"
The Atlantic,[158] CNBC,[159] The New York Times,[160] and Vox[135] argued that the bill would create the largest upward transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in American history, with Fortune[161] and CNN[162] nicknaming it the "Reverse Robin Hood Bill". Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) mockingly called the bill the "We're All Going to Die Act",[163] alluding to comments made by Republican Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) at a town hall.[164]
Public health and policy researchers at Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania sent a letter to Senate leaders warning that cuts to health programs in the bill would lead to over 51,000 preventable deaths annually.[165][166]
Many Democratic and legal organizations have shared warnings about the expansion of immigration enforcement.[167][141] Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shared, "I don’t think anyone is prepared for what they just did w/ ICE. This is not a simple budget increase. It is an explosion – making ICE bigger than the FBI, US Bureau of Prisons, DEA, and others combined. It is setting up to make what’s happening now look like child’s play. And people are disappearing."[167]
The nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation found that the bill's efforts to dismantle clean energy incentives would cost more than 830,000 jobs across the country.[168] Cutting clean energy incentives would also raise energy costs for households,[169][170] with wholesale power prices rising by roughly 50 percent by 2035 due to the loss of new generation capacity.
Moody's, which rates bonds, was the final of the three credit rating agencies to downgrade U.S. debt from AAA, citing efforts to pass the bill.[171]
Polling indicates that a majority of Americans opposed its previous provisions to ban state regulation of artificial intelligence.[172][173] The provision was seen as irresponsible by researchers who believe that artificial superintelligence is imminent.[174][175][176] Others feared that it would have prevented regulation of AI-generated child pornography and deepfakes, made certain privacy laws obsolete, and further centralized power in the federal government.[177][178] Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) stated that she would have voted against the bill if it had returned to the House with the restrictions on AI legislation.[179]
Elon Musk, then-de facto head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), denounced the bill as a massive spending bill;[180][181][182] he later called it a "disgusting abomination."[183][184] Some Republican senators have come out in support of Musk's opinion.[185] Republican opposition to the bill has been associated with the libertarian faction of the party.[186] As Rand Paul backed Musk's criticism of the bill, others have criticized Paul's Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee proposals for requiring new federal employees to be required to pay a higher FERS contribution rate if they opt for Title 5 benefits while "at will" employees would pay a lower FERS contribution rate. The concern is that the increase in the number of at-will federal employees could allow the president to eliminate a large number of employees for any reason.[187] The bill is credited with starting a public feud between Musk and Trump.[188]
John Hatton, staff vice president for policy and programs at National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), warned about the following:[189]
It would tax retirement benefits, creating a 5% pay cut for somebody under the system, while also undermining the merit-based civil service by having an additional 5% cut if you decide to retain those merit-based civil service protections. Those protections don’t exist for the purpose of the employee — they exist to protect against politically based firings of federal employees.
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) National President Everett Kelley stated that:[190]
This so-called reconciliation bill is in fact a big retaliation bill—retaliation against AFGE and other unions for successfully standing up for our members and fighting this administration’s illegal attempts to obliterate our federal agencies and the patriotic civil servants who run our federal programs. These provisions represent a direct assault on federal employees and their labor unions and will make it that much harder for federal agencies to recruit and retain the qualified employees they desperately need to serve the American public.
The 2001 recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, Joseph Stiglitz, was asked about the OBBBA in an interview with Swiss Radio and Television (SRF) as to how he would describe the legislation, to which he had replied:[191]
Outrageous. It exacerbates inequality and social division – one of the main problems of the USA. It deprives vulnerable groups of access to health care. Life expectancy is already declining, and the health differences between rich and poor are enormous. This law exacerbates this.
On June 28, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said of the Senate version of the bill:[192]
Although we have not produced a full estimate of the bill, it appears to add roughly $4 trillion to the debt through 2034, including interest – which is roughly $1 trillion higher than the House-passed version of the bill. That cost could rise above $5 trillion if temporary provisions were made permanent.
