Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

U.S. Budget | OBBB Signed into law

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 37K
  • Politics 
Sure. If only we had some other method of getting rid of these elected representatives that we don't like... just like every other election, including the ones where people didn't think one party or the other was going to give up power if they lost.
What happens when the party in power tips the scales in their favor to hold onto that power? What if they had a specific playbook that all of us were warned about that they would utilize to keep that power? What if, despite the leader’s insistence that he had no connection to that playbook or its authors, he followed it TO THE T once assuming power?

I wonder if the citizens in Germany in the 1930’s were as seemingly carefree about the changes to their government as you seem to be. I wonder at what point they finally became alarmed.

And the difference is, they were actually bailed out of the mess by losing WWII and the true realization of what they had become came crashing down upon them as we bombed their cities back to the Stone Age. Without a wake-up call like that, how long would it take our own citizens to wake up? Decades?

I know you graduated from Georgia Tech, so I certainly understand I’m not dealing with a card-carrying member of MENSA here, but I need you to be a little less simple-minded and naive going forward. We’re nearing an inflection point here, and we can’t afford for weak people to sit on the sidelines to see how it plays out.
 
What happens when the party in power tips the scales in their favor to hold onto that power? What if they had a specific playbook that all of us were warned about that they would utilize to keep that power? What if, despite the leader’s insistence that he had no connection to that playbook or its authors, he followed it TO THE T once assuming power?

I wonder if the citizens in Germany in the 1930’s were as seemingly carefree about the changes to their government as you seem to be. I wonder at what point they finally became alarmed.

And the difference is, they were actually bailed out of the mess by losing WWII and the true realization of what they had become came crashing down upon them as we bombed their cities back to the Stone Age. Without a wake-up call like that, how long would it take our own citizens to wake up? Decades?

I know you graduated from Georgia Tech, so I certainly understand I’m not dealing with a card-carrying member of MENSA here, but I need you to be a little less simple-minded and naive going forward. We’re nearing an inflection point here, and we can’t afford for weak people to sit on the sidelines to see how it plays out.
Yep. I guess if you keep saying it's going to be like 1930s germany, eventually you may be right. Are you keeping count by any chance of how many times you've been wrong on similar claims?
 
Yep. I guess if you keep saying it's going to be like 1930s germany, eventually you may be right. Are you keeping count by any chance of how many times you've been wrong on similar claims?
Yes I have kept count, and I’ve been wrong zero times. During his first term, I said we were heading in that direction. Luckily, Joe Biden gave us a four-year pause.

Now we are heading in that direction at a much faster pace without the same type of guardrails we had in 2020.

But it’s okay, you sit on the sidelines and relax.
 
Yes I have kept count, and I’ve been wrong zero times. During his first term, I said we were heading in that direction. Luckily, Joe Biden gave us a four-year pause.

Now we are heading in that direction at a much faster pace without the same type of guardrails we had in 2020.

But it’s okay, you sit on the sidelines and relax.
I have my doubts. Seems like you've been saying the sky is falling for a lot longer than that. But maybe you'll be right this time. And I'll just be the guy on the sidelines kicking myself.
 
That happens to a large extent today. It's not everybody but plenty of Indian and Nigerian doctors in rural settings and most are there because they couldn't get a job in an urban or suburban environment. Not to say they're bad but they don't necessarily have the same education and licensing path as most American born doctors.

And it's not necessarily the money. Rural physician jobs can actually pay very well because of lack of competition. And of course the cost of living is much lower. But the reason these rural hospitals and other facilities have trouble attracting people is physicians are by their nature highly educated and most don't want to live in the middle of nowhere and educate their kids in some middle of no where school. Spouse also may not want to limit their job prospects by living outside of an urban area. That's been our experience.

When it comes to foreign born doctors, they may take that rural job for a few years to get some experience on the CV and then move to a more urban area. That's a pretty common path.

Actually, it's a visa thing. Those foreign docs get faster paths on their visas (Both the temporary and permanent ones) if they take jobs in states that have doctor shortages. All of those doctors have to get licensed to practice in the US. Some did the bulk of their medical education overseas, some do a chunk overseas and another chunk stateside.

I have a niece married to a surgeon from Honduras. Did medical school in CR, postgrad work at GW, residency at Duke...had to choose between gigs in Oklahoma, South Dakota or Idaho for visa purposes. I'm not sure if he has to be there 4 or 6 years to eventually get his green card. Of course these are the old rules...who knows if they modify them.
 
is the sky really falling or falling just because the blues arent getting their way?
My brother in ZZL, The impacts of this bill have been discussed ad nauseam in this thread. There are virtually unlimited numbers of sources of the potential impacts for ill and good (mostly ill) that this bill promises, And many of them have been brought here and discussed and dissected.

What is it you believe you're bringing to this discussion with this commentary? If you believe this to be a partisan overreaction why don't you provide some sources which indicate that the dire consequences forecast here are not accurate? If you agree with these warnings then your stated position as a non-voter and non-thinker would seem to indicate that this is not purely a partisan issue, but one of discernible fact.

All of us on this board know that you believe that you are smarter than everyone else here. None of us have seen any evidence to justify that. If this is the best that you have to contribute to this board I encourage you to go to therapy instead.
 

Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ cuts food stamps for millions — the average family may lose $146 per month, report finds​


The changes will cause 22.3 million families to lose some or all of their SNAP benefits, according to the institute, a nonpartisan provider of policy research. Its analysis is based on the legislation passed by the Senate, which the House did not change before voting for the bill, signed into law by President Donald Trump.

