What is going on with the Big Beautiful Bill?

[Persian Vol]

I have yet to see how taxes are being cut disproportionately for the wealthy. Wanna show us the math on that?

Sure, let’s do the math.

Let’s take the 2017 Trump tax cuts as an example since they remain the core of the current tax structure. The top 1% of earners got an average tax cut of $50,000–$70,000 per year. The bottom 60% got less than $1,000 on average and many saw only temporary relief. Corporate tax rate dropped from 35% to 21%, and most of that benefited shareholders (i.e. wealthier Americans). The estate tax threshold doubled, helping multi-millionaires pass wealth tax-free.

Meanwhile Medicaid expansion was resisted or rolled back in many red states. New proposals seek Medicaid cuts to fund the deficit created by those tax breaks. And yes, the deficit still ballooned even after those cuts.

So when the wealthy get tens of thousands in annual relief and the working class gets $10/month while losing safety net services (that exceed the value of what they are returning in tax cuts) that’s what people mean by “disproportionate.”

 

[jmacvols1]

Yes, I think we need to spend money on defense. The money we spend should be spent smarter for a more lean and deadly military and not the jobs program it has become.

When thinking of defense spending every congressman should remember one thing, the militarys purpose is to kill people and break shizz. Proposed spending that doesn't push toward that purpose is waste.

The video below made the rounds yesterday on social media. Would you be for cutting billions in expensive military benefits used for recruiting that have people joining the military for the wrong reasons?

AI shows:

Total Estimated Costs (2025)

• VA Home Loan Program: $1.5–$2 billion
• GI Bill (Education Benefits): $12–$15 billion
• Student Loan Forgiveness/Repayment: $1.5–$2.5 billion
• Other Major Benefits:
  • TRICARE: $55–$60 billion
  • VA Disability Compensation: $140–$150 billion
  • Adapted Housing Grants: $100–$200 million
  • Pensions: ~$2 billion
• Total: Approximately $212–$231 billion annually, with disability compensation and TRICARE dominating the budget.

 

[jmacvols1]

 

[C-south]

The video below made the rounds yesterday on social media. Would you be for cutting billions in expensive military benefits used for recruiting that have people joining the military for the wrong reasons?

AI shows:

Total Estimated Costs (2025)

• VA Home Loan Program: $1.5–$2 billion
• GI Bill (Education Benefits): $12–$15 billion
• Student Loan Forgiveness/Repayment: $1.5–$2.5 billion
• Other Major Benefits:
  • TRICARE: $55–$60 billion
  • VA Disability Compensation: $140–$150 billion
  • Adapted Housing Grants: $100–$200 million
  • Pensions: ~$2 billion
• Total: Approximately $212–$231 billion annually, with disability compensation and TRICARE dominating the budget.

It seems everyone that exits the military nowadays get some sort of disability.

 

[hog88]

Sure, let’s do the math.

Let’s take the 2017 Trump tax cuts as an example since they remain the core of the current tax structure. The top 1% of earners got an average tax cut of $50,000–$70,000 per year. The bottom 60% got less than $1,000 on average and many saw only temporary relief. Corporate tax rate dropped from 35% to 21%, and most of that benefited shareholders (i.e. wealthier Americans). The estate tax threshold doubled, helping multi-millionaires pass wealth tax-free.

Meanwhile Medicaid expansion was resisted or rolled back in many red states. New proposals seek Medicaid cuts to fund the deficit created by those tax breaks. And yes, the deficit still ballooned even after those cuts.

So when the wealthy get tens of thousands in annual relief and the working class gets $10/month while losing safety net services (that exceed the value of what they are returning in tax cuts) that’s what people mean by “disproportionate.”

Yeah, let's maph.

The average earnings for the bottom 99% of taxpayers is around $50,000, the bottom 60% is about $38,000 while the top 1% starts at almost $800,000 in earnings.

Someone making $38K a year might, a big might pay $3-4K a year in income taxes so a $1k cut is between a 25 and 33% cut.

A person making $70k cut for a person at the BOTTOM of the 1% is almost a 9% cut.

So who's getting a disproportionate cut?

 

[Vol8188]

How can anyone be ok with this level of spending? JFC

It’s a reduction of nearly 1 trillion (0.8) from the last budget.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

It’s a reduction of nearly 1 trillion (0.8) from the last budget.

Its like a 500 pound person setting 490 as a goal weight....

 

[Persian Vol]

Yeah, let's maph.

The average earnings for the bottom 99% of taxpayers is around $50,000, the bottom 60% is about $38,000 while the top 1% starts at almost $800,000 in earnings.

Someone making $38K a year might, a big might pay $3-4K a year in income taxes so a $1k cut is between a 25 and 33% cut.

A person making $70k cut for a person at the BOTTOM of the 1% is almost a 9% cut.

So who's getting a disproportionate cut?

