So that means the republicans won't do it? Flawed logic. There's is plenty of political pressure to keep the train moving our direction b

Gigem314 said:

---

Had the D's and R's not been doing such an awful job for decades, we wouldn't have Trump.

The question that never gets asked is...why were Americans willing to vote for Trump twice despite all of his flaws and bad press over the alternatives in both parties?

---

I think the first time it was because Hillary was so widely despised as a candidate.

The second time around, it was because Brandon was a complete disaster and nobody wanted to vote for Heels Up McWord Salad. She ran a horrible campaign, and the beta she chose as a VP added nothing to the ticket and was destroyed in the debate by the only mature, sentient individual of the four individuals on the two tickets.

Lastly, I think we are largely stupid people and we are enamored of celebrity status. We voted on a reality TV show contestant, and now we should be surprised that we are watching a reality TV show played out in D.C.? We aren't focused on the problems that our country faces. And almost half of the country has NO SKIN in what the federal government spends money on.

Just my opinion(s).

Gigem314 said:

---

Had the D's and R's not been doing such an awful job for decades, we wouldn't have Trump.

The question that never gets asked is...why were Americans willing to vote for Trump twice despite all of his flaws and bad press over the alternatives in both parties?

---

Quote:

---

This right here is what is wrong with the Republican Party, including Trump

---

Frustrating? Absolutely. But in all honesty it's how our parties should work. Spending tax money and changing tax rates SHOULD be very, very difficult to make happen It's what our FF's intended. But here we are.

Quote:

---

Frustrating? Absolutely. But in all honesty it's how our parties should work

---

Thinking that our parties should work by both parties appealing to the most liberal members is exactly the problem.

Do you see debate and dissension within the Democrats when they produce bills?

Phatbob said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Had the D's and R's not been doing such an awful job for decades, we wouldn't have Trump.

The question that never gets asked is...why were Americans willing to vote for Trump twice despite all of his flaws and bad press over the alternatives in both parties?

---

Practice?

---

Not a game…

He Who Shall Be Unnamed said:

---

Gigem314 said:

---

Had the D's and R's not been doing such an awful job for decades, we wouldn't have Trump.

The question that never gets asked is...why were Americans willing to vote for Trump twice despite all of his flaws and bad press over the alternatives in both parties?

---

I think the first time it was because Hillary was so widely despised as a candidate.

The second time around, it was because Brandon was a complete disaster and nobody wanted to vote for Heels Up McWord Salad. She ran a horrible campaign, and the beta she chose as a VP added nothing to the ticket and was destroyed in the debate by the only mature, sentient individual of the four individuals on the two tickets.

Lastly, I think we are largely stupid people and we are enamored of celebrity status. We voted on a reality TV show contestant, and now we should be surprised that we are watching a reality TV show played out in D.C.? We aren't focused on the problems that our country faces. And almost half of the country has NO SKIN in what the federal government spends money on.

Just my opinion(s).

---

I think you are completely ignoring the fact that the democrats tried to sell the lie that was obvious to everyone with eyes that Biden was mentally fit to run for president and at the last minute when they realized they were going to lose anointed Kamala.

OMB Director @russvought clears up confusion about the Big Beautiful Bill: “This is not a budget bill. It's an agenda bill…This cannot, by law, include cuts to discretionary spending, which are all of the DOGE permanent cuts…We are in the process of doing that.” pic.twitter.com/Lht9H9iiUI

— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) June 6, 2025

Dave Robicheaux said:

---

Much like Aggie athletics, if you stop watching lot listening to politics you will feel a whole lot better.

---

Truth! And you also won't believe all the BS that many, including the politics junkies on this forum, believe.

-Campaign Finance Reform
-Term limits

Until we have both of those, none of our so-called leaders are serious and none are working for us.

Imagine a bill that:

➡️Finishes President Trump’s border wall

➡️Raises take-home pay for American families between $7,800 and $13,300

➡️Sparks a manufacturing boom by providing 100% expensing for new factories

➡️Makes permanent the historic 2017 Trump tax cuts

All while…

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) June 6, 2025

Jeeper79 said:

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

Pass the bill and move on to codifying Doge cuts

---

If we can't have a fiscally conservative bill, we assuredly aren't going to get DOGE cuts.

---

There are going to be 2 more reconciliation bills and the Doge cuts are supposed to be in one of them. They had to have their own separate bill. I'm not into parliamentary procedures so I am assuming this is how it has to be done.

TAMU1990 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

Pass the bill and move on to codifying Doge cuts

---

If we can't have a fiscally conservative bill, we assuredly aren't going to get DOGE cuts.

