https://www.fs.usda.gov/r09/shawnee
Government websites are spewing trump propaganda! What other administration has spewed such garbage on official government websites?
The republicans are not trying to negotiate to end the shutdown. They are not even around. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...iser-shutdown/
Another question ….. How come congressional salaries are paid during a shutdown while other government workers are not paid?
I think they need to be locked in the capitol without services until they figure out a sensible solution. This budget is their MAIN JOB! They should work on it ALL YEAR, not running awaqy in summer when it got tough with Epstein, not flitting all over the world to impress people. Hammer out a sensible budget and then do your foolishness.
The polls in the news seem to blame the GOP. Unfortunately a finger pointing game that doesn't help anything, but maybe people will remember next time they vote. I'm not understanding why Trump wants to fire people. It seems like he is just being mean and some sort of act of vengeance. I wonder how many people have been fired and then hired back though Trump's term in office, either through some sort of legal judgement or just realizing they were needed.
One of our senators made public that he won't be accepting a salary during the shutdown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
All federal employees should not receive a paycheck or all should. It is bogus that they receive pay during a shutdown and all others don’t. Surely it was voted on previously to give themselves this option?
I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
My take is that any government workers not working because of the shutdown can apply for unemployment under the standard rules to receive unemployment insurance. In other shutdowns I believe everyone eventually got back pay for time missed, minus what they got from unemployment. In a way, everyone finally got paid for days missed. Who knows what rules the Trump administration will impose.
I think the other government employees who actually working, like the post office, air contollers, military, etc. are still getting paid as usual?
I suppose what ever rules apply to everyone should apply to politicians.
I was a fed and an essential employee who had to work during a shutdown. It was irritating that I worked and later got paid but those who did not work also got paid later. They basically got a paid vacation (albeit anxiety laden). Oct 1 flew to see family and made sure to thank the TSA workers for being there! I was told this is the third time a shutdown was held under trump. The longest was 85 days. Hopefully, it will not last that long this time.
My DH told me this morning that military pay comes out on the 15th so I bet it opens up before any soldiers go unpaid.
Fixed it for ya!Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
I think the Democrats are willing to end it immediately for $1.5 Trillion.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Thanks! Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
2018 shutdown was about 34 days. Military went unpaid.
Machiavelli suggests this is poor practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
Orange Man is now proposing that non-essential fed employees don’t deserve back pay. Saw that on the NYT tonight.
He's just turning the screws on the Democrats. Like the gangster movie where the bad guy grabs the girl, holds a gun to her head and tells the good guy that he'll blow her brains out if he doesn't hand over the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
Actually, I think that's a pretty good description of how the Democrats are handling their shutdown. Give us everything we want and our underlings in the press will back off for a day or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
That seems to be highly illegal. I suspect it's one of Trump's bluffs to get his way, or something he plans to tie up in a legal quagmire for a long time, like he tends to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...senate-bill/24
I wonder if the dems accepted a rule that illegals could not receive medicaid benefits, if that would satisfy the GOP. That seems like it's their main arguing point, even thought it's already illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I doubt it. The Medicaid issue is their dominant talking point (and almost certainly the only issue the average voter is aware of) but it's only a small part of their goal. Outside of Medicaid the Dems also want an additional $1.1 Trillion or so in spending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I think the Senate will be voting again today so we'll see if the Democrats will be able to successfully keep the government closed for at least another day.
I guess the point is what the spending will be used for… helping working class folks or cutting taxes for the wealthiest among us.
I've been working class my entire life, certainly not one of the wealthiest among us, and the Democrats want to increase my taxes. Did you know that in retirement my biggest monthly expense by far is taxes encompassing local, state and federal?Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Interestingly enough, locally we have an election coming up next month where there will be 3 new tax levies on the ballot. If they pass my local tax burden will increase by an additional $2000 or so. On top of that, if the Democrats wishes are fulfilled I'm anticipating another couple of thousand dollar federal tax increase. I'm not sure how anyone can expect working class people to live under these onerous tax burdens.
If the dems are smart, they took a lesson from Trump and should ask for way more than they expect to get as part of the deal making. I've not heard of the additional 1.1 trillion beyond medicaid cuts? It's maybe a bargaining chip. Not denying it, it's just not come up in what ever news I've seen and both parties seem to only talk about medicaid. Do you happen tom know what the money will be used for?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Several cities around here and the state government has been have had what sounds like big layoffs due to budget short falls. At least one claim is the loss of federal money and there have been talks about tax increases to make up for the short fall. I don't know if that's why your having tax increases and I'm not real conversant of the local minor details here. Everything is more expensive, but I'd be wondering where the additional tax money will be spent. A guess is that a lot of federal infrastructure money has been pulled or clawed back.
