Republicans raise the debt ceiling by 4 trillion while kicking millions off insurance

True, colleges should be regulated and not a repeat of high school...

DD

 

The 7 pieces of the House megabill that could succumb to Senate rules


Pet policy measures stuffed into President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” by House Republicans are now at risk of getting jettisoned by the Senate.

From Planned Parenthood to gun silencers to expedited energy permits, Speaker Mike Johnson and committee chairs tucked various provisions into the recently passed megabill to secure votes — and deliver some elusive GOP wins.

But several are considered likely to run afoul of strict Senate rules governing reconciliation — the budget process Republicans are using to skirt a Democratic filibuster. Under what’s known as the Byrd rule, “extraneous” measures that have only a negligible impact on the budget, or none at all, have to go.

Senate Republicans are expected to closely follow the guidance of parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough as they embark on the “Byrd bath” in the coming weeks, with noncompliant provisions sometimes referred to as, yes, “Byrd droppings.”

Here are some of the biggest areas to watch for a big Byrd mess:


Tax-cut accounting
The most consequential item subject to Byrd review is the GOP’s proposal to use a controversial accounting tactic to essentially zero out the cost of extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

Republicans temporarily sidestepped getting a formal blessing of the “current policy baseline” method from MacDonough as part of the budget resolution debate earlier this year, but Senate GOP staff have met with her several times this year on how to try to craft the megabill, two people with knowledge of the discussions said.

Other tax provisions are also at risk, though Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) has worked with House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) to fine-tune some of the House text in anticipation of Byrd challenges.


AI regulations
The House megabill includes a 10-year ban on states enforcing regulations on artificial intelligence. While there has been no official budgetary score for the provision, Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has acknowledged the provision will be challenged for a Byrd violation.

During a marathon House Energy and Commerce Committee markup earlier this month, panel staff called the provision a “policy change,” which could be detrimental to Republicans’ case that it can be included under Senate rules.

GOP aides argue it’s necessary to carry out a $500 million upgrade of technology at the Commerce Department but Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said it didn’t seem to pass the budget-impact smell test. “That sounds awfully policy-centric in my mind,” he said.


Judicial powers
Senate Democrats are planning to challenge House language that would place limits on the federal courts’ ability to enforce contempt citations. House Republicans have argued the language is aimed at frivolous lawsuits, but Democrats and some legal scholars view it as an attempt to rein in the courts’ ability to hold the Trump administration accountable.

Some House Republicans have also vowed to try to get the Senate to remove the language, with Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) telling constituents at a town hall this week that he wasn’t aware the provision was in the bill.



Rest: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/30/megabill-policies-senate-parliamentarian-byrd-rule-00375507

 

But it want!!!!

They are all afraid of The Orange One..

T_Man

 

We already do.

Everyone is already entitled to a free education until they graduate HS, typically at 18 years old.

How much further education should the tax payer pay for? Every citizens bachelors degree and until 22? Also all their costs of living between 18-22? How much will that be? $40,000.00 [at least] per every individual aged 18-22? Why stop there? Masters? 22-24? All their costs of living between 18-24? Why stop there? Everyone's JD/MD/PHD? 25/30/32 years of age graduating from those programs/residencies?

When does it stop?

Good grief.

We already can't afford the government largesse we have now and this system is going to collapse in on itself already but leftists want to expand government even more.

What morons.

 

So you agree with my statement?

 

I cannot get a straight answer to this question

IF YOU ARE CUTTING THE BUDGET SO MUCH
WHY DO YOU NEED TO RAISE THE DEBT CEILING??

Rocket River

 

dumb fcks vote on things while not even knowing what’s in the bill they’re voting for

 

Bullsh*t CYA crap.
1. It's your f*cking job to know!
2. YOU KNEW but now You want to act like you didn't so you doing the typical Karen Krap of playing victim . . . so you cam avoid accountability
3. It's your f*cking job to know!!
4. You don't give a sh*t about state rights as long as your pockets are lined.
5. It's your f*cking job to know!!!

Rocket River

 

Only reason he probably cares...

