I wonder if, those we elected will read that bill............................ I doubt I'll ever forget then Speaker Pelosi saying the representatives would have to vote for that pending bill in order to be able to read it. Based on news reports, my understanding is one of the big hang ups is how the BBB affects rural hospitals but there may be more.
Edited: I got to page 22 when my eyes started crossing and my eyelids were closing. Hope our elected officials have folks up on this.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-28-2025).]
Originally posted by blackrams: I wonder if, those we elected will read that bill............................ I doubt I'll ever forget then Speaker Pelosi saying the representatives would have to vote for that pending bill in order to be able to read it.
You are either misremembering what she said or remembering having read an inaccurate account of it. While Nancy Pelosi is absolutely a crook and thief who does more damage to her party by existing as the symbol of graft that she is, it's pretty clear what she meant by what she said, even if you don't read her explanation of her own words.
She never said that they would have to pass it before they read it, and actually encourage both Democrats and Republicans to read the bill. She was commenting that there was so much controversy around it, the general public would see for themselves that some of the outlandish claims being made about it (death panels and the such) were untrue once the bill was passed. The entire context of what she said is here:
quote
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Importantly, this was not a comment made to her fellow legislators or representatives (as you clearly indicate you believe) but to the National Association of Counties who would not be voting on it at all. The context of "you have to pass it to read it" doesn't even make sense when applied to that circumstance. The ACA, by the way, was openly debated for 8 months. There were complaints that there wasn't enough time to view the reconciliation portion after it passed, because the representatives were only give 7 days. That portion was 153 pages long.
Let's compare that to the Trump administration's current attempt to massively increase federal spending, which is a 943 page bill that the text of was dropped on June 27th, with only 7 days of total time to read it before the bill's July 4th deadline (as opposed to the ACA's more-than-8-months).
Editing to add: Trump has also been activelythreateninganyone who does not support the bill, whether or not they have read it.
This is bad faith whataboutism at its absolute worst.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
Based on news reports, my understanding is one of the big hang ups is how the BBB affects rural hospitals but there may be more.
Edited: I got to page 22 when my eyes started crossing and my eyelids were closing. Hope our elected officials have folks up on this.
...but that's just from an economic conservative perspective. There's a ton in there my libertarian side has issues with, but most of the MAGA folks are going to see those as big wins, so I don't see any point in bringing them up here
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 07-01-2025).]
There's a lot I'm not thrilled with... especially grouchy that they're bringing back SALT.
I'd like to see big cuts in some things, with a reallocation of funds towards the primary things Trump was elected for...
From what I understand, the GOP won't even eliminate Medicaid funding for illegals from the bill. I guess I shouldn't let that bother me because the Democrats keep telling me that never happened...
There's a lot I'm not thrilled with... especially grouchy that they're bringing back SALT.
I'd like to see big cuts in some things, with a reallocation of funds towards the primary things Trump was elected for...
From what I understand, the GOP won't even eliminate Medicaid funding for illegals from the bill. I guess I shouldn't let that bother me because the Democrats keep telling me that never happened...
Wanted to add to the Medicaid comment I made. I heard this from someone, and this was my response after doing a little bit of research:
--- --- ---
Are you sure that’s true (that illegals will get medicaid)? I’m not seeing anything about funding for illegals. Trump issued an executive order that immediately halted all benefits to illegal aliens, including Medicaid.
The only thing I’m seeing is a disagreement on this:
Tillis, who announced on June 29 that he wouldn’t seek reelection in 2026, tied his opposition to the bill’s cuts to Medicaid. In a speech on the Senate floor during the debate on Sunday, he spoke critically of the measure’s changes to Medicaid, saying that Trump had been “misinformed” about the nature of the bill’s cuts to the entitlement program. The current draft of the bill imposes new 80-hour monthly work requirements for able-bodied adults to receive benefits. It also reduces the maximum provider tax states can charge hospitals and doctors to pay for their state Medicaid program. Tillis said that the changes break Trump’s campaign promises to protect Medicaid, comparing it to President Barack Obama’s politically infamous “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” quote on the Affordable Care Act. Paul, meanwhile, has tied his opposition to the bill’s $5 trillion increase for the debt ceiling, saying often that he would support the package only if this provision were removed and given a separate vote.
