UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Have a good night Frank

You are such a moron.

(no message)

You know, like Jesus would.

The plan would add $11 trillion to the debt, according to nonpartisan watchdogs. So don’t think it is about getting spending under control - it is a blatant, out-in-the-open taking from the poor to give to the rich.

It's sad that people constantly post leftist talking points. The truth is easy to find.

House Passes GOP Budget Plan as Holdouts Relent
Proposed spending cuts were criticized as too small by some lawmakers and too large by others
By Richard Rubin

Updated Feb. 25, 2025 10:38 pm ET

House Republicans passed a framework for President Trump’s tax, border and spending-cut agenda. Photo: Will Oliver/EPA/Shutterstock
WASHINGTON—Republicans squeaked their budget blueprint through the House late Tuesday after party leaders swayed a handful of wavering members to back the framework for President Trump’s tax, border and spending-cut agenda.

The 217-215 vote delivered a victory for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), who united all but one of his GOP members—Thomas Massie of Kentucky—around an approach that requires significantly reducing Medicaid costs and likely won’t accommodate all of Trump’s desired tax cuts. The House-passed plan calls for $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in spending reductions over a decade and $4 trillion to $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

Tuesday’s vote is a sign that the Republican-controlled Congress might be able to deliver major legislation despite slim majorities in the House and Senate.

Still, the path ahead isn’t straightforward. Tuesday’s vote sets up a conflict with the Senate, which favors larger tax cuts and plans to alter the House plan rather than accept it. That means another nail-biting House budget vote is on the horizon.

And even after the House and Senate agree on a budget, lawmakers will have to negotiate hundreds of details on taxes, healthcare, energy and food stamps before they can get a bill to Trump’s desk.

“Just one big step,” said House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R., Texas) after the vote. “One small step for Budget Committee, one big step for mankind.”

Republicans have a 218-215 majority in the House, but the number of Democratic absences had been uncertain and so were the potential GOP defections.

Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D., Colo.) returned for her first vote since giving birth last month, while Rep. Kevin Mullin (D., Calif.) arrived for his first vote since knee surgery—adding last-minute wrinkles to the vote counting. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.), who has been undergoing treatment for cancer, was the only absent member.

The tight count led to a night of drama and arm-twisting on the House floor as Republicans realized they needed almost every vote for the collective trust fall. Rep. David Schweikert (R., Ariz.), who routinely makes long floor speeches warning about the dangers of the growing national debt, was one of the final members to cast his ballot. He handed his electronic voting card to Johnson, and the speaker pushed the decisive button.

House Republicans had struggled for weeks to write the budget framework for the “one big, beautiful bill” that they and Trump want. The fractious House majority is an uneasy coalition that includes deficit hawks, spending cutters and blue-state moderates. Finding any fiscal policy that satisfies nearly everyone is an extraordinarily challenging task.

“That small margin forces you to work together,” Arrington said. “Everybody had to make some sacrifice.”

Trump said each of the rival plans has something he likes.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R., Ky.) said he was concerned that the budget blueprint would increase deficits.

“We’ll see if we can come together,” he said.

Some House Republicans are sensitive to what such reductions could mean for federal programs such as Medicaid, the federal-state health-insurance program for low-income Americans. Party leaders received support from Trump in the hours before the vote, with the president talking to members who had stated their opposition and urging them to back the framework.

“I think everyone wants to be on this train and not in front of it,” Johnson said.

Coming into the vote, a handful of Republicans who weren’t fully convinced on the House plan wanted deeper spending reductions.

Rep. Victoria Spartz (R., Ind.) had vowed to vote no, dismissing questions from reporters just one day before about whether she could be convinced to change her mind. She had said the $1.5 trillion floor for cuts should be at least $1 trillion bigger and then voted for the resolution. But as part of the campaign to get her to change her mind, Trump called Spartz to persuade her to vote yes, according to people familiar with the matter.

Rep. Warren Davidson (R., Ohio) had said earlier Tuesday that he couldn’t support the budget without clarity on the path ahead on securing cuts for federal agency funding in advance of a potential March 14 government shutdown. He ultimately voted yes.

Massie was the only House Republican to vote against the measure. Earlier in the day, after the House GOP’s weekly huddle, he told reporters he was firmly opposed. “They convinced me in there…I’m a no,” Massie said after pausing for dramatic effect.

Massie said he was concerned that the plan would increase budget deficits. The tax cuts and new spending exceed the spending cuts by trillions of dollars. GOP leaders say their agenda would generate enough economic growth to fill the gap.

The House Republican majority is an uneasy coalition that includes deficit hawks, spending cutters and blue-state moderates.

Democrats argue the plan will lead to deep cuts in Medicaid to fund tax cuts that go, in part, to high-income households. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York appeared on the Capitol steps backed by about 100 Democrats and argued that the GOP plan would include the “largest Medicaid cut in American history.”

