TRUMP 2024

1,425,294 Views | 16654 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by Werewolf
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL, the 17th letter of the alphabet.

#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOL, 17 minutes.
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#Nappy, you can always emphasize this story. ;-)
#Devolution #Expand Your Thinking #Eye of The Storm #TheGreatAwakening
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Where's the CCP Boys?
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm opposed to this BBB. It only exacerbates our skyrocketing national debt, and includes some very bad provisions, including expansion of the surveillance state, including requiring states to use biometric data and facial recognition software to track citizens. It "sounds good" to combat illegal immigration, but will be used in the future by Democrat-communist administrations against right-wing patriotic American citizens (who they openly refer to as "the biggest terrorist threat and enemy").

They always use these massive ~1,000 page "omnibus" bills to sneak in all these horrible laws. The bills are so large that no Congressperson can even read a fraction of the bill. The whole "legislative process" is a complete joke. The process is clearly designed by the "Deep State" as a means to sneak and ram through their agenda -- to deliberately destroy the nation via the exploding national debt, steal taxpayer money to fund NGOs (like USAID, etc) to advance the communist agenda, pass police and surveillance state measures to violate our civil liberties, etc.


https://instagr.am/p/DLov5fQSNjI


Quote:

The Senate version of H.R. 1, aka the "One Big Beautiful Bill," pushes a massive expansion of AI-driven biometric surveillance under Trump's second term.

A recent *Biometric Update* article reveals this 940-page bill will create a biometric slave state tracking **everyone, everywhere**.

It allocates over **$175 billion** for immigration in 2025 alone, with ICE getting nearly **$30 billion** through 2029 much of it for AI, facial recognition, biometric data, and digital tracking.

This tech isn't just for borders. It's rolling out in cities nationwide, soon integrated into one massive surveillance system.

**No one will go anywhere without being tracked:**
Your car
Your phone
Your face
Even your gait how you walk all monitored in real time.

They claim it'll help "predict" crimes like *Minority Report*. In reality, it's **Minority Report meets Orwell** an Orwellian police state where privacy is dead, and freedom is a memory.

CBP will use facial recognition at ports and travel corridors, creating "end-to-end biometric travel." Oversight? Minimal at best.

Plus, a 10-year moratorium on local biometric privacy laws means states must comply or lose federal broadband and AI funds.

This is classic Hegelian Dialectic:
Open borders under Biden, then a biometric control grid under Trump two sides of the same coin.

The bill threatens to strip local safeguards and centralize surveillance, locking us into a digital prison.
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Cthepack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GuerrillaPack said:

I'm opposed to this BBB. It only exacerbates our skyrocketing national debt, and includes some very bad provisions, including expansion of the surveillance state, including requiring states to use biometric data and facial recognition software to track citizens. It "sounds good" to combat illegal immigration, but will be used in the future by Democrat-communist administrations against right-wing patriotic American citizens (who they openly refer to as "the biggest terrorist threat and enemy").

They always use these massive ~1,000 page "omnibus" bills to sneak in all these horrible laws. The bills are so large that no Congressperson can even read a fraction of the bill. The whole "legislative process" is a complete joke. The process is clearly designed by the "Deep State" as a means to sneak and ram through their agenda -- to deliberately destroy the nation via the exploding national debt, steal taxpayer money to fund NGOs (like USAID, etc) to advance the communist agenda, pass police and surveillance state measures to violate our civil liberties, etc.


https://instagr.am/p/DLov5fQSNjI


Quote:

The Senate version of H.R. 1, aka the "One Big Beautiful Bill," pushes a massive expansion of AI-driven biometric surveillance under Trump's second term.

A recent *Biometric Update* article reveals this 940-page bill will create a biometric slave state tracking **everyone, everywhere**.

It allocates over **$175 billion** for immigration in 2025 alone, with ICE getting nearly **$30 billion** through 2029 much of it for AI, facial recognition, biometric data, and digital tracking.

This tech isn't just for borders. It's rolling out in cities nationwide, soon integrated into one massive surveillance system.

**No one will go anywhere without being tracked:**
Your car
Your phone
Your face
Even your gait how you walk all monitored in real time.

They claim it'll help "predict" crimes like *Minority Report*. In reality, it's **Minority Report meets Orwell** an Orwellian police state where privacy is dead, and freedom is a memory.

CBP will use facial recognition at ports and travel corridors, creating "end-to-end biometric travel." Oversight? Minimal at best.

Plus, a 10-year moratorium on local biometric privacy laws means states must comply or lose federal broadband and AI funds.

