Quote:

---

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"

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

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?

---

I made ZERO comment about the BBB and whether or not it was good or bad.

Quote:

---

Also, you really need details for "no pork?" Seriously?

---

Yes. What, EXACTLY, is pork?

Is it giving Lockheed $X billion in return for Y F-35s? Some people say yes, some people say that's a legitimate national defense expenditure.

There are thousands of other examples.

Quote:

---

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.

---

If he wants cuts, he should give a plan of what things to cut. But, he doesn't want to do that. He just wants to say "CUT SPENDING" and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

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"

---

Massie is good at saying "THAT SUCKS".

What he's NOT GOOD at saying is "Here is a detailed plan that doesn't suck".

Massie likes to just stick to criticizing, and doesn't offer REAL solutions.




NOTE: I am giving no opinion whatsoever to the BBB in my post. It is BBB-agnostic. I am merely criticizing Massie for doing what he always does - COMPLAIN but not SOLVE.

Ag with kids said:

---

Massie is good at saying "THAT SUCKS".

What he's NOT GOOD at saying is "Here is a detailed plan that doesn't suck".

Massie likes to just stick to criticizing, and doesn't offer REAL solutions.

---

His solutions would never get a vote so it is pointless.

Quote:

---

I am giving no opinion whatsoever to the BBB in my post. It is BBB-agnostic.

---

Of course you aren't. Because then you would have to opine on whether or not the bill includes "solutions" to our problems.

samurai_science said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Massie is good at saying "THAT SUCKS".

What he's NOT GOOD at saying is "Here is a detailed plan that doesn't suck".

Massie likes to just stick to criticizing, and doesn't offer REAL solutions.

---

His solutions would never get a vote so it is pointless.

---

But, at least he could point to something concrete.

However, that would require real work. Complaining doesn't. And he gets that sweet, sweet Congressman money for just doing the complaining.

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

I am giving no opinion whatsoever to the BBB in my post. It is BBB-agnostic.

---

Of course you aren't. Because then you would have to opine on whether or not the bill includes "solutions" to our problems.

---

I can separate the 2 issues. a) Massie being useless and b) the merits of the BBB

Apparently that's too much work for you.

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.

---

There is an economic description for those things, and it is called a public good. Not that it is a benefit to the public, but a good (product/service) that is ONLY POSSIBLE to be provided via public means. The only reason those are provided through government because it is literally the only way it would get done, and it has to be done. Everything else should not be provided through government because it is the worst possible way of providing that good or service for a multitude of reasons.

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

I am giving no opinion whatsoever to the BBB in my post. It is BBB-agnostic.

---

Of course you aren't. Because then you would have to opine on whether or not the bill includes "solutions" to our problems.

---

I can separate the 2 issues. a) Massie being useless and b) the merits of the BBB

Apparently that's too much work for you.

---

Actually they aren't separate in this scenario. Because the BBB is exactly what Massie is criticizing and offering solutions for. You just don't like them.

Awfully convenient to have no opinion on the BBB. Seems to me that is actually doing "less work".

Now, here's my post on the BBB.

According to PBS, here are the basic details of the bill <- I deliberately picked a liberal site since they would paint it in the worst light.

Quote:

---

• Lisa Desjardins:
  Right.
  For Republicans, this is part of answering what they see as a potential crisis, the end of the Trump tax cuts. The question is, is this something that adds to a different potential crisis, an American debt crisis?
• 
  So let's look at the money flow in this bill, and let's start with the tax cuts. First of all, Republicans are in fact adding some new tax cuts here. Those are the no taxes on tips, overtime, some benefits for seniors. These tax cuts are significant. However, they pale in comparison to the biggest cost in the bill. That is extending those Trump tax cuts.
• 
  All together, the Congressional Budget Office says, the tax cuts in this bill add up to $3.7 trillion. That's good news, in that that's money taxpayers could keep, but it's also bad news because it comes out of the federal budget and potentially could add to deficits.
• 
  So did Republicans pay for this in the bill? According to CBO, no. The money saved in this bill from the cuts, the spending cuts, is $1.3 trillion. Now, this is a significant, historically large number of spending cuts, health care cuts, we have been talking about Medicaid, green energy, student loans. This is a big number, but it is much smaller than the amount being spent here.
• 
  So, overall, Congressional Budget Office says, this bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit, and that is even before you consider interest costs.

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

But, preventing the huge tax increase on 01/01/2026 is considered SPENDING. Because, I guess it's actually the GOVERNMENT'S money, not our money. I disagree with calling it spending - letting taxpayers keep their own money is not spending.

I'd have to see how the CBO actually scores the tax cut extension, though. Do they assume that revenue will decrease if the tax cuts are extended? Are they assuming a huge windfall of revenue if the current tax law stays in place and we get the huge tax rate increase?

Quote:

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

---

None of these "cuts" are slated to take place until after Trump leaves office. This is far from the first time the Reps have used the ploy, and is always results in the "planned" cuts never actually happening. They know this, which is exactly why they simply don't propose they start taking effect now. But I'm also betting you already knew that.

