Zone1 Let's Debate the One Big Beautiful Bill

[Seymour Flops]

According to Wiki, this is the full text of the reconciliation bill that Trump signed into law:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm

Here are a couple of purportedly non-partisan analyses of the act:

Breaking Down the One Big Beautiful Bill | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-06-04-Note: (06/23/2025) Some categorizations and numbers in the Ways and Means' section of the table below have been updated to more accurately reflect the bill's potential impact.

www.crfb.org

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill

Policymakers have passed legislation to extend many provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) alongside dozens of new tax provisions.

taxfoundation.org

Here is the Congressional Budget Office's analysis.

Feel free to use any source of information you like, but it need not be assumed to be non-partisan. Neither do the the links I posted, for that matter, but we have to start somewhere.

 

[1srelluc]

But why?....It has been passed.

 

[the watcher]

The time for analysis is before they pass it, By the time you figure out what they did they're already working on the next one.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The time for analysis is before they pass it...

^^^ This ^^^

Seymoure's Crypt Keeper avy gives me the heebie jeebies, tho...

 

[Seymour Flops]

But why?....It has been passed.

The time for analysis is before they pass it, By the time you figure out what they did they're already working on the next one.

Yes, but it has come up again as the key issue in the Democrats refusal to sign a continuing resolution - unless parts of it are repealed.

This thread will give those who agree that it is worth the shutdown to try to get those parts repealed a place to explain why.

 

[1srelluc]

Nobody cares, I've not heard one peep about the Schumer Shutdown in my AO since it it started.

The closest thing was a guy who came into the gun shop and asked; "have they opened the .gov yet?".

The answer was no and he just grinned and we moved on to talking about a CW musket he brought in.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'll start. This is a letter from the CBO to Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) et al, about the effects of the BBB:

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-06/Wyden-Pallone-Neal_Letter_6-4-25.pd

It gives several estimates of increases in the number of people without healthcare by 2034 due to the provisions of the then proposed law. Estimates are in the millions. This is (I believe) what Democrats mean when they say the CR "does not address the Republican healthcare crises."

My argument is two-fold:

1) These estimates are based on static analysis, that is an assumption that the cuts in subsidies will be done in a vacuum and that nothing else will change. Particularly the insurance companies will not reduce their rates back to pre-COVID subsidy levels to avoid losing those millions of customers. There is no reaon to think they will not adjust, as they do to every other government action in regards to subsidies. They may not go all the way back to pre-COVID prices, but they will reduce their prices and that will mean far fewer people will actually lose their health insurance.

In the unlikely event that they don't, then new providers will arise, offering affordable premiums to get those customers.

2) Many of those millions are people that the American voters/taxpayers would not support getting subsidies, if it were their call (as it should be).

In particular people making more than 400% of the poverty level, and people who entered the country illegally and were then granted parole, temporary protected status or some other permission to remain while awaiting adjudication of their claim to an exception to the immigration laws.

Four times the poverty level is over 120,000 dollars per year for a family of four. Waitresses and Amazon order pickers should not be asked to pay for such a family's health care, nor for illegal border crossers, no matter how badly we want families to have healthcare.

 

[Foxfyre]

According to Wiki, this is the full text of the reconciliation bill that Trump signed into law:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ21/html/PLAW-119publ21.htm

Here are a couple of purportedly non-partisan analyses of the act:

Breaking Down the One Big Beautiful Bill | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

2025-06-04-Note: (06/23/2025) Some categorizations and numbers in the Ways and Means' section of the table below have been updated to more accurately reflect the bill's potential impact.

www.crfb.org

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill

Policymakers have passed legislation to extend many provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) alongside dozens of new tax provisions.

taxfoundation.org

Here is the Congressional Budget Office's analysis.

Feel free to use any source of information you like, but it need not be assumed to be non-partisan. Neither do the the links I posted, for that matter, but we have to start somewhere.

A perhaps more objective analysis of the good, best, and not so wonderful aspects of the BBB:

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill

Policymakers have passed legislation to extend many provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) alongside dozens of new tax provisions.

taxfoundation.org

". . .The Big Picture
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes many of the individual tax cuts and reforms of the TCJA permanent. It improves upon the TCJA by making expensing for R&D and equipment permanent. However, for the most part, it does not include further structural reforms, and instead introduces many new, narrow tax breaks to the code, adding complexity and raising revenue costs. The relative lack of base-broadening leads it to raise deficits. While the new law has many laudable components and will increase economic growth, it is not a true tax reform."

But it was never promoted as 'true tax reform" but rather as promises made, promises kept. Far more good in the bill than any negatives.

But it was never intended to be an 'end all' proposition but an important initiative, mostly to keep the Democrats from repealing necessary protections for citizens that had been due to expire at the end of this year.

Certainly there is nothing to prevent this or future Congresses from correcting any problems/errors in the bill and/or continuing to work on legislation that will make America great for all its citizens again.

 

[the watcher]

Sticking point is health care, or whatever you want to call it. It is actually a program to have the government fund the system and therefore allow pharma and the ama to charge whatever they want. Sort of like the college loan forgiveness ponzi, that allows inflated tuition that the taxpayer also picks up, isn't it? And the Community Reinvestment Act that transferred money from the taxpayers to loan offices with ridiculous guarantees. This ACA is bottoming out fast, opening the way for single payer system (guess who the single payer will be?).

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sticking point is health care, or whatever you want to call it. It is actually a program to have the government fund the system and therefore allow pharma and the ama to charge whatever they want. Sort of like the college loan forgiveness ponzi, that allows inflated tuition that the taxpayer also picks up, isn't it?

Yes, it is very much like that.

And the Community Reinvestment Act that transferred money from the taxpayers to loan offices with ridiculous guarantees. This ACA is bottoming out fast, opening the way for single payer system (guess who the single payer will be?). View attachment 1172501View attachment 1172502View attachment 1172503

Well done post!

Prior to Obamacare the idea of moving to single payer was laughable. Why do that, when our private insurance with limited government subsidies and a safety net for the poor gave us the best medical system in the world.

After more than a decade of Obamacare operating as you show above, single payer will look better and better.

Still not better than what we had before, of course. But for some reason Democrats have the media convinced that we can never go back to what was working.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, but it has come up again as the key issue in the Democrats refusal to sign a continuing resolution - unless parts of it are repealed.

This thread will give those who agree that it is worth the shutdown to try to get those parts repealed a place to explain why.

We had to pass it to find out what's in it