a couple of trillion less
* Without the Pandemic, Trump would have still ballooned the debt because of his terrible tax bill
Other things you missed to keep your claims in context:
* "Printing money" had nothing to do with the pandemic caused inflation (no pandemic, no inflation it is as simple as that)
* Headline inflation at worst was 9% (June 2022), not 20% to 30%
* Trump nearly Doubled Obama's inflation average of 1.46%
* Trump's record was no better than Clinton's or G. W. Bush.
* Because of the Pandemic-caused inflation, Biden doubled Trump's numbers (like he did Obama's). Absent the pandemic, as you pointed out, Biden would have been in their with the rest of them.The whole truth does not begin with Bush...
Before him there was Clinton... for 8 years... who gave us NAFTA... who continued to allow the Chinese their preferred Trade status... who repealed Glass Steagall...
It was those actions, during the Clinton Administration, which led to the collapse that came at the end of Bush's 8 years.Why did the Republican Congress send Glass Steagall to Clinton? Why aren't you blaming them. Clinton didn't ask for it (although I sure wish he would have vetoed it)
On balance NAFTA was a net positive. It
* Lowered Consumer Prices
* Boosted Trade (higher GDP)
* Helped stabilize Mexico's economy
* Improved competitiveness against China
Downside -
* Some job loss (automation and trade from China was responsible for a much larger share)
* Wage pressure on low-skilled workersOMG... you are arguing that NAFTA was good for America and Americans...
good stuff... enjoy the weekend.My first thought was about Perot and his 'great sucking sound' comment. *shrug*
GAI guess he was half wrong. While a little less than 700,000 jobs were lost due to NAFTA over the first five years, a little more than 700,000 jobs were created due to NAFTA in the same amount of time from increased trade.
Then there all the other positives that resulted from Free Trade.Yep, there is still debate about that part. I guess that my first thought was Perot's comment shows my bias.
GA
I just proved it to you.
Prove ANY of those positives are wrong.
I will agree Glass-Steagal repeal removed an essential roadblock. Had it not been repealed then the Republicans and Bush would have found it much harder to set the stage for Bush's recession.
Simply getting rid of Glass-Steagal didn't "cause" the recession. It was what Bush et al did afterwards and GREED that did the rest.OMG again... you are on a roll...
How about blaming the financial institutions that knowingly raped the American Middle Class and nearly toppled the entire global economic system?
No?
All righty... as I said, have a great weekend.Who made it such that those financial institutions could do what they did - REPUBLICANS.
Yes, Ken, Trump's numbers would be so much better—no question about it. But honestly, how much energy can we keep putting into real facts when so many people just work around them? Take the pandemic, for example—some only bring it up when it fits their narrative. It’s turned into convenient history, not consistent truth.
I usually don't put much energy in it at all...
Least, not when it comes to some folks...
"Kathleen 27 hours ago
"No republican can ever claim they are fiscally conservative ever again.
Not after adding three trillion to the national debt.
But it will be entertaining to watch them contort themselves into excusing this.
Let the tap-dancing begin." Kathleen"
No tap dance --- I am back with that math...
Here’s a detailed breakdown of how much national debt was added under each president, covering both of Obama’s terms, Trump’s first term, and Biden:
President Years in Office Debt Added (approx.) Notes
Barack Obama 2009–2017 (2 terms) +$8.3 trillion Debt rose from ~$10 T to ~$19.6 T
Donald Trump 2017–2021 (1st term) +$7.8 trillion to $8.4 T . Includes pandemic relief; debt held by public grew by $7.2 T
Joe Biden 2021–mid-2025 (~4½ years) +$6.0 trillion (public debt)
Just facts, which in my view are a good starting place before adding a comment. As one can see, Obama, Trump, and Biden all added greatly to our National Debt. We have no real facts or a bottom line on what Trump will add in his second term. But at the end of his term, we will be offered facts...."We have no real facts or a bottom line on what Trump will add in his second term.
Huh??? We've had analysis after analysis. We have the facts, just because some folks choose to ignore those facts doesn't change them. This Congress just passed a bill that WILL increase the deficit.It’s worth remembering that economic analysis of a bill isn’t about declaring absolute truth; it’s about making informed predictions. Analysts break down a bill’s provisions and evaluate them using current data, historical patterns, and economic models. That makes each analysis finite in scope, but not final in outcome. The truth is, no one knows with certainty how a policy will play out because the economy is shaped by countless moving parts, consumer behavior, global markets, political responses, and unexpected shocks.
