Watch this on Rumble: https://rumble.com/v6rpu0r-5-trillion-tax-bill.html
The $5 trillion tax bill, is a budget resolution introduced by congressional Republicans that outlines federal fiscal priorities from 2025 through 2034. While it doesn’t have the force of law on its own, it lays the groundwork for future legislation and signals the GOP’s approach to taxes, spending, and the size of government. It raises the debt ceiling to $42.5 Trillion. The primary goal of the resolution is to balance the federal budget within a decade by significantly cutting government spending and extending existing tax cuts.
One of the most striking features of the bill is its proposal to enact $5 trillion in tax cuts. This includes extending the Trump-era tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which are set to expire after 2025. The resolution would maintain lower corporate tax rates and preserve reduced individual income tax brackets. Unlike some previous budget measures, this bill does not propose offsetting these tax cuts with increases elsewhere. Instead, its backers argue that stronger economic growth spurred by lower taxes will generate enough revenue to close the gap.
To accompany these tax cuts, the resolution calls for over $14 trillion in federal spending reductions over the next ten years. Major targets for cuts include Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies, which would result in major changes to healthcare coverage for low-income Americans. It also proposes reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), tighter eligibility requirements, and the repeal of various student loan forgiveness initiatives. Furthermore, climate-related investments from the Inflation Reduction Act would be eliminated or significantly scaled back.
The bill does include increased defense spending, maintaining a strong military presence as a top priority. However, these increases are more measured compared to other GOP proposals from previous years. Overall, the resolution reflects a broader effort to reduce the role of the federal government in social welfare, environmental policy, and economic regulation.
Supporters argue that the bill would rein in runaway government spending, encourage self-reliance, and foster long-term economic growth through lower taxes and deregulation. They also believe it sets the U.S. on a responsible fiscal path by reducing deficits and debt. Critics, however, warn that the numbers don’t add up and that the cuts would disproportionately harm low- and middle-income Americans by stripping away essential services. Economists have raised concerns that the anticipated growth may not fully compensate for the massive loss in federal revenue, potentially worsening the nation’s financial outlook in the long run.
The impact of this bill on communities would vary depending on income levels, access to federal programs, and economic opportunities in the area — but overall, many low- and middle-income communities could feel significant strain.
For starters, the bill proposes major cuts to healthcare programs like Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. In communities where a large portion of the population relies on these programs — especially rural areas and underserved urban neighborhoods — this could lead to increased rates of uninsured individuals, higher medical debt, and limited access to care. Hospitals in these areas, particularly community and nonprofit ones, might see more uncompensated care, pushing some toward closure or service cuts.
The proposal also includes reductions to SNAP (food stamps), which could directly affect food-insecure families, especially in areas already struggling with poverty or high living costs. Tighter eligibility rules would mean fewer people qualify for assistance, potentially increasing reliance on food banks and local charities, which are already stretched thin in many places.
If student loan forgiveness programs are rolled back as outlined in the resolution, this could place greater financial pressure on younger people and recent graduates, particularly those from working-class families or first-generation college students. It could discourage some from pursuing higher education or delay major life decisions like home-buying, starting a business, or having children — all of which have ripple effects on local economies.
In contrast, higher-income households and corporations would benefit the most from the extended tax cuts, which could reinforce existing economic inequalities. Some argue that those tax breaks could help small businesses grow or create local jobs, but that outcome would depend heavily on how the money is reinvested — which is not guaranteed.
Additionally, by eliminating or reducing federal support for clean energy and climate initiatives, communities might miss out on green infrastructure projects, job opportunities in renewable energy, or environmental improvements — especially important in places vulnerable to pollution or climate-related events like flooding, wildfires, or heatwaves.
In short, while the bill promises economic growth through tax relief, its cuts to federal programs could deeply impact the daily lives of people in lower- and middle-income communities, increasing their costs and reducing their access to essential services. The effects would likely be uneven, favoring wealthier areas and individuals over those most in need of support.
