Here come the GOP budget bills - with March 14 shutdown date approaching (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

The GOP in both the House and Senate have released their budget resolutions. Both aim to produce $1.5T to $2T in tax cuts- while slashing spending.

The Senate budget committee is hearing their resolution today and resolving over 200 proposed amendments.

The House has released their budge resolution:

- $4 Trillion debt-ceiling increase
- Defund Medicaid entirely (effectively)
- Reduce SNAP by 20%

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/02/12/congress/senate-budget-markup-begins-00203818

House GOP releases budget calling for trillions in cuts to taxes and spending

The blueprint conflicts with a Senate budget resolution, which doesn't address taxes or the debt ceiling. It also includes less funding than the Senate's for immigration enforcement.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[UriUT]

Well, given that a national abortion ban would be unconstitutional, why not?

Fetterman for President.

That's not her point, and isn't pertinent to her argument.

 

[J-DONK]

That's not her point, and isn't pertinent to her argument.

Sendai needs it spelled out.

Sendai, her point was you only vote a clean CR.

Fetterman's argument was as lazy as his style.

 

[MT15]

Since when does anything being unconstitutional matter? It doesn’t. It’s a stupid point to try to make. This admin is doing unconstitutional stuff every damn day.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Sendai]

Sendai needs it spelled out.

Sendai, her point was you only vote a clean CR.

Fetterman's argument was as lazy as his style.

Wonder how she voted for the CR in 2022 that wasn’t clean.

 

[RobF]

Wonder how she voted for the CR in 2022 that wasn’t clean.

I wonder why you'd rather make stupid arguments than just comprehend the simple point that if your reasoning is, "I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote to shut our government down," then logically you're saying you'll vote for literally anything in a bill if the alternative is a government shut down.

And that since you would not, most likely, actually vote for literally anything, saying, "but the alternative is a government shut down," is not a justification for voting for what you just voted for.

You can understand that, right? Or would you rather pretend you can't and make another daft argument?

 

[J-DONK]

Wonder how she voted for the CR in 2022 that wasn’t clean.

Can you tell us what wasn't clean in the 2022 bill?

Heck, can you tell us how this CR was different from previous, and expanded Trump's budget powers? Was that present in the 2022 bill? If not, why are you trying to strawman it into this discussion?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Can you tell us what wasn't clean in the 2022 bill?

Heck, can you tell us how this CR was different from previous, and expanded Trump's budget powers? Was that present in the 2022 bill? If not, why are you trying to strawman it into this discussion?

Better yet, which Party was in control of the House and what happened to the Speaker after that CR?

 

[UriUT]

I wonder why you'd rather make stupid arguments than just comprehend the simple point that if your reasoning is, "I will never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote to shut our government down," then logically you're saying you'll vote for literally anything in a bill if the alternative is a government shut down.

And that since you would not, most likely, actually vote for literally anything, saying, "but the alternative is a government shut down," is not a justification for voting for what you just voted for.

You can understand that, right? Or would you rather pretend you can't and make another daft argument?

It's logic 101. Someone makes a definitive assertion. Another need only give ONE example to disprove that assertion. Ocasio-cortez need to just give one. She could ve said, had the cr included giving Alaska back to Russia, would Fetterman vote?

We don't ask, hey, it's illegal to give Alaska back. It's silly reasoning. It's so bad that if a Supreme Court justice...<cough> alito....<cough> thomas <cough> argued this way, we have to question their constitutional expertise...or at least their bias.

 

[Optimus Prime]

An analysis by Yale University has found that a budget plan being considered by Republicanlawmakers would ultimately transfer wealth from the poorest 40 percent of Americans to the richest 1 percent.

Researchers Harris Eppsteiner and John Ricco of Yale's Budget Lab found that the proposed GOP budget whose framework was supported last month in a vote by the House would include $4.5 trillion in tax cuts that would largely benefit the wealthy, along with $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, including to benefits for the public, including the poorest…….

New analysis says Trump budget plan will take from poorest 40 percent to give to rich

Both Medicaid and SNAP would suffer hundreds of billions in cuts, according to the analysis

www.independent.co.uk