Quote:

---

The Republicans can do it. They have the majority in both chambers and the WH. Just have to show some courage and get it done.

---

The have the majority because of the last election. Their only concern now is the next election.

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Republicans can do it. They have the majority in both chambers and the WH. Just have to show some courage and get it done.

---

The have the majority because of the last election. Their only concern now is the next election.

---

There's no point in having a majority if you don't use it to implement your agenda. The Republicans ran on a platform of cutting taxes and government spending. They're good at cutting taxes but always chicken-out on cutting spending.

The younger generation is mad at older generations for the mountain of debt we are handing them, and rightly so. It's moments like voting on this Big Ugly Bill where Republicans should grow a spine to put government spending on the right path.

zephyr88 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Safe to say Elon's not a fan of the BBB.

---

It cuts subsidies he benefits from.

---

He's just mad because he's not getting any of the handouts.

If his product is so great, why does it need to be subsidized?

---

This is exactly what the issue is.
Folks like Elon talk a big game but then cannot help enriching themselves on the backs of the American taxpayer. I don't like the spending involved and I want deep cuts as I hate debt.

However, Elon is not clean. I am glad Trump got rid of him. My main reason is Elon is an H1B champion and aggressively so and does not see (or does not care to) see all the ways it hurts Americans and is misused. At least he should speak up about that. No, he never did. I am mad at Vivek Ramaswamy for also not being clear and open about the H1B misuse. We don't need all those bargain basement people from India streaming in to lower salaries and turning America into a 3rd world country.

If Elon cannot survive without subsidies, he needs to shut shop and GTFO out of the industry. He is not doing anyone any favors by running Tesla.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Republicans can do it. They have the majority in both chambers and the WH. Just have to show some courage and get it done.

---

The have the majority because of the last election. Their only concern now is the next election.

---

There's no point in having a majority if you don't use it to implement your agenda. The Republicans ran on a platform of cutting taxes and government spending. They're good at cutting taxes but always chicken-out on cutting spending.

The younger generation is mad at older generations for the mountain of debt we are handing them, and rightly so. It's moments like voting on this Big Ugly Bill where Republicans should grow a spine to put government spending on the right path.

---

The challenge is that Trump doesn't want to cut spending and neither do the Republicans. Anytime any Republicans start talking about it, Trump immediately calls for their head. All of the folks who are blindly following Trump no matter what are not going to stop and listen to reason on this topic. If Trump says to spend, they will support it.

I like Trump for a whole hell of a lot of what he does and he will always be better than any other Democrat, but he unfortunately is not going to help the cause when it comes to spending.

Agree on all points

MemphisAg1 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Republicans can do it. They have the majority in both chambers and the WH. Just have to show some courage and get it done.

---

The have the majority because of the last election. Their only concern now is the next election.

---

There's no point in having a majority if you don't use it to implement your agenda. The Republicans ran on a platform of cutting taxes and government spending. They're good at cutting taxes but always chicken-out on cutting spending.

The younger generation is mad at older generations for the mountain of debt we are handing them, and rightly so. It's moments like voting on this Big Ugly Bill where Republicans should grow a spine to put government spending on the right path.

---

Like what happened to the geriatric generation that is Trump's, those today who talk about wasteful spending, many doing so as more of as a way to add to the wedge issues they can throw at the "other side" than anything else, will likely go through life caring less and less about government spending so long as they can "own" the other side.

It's worked great for Trump for the past decade+ years, there's no reason in their mind, for them to think it won't work great for the youngins.

Quote:

---

Another option would be to keep the tax benefits in the bill and reduce federal spending in absolute dollars by 10%. No gimmicks or shell games... cut spending by 10%.

