217 Repugs voted to....

Here's the reality. The RepubliQ want TEN YEARS of overall spending cuts in return for one year of raising the debt ceiling. Their bill names several government programs that would be exempt from those cuts, but Medicare, SNAP, veterans' benefits, and others are not exempt.

In order to pay for the dramatic budget cuts the RepubliQ are proposing, virtually all federal entitlement programs would have to be cut by 20%--Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP, and veterans' benefits. The exact amounts would depend on revenue over that period.

There are no references to specifically veterans' benefits in the bill, other than a rider that was attached that would rescind a 2022 bipartisan agreement to allocate $15 billion to treat veterans exposed to toxic substances in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know whether that rider survived to the final version.

So these budget cuts would affect virtually everybody who receives support from the government--not just veterans. But what rankles Democrats is that last year, the bipartisan passage of the abovementioned bill led them to believe that the RepubliQ at least agreed that our veterans should be taken care of. Now, RepubliQ brinksmanship has caused them to renege on even that deal.

But you're right--there is no specific clause in the bill to cut veterans' benefits. However, for the RepubliQ to claim that those benfits wouldn't be cut if the bill became law is a bucket of horse pucky.

True..there is no specific reference to VA budget cuts after reading through it. There are some vagaries  that would suggest , at least anecdotally, that any potential area of spending cuts could be possible. I assume that could futuristically and hypothetically include VA benefit cuts ( which I personally would not support). Again, this bill won't get through the Senate and/ or Biden...so one can rest easy in the short term. Other areas I would not support are SSI / Medicare cuts..simply because the people have already and generally contributed to those resources for most of their lives. The R's aren't going to push through very many , if any,  meaningful legislative packages under the current Congressional and administrative makeup..the numbers and mindsets being what they are.

There are a ton of issues / programs that could and should be cut, imo, that the country would be better off with. There's too many to list here, and that effort would be pointless and make people's hair catch on fire in this forum. The general intent of the R's is to pare overall spending, which I agree with from a general standpoint as long as it doesn't whack the needy components of the population upside the head. But not the above named mandatory spending areas / programs..those are about corny old-fashioned right and wrong as I see it.

The other thing I noticed in that bill text ( beyond the typical complexity of wording) is the approximate $15 billion yearly increase in total discretionary budget allowances through the next ten years. I'll guess that those are partially included to assume cost of living / inflationary buffers. That's $150 Billion more for discretionary spending over ten years time. How that became a part of an intent to 'cut spending' is a bit bewildering. I get the defense spending part of that discretionary budget ( as a conservative), but those funds also are used to fund and support governmental agency programs..sorry but I don't think we need nor can currently afford inflating those agencies any more. The US Government is a gnarly behemoth..fiscally speaking. In fiscal 2023, the government has spent over $1.3T (trillion) more than it received in revenues ; the annual debt has exceeded annual GDP for years. I get the Covid spending requirement anomalies..and I blame the R's for debt and deficit increases as well as D's..simply because R's are supposed to be more fiscally minded. The govt fiscal condition is one congealed hot mess bureaucracy..and it's not a comfortable thing to observe for me. Excuse me while I douse the fire on my own head of hair ( what little there is left of it).

Allow me to challenge that most holy of RepubliQ holies...the grand shibboleth...the chiseled-in-marble undisputable, irrefutable, self-evident truth of conservative orthodoxies:

Why am gummint a'spendin' bad-like?

Doesn't the money the government spends stay within the domestic economy? Doesn't a very significant portion of the private sector depend on that spending? Doesn't an equally significant portion of the private sector depend on that spending indirectly--people having money to spend on necessities? And last but not least--doesn't much of that spending actually save money in the long run (health care, for instance)?

Allow me to point out that tiresome truth that the countries with the highest levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP are both the happiest AND the wealthiest---which would seem to screw the pooch on the contention that IT BE BAD THING.

Some of your inquiry list components have limited application in the real world, but we could ultimately just go back in history to extend the original budget / spending arguments between Hamilton and Madison. This argument isn't new. You won't care because you're apparently in favor of Keynesian econ theory ( a main tenet being intervention via profligate government spending to right the fiscal ship); I disagree with that..what a surprise. I don't deny that govt. intervention is / was necessary in times of real economic crises ( recent events would include the 2008/2009 fiscal debacle and events surrounding Covid, which we're still trying to emerge from). The US Govt bureaucracy ( and I include many of the R's in that hot mess) and associated waste swells daily. I already shared a lengthy list of wasteful government spending in this forum..you and your ilk in here didn't think it mattered..why would you? I wouldn't want any of these people (or you) near my personal finances / checkbook if you truly support excessive government spending and intervention as a means to land in some misguided land of economic Nirvana. The base reason I argue against excessive and wasteful spending is that ultimately the people have to pay for it. I'll just revert back to the Boston Tea Party event as an argumentative foundation..would you personally have tossed  those tea crates into Boston Harbor? Taxation without representation, etc? 

