This is more than the general republican wish to hurt poor people to help the wealthy. This is about the tRump tax cut give aways to the very wealthy in the US costing the add of 8 trillion to the national debt. The republicans wrote the bill so the minor cuts to the lower income’s taxes sunset with in a couple years, but the wealthy people got to keep theirs for ten years. Now they are due to sunset and the government will receive a huge influx of revenue again to pay the bills of running a country, paying for the world’s largest bloated military, and to help the poorest people in the country survive with some dignity. But tRump and the republicans are determined to make those cuts permanent and never ending while constantly pushing for more cuts to their taxes. Their goal is to push the entire cost of running the government on to those least able to pay for it, the lower incomes while the upper incomes pay little to nothing. Then using the complaints of the people that their taxes are too high they will cut social services and the social safety nets for the poorest among us including the elderly and disabled. Plus they will stop funding road repairs and other infrastructure projects and when people complain will privatize the roads, selling sections to companies who will be able to charge tolls of any amount they wish to make profit off the public needing to get somewhere. How we stop them I don’t know. Idiots worried about the price of eggs bought every lie tRump made about how he was going to magically bring all the prices down to 2020 levels … when the stores were empty and we had no toilet paper. Now he admits that he can not and will not be lowering prices, and the cult is not getting upset about being lied to by the leader of their cult. Hugs
lawmakers estimating Trump’s domestic policy agenda — including tax cuts and border security proposals — costing as much as $10 trillion over the coming decade.
House Republicans are passing around a “menu” of more than $5 trillion in cuts they could use to bankroll President-elect Donald Trump’s top priorities this year, including tax cuts and border security.
The early list of potential spending offsets obtained by POLITICO includes changes to Medicare and ending Biden administration climate programs, along with slashing welfare and “reimagining” the Affordable Care Act.
Five people familiar with the document said those provisions are options to finance Republicans’ massive party-line reconciliation bill or other spending reform efforts, including those being spearheaded by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
The people, granted anonymity to discuss closed-door negotiations, said that the list originated from the House Budget Committee, chaired by Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas). Republicans involved in the reconciliation plans have been generally targeting the listed programs for several months, but internal GOP fights over trillions of dollars in potential cuts are just beginning.
The overall savings add up to as much as $5.7 trillion over 10 years, though the list is highly ambitious and unlikely to all become law given narrow margins for Republicans in the House and Senate.
Cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the country’s largest anti-hunger program would spark massive opposition from Democrats and would also face some GOP resistance. House Speaker Mike Johnson can’t afford any Republican defections if he wants to pass a package on party lines.
Even proposed cuts to green energy tax credits, worth as much as $500 billion, could be tricky — as the document notes, they depend “on political viability.” Already 18 House Republicans — 14 of whom won reelection in November — warned Johnson against prematurely repealing some of the IRA’s energy tax credits, which are funding multiple manufacturing projects in GOP districts.
A House GOP source said that the “document is not intended to serve as a proposal, but instead as a menu of potential spending reductions for members to consider.”
Johnson and GOP leaders are hunting for trillions of dollars in cuts, with lawmakers estimating Trump’s domestic policy agenda — including tax cuts and border security proposals — costing as much as $10 trillion over the coming decade.
Johnson, with scores of House Republicans this week to chart the way forward, and groups of GOP members are set to meet with Trump in Florida this weekend.
In addition to Medicaid and ACA cuts, the document floats clawing back bipartisan infrastructure and Inflation Reduction Act funding.
One senior GOP lawmaker, asked if there were any particularly controversial spending offsets dividing Republicans, replied: “They all feel pretty controversial.”
Johnson agreed to make $2.5 trillion in spending cuts through the budget reconciliation process as part of last year’s government funding negotiations. Asked in a brief interview Wednesday evening if he was targeting $5 trillion in spending offsets, he replied, “Not sure yet.”
The policy menu suggests Republicans could capture major savings from Medicaid — up to an estimated $2.3 trillion. The list includes so-called per-capita caps on Medicaid for states, meaning the program would be paid for based on population instead of being an open-ended entitlement, and would institute work requirements in the program.
The list also includes a policy to equalize payments in Medicaid for able-bodied adults with those of traditional Medicaid enrollment — those with disabilities or low-income children, which would save up to $690 billion.
It would “recapture” $46 billion in savings from Affordable Care Act health insurance plan subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year, setting up a major policy battle. It would also limit eligibility for plans based on citizenship status.
