Posted on 05/27/2025 5:37:13 AM PDT by RandFan
The fiscal impact of President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” which one prominent budget hawk called a “debt bomb,” is becoming a significant political concern among Republican lawmakers who have made little progress toward offsetting the $3 trillion projected cost of the legislation.
Some GOP senators fear that the bill’s failure to rein in federal spending in a substantial way over the next decade is fueling jitters in the bond market, where soft demand for U.S. debt has caused yields to climb in recent weeks.
And they worry that if Republicans pass Trump’s bill on party-line votes in both chambers, they will get blamed for heaping trillions of dollars onto the debt and the economic consequences that may follow in the future.
“I think we’re having trouble selling our long bonds already,” warned Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who cited the rising interest rates.
Scott is one of at least four Senate Republican conservatives who are sounding the alarm over the long-term fiscal implications of the 1,116-page budget reconciliation bill that passed the House.
They support many of the bill’s components but argue that it falls well short of what is needed to reduce annual federal deficits that are projected to grow from $2.2 trillion a year in 2025 to more than $2.5 trillion in 2035.
“I want to get a deal done; I support the president’s agenda. I support the border; I support the military; I support extending the Trump tax cuts, but we have to live in reality. But we got to live in reality here; we got a fiscal crisis,” Scott said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
More debt with a growing Trump economy is better than less debt with a stagnant non-Trump economy.
There are two kinds of debt here. The kind Bidet and Sotero put on us that is perpetual (welfare) and the kind Trump wants which is (not permanent we hope) to fix the previous issues by building up programs to prevent illegal immigration, build our defense profile, and bring back manufacturing.
They are apples and oranges.
I saw Miller’s defense yesterday. Like you, I want to believe him, BUT if there is no funding in this bill, why even have it at all. Why have a fight over something that does nothing? I know I am a simpleton, but an educated simpleton. Why have this fight over something that has no funding effect? As a friend has told me often, my dog can whip that skunk, but I don’t want him in that fight.
If the bill does nothing, other than give politicians fuel for disagreements, why must we endure the exercise?
Please help this simpleton out with understanding the necessity of the bill if it does nothing.
Gwjack
I don't have the answer. I'm assuming it's just another attempt to stop a Trump agenda item.
Guess you had to look that up... but failed to follow through.
Budget reconciliation was established by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and was first used in 1980 and the national debt has significantly increased significantly because of budget reconciliation from approximately $900 billion in 1980 to over $31 trillion by 2025.
Big bills = big debt.
It’s a debt bomb if you don’t fix the executive level of spending. The executive can ask for appropriations, but it doesn’t have to spend all of the money. There is a good chance that Trump requested the money, but doesn’t plan on spending it, IMHO. Congress has been unable and unmotivated to make cuts, so logically you pass a spending bill and not spend the money.
Project 2025 outlines a plan to economic recovery. Balances the budget and gets us out of debt.
I know , it took me months to read it all🤣.
The only question is whether it is better than another wretched CR.
A few consideration for people who don8know that the perfect can be the enemy of the good:
1. Ike considered debt to be more important than cutting taxes, and the result was economic stagnation and the election of JFK. JFK ignored the debt and reduced marginal tax rates from the 90s to the 70s, and the economy boomed.
2. If Ronald Reagan had waited for less debt to reduce taxes, the Reagan era boom would have never been.
What are the specific debt and deficit reduction proposals of the opponents? I would love to have them force real cuts on the current bill, then reform the budget/spending process. Opposition without putting forth viable alternatives is just CYA, something Congress does best.
I also saw the article and was surprised by the media’s shocking crap about how they quote numbers.
I went to ChatGPT and asked about the revenue totals from extending the 2017 cuts to permanent. The reply was $400B/year. That, over 10 years, is the $4T number that is getting quoted as total deficit addition and Miller is right, that’s bogus. It’s only an increase in deficit over the number that is projected assuming end to those cuts. GPT also noted it is not merely a change to tax rates. There was also change to standard deduction and exemptions that moderated some effects.
Now, let’s keep in mind that there is no solace to be taken in seeing that the deficit remains $1.8T (the 2.2T is with that $400B revenue difference). $1.8T itself is suicide.
So the Rand Paul’s and Thomas Massie’s are right that there is no net progress in this bill (the spending cuts get swallowed by interest on the debt) and that itself is suicidal, but if they are quoting the $4T numbers of deficit increase, that’s bogus.
And the codify of DOGE stuff . . . Miller is right about that, too. The Senate Parliamentarian would reject it as not qualifying for Reconciliation.
Yes to that. What was the point of DOGE if not to make big cuts in government spending? Musk’s team may as well just pack up and leave DC if their work is futile.
The fact of the matter is the more spending there is the more opportunities for waste and fraud there are. We must get serious about fixing the government’s spending problem and relieve the taxpayers of the burden of paying for it.
“The executive can ask for appropriations, but it doesn’t have to spend all of the money.”
***********
That’s not what some judges think.
“Guess you had to look that up... “
It was for you. Guess it went over your head.
Congress is full of spendaholics including many Republicans who want “free” government money for their pet projects. Trump needs to create a program similar to AA to get members of Congress off wasteful spending. Try eliminating subsidies for the corn ethanol boondoggle and watch members from Midwestern corn producing states have DTs
My advice to Trump is investigate and prosecute congressional republicans and stand up a new party while he’s President. It’s the only way to save America.
I already new what Budget reconciliation was. Point was budget reconciliation is bad and has been since it was established in 1974 and used for the first time in 1980. It’s the biggest reason for our massive debt.
What’s the point of finding fraud, elimining it to save tax payer funding in order to reduce the debt but pass a massive bill that ads even more debt? You’ve accomplished nothing to try to eliminate the debt.
I put out a long list of agencies and institutions that could easily be eliminated and should be. They serve no useful purpose and impose their rules and regulations on the American public as unelected POS. It’s congress’s job to pass laws, which they should in reality be tasked in getting rid of laws, because we elect them.
I’m a Trump supporter but anything that increases the national debt is bad.
“I already new what Budget reconciliation was.”
Then what was your point in listing items that cannot go into reconciliation?
“I put out a long list of agencies and institutions that could easily be eliminated and should be. “
That would never get 60 votes in the senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.