The Schumer Shutdown

[rjs330]

Yet, in every single system doing that, no matter how different they are, those are the results. Come on, the excuse that "USA is different" holds no water, all the other systems are different from each other as well.

Yes they all have some differences, but they also have a lot of similarities. The US isnt just different it is ENORMOUSLY different from its roots. There would need to be a drastic alteration in all our systems and culture. You just see pie in the sky. Im looking at ground level.

Our country is in ENORMOUS debt as is. We fund FAR TOO MUCH as it is. Single payer would blow up everything and have to alter a national culture. Our country is huge with 75% of our budget going to welfare programs now and our banks broken.

Again, I am not completely opposed but I am very skeptical that it can be done.

England's system is having a lot of problems with millions waiting for care. Thousands have died in their emergency rooms while waiting for care.
And there are other problems that are growing.

I'm still skeptical that it will work here.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Week two of the Schumer shutdown coming ip

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Week two of the Schumer shutdown coming ip

Week two of the Republican shutdown coming up.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Single payer would blow up everything and have to alter a national culture.

"Alter a national culture"? What are you talking about?

We already pay for a ton of health insurance, in some very inefficient ways. Routing our existing insurance spending through the government instead of through employers wouldn't "blow up everything" - it would just reroute money and make it more easy to swap jobs.

Or is that the "national culture" you want to preserve - the one where people stay in lousy jobs to keep the insurance for their sick kids?

England's system is having a lot of problems with millions waiting for care. Thousands have died in their emergency rooms while waiting for care.

As if we don't have that here in America?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Hard to say, but Trump Always Chickens Out.

What does Trump have to do with senate votes?

 

[eclipsenow]

Instead of a simple bipartisan CR. The Democrats want a 1.7 trillion dollar spending increase.

That's OK - because apparently 'reducing the deficit' in Trump's mind means giving billionaires a $3 trillion tax cut over the next decade. That's just the billionaires! Oh - and kicking the bottom 16 million Americans off healthcare - which will increase unnecessary, early American deaths by 50,000 a year. But Oligarch's gotta garch! This is the way.

 

[eclipsenow]

Our country is in ENORMOUS debt as is. We fund FAR TOO MUCH as it is. Single payer would blow up everything and have to alter a national culture. Our country is huge with 75% of our budget going to welfare programs now and our banks broken.

Hmmm, single payer. That's a BIG topic.

Most OECD countries have something like single payer AND something else that makes it work. America doesn't have a clue what that something else is - and so single payer would bankrupt America. Single payer by itself would be like building a house with only half the foundations. It's a step in the right direction - but you need the rest of it to make the whole work - otherwise it eventually collapses and you've wasted a bunch of money.

Basically, most of these other OECD nations that offer universal healthcare have something like single payer - and yet still manage to bring in healthcare at HALF the cost of America's insane healthcare bill!

I'll tell you what the missing ingredient is - the thing Americans do not seem to even have words for - in the next post. But right now? Just stare in amazement at America's healthcare spending - yet how many tens of millions of citizens do not have cover now? It seems you pay twice as much for a fraction of the service!

 

[Vambram]

That's OK - because apparently 'reducing the deficit' in Trump's mind means giving billionaires a $3 trillion tax cut over the next decade. That's just the billionaires! Oh - and kicking the bottom 16 million Americans off healthcare - which will increase unnecessary, early American deaths by 50,000 a year. But Oligarch's gotta garch! This is the way.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Vambram]

Schumer's shutdown holds as Senate Dems block GOP bid to reopen government

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., needs eight Democrats to end the shutdown, but Senate Minority Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., insists President Trump must approve the deal first.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Vambram]

White House warns of 'pain' inflicted on Americans if Democrats don't reopen government

The Senate is expected to vote Monday on measures to end the government shutdown as President Donald Trump and Democrats trade blame over funding impasse.

www.foxnews.com

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Week two of the Schumer shutdown coming ip

Do you believe the GOP bear any responsibility in this shutdown?

 

[Vambram]

Do you believe the GOP bear any responsibility in this shutdown?

No. I do not.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Do you believe the GOP bear any responsibility in this shutdown?