Also on the chopping block are President Joe Biden’s climate policies, which are estimated to yield as much as $468 billion. That includes Trump’s repeated promise to repeal Biden’s “EV mandate,” as well as discontinuing “Green New Deal” provisions from the bipartisan infrastructure law and green energy grants from the IRA.
The green energy cuts could be particularly tricky from a political perspective. GOP lawmakers have long backed some technologies supported under the climate law, including supporting hydrogen, biofuels and carbon capture.
Hello All. I don’t know how this will come across, so forgive me for doing a bit of navel gazing. I thought giving a bit of voice to something I really really don’t want to talk about may help. Or, at least it may help someone else. Who knows.
What people don’t always understand is that I find it very difficult to talk about this, and forced to, I feel even worse and find myself with even darker thoughts. Nonetheless, it seems right to try.
See, when you tell people you are dealing with depression, they try to give you advice, tell you to snap out of it, some begin to smother you – or at least it feels that way. Frankly, it’s a psychophysiological issue, and there are no easy answers, no easy solutions.
Most doctors don’t understand depression any better than their patients. They either want to overmedicate or ignore.
Most people dealing with depression try to self medicate. Alcohol, drugs, impotent rage at the smallest things. Me – it’s eating my feelings and hiding away in the house away from my overwhelming problems that others likely see as immaterial issues.
I’m still working every day, but I don’t want to go in. I want to stay home. I don’t want to deal with the problems at work because they are seemingly insurmountable. Heat not working. Machines not working. Employees not working. My truck isn’t working. And my dryer is shrinking my clothes… ok, that might be the Little Debbies. Messed up thing is, if I stay home I’m alone with things that aren’t working here at home and someone needs to clean the kitchen! So, going in to work is actually relieving after a while.
One of the things that surprises people is just how many of us live with depression. Just how many go to work, feed the kids, fill the gas tank and go through their normal day dying inside. I had to tell my boss on Thursday that I was not doing well with his – what feels like – pummeling me with criticism and ‘why didn’t you’s’. No one is perfect, and even though I tried to make the right decisions – well, I could only handle so many things even though I knew I was letting him down even while I was killing myself trying to be everywhere and handle everything.
Does he know that I am forced to handle imperative things that others are assigned but fail to do or that no matter what I do there are so many things yet to do? Does he know that I am working late just to get things done when no one is in the way? Does he know that I’m tired but can’t sleep no matter how exhausted I am? Does he know that I’m whining to you rather than cleaning my kitchen?
The odd thing is that I don’t know whether to feel better that I’m not alone or feel worse that so many of us have to deal with this shit. And, that’s the point, isn’t it. So many of us deal with this it’s just called “being an adult in America”. I wanted unicorns and rainbows, and like everyone else I more often just get bull-shit and rained on. (sigh!) Adulthood sucks. So, be kind to those you meet, for they are likely going through their own battles.
And, for those of you out there that are, well – just another adult in America, hang on. Keep going. I’ve heard the sun comes out, tomorrow.
We live in a world where right-wing nationalism is on the rise and many governments, including the incoming Trump administration, are promising mass deportations. Trump in particular has discussed building camps as part of mass deportations. This question used to feel more hypothetical than it does today.
Faced with this reality, it’s worth asking: who would stand by you if this kind of authoritarianism took hold in your life?
You can break allyship down into several key areas of life:
Who in your personal life is an ally? (Your friends, acquaintances, and extended family.)
Who in your professional life is an ally? (People you work with, people in partner organizations, and your industry.)
Who in civic life is an ally? (Your representatives, government workers, individual members of law enforcement, healthcare workers, and so on.)
Which service providers are allies? (The people you depend on for goods and services — including stores, delivery services, and internet services.)
And in turn, can be broken down further:
Who will actively help you evade an authoritarian regime?
Who will refuse to collaborate with a regime’s demands?
These two things are different. There’s also a third option — non-collaboration but non-refusal — which I would argue does not constitute allyship at all. This might look like passively complying with authoritarian demands when legally compelled, without taking steps to resist or protect the vulnerable. While this might not seem overtly harmful, it leaves those at risk exposed. As Naomi Shulman points out, the most dangerous complicity often comes from those who quietly comply. Nice people made the best Nazis.
For the remainder of this post, I will focus on the roles of internet service vendors and protocol authors in shaping allyship and resisting authoritarianism.
For these groups, refusing to collaborate means that you’re not capitulating to active demands by an authoritarian regime, but you might not be actively considering how to help people who are vulnerable. The people who are actively helping, on the other hand, are actively considering how to prevent someone from being tracked, identified, and rounded up by a regime, and are putting preventative measures in place. (These might include implementing encryption at rest, minimizing data collection, and ensuring anonymity in user interactions.)