The gold bugs seem to be enjoying MAGA economic instability.
As I understand it, the extra money they want is basically just a reversal of spending cuts in this year's One Big Beautiful Bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
I think the other salient point which needs to be made is that the so called Medicaid and healthcare cuts are actually the temporary short-term subsidies provided when the Democrats controlled Congress. They were initially funded during Covid times, and then extended in the Democrat controlled Inflation Reduction Act. But the thing is, the Democrats never made any effort to make them permanent when they had the opportunity, they are not being cut but rather they are expiring at the time the Democrats specified and now that they are in the minority, they want the Republicans to do what they never intended to do themselves. It's all performative political theater.
I've heard a different version of why the Medicaid benefits were temporary instead of permanent, where the blame fell more on the GOP. I actually am not sure it matters or which is most accurate. The question being whether our hard earned Federal tax dollar should allow more people to have health insurance at an affordable cost, or whether they should either be on their own in the expensive private insurance market or have an employer with health insurance benefits and group rates. It seems like the voters have wanted the ACA in a majority.
The GOP has proposed a better plan for affordable insurance, but I take it as vague talk.
But it is political theater. The GOP hasn't hesitated to cut taxes and spend money on the military and border security to grow the large national debt to a new record, but we quibble about this.
Well that's interesting! I could swear that the original legislation authorizing the subsidies was the American Rescue Plan which passed in the House and then in the Senate with absolutely no Republican support, although the Democrats had enough of a majority in both to pass without the need for Republican votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
Then, as I recall, when it was extended during the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act the Democrats again passed it in the House without a single Republican vote and then after some late stage negotiations between Schumer and Democrat Senator Manchin, it passed in the Senate on a party line vote of 50-50 which was then broken by Vice President Harris providing the 51st vote in favor.
While I'm sure someone somewhere placed blame on Republicans, in my book if the Democrats could pass the legislation with expiration dates twice without a single Republican vote, I can't imagine why they didn't make it permanent if that's what they wanted. Of course, you shouldn't just take my word for it, perhaps you could look it up and let me know if I got it wrong.
Edited to add: I see that the Democrats have again successfully voted to keep the government closed. I think this is the 6th time they've succeeded in the past week!
In the time I had to look things up, I did learn a few new things. The ACA became permanent under Obama. There are the "enhanced" benefits passed during the Covid epidemic to provide more financial assistance to mid-income and rural people affected by the pandemic, which was then extended. I did not see anywhere who voted for what. I can only assume that the political powers in charge at the time represented their voting base and were in the majority. It does seem like it has been overwhelming popular and it's possibly the GOP has misrepresented their base? Even MTG likes it. The quick number I saw for the enhanced benefits was half a trillion, which is no drop in the bucket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Any more Congress is so divided that most everything is voted along party lines.
But the question is whether the Medicaid benefits should be extended, and if it is a benefit of living in a rich country with wealth inequality and expensive health costs, or if it should be based on a free market of insurers and providers consistent with a capitalistic system. It does seem like we can create some form of fiat money for a variety of reasons based on who is in charge. Right now it seems like imaginary domestic terrorists and international enemy adversaries have the stage.
EDIT: and regardless of it all, Mike Johnson continues his deceptions about illegal using up the medicaid benefits, which is a partial truth at best. If there were better legitimate argements, he's not using them much and it is his main talking point that probably appeals to his base since illegals have reached demonization status.
You have a voice and can vote on tax increases. Your health insurance is not negotiable. According to the pundits, health costs could go up by 40% or more. I don’t know about you, that would be a lot more than $2,000. Also, taxes cannot always decrease if you want services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
As I am hearing it, republications are the ones keeping the government closed. Have they even come back to work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I think my reply to your statement having to do with providing healthcare to working class people or giving tax cuts to millionaires was to point out that those "tax cuts" can make the difference between working class folks such as myself being able to live in my home of 30 years or not. When a person such as myself pays approximately 30% of their retirement income on taxes (local, state and federal) leaving us in a position of not being able to live comfortably without significant savings, what are your desires doing to those without savings? Wanting to increase taxes because you don't approve of millionaires makes things extra difficult for millions of working class folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
The House has already done their part, the current action is in the Senate where both parties are voting every day, sometimes multiple times each day.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
There is a reason why our forefathers required a 60% vote in the senate. Possibly to allow input and negotiation from more representations, which doesn't seem like has happened yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
60% is not mentioned in the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
It comes from Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate. Which is just a business rule they adopted, and could change anytime.
