Comments
231
Commenting has been turned off for this post
T-1000's avatar

The flood in TX.....

I look forward to The Free Press investigating to find the DEIs responsible.

Expand full comment
Scott A Miller's avatar

I like the tax cuts to tips, overtime and social security. Trump is putting money back in the pockets of most Americans. Let's see where this bill and the tariffs get us.

Mamdani is a disaster waiting to happen for NYC. People will be leaving in droves and tourism will get hurt as well. Broadway may have to turn off the lights...

Glad that Trump and Netanyahu are meeting this week. Hopefully, we can achieve a real, long-standing peace with Gaza. Most Gazans hate Hamas. Just ask them before Hamas gets a hold of them.

Expand full comment
Mark B's avatar

So I went to read a previous article, as a paid subscriber, and I must log in?

Expand full comment
Bob Park's avatar

The Babylon Bee gave us the same analysis as some of the TFP experts: "Millions of people died upon the passage of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill...At publishing time, death squads had begun hunting down Medicaid patients, just as Democrats had warned."

Expand full comment
Betty McDonald's avatar

"The Editors" let us know what they think ahead of the featured writers by referring to the CBO as nonpartisan, telling us 3 trillion "That's a lot!" and suggesting it's a "hit to the nation's finances." Larry Summers reminds me of Sara Jane Moore who tried to kill President Ford to prove to her peers she wasn't a government mole. Got it Lar!

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

Not being snarky.

If not $3 Trillion what do younthink it is and why?

Seriously trying to understand the arguement being made.

Expand full comment
TRHOC's avatar

Lanny,

My husband is a PhD Professor of Economics and International Trade. He also has a degree in Finance. He said you cannot project what this will “cost.” It is intended to promote trade, among a lot of other good things in the economy. If it does what it’s intended to do, it won’t “cost” but contribute.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

BUT if you can't project what it will cost how can you predict that it will "contribute?"

Expand full comment
John Boy West's avatar

How many projections of the Biden “Debt Reduction Bill” did we see? Accuracy in projections is in the eye of a DC Democrat. Did we factor in the obvious corruption involved in sending covid checks — like mail-in ballots in reverse — to multiple addresses and noncitizens? What is the waste and fraud factor? Is it accurate? Can we sue for the money back? Haha.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

John not sure who pissed in your Wheaties but slow down.

TRHOC made a non sequitir.

Not the end of the world.

Expand full comment
John Boy West's avatar

And you misspelled “sequitur” — it’s been a rough week.

Expand full comment
SR Miller's avatar

not a question about real dollars&cents: when ever Americans are allowed to retain more of their earnings the tax base grows, tax receipts increase, "cuts" are offset. remember/look up the Laffer Curve.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

Agreed when taxes are decreased revenues tend to go up.

BUT if spending rises even faster how does that help?

Expand full comment
SR Miller's avatar

It doesn’t, that was the problem with POTUS Reagan’s tax cuts in ‘81/‘82

Expand full comment
TRHOC's avatar

You can’t. Most government projections are based upon assumptions gained from past episodes. Time will tell.

Let me give a simpler answer. When I owned a small business, we had a recognizable pattern of growth and leveling every year. Using that data, we would “project” what gaining a major new account would do to our bottom line. However, all sorts of unexpected extraneous things could throw that projection off. Suppose got hit with a hurricane and lost 2 weeks of business—or the area had a sudden drop on unemployment making it difficult to fulfill the orders? Or suppose that getting that account so impressed their other vendors that they began using our service and business flourished?

The fact that the projections the US government offices have made in the past have so seldom been on target, tells you that it’s all guess work.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

Don't disagree with what you say.

BUT it is the best guess we have until someone can show me a better one.

Expand full comment
Rld's avatar

I’d argue that there’s no “best” or “better” guess. There’s just guesses. So how can you make an intelligent decision? You can’t. Just make a decision, cross your fingers and be ready to adjust if it doesn’t work.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

If true and it may well be we are in even deeper Kimchi than I feared.

Expand full comment
John Murphy's avatar

Or better?

Expand full comment
Betty McDonald's avatar

I don't necessarily dispute or affirm the number, just commenting on the Editors 's prelude that tips their slant. While they're entitled to it, usually you present the differing views first without a commentary. There are valid questions about the OBBB.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

Betty I agree with you 100%

Expand full comment
Mike Schmidt's avatar

The CBO number is based on the crazy assumption that Congress would have let the tax cuts expire. TL/DR: they are using the wrong baseline:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/senate-budget-bill-baseline-deficit-cbo-gop-tax-cuts-2acb565b?st=NUvL6F&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Expand full comment
SR Miller's avatar

the CBO uses static scoring, typically leaning in a big government direction; it should be using dynamic scoring -but that's too hard

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

I understand your objection to the CBO numbers

That isn't what I asked.

