How will the “big bill” affect you?

[Anonymous]

Assume there will be ICE raids on the regular affecting my very nice, responsible immigrant neighbors in my sfh neighborhood.

My red state relatives will probably be hitting us up for cash to help pay their medical bills after voting for Trump. I will not be donating this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assume there will be ICE raids on the regular affecting my very nice, responsible immigrant neighbors in my sfh neighborhood.

My red state relatives will probably be hitting us up for cash to help pay their medical bills after voting for Trump. I will not be donating this time.

The thing about the spending is the insane waste of it all. Spending on infrastructure like clean energy has long term multiplier effects. Making ICE bigger than the Marines (!), all that does is hurt the economy as the actual workers doing the grunt work leave or hide. Spending tens of billions a year for net negative effect. Insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assume there will be ICE raids on the regular affecting my very nice, responsible immigrant neighbors in my sfh neighborhood.

My red state relatives will probably be hitting us up for cash to help pay their medical bills after voting for Trump. I will not be donating this time.

Good. This is exactly how the bill is supposed to work. If you help the relatives, then it fails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like most people on DCUM will be benefiting from this bill, which is why it passed.

FIFY

Medicaid covers 41% of all births in the United States, nearly half of children with special health care needs, 5 in 8 nursing home residents, 29% of non-elderly adults with any mental illness, and 40% of non-elderly adults with HIV. Medicaid pays Medicare premiums and often provides wraparound coverage for services not covered by Medicare (like most long-term care) for nearly 1 in 5 Medicare beneficiaries (13 million). Medicaid is a key source of coverage for individuals experiencing homelessness and those transitioning out of carceral settings, particularly in states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion.

https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/10-things-to-know-about-medicaid/

Seems like Rs want poor people to just die off, including the children.

-party of family values and prolife /s

Rs only want more people to be born, but once they're born, it's up to Jesus to take care of them, not society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The big bill will not impact me personally. My husband and I make $700,000 combined, we live in the DC metro area so we have access to healthcare, we both work so we have healthcare, etc. That said it does impact me emotionally because I have empathy for those that it will impact! I see the transfer of wealth from poor to rich, and that sickens me to my core

+1 It will barely impact us because our HHI is only $170K, but even so, I feel awful for the poor.

I honestly cannot fathom how incredibly greedy rich Rs are to step on the poor just for a bit more money. They don't even need more money, but the little that they are taking away from the poor can be life changing.

I'm so incredibly disgusted by Rs.

-former R

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assume there will be ICE raids on the regular affecting my very nice, responsible immigrant neighbors in my sfh neighborhood.

My red state relatives will probably be hitting us up for cash to help pay their medical bills after voting for Trump. I will not be donating this time.

The thing about the spending is the insane waste of it all. Spending on infrastructure like clean energy has long term multiplier effects. Making ICE bigger than the Marines (!), all that does is hurt the economy as the actual workers doing the grunt work leave or hide. Spending tens of billions a year for net negative effect. Insane.

Yes but owning the libs is priceless.

[Anonymous]

How many of you will donate your tax benefits to programs to help those in need?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The big bill will not impact me personally. My husband and I make $700,000 combined, we live in the DC metro area so we have access to healthcare, we both work so we have healthcare, etc. That said it does impact me emotionally because I have empathy for those that it will impact! I see the transfer of wealth from poor to rich, and that sickens me to my core

+1 It will barely impact us because our HHI is only $170K, but even so, I feel awful for the poor.

I honestly cannot fathom how incredibly greedy rich Rs are to step on the poor just for a bit more money. They don't even need more money, but the little that they are taking away from the poor can be life changing.

I'm so incredibly disgusted by Rs.

-former R

I don’t think it’s greed. It’s psychopathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many of you will donate your tax benefits to programs to help those in need?

What programs? The ones cut by Republicans?

I support political leaders who use our tax money to benefit society as a whole, not just the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will affect me in that I will be living in a sh$thole police state defined by cruelty and corruption. Maybe I will save some in taxes but everything and everyone will suffer. Science, medicine, environment, safety standards, basic rights, and desperate people dying and getting sick.