I did not know that. Something like 1913, which isn't too many forefathers ago. I wonder if a 60% vote would be required to change.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Your response does not make sense to me. Tax cuts to millionaires make a difference to you vs affordable healthcare costs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
It's actually pretty simple, the tax cuts you want to take away from millionaires will also be taken away from working class people who could really use them.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Search
Trump's proposed tax cuts for millionaires include significant increases in the SALT deduction cap, allowing high earners to deduct more state and local taxes, and expanded benefits for pass-through business owners, which could lower their effective tax rates. Additionally, the bill is expected to provide substantial tax breaks, with millionaires projected to receive an average tax cut of about $90,000.
cbpp.org CNBC
Overview of Trump's Proposed Tax Cuts for Millionaires
President Donald Trump's recent tax proposals include significant changes that primarily benefit high-income earners, particularly millionaires. These changes are part of a broader tax bill aimed at extending and expanding previous tax cuts.
Key Tax Changes for Millionaires
Increased After-Tax Income
Taxpayers earning $1 million or more are projected to see an increase in after-tax income by about 3%.
This translates to an average increase of approximately $75,000 in 2026 for millionaire earners.
SALT Deductions
The cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions will rise from $10,000 to $40,000 for individuals earning less than $500,000.
This change allows high earners to deduct more of their state and local taxes, benefiting those in higher-tax states.
Estate and Gift Tax Changes
The estate tax exemption will increase to $30 million for couples, allowing wealthy heirs to pass on more wealth tax-free.
This change significantly reduces the tax burden on multimillion-dollar estates.
Pass-Through Business Income
The threshold to qualify as a "small business" for tax benefits will increase from $50 million to $75 million.
The pass-through deduction will be expanded, allowing business owners to deduct a larger portion of their income, effectively lowering their tax rate.
Child Tax Credit Adjustments
While the bill proposes a $500 increase in the Child Tax Credit, many low-income families will not benefit, as they do not qualify for the full credit.
Conclusion
These proposed tax cuts are designed to provide substantial financial benefits to millionaires and wealthy business owners, while leaving many working families with minimal relief. The focus on high-income earners reflects a continuation of policies that favor the wealthy.
I know for the purpose of discussion you're only interested in those damned millionaires but if you broaden your scope a bit you'll see that those tax cuts you're against also help the rest of us and your desire to see those cuts go away will have an adverse effect on the working class as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Several months ago I posted the IRS tax brackets for all income groups showing differences between 2026 taxes with and without the extension of the 2017 tax cuts in the 2025 'Big Beautiful Bill', but I don't remember where that post resides, you probably saw it and forgot it but it's around here somewhere if your interested in finding it. The result for people in my tax bracket showed a several thousand dollar annual tax savings for someone like myself and possibly you as well which we would then both lose if your desire to see the rich taxed more would come true.
There's also the following article (one of many showing the same info) which doesn't go into as much detail as the IRS brackets did but you can easily see where those savings come from and who is affected if you're interested. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taxes-2...eautiful-bill/
I am not a "millionaire" by this new-fangled definition that uses income, rather than net worth. I deliberately keep my income pretty low.
The tax provisions in the Big **** Bill will save me a significant amount on my taxes, and allow me to realize more income each year without triggering additional tax.
But, I don't vote my pocketbook.
From what I can see the tex benefits for the middle class will be minimal, whereas, according to the Krugman article I posted a family of 4 making $100,000 a year in Ohio would experience a $300 monthly increase, raising their premiums from $500/mo to $800/mo.
Making the subsidies permanent would have much more of an impact on middle class people than the tax cuts. Again, in my research just today I'm writing about how regular people with decent jobs are struggling to find affordable healthcare options. Not making the subsidies permanent are going to really throw a serious monkey wrench into household budgets. The economy is not as great as Trump claims it is for working people. The cost of living has gone way up since COVID, which justifies keeping the insurance premium subsidies. in place.
Well, I have to give credit where credit is due. I think Marorie Taylor Greene has to be one of the bravest politicians in Washington. I am not with her on most things, but I think any person who can break from swallowing their party whole, and who have the chutzpah to speak up when they are not 100% aligned with their party has to be commended. Especially these days. She has criticized the party stance (without blaming Trump specifically of course which is probably very wise) on at least three major issues lately.
I am shocked and pleased that she seems to be affected by one thing and is speaking out-coherently. I hope it is contagious.