There's $2T in cuts in this bill and he opposes it.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

There's $2T in cuts in this bill and he opposes it.

---

The bill is projected to increase the debt by anywhere from $2.5 to $5.0 trillion compared to current spending over the next 10 years. What you said above is patently false.

Even if it were hypothetically true in some fantasy land, that wouldn't even come close to addressing the question.

This bill doesn't make any meaningful cuts. The cuts it does assume are all on the back end after Trump leaves office, and historically those cuts have never occurred. That's the reason they backload them in the first place. You already know this.

So again, what is Massie's "all or nothing" position? You have to have something better than that, right??

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

There's $2T in cuts in this bill and he opposes it.

---

Lets not kid ourselves. There's a plan for Congress to cut spending 10 years from now. That is never going to happen and you know it.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

There's $2T in cuts in this bill and he opposes it.

---

Back ended, not immediate, and probably undone before that "backend" arrives.

Total trash

Phatbob said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

There's $2T in cuts in this bill and he opposes it.

---

Lets not kid ourselves. There's a plan for Congress to cut spending 10 years from now. That is never going to happen and you know it.

---

It's so unbelievably dishonest. It's already been beaten into the ground ad nauseam on the board why that is complete BS. If it wasn't, why wouldn't they simply start enacting the cuts now? He won't touch that question.

There's literally no other logical reason to throw them all on the backend outside of knowing they won't actually happen. This is far from the first time we've seen this ploy. But he's just going to play stupid I guess.

You are moving the goalposts. This bill makes cuts, that is fact. The cuts everyone wants (me included) cannot happen in this type of bill. Fact.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

How about Massie be a leader and develop a solution and get it passed. *****ing is doing zero to get this budget problem solved. Tearing down others to benefit himself is childish and bush league.

---

Massie has always been willing and tried to get involved in developing solutions but he speaks the truth and actually stands by his principles. He's probably the smartest guy in the House with 2 Degrees from MIT. If your colleagues don't want to listen to you and the President does all he can to tear you down and discourage anyone from working with you though it's pretty damn hard. The reality is the worst RINOs have the ear of Trump far more than guys like Massie.

---

I'm not arguing his ideas or his intelligence as they are solid. But it's time to produce. He has to move himself off of his all or nothing stance, and focus on areas he can be effective. Over a 13 year career, the cumulative effect would have been significant. As constituents, we have to expect results. Are you planning on letting Trump slide with good ideas or do you expect results? Why don't we treat all politicians like that?

---

Very, very few House members that are not Committee Chairs or in Leadership have "produced" anything tangible and even then they often have little that you can point to. That's how our system works. You are also doing a chicken and egg dance. Trump only talks about Massie in terms of how he wants him primaried and out of Congress but then you are claiming he wants to implement Massie's ideas. The far better question is why is Trump pushing Massie outside the tent instead of inside? He could clearly help. He has a deep knowledge and understanding of law and policy. He's a reasonable person. He hasn't used his position to enrich himself. Yet Trump hates him more than most Democrats because he tells him what he doesn't want to hear and won't simply go along with him.

Once again this is a perfect example. You aren't defending why Johnson isn't firing the head of the CBO and why Trump isn't pushing for it. You are instead attacking the guy pointing out the obvious problem.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You are moving the goalposts. This bill makes cuts, that is fact. The cuts everyone wants (me included) cannot happen in this type of bill. Fact.

---

How am I moving the goal posts exactly? And what "fact" are you referring to?

Again, you seem to be saying that opposing a bill that is projected to add $2.5 - $5.0 trillion to the debt is "all or nothing". That seems completely illogical and you haven't explained how that's an "all or nothing" position in the slightest.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You are moving the goalposts. This bill makes cuts, that is fact. The cuts everyone wants (me included) cannot happen in this type of bill. Fact.

---

When the real cuts are set long into the future and will require a Congress and President to make the hard choices instead of Trump is the problem. That's what Elon and Massie and Paul have pointed out among others. They are just speaking truth and you don't want to argue that truth.

What you COULD argue is that those cuts aren't possible and Trump doesn't have the political will to force them so he is doing what he can. Instead he is arguing the sky is green.

Jet White said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

There's $2T in cuts in this bill and he opposes it.

---

Lets not kid ourselves. There's a plan for Congress to cut spending 10 years from now. That is never going to happen and you know it.

---

It's so unbelievably dishonest. It's already been beaten into the ground ad nauseam on the board why that is complete BS.

---

Same thing is normally said when CBO grades a Dem bill.

This time, it's different(T).

aggie93 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You are moving the goalposts. This bill makes cuts, that is fact. The cuts everyone wants (me included) cannot happen in this type of bill. Fact.