Jet White said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

I am giving no opinion whatsoever to the BBB in my post. It is BBB-agnostic.

---

Of course you aren't. Because then you would have to opine on whether or not the bill includes "solutions" to our problems.

---

I can separate the 2 issues. a) Massie being useless and b) the merits of the BBB

Apparently that's too much work for you.

---

Actually they aren't separate in this scenario. Because the BBB is exactly what Massie is criticizing and offering solutions for. You just don't like them.

Awfully convenient to have no opinion on the BBB. Seems to me that is actually doing "less work".

---

What are his solutions?

Platitudes like "CUT SPENDING"?

Ok, put up or shut up Massie - introduce a bill that CUTS SPENDING...with details, not vagueness. A FULL bill.

Even I can say "CUT SPENDING!!!!" and I'm not drawing a big federal government paycheck to do it. And I accomplish just as much as he does.

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

---

None of these "cuts" are slated to take place until after Trump leaves office. This is far from the first time the Reps have used the ploy, and is always results in the "planned" cuts never actually happening. They know this, which is exactly why they simply don't propose they start taking effect now. But I'm betting you also already knew that.

---

Can you give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill so that I can look them up?

Here's the bill for reference.

Or if you prefer the actual text of HR 1.

I'm not disagreeing on that - but I'd like to see how it was written.

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

---

None of these "cuts" are slated to take place until after Trump leaves office. This is far from the first time the Reps have used the ploy, and is always results in the "planned" cuts never actually happening. They know this, which is exactly why they simply don't propose they start taking effect now. But I'm also betting you already knew that.

---

FWIW, after looking through it quickly, I found numerous things that are probably considered "spending cuts" that occur on 01/01/2026. I think Trump is still in office then, right?

NOTE: I am not saying this is a good bill. But, there are a lot of bull**** statements being made about it from both sides, too...

For one...dealing with spending cuts, you can't cut discretionary spending in a reconciliation bill. That has to be done in the appropriation bills. That is the Byrd Rule.

But, appropriation bills require 60 votes in the Senate. Want to tell me which 7 Democratic Senators will join the Republicans to pass those?

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

---

None of these "cuts" are slated to take place until after Trump leaves office. This is far from the first time the Reps have used the ploy, and is always results in the "planned" cuts never actually happening. They know this, which is exactly why they simply don't propose they start taking effect now. But I'm betting you also already knew that.

---

Can you give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill so that I can look them up?

Here's the bill for reference.

Or if you prefer the actual text of HR 1.

I'm not disagreeing on that - but I'd like to see how it was written.

---

Virtually all the cuts are slated to take place in 2029 or after.



Fiscal Effects Of The One Big Beautiful Bill - EPIC for America

Phatbob said:

---

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.

---

There is an economic description for those things, and it is called a public good. Not that it is a benefit to the public, but a good (product/service) that is ONLY POSSIBLE to be provided via public means. The only reason those are provided through government because it is literally the only way it would get done, and it has to be done. Everything else should not be provided through government because it is the worst possible way of providing that good or service for a multitude of reasons.

---

Building roads is a federal government function? Because lots and lots of roads are built by private individuals and local govt w/o federal assistance.

If you want to draw a line to say disaster recovery is not a function of Fed or local govt, have at it.

When you go without water, power or sewer for a few months after a storm, report back of how great it was and how private companies and individuals took care of you.

You seem to have a firm handle on it all so it should work out. Best of luck to you.

nm

flown-the-coop said:

---

Phatbob said:

---

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.

---

There is an economic description for those things, and it is called a public good. Not that it is a benefit to the public, but a good (product/service) that is ONLY POSSIBLE to be provided via public means. The only reason those are provided through government because it is literally the only way it would get done, and it has to be done. Everything else should not be provided through government because it is the worst possible way of providing that good or service for a multitude of reasons.

---

Building roads is a federal government function? Because lots and lots of roads are built by private individuals and local govt w/o federal assistance.

If you want to draw a line to say disaster recovery is not a function of Fed or local govt, have at it.

When you go without water, power or sewer for a few months after a storm, report back of how great it was and how private companies and individuals took care of you.

You seem to have a firm handle on it all so it should work out. Best of luck to you.

---

There is very little chance of that ever happening to my family and I insure my family against all kinds of threats to our standard of living.

Others should do likewise.

Jet White said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

---

None of these "cuts" are slated to take place until after Trump leaves office. This is far from the first time the Reps have used the ploy, and is always results in the "planned" cuts never actually happening. They know this, which is exactly why they simply don't propose they start taking effect now. But I'm betting you also already knew that.

---

Can you give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill so that I can look them up?

Here's the bill for reference.

Or if you prefer the actual text of HR 1.

I'm not disagreeing on that - but I'd like to see how it was written.

---

Virtually all the cuts are slated to take place in 2029 or after.