This is classic Hegelian Dialectic:
Open borders under Biden, then a biometric control grid under Trump two sides of the same coin.

The bill threatens to strip local safeguards and centralize surveillance, locking us into a digital prison.

There definitely are a lot of issues with tracking and our rights, but if tracking saves just one person from falling off the end of the earth, I support it!!
jkpackfan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GuerrillaPack said:

I'm opposed to this BBB. It only exacerbates our skyrocketing national debt, and includes some very bad provisions, including expansion of the surveillance state, including requiring states to use biometric data and facial recognition software to track citizens. It "sounds good" to combat illegal immigration, but will be used in the future by Democrat-communist administrations against right-wing patriotic American citizens (who they openly refer to as "the biggest terrorist threat and enemy").

They always use these massive ~1,000 page "omnibus" bills to sneak in all these horrible laws. The bills are so large that no Congressperson can even read a fraction of the bill. The whole "legislative process" is a complete joke. The process is clearly designed by the "Deep State" as a means to sneak and ram through their agenda -- to deliberately destroy the nation via the exploding national debt, steal taxpayer money to fund NGOs (like USAID, etc) to advance the communist agenda, pass police and surveillance state measures to violate our civil liberties, etc.


https://instagr.am/p/DLov5fQSNjI


Quote:

The Senate version of H.R. 1, aka the "One Big Beautiful Bill," pushes a massive expansion of AI-driven biometric surveillance under Trump's second term.

A recent *Biometric Update* article reveals this 940-page bill will create a biometric slave state tracking **everyone, everywhere**.

It allocates over **$175 billion** for immigration in 2025 alone, with ICE getting nearly **$30 billion** through 2029 much of it for AI, facial recognition, biometric data, and digital tracking.

This tech isn't just for borders. It's rolling out in cities nationwide, soon integrated into one massive surveillance system.

**No one will go anywhere without being tracked:**
Your car
Your phone
Your face
Even your gait how you walk all monitored in real time.

They claim it'll help "predict" crimes like *Minority Report*. In reality, it's **Minority Report meets Orwell** an Orwellian police state where privacy is dead, and freedom is a memory.

CBP will use facial recognition at ports and travel corridors, creating "end-to-end biometric travel." Oversight? Minimal at best.

Plus, a 10-year moratorium on local biometric privacy laws means states must comply or lose federal broadband and AI funds.

This is classic Hegelian Dialectic:
Open borders under Biden, then a biometric control grid under Trump two sides of the same coin.

The bill threatens to strip local safeguards and centralize surveillance, locking us into a digital prison.

I agree
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cthepack said:

GuerrillaPack said:

I'm opposed to this BBB. It only exacerbates our skyrocketing national debt, and includes some very bad provisions, including expansion of the surveillance state, including requiring states to use biometric data and facial recognition software to track citizens. It "sounds good" to combat illegal immigration, but will be used in the future by Democrat-communist administrations against right-wing patriotic American citizens (who they openly refer to as "the biggest terrorist threat and enemy").

They always use these massive ~1,000 page "omnibus" bills to sneak in all these horrible laws. The bills are so large that no Congressperson can even read a fraction of the bill. The whole "legislative process" is a complete joke. The process is clearly designed by the "Deep State" as a means to sneak and ram through their agenda -- to deliberately destroy the nation via the exploding national debt, steal taxpayer money to fund NGOs (like USAID, etc) to advance the communist agenda, pass police and surveillance state measures to violate our civil liberties, etc.


https://instagr.am/p/DLov5fQSNjI


Quote:

The Senate version of H.R. 1, aka the "One Big Beautiful Bill," pushes a massive expansion of AI-driven biometric surveillance under Trump's second term.

A recent *Biometric Update* article reveals this 940-page bill will create a biometric slave state tracking **everyone, everywhere**.

It allocates over **$175 billion** for immigration in 2025 alone, with ICE getting nearly **$30 billion** through 2029 much of it for AI, facial recognition, biometric data, and digital tracking.

This tech isn't just for borders. It's rolling out in cities nationwide, soon integrated into one massive surveillance system.

**No one will go anywhere without being tracked:**
Your car
Your phone
Your face
Even your gait how you walk all monitored in real time.

They claim it'll help "predict" crimes like *Minority Report*. In reality, it's **Minority Report meets Orwell** an Orwellian police state where privacy is dead, and freedom is a memory.

CBP will use facial recognition at ports and travel corridors, creating "end-to-end biometric travel." Oversight? Minimal at best.

Plus, a 10-year moratorium on local biometric privacy laws means states must comply or lose federal broadband and AI funds.

