Do Rep Voters Honestly Believe that the BBB Will Benefit Them?

[Anonymous]

It provides for more detention space and hiring of agents for ICE to do deportations.

You have fund for parents to send kids to private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What higher deficit? They largely kept the same tax rates.
There would have been a higher debt no matter what budget passed, as we saw with all the CRs the last 15 years.
This time they managed to corral the conservatives whining about the deficit who refused to vote for any budget bill. Thus they didn't have to go to Democrats for votes and could pass a lower level of spending.

Those tax rates were set to expire because they could not be made permanent under reconciliation the first time around. When passed, Trump and Republicans assumed Trump would have two terms and the Dems would likely handle the fallout.

But now they have to handle it. And instead of doing that, they are making the tax cut permanent at a 3.3T cost of the deficit.

The deficit and debt will increase because these cuts were never meant to be permanent. They are not sustainable even with massive spending cuts. Republicans just proved that the level of spending cuts required to get the deficit under control are not viable politically. The only answer is tax increases, and instead of addressing the issue, they are kicking the can down the road and massively increasing the deficit and rate of increase to the debt.

No. The answer is to stop spending our money! It's not the government's money, it's not your money, etc. It's our money, and they can reduce the deficit by cutting programs that don't improve anything and arent working. All this foreign aid has bought us nothing but the hate of the nations we give it to. Covering medical bills of poor people has brought nothing but a growing "eat the rich" mentality. So no more. You want class warfare- or more accurately warfare between people who want to live and work honestly and those who don't-- you've got it now. We aren't duped. We know what we are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:… if they’re not billionaires? They honestly believe that the cuts to Medicaid will only kick out “illegals” and lazy people? That the new higher deficit won’t have a negative impact on the economy and everyday people? I’m really trying to understand how Rep voters believe this. Is it Fox News propaganda? Are they really that gullible?

The BBB will absolutely benefit the middle class by making tax cuts permanent and eliminating taxes on overtime and tips. I would rather have my hard earned money in my pocket, than have goons like Jeffries or AOC decide where it is to be spent. My money will be spent for the benefit of my children. The goons spend money to stay in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

You need to pick an argument, because you cant have both. You cant both argue that there aren't enough people on medicaid AND that this will cast millions of people into medical poverty. It either has wide reaching effects or it doesn't.

They are mitigating the impact to providers with alternative payments.

Most of the savings come from cutting green energy subsidies anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:… if they’re not billionaires? They honestly believe that the cuts to Medicaid will only kick out “illegals” and lazy people? That the new higher deficit won’t have a negative impact on the economy and everyday people? I’m really trying to understand how Rep voters believe this. Is it Fox News propaganda? Are they really that gullible?

I give no effs about lazy losers on Medicaid.

There are significant benefits to this bill for the not-rich average American. My DH is a LEO and the no tax on overtime will be huge in our house, we were doing the math on that last night. I expect a lot of middle class people who work an hourly wage will find this benefit substantial.

Deductions for social security is also a big winner.

I am a small business owner and the depreciation of 100% now for equipment is huge. So is the pass through deduction of 20%.

So no we aren’t gullible or stupid, we just know how to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What higher deficit? They largely kept the same tax rates.
There would have been a higher debt no matter what budget passed, as we saw with all the CRs the last 15 years.
This time they managed to corral the conservatives whining about the deficit who refused to vote for any budget bill. Thus they didn't have to go to Democrats for votes and could pass a lower level of spending.

Those tax rates were set to expire because they could not be made permanent under reconciliation the first time around. When passed, Trump and Republicans assumed Trump would have two terms and the Dems would likely handle the fallout.

But now they have to handle it. And instead of doing that, they are making the tax cut permanent at a 3.3T cost of the deficit.

The deficit and debt will increase because these cuts were never meant to be permanent. They are not sustainable even with massive spending cuts. Republicans just proved that the level of spending cuts required to get the deficit under control are not viable politically. The only answer is tax increases, and instead of addressing the issue, they are kicking the can down the road and massively increasing the deficit and rate of increase to the debt.

No. The answer is to stop spending our money! It's not the government's money, it's not your money, etc. It's our money, and they can reduce the deficit by cutting programs that don't improve anything and arent working. All this foreign aid has bought us nothing but the hate of the nations we give it to. Covering medical bills of poor people has brought nothing but a growing "eat the rich" mentality. So no more. You want class warfare- or more accurately warfare between people who want to live and work honestly and those who don't-- you've got it now. We aren't duped. We know what we are doing.

You still don't get it, and you obviously DON'T know what you're doing, because they are going to be spending A LOT MORE of "your money."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

You need to pick an argument, because you cant have both. You cant both argue that there aren't enough people on medicaid AND that this will cast millions of people into medical poverty. It either has wide reaching effects or it doesn't.

They are mitigating the impact to providers with alternative payments.

Most of the savings come from cutting green energy subsidies anyway.

I didn't say what you said I said. I just said that the specific category of people you refer to isn't big enough to account for the cuts. The cuts are going to affect healthcare for the people who are ALREADY doing what the bill says they will have to do, and the providers who provide care for everybody.

