he's raising taxes on the poor, and taking away a lot of their healthcare. the only tax cuts he's making permanent are for the rich. to fund these tax cuts, dollar for dollar, whatever they can get from gutting medicaid and food stamps, and raising taxes on everyone through imports, he's giving to the rich. dollar for dollar. you can't make this shIt up. most trump supporters are low information voters, even though trump became popular with the poor low information votes, so they aren't aware fully of what's happening. and the trump sycophants here are in a cult.... somehow, they cant say one plus one equals two when it comes to calling trump out on bullshIt like this. so, MAGAts, how do you justify your dear leader doing this?
14 million to lose healthcare, to pay for trump's tax cuts to the rich
Posts
Total:
33
-->
@n8nrgim
Well said,
Can't wait to hear the responses...let me summarize -- conspiracy, fake news, cover up, lies, and saving the country.
I don't know why poor people ( those worth less than $300 million) even want to live.
-->
@n8nrgim
he's raising taxes on the poor,
Just going to stop here. You can't believe just everything CNN says. He eliminated taxes on tips which is not something that would apply to millionaires but the tax cuts that benefit even the wealthy do not cause the poor to pay more taxes so they aren't harmed. The bill also listed no cut to the Medicare budget. You might see alterations in policy to eliminate fraud but it's budget actually increased so it means more care and more people that Medicare can sustainabley help
-->
@WyIted
It's so weird when government cultists defend thievery and corruption. It's even beyond Stockholm syndrome at this point. Not a single one of them has not been exposed to government dysfunction and broken promises after stealing 20% of their labor like a tyrannical plantation owner.
And when someone tries to stop the thievery and corruption, they cry bowls of tears over something they don't even understand...
-->
@n8nrgim
you can't make this shIt up.
Actually, almost everything you said was just made up. Ironic.
-->
@n8nrgim
he's raising taxes on the poor, and taking away a lot of their healthcare. the only tax cuts he's making permanent are for the rich. to fund these tax cuts, dollar for dollar, whatever they can get from gutting medicaid and food stamps, and raising taxes on everyone through imports, he's giving to the rich. dollar for dollar. you can't make this shIt up. most trump supporters are low information voters, even though trump became popular with the poor low information votes, so they aren't aware fully of what's happening. and the trump sycophants here are in a cult.... somehow, they cant say one plus one equals two when it comes to calling trump out on bullshIt like this. so, MAGAts, how do you justify your dear leader doing this?
The American people voted for this creep. They deserve every bit of his policy.
-->
@WyIted
He's letting the tax cuts on poor people expire while gutting welfare to extend tax cuts to the rich
What do I think of him kicking millions off heathlcare policies to fund tax cuts to rich
-->
@n8nrgim
He's letting the tax cuts on poor people expire while gutting welfare to extend tax cuts to the richWhat do I think of him kicking millions off heathlcare policies to fund tax cuts to rich
Less than10% of Americans are rich and stand to benefit from Trump’s tax cuts. The rest just voted for him.
-->
@n8nrgim
What do I think of him kicking millions off healthcare policies to fund tax cuts to rich
Like this dude?
What do I think of him kicking millions off healthcare policies to fund tax cuts to richLike this dude
Allowing undocumented immigrants to fall sick will drag the system down.
-->
@n8nrgim
He's letting the tax cuts on poor people expire while gutting welfare to extend tax cuts to the rich
Drumroll AI:
Here’s the clear answer based on what’s actually in the bill and Trump’s stated positions, not the hypotheticals from CNN:
- Trump is not calling for lower-income tax cuts to expire.His backed bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” seeks to extend the 2017 tax cuts, which include benefits that apply across all income levels, including the standard deduction increase and child tax credit expansion.
- The reason people say “they’re expiring” is because those parts were written to sunset in 2025.That’s how the 2017 law was designed—for budget scoring reasons—not because Trump wants to target the poor now. Congress has to act to renew them. Trump’s current position is: renew and make permanent.
- The claim that he is “definitely letting poor people’s tax cuts expire” is false. The bill doesn’t do that. If anything, it tries to make those cuts last longer.