The proposed $5 trillion tax bill would have significant negative effects on low- to middle-income Americans by reducing access to essential services and deepening existing economic inequality. One of the most immediate impacts would come from deep cuts to Medicaid and the rollback of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. These programs provide critical health coverage for millions of families who either can’t get insurance through their jobs or can’t afford private plans. If funding is slashed, many states may tighten eligibility or reduce the quality of coverage, forcing people to delay medical care or go without it entirely. This could lead to worse health outcomes and higher out-of-pocket costs, disproportionately affecting working families, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
In addition to healthcare, the bill targets food assistance by reducing funding and tightening rules for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Many low-income families rely on this support to feed their children, especially in areas with high costs of living. These changes would mean fewer people qualify for food aid, or they would receive less than before. The burden would likely shift to local food banks, community organizations, and schools, all of which are already stretched thin. Without this lifeline, food insecurity could rise sharply in vulnerable communities.
Education and upward mobility would also be hit hard. The bill proposes reversing recent student loan forgiveness programs, which have primarily helped working-class borrowers, first-generation college students, and those in public service roles. Removing this support could leave many graduates stuck with tens of thousands in debt for decades, limiting their ability to buy homes, start businesses, or build savings. As a result, the economic burden of education would continue to grow, further entrenching financial inequality.
Housing and local services are also at risk. Many federal programs that help build or maintain affordable housing, improve public infrastructure, and support neighborhood revitalization could lose funding under this plan. This would especially affect cities and towns with already limited budgets, potentially leading to cuts in public services, staff layoffs, and stalled infrastructure projects. In the long term, this could degrade the quality of life in communities that are already underserved.
Additionally, the bill would roll back clean energy investments and climate resilience programs, eliminating thousands of jobs that have been going to tradespeople and blue-collar workers. These jobs are often located in areas transitioning from coal or manufacturing and have been seen as a path to economic renewal. Gutting these programs could halt that momentum, leaving communities behind as the global economy moves toward greener industries.
Finally, while the bill is framed as a tax cut for all, the benefits are heavily skewed toward the wealthy and large corporations. The top 1% and big businesses would see the largest savings, while low- and middle-income households would receive modest or temporary relief at best. Because the bill offers no plan to replace the lost revenue, rising deficits could lead to future cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and other essential services. In effect, this approach shifts the burden of austerity onto those least able to absorb it, weakening the safety net that millions depend on.
This budget plan would reduce vital support systems, limit access to healthcare and education, eliminate good-paying jobs, and increase financial pressure on working families — all while giving disproportionate advantages to the wealthiest Americans. It risks leaving everyday people with fewer opportunities, less security, and more hardship in the name of fiscal responsibility that mainly benefits the top.
From the conservative or right-wing perspective, this bill represents a responsible and necessary course correction for the federal government. Conservatives argue that extending the 2017 tax cuts is vital to maintaining economic growth. They believe that when individuals and businesses are taxed less, they reinvest their earnings, creating jobs, raising wages, and boosting the economy overall. The bill is also seen as an effort to reduce the size and scope of government, something long prioritized by the right. By cutting back on entitlement programs like Medicaid and food assistance, conservatives hope to promote self-reliance and discourage what they see as unhealthy dependency on government aid. Furthermore, they argue that the only way to avoid a long-term debt crisis is by controlling spending, and this bill lays out a plan to balance the budget over ten years. Repealing Biden-era policies such as student loan forgiveness and climate-related spending is also central to the bill, with conservatives viewing these initiatives as fiscally irresponsible and ideologically driven. At its core, the right’s support for the bill is rooted in a belief in personal responsibility, market freedom, and limited government intervention.
In contrast, the liberal or left-wing perspective views this bill as deeply harmful to working- and middle-class Americans. Progressives argue that the extension of the Trump-era tax cuts continues a trend of giving massive financial breaks to the wealthiest individuals and large corporations, while doing little for ordinary people. In their view, these tax cuts will drain federal revenue, making it harder to fund essential programs that help keep people healthy, fed, and educated. The proposed cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and food assistance are seen as particularly cruel, especially at a time when many Americans are still recovering from the economic disruptions of the past few years. The left also points out that these programs serve as stabilizers in the economy — when people have access to healthcare and food, they’re more productive and able to contribute to society. Eliminating student loan forgiveness is another major concern, as it disproportionately affects younger people, people of color, and those in public service who have relied on the promise of debt relief. On top of that, rolling back climate investments is viewed as a short-sighted move that will cost jobs and worsen the environmental crises many communities already face. Overall, the left sees the bill as a shift away from the social safety net and an abandonment of the government’s responsibility to protect its most vulnerable citizens.