And where the work requirements have been tested they turned out to be a flop, due to the increased administrative burden and failure to create a functioning reporting system for people to report their work. So EVEN IF they were working, they were still getting kicked off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:… if they’re not billionaires? They honestly believe that the cuts to Medicaid will only kick out “illegals” and lazy people? That the new higher deficit won’t have a negative impact on the economy and everyday people? I’m really trying to understand how Rep voters believe this. Is it Fox News propaganda? Are they really that gullible?

I give no effs about lazy losers on Medicaid.

There are significant benefits to this bill for the not-rich average American. My DH is a LEO and the no tax on overtime will be huge in our house, we were doing the math on that last night. I expect a lot of middle class people who work an hourly wage will find this benefit substantial.

Deductions for social security is also a big winner.

I am a small business owner and the depreciation of 100% now for equipment is huge. So is the pass through deduction of 20%.

So no we aren’t gullible or stupid, we just know how to read.

The "you guys are fools!" were telling us a mere year ago that Biden was perfectly healthy and that any suggestion otherwise was a "right wing talking point." And any video evidence that he was unsteady on his feet was a "cheap fake." Then they told us that if President Trump were reelected, he would somehow rescind the rights of black people and they would be sent to camps. They said that once he got into office, he would declare martial law. They were urging people to get their passports ready to flee the country! They said our economy would crash and burn. And Biden and Hillary both said that if we elected Trump, it would be our last election ever. Now they want us to believe their vague and unspecified claims that we misunderstand the BBB situation and that actually, by giving us money they will be taking our money. And we, they assess, are the uneducated morons. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Yes. My parents (whose income is about $80,000) genuinely believe this bill means tax cuts for the middle class and the only people affected by the Medicaid and SNAP cuts are fraudsters who shouldn't have been receiving benefits at all. They believe whatever FOX News tells them. When I reminded them that my nephew is on state insurance the response was "yes, it's paid for by the state. Why would he lose any benefits?" The willful ignorance is infuriating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What higher deficit? They largely kept the same tax rates.
There would have been a higher debt no matter what budget passed, as we saw with all the CRs the last 15 years.
This time they managed to corral the conservatives whining about the deficit who refused to vote for any budget bill. Thus they didn't have to go to Democrats for votes and could pass a lower level of spending.

Those tax rates were set to expire because they could not be made permanent under reconciliation the first time around. When passed, Trump and Republicans assumed Trump would have two terms and the Dems would likely handle the fallout.

But now they have to handle it. And instead of doing that, they are making the tax cut permanent at a 3.3T cost of the deficit.

The deficit and debt will increase because these cuts were never meant to be permanent. They are not sustainable even with massive spending cuts. Republicans just proved that the level of spending cuts required to get the deficit under control are not viable politically. The only answer is tax increases, and instead of addressing the issue, they are kicking the can down the road and massively increasing the deficit and rate of increase to the debt.

No. The answer is to stop spending our money! It's not the government's money, it's not your money, etc. It's our money, and they can reduce the deficit by cutting programs that don't improve anything and arent working. All this foreign aid has bought us nothing but the hate of the nations we give it to. Covering medical bills of poor people has brought nothing but a growing "eat the rich" mentality. So no more. You want class warfare- or more accurately warfare between people who want to live and work honestly and those who don't-- you've got it now. We aren't duped. We know what we are doing.

You still don't get it, and you obviously DON'T know what you're doing, because they are going to be spending A LOT MORE of "your money."

Explain to me how, by me being able to keep an additional 66k for every million in income, I am losing money. Please. Be specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. My parents (whose income is about $80,000) genuinely believe this bill means tax cuts for the middle class and the only people affected by the Medicaid and SNAP cuts are fraudsters who shouldn't have been receiving benefits at all. They believe whatever FOX News tells them. When I reminded them that my nephew is on state insurance the response was "yes, it's paid for by the state. Why would he lose any benefits?" The willful ignorance is infuriating.

Even the NYT couldn't seem to figure out who this hurts and how. They had to use sad piano music to manipulate the emotions of the listeners because the facts just don't support the thesis that BBB takes from anyone who works and contributes to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

You need to pick an argument, because you cant have both. You cant both argue that there aren't enough people on medicaid AND that this will cast millions of people into medical poverty. It either has wide reaching effects or it doesn't.

They are mitigating the impact to providers with alternative payments.

Most of the savings come from cutting green energy subsidies anyway.

They aren't cutting biofuel subsidies, they are expanding them. Gift to corn production. That's one reason ag groups like the bill. They are also increasing the reference prices that have to go with federal commodities price supports. Just like Trump 1.0 when ag cash subsidies tripled.

[Anonymous]

The question is are we willing to accept the collateral damage?

Just like in any battle or war...there is collateral damage. To what extent are we willing to accept collateral damage?

[Anonymous]

There is no free lunch. Economics 101. No matter what the change is - someone, somewhere is going to have to pay for it.