- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 64,272
thespaceshow.com
My new take on it is does it really matter what the price of goods is if people can afford them?
Who can afford them?
We're all being bled dry so food stamps can be extended to multinationals so they can still get workers at starvation wages (just another form of corporate welfare) and the system shoves us into Klaus Schwab's we'll own nothing and we'll supposedly be happy slavery, and you don't even have enough of a problem with it to let me speak up about it? If so, it makes me wonder if, one, you have kids, and two, if you love them.
On Monday, Punchbowl News co-founder Jake Sherman tweeted that the Senate's version of the bill repeals the $40,000 state and local tax (SALT) deduction that many Republicans insisted on, and reverts it back to the initial cap of $10,000. Should that $10,000 SALT cap remain in the final bill the Senate sends back to the House, Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) promised to oppose it with several of his colleagues.
"Anything less than $40,000 will result in my no vote," LaLota said. "$39,999.99 would result in a no vote from me. I've been clear about my communications with my own leadership with the Senate over there. They can't water that down."
"That was a hard-fought negotiation that happened for four months. And $40,000 was the compromise number. It's not the starting point for where the Senate could then whittle it down," he continued. "$40,000 is the number that if they send it back a dollar less, we're gonna vote no on it and our five votes are gonna take that bill down."
Senate Republicans’ plan to force states to share the cost of the country’s largest nutrition program to pay for their policy megabill has been halted by the chamber’s rules.
The Senate parliamentarian determined that the cost-sharing plan would violate the so-called Byrd Rule, which limits what can be included in the reconciliation process, and would be subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, according to an advisory sent out Friday night by Senate Budget Committee Democrats.
That means Republicans will need to head back to the drawing board after months of heated debate about how to slash spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
...
The cost-sharing plan, which was first put forward by House Republicans, sparked backlash from state officials and concerns within the caucus. The bill would make states pay for SNAP benefits for the first time using a sliding scale based on their payment error rates.
The Senate Agriculture Committee introduced a scaled-back version of the House GOP’s cost-sharing plan earlier this month. Without it, Senate Republicans will struggle to find enough cuts to pay for their policy priorities and the $67 billion farm bill package they included — all with an ambitious timeline of delivering the megabill to President Donald Trump’s desk by July 4.
fed gov no autority to spend on food in first place
More than a dozen House Republicans warned they won’t support the Senate’s version of the tax and spending bill because the proposed Medicaid cuts are too steep.
Led by Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), 15 other vulnerable Republicans sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) saying they support the Medicaid reforms in the House version of the legislation, but the Senate Finance Committee proposal went too far.
“Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent. Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers,” the lawmakers wrote. “The House’s approach reflects a more pragmatic and compassionate standard, and we urge that it be retained in the final bill.”