This is classic Hegelian Dialectic:
Open borders under Biden, then a biometric control grid under Trump two sides of the same coin.

The bill threatens to strip local safeguards and centralize surveillance, locking us into a digital prison.

There definitely are a lot of issues with tracking and our rights, but if tracking saves just one person from falling off the end of the earth, I support it!!
Not me. I'm with Magilla on this one. The economy is doing fine with E.O. deregulation. A stand-alone bill to stop the Trump tax cut expiration would be sufficient.

Edit: Although I have to ask, how the hell do provisions like that survive the Byrd Rule in a reconciliation bill? Guess the Democrat parliamentarian didn't question it.
CALS grad
Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rwanda, Congo sign peace deal in US to end fighting

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/rwanda-democratic-republic-congo-set-sign-peace-agreement-washington-2025-06-27/
- - - -
Well done Mr. President.
Cthepack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I should have added a winky since my comment went a bit flat, Earth comment and all.
TheStorm
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cthepack said:

I should have added a winky since my comment went a bit flat, Earth comment and all.
I got it immediately, if that's worth anything to you...
GuerrillaPack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
By the way, the Dow Jones is currently (today) at an all-time high.

Remember about 3-4 months ago, when some people were practically hyperventilating in fear over the stock market?
"Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15:19
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll agree on the surveillance and spending concerns raised above, however, I'm riding the Trump Train.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The focus will continue to move to the Federal Reserve, watch.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf said:

I'll agree on the surveillance and spending concerns raised above, however, I'm riding the Trump Train.



Agree. Take the good with the bad.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What's Scavino taking a video at the crap of dawn for?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We've got to be getting close to hurricane season, Crossfire Hurricane that is.
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
#Sieve has been silent all week, not a peep so I thought I'd help him out by posting this clip from one of his FAV daytime shows, THE VIEW.

Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
hokiewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26
Oldsouljer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Eighteen months is a long time in politics but if the vote was held today, I think the GOP would hold the House. Dems aren't doing themselves any favors with their self-destructive behavior. That said, 2028 may be a completely different story when the debt colossus rears its head in a way that can no longer be ignored. No matter which party has the gavel, Congress can't stop runaway spending our way to national fiscal suicide.
CALS grad
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26

49% of Medicaid recipients who voted in 2024 backed Trump, according to Morning Consult data published February 27, 2025. That marks a dramatic 21point swing from 2020, when Medicaid voters favored Biden by about 19 points.

Debating who Trump wooed is semantics; the reality is that lower class voters, including those on Medicaid, shifted markedly towards Trump in 2024 and helped him get elected.

None of us know how many Medicaid recipients will actually be kicked off the rolls but in politics, perception is reality. It didn't take anything but the prospect of a single prison inmate receiving a government-sponsored sex change for Trump to successfully run on the issue. No one doubts this Medicaid cut will affect a sizable number of Americans, whether that number is 100,000 or a million or 10 million may well be immaterial if the perception becomes the right favoring their rich cronies over poor Americans.
Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26

49% of Medicaid recipients who voted in 2024 backed Trump, according to Morning Consult data published February 27, 2025. That marks a dramatic 21point swing from 2020, when Medicaid voters favored Biden by about 19 points.

Debating who Trump wooed is semantics; the reality is that lower class voters, including those on Medicaid, shifted markedly towards Trump in 2024 and helped him get elected.

None of us know how many Medicaid recipients will actually be kicked off the rolls but in politics, perception is reality. It didn't take anything but the prospect of a single prison inmate receiving a government-sponsored sex change for Trump to successfully run on the issue. No one doubts this Medicaid cut will affect a sizable number of Americans, whether that number is 100,000 or a million or 10 million may well be immaterial if the perception becomes the right favoring their rich cronies over poor Americans.


I have noticed your attempts of framing "rich cronies" and evil corporations as a conservative boogeymen. Does the left not have rich cronies, evil billionaires and greedy corporations that support their leftist agenda? Are they also part of what you rail against?
Werewolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26

49% of Medicaid recipients who voted in 2024 backed Trump, according to Morning Consult data published February 27, 2025. That marks a dramatic 21point swing from 2020, when Medicaid voters favored Biden by about 19 points.

Debating who Trump wooed is semantics; the reality is that lower class voters, including those on Medicaid, shifted markedly towards Trump in 2024 and helped him get elected.

None of us know how many Medicaid recipients will actually be kicked off the rolls but in politics, perception is reality. It didn't take anything but the prospect of a single prison inmate receiving a government-sponsored sex change for Trump to successfully run on the issue. No one doubts this Medicaid cut will affect a sizable number of Americans, whether that number is 100,000 or a million or 10 million may well be immaterial if the perception becomes the right favoring their rich cronies over poor Americans.


