Big Beautiful Bill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone talking about how the BBB will eviscerate the ability of the courts to issue contempt sanctions that have meaning? The White House snuck this in.

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”

I don’t actually understand what that is saying. Can someone give a specific example of what the R’s are trying to prevent here?

All of these injunctions that courts have issued against the Trump administration could not be enforced. So effectively, it removes judicial oversight over the actions of the administration.

What does "if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued" mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone talking about how the BBB will eviscerate the ability of the courts to issue contempt sanctions that have meaning? The White House snuck this in.

“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….”

I don’t actually understand what that is saying. Can someone give a specific example of what the R’s are trying to prevent here?

All of these injunctions that courts have issued against the Trump administration could not be enforced. So effectively, it removes judicial oversight over the actions of the administration.

What does "if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued" mean?

A judge can require a plaintiff to post a bond when the judge issues a preliminary injunction. The bond is intended to pay the defendant’s costs in complying with preliminary injunction in case the judge later finds a permanent injunction isn’t appropriate. Most judges don’t require the bond particularly when the government is the defendant. That’s been true forever but MAGA is recently very upset about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People need to get what they voted for and if that means a lot of people need to get kicked off of healthcare and lose their jobs and not know how to feed their children then so be it because up until this point they blame the Democrats for not making their lives. Absolutely 100% perfect and don't blame Republicans for s***...... Republicans can literally s*** in their cereal and they will complain that Democrats were not there to scoop it out and so they just could never vote for one.

Get the f over yourself. I'm ready for you to find out

The problem is, don't the biggest effects take place once Trump is out of office? So people's taxes will sky rocket, they'll lose coverage, etc but it will be when he's gone and the same idiots who voted for him aren't going to remember that this bill is what caused it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to get what they voted for and if that means a lot of people need to get kicked off of healthcare and lose their jobs and not know how to feed their children then so be it because up until this point they blame the Democrats for not making their lives. Absolutely 100% perfect and don't blame Republicans for s***...... Republicans can literally s*** in their cereal and they will complain that Democrats were not there to scoop it out and so they just could never vote for one.

Get the f over yourself. I'm ready for you to find out

The problem is, don't the biggest effects take place once Trump is out of office? So people's taxes will sky rocket, they'll lose coverage, etc but it will be when he's gone and the same idiots who voted for him aren't going to remember that this bill is what caused it.

No, last night they moved the phase outs earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People need to get what they voted for and if that means a lot of people need to get kicked off of healthcare and lose their jobs and not know how to feed their children then so be it because up until this point they blame the Democrats for not making their lives. Absolutely 100% perfect and don't blame Republicans for s***...... Republicans can literally s*** in their cereal and they will complain that Democrats were not there to scoop it out and so they just could never vote for one.

Get the f over yourself. I'm ready for you to find out

The problem is, don't the biggest effects take place once Trump is out of office? So people's taxes will sky rocket, they'll lose coverage, etc but it will be when he's gone and the same idiots who voted for him aren't going to remember that this bill is what caused it.

No, last night they moved the phase outs earlier.

Thank you for clarifying!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the GOP “fiscal hawks” caved. And the bond markets reacted negatively.

Another triumph for MAGA in its destruction of American greatness.

Chip Roy got bought with more money for Texas in last minute changes. Railing about federal deficits out of one side of his mouth and easily bought with more money for his state out of the other.

It will be interesting to see if these reps hold on to their seats. They ran on fiscal discipline in dc and have failed miserably.

He's in a deep red district. No chance he's going anywhere. So-called fiscal conservatives never really care about the deficit. They mainly hate the spending they don't like and want more of the spending or tax cuts they do like. Their voters aren't any smarter about it than the people they elect.

PP here. Should have been more clear. Will he and the other deep red district reps get primaried.

Only if his constituents are worried about cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. But he just secured billions more for border enforcement for Texas.