So when someone claims a bill will ruin the economy or will be a success, they’re often repeating projections, not facts. I’d suggest taking a closer look at the track records of the economists and agencies making those predictions. Some are reputable and fairly accurate over time, but others have been wildly wrong or are clearly politically motivated. A more thoughtful approach is to ask, “What are the assumptions behind the analysis, and how solid are they?” That’s the kind of critical thinking legislation deserves, not soundbites, but real evaluation.
Just to add, we will not have facts on whether this bill adds or subtracts from the deficit. Time will tell. It most likely will add something. Actually, every U.S. president since at least World War II has overseen an increase in the federal deficit during their time in office. Do you feel Trump should be different in some respect?
You seem to be very guided by predictions."Actually, every U.S. president since at least World War II has overseen an increase in the federal deficit during their time in office. Do you feel Trump should be different in some respect
This is a total 180 compared to previous posts concerning the Biden Administration budget and policies. So if it is Trump who wants to blow up the deficit and the debt it's okay but it wasn't during the Biden administration???
I see absolutely no consistency in the maga mindset.You seem to have blanketed me.
I personally did not question what impact Biden's bills might have on the deficit. I did not question whether some provisions in his bills contribute to it, but as I said, I generally avoid making predictions about the costs of bills. Experience has taught me that many times when I tried to predict what a bill would cost, I ended up proven wrong. My mindset on this has been shaped by that experience.
And you seem to put blinders on.
It is true you cannot predict with certainty ANY outcome until it happens, and then it isn't a prediction, is it?
What the CBO, others, and I did was look at the facts, make reasonable assumptions that all can agree on, and make very informed analyses of everything that is available to come to a very defendable conclusion.
We go so far as to assign probabilities, when we can, to certain variables and run Monte Carlo simulations to get an idea of the likelihood of an outcome. Cost Analysis is quite an involved and detailed process
We rarely get the exact number right, but 99% of the time get the direction right and probably 80% of the time come within +/- 30% of the final outcome.
So, if these guys and gals are saying the debt is going to increase a lot, you can put money on it and win almost all the time.But predictions were gold when they were about Biden LOL... I've got second hand embarrassment for their hypocrisy
Oh my, "What the CBO, others, and I did was look at the facts, make reasonable assumptions that all can agree on, and make very informed analyses of everything available to come to a very defendable conclusion."ECO
However, their analyses are known to be off at times. My main point and personal view is that it’s wise to take a wait-and-see approach with predictions. I apply this philosophy to all administrations and strive to maintain a non-biased attitude on these issues.
Based on historical data from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the following US presidential administrations have presided over periods when a recession began:
Republican Presidents:
Donald Trump: February 2020 (COVID-19 Pandemic Recession)
George W. Bush: December 2007 (Great Recession) and March 2001 (Dot-com Bust)
George H.W. Bush: July 1990 (Gulf War Recession)
Ronald Reagan: July 1981 (Energy Crisis II Recession, also a continuation of the 1980 recession)
Richard Nixon: November 1973 (Oil Shock Recession) and December 1969 (Nixon Recession)
Dwight D. Eisenhower: April 1960 ("Rolling Adjustment" Recession), August 1957 (Eisenhower Recession), and July 1953 (Post-Korean War Recession)
Democratic Presidents:
Jimmy Carter: January 1980 (Energy Crisis I Recession)
Harry Truman: November 1948 (Post-War Recession)All very factual. Nice diversion. I had hoped you would further comment on your concerns about your view ---
Kathleen 27 hours ago
"No republican can ever claim they are fiscally conservative ever again.
Not after adding three trillion to the national debt.
But it will be entertaining to watch them contort themselves into excusing this.
Let the tap-dancing begin." Kathleen"
I would say that your diversion is tap dancing at its finest.
