Budget office: Republicans’ megabill would give to the rich and take from the poor

[iguanaman]

If GOP officials are looking for good news in the Congressional Budget Office's new report on the party's reconciliation package, they won't find any.

Common sense might suggest that congressional Republicans would want to know basic details about their giant reconciliation package, such as how much it would cost and the practical implications of its provisions. GOP lawmakers are, after all, federal policymakers. It stands to reason that they’d care enough about governing to want to legislate with open eyes.

But that’s not the case. Just as Republicans scrambled in 2017 to pass massive tax breaks without waiting for a score from the Congressional Budget Office, GOP lawmakers decided to do the same thing in 2025, deliberately choosing willful ignorance about their own legislation.

That did not, however, stop congressional Democrats from asking the CBO to scrutinize the House Republicans’ proposal, and as The Associated Press reported, the nonpartisan budget office’s findings were quite brutal.

A fresh analysis from the Congressional Budget Office said the tax provisions would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the decade, while the changes to Medicaid, food stamps and other services would tally $1 trillion in reduced spending. The lowest-income households in the U.S. would see their resources drop, while the highest ones would see a boost, the CBO said.

For Republicans, there’s plenty of data to chew on in the CBO’s newly released findings, but if GOP officials are looking for encouraging news in the report, they won’t find any. The nonpartisan budget analysts found that the Republicans’ proposal would:

• decrease household resources for the poorest Americans by 2% in the short term, and 4% by 2033 as additional GOP cuts take effect;
• increase household resources for the wealthiest Americans, thanks almost entirely to Republican tax breaks;
• increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion;
• take health care benefits from roughly 15 million Americans;
• cut roughly $700 billion from Medicaid;
• and cut $267 billion from SNAP (better known as food stamps).

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...egabill-give-rich-richer-take-poor-rcna208175

It's official... Trump is creating an oligarchy out of the Federal Govt. and it lives to benefit the wealthy and tax the poor.

 

[iliveonramen]

42% of Trump voters have been polled as saying that Medicaid is important to themselves and their families.

This is his voters.....

Pennsylvania Trump voter Lori Mosura described the billionaire as “more attuned to the needs of everyone instead of just the rich” in an interview with the Washington Post. She lives below the poverty line, receiving $1,200 a month in food stamps and Social Security benefits.

But she has a message for Trump.

“We helped get you in office; please take care of us,” Mosura said, shifting the conversation as though she were speaking to Trump. “Please don’t cut the things that help the most vulnerable.”

Trump counties are overwhelmingly dependent on food stamps, so there's that for them as well.

I guess they are enjoying their "winning"

 

[Helix]

 

[ColdHardTruth]

If GOP officials are looking for good news in the Congressional Budget Office's new report on the party's reconciliation package, they won't find any.

Common sense might suggest that congressional Republicans would want to know basic details about their giant reconciliation package, such as how much it would cost and the practical implications of its provisions. GOP lawmakers are, after all, federal policymakers. It stands to reason that they’d care enough about governing to want to legislate with open eyes.

But that’s not the case. Just as Republicans scrambled in 2017 to pass massive tax breaks without waiting for a score from the Congressional Budget Office, GOP lawmakers decided to do the same thing in 2025, deliberately choosing willful ignorance about their own legislation.

That did not, however, stop congressional Democrats from asking the CBO to scrutinize the House Republicans’ proposal, and as The Associated Press reported, the nonpartisan budget office’s findings were quite brutal.


For Republicans, there’s plenty of data to chew on in the CBO’s newly released findings, but if GOP officials are looking for encouraging news in the report, they won’t find any. The nonpartisan budget analysts found that the Republicans’ proposal would:

• decrease household resources for the poorest Americans by 2% in the short term, and 4% by 2033 as additional GOP cuts take effect;
• increase household resources for the wealthiest Americans, thanks almost entirely to Republican tax breaks;
• increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion;
• take health care benefits from roughly 15 million Americans;
• cut roughly $700 billion from Medicaid;
• and cut $267 billion from SNAP (better known as food stamps).

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...egabill-give-rich-richer-take-poor-rcna208175

It's official... Trump is creating an oligarchy out of the Federal Govt. and it lives to benefit the wealthy and tax the poor.