After the vote, Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called the proposed cuts “unconscionable attacks on the very fabric of our society, jeopardizing the well-being of millions of Americans.”

Republican leaders emphasized to rank-and-file members that the vote for the budget resolution is a procedural step, not a substantive vote on tax or health policy. Once the House and Senate agree on the same budget, a subsequent bill can advance on a simple-majority vote through a special process called reconciliation. That avoids the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate required of most bills.

The vote on the budget blueprint is a critical step that sets the parameters for a bill that would extend expiring tax cuts passed by the Republicans in 2017, provide $300 billion for border security and the military and take money from spending programs that Republicans say have grown too quickly.

The House budget calls for at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over a decade, with more than half to be identified by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid. It allocates $4 trillion for tax cuts, a total that could climb to $4.5 trillion if spending cuts reach $2 trillion.

Even after Tuesday’s successful vote, potential danger lies ahead. House leaders will have to assemble votes again for a final budget resolution coming back from the Senate and then again for an eventual tax-and-spending bill.

Senate Republicans have been skeptical that the House will be able to finish one big bill. They have advanced a narrower plan that aims to pass border and military spending now and leave more complicated debates about taxes and spending cuts for later. But senators, aware of Johnson’s slim margins, are open to the House’s one-bill plan—after they alter it.

Senators likely would make changes to the House-passed budget, particularly trying to make tax-cut extensions permanent. “It would be a major overhaul,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.).

The compromises and promises House lawmakers are making to push this plan forward illustrate some of the hard choices ahead.

The $4.5 trillion ceiling likely isn’t enough to extend the tax cuts permanently and achieve all of the Republicans’ other tax priorities, such as ending taxes on tips, lowering corporate taxes on domestic manufacturers and relaxing the cap on the state and local tax deduction.

More moderate House Republicans such as Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Juan Ciscomani of Arizona have been warning about the potential impact of Medicaid cuts in their districts.

GOP leaders emphasize that their plan doesn’t specifically mention Medicaid cuts. But the $880 billion target over the 10-year period in the budget for the Energy and Commerce Committee is likely to require more Medicaid changes beyond that. Medicaid is projected to cost $8.2 trillion over that period.

“I’ve just got to feel adequately assured that Medicaid is going to remain intact, except for the waste, fraud and abuse,” said Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R., N.J.).


Link: Truth

You want to possibly reduce spending by only a third of the amount of taxes you plan to take in? Let's say you get the max $2 trillion in cuts over the next decade, and only the minimum $4 trillion in cuts (is that over a decade as well?) that's still looking to be $2 trillion more in debt than we already were, if those cuts are over ten years as well.

- House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York appeared on the Capitol steps backed by about 100 Democrats and argued that the GOP plan would include the “largest Medicaid cut in American history.”

Have there been any cuts before? I really don't know, so I'm asking. If not, then any cut would be the largest in history, and it's just fear mongering. If they have happened before, the reason it could be the largest probably stems more from the post ACA enrollment forced on everyone that didn't have insurance prior to being required to have it.

Quoting one of the dumbest people in the House does not help your argument.

Maybe I missed the part where it answered if the cuts were over ten years or not, or if there have been previous cuts to the medicaid program.

I quoted what I quoted, because sensationalist statements like that are what I was questioning, not because I believe what he said.

I guess you're used to people on the left replying to you, but I don't lean to either side.

The tax cuts are not new, they are an extension of the the 2017 cuts that have already paid for themselves. Where does it say the bill contains cuts to Medicare?

Perhaps you don't. The article doesn't identify anything about where spending reductions will be made, just the targeted goal amounts. Medicaid is mentioned as a possibility multiple times in the article, even by people on the right.

-“I’ve just got to feel adequately assured that Medicaid is going to remain intact, except for the waste, fraud and abuse,” said Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R., N.J.).

"Some House Republicans are sensitive to what such reductions could mean for federal programs such as Medicaid, the federal-state health-insurance program for low-income Americans. Party leaders received support from Trump in the hours before the vote, with the president talking to members who had stated their opposition and urging them to back the framework."

So while what Chris94 said is untrue right now, it could eventually be true in the future once the tax and spend bill noted in the article actually happens.

My question was; “Where does it say the bill contains cuts to Medicare?”

I replied to your post saying the bill sounded terrible, and had a question about what I quoted.

You replied with snark.

I replied, explaining why I quoted what seemed to cause your snarky reply, that I had the audacity to quote something in the article you posted because you don't like them.

You then replied with more snark, and asked a question about something that I didn't say was happening.

I am guessing at this point that you don't want to actually have a conversation about the bill, you just want to feel like the smartest person on the board, so have at it.

I posted the article, sorry that your feelings were hurt.

He only posts snark with no substance whatsoever. You’re good

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

That takes a special kind of stupid.

(no message)