Tom Fox said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

10s of millions suddenly on the streets and hungry? Should work out just fine.

Do you realize how many people receive some form of government assistance? The numbers are astronomical.

I don't condone it, it's simply reality. So yes, it you ended all entitlements tomorrow we would look like post apocalypse for 20 years.

---

So you are avoiding a nightmarish scenario for the leeches.

The only down side to my utopia is as you pointed out, there are more takers than makers here now and it cannot pass at the ballot box. So it will not happen, but it would be phenomenal for this country to starve off its leeches.

But stop with the you are so wrong about how great the country would be for the makers if you actually got your wish.

I've lived in Baghdad, Djibouti and Mexico City.

---

What do you think my wish is? Cause you are quite possibly dead wrong.

Jeeper79 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.

---

This bill can make non-discretionary cuts, right? I want that! The discretionary cuts will be a drop in the bucket. I'll take those too, but that's not where we can make the bulk of the progress.

This is a now or never situation. Our margins in Congress may be thin, but we're looking at a 2 year window (less now) that we probably won't see again for a generation.

You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

---

Exactly. What is preventing them from eliminating Medicaid in its entirety tomorrow?

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 plan: Throw the big beautiful bill in the trash. Start over… skinny!

Extend 2017 tax cuts

End Green New Deal cold turkey

No bloat for military industrial complex

No SALT

No pork

Realistic border funding

Serious Medicaid reform

$1 spending cuts for $1 new tax cuts

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 6, 2025

Here's a very simple outline he created this morning. But the big beautiful bill is better because Trump says so right?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

10s of millions suddenly on the streets and hungry? Should work out just fine.

Do you realize how many people receive some form of government assistance? The numbers are astronomical.

I don't condone it, it's simply reality. So yes, it you ended all entitlements tomorrow we would look like post apocalypse for 20 years.

---

So you are avoiding a nightmarish scenario for the leeches.

The only down side to my utopia is as you pointed out, there are more takers than makers here now and it cannot pass at the ballot box. So it will not happen, but it would be phenomenal for this country to starve off its leeches.

But stop with the you are so wrong about how great the country would be for the makers if you actually got your wish.

I've lived in Baghdad, Djibouti and Mexico City.

---

What do you think my wish is? Cause you are quite possibly dead wrong.

---

Apparently it is not to eliminate entitlement and reduce income tax accordingly. You claim it will be nightmarish.

flown-the-coop said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Yea, I care not about whether things are conservative per someone's definition.

Call me preservative, cause I want to see America last a few more years and conservatives tossing up bush mccains and mittens wasn't doing it for a lot of us.

---

Simply being the GOP nominee doesn't make someone conservative and Bush, McCain, and Romney certainly weren't.

Words do mean things. It's certainly your right not to care I suppose but it makes rational debate difficult.

---

You statement would indicate that most in the GOP and the last 4 nominees were not conservative. That jives with what we both are saying.

The GOP is not a party of conservatives. It's the party that conservatives generally belong to.

Have to expand the party or lose elections. But so many here believe an ultra conservative e is electable. Hint… they aren't.

---

The reality is most people aren't elected based on issues and certainly not conservative/liberal labels. Obama was the most liberal member of the Senate by voting record. Reagan ran as a strong conservative and won 2 landslides.

Elections are decided by the 20 percent in the middle that don't like either side much and typically aren't very politically engaged. They vote on personality or perception and most of all who they dislike the least.

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.

---

It'll be a miracle for us to maintain control mid terms. The pendulum doesn't stop. It only speeds up or slows down. And with tariffs, I guarantee it's not slowing down.

Bunk Moreland 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.

---

Here's a very simple outline he created this morning. But the big beautiful bill is better because Trump says so right?

---

I like it, but the Rs dont have enough of a majority to make it happen. Also, I dont think they want it to happen. Passing a budget also requires 60 votes to beat the filibuster.

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?

---

Considering how much people like to point out that we're a republic rather than a democracy because "the people" are dumbasses… Yeah, it should be.

I hear ya. But labels should be based on the concept that created them.

Some posters in here claim conservatism but are more aptly described as libertarian. Lots of democrats claim to be liberal but trend heavily to Marxist, socialist and authoritarian tendencies.