---

There are going to be 2 more reconciliation bills and the Doge cuts are supposed to be in one of them. They had to have their own separate bill. I'm not into parliamentary procedures so I am assuming this is how it has to be done.

---

The DOGE cuts can't be in a reconciliation bill. It will have to be in appropriation bill that will also need to garner some Democrat votes, so you know it will have to include some ****ty things for that to happen.

Agree with all of that except this:

"All while delivering the most significant deficit reduction in 30 years."


That will not happen. None of the cuts scheduled for 2029 and beyond will happen.

I'd settle for ONE real $100 billion cut YoY. Just one. That's like 1.3% of the Federal outlay. That's never going to happen either.

Also, the moment a Dem takes the WH again, the wall will most likely be torn completely down.

Discretionary spending cannot be touched in a rescission bill. To address discretionary spending requires an appropriation bill. An appropriation bill requires 60 votes in the Senate. Unless you know 10 democrats that will vote for it, the rescission bill is our best option right now as it only requires 50 votes in the Senate. We get one rescission bill per budget cycle.

Now, we ALL want what you stated, but it is not possible in todays Senate. Trump and Johnson aren't being insensitive, they are not ignoring the problem they simply want this done first. If it doesn't pass, our record tax cuts expire and we all pay a lot more and the problem (deficit) doesn't change one cent.

I can't state it any clearer.

The DOGE cuts were attempted with one follow up bill (measly $9B) and it was immediately chopped down.

Take this deal or our taxes go up bigly and nothing else changes. You taking that risk? Only a fool would. It is a phenomenal bill for the first half of Trumps economic plan. It's focus is economic expansion to drive the revenue side.

Look at the tweets I posted above for the other good things in the bill.

Imo, the 10 year federal control over states regarding AI is what the Senate needs to pull out.

lb3 said:

---

jamey said:

---

I wonder what our kids and grand kids will read in their history books one day about us, how we took our eye off the ball and allowed the failure of their way of life

---

History books will report on this era of partisan yellow journalism and woke culture. And everyone in the future will wonder how society fell so far that people couldn't define a woman publicly for fear of being cancelled.

---

Some will question why anyone in their right mind spent so much time on such a silly narrative which takes the spotlight off something like debt

Exactly.

samurai_science said:

---

jamey said:

---

Rs and Ds alike, we deserve better and the same goes for our news industry

Politicians lie and mislead all the time and it's acceptable as long as they score narrative points against the other team.

Our news industry, what use to be considered an important pillar of democracy, the 4th estate does little more than sell whatever titlating story of the day is for ad revenue. Investigative journalism is practically science fiction at this point.


Does anyone think this is a sustainable place for democracy to survive? I wonder what our kids and grand kids will read in their history books one day about us, how we took our eye off the ball and allowed the failure of their way of life

---

Drama queen in here, this will be forgotton by Monday.

---

I for one will not forget what I've observed over the last ~20 years by Monday

jamey said:

---

lb3 said:

---

jamey said:

---

I wonder what our kids and grand kids will read in their history books one day about us, how we took our eye off the ball and allowed the failure of their way of life

---

History books will report on this era of partisan yellow journalism and woke culture. And everyone in the future will wonder how society fell so far that people couldn't define a woman publicly for fear of being cancelled.

---

Some will question why anyone in their right mind spent so much time on such a silly narrative which takes the spotlight off something like debt

---

As designed? Is the real coup coming from the left?

96AgGrad said:

---

DeSantis deserved better. Everyone else is getting what they voted for.

---

Bad timing , bad campaign = got the results of his misplay.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Discretionary spending cannot be touched in a rescission bill. To address discretionary spending requires an appropriation bill. An appropriation bill requires 60 votes in the Senate. Unless you know 10 democrats that will vote for it, the rescission bill is our best option right now as it only requires 50 votes in the Senate. We get one rescission bill per budget cycle.

Now, we ALL want what you stated, but it is not possible in todays Senate. Trump and Johnson aren't being insensitive, they are not ignoring the problem they simply want this done first. If it doesn't pass, our record tax cuts expire and we all pay a lot more and the problem (deficit) doesn't change one cent.

I can't state it any clearer.

The DOGE cuts were attempted with one follow up bill (measly $9B) and it was immediately chopped down.

Take this deal or our taxes go up bigly and nothing else changes. You taking that risk? Only a fool would. It is a phenomenal bill for the first half of Trumps economic plan. It's focus is economic expansion to drive the revenue side.

