OlDawg

Some items the Senate Parliamentarian shot down. Were going to be cost saving offsets. But, she thought they violated the Byrd Rule. (There were a lot more. But, this article had $$$ attached and the other varied articles didn’t.) [Hidden Content] I bet these rules are some of what Musk doesn’t understand, and leads to his frustration. Can’t say I blame him. To avoid the Byrd Rule, must have 60 votes. Don’t see that happening anytime in the near future.

Would have been good. But, didn’t accomplish it. 14 states plus D.C. offer Medicaid to illegal immigrants. All of them are Democratically led States. The Senate Parliamentarian stopped the Bill from not paying for any because of procedural issues. All the Bill was able to do was to cut Fed matching from .90 of every dollar to .50 of every dollar for uninsured ER visits. (So, taxpayers in Texas will still be paying for medical care for illegals in CA and 13 other states.) Thus, one of the major reasons the Bill costs more than originally planned. That, plus some last minute pork they always find a way to slide in. Dems or Reps. Both do it. [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

8725 according to CBP. 93% drop. [Hidden Content]

Depends on if you’re Airborne or Space Force. By the way, we had the grunts, the squids, and the pukes. What are the Space Force people? Space Pukes?

Not sure how much Texas will be affected by Medicaid & ACA cuts at this time. Texas wasn’t one of the 40 states that expanded coverage & took the Fed bribe money for Medicaid expansion. So, the hit will be a lot less than other states. The ACA looks like it will roll back the extra money for premiums that were added during COVID unless addressed before end of year in a separate measure. So, costs will go up by a decent amount. Also, the original requirement of income verification every year is coming back. (This was the original requirement anyway. You had to prequalify for a plan every year.) The sign up period has also been shortened. For ACA coverage, my recommendation is to use a broker. A good broker won’t charge you anything as they’re paid by the insurance companies via a ‘headhunter’ type fee. We’ve always used TXInsurance.com LLC. Husband & wife team. Been around a long time & provide a great service. They handle everything for you. No cost and you never even have to fight with Healthcare.gov. They do it all.

A financial explanation about the debt from someone knowledgeable. I’m for moving what can be moved to the State level after means testing to make sure it’s even necessary. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. It’s going to be a little painful because many have gotten used to big Fed socialism. A better job could have been done with cuts. But, you hear all the screaming at even what was done in this Bill. [Hidden Content]

Yes. DEI hire based on youth. Or, do you just see DEI through your personal racial lens?

They're thinking R3D1 with 7 of the Top 17? Wow. Going to be a tough row to hoe.

If we’re all access, where do you find the digital magazine? I’ve looked & can’t seem to find it.

Trying to decide if that’s a xxxx, reformed skinhead, or a not yet grown conehead…

No matter a person’s stance on abortion, I think it’s an interesting dichotomy that the Party that wants American women to have the right to abort an American baby right up until birth is the same Party that’s fighting so hard to let illegal immigrant mothers who have children on U.S. soil have the right for them to be born, live, and be American citizens. Seems ironic to me.

CBO has a credibility problem. They haven’t even been close in so long, they’re pretty irrelevant. DOGE ‘em. Save some money.

I'm leaning more and more to the fact that--as people begin to understand the real idiocy of universal birthright citizenship for people in the country illegally as class actions are attempted to be defined--more may understand this wasn't the true intent of the 14th or the Nationality code. SCOTUS may have given us a bigger clue than initially thought. A court would basically have to say their ruling is a pardon for breaking another law. Almost a chicken and egg scenario. Break the law, then get rewarded by the court system that's supposed to uphold the law? Are immigration laws any less important than the 14th? To me, anyone who says, “Because it’s in the Constitution” is just being intellectually lazy. Or, they really do have an agenda to change the electorate. (Of course, I dealt more with contract law than this other stuff. So, no expert by any means.)

Class actions require a few extra steps. Yes, can get same results. But, it will be interesting to see a court certify harm to a group of ‘future anchor babies’ since their parents are breaking the law. Create a law for those breaking the law by entering the country illegally? I could see the court easily certifying a class action for those here now. Especially, one of the judges that already ruled the EO unconstitutional. Future? Not quite sure that will fly. Will definitely take some twisting. How would the court define and certify harm to anyone from anywhere at any time in the future who happens to have a baby while on U.S. soil? Would seem overly broad for a certified class action. This question will be at SCOTUS again this fall as Bondi said. Meanwhile, it will stop at a judgement from an appeals court since SCOTUS doesn’t return until October. My thoughts.

Oh, the fear mongering for all the anchor babies over this ruling has been outstanding! 😂🤣 If you don’t get twisted in knots over that issue, apparently the entire public education system in this country is going to fail because parents can opt out of forced teaching their kindergartners about transsexuals and gay marriage in the public school system. Heaven help us all… Anyone for a little R.E.M. ‘End of the World’? [Hidden Content]

I think I’ll Pelosi this one.

A spokesperson for the Trump administration also told ProPublica that the "notion that this single office is responsible for preventing terrorism is not only incorrect, it's ignorant.” [Hidden Content] Yep. The ignorant thinking part sounds about right…

[Hidden Content]

When this decision is finally addressed it will be 6-2. Justice Jackson will have to excuse herself as she can’t even define what a woman is… Citizenship would be way out of her (it?) league.

OUCH! We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. Justice Barrett in Majority Opinion [Hidden Content]

Maybe less now after SCOTUS ruling this morning. While people—including me—think about birthright citizenship implications, it also just rendered void the ruling that stopped the Administration from not funding sanctuary cities. That was a nationwide injunction. There were a lot of cases effected by this ruling.

Strange behavior for a country that says they won… [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

I’m heading out for Goobers & popcorn in a little bit.

Overshadowed by SCOTUS ruling now.