I actually like limited government, spending cuts, less regulation. However, I understand our current situation and that there are multiple paths to right the ship without ending all entitlements. I also believe we should not end all entitlements and that government has a purpose, though that purpose should be limited, there should be accountability for money spent, and money should be spent efficiently and include a requirement to buy only American products and services.

Science Denier said:

---

Problem is CBO says tax cuts don't generate any revenue.

That's false and has been proven false twice now.

It's like they went to the local 3rd grade and got one of the students to design this CBO model.

---

They got more money out of 2017 TCJA because of the toll charge that taxed every bit of unremitted foreign earnings one time and created basis for those CFCs. That won't happen again because since then we have taxed every bit of worldwide income for companies in the US, so no unremitted portion remains.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Some posters in here claim conservatism but are more aptly described as libertarian. Lots of democrats claim to be liberal but trend heavily to Marxist, socialist and authoritarian tendencies.

---

It's interesting how a limited government, individual liberty focus is now not "conservative" for people who want to argue for things they argued against as conservatives a few years ago.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I hear ya. But labels should be based on the concept that created them.

Some posters in here claim conservatism but are more aptly described as libertarian. Lots of democrats claim to be liberal but trend heavily to Marxist, socialist and authoritarian tendencies.

I actually like limited government, spending cuts, less regulation. However, I understand our current situation and that there are multiple paths to right the ship without ending all entitlements. I also believe we should not end all entitlements and that government has a purpose, though that purpose should be limited, there should be accountability for money spent, and money should be spent efficiently and include a requirement to buy only American products and services.

---

You are smart and pragmatic and I recognize that. And you are correct about what is possible to get passed right now,


But your aspirational values are incorrect. People spend a lot of time *****ing about the state of our society but very little thought in how the things we have changed since our founding have gotten us here.

The founders never intended for the federal government to provide for the individual needs of its citizens but rather for collective needs like infrastructure, national security, diplomacy and the like.

I'm sure you will agree with me because it is self evident by their actions after ratifying the constitution. This entitlement BS didn't really appear until FDR.

I like to ponder how issues like poverty and needs within a family were handled prior to FDR.

For example, my in laws had a roof leak that damaged a bunch of their windows and were in need of repair. They are in the 70s and cannot afford it. I gave them the $18k.

My dad last year had his truck crap the bed and I ended up paying for him to get another one. He is in his mid 70s. He was absent when I was growing up but did his best to repair it later in life. He has made an effort with my kids and ultimately he is my dad and my responsibility.

They have maintained a close relationship with their grandchildren and have been involved with their rearing. Why would I not assist them when they have been there for us. My in laws gave us a small loan when we first married that helped us buy our first house.

Why are out of wedlock births an epidemic? Because the government has stepped in to fill the role of father. There are no repercussions for these women or dead beat dads.

The kids are provided for by uncle sugar and the dad doesn't have to worry about or maintain a solid relationship with his children because when he is old, uncle sugar will provide for him too.

We have destroyed the need for family cohesion in this country. Who needs their family or the church when Uncle Sam will provide it all as long as you continue to vote to force your more successful neighbors to pay for it.

We have lost our way.

Quote:

---

I actually like limited government, spending cuts, less regulation. However, I understand our current situation and that there are multiple paths to right the ship without ending all entitlements. I also believe we should not end all entitlements and that government has a purpose

---

straw man
/str man/

noun

[ol]
1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.[/ol]

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Some posters in here claim conservatism but are more aptly described as libertarian. Lots of democrats claim to be liberal but trend heavily to Marxist, socialist and authoritarian tendencies.

---

It's interesting how a limited government, individual liberty focus is now not "conservative" for people who want to argue for things they argued against as conservatives a few years ago.

---

Well, Republicans used to want the government interfering with the sexual relations between consenting adults and to prescribe a certain religion for all Americans. That was never limited government nor was it about individual liberty.

So, it's why labels are sort of useless these days.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I hear ya. But labels should be based on the concept that created them.

Some posters in here claim conservatism but are more aptly described as libertarian. Lots of democrats claim to be liberal but trend heavily to Marxist, socialist and authoritarian tendencies.

I actually like limited government, spending cuts, less regulation. However, I understand our current situation and that there are multiple paths to right the ship without ending all entitlements. I also believe we should not end all entitlements and that government has a purpose, though that purpose should be limited, there should be accountability for money spent, and money should be spent efficiently and include a requirement to buy only American products and services.