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was approved by the House on May 22 in a 215-214 vote. If the measure passes the Senate and is signed into law by President Donald Trump, the $7,500 new-vehicle tax credit and $4,000 used-vehicle tax credit incentives on EVs would be killed, along with subsidies for battery manufacturing, the text of the bill says. The EV tax credit, which started during the Obama administration, is set to expire on Dec. 31, 2032. The new provision "accelerates the expiration to December 31, 2025."

 

Well, that was fast...................how soon until the wanna be king says something back and then all of maga turns on him. elmo should just STFU and stay out of this, if maga turns on him he will feel the wrath, and I will be there to watch

 

46 Seconds of Truth

 

Agreed - so please let me know when Donald Trump and all of his corporations are going to pay back all of the loans that they have taken out. I think we would both agree that it isn't fair for a corporation to file bankruptcy, especially when the owner of the corporation files bankruptcy over and over again - but an individual person cannot discharge their student loans in bankruptcy. Seems very skewed against individuals and the common man.... and to be clear, Trump isn't the first, nor will he be the last wealthy person to do this... so it is less about him and more about the lack of fairness in the whole system.

 

The AI regulation thing is just a side show in the greater BBB extravaganza, but I'm a little surprised that it's a point of contention. AI is hot right now, and sure AI is going to destroy humanity or whatever, but it strikes me that regulation of the industry is most appropriately done at the federal level. Making AI, which operates at a global level, comply with 50 different state regulatory schemes in addition to rules changing country-to-country, seems like a recipe for failure. I understand that the Trump Admin will probably do far too little to regulate AI. But, I doubt California having robust rules while it's the Wild West in Texas is going to make things any better. The regulatory paradigm should be carefully considered, but uniform across the nation.

 

Too late, Elon. Tesla long decline cannot be stopped.

 

What gets loss in this type of discussion is that being a doctor, or a high-level scientist or even high-level engineer isn't like being a day laborer, attorney or most other jobs. The people that are capable of doing these jobs and doing them well is limited. Very few people have the intellect, work ethic and discipline needed for these professions.

[QUOTE="raining threes, post: 15751623, member: 31960" At that point they have a decision to make. Either live out their dream and become a doctor and payoff their loans. (Doctors make enough to easily be able to payoff their loans within 5-6 years.) Or decide on another profession..[/QUOTE]

Most doctor's cannot pay off their loans in 5-6 years. It isn't realistic. Also, as a society - doctor's do not grow on trees.


[QUOTE="raining threes, post: 15751623, member: 31960"Seems to me like you dont want them to payoff their loans, or want the cost of higher education to go down and I somewhat agree with you, but the cost of education going down devalues the degree they've earned IMHO.[/QUOTE]

Those that can pay off their loans should - but the cost of higher education is overly bloated for a variety of reasons, and the wealthiest have profited off of it. The cost of education going down does not devaule degrees. It still requires intelligence, and it is a global market at this time.

I find the outrage over student loan holders so odd - when you have corporations and wealthy principles constantly filing bankruptcies on billions of dollars and no one says anything - but student loan holders, who cannot file bankruptcy are somehow the issue.

 

Are the lenders required to provide loans to the wealthy and the corporations? Are the loans guaranteed by the government? Do the lenders have access to information that the wealthy borrowers have previously filed for bankruptcy? You know very well why corporate loans are different than student loans. Having said that, I have no problem with scrapping bankruptcy protections altogether. If you borrow money, pay it back.

 

Republicans are all about incompetence, corruption, and deregulation, so why should a state like California be beholden to their buffoonery?

The Trump administration says it’s reforming a Biden-era artificial intelligence safety institute, renaming and reformulating one of the only federal government departments dedicated to oversight of the burgeoning technology.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a news release Tuesday that the Trump administration would transform the former U.S. AI Safety Institute — which former President Joe Biden established in November 2023 — into the Center for AI Standards and Innovation.

The reframing away from “safety” is in line with the Trump administration’s statements and actions signaling its belief that oversight efforts for AI companies could unnecessarily dull the United States’ competitive edge in the space.

“For far too long, censorship and regulations have been used under the guise of national security. Innovators will no longer be limited by these standards,” Lutnick said in the release.