Sadly, I have to agree with you. That is just the reality of where we are right now.Logos Stick said:Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Oh, they cite plenty of options.LMCane said:
another absolutely insanely stupid strategy is to GIVE A VICTORY TO THE LEFTISTS by voting down the Bill!
for 7 months the GOP has been working on this and the leftists powerless to stop it-
unless they can peel away enough dummies to tank it on their behalf and give the democrat party a huge victory.
what is the better option for the 'conservatives' opposed to this?
what plan have you put forward that will get a majority vote?!?!
None of them are realistic, but in the utopian world some folks live in, they're actual options.
If cutting entitlements is not realistic then the only logical option is to drastically cut income taxes while continuing to print money and blow this thing up ASAP. It is going to happen eventually if entitlements are not cut, so let's just get it over with.
Then do not repeat the same mistakes with the next system.
I honestly don't give two ****s about deficit spending anymore. Give me my tax cut and spend all the money you want, Trump!!! Backload it with all the "pretend cuts" you want to get my tax cuts passed!
Why?! Because you have "conservatives" - yes, in quotation marks - constantly crying, mocking and making excuses for why spending can't be cut "right now" or "this time".
So screw 'em! They sow wind and will reap whirlwind!
Big beautiful bill updates (SIAP)
104,802 Views |
1271 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by techno-ag
In case this hasn't been discussed, the phase out of the no tax on overtime" was changed for the better in the Senate version.
Quote:
In both versions of Trump's "big, beautiful bill," taxes on overtime would be treated as a deduction.
In the House bill, the tax break would remove income taxes on the overtime pay premium for over 80 million hourly workers. For qualifying overtime, this would be a temporary full deduction of the overtime pay employees receive, ending after 2027. In the Senate's bill, however, overtime pay would be deductible up to $12,500 or $25,000 for joint filers through 2028, The Hill reported.
Yesterday, there were a lot of rumors floating around about the ban on Medicaid for illegal aliens being stripped from the bill.
— Senator Eric Schmitt (@SenEricSchmitt) July 1, 2025
Thankfully, that's not true. It's very much in the bill we just passed.
You can look it up below. Page 602. Section 77109.https://t.co/9B54AyrRBo
a) Entitlements are "mandatory spending". Which can't be changed with reconciliation (unfortunately).Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Oh, they cite plenty of options.LMCane said:
another absolutely insanely stupid strategy is to GIVE A VICTORY TO THE LEFTISTS by voting down the Bill!
for 7 months the GOP has been working on this and the leftists powerless to stop it-
unless they can peel away enough dummies to tank it on their behalf and give the democrat party a huge victory.
what is the better option for the 'conservatives' opposed to this?
what plan have you put forward that will get a majority vote?!?!
None of them are realistic, but in the utopian world some folks live in, they're actual options.
If cutting entitlements is not realistic then the only logical option is to drastically cut income taxes while continuing to print money and blow this thing up ASAP. It is going to happen eventually if entitlements are not cut, so let's just get it over with.
Then do not repeat the same mistakes with the next system.
2) Are you of the opinion that cutting taxes reduces revenue (like the CBO model does)>
iii) How, POLITICALLY, will entitlements be able to be cut? I agree there needs to be change to the system.
z) Unfortunately, these mistakes have been made for an eternity. Even with new systems....
a) Medicaid could have been gutted immediately.Ag with kids said:a) Entitlements are "mandatory spending". Which can't be changed with reconciliation (unfortunately).Tom Fox said:Ag with kids said:Oh, they cite plenty of options.LMCane said:
another absolutely insanely stupid strategy is to GIVE A VICTORY TO THE LEFTISTS by voting down the Bill!
for 7 months the GOP has been working on this and the leftists powerless to stop it-
unless they can peel away enough dummies to tank it on their behalf and give the democrat party a huge victory.
what is the better option for the 'conservatives' opposed to this?
what plan have you put forward that will get a majority vote?!?!
None of them are realistic, but in the utopian world some folks live in, they're actual options.
If cutting entitlements is not realistic then the only logical option is to drastically cut income taxes while continuing to print money and blow this thing up ASAP. It is going to happen eventually if entitlements are not cut, so let's just get it over with.
