mugatu
Sheriff
It wasn't learned directly from a signal chat so it counts as a leak this time.
Trump 47
- Thread starter PF5
- Start date
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Wall Street Journal editorial Board BLAST Trump's new Plan to back off Medicaid Cuts and instead cap prices for all Drugs covered under Medicaid at the cheapest rate they go for in other countries as a means to reduce Medicaid Spending. It is worth noting that ALL drug price coverage paid by Medicaid now represents just 4% of Medicaid's total Spend. The board argues even if you gave Drugs away to Medicaid Patients all 100% covered it would come no where close to cutting the $880 BILLION cut to Medicaid spending that needs to happen that the GOP has already voted in
"President Trump and Republicans appear to be shrinking from reforming Medicaid, but that’s not the worst of it," wrote the board. "To replace the spending slowdown they won’t get in Medicaid, they may expand drug price controls. For that trade we could have elected Democrats."
"Drug price controls are a Democratic perennial," the board concluded. "If Republicans go along with Mr. Trump’s most-favored-nation plan, Democrats will invariably extend it to Medicare and the commercial market next time they control Congress. If Republicans lack the courage to reform Medicaid, they should at least do no harm."
The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board trashed President Donald Trump's new idea to give Americans pricing relief as his "worst idea since tariffs," and potentially disastrous for prescription drug markets.
Specifically, the board wrote, Trump's idea would be to cap prices for prescription drugs covered under Medicaid at the cheapest rate they go for in other developed countries. This, they warned, would have severe unintended consequences — and wouldn't even make a dent in replacing the spending cuts the GOP is struggling to get the votes for in their budget reconciliation bill.
"Medicaid already receives hefty discounts for drugs under statutory formulas that require manufacturers to kick back a share of a medicine’s price to states in a rebate. Medicaid rebates in 2023 amounted to 52% of the program’s drug spending. Because Democrats in 2021 removed a cap on these rebates, state Medicaid programs may pay nothing for some drugs," said the report. "Drugs accounted for less than 4% of Medicaid spending ($21.2 billion) in 2023. The feds spent 10 times more on hospital payments. Even if Republicans required drug makers to give away medicines to Medicaid, savings wouldn’t come close to $880 billion."
Meanwhile, they wrote, this would actually cost more money in the long run.
"Drugs actually reduce Medicaid spending by preventing complications that require expensive hospital care. Take hepatitis C antiviral drugs, which have a 95% cure rate. A treatment course can cost upward of $24,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that expanding Medicaid patient access to these drugs would save $7 billion over a decade."
The real risk, the board wrote, is that drug manufacturers would withdraw from Medicaid altogether rather than pay these rates, leaving more people to get sick and putting Medicaid on the hook for more expensive, drug-preventable illnesses.
"Drug price controls are a Democratic perennial," the board concluded. "If Republicans go along with Mr. Trump’s most-favored-nation plan, Democrats will invariably extend it to Medicare and the commercial market next time they control Congress. If Republicans lack the courage to reform Medicaid, they should at least do no harm."
"President Trump and Republicans appear to be shrinking from reforming Medicaid, but that’s not the worst of it," wrote the board. "To replace the spending slowdown they won’t get in Medicaid, they may expand drug price controls. For that trade we could have elected Democrats."
"Drug price controls are a Democratic perennial," the board concluded. "If Republicans go along with Mr. Trump’s most-favored-nation plan, Democrats will invariably extend it to Medicare and the commercial market next time they control Congress. If Republicans lack the courage to reform Medicaid, they should at least do no harm."
'Worst idea since tariffs': WSJ's conservative editors beg GOP to block Trump's new whim
The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial board trashed President Donald Trump's new idea to give Americans pricing relief as his "worst idea since tariffs," and potentially disastrous for prescription drug markets.
Specifically, the board wrote, Trump's idea would be to cap prices for prescription drugs covered under Medicaid at the cheapest rate they go for in other developed countries. This, they warned, would have severe unintended consequences — and wouldn't even make a dent in replacing the spending cuts the GOP is struggling to get the votes for in their budget reconciliation bill.