---

Two things you're ignoring or not considering

1. Only an appropriations bill can address the cuts at that scale. This is not an appropriations bill.

2. Cuts that large (yes, they consider that large) will not get the votes to get through Congress.

What to do is not in question, it's a matter of how. People seem to think Trump has a magic wand over Congress that they will respect his mandate and vote accordingly. Do people understand how duped society is to believe it is only a Republican problem and only Republicans can solve it? Why is there zero pressure on Democrats to cross over and help with an issue as important as this? We are that fractured as a nation.

I admitted I could live with a minimal solution of keep spending flat for 10 years. As bloated as our spending is now, that is very doable. And Trump could absolutely make it happen if he supported it. He does all kind of other grand initiatives where the R's in Congress follow along. He could do it here also. He is not "excused" from the spending problem... he's a huge part of it.

The most common sense move of all would be to reset spending to pre-COVID levels. There is literally zero reason to make that the new baseline and the government should have no issue simply making that happen. But, we are such a stupid populace run by cowards in the Republican Party and evil, corrupt non-humans in the Democrat party that it hasn't even been mentioned as something to consider.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The Republicans can do it. They have the majority in both chambers and the WH. Just have to show some courage and get it done.

---

The have the majority because of the last election. Their only concern now is the next election.

---

There's no point in having a majority if you don't use it to implement your agenda. The Republicans ran on a platform of cutting taxes and government spending. They're good at cutting taxes but always chicken-out on cutting spending.

The younger generation is mad at older generations for the mountain of debt we are handing them, and rightly so. It's moments like voting on this Big Ugly Bill where Republicans should grow a spine to put government spending on the right path.

---

I technically fall into the 'younger' generation and now have 3 under three y/o's to think about as well, and generally agree with you. But to split hairs a bit, the "costs" of this bill are the extension and permanency of the tax cuts which are designed to fuel higher GDP growth to outrun the growth in debt. Not necessarily in new spending.

The unfortunate reality is that our debts are now so large that they are not repayable without a massive devaluation in the Dollar, i.e. hyperinflating it away, so the only real path to managing the debt load is to grow the economy base faster than the debts can accumulate, ideally improved by cutting government spending at the same time...shrink the marginal difference between economic and debt growth.

But the other unfortunate reality is that nearly 25% of our entire GDP is from federal spending alone and gutting it by reducing spending in one stroke would necessarily mean hundreds of thousands of unemployed, debt defaults, and a contraction in GDP worse than what happened in 2007-08. Just a 10% reduction in federal spending would equate to ~2% decrease in GDP, compared with our average 2-3% GDP growth...that would in turn spike long term bond rates and jack up interest payments even more so than now, starting an inescapable downward debt spiral. That's the devil of what unresponsible government entitlement programs really have wrought.

Granted, some want to rip the bandaide off, even if that means spending the next 20 years in a deflationary cycle the same as Japan has been in since the '90's. There's some wisdom there but not without other massive trade offs.

All that to say the bill could go further in reducing gov't spending, but just as the problem was not created quickly, it won't be ended quickly.

And I bet we will see another Reconciliation budget passed before Christmas this year...and another next year.... so there are more bites at the apple.

zephyr88 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Safe to say Elon's not a fan of the BBB.

---

It cuts subsidies he benefits from.

---

He's just mad because he's not getting any of the handouts.

If his product is so great, why does it need to be subsidized?

---

Elon is a huge solar advocate. If you truly want to electrify, you have to use hydrocarbons and nuclear power. He thinks we can do it with solar, which is a fantasy imo.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I admitted I could live with a minimal solution of keep spending flat for 10 years. As bloated as our spending is now, that is very doable. And Trump could absolutely make it happen if he supported it. He does all kind of other grand initiatives where the R's in Congress follow along. He could do it here also. He is not "excused" from the spending problem... he's a huge part of it.

---

How much of the debt increase is interest on existing debt?

Logos Stick said:

---

zephyr88 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

ts5641 said:

---

Safe to say Elon's not a fan of the BBB.

---

It cuts subsidies he benefits from.

---

He's just mad because he's not getting any of the handouts.

