Most conservatives, including me, were outraged at the BBB. Rather than cutting, it will increase the deficit.

But will it?

It actually significantly decreased government expenditures:

• It cut $1.02 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years
• It cut $300 billion from SNAP over 10 years
• It reduced Obamacare expenses by a non-yet-quantified amount
• It eliminated tax incentives for green energy, again not yet quantified.

It did increase some spending, notably $350 billion for border security and immigration enforcement.

The primary reason that it is supposed to increase the deficit, despite those cuts, is not increased spending but rather the permanently extended tax cuts.

It is also notable that the overwhelming majority of the Freedom Caucus loves the Bill. It is also notable that the entirety of Dems in Congress hate the bill, and the hardest R's to get to vote for it were the extreme RHINOs (like Murkowski).

Cutting medical care from grandma and grandpa?

Only if they are under 65. As far as the work requirements - only for able-bodied 64 and under. What else?

Well 10 years ago they were wheeling grandma and grandpa up to a cliff and then pushing them off. I even saw an ad depicting this on TV! At least they have become more moderate and are just cutting their Medicare now.

bam02 said:

---

Well 10 years ago they were wheeling grandma and grandpa up to a cliff and then pushing them off. I even saw an ad depicting this on TV! At least they have become more moderate and are just cutting their Medicare now.

---

Medicaid, not Medicare.

Oh even better!

No tax on SS is very significant.

infinity ag said:

---

Cutting medical care from grandma and grandpa?

---

Covid and the unvaccinated already killed them so no.

GOP is just as bad in adding pork to their legislation. So stupid that Senators Cruz and Cornyn slipped in a wasteful provision to move Discovery from the Smithsonian to Texas.

TA-OP said:

---

GOP is just as bad in adding pork to their legislation. So stupid that Senators Cruz and Cornyn slipped in a wasteful provision to move Discovery from the Smithsonian to Texas.

---

That may be a bad idea; I don't know. But why do you call it pork?

KingofHazor said:

---

It actually significantly decreased government expenditures:

• It cut $1.02 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years
• It cut $300 billion from SNAP over 10 years
• It reduced Obamacare expenses by a non-yet-quantified amount
• It eliminated tax incentives for green energy, again not yet quantified.

It did increase some spending, notably $350 billion for border security and immigration enforcement.

---

This guy loved the bill. He's been championing that logic for a while.

infinity ag said:

---

Cutting medical care from grandma and grandpa?

---

someone's been watching pravda news or listening to the likes of Chuck Schumer or Pocahontas I see.

infinity ag said:

---

Cutting medical care from grandma and grandpa?

---

That is a vague and uninformed postion.

KingofHazor said:

---

TA-OP said:

---

GOP is just as bad in adding pork to their legislation. So stupid that Senators Cruz and Cornyn slipped in a wasteful provision to move Discovery from the Smithsonian to Texas.

---

That may be a bad idea; I don't know. But why do you call it pork?

---

What else would you call it when a state slips in provisions to spend on pointless projects? Even worse, they purposefully wrote the language as to skirt around reconciliation rules. I have no problem saying the same about Democrats. Don't promise to reduce waste and then immediately introduce waste just to pay for your vote.

infinity ag said:

---

Cutting medical care from grandma and grandpa?

---

Grandma and Grandpa are on Medicare, not Medicaid, but nice try.

And the only people getting cut on Medicaid are the able bodied lazy asses that aren't willing to work even part time.

This is what cutting fraud and abuse looks like.

Good.

The cuts were postponed for two years until after the mid-terms. That is a brilliant move politically. It also allows the leftist journalists to blow their wad attacking the bill now and then nothing happens for two years. They will lose credibility.

KingofHazor said:

---

The cuts were postponed for two years until after the mid-terms. That is a brilliant move politically. It also allows the leftist journalists to blow their wad attacking the bill now and then nothing happens for two years. They will lose credibility.

---

Which explains why the bill is not serious about controlling spending.

TA-OP said:

---

GOP is just as bad in adding pork to their legislation. So stupid that Senators Cruz and Cornyn slipped in a wasteful provision to move Discovery from the Smithsonian to Texas.

---

When they were determining where to put the shuttles, Texas was left off the list because, well, it's a red state and Obama wasn't going to reward them with one.

This is just correcting that snub.

Sims said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

The cuts were postponed for two years until after the mid-terms. That is a brilliant move politically. It also allows the leftist journalists to blow their wad attacking the bill now and then nothing happens for two years. They will lose credibility.

---

Which explains why the bill is not serious about controlling spending.

---

I'm missing your point. How does postponing cuts until after the mid-terms mean that the bill is not serious about controlling spending?

infinity ag said:

---

Cutting medical care from grandma and grandpa?

---

I doubt your grandparents are under age 65 but if they are, tell them to quit loafing and get a part time job or start volunteering if they aren't on disability.