"Medicaid already receives hefty discounts for drugs under statutory formulas that require manufacturers to kick back a share of a medicine’s price to states in a rebate. Medicaid rebates in 2023 amounted to 52% of the program’s drug spending. Because Democrats in 2021 removed a cap on these rebates, state Medicaid programs may pay nothing for some drugs," said the report. "Drugs accounted for less than 4% of Medicaid spending ($21.2 billion) in 2023. The feds spent 10 times more on hospital payments. Even if Republicans required drug makers to give away medicines to Medicaid, savings wouldn’t come close to $880 billion."
Meanwhile, they wrote, this would actually cost more money in the long run.
"Drugs actually reduce Medicaid spending by preventing complications that require expensive hospital care. Take hepatitis C antiviral drugs, which have a 95% cure rate. A treatment course can cost upward of $24,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that expanding Medicaid patient access to these drugs would save $7 billion over a decade."
The real risk, the board wrote, is that drug manufacturers would withdraw from Medicaid altogether rather than pay these rates, leaving more people to get sick and putting Medicaid on the hook for more expensive, drug-preventable illnesses.
"Drug price controls are a Democratic perennial," the board concluded. "If Republicans go along with Mr. Trump’s most-favored-nation plan, Democrats will invariably extend it to Medicare and the commercial market next time they control Congress. If Republicans lack the courage to reform Medicaid, they should at least do no harm."
JTOSU
Ranger
The video you linked is Grothman talking about his disdain for increasing the SALT tax deduction.View attachment 11364
MAGA Congressman Glenn Grothman just exploded and had a public meltdown on the House floor because working families receive too many basic needs programs like Medicaid and SNAP.
CALL TO ACTIVISM (@calltoactivism) on Threads
MAGA Congressman Glenn Grothman just exploded and had a public meltdown on the House floor because working families receive too many basic needs programs like Medicaid and SNAP. My god.www.threads.com
Polds4OSU
Marshall
I deleted because that is 100% the wrong video. He is the co sponsor behind two major pushes by House Republicans to Reform SNAP benefits right now
1st. controversial bill he is supporting....Make the States pay for SNAP with an adjustable rate based on their Error Rate in SNAP Benefits Administration in the State
Move 10%- 25% of all SNAP costs to the States by 2028 and make States pay that and their rate determined by Error Rate in Benefits Admin at the state level
Require adults with children over the age of 7 to hold a job at least once every 3 months in order to stay on SNAP. If passed 3 million Americans and 4 Million Kids living with them would instantly lose SNAP
This despite
92% of Adult SNAP recievers in 2024 had at least some income in 2024 and had worked
Many are arguing cost sharing “doesn’t cut any benefit. The only way a benefit would be cut if a state said, ‘Well, we don’t want to pay our fair share.’ Okay, yeah, that’s a state decision. That’s not a federal decision.”
Democrats, meanwhile, are arguing that Republicans are just moving to blaming states for cuts to SNAP that they know they would have to make.
“Just a 10 percent cost share, if they choose to move in that direction, is a $400 million-a-year hit to the state of Pennsylvania. It is $4.27 billion over the next 10 years,” House Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said in a press conference on Tuesday.
Republicans propose changes to SNAP benefits: here's who's impacted
The plan, part of a broader "Trump megabill," is one of the most significant potential overhauls to the nation's primary anti-hunger program in decades.
www.newsweek.com
2nd. controversial bill he co authored - Healthy SNAP Act of 2025
the Healthy SNAP Act—that would exclude "soft drinks, candy, ice cream and prepared desserts" from being purchased using SNAP benefits.
The Govt would maintain a list of what the Government defines as "Healthy and UnHealthy" Foods and Every 5 years the Govt would amend and review this list and restricts SNAP benefits recipients from buying food the Govt Doesn't consider Healthy for them.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Interesting
The complaint accuses both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies, or administratively supporting those actions, which they argue are the "core functions" of the judiciary.
It also argues that records held by the Roberts-led U.S. Judicial Conference should therefore be subject to the Freedom of Information Act requests, or FOIA requests, as a result.
link
“In our constitution, the judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down acts of Congress or acts of the president,” he said. “And that innovation doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent.”
“Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence,”
Link
Trump-aligned group founded by Stephen Miller sues Chief Justice John Roberts in effort to restrict power of the courts
The complaint accuses both the U.S. Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of resolving cases or controversies, or administratively supporting those actions, which they argue are the "core functions" of the judiciary.
It also argues that records held by the Roberts-led U.S. Judicial Conference should therefore be subject to the Freedom of Information Act requests, or FOIA requests, as a result.
link
Chief Justice John Roberts Claps Back at MAGA Calls to Impeach Judges
“In our constitution, the judiciary is a coequal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down acts of Congress or acts of the president,” he said. “And that innovation doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent.”
“Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require a degree of independence,”
Link
PF5
Sheriff
WTF...we are the laughingstock of the world...
abcnews.go.com
Republican-led House will vote to make Trump's Gulf of America into law
The Republican-led House is set to vote Thursday on a bill to make the Gulf of Mexico's name change to Gulf of America permanent.
mugatu
Sheriff
Is there an allowance for people on disability, caregivers or retirees?
Polds4OSU
Marshall
I'm not sure...but one thing about the bill that would just Rock seniors and low income families
The bill also calls to overhaul the thrifty Food Plan which determines how much allotment per month each SNAP user gets
The bill would require SNAP benefit increases to be 100% cost neutral...meaning the cost of the program could never go up..meaning any changes in additional benefits would be required to cut already existing benefits so as to not increase costs
Meaning people will get the same payout benefits from snap regardless of what food prices do...so if prices on food go up ...SNAP won't give u more money, you just get to buy less with it
Last edited:
Typical, gotta save the bucks for the tax cuts for people who couldn’t care less about the cost of foods
Polds4OSU
Marshall
What are the goals of the subcommittee?
Greene during the first House DOGE subcommittee hearing said that the panel would "fight the war on waste shoulder to shoulder" alongside Trump, Musk, and the White House DOGE office."We as Republicans and Democrats can still hold tightly to our beliefs, but we are going to have to let go of funding them in order to save our sinking ship," she said.
Since February 2025, the subcommittee has held several hearings, with the focus areas highlighting improper government payments, funding for NPR and PBS, and the federal government's real estate portfolio.
Marjorie Taylor Greene buried over her committee hearing meltdown
On Wednesday, a Delivery of Government Efficiency (DOGE) subcommittee hearing held by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) held just their 3rd Even meeting and it went off the rails when Greene — who chairs the subcommittee -- decided to open the Department of Government Efficiency subcommittee meeting by complaining about transgender athletes in volleyball and fencingThe far-right Georgia Republican convened the hearing to complain about transgender female athletes competing in women's sports like volleyball and fencing, even though the subcommittee is ostensibly for discussing government efficiency. At one point, Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), who is the ranking member of the subcommittee, interjected to register her opposition to the meeting itself. This prompted an outburst from Greene, who repeatedly banged the gavel as her Democratic counterpart spoke.
"To the trans community, we stand with you, with the LGBTQ+ community, we stand with you, and you can raise your eardrums all you want, Madam Chair, but we stand with the LGBTQ+ community, and you can gavel me to order," Stansbury said.
"This hearing will come to order," Greene said as she banged the gavel.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, used his time to opine that Greene was using culture war issues to distract from accusations that she inappropriately used her knowledge as a member of key committees to profit from trading stocks.
"I’m sure fencing is a great sport but what the hell are we doing here?" Casar said. "We’re here because Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks that if she picks on vulnerable people, she can avoid having a discussion about the allegations of insider trading against her."
Several Democrats harangued Greene during the hearing, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who, like Greene, is a member of the powerful House Oversight Committee. At one point, Crockett raised a point of order, asking: "Out of curiosity, is the chairwoman allowed to editorialize before every speaker on the Democratic side speaks, or is that part of her time which we know that she went over?"
"It's not a point of order. You're taking Ms. Stansbury's time. I know you're trying to be chair of Oversight, but Ms. Stansbury is the ranking member—"
"Chair would be better on this side, I do agree with that," Crockett quipped.