If his product is so great, why does it need to be subsidized?

---

Elon is a huge solar advocate. If you truly want to electrify, you have to use hydrocarbons and nuclear power. He thinks we can do it with solar, which is a fantasy imo.

---

That's unusually stupid of him.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I admitted I could live with a minimal solution of keep spending flat for 10 years. As bloated as our spending is now, that is very doable. And Trump could absolutely make it happen if he supported it. He does all kind of other grand initiatives where the R's in Congress follow along. He could do it here also. He is not "excused" from the spending problem... he's a huge part of it.

---

How much of the debt increase is interest on existing debt?

---

I don't know, but I think you're making my point for me. If a significant part of the debt increase is for interest on existing debt, then it's even that more urgent and imperative that Trump take the lead to actually reduce spending because we're otherwise in an unsustainable position.

Increasing the debt and kicking the can down the road when the debt was an immaterial percentage of GDP was one thing. Continuing to do it now at this level of debt is insane. Yet none of the GOP leadership is willing to step up and confront it, even though they ran on a platform where they said they would.

Very disappointing.

I've been there too. Had three under three about 30 years ago. Your generation and your kids are facing a tough road because of the financial negligence of my generation, the ones who came before us, and anybody today of adult voting age who isn't demanding that Congress deal with this problem now instead of kicking the can down the road.

We don't have to boil the ocean to start moving in the direction of good. Holding spending flat for 10 years would be a good start, but we don't even have the will to do that.

I'm no longer gonna go along with "we have to pass this now because if we don't the alternative is worse."

BS -- there's another alternative to manage spending more aggressively. It can be done. Just have to show the courage and lead by example.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I admitted I could live with a minimal solution of keep spending flat for 10 years. As bloated as our spending is now, that is very doable. And Trump could absolutely make it happen if he supported it. He does all kind of other grand initiatives where the R's in Congress follow along. He could do it here also. He is not "excused" from the spending problem... he's a huge part of it.

---

How much of the debt increase is interest on existing debt?

---

I don't know, but I think you're making my point for me. If a significant part of the debt increase is for interest on existing debt, then it's even that more urgent and imperative that Trump take the lead to actually reduce spending because we're otherwise in an unsustainable position.

Increasing the debt and kicking the can down the road when the debt was an immaterial percentage of GDP was one thing. Continuing to do it now at this level of debt is insane. Yet none of the GOP leadership is willing to step up and confront it, even though they ran on a platform where they said they would.

Very disappointing.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the $5T debt increase is because they are using the tax cuts ($4T) as debt.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the $5T debt increase is because they are using the tax cuts ($4T) as debt.

---

Most of the tax cuts are just an extension of current tax rates, so it's not like we're on the verge of substantially reducing government revenue.

The issue is spending. There are many possible solutions and I'm not hung up on any specific one. A couple reasonable options:

1. Align spending with the baseline before the pandemic and only increase it for inflation going forward.

2. Hold spending flat at current levels for 10 years and do not increase annually for inflation.

Either one of those would begin moving us in the direction of good. Those are very mild options, but R leadership won't even embrace those.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I admitted I could live with a minimal solution of keep spending flat for 10 years. As bloated as our spending is now, that is very doable. And Trump could absolutely make it happen if he supported it. He does all kind of other grand initiatives where the R's in Congress follow along. He could do it here also. He is not "excused" from the spending problem... he's a huge part of it.

---

How much of the debt increase is interest on existing debt?

---

I don't know, but I think you're making my point for me. If a significant part of the debt increase is for interest on existing debt, then it's even that more urgent and imperative that Trump take the lead to actually reduce spending because we're otherwise in an unsustainable position.

Increasing the debt and kicking the can down the road when the debt was an immaterial percentage of GDP was one thing. Continuing to do it now at this level of debt is insane. Yet none of the GOP leadership is willing to step up and confront it, even though they ran on a platform where they said they would.

