ANY TIME someone complains about some federal program they want having been cut or being denied some government service, I wish the FIRST question they are asked is, “Who did you vote for in 2024”? And the disdain should be only slightly less if they did not vote at all.
Back during the second Bush years I first heard the term “outrage fatigue”. I’m sure it’s much older, but I first encountered it here on the boards and it was used frequently for a time. I think a lot of the perceived apathy that’s being discussed is at least partially due to that. Previous posters have described a version of it without using those specific words. It’s what the “flood the zone” strategy is designed to trigger.
I look at the passage of this bill today. I look at what the Supreme Court just did to the Federal judiciary regarding injuctions. MAGA, the project 2025 guys, are laced throughout the executive and Congress. We are witnessing the dismantling of the efficacy of the federal government. Checks and balances can’t work if all three branches are in collusion.
Sure let’s dismantle the social safety net and sabotage rural health Care. And let’s give the top 1% another trillion dollar tax cut. Why the f*** not? There’s another outrage right around the corner.
Three milliseconds? Unless there’s another Democrat, especially a female one or a non-white one, whom he can cast aspersions at.
I just received email from the Social Security Administration, saying passage of this monstrosity is the greatest thing that ever could have happened for senior citizens. I expect other agencies that have been screwed over royally are being instructed to send similar claptrap out to the public.
I agree with you, but given the comparison from Limbaugh and Brannon to Fox and Breitbart it is hard to argue the Democrats have made the most of their efforts. One hopes that they could appeal to independents and attract new interest rather than be mendacious or serve to divide their own party by doubling down on niches within it. Of course, this kvetching is not the same as offering solutions or practical advice going forward.
FWIW the latest from The Economist. I think their gift links are very limited so an excerpt is provided next post.
…Yet it is wrong to expect this bill to create a growth boom. The tax cuts in the bbb that are already in effect offer little fresh stimulus, and tariffs are an offsetting force. In any case, interest rates are three times their level when Mr Trump last cut taxes and the Federal Reserve is more likely to balance looser fiscal policy with tweaks to its monetary stance. Supply-side tax cuts will help boost investment, but account for just 8% of the total, by cost. Many new tax cuts, including exemptions for tips and overtime, are gimmicks. The administration’s deregulation agenda could help, but only on the margins.
In fact, America’s geyser of debt issuance will increasingly harm growth. In normal times public debt crowds out private investment, raising the cost of capital for new projects like data centres. And the costs of a sudden fiscal adjustment, forced on America by bond markets, would be vast. Goldman Sachs, a bank, reckons that if Congress postpones fiscal tightening for another decade, it may then need to cut spending or raise taxes by an annual 5.5% of gdp to stabilise debt-to-gdp. That is more than the austerity endured by the euro zone after its sovereign-debt crisis in the 2010s. If that proved too hard for legislators, America might resort to tactics used after the second world war: inflation and financial repression.
Vote-a-rama leads to borrower-drama
The bbb’s neglect of the long term is part of a wider malaise. Riding high on America’s economic might and undoubted negotiating leverage, Mr Trump ignores the foundations of America’s success. He has renewed his attacks on the Fed, adding another threat to economic stability. His defunding of scientific research will harm American innovation. His cavalier approach to the rule of law makes America a riskier place to invest. And despite the moderation of his trade war, the average tariff rate is still its highest in a century and trade-policy uncertainty is a burden. Even as American assets boom in dollar terms, they have fallen behind when priced in foreign currencies. An 11% fall in the dollar this year reflects long-term risks to the American economy that are real, and growing. ■
Normal link:
That is a fairly succinct statement although I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that “liberals [or at least, Democrats] won’t lie”; it’s just that they won’t come together as a collective hivemind to tell a coherent lie with engineered verbiage strictly for the sake of self-enrichment or circle the wagons around a demagogue to ensure staying in power.
Stranger
This is the most nuanced explanation I’ve seen of the phenomenon I’m talking about:
When Republicans feel like they’re in competition, they are more likely to spread misinformation that they acknowledge might be false, says Pechmann. “It can be anything that triggers them, like news headlines, for example, or events in the news, or a political campaign, an election. Election periods are highly polarized because one party will win, and one will lose. That’s when we see these big spikes in which Republicans are much more likely to spread misinformation than Democrats.” Democrats don’t prioritize winning when it comes to spreading misinformation. “What Democrats value more than winning is equity, fairness and spreading the wealth,” says Pechmann. “They aren’t willing to do whatever it takes to win because that’s not their priority.”
The exemption amount for seniors getting Social Security is pretty nice, give the devil his due. Of course, it is Reagan’s fault we started taxing Socsec in the first place.
When Trump gets tired of the Fed not lowering interest rates like he wants, he’s coming after Powell.
That’s my prediction. I don’t know the legal method to replace the chair, but I expect it to happen somehow.
Does anyone know why Trump has this obsession with lowering interest rates? It’s a trick he can only really pull once. What exactly is supposed to be the benefit of doing this? And why is Trump so mad about it?
AIUI, the Fed says that they can’t lower interest rates because of Trump’s tariffs. IOW, If Trump hadn’t imposed tariffs on everyone, the Fed would have lowered interest rates already.
Trump is not an individual who thinks past the next trick.
Stranger
Here’s what that Social Security letter said. (Apparently, every recipient got it. I’m not retired; I’m disabled.)
I did, too. I find it annoying enough when Chase sends me “mortgage updates” that are really just ads, but political messages disguised as official government communications is offensive.
I’m not old enough to get social security, and I still got the email telling me how great the tax breaks for social security will be. It gives me no reason to believe social security will even be a thing by the time I’m old enough to qualify, and it isn’t that far away.
I think you misspelled ‘buck.’
He wants the prime rate lower because he’s constantly borrowing money – it’s called leveraging. The lower the rate the more he can borrow, it’s as simple as that.
You realize, of course, that this is nothing other than someone saying, “The aspect of the budget that I personally benefit from is good. The rest is horrible.”
I’m sure folk who can now leave $15 million to their heirs tax free think that “pretty nice.” Greedy self interest, pure and simple.
I’m not receiving SS yet, but will benefit financially from the increased standard deduction. No, I cannot think that “pretty nice” when I am aware of the context.
Makes sense. It’s understandable. But of all the things Trump has done, it seems to me this is the one Dems/left-of-centre media should be hammering on the hardest. Because AIUI, this is going to directly hurt a lot of people who might be persuaded to change their vote. You aren’t asking them to care about strangers or an abstraction like due process, but their own wallet or those of family and friends. That’s something everyone cares about. And you need to make damn sure they blame Trump and the Republicans for any pain they feel.
If the Democrats did well enough in the mid-terms, would they be able to reverse some or all of this bill before the worst parts go into effect? Or could Trump just veto any changes?
I would hope Dems would be able to target ads for every red/purple state, pointing out the incumbent voting for the budget, and asking, “Do you or someone you love receive/value” various specific programs gutted by the budget. And saying directly, “Are you going to vote to re-elect this. official who voted to take away your benefits?”