AI
19th Century:
Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809) – Democratic-Republican
Panic of 1807
James Madison (1809–1817) – Democratic-Republican
Recession of 1812
James Monroe (1817–1825) – Democratic-Republican
Panic of 1819
Andrew Jackson (1829–1837) – Democrat
Speculative policies led to Panic of 1837
Martin Van Buren (1837–1841) – Democrat
Panic of 1837 led to deep recession
James Buchanan (1857–1861) – Democrat
Panic of 1857
Ulysses S. Grant (1869–1877) – Republican
Panic of 1873
Grover Cleveland (1893–1897) – Democrat
Panic of 1893
William McKinley (1897–1901) – Republican
Aftershock of Panic of 1896
20th Century:
Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909) – Republican
Panic of 1907
Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921) – Democrat
Recession of 1913–14 and 1920–21 (began under Wilson)
Warren G. Harding (1921–1923) – Republican
Inherited 1920–21 recession
Herbert Hoover (1929–1933) – Republican
Great Depression (1929)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945) – Democrat
Recession of 1937–38 (during Great Depression recovery)
Harry S. Truman (1945–1953) – Democrat
Recessions in 1945 and 1949
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–1961) – Republican
Recessions in 1953–54 and 1958
Richard Nixon (1969–1974) – Republican
Recession of 1969–70; 1973–75 began under Nixon
Gerald Ford (1974–1977) – Republican
Continued 1973–75 recession
Jimmy Carter (1977–1981) – Democrat
1980 recession
Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) – Republican
1981–82 recession
George H. W. Bush (1989–1993) – Republican
1990–91 recession
21st Century:
George W. Bush (2001–2009) – Republican
2001 recession; Great Recession (2007–09)
Barack Obama (2009–2017) – Democrat
Inherited Great Recession
Donald Trump (2017–2021) – Republican
COVID-19 recession (2020)
Joe Biden (2021–present) – Democrat
Technical recession in 2022 (two quarters of GDP decline)
I like to present all, not cherry-pick. I think a complete picture is always better, and it says a lot more about the issue. I have always felt that selective thinking is a true problem, and can cause problems.Your list is good, but lacks context. My book on the subject looked at which economic theory was responsible for each recession, including a couple before there was a modern America. My conclusion was the reason conservative economic theory didn't work is because it is unstable; it doesn't have the capacity to counter shocks to the economy. So, with that in mind, I asked ChatGPT to come up with a similar list but changing the party to economic theory.
1792 George Washington (no party) Conservative*
1796–1797 John Adams (F) Conservative*
1802–1804 Thomas Jefferson (DR) Conservative
1807–1810 Thomas Jefferson (DR) Conservative**
1812 James Madison (DR) Conservative*
1815–1821 James Madison / Monroe (DR) Conservative*
1822–1823 James Monroe / Adams (DR) Conservative
1825–1826 John Quincy Adams (DR) Conservative
1833–1834 Andrew Jackson (D) Conservative
1837–1838 Martin Van Buren (D) Conservative
1839–1843 Martin Van Buren (D) Conservative
1845–1846 John Tyler (R) Conservative
1847–1848 James K. Polk (D) Conservative*
1853–1854 Franklin Pierce (D) Conservative
1857–1858 James Buchanan (D) Conservative
1860–1861 James Buchanan (D) Conservative*
1865–1867 Andrew Johnson (D) Conservative*
1869–1870 Ulysses Grant (R) Conservative
1873–1879 Ulysses Grant (R) Conservative
1882–1885 Grover Cleveland (D) Conservative
1887–1888 Grover Cleveland (D) Conservative
1890–1891 Benjamin Harrison (R) Conservative
1893–1894 Grover Cleveland (D) Conservative
1895–1897 Grover Cleveland (D) Conservative
1899–1900 William McKinley (R) Conservative
1902–1904 Theodore Roosevelt (R) Conservative
1907–1908 Theodore Roosevelt (R) Conservative
1910–1912 Robert Taft (R) Conservative
1913–1914 Woodrow Wilson (D) Liberal*
1918–1919 Woodrow Wilson (D) Liberal*
1920–1921 Woodrow Wilson (D) Liberal
1923–1924 Harding/Coolidge (R) Conservative
1926–1927 Calvin Coolidge (R) Conservative
1929–1933 Herbert Hoover (R) Conservative
1937–1938 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) Liberal
1945 FDR/Truman (D) Liberal*
1948–49 Harry Truman (D) Liberal
1953–54 Eisenhower (R) Conservative
1957–58 Eisenhower (R) Conservative
1960–61 Eisenhower (R) Conservative
1969–70 Richard Nixon (R) Conservative
1973–75 Richard Nixon (R) Conservative*
1980 Jimmy Carter (D) Liberal*
1981–82 Ronald Reagan (R) Conservative*
1990–91 George H.W. Bush (R) Conservative
2001 George W. Bush (R) Conservative***
2007–09 George W. Bush (R) Conservative
2020 Donald Trump (R) Conservative*
NOTES:
- The label Liberal and Conservative refers to the economic philosophy in place at the time.
- The ones in italics were 6 months or less
* Caused by external events such as the end of a war or Covid.