Then do not repeat the same mistakes with the next system.
2) Are you of the opinion that cutting taxes reduces revenue (like the CBO model does)>
iii) How, POLITICALLY, will entitlements be able to be cut? I agree there needs to be change to the system.
z) Unfortunately, these mistakes have been made for an eternity. Even with new systems....
2) NO
iii). Honestly by ending universal suffrage. That is the only way.
z). The founders did not make these mistakes.
Still want tax free, no registration suppressors
But it is what the enemy sticks together on. Voting across the line for baby murder, mutilating children, funding terrorists, taxing with impunity, removing Jesus, grannies in women sports, this list goes on and on........Quote:
D's stick together for the greater good. R's splinter every time things get close to being accomplished
Splintering on principle is a sign of strength. Not always the best tactical move, but has integrity.
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
I don't think they ran on increased spending and all of the other idiotic bull**** that Build Back Better 2 brings, regardless of whether the Head Lib in Charge wants it.
Great, they should stand by their principles then we can all rejoice in 2026 landslide V for the Dems.BigRobSA said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
I don't think they ran on increased spending and all of the other idiotic bull**** that Build Back Better 2 brings, regardless of whether the Head Lib in Charge wants it.
But as long as they stand on those "principles" and prove to BigRobSA just how conservative they are, then all will be fine with the Country.
flown-the-coop said:Great, they should stand by their principles then we can all rejoice in 2026 landslide V for the Dems.BigRobSA said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
I don't think they ran on increased spending and all of the other idiotic bull**** that Build Back Better 2 brings, regardless of whether the Head Lib in Charge wants it.
But as long as they stand on those "principles" and prove to BigRobSA just how conservative they are, then all will be fine with the Country.
Would it matter?
Dems....Repubs....both full of idiot libs who spend us into Bolivian .
It passed the senate, and is back to the house. If a change is made it has to go back to the senate.
flown-the-coop said:Great, they should stand by their principles then we can all rejoice in 2026 landslide V for the Dems.BigRobSA said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
I don't think they ran on increased spending and all of the other idiotic bull**** that Build Back Better 2 brings, regardless of whether the Head Lib in Charge wants it.
But as long as they stand on those "principles" and prove to BigRobSA just how conservative they are, then all will be fine with the Country.
As long as Rs continue to talk like fiscal conservatives but spend like Ds it really doesn't matter. It ends the same either way. Nobody will care about the social stuff then either.
We'll probably get to see the idiot Rs and idiot Ds point the finger at each other pretending it's the other teams fault
Thanks. I understand that. Below from NBC is what I had overheard.IslanderAg04 said:
It passed the senate, and is back to the house. If a change is made it has to go back to the senate.
Evidently the House rules committee met (including meeting with Freedom Caucus) and advanced 7-6 to have the full vote on the Senate version.Quote:
HOUSE TURNS TO GOP BILL: The House is expected to vote this morning on a rule for floor consideration of President Donald Trump's so-called big beautiful bill a day after Senate Republicans made changes that irked many of their House GOP colleagues. Some conservative House members are going to the White House this morning to discuss the bill.
BUT WEATHER COMPLICATES TRAVEL: Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said he hoped a final vote on the bill would take place today or tomorrow at the latest. One wild card, he said, is the weather: Storms in many parts of the country led to canceled flights that have made it harder for some lawmakers to get to Washington.
My understanding as well was Freedom Caucus head (Andy Harris?) wanted to huddle on the changes the Senate made and possibly retrade or they would vote 'o'.
My further understanding is Pissed Off Trump said hold the vote today and let them vote on the record, negotiations are done, no further changes. Hence Mike Johnson calling folks back to DC.
Interesting enough, the Dems essentially ordered all their cats to DC as soon as the Senate bill passed. So the 'no' votes are ready to roll.
Gonna cut the deficit in half folks! LMAO
Is that after we triple it?
Is that after we triple it?