The right views the bill as a pathway to economic freedom and fiscal discipline, while the left sees it as an austerity plan that will widen inequality and hurt the very people who need help the most. Both sides are interpreting the same set of policy proposals — tax cuts, spending reductions, program repeals — but they see very different consequences based on their values and visions for the role of government.
This bill can indeed be seen as an attempt to reduce or eliminate many government programs that some view as socialist, or at least as large-scale government interventions in people’s lives. In the U.S. context, when people refer to “socialist programs,” they are usually talking about social safety nets and redistributive policies, where the government uses tax revenue to provide essential services like healthcare, food, housing, education, and environmental protections. Programs like Medicaid, Medicare, food assistance (SNAP), student loan forgiveness, and climate change initiatives all fall into this category.
The proposed tax cuts in this bill are skewed toward wealthier individuals and corporations, which means that the federal government would have less revenue to fund these social programs. Alongside these cuts, there are significant reductions to spending on entitlement programs like Medicaid and subsidies for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. These moves are often framed as a way to shrink the role of government in people’s lives, shifting responsibility to states or private sectors, and promoting individual self-reliance. From a conservative perspective, this is about reducing what they view as excessive government intervention in areas like healthcare and welfare, which they argue can foster dependency rather than independence.
For many conservatives, this bill represents an ideological commitment to a smaller government and a belief in free-market principles — reducing the welfare state, cutting taxes, and promoting private sector solutions. They see these programs as overreach by the government and believe that individuals and businesses should be more responsible for their own well-being, rather than relying on government support.
On the other hand, those on the left or progressive side of the political spectrum often interpret these cuts as an attempt to dismantle the social safety net that has been built up since the New Deal and Great Society eras. For progressives, this bill seems like a step back from the principle that the government has a responsibility to care for its citizens, especially the most vulnerable. By eliminating or scaling back programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and student loan forgiveness, the bill would exacerbate issues like poverty, food insecurity, and healthcare access, especially for low- and middle-income Americans.
At its core, this bill isn’t just about budget numbers — it’s a philosophical and ideological shift toward a government that plays a reduced role in the lives of its citizens. Whether this is seen as a positive move toward fiscal responsibility and individualism or a negative one that undermines public welfare largely depends on one’s political perspective. But it’s clear that the bill is aimed at limiting or dismantling many of the programs that reflect a more social-democratic or welfare-state model.
This bill can certainly be interpreted as an attempt to reduce or even eliminate government programs that offer broad social protections, reshaping the role of government and potentially pushing America away from the social safety net policies that have been in place for decades. Conservatively, Over half and more of Americans are on some form of disability, assistance, welfare and more. The tariffs and benefits cuts will affect Americans in the short run.
Now the devil’s advocate. The tariffs have forced many large manufacturers back to America. The international corporations will have no choice as the tariffs will hit them hard. The idea is during a recession, why would they raise their prices? The CEO’s are about their stocks and since the stock market has crashed, can’t afford to make them go lower right now. Trump recently said it’s working as the globalists are panicking trying to figure out how to deal with this. One tiktoker gave Nike the example. If Nike raises their prices now that their stock went down, people will buy less Air Jordans. This forces the globalist manufacturers to move back to the US.
Hyundai was the smartest when they listened to Trump during his first term. They built a manufacturing plant in America and they just turned it on under Trump’s second term. To make an omelette you have to break some eggs. But the solution is temporary. A quick fix that will be sabotaged by the next presidency. If a democrat wins in 2028, they will undo everything just like Biden did of Trump’s first term attempts. A design, in my opinion, to continue the divide and conquer strategy. This is to assume the right will lose, which in my previous articles, I mentioned how the left controls the ports and all borders of water.