** While tied to a war, this was really self-inflicted by a very poor decision
*** This occurred at the end of Clinton's record expansion and was driven by the Dot Com bust.
HOPEFULLY, this definitively backs up Kathleen's claim.
SOURCE: Wikipedia, A Short History of American Recessions, Depressions, and Panics: Why Conservative Economic Theory Doesn't Work
BTW - I agree that " a complete picture is always better, and it says a lot more about the issue. I have always felt that selective thinking is a true problem, and can cause problems."Long comment-- and my point was to try to point out, I am never one to skirt facts. My post certainly indicated it went both ways, actually, more problems with Republican administrations.
" a complete picture is always better, and it says a lot more about the issue. I have always felt that selective thinking is a true problem, and can cause problems." ECO
This pretty much sums up my coment
It's certainly a Happy Independence Day for the rich in America. What else can you ever expect from the GOP - Greedy Old Party.
Make America Good Again - Corey Booker 2028I like Booker, but can he win?
While starting out not liking her, I grew to respect Harris very much and regretted my initial negative impression. - But again, can she win?
I am ambivalent toward Gavin Newsom, but he seems to be building momentum behind him by standing up to Trump the way he has. - He can win.We have so many good options... Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear, Wes Moore, Pete Buttigieg, Tim Walz , JB Pritzker. To name a few.
Yes, agreed. Unfortunately, none of those are making any moves to lead the Democratic Party which is sorely needs right now.
I must take the time and energy to commend people like Credence, Willowarbor, Island Bites, Kathleen, PeoplePower, Tsmog, and many others for doing there best to stick to the truth, present facts, present full context, not sharpshoot, and not twist words or only provide part of the story.
It is refreshing.ESO These are truly perilous times. I would be guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to make people aware of it. Still, never fail to credit yourself as MC. We have to tell the world of “another fine mess” conservatives and rightwinger have gotten us into.
It is going to be a fight to the finish, these hardcore right wing types are well beyond compromise regarding anything.
"I must take the time and energy to commend people like Credence, Willowarbor, Island Bites, Kathleen, PeoplePower, Tsmog, and many others for doing there best to stick to the truth, present facts, present full context, not sharpshoot, and not twist words or only provide part of the story.
It is refreshing."
Thank you for including me in that group. Unfortunately, the tone in these discussions from so many others has driven me to spend my time in more positive pursuits - like writing my ninth book. But I check in now and then. It's nice to be remembered well.
Related Discussions
- 17
CNN and NBC News to lay off employees
by Readmikenow 2 months ago
It appears that people aren't buying into the nonsense at CNN and NBC news anymore.CNN and NBC News to lay off employees, CNBC reportsJan 22 (Reuters) - CNN, a unit of Warner Bros Discovery (WBD.O), opens new tab, plans to lay off hundreds of employees on Thursday, as it refocuses the business...
- 69
I just saw it on the Fox News Channel. Fake News? I wish.
by Angie B Williams 8 years ago
Tuned into the News this morning, first Story;a man, Oscar Lopez Rivera, involved in over 100 bombings across America, was being Honored in a Parade...on American soil.2nd Story; A Play, Shakespeare in the Park, same City as the Parade, New York,but in this Play, Julius Caesar...
- 342
Better hang on to your MAGAT hats, Rightwingers!
by Credence2 2 years ago
Republicans feign outrage over Biden's recent comments?It's enough to make you dizzy, isn't it? Here we have evidence of Republicans routinely calling Democrats fascists (and communists and even pedophiles etc.) yet they are, once again having a hissy fit over Biden using the same word to describe...
- 143
How do we decide who to believe?
by Ken Burgess 8 years ago
The revelation to some, that Congress & D.C. has been in general hijacked by Corporate, Foreign, and Special Interests run amuck... is too much to swallow for many.CNN & MSNBC has long been the propaganda media for these Corporate, Globalist, etc. establishment forces, and so they, along...
- 180
Trump and the Nobel Peace Prize
by Mike Russo 7 years ago
How can Trump be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize when his is constantly working at dividing his own country? Ever since he was elected president, he has constantly called the Main Stream Media the "Fake News." No modern American president has publicly spoken this way about the press....
- 10
The Root Cause of Why This Country is Divided
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
Here is my take on why this country is divided and there is so much vitriol and hate on both sides. Everybody is looking at the symptoms of where we are today, but not the root cause. I’m old enough to remember Walter Cronkite and his News Hour. It was not called a show because it was...