So yeah, no more “coulds” or “mights” here. The truth is the expiration was already baked in years ago, and Trump is supporting legislation to prevent that expiration, not enforce it.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or intentionally misleading.
To summarize the bill:
Many of the income tax provisions of the 2017 Trump tax cut were scheduled to expire at the end of this year. This bill makes those cuts permanent (and temporarily increases them from 2025 until 2028), and is scheduled to raise deficit spending by a total of $2.3 trillion over ten years, according to CBO.
In that sense this is an abnormally bloated budget, but to a certain extent this is a mere accounting trick, as last year's budget didn't account for the next 10 years of deficit spending (since the tax cuts didn't stand up for renewal then) but the this one does. In a given year we're probably talking about a $200-$300 billion increase compared to if these cuts weren't renewed.
So what's to blame for this? A lot of different things. First, claims that the cuts only benefit the wealthy are false. The Child Tax Credit was scheduled to fall to pre-2017 levels (from $2,000 to $1,000) at the end of the year, but this made it permanent. Note that the child tax credit is refundable; if a single child household paid no income tax, it would be eligible to receive a $2,000 check, or even $2,500 from 2025 until 2028. This means it more resembles a welfare program than a tax break in practice.
Likewise, the second and third income tax brackets, which in 2024 ranged from $11,600 to $100,525, will enjoy a cut as well, or at least keep existing levels under the cuts. Tax bracket 6 (out of 7) will not change at all, while tax bracket 5 will only see/retain a 1 percent reduction.
Just as much to blame is the fact that the bill failed to curb spending. Some green energy subsidies under the IRA will start to be phased out in 2028, but this bill did not outright repeal IRA spending, which was scheduled to hike the deficit by nearly as much as this current legislation by 2034.
Medicaid, partially funded by recipients but also in big part a welfare program, will suffer a cut of up to $500 billion (over many years) starting in 2026. While that is a lot of money, it's worth noting that removing 7.6 million Americans from the Medicaid rolls would've saved $625 billion. What this suggests is that "only" 6.3 million or so Americans will lose coverage, out of roughly 71-72 million current beneficiaries. Current barriers for Medicaid enrollment are low, and it seems plausible enough that 1 out of every 11 enrollees could readily live without it. But if these cuts aren't strategically implemented, it could affect large numbers of people who can't.
All in all, this wasn't a good bill. It took a maximalist position on tax cuts, and a relatively minimalist position on spending cuts. Both parties are responsible for this outcome; a one-party American political system where the GOP faced no electoral competition could've seen real austerity measures put into place, while a one-party American political system where Dems faced no electoral competition could've seen sharp tax increases, and either might've sufficed to balance the budget. Instead, our perpetually gridlocked Congress was unwilling to make the truly hard calls, and our march toward mid-century oblivion continues as usual.
So yeah, no more “coulds” or “mights” here. The truth is the expiration was already baked in years ago, and Trump is supporting legislation to prevent that expiration, not enforce it.Anyone claiming otherwise is either misinformed or intentionally misleading.
This will add 3.3 trillion to the deficit which is already 36.2trillion.
-->
@Swagnarok
and our march toward mid-century oblivion continues as usual.
Until Moody's decides to take to ball and go home, of course. That's when the march will end.
-->
@FLRW
I don't know why poor people ( those worth less than $300 million) even want to live.
They just have hope, I guess.
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
They are self-deporting as we speak.
-->
@n8nrgim
That would be congress, but citation please.he's raising taxes on the poor
-->
@WyIted
Just going to stop here. You can't believe just everything CNN says. He eliminated taxes on tips which is not something that would apply to millionaires but the tax cuts that benefit even the wealthy do not cause the poor to pay more taxes so they aren't harmed. The bill also listed no cut to the Medicare budget. You might see alterations in policy to eliminate fraud but it's budget actually increased so it means more care and more people that Medicare can sustainabley help
I agree don't believe CNN. I do believe CBO though:
Estimated EffectsCBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amountequal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of theincome distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result oflosses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP (see the figure).3By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent forhouseholds in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainlybecause of reductions in they taxes they owe. The distributional effects varythroughout the 10-year projection period as different components of thelegislation are phased in and out.(Page 3, emphasis added)
In other words, tax cuts for the rich paid for by reductions in funding for the poor.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
he's raising taxes on the poorThat would be congress, but citation please.
