119th Congress or Red Wave In Adult Land

https://twitter.com/x/status/1939780425829732734

I’m fine with a reality check for people going into massive debt to try to find jobs that aren’t there in gender studies and whatnot, but all this shit about needing to get back to the factories and trades and away from a computer screen (which implies an actual job actual businesses pay actual money for already) rings hollow when these same privileged elites fundraise and campaign on the American Dream and upward mobility.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1940093824212046118

While it’s admittedly shameless for a Senator to vote to kick a bunch of people from every state but hers off Medicaid, Murkowski is not responsible for whether or not Thune is willing to exempt her state, and I’d argue it’s actively her job to vote for such an amendment that benefits her direct constituents. The anger is being greatly misplaced here.
 
mqt said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1940093824212046118

While it’s admittedly shameless for a Senator to vote to kick a bunch of people from every state but hers off Medicaid, Murkowski is not responsible for whether or not Thune is willing to exempt her state, and I’d argue it’s actively her job to vote for such an amendment that benefits her direct constituents. The anger is being greatly misplaced here.
Click to expand...
I wish more Senators would realize that a $40 trillion debt (and bills that intend to grow that debt) harms their direct constituents
 
https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profo...eautiful-bill-may-have-ugly-side-for-gamblers

The so-called big, beautiful bill may lead to an ugly outcome for gamblers.

Various online accounts of the Senate version of the massive piece of legislation that has ping-ponged back to the House of Representatives indicate that a change to the tax rules for gambling could make it much harder to ultimately turn a profit.

Apparently, deductions to gambling winnings will (under the Senate’s version of the bill) be limited to 90 percent of losses. Which means that, to put it very simply, $100,000 in winnings against $100,000 in losses will be treated for tax purposes as if the losses were only $90,000.

Which also means that, even if it’s a wash for the gambler, taxes will be owed on $10,000 that the gambler didn’t actually earn.

—————

I thought I hated this bill enough…guess I was wrong
 
Johnson just got a very large complicated bill passed with a small fractious majority. I don't like the bill at all. But it seems to me Johnson has shown a fair amount of political chops in getting this done.
 
nsacpi said:
Johnson just got a very large complicated bill passed with a small fractious majority. I don't like the bill at all. But it seems to me Johnson has shown a fair amount of political chops in getting this done.
Click to expand...
it's not all the complicated other get a bill passed where everyone gets exactly what they want

Spending increases faster with Republicans, because Dems and Repubs will support more spending when Repubs are in office. But only Dems will support more spending while Dems are in office
 
These folks have no idea the massive entitlement wave that will hit if/when AI hits critical mass.

I would bet anyone on this board that even if we saw sustained 5% GDP growth that the debt to GDP ratio would outpace it.
 
The BBB does cut spending by a lot. Y'all keep insisting on this intellectually dishonest benchmark of nominal dollars. Any serious analysis looks at spending in the context of the size of the economy. In other words, adjusted for inflation, population growth and real per capita growth.

Spending (especially on Medicaid) is being cut. Substantially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top