---

When the real cuts are set long into the future and will require a Congress and President to make the hard choices instead of Trump is the problem. That's what Elon and Massie and Paul have pointed out among others. They are just speaking truth and you don't want to argue that truth.

What you COULD argue is that those cuts aren't possible and Trump doesn't have the political will to force them so he is doing what he can. Instead he is arguing the sky is green.

---

Those happen in an appropriations bill, not a reconciliation bill. Why is that so difficult to understand? This bill is a vehicle for Trump to secure his other promises. An appropriations bill should be picked up after the midterms, because if you do it now all the Republican control we have now will be lost. Do you need a reminder on what Democrats want? Be smart or lose.

Jet White said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

How about Massie be a leader and develop a solution and get it passed. *****ing is doing zero to get this budget problem solved. Tearing down others to benefit himself is childish and bush league.

---

Massie has always been willing and tried to get involved in developing solutions but he speaks the truth and actually stands by his principles. He's probably the smartest guy in the House with 2 Degrees from MIT. If your colleagues don't want to listen to you and the President does all he can to tear you down and discourage anyone from working with you though it's pretty damn hard. The reality is the worst RINOs have the ear of Trump far more than guys like Massie.

---

I'm not arguing his ideas or his intelligence as they are solid. But it's time to produce. He has to move himself off of his all or nothing stance, and focus on areas he can be effective. Over a 13 year career, the cumulative effect would have been significant. As constituents, we have to expect results. Are you planning on letting Trump slide with good ideas or do you expect results? Why don't we treat all politicians like that?

---

Explain how his stance is "all or nothing". Specifically.

---

The main issue is MAGA is not a fiscally conservative movement, it is a populist one. Trump never seriously campaigned on fiscal conservatism and at best gave it lip service because it is a lower priority behind his other objectives. That's not a terrible thing but it is frustrating that he and many of his supporters expect people to deny reality or be called a traitor. Trump should be working with Massie and Paul instead of attacking them, instead he would rather work with RINOs that DGAF about spending or really anything but their own personal fortunes. Trump has trouble dealing with folks that actually stand up for principles and won't compromise them away on a whim, he especially doesn't like it when people tell him the truth and it isn't what he wants to hear.

aggie93 said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

How about Massie be a leader and develop a solution and get it passed. *****ing is doing zero to get this budget problem solved. Tearing down others to benefit himself is childish and bush league.

---

Massie has always been willing and tried to get involved in developing solutions but he speaks the truth and actually stands by his principles. He's probably the smartest guy in the House with 2 Degrees from MIT. If your colleagues don't want to listen to you and the President does all he can to tear you down and discourage anyone from working with you though it's pretty damn hard. The reality is the worst RINOs have the ear of Trump far more than guys like Massie.

---

I'm not arguing his ideas or his intelligence as they are solid. But it's time to produce. He has to move himself off of his all or nothing stance, and focus on areas he can be effective. Over a 13 year career, the cumulative effect would have been significant. As constituents, we have to expect results. Are you planning on letting Trump slide with good ideas or do you expect results? Why don't we treat all politicians like that?

---

Explain how his stance is "all or nothing". Specifically.

---

The main issue is MAGA is not a fiscally conservative movement, it is a populist one. Trump never seriously campaigned on fiscal conservatism and at best gave it lip service because it is a lower priority behind his other objectives. That's not a terrible thing but it is frustrating that he and many of his supporters expect people to deny reality or be called a traitor. Trump should be working with Massie and Paul instead of attacking them, instead he would rather work with RINOs that DGAF about spending or really anything but their own personal fortunes. Trump has trouble dealing with folks that actually stand up for principles and won't compromise them away on a whim, he especially doesn't like it when people tell him the truth and it isn't what he wants to hear.

---

Agreed. The problem is they won't just admit they aren't concerned with our fiscal woes and instead attempt impossible levels of mental gymnastics to try and pretend that Trump is. It has to be exhausting for them at some point.

Jet White said:

---

webgem08 said:

---

CBO's model is "spartan at best" as Chamath has said:

• It assumes a GDP growth rate of only 1.8%
• It treats the extension of the tax cuts as "spending"

I really wish Massie, Paul, Miller, and Elon would all sit down on a long-form pod and discuss all this.

---

Speaking of assumptions, aren't they also assuming an interest rate on the debt going forward of mid 3's? Where are they getting that from?

---

Yes that's what I understand, no clue where it's from.

The truth is probably somewhere between Massie's position and Miller's. Wish we could read it for ourselves.

Quote:

---

The main issue is MAGA is not a fiscally conservative movement, it is a populist one

---

As another poster pointed out, populism is literally "by the people ". Is that an issue now?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

The main issue is MAGA is not a fiscally conservative movement, it is a populist one

---

As another poster pointed out, populism is literally "by the people ". Is that an issue now?