---

The cavern between what is considered "limited government" now and even 5 years ago is Grand Canyon-esque.

Yeah, obviously we aren't going to get rid of Medicare and SS completely when we can't even touch the growth of the "temporary" expansions from Covid.

The "right" has gone so far left that it's considered "libertarian" to want to go back to what the Democrats pushed 5 years ago.

We have to fix this as a nation.

Quote:

---

The "right" has gone so far left that it's considered "libertarian" to want to go back to what the Democrats pushed 5 years ago.

---

Appreciate the response and I do overall agree with you, obviously with the exception that I tend to wanting the government to offer more help - though I think fundamentally we agree neighbor should help neighbor.

And that last part is where we have failed at society for generations. It's a balance between individual freedoms and living in a community. Ideally many things are handled by the community and few things are left to the government. But man, we have lost our way on that. The answer is not to just toss it all back to the communities in one swoop.

Imagine if the US AID money, which is immense but not all that much relatively to the government spend, were used to restore community youth programs in the United States? Grants to organizations? Funding teacher pay? Etc.

And yes, we have certainly lost our way. I recognize, and I hope you and others will too, there are multiple paths back.

I do believe Trump and MAGA are turning the ship.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Some posters in here claim conservatism but are more aptly described as libertarian. Lots of democrats claim to be liberal but trend heavily to Marxist, socialist and authoritarian tendencies.

---

It's interesting how a limited government, individual liberty focus is now not "conservative" for people who want to argue for things they argued against as conservatives a few years ago.

---

Well, Republicans used to want the government interfering with the sexual relations between consenting adults and to prescribe a certain religion for all Americans. That was never limited government nor was it about individual liberty.

So, it's why labels are sort of useless these days.

---

Why would you make a post labeling people if labels are useless?

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Pinochet said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Some posters in here claim conservatism but are more aptly described as libertarian. Lots of democrats claim to be liberal but trend heavily to Marxist, socialist and authoritarian tendencies.

---

It's interesting how a limited government, individual liberty focus is now not "conservative" for people who want to argue for things they argued against as conservatives a few years ago.

---

Well, Republicans used to want the government interfering with the sexual relations between consenting adults and to prescribe a certain religion for all Americans. That was never limited government nor was it about individual liberty.

So, it's why labels are sort of useless these days.

---

Why would you make a post labeling people if labels are useless?

---

I think I just made the point.

I hope you are right about Trump getting it fixed.

I am getting older and do not want my kids to grow up in a socialist nation or end up in a place with laws like the UK, Canada, or France. I want them to enjoy individual freedom and a meritocracy. I have serious doubts that they will. I fear we are watching the end.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Appreciate the response and I do overall agree with you, obviously with the exception that I tend to wanting the government to offer more help - though I think fundamentally we agree neighbor should help neighbor.

And that last part is where we have failed at society for generations. It's a balance between individual freedoms and living in a community. Ideally many things are handled by the community and few things are left to the government. But man, we have lost our way on that. The answer is not to just toss it all back to the communities in one swoop.

Imagine if the US AID money, which is immense but not all that much relatively to the government spend, were used to restore community youth programs in the United States? Grants to organizations? Funding teacher pay? Etc.

And yes, we have certainly lost our way. I recognize, and I hope you and others will too, there are multiple paths back.

I do believe Trump and MAGA are turning the ship.

---

You have a utopian view of the effect of government. It will never act in the opposite way of its incentives. It's just a different way of saying "It just hasn't been done right yet"

Tom Fox said:

---

I hope you are right about Trump getting it fixed.

I am getting older and do not want my kids to grow up in a socialist nation or end up in a place with laws like the UK, Canada, or France. I want them to enjoy individual freedom and a meritocracy. I have serious doubts that they will. I fear we are watching the end.

---

Cheer up. I am confident Trump will NOT get it fixed. See lawfare from even trying to fire one person, cut one bucket of spending.

I acknowledge Trump is not a fiscal hawk, I believe he understand the magnitude of the spending and debt situation, but I think he holds over a sort of disregard for debt given his business background (if the project doesn't pan out, you BK and start again… sort of saying the toters of the notes new the risk hence they get interest).

We have as much a cultural fight on our hands as we do a political fight.