Very disappointing.

---

And again, an appropriations bill is needed for cuts at that scale and they require 60 votes in the Senate. Are you willing to let the tax cuts expire on the chance you'll get 10 democrats to agree to massive budget cuts? I understand, it's bull**** but it's reality. This bill is the middle ground to protect the tax cuts, and I suspect the appropriations bill will be attempted after mid terms. Bull**** again, but it's the only way.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I admitted I could live with a minimal solution of keep spending flat for 10 years. As bloated as our spending is now, that is very doable. And Trump could absolutely make it happen if he supported it. He does all kind of other grand initiatives where the R's in Congress follow along. He could do it here also. He is not "excused" from the spending problem... he's a huge part of it.

---

How much of the debt increase is interest on existing debt?

---

I don't know, but I think you're making my point for me. If a significant part of the debt increase is for interest on existing debt, then it's even that more urgent and imperative that Trump take the lead to actually reduce spending because we're otherwise in an unsustainable position.

Increasing the debt and kicking the can down the road when the debt was an immaterial percentage of GDP was one thing. Continuing to do it now at this level of debt is insane. Yet none of the GOP leadership is willing to step up and confront it, even though they ran on a platform where they said they would.

Very disappointing.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the $5T debt increase is because they are using the tax cuts ($4T) as debt.

---

The original reason was that Trump simply wanted it out of the way while he was POTUS so it wouldn't be a media/PR distraction to get his plans done.

In that regard I agree with him because the debt ceiling is theater and only ever gives R a black eye as they temporarily express faux outrage over spending increases before they cut a deal that only benefits Democrats.

Thus, getting the debt ceiling out of the way is one less negotiating angle for Democrats while simultaneously acknowledging our debt really doesn't matter in Washington DC.

Quote:

---

Thus, getting the debt ceiling out of the way is one less negotiating angle for Democrats while simultaneously acknowledging our debt really doesn't matter in Washington DC.

---

Correct. Getting it out of the way is political protection through his term. No more debates or sound bite opportunities for the Democrats.

I share your sentiments! Also why I'm buying gold and real estate.

History rarely repeats, but does rhyme - so I've been spending a lot of time lately reading in historical inflationary bubbles and thinking about where we go from here.

I'm cautiously optimistic there's a path forward that can be prosperous for the next generation, but regardless whether we are fortunate enough to realize that or not it's pretty clear there are only hard choices and a lot of pain ahead.

It is "big", but far from "beautiful". It's ****ing stupid.

If you want the tax cuts from several years ago solidified, then just have a one page bill to do that. We actually need a **** ton more in tax cuts, so 2 pages will do.

Then get cuts done, massive cuts, on their own.

If a bill has a silly ass name, it's inherently ruhtarded.

I know this board loves to demand tax cuts and I like that too personally but I think there should be no tax cuts and the money should pay down the debt.

Tax the ultra rich instead. Anyone who makes over a certain limit should be taxed heavily. The people in the 100M and 1B+ net worth group. Tax them.

infinity ag said:

---

I know this board loves to demand tax cuts and I like that too personally but I think there should be no tax cuts and the money should pay down the debt.

Tax the ultra rich instead. Anyone who makes over a certain limit should be taxed heavily. The people in the 100M and 1B+ net worth group. Tax them.

---

infinity ag said:

---

I know this board loves to demand tax cuts and I like that too personally but I think there should be no tax cuts and the money should pay down the debt.

Tax the ultra rich instead. Anyone who makes over a certain limit should be taxed heavily. The people in the 100M and 1B+ net worth group. Tax them.

---

AOC is on TexAgs!?

No, that is a dumbass idea, like all liberalism.

infinity ag said:

---

I know this board loves to demand tax cuts and I like that too personally but I think there should be no tax cuts and the money should pay down the debt.

Tax the ultra rich instead. Anyone who makes over a certain limit should be taxed heavily. The people in the 100M and 1B+ net worth group. Tax them.