---

Evidently it is. You can only vote for extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism. If you are not one of those, then you are an "evil" populist.

Still have no idea why people think a populist movement is a bad thing, particularly in our current form of government that has checks & balances against out of control populism.

I consider myself to be an "extreme conservative ", but I'm wise enough to know this bill isn't intended to be the big blow to debt. The big blow should come after midterms because the economy and the electorate won't like it.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

I consider myself to be an "extreme conservative ", but I'm wise enough to know this bill isn't intended to be the big blow to debt. The big blow should come after midterms because the economy and the electorate won't like it.

---

This is the equivalent of dudes living in their parent's basements eating popcorn and watching Transformers at 3pm saying "man can't wait till me and Megan Fox start dating. It's going to be awesome"

What gives you any reason to believe the GOP will hold their current numbers, if not lose both houses outright?

That's the entire point. You get your **** done now. The problem is Trump has ALWAYS been in favor of spending to get **** done. He doesn't care about spending. He tells us he does for votes. But he doesn't care. If he did he wouldn't have treated the DOGE stuff as bad as he did. And spare me the 'that bill comes next!' nonsense.

No voter is going to buy the **** salad of "codified $9B in cuts" when we wipe our ass with that every day.

So it’s not Trump’s bill if it’s been 14 months. https://t.co/j7P8lw2SBu

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) June 5, 2025

nortex97 said:

---

I think I posted a source on some other thread but apparently no member of the CBO staff has donated to a Republican/GOP in over 25 years. It's just another hive of the swamp one wouldn't normally think of until this year, like the "US Institute for Peace', Kennedy Center, or National Archives.

---

I thought everyone already knew this. I guess not.

Phatbob said:

---

CBO is non-partisan like your computer. It goes off of the data you give it and gives results based on your own presuppositions. It's like getting a computer model of a physical event, but you get to define all the laws of physics. That makes it only slightly less wrong than Congress itself.

---

CBO is absolutely NOT non-partisan. It is supposed to be, but it isn't.

And I agree: Congress should replace leadership and members. It is just another liberal entity with bureaucrats who never leave the government teat.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

CBO is non-partisan like your computer. It goes off of the data you give it and gives results based on your own presuppositions. It's like getting a computer model of a physical event, but you get to define all the laws of physics. That makes it only slightly less wrong than Congress itself.

---

CBO is absolutely NOT non-partisan. It is supposed to be, but it isn't.

And I agree: Congress should replace leadership and members. It is just another liberal entity with bureaucrats who never leave the government teat.

---

Then why don't we? We can do it right now right? Cmon GOP, this is your moment! CBO is RIGGED! Change it up!

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

I consider myself to be an "extreme conservative ", but I'm wise enough to know this bill isn't intended to be the big blow to debt. The big blow should come after midterms because the economy and the electorate won't like it.

---

I give you credit for the admission but real extremist do not believe in compromise and most certainly are not wise.

I think it is great for people to have these notions of no government debt, balanced budgets, and the like. If you painted them a true picture of what that makes the next 20 years look like for them and their families, they would whistle a difference tune.

Many of them know their desires will never happen. But it scores them message board slaphappy points to cry about it and how everyone they ever trusted or supported is a failure and only the their current love affair (Paul, Massie, Mittens, McCain, etc) guy, who will never reach a full party nomination, can save us.

I pity them as their dreams will never be realized, but its equally comforting to know that the nightmare-ish results from their utopia will equally never be realized.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Then why don't we? We can do it right now right? Cmon GOP, this is your moment! CBO is RIGGED! Change it up!

---

That is what I am saying. Johnson is full of ***** John Thune is full of ***** The CBO is full of ***** Nothing will change.

If a key part of your argument cites CBO projections, you don't have much of an argument.

Quote:

---

That's the entire point. You get your **** done now

---

Give me the names of the 10 Democrats senators that will vote for a bill with $2T in cuts that everyone seems to be chasing.

Quote:

---

The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034

---

This literally states tax revenue will decrease from $4.9 trillion (2024) to $0.8 trillion by 2034.

This is how CBO numbers work and why they are total dog*****

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

That's the entire point. You get your **** done now

---

Give me the names of the 10 Democrats senators that will vote for a bill with $2T in cuts that everyone seems to be chasing.

---

We couldn't give you the names of 10 Republican Senators.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

The main issue is MAGA is not a fiscally conservative movement, it is a populist one

---

As another poster pointed out, populism is literally "by the people ". Is that an issue now?