SNAP currently provides basic food assistance to more than 40 million people, including children, seniors and nonelderly adults with disabilities, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research and policy institute.
 

Part of Donald Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill—the massive spending bill that will make permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while gutting social services like Medicaid—calls for new surveillance towers for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use on the northern and southern borders. That’s pretty standard procedure, except for one catch that The Intercept picked up on: the description of the project basically only fits the work of Palmer Luckey’s Anduril Industries.


The provision in question calls for $6 billion to be spent on border security technologies, including a “virtual wall” of surveillance towers that can detect people crossing the border. The bill says the payday can only be awarded to a company whose products have been “tested and accepted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to deliver autonomous capabilities”—where “autonomous” is described as “a system designed to apply artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer vision, or other algorithms to accurately detect, identify, classify, and track items of interest in real time such that the system can make operational adjustments without the active engagement of personnel or continuous human command or control.”

That pretty much exclusively describes the work of Anduril, which suddenly has an effective monopoly on the very lucrative surveillance tower business.
 
Now that I am starting to see references to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in legal documents it is so gross that is the actual name of this law. I know all the naming conventions of this century tend to be some kind of BS anyway, but still … just heavy sigh.
 
Now that I am starting to see references to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in legal documents it is so gross that is the actual name of this law. I know all the naming conventions of this century tend to be some kind of BS anyway, but still … just heavy sigh.
The name is hilarious to me, and that’s without comment on any good or bad things within the bill.
 

Part of Donald Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill—the massive spending bill that will make permanent tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while gutting social services like Medicaid—calls for new surveillance towers for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use on the northern and southern borders. That’s pretty standard procedure, except for one catch that The Intercept picked up on: the description of the project basically only fits the work of Palmer Luckey’s Anduril Industries.


The provision in question calls for $6 billion to be spent on border security technologies, including a “virtual wall” of surveillance towers that can detect people crossing the border. The bill says the payday can only be awarded to a company whose products have been “tested and accepted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to deliver autonomous capabilities”—where “autonomous” is described as “a system designed to apply artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer vision, or other algorithms to accurately detect, identify, classify, and track items of interest in real time such that the system can make operational adjustments without the active engagement of personnel or continuous human command or control.”

That pretty much exclusively describes the work of Anduril, which suddenly has an effective monopoly on the very lucrative surveillance tower business.
I am all in favor of Anduril getting more business as it means I can see even crazier submarine toys in Newport Harbor for Palmer. But doesn’t Palinitir and some other competitors make drones that would qualify?
 

A provision in the new US budget bill opens a wide swath of spectrum for sale, including some that overlaps with frequencies currently allotted for private mobile networks and Wi-Fi 6E.

The budget reconciliation bill, which President Trump signed into law on July 4 as planned, has a section that gives the Federal Communications Commission permission to begin auctioning off radio frequencies for commercial use again, after its authority to do so expired in 2023.

The bill directs the FCC to auction almost all spectrum from 1.3 GHz to 10.5 GHz, except the slices at 3.1–3.45 GHz and 7.4–8.4 GHz, putting mid-band airwaves once reserved for federal agencies up for commercial sale.

Smack dab in the middle of that span, say worried advocates, are frequencies used for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS), operating between 3.55 GHz and 3.7 GHz, and Wi-Fi 6E, which uses the 6 GHz range.


"In its quest to generate revenues to pay for the legislation, it potentially puts CBRS and 6 GHz spectrum on the auction block at the FCC," the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small wireless carriers, said in a release denouncing that part of the bill.

For those unfamiliar with CBRS, it's a 150 MHz band of frequencies the US government allocated for private mobile networking. It's compatible with both 4G and 5G wireless signals and is used widely for small, private networks.

"The vast majority of WISPA members employ CBRS and/or 6 GHz services to deliver broadband to their rural and under-resourced communities," WISPA said, warning that auctioning off spectrum in the CBRS and 6 GHz range would "strike at the very heart of those businesses that have so successfully worked to eradicate the digital divide."

There's also the specter of the telecommunications industry exerting pressure on the FCC to auction off the upper half of the 6 GHz spectrum for cellular usage, like a number of other countries have done.

Ajit Pai, FCC chairman during Trump's first term and supporter of opening the 6GHz spectrum to unlicensed operation for things like Wi-Fi (which the US ultimately did), is now at the helm of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA). The CTIA has pushed for broadening the spectrum available to cellular carriers.

Mike Wendy, communications director at WISPA, told The Register that he believed those on the large telecom side of the industry would likely want everything up for auction, including the 6GHz and CBRS bands. WISPA opposes auctioning off those portions of the spectrum because there are already too few public parts of the spectrum left.
 

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Has A Nasty Surprise For World Cup Tourists​

President Donald Trump’s marquee legislation includes steep increases to non-immigrant visa fees that kick in next year–just as the U.S. hopes to attract World Cup 2026 soccer supporters.
 

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Has A Nasty Surprise For World Cup Tourists​

President Donald Trump’s marquee legislation includes steep increases to non-immigrant visa fees that kick in next year–just as the U.S. hopes to attract World Cup 2026 soccer supporters.
It also MASSIVELY increases the fee required for an asylum-seeker to appeal to the BIA from a negative decision by an immigration judge. The new fee would be too much for most American citizens, much less those who came here seeking asylum.
 
Back
Top