Look at the tweets I posted above for the other good things in the bill.

Imo, the 10 year federal control over states regarding AI is what the Senate needs to pull out.

---

I never said anything about the Doge cuts.

The mandatory spending cuts he refers to won't happen. He knows that, yet he continues to use that claim to push the bill. They 100% could cut mandatory spending in FY 25, for example, if they wanted to, but they don't want to.

I'm ok with it passing as is. Spending is never getting cut, discretionary or mandatory. So let's spend until we go belly up. I don't even care about the AI because we are headed for ruin regardless.

Quote:

---

They 100% could cut mandatory spending in FY 25, for example, if they wanted to, but they don't want to.

---

How?

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

They 100% could cut mandatory spending in FY 25, for example, if they wanted to, but they don't want to.

---

How?

---

Move the Medicaid cuts scheduled for FY 29 to FY 25.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

jamey said:

---

lb3 said:

---

jamey said:

---

I wonder what our kids and grand kids will read in their history books one day about us, how we took our eye off the ball and allowed the failure of their way of life

---

History books will report on this era of partisan yellow journalism and woke culture. And everyone in the future will wonder how society fell so far that people couldn't define a woman publicly for fear of being cancelled.

---

Some will question why anyone in their right mind spent so much time on such a silly narrative which takes the spotlight off something like debt

---

As designed? Is the real coup coming from the left?

---

I suspect it's by design. The R party did not use to be the party of social blah blah, and was more on top of fiscal issues..etc.


Then came the gay marriage debates and Rs took their eye off the ball. I don't think that was intentional and was organic but I think the Ds noticed and went all in after that and distracted Rs from their core

Logos Stick said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

They 100% could cut mandatory spending in FY 25, for example, if they wanted to, but they don't want to.

---

How?

---

Move the Medicaid cuts scheduled for FY 29 to FY 25.

---

I thought they already moved it to 2026

My question is if the excesses are labeled as fraud, does it really take congressional action to stop it? As I understand it, DOGE exposed the fraud and redundancy.

jamey said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

They 100% could cut mandatory spending in FY 25, for example, if they wanted to, but they don't want to.

---

How?

---

Move the Medicaid cuts scheduled for FY 29 to FY 25.

---

I thought they already moved it to 2026

---

They did AFAIK...

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

My question is if the excesses are labeled as fraud, does it really take congressional action to stop it? As I understand it, DOGE exposed the fraud and redundancy.

---

Yes.

Because the CHANGES will have to be codified in an appropriations bill. They may be able to claw back some already appropriated funds, but they can't change how funds are disbursed until then.

That's absurd. Easy to understand why we are so far in debt. Who'd want to fight that battle in today's political climate?

Ag with kids said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

My question is if the excesses are labeled as fraud, does it really take congressional action to stop it? As I understand it, DOGE exposed the fraud and redundancy.

---

Yes.

Because the CHANGES will have to be codified in an appropriations bill. They may be able to claw back some already appropriated funds, but they can't change how funds are disbursed until then.

---

If the agencies are not eliminated its pointless

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

That's absurd. Easy to understand why we are so far in debt. Who'd want to fight that battle in today's political climate?

---

Well, at LEAST we have the reconciliation process to change SOME things.

jamey said:

---

lb3 said:

---

jamey said:

---

I wonder what our kids and grand kids will read in their history books one day about us, how we took our eye off the ball and allowed the failure of their way of life

---

History books will report on this era of partisan yellow journalism and woke culture. And everyone in the future will wonder how society fell so far that people couldn't define a woman publicly for fear of being cancelled.

---

Some will question why anyone in their right mind spent so much time on such a silly narrative which takes the spotlight off something like debt

---

I disagree. Every nation has multiple debt crisis is their history. But a viral mind virus that makes half the population applaud how brave parents are for sterilizing their own young? That's going to be discussed for millennia.

The only spending cuts we'll ever see will come as the boomers die off. In fairness that's going to be a lot of money but it won't be intentional. Just pass the damn bill and keep my taxes where they are.

jamey said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Quote:

---

They 100% could cut mandatory spending in FY 25, for example, if they wanted to, but they don't want to.

---

How?

---

Move the Medicaid cuts scheduled for FY 29 to FY 25.

---

I thought they already moved it to 2026

---

Ok, mea culpa, I missed that. End of year 2026.

Now change it to FY 25 as I stated, which ends October 1st, BEFORE the election.

The Senate is never agreeing to those changes anyway. We are never getting anything that cuts net spending until we "collapse".

Biden's budget