I won't belabor arguments for a federal Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA;  run, scurry, get in the storm cellar!) , some varied form/s of which have been adopted by most states (44, at least) either by statute or state constitutions. That includes your own state (Oregon, if I'm not mistaken)..unless they've run you off. A federal BBA has been attempted numerous times in the past, but the machine in DC always avoids/ rejects actions that limit their accrued power to control and spend money including their own oft - increased salaries through several methods. A recent BBA joint resolution (H.J.Res. 12, similar in wording to all the other attempts that ultimately and miserably failed)  has been introduced in the House; it'll die too, so no worries. Do you give a whit that the US Govt has not had a balanced budget since Bill Clinton with an R legislature's time (2001)? I doubt it. But again, these are ancient arguments and disagreements between philosophies that won't bend ..I get that, too. You're free to make your own choices..have at it.

And fill me in on the use of the toothless hillbilly vernacular usage you sporadically employ..whom / what points are you trying to respectively impress/ make? My Uncle Clarence might have been impressed, admittedly..and he'd likely have savvied  your intent..but he was just a kind, weird old pecan farmer.

This bill is not as DOA as Schumer thinks. The senate is 51-49, but Feinstein is in the hospital, so it is 50-49. Manchin  is in big trouble & for this issue he could flip. Now it is 50-49 the other way. Also up for reelection are tester & sinema. 

Well, sorry to crush your fantasy, but Biden has already promised to veto the bill if it gets to him..

Kind of a bitch when your gang isn't in the White House, eh?

Possibly, but..Biden's going to veto it. Then they'll need to obtain two-thirds majority votes in both houses of Congress to override that veto.  It'll be practically impossible to achieve that, don't you think? Manchin got snookered / lied to and is really pissed off currently..he does hold some vote leverage right now. We'll see.

 S governmentTh1. I'm far from an unequivocal supporter of Keynsian economics, but I do agree with its basic tenets about the role of government in the economy.

2. "Balanced budget" is one of those terms that sounds inherently positive to the uninitiated, but it's actually not so wonderful in real life.

3. The first reason is that government spending triggers the economic multiplier effect.

4. The second reason is that historically, the US government has been able to borrow funds at a lower cost than any other entity in the world.

4. The third reason is that government spending can buy time (the pandemic being the obvious example).

5. The fourth reason is that several times in recent history, government refusal to spend (and borrow) has exacerbated a crisis.

As far as the toothless hillbilly thing goes--that's what it sounds like to me when some idiot tries to argue in support of one of the more insane/cruel RepubliQ proposals/attitudes. The utter lack of logic is, sad to say, breathtaking but far from uncommon. Example: I tell some goober to actually READ the Second Amendment and tell me where it refers to individual gun ownership. But in order to comprehend that, said goober has to understand the meaning of a restrictive clause. Hopeless! So the answer I get is, "DAWWWK! GUNS IS FUN!" (And before you refer to the relevant horrible Supreme Court decision, they were serving an ideology, not doing their jobs of interpreting the Constitution--just like the recent abortion decision.)

You'll have to convince somebody else that a balanced federal budget isn't desirable. The current 2023 interest due on our debt alone is about $650B..but few , if any, in DC are looking at that ledger sheet line item among numerous others. Real life simple math for average citizens dictates that they generally spend less than they earn / take in, or alternatively file for bankruptcy or assume another loan repayment expense they possibly can't pay for. Why can't the US Govt with all those highly educated lawyers figure that basic survival tenet out? It's as if some AI robot is running the joint..and it makes repetitive mistakes. I know..it's far more complicated than that..I just wonder why? Admittedly, I've never been able to figure out Congressional math..they've adulterated 2 + 2 math logic. I don't have any delusions that it will ever change , though. My scalp fire is out now...so am I. 

S governmentTh1

What is alleged the grammar expert saying?

The second reason is that historically, the US government has been able to borrow funds at a lower cost than any other entity in the world.

What happens when that doesn't happen anymore?  What happens when the tax revenue can't even cover the interest; which is where we re headed

The fourth reason is that several times in recent history, government refusal to spend (and borrow) has exacerbated a crisis.

Example?

So far nobody has been able to find where the subject of this thread is mentioned in the bill.

SS & Medicare is not being cut.  There are administrative cuts & raising the age.

Apparently the usual suspects are in favor of paying able bodied adults not to work.  Biden at one time voted for work requirements; although he probably can't remember that.

What is wrong with bringing back spending to 2022 levels & capping future expenditures to 1% growth?