Phatbob said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Appreciate the response and I do overall agree with you, obviously with the exception that I tend to wanting the government to offer more help - though I think fundamentally we agree neighbor should help neighbor.

And that last part is where we have failed at society for generations. It's a balance between individual freedoms and living in a community. Ideally many things are handled by the community and few things are left to the government. But man, we have lost our way on that. The answer is not to just toss it all back to the communities in one swoop.

Imagine if the US AID money, which is immense but not all that much relatively to the government spend, were used to restore community youth programs in the United States? Grants to organizations? Funding teacher pay? Etc.

And yes, we have certainly lost our way. I recognize, and I hope you and others will too, there are multiple paths back.

I do believe Trump and MAGA are turning the ship.

---

You have a utopian view of the effect of government. It will never act in the opposite way of its incentives. It's just a different way of saying "It just hasn't been done right yet"

---

I have seen government programs run decently well that have absolutely positive impacted the intended target and also providing jobs and positive economic impacts in the areas these programs were implemented.

It's not utopian. It's not perfect. But there are areas where things work.

And how big were those programs that worked? Billions of dollars? Were they Federal government programs? There is no possible way they would have been done without that government program?

Phatbob said:

---

And how big were those programs that worked? Billions of dollars? Were they Federal government programs? There is no possible way they would have been done without that government program?

---

Multi-billion. Federally funded, state administered.

No, they would not have been done otherwise. The folks would simply live in their sheds, garages, houses with water on the floor, for even more years than they did after the storms.

They accomplished more than the privately funded JJ Watt programs that essentially did nothing.

The program currently coming to an end addressed the repair and reconstruction need of well over 10,000 families.

And that number could be nearly double that if the process worked with efficiency v government bloat. I cannot defend that part. But it did accomplish, better than most other programs, the objective of the funds approved by congress.

I can also tell you all our payments can be traced via the Treasury system that was in the news during the early days of DOGE.

Do you work for FEMA?

FEMA and HUD.

And we actually deliver work. Not checks.

flown-the-coop said:

---

FEMA and HUD.

And we actually deliver work. Not checks.

---

Yikes! Our ideas of limited government is drastically different. At least your world view makes sense now.

HUD OIG tried to recruit me from ICE and I was like no way I can tolerate working around that bs all day.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

And how big were those programs that worked? Billions of dollars? Were they Federal government programs? There is no possible way they would have been done without that government program?

---

Multi-billion. Federally funded, state administered.

No, they would not have been done otherwise. The folks would simply live in their sheds, garages, houses with water on the floor, for even more years than they did after the storms.

They accomplished more than the privately funded JJ Watt programs that essentially did nothing.

The program currently coming to an end addressed the repair and reconstruction need of well over 10,000 families.

And that number could be nearly double that if the process worked with efficiency v government bloat. I cannot defend that part. But it did accomplish, better than most other programs, the objective of the funds approved by congress.

I can also tell you all our payments can be traced via the Treasury system that was in the news during the early days of DOGE.

---

So even in the best case you've laid out, it costs AT LEAST 2x what it should (and that is just what you have seen) and going off of your numbers the beneficiaries received over $100k in construction each? Do you think they actually got $100k worth out of it? And that is a well run government program?

Phatbob said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

And how big were those programs that worked? Billions of dollars? Were they Federal government programs? There is no possible way they would have been done without that government program?

---

Multi-billion. Federally funded, state administered.

No, they would not have been done otherwise. The folks would simply live in their sheds, garages, houses with water on the floor, for even more years than they did after the storms.

They accomplished more than the privately funded JJ Watt programs that essentially did nothing.

The program currently coming to an end addressed the repair and reconstruction need of well over 10,000 families.

And that number could be nearly double that if the process worked with efficiency v government bloat. I cannot defend that part. But it did accomplish, better than most other programs, the objective of the funds approved by congress.

I can also tell you all our payments can be traced via the Treasury system that was in the news during the early days of DOGE.

---

So even in the best case you've laid out, it costs AT LEAST 2x what it should (and that is just what you have seen) and going off of your numbers the beneficiaries received over $100k in construction each? Do you think they actually got $100k worth out of it? And that is a well run government program?

---

Inefficient. Yes.

Impactful. Hell yes.

Well run government program. Do you even US AID?

I will freely admit it's got issues, but I think the same could be said of the military, road construction, etc.

