House Republicans jumped to their feet to applaud Speaker Mike Johnson, who announced the vote tally as he presided over the floor. But members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus did not join in and largely stayed in their seats.
May 22, 2025
"The early-morning vote was 215 to 214, mostly along party lines. It was a crucial victory for what President Trump and Republicans are calling the 'big, beautiful bill.'"
"Trump Administration Live Updates: House Passes Bill to Deliver President’s Domestic Agenda" (NYT).
Posts
50 comments:
Unfortunately, what we needed was a much smaller beautiful Bill. We continue our slide as a country into bankruptcy. Fiscal responsibility is not a strong point of President Trump, and definitely not the Republicans. Disappointing, but not surprising.
The big beautiful deficit increase got passed.
Just win, baby.
Another bill most of the Republican base won't be happy with. *sigh* Thus is the nature of such a small majority, I guess. At least some of the right side of aisle have been trying to do something about the debt. Democrats, on the other hand, can sit down.
Scott Adams condemned this bill for failing to reduce the deficit. Adams, a long term Trump supporter, called Trump’s presidency “a complete failure” as a result of the passing of this bill.
GOP applauding enthusiastically while the few politicians who care about the debt, spending, and the decline in the quality of American citizens lives despair.
Little twerp Johnson is just what the Deep State ordered.
“House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters there should have been 217 GOP votes for the bill. Garbarino “fell asleep in the back” after the all-night session and inadvertently missed the vote, Johnson said. Schweikert slipped his electronic voting card into place after the vote had ended, Johnson said.”
I speculate a majority of MAGA wants balanced budgets and then surpluses to pay down the debt. W Bush R's want tax cuts. How about cutting the military, as we have a President who wants peace. 2024 DJT voter, and happy I voted DJT, but Dilbert Father has a good point.
Once again, as in 2017, the R's pass a huge bill and we have no idea what is really in it. Did he have money for more border security? Did it defund all the things that DOGE Found? We don't know because the MSM didn't tell us, and we were too busy talking about the Guitar airplane.
Good for Johnson. Over to you, Thune!
Mostly along party lines = as far as I can tell all the D's voted "No" or "Present". Zero votes for the bill. And even if one or two did, thats "Almost entirely" not "Mostly".
Deficit hawks need to understand that you're not going to get a balanced budget with a 10 voter majority in the house, and a RINO Controlled Senate.
Trump's admin actually ran a surplus last month. His budget and tax policy in his first term, despite all predictions, had us on a path to pay down the debt before COVID hit. Trump is the one Republican who understands like Reagan did that you have to grow your way out of bad finances. All the newly minted deficit hawklings don't impress me. Most of them opposed the Tea Party, which existed for the sole reason of fixing the Federal budget problems.
Tell me, exactly how many of the prior schemes to "pay as you go" and the like actually accomplished anything other than looking good on paper but failing IRL? Democrats and Unipartians love budget tricks, "PayGO!," but those tricks never pay off.
RCOCEAN II said...
“Mostly along party lines = as far as I can tell all the D's voted "No" or "Present". Zero votes for the bill. And even if one or two did, thats "Almost entirely" not "Mostly".”
In the real world, that’s true. But I seems to remember bills passed mostly by Democrats with just a few Republicans crossing the aisle as being “bi-partisan”.
Adams, a long term Trump supporter, called Trump’s presidency “a complete failure” as a result of the passing of this bill.
Wow. He would have considered Reagan's a failure too given the mini-recession of 1982. But it ignores the obverse. If Harris had one and continued the NGO and Leftists gravy train that Biden set in motion we would absolutely be heading deeper into debt with no hope of avoiding a total crash. With a pro-growth budget we put ourselves into position to refinance that debt-bomb that Biden engineered. Given the "experts" track record of being 100% wrong so far on Trump (remember that tariffs were supposed to spur sky-high inflation and the opposite happened) I am certainly willing to be patient. Putting Trump's policies into an actual budget (when was the last real budget passed?) now allows us time to let it take effect before the midterms next year.