Here's the truth: People don't really care about "fiscal responsibility". They think the federal government spends too much, but then they want more spending on the most expensive parts and they want lower taxes. Oh, and let's fire the IGs and slash the IRS for good measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the GOP “fiscal hawks” caved. And the bond markets reacted negatively.

Another triumph for MAGA in its destruction of American greatness.

Chip Roy got bought with more money for Texas in last minute changes. Railing about federal deficits out of one side of his mouth and easily bought with more money for his state out of the other.

It will be interesting to see if these reps hold on to their seats. They ran on fiscal discipline in dc and have failed miserably.

He's in a deep red district. No chance he's going anywhere. So-called fiscal conservatives never really care about the deficit. They mainly hate the spending they don't like and want more of the spending or tax cuts they do like. Their voters aren't any smarter about it than the people they elect.

PP here. Should have been more clear. Will he and the other deep red district reps get primaried.

Only if his constituents are worried about cuts to Medicaid and SNAP. But he just secured billions more for border enforcement for Texas.

Here's the truth: People don't really care about "fiscal responsibility". They think the federal government spends too much, but then they want more spending on the most expensive parts and they want lower taxes. Oh, and let's fire the IGs and slash the IRS for good measure.

Texas 21 is relatively high income. They'll mostly benefit from the tax cuts in this bill which favor higher income earners. Some people will lose Medicaid, SNAP, and Pell grants, but it's small fraction of his district. (less than 7% rely on Medicaid or SNAP).

https://datausa.io/profile/geo/congressional-district-21-tx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The House bill only works if the U.S. defaults. I can see our multiple-bankrupt president defaulting! Get ready for a depression.

Where is Scott Bessent on this? He’s made several warnings and he’s been invisible lately

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The House bill only works if the U.S. defaults. I can see our multiple-bankrupt president defaulting! Get ready for a depression.

Where is Scott Bessent on this? He’s made several warnings and he’s been invisible lately

He probably figures if he keeps his mouth shut, he won't have to swallow the taint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The House bill only works if the U.S. defaults. I can see our multiple-bankrupt president defaulting! Get ready for a depression.

Where is Scott Bessent on this? He’s made several warnings and he’s been invisible lately

Bessent said that Qatar and Saudi Arabia don’t care so we’re all good.

[Anonymous]

What are the prospects for this in the Senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the prospects for this in the Senate?

Senate GOP preps for ‘one big, beautiful’ rewrite

Just hours after House passage, senators are already talking about big changes.

Senate Republicans are vowing they will make changes to President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” after it passed the House early Thursday morning.

While the end product is likely to contain sweeping areas of overlap with the proposal negotiated by Speaker Mike Johnson, GOP senators made clear Thursday that the House bill can’t pass without major changes. Some of the member demands are contradictory, with some fiscal hawks demanding beefed-up spending reductions while others want softening of the House’s Medicaid language and to preserve more green-energy incentives.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/22/congress/trump-bill-senate-rewrite-00365731

[Anonymous]

I miss Paul Ryan Republicans. They at least had a coherent point of view.

This is a crappy mess of ideas. Cuts to social programs to appease hardliners, some corporate stuff for what's left of the establishment Republicans, and some terrible new ideas from the populist Republicans.

We end up with debt bomb of gimmicky tax ideas and shredding of our threadbare safety net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the prospects for this in the Senate?

Senate GOP preps for ‘one big, beautiful’ rewrite

Just hours after House passage, senators are already talking about big changes.

Senate Republicans are vowing they will make changes to President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” after it passed the House early Thursday morning.

While the end product is likely to contain sweeping areas of overlap with the proposal negotiated by Speaker Mike Johnson, GOP senators made clear Thursday that the House bill can’t pass without major changes. Some of the member demands are contradictory, with some fiscal hawks demanding beefed-up spending reductions while others want softening of the House’s Medicaid language and to preserve more green-energy incentives.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/05/22/congress/trump-bill-senate-rewrite-00365731

Not going to happen. Except for eliminating SALT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are the prospects for this in the Senate?

After a week it will pass as is. This is what Trump wanted and senators do not want to be arrested.