Expand full comment
Mike Schmidt's avatar

You asked "If not $3 Trillion what do younthink it is and why?" The article I link answers your question.

It's still WAY too much spending, but the CBO number is BS.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

Mike glad to have a reasoned discussion but not going to get into a battle of articles.

You and I are discussing the issue.

You are probably correct that the CBO is wrong but I am asking you what you think the number is and why.

For every artice you can refer me to I can refer you to an article but that leads nowhere.

Expand full comment
Mike Schmidt's avatar

I agree with the article. Read it if you'd like to be informed. It is a very good article that explains the baseline issue very well. It's been an issue for years with CBO estimates. The Obama admin even complained about it once.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

I'll carry on my discussion with the article.

You seem to be unable to state your position.

Expand full comment
Mike Schmidt's avatar

I never came here to state my position. I came here to link what I found to be a very informative article. If you refuse to read it, or just want a good old fashioned argument, I guess I'm sorry I disappointed you.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

No arguement needed or desired with folks who substitute reading assignments for thought.

Expand full comment
Mike Schmidt's avatar

It's a paywalled article, I found it to be very informative, so I thought I was doing everyone a favor by sharing it. If you don't think so, whatever...I don't really care about it as much as you apparently do. My position is I don't think the CBO should use the tax cuts expiring as the baseline. The article explains it much better than I can.

I notice you haven't staked out a position...you are only criticizing/questioning those who criticize the CBO. What's your position?

Expand full comment
John Hines's avatar

Anybody who can ask that question has to answer a different question first Do they like having 20,000,000 illegals in the US? The really, really ugly bill is a necessary but not necessarily sufficient beginning to sending them elsewhere.

Why do people whining about the really, really ugly bill not direct their complaints to the faux republicans who made a bad bill worse so their donors would member them after they leave the senate in 2026? Of course, the answer is that it's much safer to whine about the orange man than to whine about the donors and the senators who expect cushy jobs and buckets of money after they leave the senate.

The orange man may malign his critics but the donors will hurt the whiners where it hurts. In their pockets.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

My complaint about the OBBB is that it continues to increase spending.

Expand full comment
John Hines's avatar

Good argument. Except, without the realy realy ugly bill you get to live with 20,000,000 illegals. Which is worse, a country in increasing debt or a country with 20,000,000 illegals, most not giving an expletive-deleted about the increasing debt or the increasing crime or the increasing number of not-quite citizen liberal voters. Which is worse/

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

I would have voted for the OBBB but it is an obscene abortion.

Expand full comment
Judy Watson's avatar

What happened to the article on the boys who made slip knots and were accused of hating blacks by a town? Was so interesting to see how Soros or someone suddenly pulled a cord and the article disappeared.

Expand full comment
Jmac's avatar

Larry Summers just somehow tied all the drowned little girls in Texas to the Big Beautiful Bill. I think it's safe to say his judgement is impaired in any matters related to Trump.

Expand full comment
Jeanine Blackett Lutzenhiser's avatar

Much more controversial than the race box(es) Zohran Mamdani checked on his Columbia application is the alleged dark-money funding ($10m?!) of his “grassroots” campaign. FP, are you looking into that?

Expand full comment
Tomas Pajaros's avatar

ACT BLUE = huge scam, funneling big, dark money into Blue races pretending to be small donors.

Expand full comment
Stephen Paxson's avatar

How is it the selection of a photo of President Trump is informed by a desire to show him in a bad light??

Expand full comment
vsm's avatar
Jul 7Edited

"Is Trump's Big Bill Beautiful -- or a Disaster?" No need to bother with the article -- the title already exposes (and the intro confirms, if confirmation were necessary) FP's slant. Readers familiar with Econ 101 (or simple common sense) understand that when the "nonpartisan" CBO predicts the law will "add some $3 trillion to the public debt" (which FP helpfully describes as "a lot"), CBO does so with a static analysis, limited to numbers on paper. It does not provide a dynamic analysis that accounts for the real-world growth in revenue spurred by the tax cuts --revenue which is then taxed, making debt reductions possible. What tripe.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

NOT being snarky.

If you disagree with the CBO's number what do you believe it to be and why?

O

Expand full comment
vsm's avatar

I don't take it as snark, Lanny. The problem is that the CBO mistakenly views tax cuts as a fixed "cost" to the government -- rather than as an income-generator by the people who produced the wealth in the first place and will now be free to spend and invest it, growing the economy.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

I understand your arguement on the CBO number.

That wasn't my question.

Expand full comment
AmyS's avatar

I think you'll be a lot less disappointed in the FP if you actually read the article.