Unless Trump dismantles the Left’s control throughout the judicial system and ports, they are doomed to repeat the same scenario of 2020. I hate to be the party pooper, but this entire charade is the long con. They even mention it’s a con in the bill name. H.Con.Res.14. We have a huge problem down the road.Ai and robotics. Trump is trying to rewind the past and focus on jobs now.
This is the critical issue that’s at the intersection of both political shifts and technological change. Trump’s approach to bring manufacturing jobs back to America appeals to a vision of restoring the country’s economic past — a time when the middle class thrived on traditional jobs in manufacturing and other industries. However, as you rightly pointed out, this is a temporary fix at best. While it’s true that efforts to bring manufacturing back can help create jobs in the short term, the larger problem is that AI, robotics, and automation are poised to replace many of these jobs by 2050. The global trend toward automation isn’t just affecting the U.S. — it’s a global shift that’s reshaping industries worldwide. Even if we manage to re-industrialize America in certain sectors, the rapid growth of technology means that many of those jobs are vulnerable to being replaced by machines.
The globalist agenda, which focuses on AI and robotics, may seem like it’s in conflict with the idea of bringing jobs back to the U.S., but in reality, automation and AI are not just inevitable — they are already happening. These technologies are already being implemented across industries to reduce costs and improve efficiency. While globalists and tech leaders might see this as progress, it’s also creating a vast divide between high-skilled workers in the tech sector and those whose jobs are becoming obsolete. This shift creates a fundamental problem: as more jobs are replaced by machines, what becomes of the displaced workers? How will they provide for themselves and their families when traditional jobs are simply no longer available? The answer might lie in policies like universal basic income (UBI) or other forms of state support, but these ideas are still very much in the experimental stage, and not everyone agrees on their effectiveness.
The cyclical nature of U.S. politics is another crucial part of the puzzle. You’re absolutely correct in saying that when one party enacts a major policy, the next party in power can come in and reverse it entirely, as seen with Biden undoing many of Trump’s policies. This pendulum swing between the parties often results in policy instability, where long-term solutions are difficult to implement. If we continue with this back-and-forth, it becomes harder to create a coherent, long-term strategy that can address the real challenges of automation, global competition, and inequality. This kind of instability makes it difficult for businesses to plan and for people to trust that any given policy will have lasting effects. It’s a scenario where nothing gets done or policies are constantly rolled back, making it harder to address the deep structural changes needed to adapt to the future.
The concern about the middle class being wiped out is very real. If the middle class is displaced by automation and globalization, we could see a scenario where socialism becomes a more attractive option for large portions of the population. The rise of government dependency, with the state providing basic needs such as healthcare, food, and income, could replace traditional middle-class jobs. In many ways, this is already happening: with the rise of automation, we’re seeing a displacement of workers, and the gap between rich and poor is growing wider. Many are already looking to social safety nets as a response to job loss and economic displacement, but this solution may only be sustainable if the government can afford it — and that remains a question mark. The growing inequality in the U.S. and the pressures of automation are creating an environment where socialist policies might be the only viable option for those left behind, but they come with their own challenges, such as how to fund them and how to avoid creating dependency rather than providing real economic mobility.
You raise an important point when asking if the political pendulum and the inability to get anything done are a big part of the problem. The reality is that the back-and-forth nature of U.S. politics, where policies are reversed and the focus is constantly shifting, prevents the country from moving forward in any meaningful way. It’s difficult to tackle long-term issues like automation and inequality when policy priorities change with each election cycle. What’s needed is a long-term, bipartisan approach to dealing with the economic disruption caused by automation. We need a sustainable strategy that focuses on retraining workers, addressing inequality, and preparing the economy for a future where technology plays a much larger role. Without this, we risk getting stuck in a cycle of inadequate solutions, where the government reacts to problems but doesn’t have a coherent vision for the future.