I'm sure Trump is focused on that event just over the horizon.
EGOP trying to snatch defeat over victory. The Republican Party still isn’t tough enough.
We could cut the military to zero and pay the interest. We need the fed to drop rates, the economy to boom and then begin cutting. A lot of economic damage was done by Biden, we need to reverse that first.
Trump is not concerned about the debt.
Big and ugly. What, exactly, is the point of voting red these days?
So did ths bill include muh Senior Bonus? I'll take it!
Hope for the best, expect the worst
We’ll drink champagne, or die of thirst
No way of knowing, if this chance we’re blowing
Hope for the best, expect the worst
h/t Mel Brooks
Hope for the best, expect the worst
We’ll strive to save us, but Dems fucked us first
Their rampant spending, was never ending
Hope for the best, expect the worst
Remarkable to watch Republicans who claim the growing federal debt is a major threat to the United States vote this through. A broken political movement of short termism ideology.
There is some small print buried in this (SEC. 70302) which exempts Trump from contempt of court. This seems unimportant but it is the final nail in the coffin of justice in the USA: Trump had already declared himself immune, or proved himself in practice to be immune, from most other forms of prosecution.
“No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued”
There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law.
Hates trade deficits, loves budget deficits. Disgrace to actual fiscal conservatism.
So what’s the plan for getting the 10yr back to 3%?
We’re going to see how low the bottom is.
10Y 4.6 and 30Y 5.1 already.
Profligacy , my friends, Profligacy. The same disease that struck down our own beloved USA. Give, give. From the bottom of your hearts.
Give until you can give no more!
kaKAW is ca-CRAP
"...if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued”
Any of you lawyers, what does that last part mean?
We may be able to itemize again…WI taxes are hell
I’m glad the House passed something.
"...if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued”
Any of you lawyers, what does that last part mean?
Fed. Rule Civ. Procedure 65(c), 65(c) states “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” In other words, the party seeking the injunction must put up enough money to pay for any harm done if it turns out the injunction was not warranted. The rule exempts the U.S. government from the bond requirement; the section noted by Kack, assuming he is correct and the big beautiful bill actually says what he quoted (I haven't checked), would effectively overrule this exemption and put the government in the same shoes as any other plaintiff in federal court. And no, it does not render Trump immune from injunctions, and the government can of course afford to post bond - they can just print the money. ffs.
The United States, its officers, and its agencies are not required to give security.
An underwhelming bill at best, considering the public sentiments at this time for reforms. Big beautiful status quo.
If gradual change is a virtue even in times of extreme corruption, then this is something.
There are two ways to reduce the deficit: reduce spending or increase revenue/productivity. Aborting the seniors, dependants, and babies would be a wicked solution.
30-year Treasury bond now yields 5.15%
Congratulations, GOP. đŸ¥³
The Deficit Is Unsettling Bond Traders. Here’s How That Affects the Economy. ~ WSJ
‘The trade war has calmed down, but rising government borrowing costs pose a new worry’
Trump’s new budget means a record deficit of 7% of US economic output.
That means all borrowing is about to get more expensive.
It’s a universal tax on us all.
It doesn't matter- a district judge will issue an injunction against the bill because it only had 215 votes rather than 218.
"There is some small print buried in this (SEC. 70302) which exempts Trump from contempt of court."
Lay out your case, Bich, for what penalties, today, any court could levy against a sitting President for contempt of court. In other words, what would actually be changed by this bill?
A requirement that a bond be posted in order for an injunction against the administration to be enforceable via contempt doesn't go far enough, IMO. Under the traditional understanding of checks and balances, the "check" against misuse of presidential power is impeachment. The Constitution doesn't give courts the right to enjoin a president from taking actions or pursuing policies that a judge deems unlawful and harmful to somebody's interests. If the courts were intended to hold that kind of power over the president under the Constitution, wouldn't Hamilton, Madison, and Jay have mentioned it in the Federalist Papers?
Would 5 SCOTUS justices even find this constitutional?