Which, honestly… if the complaints have to do with forcing able-bodied adults to work part time to receive benefits… then I really don’t have a problem with it.
… which says that the parliamentarian stated that blocking illegals was a policy issue, and not a funding issue… which is why she didn’t allow it. In this case, I don’t think it matters because Trump already said he would block Medicaid to illegals via executive order in May: https://www.newsweek.com/tr...ing-medicaid-2077932
So… to suggest that illegals would be getting Medicaid is not correct in this case, it’s only if the Democrats win the White House in 2028 and decide to rescind the executive order.
Careful Todd...that kinda language will get you deported to Africa these days
Hah... I could do with a vacation, as long as I get to keep my passport and get to come back when I want. Though... it depends on what country in Africa.
You are either misremembering what she said or remembering having read an inaccurate account of it. While Nancy Pelosi is absolutely a crook and thief who does more damage to her party by existing as the symbol of graft that she is, it's pretty clear what she meant by what she said, even if you don't read her explanation of her own words.
While she did attempt to explain it away, she did say it. Context? OK, maybe but, the point is, it appears too many votes are cast without the "voters" knowing the full content of what they are voting for or against.
quote
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said of the Affordable Care Act, in 2010: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
quote
What's True Nancy Pelosi did utter the words attributed to her about the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
What's False The infamous soundbite doesn't reflect the full context and meaning of her remarks.
quote
On 21 June 2017, the web site Chicks on the Right reported that Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had said, of the Affordable Care Act, in 2010 "We [need] to pass the bill in order to find out what [is] in it."
The website contrasted this with Pelosi's tweet, on 20 June 2017, in which she declared that "Americans deserve to know" what was in the Republican health care bill being developed during the summer of 2017:
quote
As can be seen, it's true that Pelosi did utter these words: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". However, the article left out important context, including the next few words of Pelosi's statement: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
Like much reporting and commentary surrounding that remark over the next seven years, the Chicks on the Right article also left out the remarks made by Pelosi in the lead-up to the now-infamous soundbite.
Pelosi was speaking at the National Association of Counties' annual Legislative Conference on 9 March 2010, in Washington D.C. A full transcript of her speech can be viewed here, but we've included some relevant context surrounding her comments on the Affordable Care Act:
The whole point being, to pass the legislation before they knew the whole package of legislation. Away from the fog of controversy? What a load of
Rams
You are ignoring 2 very important facts: 1. The entire legislature, including all Republicans, had access to the text and all committee markups and notes for 8 months. The only short period was 153 pages of reconciliation after the bill had passed both the House and Senate, and the legislature was given 7 days to review that. 2. When she made the above quote she was not addressing any House or Senate legislators. She was giving a speech to the National Association of Counties. Why would she tell them they would have to vote on the bill? That makes absolutely no sense.
And again, you are doing so in bad faith to hand wave away clearly crooked behavior from a politician you happen to agree with. This bill was dropped 7 days before the initial vote, not months like the ACA. Trump threatened all of the Republicans who balked at it to gain compliance before they were able to gain knowledge of what they were passing.
Originally posted by NewDustin: And again, you are doing so in bad faith to hand wave away clearly crooked behavior from a politician you happen to agree with. This bill was dropped 7 days before the initial vote, not months like the ACA. Trump threatened all of the Republicans who balked at it to gain compliance before they were able to gain knowledge of what they were passing.
To be fair... this is how almost every controversial bill goes through the process today. It's almost always at the behest of the President... and there's a mad rush to get it done by a certain deadline. I think it's unreasonable to say that the ACA was somehow debated for months, unlike the "Big Beautiful Bill." The "Big Beautiful Bill Act" was actually formally introduced in the house on May 21st, as a bill: https://www.congress.gov/ev...s/house-event/118300
This means that it had already been worked by Congress. You know as well as I know that this doesn't happen overnight. Congress had been working on it since January... matter of fact, the first draft passed the House Ways & Means Committee in late February: https://waysandmeans.house....to-working-families/
... with the formal outcome of all of that being formally announced by Trump at White House . ORG with what was actually being presented formally as a completed bill: https://www.whitehouse.gov/...a-generation-chance/
So it's been at least 6 months that this bill has been worked on... and Democrats were invited to all the meetings, throughout the entire process. During the ACA, Republicans were blocked entirely from being able to participate in the process. For Gen-Zs, they may not remember because they were kids, or not even born yet... but you and I were still adults.