BREAKING: President Trump says the US “deficit [is] cut in half” in anticipation of his Big Beautiful Bill. pic.twitter.com/7KNgutvgQ8
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) July 2, 2025
Apparently the rules committee screwed up and they'll have to draft an amendment and redo that committee vote? Not sure the procedure
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/02/congress/house-gops-procedural-snafu-00437349
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/02/congress/house-gops-procedural-snafu-00437349
Quote:
The problem is deep in the weeds, a drafting issue on a procedural document the "rule" governing the megabill's floor consideration. But there are real consequences for Speaker Mike Johnson if it doesn't get fixed.
"It has a mistake in it," said Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, the top Rules Committee Democrat, on the floor Wednesday. He said Republicans "don't have an escape hatch if they start it and realize they don't have the votes" as the key consequence.
As currently written, the rule does not "order the previous question" nor does it prohibit "intervening motions." Long story short, that means once the House begins debate on the procedural measure, Johnson doesn't have a ripcord he can pull to delay or reschedule voting. Moreover, Democrats would be free to deploy a variety of delay tactics, including motions to adjourn or table the measure.
flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
Ask their constituents if they want a massive tax increase as of Jan 1, 2026...J. Walter Weatherman said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
If they actually polled their constituents, to the surprise of many they would support the BBB v no bill at all, particularly when the tax cuts expire.J. Walter Weatherman said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
You think Thomas Massie wins his Kentucky district when essentially all of his voters see the biggest tax increase they have ever experienced?
Did the Freedom Caucus run on raising taxes? If so, then their shenanigans would seem to be representing their constituents. Congrats to them?
Exactly.
JobSecurity said:
Apparently the rules committee screwed up and they'll have to draft an amendment and redo that committee vote? Not sure the procedure
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/02/congress/house-gops-procedural-snafu-00437349Quote:
The problem is deep in the weeds, a drafting issue on a procedural document the "rule" governing the megabill's floor consideration. But there are real consequences for Speaker Mike Johnson if it doesn't get fixed.
"It has a mistake in it," said Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, the top Rules Committee Democrat, on the floor Wednesday. He said Republicans "don't have an escape hatch if they start it and realize they don't have the votes" as the key consequence.
As currently written, the rule does not "order the previous question" nor does it prohibit "intervening motions." Long story short, that means once the House begins debate on the procedural measure, Johnson doesn't have a ripcord he can pull to delay or reschedule voting. Moreover, Democrats would be free to deploy a variety of delay tactics, including motions to adjourn or table the measure.
lol. Can always count on the R's to screw it up.
How deceptive....Ag with kids said:Ask their constituents if they want a massive tax increase as of Jan 1, 2026...J. Walter Weatherman said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
Assuming support for the tax cuts means they also support a big monsterosity bill. The uniparty loves when people fall for these deceptive and illogical takes. Especially when people publicly make the comparison for them so it spreads the nonsense further.
Learn about the Texas Nationalist Movement
https://tnm.me
https://tnm.me
I think its actually quite the opposite. Laying out for people the plain consequences makes it very clear.Tea Party said:How deceptive....Ag with kids said:Ask their constituents if they want a massive tax increase as of Jan 1, 2026...J. Walter Weatherman said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
Assuming support for the tax cuts means they also support a big monsterosity bill. The uniparty loves when people fall for these deceptive and illogical takes. Especially when people publicly make the comparison for them so it spreads the nonsense further.
It is perfectly acceptable to say "I am unhappy with many aspects of this bill but realize that the process to create the bill was followed, all constituencies were represented in the discussion, and ultimately the bill is supported by the majority of house members, the senate and the president. However, I will support my party and president by voting yes on this bill and then seeking further legislation that more directly aligns with my constituents."
See, that's not too hard is it? But the instagram bloviators don't do that.
If there was a bill that was solely a continuation of the tax cuts they would happily vote for it. That's not what this is and there's no reason to jam thousands of other pet projects we can't afford into one stupidly named bill.
