THE BEAUTIFUL BUDGET
I don't think it's very beautiful, from what I've heard about it.
No need to increase the military budget, let alone a la
You can make up really nifty sayings as long as you ignore your opponent’s actual position
If you're noticing a 17k swing in a day, let alone 5 years, you are not benefiting from Trump's policies. For each married couple in the US Trump is directly adding 18k to the deficit over the next decade. But unless you make 7 figures or are worth at least 8 you won't see anywhere near that amount.
No that's socialism. Seriously, I wonder how you guys function in real life sometimes.
American Poli Sci 101
poor white Americans being leveraged for the benefit of rich white Americans
Apparently one of the things Murkowski sold out on was a huge deduction for whalers. I had no idea we were still slaughtering whales.
sure keep doing the very tired thing of only focusing on what looks bad among thousands of fully deserved deportations.it can work with low IQ people so I understand why you guys do it. but why here?if someone was opposing welfare listing all the examples fo welfare fraud exclusively would it be a decent way to have a claim against welfare? because that's exactly what you do.ev
Roughly 20 million Europeans immigrated to the U.S. during the 3rd Wave, facing very little scrutiny - "vetting" meant not having visible diseases and not being obviously destitute - before the 1920s. Then, once quotas hit, ads started popping up in Europe offering passage to Mexico. But Canada became the preferred method for entering the US illegally.
Fast-forward a few generations, and well over 100 million Americans are descended from that wave, including a very real number whose ancestors lied on forms, faked family ties, dodged inspections, overstayed visas, or snuck in. Maybe even some of your ancestors. Who knows.
They or you (maybe) are not “illegals” in the technical sense but it kind of kneecaps the moral high horse you're riding on.
Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin wrote a letter urging his state’s Democratic governor to take steps to protect rural hospitals from the fallout of Republicans’ widely reviled budget bill — which Van Orden voted for.
Van Orden’s urgent letter, which was dated Wednesday ahead of the bill’s Thursday passage, added to the list of Republicans who have effectively acknowledged the legitimacy of widespread fears that Republicans’ Trump-backed budget will harm some of the most vulnerable Americans — even as many Republicans have suggested it won’t.
Van Orden’s letter essentially called on Gov. Tony Evers to hurry up and sign the state budget, in order to protect rural hospitals from some of the steep Medicaid cuts that are likely to be triggered by congressional Republicans’ megabill.
“I cannot emphasize enough the importance of signing the proposed state budget into law without delay,” Van Orden wrote. “As you are aware, timely enactment is especially critical this year due to the proposed increase in the state provider tax, which must be effectuated before the anticipated signing of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill on or around July 4, 2025.”
****kkkkkk
Youuuuuuu
I have serious concerns about AOC's ideological viability in a national election and the economic viability of a lot of the policies that she promotes.
I'm not in favor of a lot of the stuff she's in favor of and vice-versa. But I don't know how big of a factor that's going to be, for me, anyway. Instead I'm thinking maybe who I vote for, campaign for, etc. will be the candidate we can stop from doing what I really, really don't want done. So she seems the most qualified in that regard to me, in the way that had Bernie somehow won, he would have basically been a lame duck POTUS.
And I doubt I'm the only middle-aged, white male centrist thinking this way. But the real strides I'm thinking she can make would come when/if that 'she's a socialist' propaganda bubble bursts -- "Use your words, Tucker." She's very good with that ridicule and a smile sort of tack.
Roughly 20 million Europeans immigrated to the U.S. during the 3rd Wave, facing very little scrutiny - "vetting" meant not having visible diseases and not being obviously destitute - before the 1920s. Then, once quotas hit, ads started popping up in Europe offering passage to Mexico. But Canada became the preferred method for entering the US illegally.Fast-forward a few genera
I am not American nor in america, my father naturalized as an American in trump first term after entering the USA with a O1 visa (outstanding individual).
btw that 100m Americans are "descended from the wave of white illegals entering after 1920s restrictions" is an absurd ,grotesque lie and exaggeration.
btw that 100m Americans are "descended from the wave of white illegals entering after 1920s restrictions" is an absurd ,grotesque lie and exaggeration.