This is 100% proof of why republicans need to be kept in the minority for all eternity.

 

[Phys251]

If GOP officials are looking for good news in the Congressional Budget Office's new report on the party's reconciliation package, they won't find any.

Common sense might suggest that congressional Republicans would want to know basic details about their giant reconciliation package, such as how much it would cost and the practical implications of its provisions. GOP lawmakers are, after all, federal policymakers. It stands to reason that they’d care enough about governing to want to legislate with open eyes.

But that’s not the case. Just as Republicans scrambled in 2017 to pass massive tax breaks without waiting for a score from the Congressional Budget Office, GOP lawmakers decided to do the same thing in 2025, deliberately choosing willful ignorance about their own legislation.

That did not, however, stop congressional Democrats from asking the CBO to scrutinize the House Republicans’ proposal, and as The Associated Press reported, the nonpartisan budget office’s findings were quite brutal.


For Republicans, there’s plenty of data to chew on in the CBO’s newly released findings, but if GOP officials are looking for encouraging news in the report, they won’t find any. The nonpartisan budget analysts found that the Republicans’ proposal would:

• decrease household resources for the poorest Americans by 2% in the short term, and 4% by 2033 as additional GOP cuts take effect;
• increase household resources for the wealthiest Americans, thanks almost entirely to Republican tax breaks;
• increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion;
• take health care benefits from roughly 15 million Americans;
• cut roughly $700 billion from Medicaid;
• and cut $267 billion from SNAP (better known as food stamps).

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...egabill-give-rich-richer-take-poor-rcna208175

It's official... Trump is creating an oligarchy out of the Federal Govt. and it lives to benefit the wealthy and tax the poor.

 

[Econ4every1]

If GOP officials are looking for good news in the Congressional Budget Office's new report on the party's reconciliation package, they won't find any.

Common sense might suggest that congressional Republicans would want to know basic details about their giant reconciliation package, such as how much it would cost and the practical implications of its provisions. GOP lawmakers are, after all, federal policymakers. It stands to reason that they’d care enough about governing to want to legislate with open eyes.

But that’s not the case. Just as Republicans scrambled in 2017 to pass massive tax breaks without waiting for a score from the Congressional Budget Office, GOP lawmakers decided to do the same thing in 2025, deliberately choosing willful ignorance about their own legislation.

That did not, however, stop congressional Democrats from asking the CBO to scrutinize the House Republicans’ proposal, and as The Associated Press reported, the nonpartisan budget office’s findings were quite brutal.


For Republicans, there’s plenty of data to chew on in the CBO’s newly released findings, but if GOP officials are looking for encouraging news in the report, they won’t find any. The nonpartisan budget analysts found that the Republicans’ proposal would:

• decrease household resources for the poorest Americans by 2% in the short term, and 4% by 2033 as additional GOP cuts take effect;
• increase household resources for the wealthiest Americans, thanks almost entirely to Republican tax breaks;
• increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion;
• take health care benefits from roughly 15 million Americans;
• cut roughly $700 billion from Medicaid;
• and cut $267 billion from SNAP (better known as food stamps).

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...egabill-give-rich-richer-take-poor-rcna208175

It's official... Trump is creating an oligarchy out of the Federal Govt. and it lives to benefit the wealthy and tax the poor.

My theory is that as people loose benefits for healthcare, SS, and welfare, the problem will increasingly fall to the states who will be left to deal with the problems.

Blue states are more likely to look for taxes from wealthy individuals to boost a states coffers to deal with the problem. But, red states will decrease taxes to lure "over taxed" wealthy people to their states.

That situation is going to break something.

 

[iguanaman]

My theory is that as people loose benefits for healthcare, SS, and welfare, the problem will increasingly fall to the states who will be left to deal with the problems.

Blue states are more likely to look for taxes from wealthy individuals to boost a states coffers to deal with the problem. But, red states will decrease taxes to lure "over taxed" wealthy people to their states.

That situation is going to break something.

Many States have laws that automatically cancel Medicaid programs if Federal grant money falls below a threshold. I don't think any State can afford to take the place of the Federal Govt. in these matters. More people will die as a result and that is why the House bill is now called the Murder bill. Trump does not care how many Americans die and neither do his billionaire buddies.