It is deceptive and there really is no other way around it if you phrase the question solely around the tax cuts. Otherwise the question only becomes honest if the bill was significanly focused around the tax cuts. But it's not. The tax cuts are just a small portion of the bill, though the most visible.flown-the-coop said:I think its actually quite the opposite. Laying out for people the plain consequences makes it very clear.Tea Party said:How deceptive....Ag with kids said:Ask their constituents if they want a massive tax increase as of Jan 1, 2026...J. Walter Weatherman said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
Assuming support for the tax cuts means they also support a big monsterosity bill. The uniparty loves when people fall for these deceptive and illogical takes. Especially when people publicly make the comparison for them so it spreads the nonsense further.
It is perfectly acceptable to say "I am unhappy with many aspects of this bill but realize that the process to create the bill was followed, all constituencies were represented in the discussion, and ultimately the bill is supported by the majority of house members, the senate and the president. However, I will support my party and president by voting yes on this bill and then seeking further legislation that more directly aligns with my constituents."
See, that's not too hard is it? But the instagram bloviators don't do that.
If Ag with Kids question was phrased as ask if they want a massive tax increase in order to avoid this big spending omnibill, the question becomes more honest. Or even better, ask if they want a single line item bill that doesn't increase taxes as of Jan 1, 2026
Learn about the Texas Nationalist Movement
https://tnm.me
https://tnm.me
"principled" conservatives content with only all or nothing solutions. Negotiating is over on this one. Take the incremental win and fight the next battle.
That's great, but its not reality. You and others are just wishing in one hand and spitting in the other, and keep being angry one hand is full of spit and the other empty.Tea Party said:It is deceptive and there really is no other way around it if you phrase the question solely around the tax cuts. Otherwise the question only becomes honest if the bill was significanly focused around the tax cuts. But it's not. The tax cuts are just a small portion of the bill, though the most visible.flown-the-coop said:I think its actually quite the opposite. Laying out for people the plain consequences makes it very clear.Tea Party said:How deceptive....Ag with kids said:Ask their constituents if they want a massive tax increase as of Jan 1, 2026...J. Walter Weatherman said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
Assuming support for the tax cuts means they also support a big monsterosity bill. The uniparty loves when people fall for these deceptive and illogical takes. Especially when people publicly make the comparison for them so it spreads the nonsense further.
It is perfectly acceptable to say "I am unhappy with many aspects of this bill but realize that the process to create the bill was followed, all constituencies were represented in the discussion, and ultimately the bill is supported by the majority of house members, the senate and the president. However, I will support my party and president by voting yes on this bill and then seeking further legislation that more directly aligns with my constituents."
See, that's not too hard is it? But the instagram bloviators don't do that.
If Ag with Kids question was phrased as ask if they want a massive tax increase in order to avoid this big spending omnibill, the question becomes more honest. Or even better, ask if they want a single line item bill that doesn't increase taxes as of Jan 1, 2026
I understand what you want. Its just not reality. What I describe as a this or that choice is what you are being faced with. A no vote on the recon bill is a vote to end the tax cuts.
Its not deceptive to ask someone if they are prepared for the consequence of their position.
Its also fair if R lose seats in the next cycle.
agreedJW said:
"principled" conservatives content with only all or nothing solutions. Negotiating is over on this one. Take the incremental win and fight the next battle.
J. Walter Weatherman said:
If there was a bill that was solely a continuation of the tax cuts they would happily vote for it. That's not what this is and there's no reason to jam thousands of other pet projects we can't afford into one stupidly named bill.
That would unfortunately continue to codify the Democrat spending bill reconciliation from last yr. No thanks
Logos Stick said:
Gonna cut the deficit in half folks! LMAO
Is that after we triple it?BREAKING: President Trump says the US “deficit [is] cut in half” in anticipation of his Big Beautiful Bill. pic.twitter.com/7KNgutvgQ8
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) July 2, 2025
I'd love to know the math he plans to use to show that. The deficit will likely increase every year under his admin.
BoydCrowder13 said:Logos Stick said:
Gonna cut the deficit in half folks! LMAO
Is that after we triple it?BREAKING: President Trump says the US “deficit [is] cut in half” in anticipation of his Big Beautiful Bill. pic.twitter.com/7KNgutvgQ8
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) July 2, 2025
I'd love to know the math he plans to use to show that. The deficit will likely increase every year under his admin.