But heck, let's burn it all down and see what happens. Why not.

Tom Fox said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

FEMA and HUD.

And we actually deliver work. Not checks.

---

Yikes! Our ideas of limited government is drastically different. At least your world view makes sense now.

HUD OIG tried to recruit me from ICE and I was like no way I can tolerate working around that bs all day.

---

My involvement with the agency folks is limited. It's more of here's your contract, here's the pricing, there's the assignment, we deliver, and months later we get paid.

I have been asked as well if I would be interested in gov work. The question was answered by another that ftc would literally kill people if he worked within government.

If I thought, like Elon and DOGE fell for, that you could actually make a direct, impactful difference I would do it. The last few months have told me that would have been a fools errand.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

And how big were those programs that worked? Billions of dollars? Were they Federal government programs? There is no possible way they would have been done without that government program?

---

Multi-billion. Federally funded, state administered.

No, they would not have been done otherwise. The folks would simply live in their sheds, garages, houses with water on the floor, for even more years than they did after the storms.

They accomplished more than the privately funded JJ Watt programs that essentially did nothing.

The program currently coming to an end addressed the repair and reconstruction need of well over 10,000 families.

And that number could be nearly double that if the process worked with efficiency v government bloat. I cannot defend that part. But it did accomplish, better than most other programs, the objective of the funds approved by congress.

I can also tell you all our payments can be traced via the Treasury system that was in the news during the early days of DOGE.

---

So even in the best case you've laid out, it costs AT LEAST 2x what it should (and that is just what you have seen) and going off of your numbers the beneficiaries received over $100k in construction each? Do you think they actually got $100k worth out of it? And that is a well run government program?

---

Inefficient. Yes.

Impactful. Hell yes.

Well run government program. Do you even US AID?

I will freely admit it's got issues, but I think the same could be said of the military, road construction, etc.

But heck, let's burn it all down and see what happens. Why not.

---

The difference is that the military and infrastructure are core government functions enshrined in our constitution.

The only way I could morally support individual aid is if the only ones getting to vote on it were the ones actually footing the bill and it got the majority of votes. It would be a mistake, but in line with how the founders intended us to function.

Bunk Moreland 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 plan: Throw the big beautiful bill in the trash. Start over… skinny!

Extend 2017 tax cuts

End Green New Deal cold turkey

No bloat for military industrial complex

No SALT

No pork

Realistic border funding

Serious Medicaid reform

$1 spending cuts for $1 new tax cuts

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 6, 2025

Here's a very simple outline he created this morning. But the big beautiful bill is better because Trump says so right?

---

Quote:

---

Extend 2017 tax cuts - GOOD

End Green New Deal cold turkey - DETAILS

No bloat for military industrial complex - DETAILS

No SALT - So, a tax INCREASE?

No pork - DETAILS

Realistic border funding - DETAILS

Serious Medicaid reform - DETAILS

$1 spending cuts for $1 new tax cuts - Is he saying that he considers tax cuts to be spending? Is he including the 2017 tax cut extension in this?

---

The devil is in the DETAILS obviously. It's easy to say "CUT SPENDING".

But, where, how, etc - give me his actual plan with DETAILS of what we should do. Not just criticisms of what was done.

He's got that vague outline. That's nice. But, he always leaves out HOW you accomplish all those things. Is that because he has no IDEA how to do them? If he has a plan that would actually work (and not just complain) then he should be able to release it so everyone can see it.

Quote:

---

The devil is in the DETAILS obviously. It's easy to say "CUT SPENDING".

But, where, how, etc - give me his actual plan with DETAILS of what we should do. Not just criticisms of what was done.

He's got that vague outline. That's nice. But, he always leaves out HOW you accomplish all those things. Is that because he has no IDEA how to do them? If he has a plan that would actually work (and not just complain) then he should be able to release it so everyone can see it.

---

You mean like the BBB that got stuffed in the middle of the night and forced through without giving anyone a chance to read it and see it?

Also, you really need details for "no pork?" Seriously? I would say when he says "cuts" that means he wants to see true cuts. I don't think he's even holding them to a number. Just actual cuts.

Funny how when fiscal conservatives want something done, accountability and every detail must be submitted for all to see. But when it's Trump and the GOP blob's 'everyone pat us on the back' bill, it can be loaded to the gills and kicking the can and it's "big and beautiful"