Since we are assigning homework, can you research all the factors that are different between the Us and the EU?

Look forward to reading about the assignments tomorrow. Great idea!

4 said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Absolutely correct. The question is why the grandstanders are not getting on board with what the consensus of Rs have agreed to.

---

Not their job to indulge the majority's emperor's new clothes fantasy. The majority, led by Trump, is wrong. Enshrining $2 trillion deficits into the budget for the foreseeable future is dumb, especially when we're already blowing $1 trillion a year on interest. The fact that he's pairing these deficits with a "well we'll just grow our way out of the deficit" message while simultaneously threatening trade wars with the entire planet ("best case" here looks to be 10% tariffs on everybody) means his left hand is contradicting the actions of his right hand, as even his modest 10% tariffs will slow growth.

---

Why don't they slow the growth for other countries that have had them for decades at much, much higher levels?

---

Two things…

First, who's to say they aren't?

Second, nobody else is taking on the whole world, in every sector, all at once.

Ag CPA said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Of which there is no short term solution, hence Trump going with the budget he did. One that will PASS.

Once passed, we need to keep the pressure up to not spend it.

---

Thats never going to happen. Period. And we all know it.

---

It has a much better chance than the scenario you describe.

---

lol, what color is the sky in your world?

---

So you believe Congress will pass a balanced budget? To support Trump?

Resolving the national debt will require increasing federal revenues and decreasing both mandatory and discretionary spending. The largest option to reduce the deficit would be to eliminate all itemized deductions, which benefit taxpayers when the value of their deductions exceeds the amount of the standard deduction. That would reduce deficits by $3.4 trillion over the 10-year period from 2025 to 2034. Options for decreasing mandatory spending include modifying payments to Medicare advantage plans for health risk and establishing caps on federal spending for Medicaid and establishing a uniform social security benefit.

https://www.pgpf.org/article/76-options-for-reducing-the-deficit/

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You're confusing my understanding of his methods with some blind allegiance I have with the man. He's doing exactly what can be done and he deserves support for that. If you are attempting to shift this discussion into a referendum on me, I'm out.

As far as your question, what area are the metrics you're asking for?

And in return, what mark are you looking for to call him a success?

---

For me, I'd be fine for supporters to call it a success if he accomplishes any of the goals he has claimed he was going to (even if I disagree with those goals)

So that would basically be replacing income taxes with tariffs
OR
Reshoring enough manufacturing jobs to begin the path to a robust middle class again
OR
Getting enough good deals that American companies are able to compete abroad in ways they can't right now, which leads to more jobs/growth at home

Of course, across all of these I would also say keeping the deficit from getting any worse.

I just feel like right now, we hear all of these goals that are contradictory and cannot all come true, and people just pick and choose which argument to use based on whatever whim he's had for the last 24 hours.

So the market crashes? Some folks literally claim it is on purpose to make our debt "cheaper".
Market goes back up some? He's a market genius and we're about to take off.
Tariffs on? <Some country nobody on here has mentioned ever> has been ripping us off for years and we're playing hardball.
Tafiffs off? <Same country nobody on here has mentioned ever> is probably begging to come to the table - it was all a negotiating tactic.
The other country pays the tariff, yet Walmart should "eat" the tariff.
Under previous admin, the price of anything going up was met with non stop anger, but now Americans just need to suck it up and pay multiples for the same goods.

My whole point was just trying to get an idea of what some long term goals are so that it's not just shuffling to whatever "aim of the day" fits the narrative of the day.

Nm

Either way, looks like the true fiscal conservatives in the Senate are going to step in.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/25/republicans-senate-house-budget-bill-trump.html

Ron Johnson has TDS!!

No, Ron Johnson doesn't have enough WIIFM, so he wants a bit more.

A true leader would make such statements in private.

Doing in it public is only deal making. Good for him, but he's playing with fire and he is only doing it for himself.

Same story, nothing to do with Trump other than he calls them out. And he has the non-political kred to do it.

Mike Johnson is the biggest disappointment ever. He's nothing but Trump's lap dog now. Ron is right to call him out.

Oh that's funny.

He's not my style, but he's been historically effective FWIW.

May not like his product, but he's been effective.

Miller weighs in on OBBBA. He has a point about DOGE cuts.

I’ve seen a few claims making the rounds on the Big Beautiful Bill that require correction.

The first is that it doesn’t “codify the DOGE cuts.” A reconciliation bill, which is a budget bill that passes with 50 votes, is limited by senate rules to “mandatory” spending only — eg…

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) May 25, 2025

Those pesky rules.

Ag CPA said:

---

Either way, looks like the true fiscal conservatives in the Senate are going to step in.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/25/republicans-senate-house-budget-bill-trump.html

---

""We have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about spending reduction and reducing the deficit," Sen. Johnson said on CNN's 'State of the Union.'"