GFD growth = Yuge, biggest ever, nobody has ever seen anything like it, people are talking about it
As discussed earlier this morning, I assume this is posturing to get changes made to the current bill?
🚨 BREAKING: Here are the current House Republican holdouts on Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) July 2, 2025
There are TEN. Enough to kiII the bill.
▪️ Andy Biggs
▪️ Lauren Boebert
▪️ Andrew Clyde
▪️ Dunn (FL)
▪️ Andy Harris
▪️ Dan Meuser
▪️ Andy Ogles
▪️ Scott Perry
▪️ Chip Roy
▪️ Thomas Massie pic.twitter.com/0Kf8R6XJsB
i believe it was stripped out b/c of the "Byrd rule" or some procedural nonsense.kyledr04 said:
Still want tax free, no registration suppressors
It is deceptive to ask someone if they want tax increases, when the underlying assumption of said question is if you say no then you must be in favor of this monsterosity of a bill. A person can want to avoid tax increases while also being against a single monsterous spending bill.flown-the-coop said:That's great, but its not reality. You and others are just wishing in one hand and spitting in the other, and keep being angry one hand is full of spit and the other empty.Tea Party said:It is deceptive and there really is no other way around it if you phrase the question solely around the tax cuts. Otherwise the question only becomes honest if the bill was significanly focused around the tax cuts. But it's not. The tax cuts are just a small portion of the bill, though the most visible.flown-the-coop said:I think its actually quite the opposite. Laying out for people the plain consequences makes it very clear.Tea Party said:How deceptive....Ag with kids said:Ask their constituents if they want a massive tax increase as of Jan 1, 2026...J. Walter Weatherman said:flown-the-coop said:
I am just catching up, but is the House having an up and down vote this afternoon on this bill?
Freedom Caucus may be forced to choose between their "principles" and the man who got them elected. Did any of the Rs elected in 2024 to the house run on a platform of blocking Trump's agenda?
In what universe did Trump "get them elected"? Most of them were around before Trump and will be around after. Their job is to represent their constituents, not to rubber stamp whatever liberal big spending bills Trump is trying to force through.
Assuming support for the tax cuts means they also support a big monsterosity bill. The uniparty loves when people fall for these deceptive and illogical takes. Especially when people publicly make the comparison for them so it spreads the nonsense further.
It is perfectly acceptable to say "I am unhappy with many aspects of this bill but realize that the process to create the bill was followed, all constituencies were represented in the discussion, and ultimately the bill is supported by the majority of house members, the senate and the president. However, I will support my party and president by voting yes on this bill and then seeking further legislation that more directly aligns with my constituents."
See, that's not too hard is it? But the instagram bloviators don't do that.
If Ag with Kids question was phrased as ask if they want a massive tax increase in order to avoid this big spending omnibill, the question becomes more honest. Or even better, ask if they want a single line item bill that doesn't increase taxes as of Jan 1, 2026
I understand what you want. Its just not reality. What I describe as a this or that choice is what you are being faced with. A no vote on the recon bill is a vote to end the tax cuts.
Its not deceptive to ask someone if they are prepared for the consequence of their position.
That is deceptive. If you can't understand that then we will have to agree to disagree. It's no wish, nor spit. Just reality that focusing on spending cuts as justification for a bad bill is gaslighting others who are rightfully calling out the pros and cons.
Learn about the Texas Nationalist Movement
https://tnm.me
https://tnm.me
Featured Stories
See All
Rashaun Agee named Southeastern Conference Co-Player of the Week
by Richard Zane
5:16
13h ago
4.1k
Father's memory motivates Gold Glove infielder Tallen Edwards
by Emily Dreger
6:09
9h ago
1.0k
13:26
2h ago
813
Upset-minded Aggies fall short vs. No. 3 Gamecocks
by Justin Paez
Highway6
Breaking: Florida State OC Gus Malzahn announced his retirement Monday morning.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2
rwtxag83
FINAL from Reed Arena: No. 3 South Carolina 71, Texas A&M 56
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
1
KingOaksAg
Father's memory motivates Gold Glove infielder Tallen Edwards
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
1