 

[Econ4every1]

I don't think any State can afford to take the place of the Federal Govt. in these matters.

...Unless they enact laws that raise more taxes, maybe the taxes that the Federal government is currently reducing especially on the wealthy?

Now that will vary by state. If you live in a red state other than TX and a few others, there's a good chance your state is already having trouble funding programs before the proposed tax cuts, but in Many blue states (though not all), the states can raise taxes, especially on top earners, the states may also stop paying money to the Federal Government they do now because of the money the government pulls back.

I was just speculating and admit there's nothing scientific about it. In fact, I really hope I'm wrong, because I see that leading to a very dark future for this nation.

Trump does not care how many Americans die and neither do his billionaire buddies.

Which is why I've pointed out a few times in this forum that it increasingly feels like this isn't just a divide of politics, but a divide between those who quite literally lack empathy (that the people willing to ignore it to get rich) and those that feel an abundance of empathy, and those that balance empathy and pragmatism.

Ironically, many Republicans are good and empathetic people, but their party is leaving and they are left with a choice, stay with an ideology that's part of their identity, or realize that the Republican party of the 70s, 80s and 90's has moved on and it's not coming back.

 

[iguanaman]

...Unless they enact laws that raise more taxes, maybe the taxes that the Federal government is currently reducing especially on the wealthy?

Now that will vary by state. If you live in a red state other than TX and a few others, there's a good chance your state is already having trouble funding programs before the proposed tax cuts, but in Many blue states (though not all), the states can raise taxes, especially on top earners, the states may also stop paying money to the Federal Government they do now because of the money the government pulls back.

I was just speculating and admit there's nothing scientific about it. In fact, I really hope I'm wrong, because I see that leading to a very dark future for this nation.



Which is why I've pointed out a few times in this forum that it increasingly feels like this isn't just a divide of politics, but a divide between those who quite literally lack empathy (that the people willing to ignore it to get rich) and those that feel an abundance of empathy, and those that balance empathy and pragmatism.

Ironically, many Republicans are good and empathetic people, but their party is leaving and they are left with a choice, stay with an ideology that's part of their identity, or realize that the Republican party of the 70s, 80s and 90's has moved on and it's not coming back.

What you are suggesting is that Red States will murder their poor but Blue States will need to raise taxes. I think that is just about right, It is not something to be proud of though. It is evil and wrong to murder those less fortunate to fund the rich. It will cause further unrest and division which I think is a goal.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[aociswundumho]

My theory is that as people loose benefits for healthcare, SS, and welfare, the problem will increasingly fall to the states who will be left to deal with the problems.

Blue states are more likely to look for taxes from wealthy individuals to boost a states coffers to deal with the problem. But, red states will decrease taxes to lure "over taxed" wealthy people to their states.

Blue states already tax the wealthy up the ass. The more they raise taxes, the more of those productive people will vote with their feet and leave.

That situation is going to break something.

Yes, it's going to break the Democratic party. States like California, New York, and Illinois are losing productive people by the thousands every year. When the 2030 census comes around, blue states are going to lose electoral college votes and seats in congress, while red states will gain both.

 

[L88]

If GOP officials are looking for good news in the Congressional Budget Office's new report on the party's reconciliation package, they won't find any.

Common sense might suggest that congressional Republicans would want to know basic details about their giant reconciliation package, such as how much it would cost and the practical implications of its provisions. GOP lawmakers are, after all, federal policymakers. It stands to reason that they’d care enough about governing to want to legislate with open eyes.

But that’s not the case. Just as Republicans scrambled in 2017 to pass massive tax breaks without waiting for a score from the Congressional Budget Office, GOP lawmakers decided to do the same thing in 2025, deliberately choosing willful ignorance about their own legislation.

That did not, however, stop congressional Democrats from asking the CBO to scrutinize the House Republicans’ proposal, and as The Associated Press reported, the nonpartisan budget office’s findings were quite brutal.


For Republicans, there’s plenty of data to chew on in the CBO’s newly released findings, but if GOP officials are looking for encouraging news in the report, they won’t find any. The nonpartisan budget analysts found that the Republicans’ proposal would:

• decrease household resources for the poorest Americans by 2% in the short term, and 4% by 2033 as additional GOP cuts take effect;
• increase household resources for the wealthiest Americans, thanks almost entirely to Republican tax breaks;
• increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion;
• take health care benefits from roughly 15 million Americans;
• cut roughly $700 billion from Medicaid;
• and cut $267 billion from SNAP (better known as food stamps).