Fiscal Effects Of The One Big Beautiful Bill - EPIC for America

---

So, you can't give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill. OK.

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

---

None of these "cuts" are slated to take place until after Trump leaves office. This is far from the first time the Reps have used the ploy, and is always results in the "planned" cuts never actually happening. They know this, which is exactly why they simply don't propose they start taking effect now. But I'm betting you also already knew that.

---

Can you give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill so that I can look them up?

Here's the bill for reference.

Or if you prefer the actual text of HR 1.

I'm not disagreeing on that - but I'd like to see how it was written.

---

Virtually all the cuts are slated to take place in 2029 or after.



Fiscal Effects Of The One Big Beautiful Bill - EPIC for America

---

So, you can't give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill. OK.

---

AWK -

You do realize the bill modifies language in existing legislation and you have to reference and understand the current legislation and how much it was going to spend to then understand the effect of the language that is being amended and how much spending that would cut?! That is not a trivial task.

But, I'd appreciate you giving us the sections of the bill that have spending cuts, the amounts and the fiscal year in which they take place. Everyone with expertise who analyzed the original House bill said the cuts were to take place after Trump left office, in 2029. You came back and said they had been modified "by the end of 2026", which is still nothing but a con job imo. But I'd like to see the changes please since its been changed to 2026.

You need to go to the CBO scoring workbook summary and you can map it to the section of the bill.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-06/HR1_HousePassed_6-4-2025.xlsx

Logos Stick said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

Ok, so according to the liberals, there are actually $1.3 trillion in spending cuts (not enough in my opinion, but still a big number).

---

None of these "cuts" are slated to take place until after Trump leaves office. This is far from the first time the Reps have used the ploy, and is always results in the "planned" cuts never actually happening. They know this, which is exactly why they simply don't propose they start taking effect now. But I'm betting you also already knew that.

---

Can you give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill so that I can look them up?

Here's the bill for reference.

Or if you prefer the actual text of HR 1.

I'm not disagreeing on that - but I'd like to see how it was written.

---

Virtually all the cuts are slated to take place in 2029 or after.



Fiscal Effects Of The One Big Beautiful Bill - EPIC for America

---

So, you can't give me the exact sections and verbiage in the bill. OK.

---

AWK -

You do realize the bill modifies language in existing legislation and you have to reference and understand the current legislation and how much it was going to spend to then understand the effect of the language that is being amended and how much spending that would cut?! That is not a trivial task.

---

Yes, I do realize that. I read through it. And I know it's not trivial.

Quote:

---

But, I'd appreciate you giving us the sections of the bill that have spending cuts, the amounts and the fiscal year in which they take place.

---

That's what I asked for HIM (or anyone) to provide.

I've seen analyses that it's a good bill and analyses it's a bad bill.

ALL left wing analyses say it's bad. Some right wing analyses ALSO say it's bad. So, I guess those folks have something in common.

Quote:

---

Everyone with expertise who analyzed the original House bill said the cuts were to take place after Trump left office, in 2029.

---

JFC, there's been multiple examples of things occurring before 2029 posted right on this thread. Apparently your everyone with expertise missed those.

Quote:

---

You came back and said they had been modified "by the end of 2026", which is still nothing but a con job imo. But I'd like to see the changes please since its been changed to 2026.

---

I posted the actual bill and the House explanation of every single section of it. You CAN look that up yourself.

BTW, one thing that people here just don't seem to grasp is that you CANNOT CUT ANY DISCRETIONARY SPENDING in a reconciliation bill...Full stop. Period.

TRM said:

---

You need to go to the CBO scoring workbook summary and you can map it to the section of the bill.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-06/HR1_HousePassed_6-4-2025.xlsx

---

Thank you!!

Not that I will agree with the CBO's analysis since they count every tax cut as a massive loss of tax revenue (or as they call it - SPENDING). And yet...those massive losses of tax revenue have never seemed to materialize after the cuts are in place.

But, at least NOW I'll be able to see where each section is linked to "spending" and "revenues"...

One thing that stands out to me is even if you disagree with the CBO, the pro-tax and anti-tax research foundations only differ by $300B in debt over the 10 years when looking at their analyses.

What's the latest on OBBB?

This is from GROK....

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has set a goal of passing the Senate's version by July 4, 2025, but negotiations are ongoing, with amendments being considered to address concerns from both fiscally conservative and moderate Republican senators, as well as Democratic opposition leveraging the Byrd Rule to challenge certain provisions. Recent updates indicate the Senate Finance Committee released a version of the bill on June 16, 2025, with changes like deeper Medicaid cuts and adjustments to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, but passage remains uncertain due to potential House opposition and internal GOP disagreements.

aggiedent 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.

---

So in other words, they want to change the algorithms until the program says the Big Beautiful Bill really is beneficial to the country, our financial well being, and the national debt.

I think they need to divide by zero somewhere in the algorithm to get that kind of math.

---

Or, until it actually reflects what will happen accurately.