On Bluesky, Rep. Emily Randall (D-Wash.) called out Greene for convening the hearing, which she called a "complete waste of time" and a "sad excuse to bully young people on the taxpayers' dime." And liberal pundit Art Candee observed that at one point, Greene appeared unsure of basic parliamentary procedure as she looked to an aide for confirmation before telling a member of the subcommittee that they were free speak without objection.
"What an embarrassment," Candee wrote.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Elon Musk’s Starlink Is Benefiting From Tariff Negotiations. 7 Countries have now fast tracked and approved Starlink as an Internet Satellite provider while at the same time also participating in Tariff Negotiations with the US
The tiny African nation of Lesotho now joins Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Pakistan, Somalia, and Vietnam in fast tracking and approving Elon Musk's StarLink as an official govt recognized Satellite internet providerThe Post highlights the small nation of Lesotho, which was inexplicably subjected to a 50% tax when Trump first announced his so-called “reciprocal” penalties (which turned out to be the result of some sort of very strange, nonsensical formula that may or may not have come from a chatbot). Two weeks after the tariffs were announced, Lesotho leadership met with representatives of Starlink, which had been trying to get a foothold in the country for some time prior, and signed a deal to make the company Lesotho’s first-ever satellite internet service.
Coincidences happen, of course. It’s just that, according to the Post, they’re happening pretty regularly right now with Starlink. Around the same time as the tariffs were being discussed and implemented, Starlink also struck deals to provide service in parts of Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Pakistan, Somalia, and Vietnam.
In the case of Lesotho, a memo obtained by the Post makes it clear that there’s an attempt to curry favor happening: “As the government of Lesotho negotiates a trade deal with the United States, it hopes that licensing Starlink demonstrates goodwill and intent to welcome U.S. businesses,” the internal State Department communication read. It’s hard to imagine that other nations haven’t had similar thoughts of strategically aligning themselves with a company run by a Trump White House employee in order to get some relief.
The Trump administration has not been explicitly pushing Starlink on these companies, according to the report, but it has been encouraging countries to do business with US-based satellite internet firms, and there happens to be one very big, prominent one that comes to mind. And it certainly seems like countries are treating Starlink favorably. India, for example, reportedly sped up the approvals process for the company in an effort to grease the wheels for trade deals, per the Post.
mugatu
Sheriff
That SUCKS when not indexed to inflation.
Is that benefit per person or total that has to be cost neutral?
mugatu
Sheriff
Hmmmm wonder why Musk spent money to help get Trump in office.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
That's the Issue. The Biden Admin had passed what was supposed to be a permanent update to the program in 2021 after studies showed that the avg SNAP benefit at the time run $121 per person per month and that money in a Post Pandemic and Inflation increased environment was NOT enough money to sustain each individual for a full month with a healthy diet.
Prior to this the SNAP benefits review there was No Required and set review and update time period for SNAP. When the Biden Admin conducted the review in 2021..the SNAP benefits had not been reviewed and studied for any changes since 2006...when the $121 per person avg was set.
The Biden Admin via research determined that that 2006 funding per person was no longer valid in a Post Pandemic and inflation heavy environment and also determined the program needed to be reviewed more often and consider things such as inflation etc to prevent this in the future.
so the Biden Admin altered the Program, Put in a requirement that the funding output per person be reviewed and updated if needed once every 5 years and increased SNAP payouts to an avg of $157 per month per person...or roughly $0.40 per meal per person per day
This resulted in the overall cost of SNAP to increase by 12%.....this on top of an already emergency increase in SNAP benefits of 15% that Congress passed due to COVID, but it expired on Sept 20th 2024.
Congress emergency fund and Biden Admin increase with the first review in benefits done in 15 years resulted in SNAP benefits costs increasing 27% from 2021 to 2024, but now is back down to 12% funding increase from 2006 to 2021 as the COVID emergency increase has since expired
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Brussels takes big step in the trade war: will denounce Trump before the WTO and is preparing a response of $95 Billion in tariffs on US made products
Trade negotiations between Brussels and Washington are not progressing. Unlike the agreement between the UK and the US, the European Union does not see positive steps being taken to avoid a trade war between both sides of the Atlantic. Therefore, the European Commission is hardening its position with two relevant measures: it will denounce Donald Trump before the World Trade Organization (WTO) and has already launched a public consultation to apply tariffs worth up to 95,000 million on US products.