Leadership....nice!

Trump isn't even remotely fiscally conservative, so I fully expect him to TRUTHrant like a mofo about this.

Seems to me that by virtue of continuing resolutions, there can never be any "permanent" cuts to spending nor cuts to revenue.

Maybe a better R vs D position is who wants to cut revenue AND spending, and who wants to increase BOTH.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Seems to me that by virtue of continuing resolutions, there can never be any "permanent" cuts to spending nor cuts to revenue.

Maybe a better R vs D position is who wants to cut revenue AND spending, and who wants to increase BOTH.

---

Which is the whole point of them. We haven't had a budget since 1996 for a reason.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Seems to me that by virtue of continuing resolutions, there can never be any "permanent" cuts to spending nor cuts to revenue.

Maybe a better R vs D position is who wants to cut revenue AND spending, and who wants to increase BOTH.

---

That's not true. Mandatory spending is 60% of the federal budget, which can be addressed in a reconciliation bill. So yes, you can have permanent cuts. Miller is claiming they made permanent cuts of $160 billion per year on average. Question is, when do those cuts actually come into play. If they are all back loaded, which is what I've read, it's nothing but gimmickry. They will be nuked by a future Congress in another reconciliation bill. The cuts must be made in the next 3 fiscal years or they are meaningless.

DOGE is discretionary, thus Miller's comment. It can't be touched in this type of bill. The CRs address discretionary spending, which will never be cut because it requires 60 votes.

Quote:

---

They will be nuked by a future Congress in another reconciliation bill. The cuts must be made in the next 3 fiscal years or they are meaningless.

---

Do you see anything in Congress that would lead us to believe it's possible? I damn sure don't. Hence, a collapse is our best bet. I almost wish they would draft drastic reforms to SS and Medicare to spite Trump. Then they could blame the pending **** storm in the economy on him.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

They will be nuked by a future Congress in another reconciliation bill. The cuts must be made in the next 3 fiscal years or they are meaningless.

---

Do you see anything in Congress that would lead us to believe it's possible? I damn sure don't. Hence, a collapse is our best bet. I almost wish they would draft drastic reforms to SS and Medicare to spite Trump. Then they could blame the pending **** storm in the economy on him.

---

I do not. Neither side wants to cut spending. Two things will eventually happen: austerity and inflation.

Rand says they are waiting for the president to send a "formal rescission bill" to cut doge stuff.

No idea how that works.

🧵Congress can’t cut spending through DOGE without the President sending a formal “rescission” bill. That’s the law. It only takes a simple majority to pass—but so far, no bill has been sent. In this case, Congress is waiting on the White House.

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) May 26, 2025

Logos Stick said:

---

Rand says they are waiting for the president to send a "formal recession bill" to cut doge stuff.

No idea how that works.

🧵Congress can’t cut spending through DOGE without the President sending a formal “rescission” bill. That’s the law. It only takes a simple majority to pass—but so far, no bill has been sent. In this case, Congress is waiting on the White House.

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) May 26, 2025

---

Last couple of weeks is the first time I've ever seen this "rescission" term.

Yeah, Massie brought it up recently, but when has the Executive ever cut spending.

Logos Stick said:

---

Rand says they are waiting for the president to send a "formal rescission bill" to cut doge stuff.

No idea how that works.

🧵Congress can’t cut spending through DOGE without the President sending a formal “rescission” bill. That’s the law. It only takes a simple majority to pass—but so far, no bill has been sent. In this case, Congress is waiting on the White House.

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) May 26, 2025

---

No way it passes.

Rescission only needs 50 votes to pass.

Is it only a Senate vote?

Same principle in the House. 50%+1

Logos Stick said:

---

Miller weighs in on OBBBA. He has a point about DOGE cuts.

I’ve seen a few claims making the rounds on the Big Beautiful Bill that require correction.

The first is that it doesn’t “codify the DOGE cuts.” A reconciliation bill, which is a budget bill that passes with 50 votes, is limited by senate rules to “mandatory” spending only — eg…

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) May 25, 2025

---

He may have a point about recision but then he says the quiet part out loud. The 2017 TCJA was passed by reconciliation with the legislation deemed revenue neutral over 10 years because the tax rates went back up. That was the promise - temporary rate reductions to stimulate at the beginning. Except this guy says those rates were always meant to be permanent. So anything they're telling us is temporary this time around should be understood as intended to be permanent? That's an insane thing to say.

Anything in the bill past the next 4 years is expected to be thrown out by then. All those promised changes to welfare? **** you it's going back to more spending. They just want to dupe us all apparently.

TRM said:

---

Rescission only needs 50 votes to pass.

---

They must have a reason they are waiting?

samurai_science said:

---

TRM said:

---

Rescission only needs 50 votes to pass.

---

They must have a reason they are waiting?

---

Probably forgot about it.

Update!