If he signs the bill rather than vetos it then he's doing it.
-->
@n8nrgim
Do you want to remember that fiscal 2025, for which the Biden budget, already over-spent, is responsible for government spending, until 9/30/2025 at the stroke of midnight, and, until then, Trump bears no responsibility. That's just the way government set up its fiscal house, ordered, or not, and long before anyone ever heard of Trump.
Add to that that during the last quarter of any fiscal year, the government sends over-spending into the stratosphere. Remember?
Do you also want to remember that generally, unless specified in the bill [which, remember, as well] has only passed the House, and not yet the Senate] otherwise, does not go into effect until 60 days beyond the end of the current congressional session, this 119th, which ends on Jan 2, 2027. Therefore, we're looking at
March of 2027, boyo.
March of 2027, boyo.
So keep your pantyhose on, okay?
-->
@ultramaximus2
Do presidents sign bills before they are approved by the Senate? No. Why are you rushing the calendar? Got a house fire?
-->
@Sidewalker
Can't' wait? Do you want to wait, at least, until the bill is on the president's desk before you set yup hair on fire? It has not yet passed in the Senate, yet?
-->
@Greyparrot
"They?" Who's they? Do you understand this bill is only through the House, and it doesn't see the president's desk until the Senate also renders their say-so? What's this fire drill all about y'all are setting your hair on fire for?
-->
@fauxlaw
Do presidents sign bills before they are approved by the Senate? No. Why are you rushing the calendar? Got a house fire?
I said "If he signs the bill rather than vetos it then he's doing it."
This contemplates that I do not think he is responsible unless and until the bill has his signature on it. I'm not rushing to judgment.
Edit: I actually heard some reports where Trump told GOP "Don't fuck with medicaid." I liked that.
-->
@ultramaximus2
I said "If he signs the bill rather than vetos it then he's doing it."
That still presupposed it passes the Senate without alteration, so, you're still pre-supposing
-->
@fauxlaw
I said "If he signs the bill rather than vetos it then he's doing it."That still presupposed it passes the Senate without alteration, so, you're still pre-supposing
I'd imagined they'd get something passed. It does keep changing.
-->
@ultramaximus2
Thus you see the possibility that Trump vetoes the resulting bill from both chambers. I don't disagree. For simplicity's stake, I undirstand the attempt of one "big beautiful bill;" but I never did see that as a practical approach. I don't like composite legislation strictly because it asks for too much compromise, and ability to bargain over disagreements, resulting in a dumbed-down bill. I think legislation ought to devote itself to single subjects, and either Congress agrees with the proposed subject as generated from anybody, including the president's agenda, or it does not. But Congress never was, and never should be considered a single mind, and a composit bill such as this one expects that it thinks in. a similar, united mind. That makes no sense to me.
-->
@ultramaximus2
In other words, tax cuts for the rich paid for by reductions in funding for the poor.
Again tax cuts for every single person making less than 100k and elimination of taxes on tips and overtime are clearly targeting poor people.
The estimates you are using are speculative and put out by the managerial elite who are very pissed they are losing power . Notice how they have to use weasel words like "we estimate loss of resources for the poor"
They won't say more poor people will starve or that their bills will get easier or harder to pay or that they'll have more free time or not with their family it's merely consumerist bullshit like "the gibs will stop"
The gibs are in fact not stopping and if consumerism takes a hit that's actually a good thing.
-->
@n8nrgim
Your argument is he is letting tax cuts on the poor like taxes on tips expire while cutting taxes on the rich. One nobody is stating how cutting taxes on the rich is bad and he literally just started the no tax on tips thing. He created it not ended it.
Why the fuck do you think he is randomly going to stop all taxes on the wealthy (who largely opposed him with a few notable exceptions paraded around) and literally just start exclusively targeting people without incomes for taxation?