I have noticed your attempts of framing "rich cronies" and evil corporations as a conservative boogeymen. Does the left not have rich cronies, evil billionaires and greedy corporations that support their leftist agenda? Are they also part of what you rail against?

Are you just being willfully myopic? Or do you actually not see completely obvious differences?

No, the left has never run on cutting taxes and ballooning the deficit, especially when even the most simplistic analysis of who would benefit from the proposed cuts yielded the conclusion it would disproportionately be the top 1% of earners, and corporations and not middle class Americans or low-earners.
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26
Oh sure, I'll bite:
  • Your "Medicaid wasn't meant for those people" talking points are fan fiction. Feel free to read the Social Security Act Title XIX where Medicaid was created. It absolutely was created as an entitlement to help the poor (along with additional groups like the elderly, pregnant women, etc.)
  • The CBO said that the American Rescue Plan would raise the deficit $2.1 trillion. You're thinking of Biden's later bills, which did reduce the deficit. But I see you're all in on working the refs now if they don't line up with Fox News Reality... "OMG the CBO is in on konspiracy!"
  • Like Civ said, you're about to find out how many Republican voters are on Medicaid. Thom Tillis knows, ask him. A few days ago a bunch of Republicans in congress knew, too, just before they did a 180 and caved.
You guys live in this "Let them eat cake!" fantasy land where large swaths of Americans who simply can't get health care in our current health care system will just quietly accept their lot in life. Or where more than about 2% of recipients are just lazy and this will incentivize them afford their health care.

You're like the flaming car wreck that convinces everyone to build a guard rail. If we ever end up with Medicare For All in this country, ironically it'll probably be because of you guys ripping everything else out and handing it to far more deserving billionaires.
Gulfstream4
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26

49% of Medicaid recipients who voted in 2024 backed Trump, according to Morning Consult data published February 27, 2025. That marks a dramatic 21point swing from 2020, when Medicaid voters favored Biden by about 19 points.

Debating who Trump wooed is semantics; the reality is that lower class voters, including those on Medicaid, shifted markedly towards Trump in 2024 and helped him get elected.

None of us know how many Medicaid recipients will actually be kicked off the rolls but in politics, perception is reality. It didn't take anything but the prospect of a single prison inmate receiving a government-sponsored sex change for Trump to successfully run on the issue. No one doubts this Medicaid cut will affect a sizable number of Americans, whether that number is 100,000 or a million or 10 million may well be immaterial if the perception becomes the right favoring their rich cronies over poor Americans.


I have noticed your attempts of framing "rich cronies" and evil corporations as a conservative boogeymen. Does the left not have rich cronies, evil billionaires and greedy corporations that support their leftist agenda? Are they also part of what you rail against?

Are you just being willfully myopic? Or do you actually not see completely obvious differences?

No, the left has never run on cutting taxes and ballooning the deficit, especially when even the most simplistic analysis of who would benefit from the proposed cuts yielded the conclusion it would disproportionately be the top 1% of earners, and corporations and not middle class Americans or low-earners.


So rich people on the right: bad. Rich people on the left: good.

Got it, thanks.
Civilized
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26

49% of Medicaid recipients who voted in 2024 backed Trump, according to Morning Consult data published February 27, 2025. That marks a dramatic 21point swing from 2020, when Medicaid voters favored Biden by about 19 points.

Debating who Trump wooed is semantics; the reality is that lower class voters, including those on Medicaid, shifted markedly towards Trump in 2024 and helped him get elected.

None of us know how many Medicaid recipients will actually be kicked off the rolls but in politics, perception is reality. It didn't take anything but the prospect of a single prison inmate receiving a government-sponsored sex change for Trump to successfully run on the issue. No one doubts this Medicaid cut will affect a sizable number of Americans, whether that number is 100,000 or a million or 10 million may well be immaterial if the perception becomes the right favoring their rich cronies over poor Americans.


I have noticed your attempts of framing "rich cronies" and evil corporations as a conservative boogeymen. Does the left not have rich cronies, evil billionaires and greedy corporations that support their leftist agenda? Are they also part of what you rail against?

Are you just being willfully myopic? Or do you actually not see completely obvious differences?

No, the left has never run on cutting taxes and ballooning the deficit, especially when even the most simplistic analysis of who would benefit from the proposed cuts yielded the conclusion it would disproportionately be the top 1% of earners, and corporations and not middle class Americans or low-earners.


So rich people on the right: bad. Rich people on the left: good.