Quote:

---

This week, @SenateGOP will begin to "scrub" the 1,000+ page bill to comply with something called the Byrd rule.

I've called it the "Byrd Bath."

In short: because reconciliation (this bill) is a fast-track process that only requires 51 Senate votes versus 60, there are strict rules for compliance. The bill must directly impact federal spending or taxes.

For example, liberals previously tried to use their own reconciliation process to give mass amnesty to illegal aliens, but they FAILED (aka, it didn't pass the Byrd rule) because it would've been a huge policy change that outweighed budget impact.

Note: The House is NOT bound by the Byrd ruleonly we are. I've used this example: the House has to fit through a garage door, the Senate has to squeeze through a window in the garage door.

It just comes down to process. We've got one shot to get it right. President Trump knows about the Byrd rule, and we're in 24/7 communication to PASS THE BILL and DELIVER.

---

🚨 UPDATE: President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.'

We've gotten a ton of questions on what's NEXT. Here's a breakdown:

This week, @SenateGOP will begin to "scrub" the 1,000+ page bill to comply with something called the Byrd rule.

I’ve called it the “Byrd Bath.”

In…

— Markwayne Mullin (@SenMullin) May 27, 2025

Im Gipper said:

---

Update!

Quote:

---

This week, @SenateGOP will begin to "scrub" the 1,000+ page bill to comply with something called the Byrd rule.

I've called it the "Byrd Bath."

In short: because reconciliation (this bill) is a fast-track process that only requires 51 Senate votes versus 60, there are strict rules for compliance. The bill must directly impact federal spending or taxes.

For example, liberals previously tried to use their own reconciliation process to give mass amnesty to illegal aliens, but they FAILED (aka, it didn't pass the Byrd rule) because it would've been a huge policy change that outweighed budget impact.

Note: The House is NOT bound by the Byrd ruleonly we are. I've used this example: the House has to fit through a garage door, the Senate has to squeeze through a window in the garage door.

It just comes down to process. We've got one shot to get it right. President Trump knows about the Byrd rule, and we're in 24/7 communication to PASS THE BILL and DELIVER.

---

🚨 UPDATE: President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.'

We've gotten a ton of questions on what's NEXT. Here's a breakdown:

This week, @SenateGOP will begin to "scrub" the 1,000+ page bill to comply with something called the Byrd rule.

I’ve called it the “Byrd Bath.”

In…

— Markwayne Mullin (@SenMullin) May 27, 2025

---

Another example of why the idea of a "big beautiful bill" is actuall a "big *******ized boondoggle" that is meant to throw read meat to the gullible.

Bills shouldn't have more than a couple of pages in them. 1,000+ is ridiculous and should garner an automatic no from any congressman with a semblance of honesty.

Ron Johnson (R-WI) is the next one working to grandstand on the bill. He wants more cuts (fine) but is always spouting off that Trump may have to wait on BBB#2 and a very unlikely, impossibly BBB#3.

Ron wants to do the old fashion negotiating on shows like Kudlow but I don't think Trump cares this time around.

He feels fully enabled to get what HE thinks is best, and its step in line or move to the side. Standing in front of the Trump 2.0 train is a fools errand.

Expect Rick Scott to expand the rhetoric that the child's table bill from the House will need to be cleaned up by the grown-ups in the Senate. Problem those grown-ups are only in it for themselves, their legacy or their next political venture.

Trump should severely punish states who Senators do not get in line.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ron Johnson (R-WI) is the next one working to grandstand on the bill. He wants more cuts (fine) but is always spouting off that Trump may have to wait on BBB#2 and a very unlikely, impossibly BBB#3.

Ron wants to do the old fashion negotiating on shows like Kudlow but I don't think Trump cares this time around.

He feels fully enabled to get what HE thinks is best, and its step in line or move to the side. Standing in front of the Trump 2.0 train is a fools errand.

Expect Rick Scott to expand the rhetoric that the child's table bill from the House will need to be cleaned up by the grown-ups in the Senate. Problem those grown-ups are only in it for themselves, their legacy or their next political venture.

Trump should severely punish states who Senators do not get in line.

---

Trump himself promised to meaningfully cut government spending. He has now proposed the exact opposite. Johnson pointed that out. You are in a cult.

They are meaningfully cutting spending.

Maybe not as much as some would like but Trump is delivering.

It's not a cult want America to be great again. But it makes
You feel better to accuse someone of being in a cult because they believe in America, then I am in a cult.

🚨BREAKING: Just moments ago, Sen. Rick Scott said he's a NO on the One Big Beautiful Bill in its current form. He's demanding more spending cuts and setting America on the path to a balanced budget.

“Oh absolutely I’d vote no. If they brought it to the floor right now there’s… pic.twitter.com/a73QWl2IHb

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 27, 2025

Grandstanding. Squawk. Grandstanding.