---

Didn't say it was an issue, just pointing out facts. Trump is a populist not a conservative. A populist shifts views based on a pragmatic view of what they think the people want or need. A conservative believes in a set of ideology and principles. "By the people" can also mean whatever the hell you want it to mean, that's the beauty of it, at least for the populist because essentially anything they do can be justified by it.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

You are moving the goalposts. This bill makes cuts, that is fact. The cuts everyone wants (me included) cannot happen in this type of bill. Fact.

---

When the real cuts are set long into the future and will require a Congress and President to make the hard choices instead of Trump is the problem. That's what Elon and Massie and Paul have pointed out among others. They are just speaking truth and you don't want to argue that truth.

What you COULD argue is that those cuts aren't possible and Trump doesn't have the political will to force them so he is doing what he can. Instead he is arguing the sky is green.

---

Those happen in an appropriations bill, not a reconciliation bill. Why is that so difficult to understand? This bill is a vehicle for Trump to secure his other promises. An appropriations bill should be picked up after the midterms, because if you do it now all the Republican control we have now will be lost. Do you need a reminder on what Democrats want? Be smart or lose.

---

Lot of devil in the details on that. You can do an awful lot with a reconciliation bill is the point. Trump has prioritized tax cuts and spending over savings. I understand why and don't necessarily even disagree with him but I do understand why conservatives are tired of the shell game and that is exactly what this is. Spending cuts are hard politically and they take a concentrated effort to sell them. Trump isn't opposed but they aren't his priority. He just doesn't like people who point out the flaws in his bill and he wants everyone to simply jump in line and recite the talking points even if they don't believe them. Not everyone will.

aggie93 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

The main issue is MAGA is not a fiscally conservative movement, it is a populist one

---

As another poster pointed out, populism is literally "by the people ". Is that an issue now?

---

Didn't say it was an issue, just pointing out facts. Trump is a populist not a conservative. A populist shifts views based on a pragmatic view of what they think the people want or need. A conservative believes in a set of ideology and principles. "By the people" can also mean whatever the hell you want it to mean, that's the beauty of it, at least for the populist because essentially anything they do can be justified by it.

---

Nice made up definition of a populist. People vote for a populist agenda and a candidate who reflect that. In the US, every POTUS who wins the popular vote could be called a populist. It is our only nationwide office we vote on and which is why the FF intended it to be both powerful and held in check (via impeachment, re-election, etc and not lawfare / biased judiciary).

Trump actually is conservative in many areas, many areas he is not. But people like to shove labels on things where it doesn't quite work then get frustrated when the label they applied to Trump doesn't jive with their own beliefs of what a conservative is.

Of the people - We determined out government by voting on the US Constitution and subsequent amendments and ultimately hold the power to change government or form a new one (I am all for invoking this)

By the people - our elected officials are in theory ordinary citizens, not royalty; we vote, select folks to represent us;

For the people - government should exist for the benefit of the people, not itself.

Populus means people. Ignoring the people is what has left us with a deep state, mostly coastal, mostly elitist ruling class - on both sides of the aisle.

Quote:

---

You can do an awful lot with a reconciliation bill is the point

---

We can only do what will pass through Congress, and they quickly punted the $9B cuts in the proposal. Blaming Trump is misplaced.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

You can do an awful lot with a reconciliation bill is the point

---

We can only do what will pass through Congress, and they quickly punted the $9B cuts in the proposal. Blaming Trump is misplaced.

---

Believe the $9 billion relates to separate "recission" bill that is just now being discussed, but already faces opposition from Rs (Nebraska dude wants NPS; Susan Collins wants pet healthcare program).

I would rather they just sit in the room and go line by line with up or down votes. In theory, this is what happens in committee then on the house floor.

Do they even debate bills on the house floor anymore? I mean debate, not grandstand for a few minutes then turn to the cameras for rhetoric.

aggie93 said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

The main issue is MAGA is not a fiscally conservative movement, it is a populist one

---

As another poster pointed out, populism is literally "by the people ". Is that an issue now?

---

Didn't say it was an issue, just pointing out facts. Trump is a populist not a conservative. A populist shifts views based on a pragmatic view of what they think the people want or need. A conservative believes in a set of ideology and principles. "By the people" can also mean whatever the hell you want it to mean, that's the beauty of it, at least for the populist because essentially anything they do can be justified by it.

---

It's literally exactly what you said.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

You can do an awful lot with a reconciliation bill is the point

---

We can only do what will pass through Congress, and they quickly punted the $9B cuts in the proposal. Blaming Trump is misplaced.

---

The meaningless $9B recession bill is separate. Also, Trump called the budget bill "one of the top 10 bills of all time", not hours ago. Sounds like he's extremely pleased with it.