That might look fair on paper within a vacuum if you’re only comparing percentages, but in the real world it plays out very differently. A $1,000 tax cut might be a decent percentage of what a lower-income person pays in taxes, but it doesn’t go far when they’re struggling with rent, groceries, or medical bills. Meanwhile, the wealthiest are getting cuts that are tens of thousands of dollars, far more impactful, and those cuts come without tradeoffs for them. But for the working poor, those tax breaks often lead to cuts in essential programs like Medicaid, which many actually rely on. So yeah, both groups technically got a “cut,” but when the tradeoff for the poor is losing access to care or support, and the rich just pocket more, it’s pretty clear who disproportionately benefits.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Try to remember this exact moment when you point out the splinter in the D's eye regarding their spending items. They also have no idea how much things cost and what is involved but they are adamant their programs make people more secure.

The reality for America's budget is this. Until enough of us can marginalize those who think like you and Luther (on the other side), there will be no balanced budget, reduced deficits, and no reduction in debt. And since that marginalization is unlikely, our shared desire to see fiscal responsibility will not happen.

@BigOrangeMojo How's my cynicism looking today?

Not cynicism if its true...

 

[hog88]

The video below made the rounds yesterday on social media. Would you be for cutting billions in expensive military benefits used for recruiting that have people joining the military for the wrong reasons?

AI shows:

Total Estimated Costs (2025)

• VA Home Loan Program: $1.5–$2 billion
• GI Bill (Education Benefits): $12–$15 billion
• Student Loan Forgiveness/Repayment: $1.5–$2.5 billion
• Other Major Benefits:
  • TRICARE: $55–$60 billion
  • VA Disability Compensation: $140–$150 billion
  • Adapted Housing Grants: $100–$200 million
  • Pensions: ~$2 billion
• Total: Approximately $212–$231 billion annually, with disability compensation and TRICARE dominating the budget.

You're asking the wrong questions.

The right questions would be:

Would I support spending to recruit stone cold warriors - Hell yes
Would I support spending to give them the most pay and benefits possible - Hell yes
Would I support spending to provide them with the absolute best training and tools to do their jobs - Hell yes
Would I support spending $1 on providing them sensitivity training - Hell No
Would I support spending $1 on making the military more equitable - Hell NO

 

[hog88]

Its like a 500 pound person setting 490 as a goal weight....

You eat an elephant 1 bite at a time.

However I do agree with your point.

 

[hog88]

That might look fair on paper within a vacuum if you’re only comparing percentages, but in the real world it plays out very differently. A $1,000 tax cut might be a decent percentage of what a lower-income person pays in taxes, but it doesn’t go far when they’re struggling with rent, groceries, or medical bills. Meanwhile, the wealthiest are getting cuts that are tens of thousands of dollars, far more impactful, and those cuts come without tradeoffs for them. But for the working poor, those tax breaks often lead to cuts in essential programs like Medicaid, which many actually rely on. So yeah, both groups technically got a “cut,” but when the tradeoff for the poor is losing access to care or support, and the rich just pocket more, it’s pretty clear who disproportionately benefits.

Ok show us where the poor are losing access to care. Also when does support end for an abled bodied adult that continually makes bad decisions that limits their earning?

 

[Persian Vol]

Ok show us where the poor are losing access to care. Also when does support end for an abled bodied adult that continually makes bad decisions that limits their earning?

Sure, let’s start with Medicaid. Over the last few years, millions of people have lost access due to redeterminations after the pandemic-era protections ended. Many of them were working poor, not unemployed or “gaming the system,” but people in low-wage jobs without employer coverage. At the same time, states that accepted big tax cuts are under more pressure to cut services to balance their budgets, and Medicaid is often one of the first things on the chopping block.

As for the second point sure, personal responsibility matters. But plenty of people working full-time still can’t afford basic healthcare, housing, or childcare, especially in rural areas or service-sector jobs. Not everyone who’s struggling is doing so because of bad decisions.

 

[jmacvols1]

Maybe only people born in the US should be allowed to hold public office.

 

[jmacvols1]

You're asking the wrong questions.

The right questions would be:

Would I support spending to recruit stone cold warriors - Hell yes
Would I support spending to give them the most pay and benefits possible - Hell yes
Would I support spending to provide them with the absolute best training and tools to do their jobs - Hell yes
Would I support spending $1 on providing them sensitivity training - Hell No
Would I support spending $1 on making the military more equitable - Hell NO

the system seems to be set up just recruit bodies not necessarily gung-ho soldiers.

 

[McDad]

I will remember this moment as the moment where you are willing to sacrifice America's safety against enemies/terrorists for a balanced budget. I am for balanced budgets but not at the expense of safety. I am for cutting expenses in non-Consititutional budget items to provide sufficient money for defense while maintaining a balanced budget.

Oh believe me, I understand the emotional play here. Safety. Security. Reduction means we are poised for invasion. 20 years I felt exactly as you do.

And you will not like this, but you and Luther (or any partisan D) are opposite sides of the same coin.