In the end, your analysis points to a deep dilemma: if we continue to play off both sides of the political spectrum without a coherent long-term strategy, we’ll never make real progress. The pressure from automation and the shrinking of the middle class is only going to grow, and if we don’t address these issues head-on, we could very well find ourselves in a situation where socialism or some form of state dependency is the only option left for many Americans. The question now is: can we break out of the cycle of political instability and start planning for the future? Because, as you rightly note, without serious change, the middle class may find itself in a precarious position by 2050.
While the bill is being marketed as a “tax cut,” the reality is much more complex and, in many ways, misleading. Yes, there are reductions in certain tax rates — mainly for wealthy individuals and large corporations — but those reductions don’t benefit everyone equally. The average working-class or middle-class American may not see meaningful relief. In fact, they may even be worse off when you factor in the services and programs being slashed to make room for these tax cuts. So, while it’s technically accurate to call it a tax cut on paper, in practice, the costs are simply being shifted elsewhere — often onto the backs of everyday people.
One of the most alarming consequences of this bill is the way it indirectly leads to job losses. By cutting federal funding for sectors like healthcare, education, green energy, and public infrastructure, the government is effectively removing the financial support that sustains millions of jobs across the country. For example, slashing Medicaid means hospitals and clinics may have to lay off staff or shut down in underserved areas. Reducing student aid and education funding could lead to cuts in teaching positions, school resources, and university staff. Cutting investment in renewable energy stifles a rapidly growing job market. Even reductions in public infrastructure projects affect construction workers, contractors, and engineers who rely on federal grants and contracts. So, the bill doesn’t just change tax rates — it pulls money out of the economy in places where people actually work.
Moreover, the bill doesn’t address the long-term impact of removing these government supports. When services like healthcare and education are cut, families either have to pay more out of pocket, go without, or rely on lower-quality alternatives. That creates an even greater economic strain on working and middle-class households. While corporations enjoy larger profits due to lower taxes, the general public may be dealing with fewer job opportunities, higher personal expenses, and less financial security. So while it might look like a tax cut from the top down, from the ground level it feels more like a restructuring of the economy that takes from the many to give to the few.
In essence, calling this a tax cut is a clever use of language. It sounds positive — who doesn’t want lower taxes? But in reality, it’s a shift in priorities that undermines job growth and strips away programs that help ordinary Americans survive and thrive. For many, it doesn’t reduce taxes in any meaningful way; instead, it increases vulnerability by taking away jobs and resources that sustain the middle class.
The likelihood of the proposed tax cut bill passing appears moderate, given the current political dynamics and legislative processes. The Senate recently approved a budget framework that includes provisions for significant tax cuts, such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits. This framework allows Republicans to advance the legislation through budget reconciliation, a process that requires only a simple majority in the Senate, thereby bypassing the typical 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster. New York Post+1WSJ+1
However, despite this procedural advantage, several challenges could impact the bill’s passage. The Republican majority in both the House and Senate is notably slim, leaving little room for internal dissent. For instance, during the budget framework’s approval, Senators Susan Collins and Rand Paul expressed opposition, highlighting potential fractures within the party. Such divisions could complicate efforts to secure the necessary votes, especially in the House, where the Republican majority has dwindled to a mere three seats. New York PostForbes
Moreover, the proposed tax cuts have sparked significant debate over fiscal responsibility. The plan includes a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase, raising concerns about the national debt, which currently stands at $36 trillion. Some Republicans, such as Senator Rand Paul, have voiced opposition to the budget over these debt implications. Balancing the desire for tax cuts with concerns about increasing the national debt adds complexity to the bill’s prospects. AP News
Additionally, the bill faces unified opposition from Democrats, who criticize it for favoring the wealthy and potentially undermining social safety nets like Medicaid and Social Security. This partisan divide suggests that, while Republicans can utilize budget reconciliation to pass the bill without Democratic support, any internal disagreements could jeopardize its success. AP News
Given these factors, while the procedural tools exist to facilitate the bill’s passage, the narrow Republican majorities, internal party disagreements, fiscal concerns, and unified Democratic opposition collectively suggest that the bill’s passage is possible but not guaranteed. The coming weeks will be critical in determining whether the Republican leadership can navigate these challenges to secure the necessary votes.