Got it, thanks.

You answer your own question:

Has the left ever enacted sweeping tax cuts that disproportionately help the top 1% and cut entitlements for the poor?
SmaptyWolf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26

49% of Medicaid recipients who voted in 2024 backed Trump, according to Morning Consult data published February 27, 2025. That marks a dramatic 21point swing from 2020, when Medicaid voters favored Biden by about 19 points.

Debating who Trump wooed is semantics; the reality is that lower class voters, including those on Medicaid, shifted markedly towards Trump in 2024 and helped him get elected.

None of us know how many Medicaid recipients will actually be kicked off the rolls but in politics, perception is reality. It didn't take anything but the prospect of a single prison inmate receiving a government-sponsored sex change for Trump to successfully run on the issue. No one doubts this Medicaid cut will affect a sizable number of Americans, whether that number is 100,000 or a million or 10 million may well be immaterial if the perception becomes the right favoring their rich cronies over poor Americans.


I have noticed your attempts of framing "rich cronies" and evil corporations as a conservative boogeymen. Does the left not have rich cronies, evil billionaires and greedy corporations that support their leftist agenda? Are they also part of what you rail against?

Are you just being willfully myopic? Or do you actually not see completely obvious differences?

No, the left has never run on cutting taxes and ballooning the deficit, especially when even the most simplistic analysis of who would benefit from the proposed cuts yielded the conclusion it would disproportionately be the top 1% of earners, and corporations and not middle class Americans or low-earners.


So rich people on the right: bad. Rich people on the left: good.

Got it, thanks.
I'll be Civ's anger translator:

"Republicans literally just took healthcare from the poor to hand tax cuts to billionaires (a.k.a. "rich cronies" like Elon). In fact, they ballooned the deficit even more for good measure for even more billionaire tax cuts, so this had nothing to do with the deficit. Dems don't do that (their billionaires actually ask for their taxes to be raised), so W T F are you talking about? It's hard to put into words how unbelievably dumb you are, so I can only hope this is willful stupidity."
Cthepack
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civilized said:

Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

Gulfstream4 said:

Civilized said:

hokiewolf said:

Civilized said:

Fitting that Trump was either courageous enough or dumb enough to meaningfully cut entitlements, but that, in concert with his tax cuts, the deficit is actually increasing not decreasing even when slashing Medicaid despite the right's never-ending bellyaching about the deficit.

Pubs being proud to successfully woo more lower-income Americans in the last election, and then cutting their health care is an electoral strategy, I guess.

Can't imagine an electoral price won't be paid for this in the 26 mid-terms.
Medicad was never intended to be an entitlement. Additionally, it doesn't cut the people out that Medicad was originally intended for.

The 12M losing their "health insurance" is a dubious estimate, considering that is strictly an academic estimate done by the CBO, the same folks who thought the American Rescue plan would reduce the deficit. It didn't. Why are we going to believe the CBO which has been consistently wrong?

Trump wooed the middle class voters. Those people will be unaffected. This will have zero consequences in '26

49% of Medicaid recipients who voted in 2024 backed Trump, according to Morning Consult data published February 27, 2025. That marks a dramatic 21point swing from 2020, when Medicaid voters favored Biden by about 19 points.

Debating who Trump wooed is semantics; the reality is that lower class voters, including those on Medicaid, shifted markedly towards Trump in 2024 and helped him get elected.

None of us know how many Medicaid recipients will actually be kicked off the rolls but in politics, perception is reality. It didn't take anything but the prospect of a single prison inmate receiving a government-sponsored sex change for Trump to successfully run on the issue. No one doubts this Medicaid cut will affect a sizable number of Americans, whether that number is 100,000 or a million or 10 million may well be immaterial if the perception becomes the right favoring their rich cronies over poor Americans.


I have noticed your attempts of framing "rich cronies" and evil corporations as a conservative boogeymen. Does the left not have rich cronies, evil billionaires and greedy corporations that support their leftist agenda? Are they also part of what you rail against?

Are you just being willfully myopic? Or do you actually not see completely obvious differences?

No, the left has never run on cutting taxes and ballooning the deficit, especially when even the most simplistic analysis of who would benefit from the proposed cuts yielded the conclusion it would disproportionately be the top 1% of earners, and corporations and not middle class Americans or low-earners.


So rich people on the right: bad. Rich people on the left: good.

Got it, thanks.

You answer your own question:

Has the left ever enacted sweeping tax cuts that disproportionately help the top 1% and cut entitlements for the poor?
Define the top 1%, please. Is that income earned during the year or is it net worth?
First Page
Page 475 of 476
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.