 

[Vol8188]

Its like a 500 pound person setting 490 as a goal weight....

expecting to get to goal in one budget may he the issue. If you’re 500, 490 is a reasonable goal for 2-4 weeks

 

[McDad]

We gave ICE a bigger budget than many countries entire defense budget.

Understood. And an unfortunate consequence of absentee landlording of our border the last several years. Doesn't mean I like the increase or agree with the amount budgeted. But I understand recent and urgent needs are going to explode the budget to fund those needs.

The worst part is the ICE budget will not decrease even if a D is elected as our next president.

 

[OrangeTsar]

My God. Pathetic. Dramatic with these loons. Everyday its always something with them.

I think that during sessions, Congresspersons should have cots set up in their offices and them stay there 24 x 7 Monday through Friday. Make it kind of like a military barracks as they too are in national service. They have excellent dining and all kinds of amenities readily at hand.

 

[Vol8188]

That might look fair on paper within a vacuum if you’re only comparing percentages, but in the real world it plays out very differently. A $1,000 tax cut might be a decent percentage of what a lower-income person pays in taxes, but it doesn’t go far when they’re struggling with rent, groceries, or medical bills. Meanwhile, the wealthiest are getting cuts that are tens of thousands of dollars, far more impactful, and those cuts come without tradeoffs for them. But for the working poor, those tax breaks often lead to cuts in essential programs like Medicaid, which many actually rely on. So yeah, both groups technically got a “cut,” but when the tradeoff for the poor is losing access to care or support, and the rich just pocket more, it’s pretty clear who disproportionately benefits.

We have one of the most lopsided tax systems in the world. So yes, to people who don’t pay taxes, any tax decrease is going to disproportionately benefit those above them.

Do you believe only the upper half of income earners should pay taxes and do you believe the lower half should receive more than they paid into the tax system?

If we really wanted to fix our system, that’s where we should start. No one should profit from income taxes and more than half of the country should pay something

 

[OrangeTsar]

Sure, let’s do the math.

Let’s take the 2017 Trump tax cuts as an example since they remain the core of the current tax structure. The top 1% of earners got an average tax cut of $50,000–$70,000 per year. The bottom 60% got less than $1,000 on average and many saw only temporary relief. Corporate tax rate dropped from 35% to 21%, and most of that benefited shareholders (i.e. wealthier Americans). The estate tax threshold doubled, helping multi-millionaires pass wealth tax-free.

Meanwhile Medicaid expansion was resisted or rolled back in many red states. New proposals seek Medicaid cuts to fund the deficit created by those tax breaks. And yes, the deficit still ballooned even after those cuts.

So when the wealthy get tens of thousands in annual relief and the working class gets $10/month while losing safety net services (that exceed the value of what they are returning in tax cuts) that’s what people mean by “disproportionate.”

You could tax very billionaire in America at 100% and basically only be able to run the federal government a couple of days. Taxation and revenue aren’t the problem, SPENDING is. But hey, „tax the rich“ is always a sure vote getter, right?

 

[lawgator1]

The bill is moving forward under reconciliation.

Face facts. The republicans have never been serious about balancing the budget or reducing the debt.They are serious only about campaigning on it and insisting that they are for reducing the debt and that this time it will be different.

And then every time they cave.

 

[hog88]

Sure, let’s start with Medicaid. Over the last few years, millions of people have lost access due to redeterminations after the pandemic-era protections ended. Many of them were working poor, not unemployed or “gaming the system,” but people in low-wage jobs without employer coverage. At the same time, states that accepted big tax cuts are under more pressure to cut services to balance their budgets, and Medicaid is often one of the first things on the chopping block.

As for the second point sure, personal responsibility matters. But plenty of people working full-time still can’t afford basic healthcare, housing, or childcare, especially in rural areas or service-sector jobs. Not everyone who’s struggling is doing so because of bad decisions.

True, not everyone struggling are doing so because of bad decisions but I'd say bad decisions are the root cause for 90% or more them and people are tired of being taxed in order to support other people's bad decisions.

And let's face it, with the job market today the only able bodied people working low wage jobs with no benefits are those who choose to or have no other choice due to their bad decisions.

 

[OrangeTsar]

We have one of the most lopsided tax systems in the world. So yes, to people who don’t pay taxes, any tax decrease is going to disproportionately benefit those above them.

Do you believe only the upper half of income earners should pay taxes and do you believe the lower half should receive more than they paid into the tax system?

If we really wanted to fix our system, that’s where we should start. No one should profit from income taxes and more than half of the country should pay something

Flat tax with a tax return form that fits on a postcard. Everyone pays the same percentage.
Couple that with a constitutional amendment that only those who pay taxes get to vote.
That would go a long way toward rationalizing our tax code.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Face facts. The republicans have never been serious about balancing the budget or reducing the debt.They are serious only about campaigning on it and insisting that they are for reducing the debt and that this time it will be different.

And then every time they cave.

More quack quack quack. Go sit in the corner until you have anything different to offer.