The ones who offered a clean cr, IOW nothing would change until issue went through the process

Those Republicans?

The ones who added nothing? Those Republicans?

The ones who offered the EXACT resolution the Democrats voted for. When Biden was in office?

Those Republicans?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The ones who offered a clean cr, IOW nothing would change until issue went through the process

Those Republicans?

The ones who added nothing? Those Republicans?

The ones who offered the EXACT resolution the Democrats voted for. When Biden was in office?

Those Republicans?

Just a simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No. I do not.

Thanks for the straightforward answer. That’s rare around these parts.

 

[eclipsenow]

You really don't know what you are talking about.

Oh - this is news to you? Try here.

---

The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the highest decile.​

​

This analysis includes most, but not all, provisions of the bill. The analysis excludes the effects of part 2 of subtitle D (Affordable Care Act) of the reconciliation recommendations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, all the recommendations of the Committee on Education and Workforce, and any provisions not allocated in JCT staff’s distributional analysis of the recommendations of the Committee on Ways and Means.2 It also excludes interactions between the titles of the recommendations.​

​

The total effects reported in this analysis for the 2026–2034 period include the following:​

· An increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion attributable to tax changes, including extending provisions of the 2017 tax act, which includes revenues and outlays for refundable credits.​

​

· $698 billion less in federal subsidies from changes to the Medicaid program.​

​

· $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP.​

​

· $64 billion less in spending, on net, for all other purposes. That includes increases in outlays for defense, immigration enforcement, and homeland security. Those are offset by reductions in federal pensions, receipts from spectrum auctions, and changes in receipts and outlays associated with changes to emissions regulations.​

​

· $78 billion in additional state spending, on net, accounting for changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.​

​

CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP (see the figure).3 By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in they taxes they owe. The distributional effects vary throughout the 10-year projection period as different components of the legislation are phased in and out.​

​

---

In summary - those who can ill afford ANY household income reduction lose 2% now - but will lose 4% in coming years.

Those who are already the greediest, richest people in human history get a nice 4% increase. 4% increase on their EXISTING multi-million or tens of millions in salary income! Nice! It's a reverse Robin Hood - no wonder Trump called it a "Big Beautiful Bill!"

 

[NxNW]

What does Trump have to do with senate votes?

They'll back down if Trump tells them to.

 

[NxNW]

Thanks for the straightforward answer. That’s rare around these parts.

It's wrong, but straightforward.

 

[Vambram]

Oh - this is news to you? Try here.

---

The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the highest decile.​

​

This analysis includes most, but not all, provisions of the bill. The analysis excludes the effects of part 2 of subtitle D (Affordable Care Act) of the reconciliation recommendations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, all the recommendations of the Committee on Education and Workforce, and any provisions not allocated in JCT staff’s distributional analysis of the recommendations of the Committee on Ways and Means.2 It also excludes interactions between the titles of the recommendations.​

​

The total effects reported in this analysis for the 2026–2034 period include the following:​

· An increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion attributable to tax changes, including extending provisions of the 2017 tax act, which includes revenues and outlays for refundable credits.​

​

· $698 billion less in federal subsidies from changes to the Medicaid program.​

​

· $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP.​

​

· $64 billion less in spending, on net, for all other purposes. That includes increases in outlays for defense, immigration enforcement, and homeland security. Those are offset by reductions in federal pensions, receipts from spectrum auctions, and changes in receipts and outlays associated with changes to emissions regulations.​

​

· $78 billion in additional state spending, on net, accounting for changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.​

​

CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP (see the figure).3 By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in they taxes they owe. The distributional effects vary throughout the 10-year projection period as different components of the legislation are phased in and out.​

​

---

In summary - those who can ill afford ANY household income reduction lose 2% now - but will lose 4% in coming years.

Those who are already the greediest, richest people in human history get a nice 4% increase. 4% increase on their EXISTING multi-million or tens of millions in salary income! Nice! It's a reverse Robin Hood - no wonder Trump called it a "Big Beautiful Bill!"

I don't rely upon the CBO, an agency that routinely gets their estimates wrong.