The nonpartisan Tax Foundation had mixed opinions of the bill, saying it made "some smart cuts", in particular praising the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 which it argued would provide stability for households. It also expressed support for its impacts on counting international business income. It criticized the political nature of the bill, calling it filled with carve-outs and political gimmicks that increased the complexity of the tax code. It also criticized the bill's non-equal application of taxation on citizens.[193]
The Economist described the bill's policies and passage as an example of "America's creeping dysfunction", criticizing its impact on increasing the deficit and describing its tax cuts as "gimmicks". It also criticized Trump's handling of the economy more broadly, saying the bill "illustrates the long-term damage Mr Trump is doing to the foundations of America's economy" and describing its passage as exacerbating the effects of Trump's attacks on the Federal Reserve, defunding of scientific research, high tariff policy, and erosion to the rule of law. It described these cumulative effects as threatening America's economic stability and making it a riskier place to invest.[194]
The New York Times criticized Trump and his Republican allies' promotion of the bill, finding they made multiple false and misleading statements about the bill's impacts with inaccurate claims.[195] It also described it as filled with "a series of novel, populist and temporary cuts that Mr. Trump cooked up during the 2024 campaign to try to win the support of key constituencies" and that it was ultimately an "apotheosis of a traditionally conservative, supply-side philosophy". It described it as "generating little additional economic growth and still returning the largest savings to the rich". It interviewed several conservative tax experts and former Republican aides who described it as "incoherent" and clinging to a traditional Republican economic agenda, only partially offering more temporary benefits to the working class paid for by cutting Medicaid and federal food assistance and refusing to raise taxes on the rich.[196]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism
"
The Daily Telegraph stated in April 2008 that the programme of the next non-Conservative government, with Tony Blair's "New Labour" organisation governing the nation throughout the 1990s and 2000s, basically accepted the central reform measures of Thatcherism such as deregulation, privatisation of key national industries, maintaining a flexible labour market, marginalising the trade unions and centralising power from local authorities to central government.[7] While Blair distanced himself from certain aspects of Thatcherism earlier in his career, in his 2010 autobiography A Journey, he argued both that "Britain needed the industrial and economic reforms of the Thatcher period" and as well that "much of what she wanted to do in the 1980s was inevitable, a consequence not of ideology but of social and economic change."[8]
"
Alright, enough of that!
I was amazingly thinking of writing something on the forum, possibly a new thread but I'll probably just write it here in this thread, called "Let Me Be ("Bad")":
https://youtu.be/61i2iDz7u04?feature=shared
What that was going to be about was the idea that people use force and coercive methods and threats to make others do things that they think are good and to restrict them from or to punish them for doing things that they think are "bad", but which actually may be good thing or at least things that a person wants to do or could benefit from and which are not necessarily invasive in the way the people thinking they are doing the good are going about it.
For example, and this is just an example, one can imagine that after what we have seen and heard about the society in a certain country, and the supposed popularity of what is going on and being done there among a certain population, that one would want nothing ever to do with such people, for example refusing to do business with N*z*s or s*rial k*lling m*ss m*rderers, never to forgive them, never wanting to look at them or be around them, never wanting to enrich them or assist them, even if they merely had it in their heart and mentality to support and cheer on atrocities.
Yet that would be considered "bad", "unfair", "prejudicial", "bigoted", and every coercive measure would be put into play to make ever getting "caught" as even an "avoider" and "non-participant" and "un-cooperative" could ruin your life and prospects, and so with no other options, one might for survival have to "swallow sh*t" and let the r*pists of one's mother for example become enriched and given further power instead of being punished or k*lled as a more natural sense of justice and retribution might demand, potentially leading to such serious consequences in an unjustly "gamed" system favoring the worst predatory actors and exploiters to the detriment of the majority and the ordinary.