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...egabill-give-rich-richer-take-poor-rcna208175

It's official... Trump is creating an oligarchy out of the Federal Govt. and it lives to benefit the wealthy and tax the poor.

Did it pass in the Senate yet?
If it's that bad why don't the Dems stop the Bill?

 

[jpn]

It's official... Trump is creating an oligarchy out of the Federal Govt. and it lives to benefit the wealthy and tax the poor.

It's really sick.

A person making $4 million will receive a $400,000 tax break, while the lowest 20% of income earners will see their income drop as a result of the Republicans' bill.

 

[jpn]

Did it pass in the Senate yet?
If it's that bad why don't the Dems stop the Bill?

The Dems can't. The Republicans are using the special budget rule so this can pass with a simple majority. The Senate Dems can slow it down a bit, but that's all.

 

[multivita-man]

If GOP officials are looking for good news in the Congressional Budget Office's new report on the party's reconciliation package, they won't find any.

Common sense might suggest that congressional Republicans would want to know basic details about their giant reconciliation package, such as how much it would cost and the practical implications of its provisions. GOP lawmakers are, after all, federal policymakers. It stands to reason that they’d care enough about governing to want to legislate with open eyes.

But that’s not the case. Just as Republicans scrambled in 2017 to pass massive tax breaks without waiting for a score from the Congressional Budget Office, GOP lawmakers decided to do the same thing in 2025, deliberately choosing willful ignorance about their own legislation.

That did not, however, stop congressional Democrats from asking the CBO to scrutinize the House Republicans’ proposal, and as The Associated Press reported, the nonpartisan budget office’s findings were quite brutal.


For Republicans, there’s plenty of data to chew on in the CBO’s newly released findings, but if GOP officials are looking for encouraging news in the report, they won’t find any. The nonpartisan budget analysts found that the Republicans’ proposal would:

• decrease household resources for the poorest Americans by 2% in the short term, and 4% by 2033 as additional GOP cuts take effect;
• increase household resources for the wealthiest Americans, thanks almost entirely to Republican tax breaks;
• increase the budget deficit by $3.8 trillion;
• take health care benefits from roughly 15 million Americans;
• cut roughly $700 billion from Medicaid;
• and cut $267 billion from SNAP (better known as food stamps).

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...egabill-give-rich-richer-take-poor-rcna208175

It's official... Trump is creating an oligarchy out of the Federal Govt. and it lives to benefit the wealthy and tax the poor.

Guess which office gets DOGEd next lol.

 

[jpn]

Blue states already tax the wealthy up the ass. The more they raise taxes, the more of those productive people will vote with their feet and leave.

No they don't. And "productive people" flock to blue states because the tax revenue pays to keep workers well educated, healthy, and safe. And well paid--the minimum wage in my state is almost $17/hr.

Yes, it's going to break the Democratic party. States like California, New York, and Illinois are losing productive people by the thousands every year. When the 2030 census comes around, blue states are going to lose electoral college votes and seats in congress, while red states will gain both.

Then what explains states like Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virginia losing population? Or my state increasing population? Oh, and we see that Idaho's population just increased by a handful of white supremacists from South Africa.
Also, some reliably red states, like Georgia and North Carolina, are becoming increasingly blue.

Many people who leave blue states do so because they can't afford housing. Housing costs are high because demand is high. Everyone wants to live in comparative paradise. People in lower-income jobs move to polluted hell-holes like Texas because the land is cheap and housing is affordable--for all the wrong reasons.

 

[aociswundumho]

Many people who leave blue states do so because they can't afford housing. Housing costs are high because demand is high.

No, it's because the housing supply is being artificially restricted.

 

[iguanaman]

No, it's because the housing supply is being artificially restricted.

How? With zoning and building regulations? Those things insure that housing is safe and traffic flow will be sufficient. The biggest restriction now are mortgage rates that are now a 7.5%.

 

[aociswundumho]

How?