The list presented by Brussels contains about 2,000 products, and among the affected sectors would be the automotive sector, with tariffs of over 12,000 million, personal care products, reaching 10,000 million, and the aerospace sector, where the figure exceeds 6,000 million and would have a direct impact on Boeing, as confirmed by Commission sources. Another hit, following the one already being delivered by China.
It will also include bourbon, products that fit the objective of "hitting where it hurts the most" that is guiding the Commission's tariff response. The reason being that it is originally produced in Kentucky, a historically Republican state.
The Commission, as always, maintains that its goal is to reach a negotiated solution. "We remain fully committed," they point out in the European capital. But the positions and measures taken show that this outcome is becoming increasingly unlikely.
Regarding the WTO complaint, Commission sources explain that it will "take a few weeks" and, specifically, will be due to "universal tariffs known as reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on automobiles and automobile parts." This is a possibility that the Commission had already hinted at and is now materializing, although it does not seem to matter much to Trump as he completely ignores the World Trade Organization. One could even say that he despises it.
Polds4OSU
Marshall
Trump Admin Deports Two More U.S. Citizen Children (age 4 and 5) After Luring Their Illegal Mother to an ICE Facility Promising her Asylum and a Work Permit if she Showed for an Interview After Arresting and Deporting her Husband.
The couple was pulled over by Texas Highway Patrol for an expired Tag after dropping their kids off at school.
The Texas Highway Patrol arrested both of them and referred them to ICE as suspected illegal aliens.
ICE then followed up arresting and deporting her husband, she was allowed to stay because of the kids and was fitted with an ankle monitoring bracelet and told to show up at the ICE Facility with her kids to go through the asylum hearing and get her Work Permit and the ankle monitor would be removed then.
She and her THREE Children (1 Undocumented and 2 who are Legal US citizens) showed up as instructed at the ICE facility and have been missing since . Their friends and family begin to worry when they didn't return and contacted an agency in Texas who is advocating for these families right now.
The Organization reached out to ICE who said they had no info to share on the mother and the 3 kids. The ICE online detainee database did not list Any of the 4 as detained persons.
After a few more calls, ICE informed the organization the 3 kids (including 2 US citizens) and the mother had already been deported to Mexico
“When she called from the other side of the border, she said that she signed a paper, but she wasn’t sure exactly what it was,” the spokesperson said. “She did not understand what she was signing.”
ICE seems to have disregarded the fact that two of Parra Vargas’s children are citizens, and could have stayed in the U.S. with a caretaker. She does not appear to have been informed of her options, Grassroots Leadership said.
“She never had a chance to consult with anybody,” the organization’s spokesperson told the Daily Beast. “Any efforts from our end to be able to advocate for her release, or even for our legal team to be able to work on her release, none of that was possible because we weren’t even able to locate her.”
Parra Vargas’s situation fits a pattern of haphazard and cruel immigration actions from the Trump administration. Her two U.S. citizen children aren’t the first Americans to be swept up by ICE or even deported in President Trump’s second term. Jose Hermosillo, a 19-year-old U.S. citizen with learning disabilities, was detained by a Border Patrol officer while visiting Tucson, Arizona, and spent 10 days in ICE detention before being released.
Late last month, the Trump administration was caught lying about undocumented immigrant women being deported with their U.S. citizen children. Similar to Parra Vargas, the women were prevented from communicating with legal counsel while in ICE custody. It appears that in order to get around the pesky constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, the Trump administration is deporting them anyway if they’re kids.
mugatu
Sheriff
Trump says he'll pull the nomination of Ed Martin, who defended Jan. 6 rioters, for DC US Attorney
President Donald Trump said that he will pull the nomination of conservative activist Ed Martin Jr. to be the top federal prosecutor for the nation’s capital, after a key Republican senator said he could not support him for the job due to his defense of Jan. 6 rioters.
apnews.com
Pro Jan 6-er dropped as DC Attorney nominee
Stillwater Townie
Ranger
Since Republicans hate welfare so much, they should raise the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour and see how many people that knocks off of welfare.
Similar threads