So, respectfully, you're completely wrong in your assertion that this bill was dropped 7 days ago. It's been in progress since almost the day that Trump was inaugurated (early February). There was full transparency with all the other Democrats in the House and Senate, and everyone has had access to it from day one. Anyone with access to WestLaw has had the ability to see and read the updates every time the House posts them.
This is in stark contrast to what they did with the ACA, where the Democrats knew they didn't need Republicans, and literally shut them out. President Obama posted an excerpt of what he wanted... 11 pages online, to which Democrats said they were being fully transparent. This is absolutely not true... because the bill was actually 2,400 pages. They also blocked Republicans from accessing it throughout the entire process... which is actually totally against House parliamentary and Senate rules... but the Democrats didn't care. The bill was so messed up, and so rushed through, that it actually included thousands of spelling mistakes. Worse even, it actually included an exclusion that allowed insurance companies to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions (the very thing it was supposed to end). That was later fixed via bipartisan legislation to literally no fanfare by the media.
So... just saying. There has been way more access to, and public availability to this law, than there was the ACA. You should not be defending how the ACA was passed, and certainly not comparing it to the BBB... even though I take a lot of issue with many of the things in it.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So... just saying. There has been way more access to, and public availability to this law, than there was the ACA. You should not be defending how the ACA was passed, and certainly not comparing it to the BBB... even though I take a lot of issue with many of the things in it.
You make some very good points...and some of this I'm just wrong in the way I've spoken about it. The version that dropped last-minute to the Senate was fundamentally different than what the house passed...this isn't 153 pages of reconciliation changes...it is a completely different version of the law. The fact that even supporters were surprised by what is in it is telling of that. I will say that procedurally, it followed much the same route as the ACA, though I think you're portrayal of Republicans being frozen out of the ACA is a little overly zealous, given the fundamental roles Senators Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, and Representative Charles Boustany played in negotiating it.
I am not defending the way the ACA was passed, btw. I hate all of the last-minute, hiding, bullying nonsense. It's a stupid way to pass any law or make any decision. What I'm saying is whatis happening here is at least as bad as the ACA, and under any actual scrutiny much worse. Misquoting Nancy Pelosi out of context in a way that doesn't make sense to excuse it is wrong. The ACA being a cluster when it passed doesn't excuse doing things worse. It's still bad faith whataboutism.
You make some very good points...and some of this I'm just wrong in the way I've spoken about it. The version that dropped last-minute to the Senate was fundamentally different than what the house passed...this isn't 153 pages of reconciliation changes...it is a completely different version of the law. The fact that even supporters were surprised by what is in it is telling of that. I will say that procedurally, it followed much the same route as the ACA, though I think you're portrayal of Republicans being frozen out of the ACA is a little overly zealous, given the fundamental roles Senators Olympia Snowe, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, and Representative Charles Boustany played in negotiating it.
I am not defending the way the ACA was passed, btw. I hate all of the last-minute, hiding, bullying nonsense. It's a stupid way to pass any law or make any decision. What I'm saying is whatis happening here is at least as bad as the ACA, and under any actual scrutiny much worse. Misquoting Nancy Pelosi out of context in a way that doesn't make sense to excuse it is wrong. The ACA being a cluster when it passed doesn't excuse doing things worse. It's still bad faith whataboutism.
"What I'm saying is what is happening here is at least as bad as the ACA, and under any actual scrutiny much worse."
I can't agree with this at all. The ACA shut out Republicans entirely through most of the process, and they only courted a few of those individuals in hopes that they could get to or above the 60 vote threshold. None of the Republicans voted for it, and the last holdout was Senator Bill Nelson, whom I'd voted for two times previously, and that was the day I stopped voting for any Democrats at the Federal level. I had a big issue with the individual mandate.
Anyway... this is a reconciliation bill. It was almost assured to pass, and there's barely any controversy over it. I barely even hear about it in the news. There is absolutely no way you can compare what happened with the ACA to the passage of this budget bill. There has been absolute transparency through the entire process. The only reason why things are rushed is because they're trying to make a July 4th deadline... probably because Trump wants to grandstand and make a speech or something about it. But to suggest that there's conspiracy here and people don't know what's happening is really not legitimate.