Sure it would have been if I made that claim:
Fast-forward a few generations, and well over 100 million Americans are descended from that wave, including a very real number whose ancestors lied on forms, faked family ties, dodged inspections, overstayed visas, or snuck in.
But I understand your confusion since English probably isn't your first language. In mathematical terms 'including' is like a subset of a larger set.
I'm not in favor of a lot of the stuff she's in favor of and vice-versa. But I don't know how big of a factor that's going to be, for me, anyway. Instead I'm thinking maybe who I vote for, campaign for, etc. will be the candidate we can stop from doing what I really, really don't want done. So she seems the most qualified in that regard to me, in the way that had Bernie somehow
What has given you any indication that portraying someone as a "socialist" will stop being effective? There are a whole lot more "middle aged, white male centrists" will vote against AOC than will vote for her.
I don't really get the belief on here that she would have a serious chance at getting the Democratic nomination in 2028, never mind having much appeal in a general election.
Is she? She was at first but she's getting a lot more politically savvy imo. The more I listen to her the more impressed i am with her.
Shorting AOC on polymarket if/when she gains steam sounds like a bond
i wouldnt read too much into the NYC situation as far as trying to form a narrative nationally
2.5 years until Iowa (is SC first now every cycle?) is a long damn time tho i guess
Shorting AOC on polymarket if/when she gains steam sounds like a bond
i wouldnt read too much into the NYC situation as far as trying to form a narrative nationally
2.5 years until Iowa (is SC first now every cycle?) is a long damn time tho i guess
She is too smart of a politician to burn her tail too early, i think she will go through the "normal" route of doing a stint in the senate first.
Schumer is up for re-election in 2028 , he will be 78 by then, i think she is playing for his seat and it would be a very symbolic victory against "zionism" as well for her to achieve that.
But she will only attempt that if she has a good shot at winning the primary by then, so she needs democrats NOT to take the senate in 2026 (going after the senate majority leader is too much of a stretch), then she can play the "Schumer never achieves anything" mantra and primary him later . And ofc she needs to secure enough donations / allies within the DNC to bankroll her for that.
Agree, don't think she runs for Prez either
I have great personal respect for AOC but I don’t think she will be ready to run for office in the next four years. I consider her to be highly intelligent and has shown ability to push back against the activist constituency, though I wish she’d do it more.
I think she is useful for people who want to see the democratic elite shaken off from the party, as they have become parasitic on the party, gaining a lot from it without giving much benefit. Obama wants to run the party but also wants to sit on the sidelines 90% of the time. We can’t have people like that running the party.
Is she? She was at first but she's getting a lot more politically savvy imo. The more I listen to her the more impressed i am with her.
She is savvy and she may get there but I think she’s still too off putting to old white dems and a subset of male dems who were attracted to the Clinton name and killary persona
Dig into it and you'll realize this is bullshit. It only helps people with a significant income outside if ss. The people this is talking about aren't paying any taxes anyway. Total bullshit propaganda
She is savvy and she may get there but I think she’s still too off putting to old white dems and a subset of male dems who were attracted to the Clinton name and killary persona
Agreed. Back to my thought that no woman has a chance.
Conservatives would call our grandparents full on commies lol
Dig into it and you'll realize this is bullshit. It only helps people with a significant income outside if ss. The people this is talking about aren't paying any taxes anyway. Total bullshit propaganda
Please get out of the insane bubble you are in, it's the literal opposite of what you wrote.
Neutral source (newsweek)
Why It Matters
The SSA's response comes amid fierce political debate over the bill's long-term consequences for retirees and the federal budget. While Trump initially promised to nix Social Security federal income taxes for beneficiaries, the SSA confirmed that the bill instead creates a targeted deduction that varies by income.
What To Know
The SSA specified that the legislation enacts a $6,000 tax deduction for individuals aged 65 or older with income up to $75,000—or up to $150,000 for married couples. Above these thresholds, the deduction phases out, ending at incomes of $175,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. The deduction is temporary and set to expire after 2028 unless extended by lawmakers.
/
It helps very very normal seniors with modest additional sources of income outside of SS. Ofc if they paid 0 federal income taxes before, they aren't helped by it, i really hope you weren't referencing that silly
