Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

U.S. Budget Negotiations

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 29K
  • Politics 
Kingpin said:
I’m now very worried about Medicaid assistance for our young adult son who depends on it to live independently with Medicaid-paid caregivers.
Click to expand...
My understanding of the Medicaid changes is that you have to a) be working and b) if able, be actively trying to find work.

If true, what is the issue with that?
 
ZenMode said:
My understanding of the Medicaid changes is that you have to a) be working and b) if able, be actively trying to find work.

If true, what is the issue with that?
Click to expand...
In home heath caregivers are likely to lose Medicaid funding. The people who allow him to live independently. If he loses that he will move back into our home. He’s in his 20s. We are pushing 70. What happens when we die?
 
Last edited:
Healing said:
First round:
Respect. Protect. Rebuild.”
  • Respect. For people, rights, truth, and democracy.
  • Protect. Our freedoms, our votes, our planet.
  • Rebuild. The middle class, our communities, and trust in government.
When asked for more urgency:
  1. “Before It’s Too Late.”
    (Direct fear messaging with implicit call to act now.)
  2. “Stop the Collapse.”
    (Strong imagery of systemic failure halted by collective action.)
  3. “Fight for What’s Left.”
    (Conveys loss has already happened, and only urgent fight remains.)
  4. “Our Last Chance.”
    (Ultimate fear appeal and urgency, concise and chilling.)
When asked for more aggression:
Stop Their Takeover.”
  • Positions the opposition as an existential threat.
  • Creates a clear enemy and rallying cry.
🔥 “No Mercy for Corruption.”
  • Aggressive moral framing.
  • Signals accountability, justice, and zero tolerance.
🔥 “Before They Destroy It All.”
  • Implies total collapse if action is not taken immediately.
  • Deep fear appeal plus collective call to arms.
🔥 “Fight Back or Lose Everything.”
  • Maximizes fear, urgency, and aggression.
  • Binary choice framing (fight vs. total loss).
🔥 “They Won’t Stop. Neither Will We.”
  • Highlights relentless opposition threat while asserting unbreakable resistance.
  • Rhythmic, chant-friendly, and defiant.

ChatGPT, I’m not impressed. Maybe I’ll try Claude, later, or play with the inputs. Of note, ChatGPT adds the stupid emojis.
Click to expand...


Bonus points for, grow a fucking spine.

Think we need more campaigns like Kat's.
 
Pubs are about to add trillions to our debt, while at the same time gutting essential and extremely popular government programs, all to enrich the people in our country who least need it, and most Americans won't even know because the A, B and C blocks of every news program for the next two weeks will be about Puff Daddy.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Which means 3 million do not live in NYC.

FYI - There is no math that justifies being a dick. That’s a personal decision you’ll just have to own.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the likelihood of all 3 million being unemployed/unemployable due to being in rural, dying town is about 0%. The 4 million in NYC are definitely not in a rural, dying town.

I acknowledge that there are people who simply do not have the mental capacity to function in society without a significant amount of government help. I see them on the various forms of mass transit I utilize on my way to work. NY state does not have 7 million of those people.
 

“… Rep. Ralph Norman (R., S.C.), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, voted early Wednesday morning against moving the president’s tax bill out of the House Rules Committee, joined by fellow caucus member Rep. Chip Roy (R., Texas). The panel debated and then narrowly advanced the bill to the House floor.

… Norman said he believes there are enough “no” votes in the House to sink the bill. If House Speaker Mike Johnson fails to get enough members to back it, the House and Senate must work to reconcile the differences. That would likely blow through Trump’s deadline, as senators left town after their vote….”
 
Mundial said:
Zen what about the national debt that this bill adds? Please let us know your thoughts about running up such a huge deficit. What would Reagan think about that?
Click to expand...
Part of the reason I started voting 3rd party is that neither Ds or Rs are interested in addressing the deficits/debt. This bill is terrible. Whenever it was that the last true budget bill was passed, it was terrible. Kamala's economic plan was terrible.

I've basically thrown up my hands while hoping that Rand Paul somehow makes into the Presidency.
 
ZenMode said:
Part of the reason I started voting 3rd party is that neither Ds or Rs are interested in addressing the deficits/debt. This bill is terrible. Whenever it was that the last true budget bill was passed, it was terrible. Kamala's economic plan was terrible.

I've basically thrown up my hands while hoping that Rand Paul somehow makes into the Presidency.
Click to expand...
lol. You’ve definitely not “thrown up your hands” unless throwing up your hands means coming to a politics message board and somehow being able to handwave away or outright defend…er, sorry “both-sides” wink wink….pretty much all of the most treacherous fuckery being put forth by the Republican Party.
 
CFordUNC said:
lol. You’ve definitely not “thrown up your hands” unless throwing up your hands means coming to a politics message board and somehow being able to handwave away or outright defend…er, sorry “both-sides” wink wink….pretty much all of the most treacherous fuckery being put forth by the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
As you've surely seen, I have opinions on a number of topics but virtually never comment on federal budget bills. I have, until there's reason to believe otherwise, given up on Congress addressing what is the most pressing issue in front of them - the debt. It's not just congress kicking the can down the road. It is outright dereliction of duty.
 
CFordUNC said:
lol. You’ve definitely not “thrown up your hands” unless throwing up your hands means coming to a politics message board and somehow being able to handwave away or outright defend…er, sorry “both-sides” wink wink….pretty much all of the most treacherous fuckery being put forth by the Republican Party.
Click to expand...
I believe that Clinton was the last President with a balanced budget.
 
ZenMode said:
My understanding of the Medicaid changes is that you have to a) be working and b) if able, be actively trying to find work.

If true, what is the issue with that?
Click to expand...
Because that's not what health insurance is about. Think about it for a minute. They are trying to tell you that Medicaid is like food stamps, that people can be lazy and suck off the public teat. Whatever the merits of that view as to food stamps or welfare, it doesn't even make sense for Medicaid because Medicaid doesn't give benefits. It simply pays medical bills. You can't really buy a Cadillac with welfare benefits, but in theory one could buy a used Honda. You can't buy anything with Medicaid. Food stamps could be traded for drugs. Not Medicaid.

We know what happens with these work requirements. Arkansas tried it. It was an abject disaster. It was such a disaster that the Arkansas courts had to step in. It's sort of like how Kansas tried GOP laissez-faire economics under Sam Brownback and it was -- as we all said it would be -- such an abject disaster that no GOPer has sniffed the governorship since (as far as I know).
 
On this morning's The Daily, Andrew Duehren analogized the Pubs' sleight of hand to a family who typically spends $2,000 per week, goes on vacation for a week and spends $3,000, decides to keep spending $3,000 per week after returning from vacation, and then claims there's no increase to the family's budget.

Any of you Pubs want to respond to that? Ram? Calla? HeelYeah? Pandemic? The ONLY members of your party who have refused to go along with this so far are (a) a NC senator who is not running for reelection, and (b) the only true fiscal conservative in the Republican senate caucus. By contrast, not a single Dem is supporting these budgetary shenanigans.

Serious question if you're willing to take it on -- what would you think if Dems had changed the Senate rules for the first time to try to hide trillions of dollars in additional debt? Are you really ok with that just because it's your team doing it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top