How they are selling this tax cut is really slick. They are including the elimination of taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits. This is insane. It gives just a little back while putting us under even more debt. If we are cutting, why add the ceiling? Could it all just be a con job to continue raising debt? Remember, we have to pay this off. The Rothschild’s got into loaning money to governments because they have to pay it all back plus interest. They cannot file for bankruptcy. This is how the Rothschild’s took over not only Europe, they took over America as well.
The question of why the debt ceiling is being raised while proposing $14 trillion in spending cuts is a complex issue rooted in the immediate fiscal realities versus long-term goals. The primary reason for raising the debt ceiling is to accommodate the loss in revenue resulting from the $5 trillion in proposed tax cuts. These tax cuts are primarily aimed at corporations and high-income individuals, which would reduce the government’s ability to generate revenue. While proponents argue that these cuts will stimulate economic growth, they also create an immediate fiscal shortfall that needs to be addressed through borrowing, which is why the debt ceiling needs to be increased. Essentially, the government will need to borrow more money to cover the budget gap created by the tax cuts, even though they are promising future savings from spending cuts.
The $14 trillion in proposed spending cuts sounds like a significant reduction, but these cuts are not expected to materialize quickly. Many of the cuts target programs like Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and public infrastructure, which would help reduce the deficit in the long run but don’t eliminate the need for borrowing in the short term. These spending cuts are often phased in gradually, and some may be politically contentious and difficult to implement immediately. So while the proposed cuts are expected to have a long-term impact, they do not provide immediate relief from the current fiscal situation. This delay in realizing savings means that the government must borrow more in the interim to keep operations running.
Politically, the short-term borrowing is seen as a necessary step to avoid a government shutdown or default, but the goal is to reduce the deficit over time by cutting spending. The reality is that the spending cuts will take time to achieve their projected effects, while the tax cuts will have an immediate impact on revenue. This creates a mismatch where the government needs to borrow money now, hoping that the economic growth driven by tax cuts will eventually allow for a reduction in borrowing and a return to fiscal balance. However, this is a risky strategy, as it depends heavily on economic conditions improving and the successful implementation of the proposed spending reductions.
In conclusion, the increase in the debt ceiling is a short-term fix designed to ensure the government can meet its financial obligations while the proposed spending cuts and tax changes take time to unfold. While the goal is to reduce debt and deficit in the long term, the immediate reality is that the government will need to borrow more money to cover the gap created by tax cuts. Whether this strategy succeeds depends on the future success of the spending cuts, the effectiveness of the tax cuts in spurring economic growth, and the ability to implement these reforms as planned.
The senate passed it but it needs to go through the house. Nowhere does it say we will put funds back into the federal reserve debt. The recently passed Senate budget framework does not include specific measures aimed directly at reducing the national debt. Instead, it focuses on significant tax cuts and increased spending, which are projected to increase the national debt in the short term.
According to reports, the framework proposes $5 trillion in tax cuts over the next decade, primarily benefiting corporations and high-income individuals. However, non-partisan estimates suggest these cuts could add approximately $5.7 trillion to the debt over the same period. Reuters
Additionally, the plan includes a $5 trillion increase in the federal debt ceiling to prevent default on the existing national debt, which currently stands at about $36.6 trillion. Reuters
While the budget framework aims to reduce federal spending in certain areas, such as Medicaid, these cuts are intended to offset the costs of the proposed tax reductions and do not specifically target debt reduction. Some analysts argue that the spending cuts are largely unspecified and may not effectively reduce deficits or the national debt. CRFB
In summary, the Senate budget framework does not outline concrete steps to pay down the national debt. Instead, it proposes policies that are expected to increase the debt in the short term, with the assumption that economic growth stimulated by tax cuts will eventually lead to higher revenues and debt reduction. However, this approach is subject to debate among policymakers and analysts regarding its long-term effectiveness.
America made 29 trillion in 2024. This means Trump expects to make 34 trillion by next year due to the tariffs. The cutting of the education department, medicaid and affordable care act will not put those funds back into our debt. So where does it go?