---

Give us the data that would work without spending cuts….it won't. It's a drop in the bucket. You could put the tax rate a100% and it wouldn't be enough

Beautiful news related to this bill;

🚨 BREAKING: THOM TILLIS JUST ANNOUNCED HE WILL NOT SEEK RE-ELECTION

This comes just hours after Trump EVISCERATED him.

Good riddance, loser! pic.twitter.com/WzRpGcKqdF

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 29, 2025

The GOP will get stronger from this.

infinity ag said:

---

I know this board loves to demand tax cuts and I like that too personally but I think there should be no tax cuts and the money should pay down the debt.

Tax the ultra rich instead. Anyone who makes over a certain limit should be taxed heavily. The people in the 100M and 1B+ net worth group. Tax them.

---

Do you maga, bro? Well, at least the Pro "Greed is good" Capitalist-maga, that is.

infinity ag said:

---

I know this board loves to demand tax cuts and I like that too personally, but I think there should be no tax spending cuts and the money should pay down the debt.

Tax the ultra rich instead. Anyone who makes over a certain limit should be taxed heavily. The people in the 100M and 1B+ net worth group. Tax them.

---

What should really happen.

Has this been posted?

In a major relief for Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), the US Senate has revised its "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" and slashed the proposed remittance transfer tax from 3.5% to just 1%.


https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/us-senate-slashes-remittance-transfer-tax-in-revised-bill/story

nortex97 said:

---

Beautiful news related to this bill;

🚨 BREAKING: THOM TILLIS JUST ANNOUNCED HE WILL NOT SEEK RE-ELECTION

This comes just hours after Trump EVISCERATED him.

Good riddance, loser! pic.twitter.com/WzRpGcKqdF

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 29, 2025

The GOP will get stronger from this.

---

If they win the seat

There’s no realistic scenario where the benefits (above the line) expire in 4 years or the pay fors (below line) are enacted in future.
It's wrong to say this is a $3 tln tax cut for the wealthy paid in part by cutting benefits. In reality, it's just $6+ tln of unfunded tax cuts. pic.twitter.com/ZS8aiXQd3J

— John Arnold (@JohnArnoldFndtn) June 29, 2025

Good news: no one will lose healthcare coverage bc the Medicaid cuts will never actually take effect. They aren’t set to begin for years, and future Congresses will inevitably delay them forever.
Bad news: another trillion of deficits that we'll all pay for via higher inflation. pic.twitter.com/vbxVA5IJxK

— John Arnold (@JohnArnoldFndtn) June 29, 2025

He only won by two and had a good primary challenger already. Also shakes up a senate intelligence committee member. GOP will hold without him.

BigRobSA said:

---

It is "big", but far from "beautiful". It's ****ing stupid.

If you want the tax cuts from several years ago solidified, then just have a one page bill to do that. We actually need a **** ton more in tax cuts, so 2 pages will do.

Then get cuts done, massive cuts, on their own.

If a bill has a silly ass name, it's inherently ruhtarded.

---

Correct. The bill should be one page, double spaced.

First line says "make the tax cuts permanent, eliminate refundable tax credits."

Then skip a space.

Second line should say "cut all spending by 15%, not a cut in the rate of the increase, but 15% less than last year."

Then do it again next year and the year after, etc., as long as necessary.

infinity ag said:

---

I know this board loves to demand tax cuts and I like that too personally but I think there should be no tax cuts and the money should pay down the debt.

Tax the ultra rich instead. Anyone who makes over a certain limit should be taxed heavily. The people in the 100M and 1B+ net worth group. Tax them.

---

Tax them more because of their net worth? It is an income tax, not a wealth tax. Goodness, are you the governor of California or what?

Not sure where you put the levels of income to delineate between kinda rich, rich, or ultra rich but they are already taxed heavily. In fact, they are paying far more of their fair share than most of the country.