Expand full comment
David's avatar

Why does it keep randomly saying “Presented by” in the middle of articles?

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

I keep wondering why I can access some FP articles and am blocked from others. My comments box is always blocked, "reply" works and access to comments is always open.

Before the above mentioned complaints--I'd become selective about FP offerings. Placing an electronic middleman between the journalist and the subscriber is one thing. Placing a "board of directors" between access to truth/fact based depth journalism and my mind is another.

As I always like to point out: What you can't say owns you.

Expand full comment
Patricia's avatar

No bill that is big is beautiful. NO bill

should be more than two pages. No bill should be released right before it is to be voted on. No bill should be added to pander to different representatives. It is clear our government does not care about fiscal responsibility or the middle class.

Tyler I am tired of you being a shill for AI. AI is already costing jobs in our economy and it is going to continue because our government has no interest in regulating AI or protecting its citizens. My daughter a copywriter has been unable to get a new job because copywriting is being eliminated by AI. 10 years from now the dangers of AI and the destruction to our economy will be evident and the government and shills like you will have blown it.

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

It's the sell off of public lands (pretty much crickets in the press) that frightens me. The American commons has been seized and turned into a war zone. Now the new monarchy can seize American parks and her recreational areas at will. Having gutted and destroyed American cities it's time for the get away. "Posted-No Trespassing" coming soon.

Expand full comment
TxFrog's avatar

No parks, monuments or recreational areas were threatened by that provsion, only empty Bureau of Land Management or National Forest land. But that section was deleted from the bill anyway.

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

Thanks. I couldn't find information out side the Land Desk site. The parallels between what Brussels is doing to private property in Europe and what is happening Stateside worry me. I hope one of our intrepid subscription journalists does a report on what actually passed in this bill.--Stay strong. Stay clear. (Stay happy.)

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

Yawn.

Expand full comment
Patricia's avatar

That scared me too but I read that provision got dropped because of loud public outcry. I hope this is still true.

Expand full comment
k stone's avatar

I am past tired of TFP's armchair quarterbacks. The bill passed. We'll live the results soon enough.

Expand full comment
AmyS's avatar
Jul 7Edited

And if they don't write about it then others will shame them for their silent acceptance. Apparently there's no winning for the FP.

Expand full comment
k stone's avatar

Maybe writing the facts about what's in the bill instead of all opinion pieces would be a great start.

Expand full comment
paul goldberg's avatar

My only other comment is the tragic story in Texas.

This type of story has occurred many times along water locations including this river.

If someone can explain to me why do people who have had this tour of events occurred to them before they do not move the whole environment 1/2 miles away from the water??

It makes no sense to me and I make no light if the tragedy that occurred.

Expand full comment
Raises hand tentatively's avatar

There is a YouTube video taken from a bridge that showed the water rising over 20 feet in less than 40 minutes. The time to have headed for the hills was when the flood warnings were first issued not after the flood began.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XxiuIXIof_w&pp=ygULVGV4YXMgZmxvb2Q%3D

Expand full comment
paul goldberg's avatar

My only thought is that the whole camp should have been moved a long time ago 1/4 mile from the river.

There have been other stories of water disasters and I believe this river has flooded before.

Such a tragedy that might have been avoided.

Expand full comment
Mrs. Erika Reily's avatar

Yes, floods happen in the Hill Country but nothing on this scale, ever before.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

For the same reason folks don't move from the beach.

Expand full comment
paul goldberg's avatar

If you don't move from the beach and there has been previous disasters in that area then you are stupid.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

And people can make the risk/reward assessment they wish to make.

It is not be the decision I would make but that doesn't make them stupid.

Expand full comment
paul goldberg's avatar

When it comes to children's lives then there is stupidity involved.

If it is your own life then do as you please.

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

So your solution is what?

Or are you as usual just complaining?

Expand full comment
paul goldberg's avatar

I am making a comment based on the facts.

What world do you live in?

Expand full comment
Lanny's avatar

As usual you have no answers just complaints.

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

I suggest that the chasm splitting American reality between the billionaire managerial surveillance apparatus and the hard working citizens it feeds on requires a psyop capable of distorting all rational human thought and preventing consideration of practical solutions to the problems facing We the People. (14 GBU-57MOD "block busters" at a combined cost of 280 million dollars would buy a lot of flood control.) O.K.--I'm ranting--but how is it a million bucks spent on a classroom can't produce a child who can read? The D.C./CCP/EU/Davos Brussels boys and girls are all about other peoples money and other peoples labor. Mmmmmm tax largesse is so tasty. :)

Expand full comment
paul goldberg's avatar

sorry

i have no idea what you r talking about

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

Me either most of the time.

Expand full comment