The mechanisms of control through threats have also gone so far as to try to impose silence in some cases and vocalizing support for things without really wanting to, lip service for ideologies and changes that don't even represent one's beliefs, things that are contrary to one's feelings and desires have to be agreed to and obeyed and participated in, even if abhorred or that they go against one's own beliefs and ideas but there is no protection from the harm that refusal may bring from those trying to impose accession. If an individual is deemed discriminatory, they can be punished, one way or another, sometimes they become open to attacks without any serious or at least less serious protections because they "asked for it" by "not doing the thing" or even just "being bad", like interpreted as "rude":
https://wyofile.com/wyoming-cites-law-t ... not-apply/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ecology/commen ... ercent_of/
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/28/nx-s1-49 ... yoming-bar
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput_lupinum
"
Caput lupinum (transl. wolf's head) or caput gerat lupinum (transl. may he wear a wolfish head) are terms used in the English legal system and its derivatives. The terms were used in Medieval England to designate a person pronounced by the authorities to be a dangerous criminal, who could thus be killed without penalty.
"
"
The Latin term caput lupinum literally means "wolf's head" or "wolfish head", and refers to a person considered to be an outlaw, as in, e.g., the phrase caput gerat lupinum ("may he wear a wolfish head" / "may his be a wolf's head"). Black's Law Dictionary, 8th edition reads "an outlawed felon considered a pariah – a lone wolf – open to attack by anyone."[1]
"
"
Caput lupinum or caput gerat lupinum are used in the English legal system and its derivatives.[2] The terms were used in Medieval England to designate a person pronounced by the authorities to be a dangerous criminal whose rights had been waived, who could thus be legally harmed or killed without penalty by any citizen.[3]
The term caput lupinum is first recorded in the text Leges Edwardi Confessoris as a law attributed to the 11th century ruler Edward the Confessor. This law stated that a man who refused to answer a summons from the king's justice for a criminal trial would be condemned as a Caput lupinum.[4]
The thirteenth-century writer on law, Henry de Bracton, wrote in his book De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae that outlaws "gerunt caput lupinum"- "bear the wolf's head." Bracton added that this meant that outlaws could thus be killed without judicial inquiry.[5]
The fourteenth-century English legal textbook The Mirror of Justices stated that anyone who was accused of a felony, who refused three times to attend county courts, would be declared Caput lupinum or "Wolfshead". The book added ""Wolfshead!" shall be cried against him, for that a wolf is a beast hated of all folk; and from that time forward it is lawful for anyone to slay him like a wolf." [3]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cry_Wolf
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crybully
"
a person who self-righteously harasses or intimidates others while playing the victim, especially of a perceived social injustice.
"
It’s just another group of crybullies who can’t cope with anyone’s views but their own.
"
"
Speaking of such things, I am in completely insane amounts of physical pain as I've been writing these things recently, some kind of issue in the lower intestine or something, but I do not want to go to the hospital.
So to what was written in the original post and also concerning the further things that I mentioned, I personally prefer as little interference in my life or the lives of any close to me from really anyone, but especially groups wielding their various forms of force, including governments and governing bodies and managers and "bosses" as much as possible.
Since governance can apparently only best be avoided in some ways and interaction minimized rather than done away with in the conditions of living in nations and near others "within laws", then I believe it should exclusively work in the favor of the ordinary masses, providing services and benefits for as many as possible while taking as little as possible and asking for nothing or as close to nothing as can possibly be attained, and that is what people should always be pushing for and nothing else, and should remove from power as soon as they can anyone with any evidence of power hungriness and gaming the system and resources away from public use and benefit.
People should aim to "live like Kings and Queens", at the highest standard, all, without a separated out difference between any groups or classes of people, like how society can appear divided between a few "haves" and many more "have nots".
I don't believe in or trust governance or concentrations of resources that are horded up by the trusted overseers who somehow always happen to be predatory people who purposefully chose those positions to misappropriate resources and use them to protect themselves and whoever they favor and to keep all the rest at bay with increasingly severe measures to keep them suppressed and away from prosperity and even the conditions to allow for personal growth, thought, prosperity, or happiness.
I'll say more later if I survive this, lol, the pain is way too much to continue to type any more.
This part was meant to ne the introduction only.