KingofHazor said:

---

Sims said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

The cuts were postponed for two years until after the mid-terms. That is a brilliant move politically. It also allows the leftist journalists to blow their wad attacking the bill now and then nothing happens for two years. They will lose credibility.

---

Which explains why the bill is not serious about controlling spending.

---

I'm missing your point. How does postponing cuts until after the mid-terms mean that the bill is not serious about controlling spending?

---

If your goal is reelection, you engineer the bill to provide for increased cover in the midterms. If your goal is to cut spending, you engineer a bill that cuts spending while you control senate, house and presidency - now.

Sure, cuts today might result in a loss in the midterms but at least you got cuts today and likely until the end of Trumps administration (unless of course the dems get a supermajority in the midterms - unlikely).

This projected cuts over decades is a useless metric. The law could be changed every two years in theory. Cut now.

cecil77 said:

---

No tax on SS is very significant.

---

$6,000 credit max per individual IIRC

KingofHazor said:

---

Sims said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

The cuts were postponed for two years until after the mid-terms. That is a brilliant move politically. It also allows the leftist journalists to blow their wad attacking the bill now and then nothing happens for two years. They will lose credibility.

---

Which explains why the bill is not serious about controlling spending.

---

I'm missing your point. How does postponing cuts until after the mid-terms mean that the bill is not serious about controlling spending?

---

Because they will never happen. The bill says "We're cutting spending! (in 5 years)". Which, given the history of all "cuts", means they will be legislated away before any bureaucrat has to do with 1 less paper clip than before. It's giving us all the same lip service they have for decades.

KingofHazor said:

---

It actually significantly decreased government expenditures:

• It cut $1.02 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years
• It cut $300 billion from SNAP over 10 years
• It reduced Obamacare expenses by a non-yet-quantified amount
• It eliminated tax incentives for green energy, again not yet quantified.

---

When do these cuts take place? And when will the new spendings/tax cuts be up for renewal?

So what are the things that will change the most for us, the average citizen and consumer from this bill?

How will our lives change?

Honestly looking for a comprehensive answer, not snark.

Sims said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Sims said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

The cuts were postponed for two years until after the mid-terms. That is a brilliant move politically. It also allows the leftist journalists to blow their wad attacking the bill now and then nothing happens for two years. They will lose credibility.

---

Which explains why the bill is not serious about controlling spending.

---

I'm missing your point. How does postponing cuts until after the mid-terms mean that the bill is not serious about controlling spending?

---

If your goal is reelection, you engineer the bill to provide for increased cover in the midterms. If your goal is to cut spending, you engineer a bill that cuts spending while you control senate, house and presidency - now.

Sure, cuts today might result in a loss in the midterms but at least you got cuts today and likely until the end of Trumps administration (unless of course the dems get a supermajority in the midterms - unlikely).

This projected cuts over decades is a useless metric. The law could be changed every two years in theory. Cut now.

---

Exactly, this is the classic Fed Gov shell game. Increase spending now but make cuts in the future (many don't kick in until year 5+) and then claim "look, we didn't increase the deficit that much". They added to the game this time by making the new tax benefits expire for the most part in 4 years knowing once implemented, there will be a lot of pressure to keep those in place when they are expiring (just like the Trump 1 tax cuts) and there will also be pressure to not actually keep the cost cuts.

Anyone that believes this bill cuts the deficit is a victim of fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a dozen times, shame on me.

Mike Johnson says there's more bills to come which will hopefully address more spending cuts. The OBBB got Trump's agenda put in place for helping to boost the economy, increasing our defense and securing our border.

MaroonStain said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

No tax on SS is very significant.

---

$6,000 credit max per individual IIRC

---

Every person receiving SS has already paid tax on that money once.

It's morally repugnant that they should have to pay a single dime of tax on any of it again

sincereag said:

---

Mike Johnson says there's more bills to come which will hopefully address more spending cuts. The OBBB got Trump's agenda put in place for helping to boost the economy, increasing our defense and securing our border.

---

infinity ag said:

---

Cutting medical care from grandma and grandpa?

---

Medicare is not affected by the BBB. Here is a novel thought perhaps the family should take care of grandma and grandpa.

cecil77 said:

---

No tax on SS is very significant.

---

I think this is actually a $6000 tax credit for seniors not actually taking off taxes from payments on social security

the standard deduction for seniors was raised.

Pretty sure this is the real outcome.

4 said:

---

MaroonStain said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

No tax on SS is very significant.

---

$6,000 credit max per individual IIRC

---

Every person receiving SS has already paid tax on that money once.

It's morally repugnant that they should have to pay a single dime of tax on any of it again

---

Is that right? I thought you didn't pay taxes on the amount withheld for social security?

It's fun knowing now, that to secure votes for the BBB, all the administration had to do was bury the Epstein list!

Anything budget related with the "over 10 years" label isnt worth the piece of paper it is written on.