+1 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will get a large tax cut we don't need and didn't vote for. People will suffer because of it, and that hurts all of us.

Feel free to send a check to Uncle Sam to assuage your guilt. It's an unconditional gift.

There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:


At Pay.gov, you can contribute online by credit card, debit card, PayPal, checking account, or savings account.
You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, and, in the memo section, notate that it's a gift to reduce the debt held by the public. Mail your check to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

Why on earth would they want to send money to the US Government? You think your sarcasm is cute, but you are disgusting. People with $$ hopefully will be giving some to their community.

The OP is discussing the tax aspects of the legislation, not whether or not people should engage in philanthropy. If you think your taxes are too low, you can voluntarily send more in. Or do you think only other people should pay more, not you?

Why would anyone send in money to corrupt Republicans. Clearly they can’t be trusted with any amount of responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider that the cuts to Medicaid will lead to increased healthcare costs and/or lack of healthcare facilities for everyone. Do you want to live in a country with a class of people who don’t get healthcare? It’s disgusting.

Reverting to a work requirement of 20 hours per week for healthy non pregnamt adults is not an unreasonable burden.

Except the vast majority on Medicaid programs are kids, elderly and disabled---people who cannot work.

Also, where are these 20 hour a week jobs? They aren't in every state. I know people who have been looking for months and not found something.

Also the requirement to constantly reapply will bog everything down is massive papework.

It will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

My kid just got a 20-hour a week job yesterday as a cashier. He applied to three places, interviewed at two, and got a job - all within biking distance of our house- with zero work experience and with a 16 year old male’s executive function capabilities.

I’m not saying that all the people who need to meet these requirements will have the same experience but it’s not an impossible thing.

I agree that the requirement to constantly reapply will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

You live in such a bubble. My kid got a part time job this summer at a restaurant after great effort. She applied to over 100 positions, 99% of which never responded. She tried walking into places in person and was told “apply online.” So right away there you have to have access to a computer and internet, which you understand, many poor people do not have. You could do these applications on the phone but it’s very difficult and time consuming; every application requires creating a profile with login and password etc. When she got interviews, they were all auto generated emails that said “here are the times we can see you and if you can’t make one of these, we can’t reschedule.” No human to call or follow up with.

Once receiving the job, she finds her schedule varies wildly. The permanent workers complain because they want more shifts but the employer won’t give them because then they’d have to pay benefits, but then they can’t take another part time job because of the unpredictability of the shifts.

Also, in a six hour shift where she is on her feet moving, cleaning and carrying things constantly she gets no breaks at all; not even to go to the bathroom. Yes, Virginia law has no requirements for food or bathroom breaks, even for an 8 hour shift. Not all people who are allegedly “able bodied” could handle this day in day out. It’s like you’ve never met anyone with diabetic neuropathy, or plantar fasciitis, or Crohn’s, or uncontrolled asthma — you think the world is made up of people like your college age son?

Here’s an experiment. Take your kids bike away for a month, put him in a pair of $15 canvas shoes from Target, give him enough bus fare for 2 days and $20 for groceries tell him he has to feed himself and see how he does. He’ll have a huge leg up with no rent payments. Go ahead, I dare you.

Cute, but here's the problem with your challenge, PP. These part time, minimum wage jobs are not and are never intended to be permanent jobs on which one can support a family. You are SUPPOSED to educate yourself, acquire skills and move up in the world. Oh, and not make poor choices that lead to too much responsibility before one is financially able to support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

Morally there is…you doth protest too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a fed retiree with retiree health. I was bracing for all the changes in the House bill, but I just looked over the soon to be signed bill this morning, and I don't think the SALT deduction will change my decision to use the standard deduction. So for me --no obvious personal financial effect.

The market will eventually respond to this, it can’t be in denial forever, then you’ll be screwed like everyone else. Have a nice day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

[phone]