Zoning laws, land use regulations, impact fees, strict building codes, giving nimbys the power to veto new housing developments, environmental bullshit, lengthy permitting processes, height restrictions, density limits, parking minimums, historic preservation rules, rent control, mandated aesthetic or architectural standards, and on and on.

For just one example:

UW study: Rules add $200,000 to Seattle house price

The skyrocketing of home prices from 1989 to 2006 was largely because of laws intended to preserve the area's character, analysis finds.

www.seattletimes.com

 

[iguanaman]

Zoning laws, land use regulations, impact fees, strict building codes, giving nimbys the power to veto new housing developments, environmental bullshit, lengthy permitting processes, height restrictions, density limits, parking minimums, historic preservation rules, rent control, mandated aesthetic or architectural standards, and on and on.

For just one example:

UW study: Rules add $200,000 to Seattle house price

The skyrocketing of home prices from 1989 to 2006 was largely because of laws intended to preserve the area's character, analysis finds.

www.seattletimes.com

LOL Municipalities have the right to restrict density in specific areas. There is nothing in that article that says housing outside that area are being restricted. Here in Florida we can see the problems that unrestricted growth can create.

 

[L88]

The Dems can't. The Republicans are using the special budget rule so this can pass with a simple majority. The Senate Dems can slow it down a bit, but that's all.

Maybe the Dems need to appeal to more normal people so they can actually mean something in the US.

 

[iguanaman]

Maybe the Dems need to appeal to more normal people so they can actually mean something in the US.

Yes that is it. Democrats are not MAGA enough. The MAGA's are not normal. No American who supports and adores a dictator can ever be considered "normal".

 

[L88]

Yes that is it. Democrats are not MAGA enough. The MAGA's are not normal. No American who supports and adores a dictator can ever be considered "normal".

No they don't have to be maga. They need to be less unappealing to the average person and not be as extreme on the left as maga is on the right.

 

[iguanaman]

No they don't have to be maga. They need to be less unappealing to the average person and not be as extreme on the left as maga is on the right.

Democrats outnumber Republicans but are not as reliable to vote. In 2024 19 million stayed home. Apathy is the Dems biggest enemy. Harris ran the least "woke" campaign in decades and paid the price with voter apathy.

The Democrats’ Lost Millions​

The people who really decided the 2024 election are the ones who didn’t vote at all—and they could hold the key to a Democratic comeback.

The Democrats’ takeaway from Trump’s victory should be that a party’s political priorities must resonate with the identities of its base. But they have fundamentally misunderstood this assignment, yet again.

The consequences of that misunderstanding—or refusal to understand—were reflected in 2024’s turnout, when, by some estimates, a staggering 19 million people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 stayed home. It’s not that Dem voters became Republican en masse this election. In fact, in “nearly a third of the top 50 counties that flipped from Democrat to Republican, Trump’s vote actually declined from his 2020 numbers,” writes Steve Phillips, of both The Guardian and this magazine. Trump increased his vote total by just 2.8 million over 2020. The far bigger problem was Harris’s nearly 7 million vote shortfall compared with Biden four years ago.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-turnout-2024-analysis/

 

[L88]

Democrats outnumber Republicans but are not as reliable to vote. In 2024 19 million stayed home. Apathy is the Dems biggest enemy. Harris ran the least "woke" campaign in decades and paid the price with voter apathy.

The Democrats’ Lost Millions​

The people who really decided the 2024 election are the ones who didn’t vote at all—and they could hold the key to a Democratic comeback.

The Democrats’ takeaway from Trump’s victory should be that a party’s political priorities must resonate with the identities of its base. But they have fundamentally misunderstood this assignment, yet again.

The consequences of that misunderstanding—or refusal to understand—were reflected in 2024’s turnout, when, by some estimates, a staggering 19 million people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 stayed home. It’s not that Dem voters became Republican en masse this election. In fact, in “nearly a third of the top 50 counties that flipped from Democrat to Republican, Trump’s vote actually declined from his 2020 numbers,” writes Steve Phillips, of both The Guardian and this magazine. Trump increased his vote total by just 2.8 million over 2020. The far bigger problem was Harris’s nearly 7 million vote shortfall compared with Biden four years ago.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/democratic-turnout-2024-analysis/

That is my point.
More appealing to normal people.
Least woke wouldn't be Kamala and here unrealized capital gains tax.