It retroactively makes every federal court order without some sort of bond essentially unenforceable.
Maybe it could survive scrutiny on future court orders, but the separation of powers issues seem like too much. Contempt is an inherent power of the courts.
"but the separation of powers issues"
Separation of powers doesn't apply to any court but the Supreme Court and there only for original jurisdiction granted in the Constitution. All other courts are a direct application of power by Congress.
Kak (8:23): Dumber and dumber. The provision exempts everybody from contempt, not Trump. It requires a bond to promote good faith litigation. And tell us Kak, if Trump doesn’t want a contempt citation enforced, how will it be enforced.
What do you guys think- did Bich call the top in long dated Treasury yields or not?
Bill supporters claiming $1.6 trillion in savings. Compared to current law, I guess. And over 10 years, I assume.
I wish we had a press who diligently reported facts upon which informed opinions could be based.
Remember Bich's concern over the deficit during the Biden administration? Yeah, me neither.
A few days ago, I saw a meme over at facebook saying that the budget bill didn't remove income taxes on tips and overtime and that "If you voted for Trump, you got played." And my far left friends ate it up. That's how bad the propaganda has gotten.
I also see a lot of Republicans complaining about this bill but the thing about politics is that you very rarely get everything that you want in politics. You have to take the wins on some issues and keep working to win some more.
In California, they're trying to pass Leno's Law. It would exempt cars over 35 years old from the smog check. But the problem is that the state will lose the $9 smog certificate fee for those cars. California will not allow for that kind of revenue loss. They could have added a clause to the bill giving California a $9 classic car fee to make this bill revenue neutral, but they didn't. They were like, "California already gets too much of my money so I won't agree to pay them anything!"
So this bill will probably fail and they'll still have to pay the $9 smog certificate fee to the state and the $100 (or more) mechanic's fee for doing the smog check every two years. (California is seriously still requiring smog checks on vehicles that are a half century old now!)
People have to learn that you can't play "my way or the highway" with the government." The way you win is to chip away at things a little each year rather than demanding it all at once. (Because you're not going to get it all at once.)
The real public interest rate for Europe is at about 50-60% of the real US rate which augurs for a fundamental rebalancing between the US and European economies. This will necessarily rebalance valuations. The coming Trump-Republican budget-tax combo will further widen the gap. The US is likely to face years of oscillations in their interest rate caused by budget crises and trade problems exacerbating inflation.
Real increases in European defense spending will lead to significant security improvement relative to threats from Putin's Russia which will increase geopolitical standing and international prestige. American defense spending continues to be consumed by an overall failed foreign policy towards the Greater Middle East and the Global South in general. (Giving the president of South Africa the "Zelensky treatment" inside the Oval Office shows that America has gone uncouth in an unprecedented manner. The white racism is omnipresent and palpable.)
American power is pivoting on the reign of its most incompetent president ever and one of the weakest Congresses since before the Civil War.
"Aborting the seniors, dependants, and babies would be a wicked solution."
At least the ones over 120 years old.
WSJ: "But [the budget bill] also features more spending restraint than the Biden Democrats ever offered. Meanwhile, the extension of the 2017 tax reform is the biggest gesture anyone in Washington is making in the direction of economic growth. It’s preposterous to argue that a bill that largely extends current law is suddenly causing investors to flee U.S. assets.
Preposterous, but that won’t stop the Keynesian left and big-spending right from trying. The template is Britain in 2022, when a bad market reaction to monetary-policy mistakes and a moderately ambitious tax-cut package from Prime Minister Liz Truss triggered a mini financial panic in pension funds.
…
After Ms. Truss was defenestrated, Britain sank into a high-tax, high-spending, high-inflation malaise from which it has yet to recover. If you still think global investors hate the Republican budget, wait to see what happens if it doesn’t pass."
Look, ma, I can cut-n-paste too!
The big beautiful deficit increase got passed.
Yeah. Because Democrats have nothing to do with us being nearly $37 trillion in debt.
Listen, I don't like it either but you've got absolutely no room to talk.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.