What I meant to add, and got on a tangent in my first response... House members rarely read these bills anyway. At this point, it's not even their job to do so. Their only concern is to address some of the issues from their constituents, and work with their staffers to make sure what they don't want in there, isn't in there, and what they want in there, is in there. They absolutely don't read the rest of it.
How long does it take for you to get through a 500 page novel? Maybe a week with a few hours each day?
A 2,500 page bill like the ACA, you can be sure that out of ~430+ House members, maybe 1 person has actually read it.
Based on this mornings news, it appears that the BBB is about to be passed by the House (again) and go to the President's desk for his signature (not the auto-pen).
I've been thinking about this some and have come to the conclusion we may never actually see a balanced budget. But I've come up with a plan.
May I suggest that elected officials reduce their pay to only peridium (the cost of actually being in DC with DOGE oversight) until they reach a balanced budget........... That might take a while but, I'm thinking doing so would provide some incentive.
Yeah, that's not going to happen (ever) but, something needs to be done to get their attention.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Anyway... this is a reconciliation bill. It was almost assured to pass, and there's barely any controversy over it. I barely even hear about it in the news.
Are you seriously claiming there isn't any controversy in the news about the BBB? Do me a favor...go to Google then go to the news tab and type in 'BBB' in the search bar.
Are you seriously claiming there isn't any controversy in the news about the BBB? Do me a favor...go to Google then go to the news tab and type in 'BBB' in the search bar.
I have noticed a lot of whining by Dems due to cuts to their favorite vote buying programs and of course, a left-leaning biased media is happy to spread such news. Is that what you're talking about?
Are you seriously claiming there isn't any controversy in the news about the BBB? Do me a favor...go to Google then go to the news tab and type in 'BBB' in the search bar.
To be clear, there's controversy over what it supposedly offers, though nothing at all about how it's being passed. You've presented the idea that Republicans are being shifty and shady in how they're passing it, which is not at all the case. They've been completely transparent, and this bill has been public through the entire process since February.
What I am seeing (a lot of this morning) is people being really, really upset about some of the things in it. Here are some of the comments I've seen:
- 10s of millions of people will lose health care - Millions of people will lose access to food - It will eliminate millions of middle-class jobs - It kills grandmas and starves children
He seems to only follow politics on Twitter, and they all seem to be left-leaning. So clearly, the responses in here are outrageous... calling for Republicans to die in some cases.
The only complaint I'm seeing from Republicans is the re-inclusion of SALT deductions, and that it will add to the budget deficit.
So if I address only the left-leaning complaints (since I basically agree with the right-leaning complaints)... here's what I see...
The idea that this eliminates health care for illegals is not true... because as already addressed, the Parliamentarian has already stated that this policy cannot be included since it's policy, and this is a reconcilliation bill. So that's propaganda that the left is being fed it seems. With that, illegals have already been banned from getting Medicaid since Trump signed that executive order doing so three months ago. So, the point is moot, regardless.
The next issue is on food... I see nothing in the bill about it eliminating food... unless we're talking about illegals again, which are no longer getting benefits. But on both Medicaid and SNAP, the changes made are only as it applies to able-bodied people who are currently on welfare and not working. The new requirement is that they must work 20 hours a week (or more specifically, 80 hours in a month). So they must have part-time work to be eligible for benefits. This is actually what the requirements used to be since the 1990s. Matter of fact, the only reason this changed was because of COVID, and oddly enough, if I'm not mistaken, it was actually Trump who waived those requirements in 2020 (which makes it kind of ironic).
I'm not exactly sure how they come to the conclusion that this will eliminate middle-class jobs... but maybe someone else can answer that.
It seems like a lot of the negative comments about the bill are mostly based on misinformation. The big question I have is... how can they change some policy, but then not change other policy... by what metric does the senate parliamentarian use to determine what can and cannot be included? Like, why can they set a 20 hour work week requirement, but can't ban illegals outright from benefits?
Anyway, thoughts? I'm not too thrilled with it, but I am happy that it permanently enshrines the middle class tax cuts. From one day to the next, I remember that being a massive, I mean massive tax cut for me back in... what... 2018 or something? I can't remember.
Hope our elected officials have folks up on this.