If we consider an employer, refusing to collaborate means that you won’t actively hand over someone’s details on request. Actively helping might mean aiding someone in hiding or escaping to another jurisdiction.
These questions of allyship apply not just to individuals and organizations, but also to the systems we design and the technologies we champion. Those of us who are involved in movements to liberate social software from centralized corporations need to consider our roles. Is decentralization enough? Should we be allies? What kind of allies?
This responsibility extends beyond individual actions to the frameworks we build and the partnerships we form within open ecosystems. While building an open protocol that makes all content public and allows indefinite tracking of user activity without consent may not amount to collusion, it is also far from allyship. Partnering with companies that collaborate with an authoritarian regime, for example by removing support for specific vulnerable communities and enabling the spread of hate speech, may also not constitute allyship. Even if it furthers your immediate stated technical and business goals to have that partner on board, it may undermine your stated social goals. Short-term compromises for technical or business gains may seem pragmatic but risk undermining the ethics that underpin open and decentralized systems.
Obviously, the point of an open protocol is that anyone can use it. But we should avoid enabling entities that collude with authoritarian regimes to become significant contributors to or influencers of open protocols and platforms. While open protocols can be used by anyone, we must distinguish between passive use and active collaboration. Enabling authoritarian-aligned entities to shape the direction or governance of these protocols undermines their potential for liberation.
In light of Mark Zuckerberg’s clear acquiescence to the incoming Trump administration (for example by rolling back DEI, allowing hate speech, and making a series of bizarre statements designed to placate Trump himself), I now believe Threads should not be allowed to be an active collaborator to open protocols unless it can attest that it will not collude, and that it will protect vulnerable groups using its platforms from harm. I also think Bluesky’s AT Protocol decision to make content and user blocks completely open and discoverable should be revisited. I also believe there should be an ethical bill of rights for users on open social media protocols that authors should sign, which includes the right to privacy, freedom from surveillance, safeguards against hate speech, and strong protections for vulnerable communities.
As builders, users, and advocates of open systems, we must demand transparency, accountability, and ethical commitments from all contributors to open protocols. Without these safeguards, we risk creating tools that enable oppression rather than resisting it. Allyship demands more than neutrality — it demands action.
Again Ethel is a woman I have been following since she was a teenager. She has gone through all the stages of transitioning, from doubt, trying to make it something else to finally admitting to herself and the world she is a woman and now living her life as one. The grand thing is she still fights so very hard for trans people despite the costs to her for taking on one of the growing popular atheist anti-trans people and others. She lost 2/3rd her income but never backed down, always telling the truth. She makes every video well researched and documents it, also she provides a transcript for those who would rather read than listen. I admit I admire her and her strength in her life struggles. But if you wish to learn more about those attacking trans stuff or the false idea that trans women are destroying female sports, I would watch her videos. Hugs
The 119th Congress was officially sworn in Friday, meaning the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate will soon begin the process of confirming President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution enables the president to appoint officials to the Cabinet and other positions with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Many of the committees, all of which have a majority of Republicans, will hold hearings on the nominees related to their area of expertise: the Senate Judiciary Committee, for example, holds hearings for the nominees for attorney general and other top posts at the Department of Justice. Those hearings will begin soon, with senators likely prioritizing confirming nominees to national security positions.
Republicans will control the Senate 53 to 47 seats once Senator-elect Jim Justice of West Virginia is sworn in later in January and Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appoints a senator to fill Vice President-elect JD Vance’s seat.
Some nominees like Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, Trump’s nominee for secretary of state, are expected to easily sail through the Senate, while others are likely to garner more opposition and scrutiny. Here’s how the process will work:
When do hearings start?
Sen. Roger Wicker, who leads the Senate Armed Services Committee, is set to hold Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing for secretary of defense starting January 14, even before Trump’s inauguration. The hearing for former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence in the Senate Intelligence Committee is also set to take place that week, according to Punchbowl News. The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to prioritize confirming Pam Bondi, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, and his nominees for deputy attorneys general before taking up the nomination of Kash Patel to lead the FBI, the outlet reported.
Are hearings required for every nominee?
Not necessarily. There are over 1,300 political appointee positions that require Senate confirmation, and some nominees, like military promotions, often go straight to the Senate floor. But nominees for the Cabinet and other high-profile political appointments almost always have confirmation hearings.
What happens at a confirmation hearing?
Before a hearing, senators on relevant committees will request biographical information and a financial disclosure from the nominee. At the hearing, senators will ask questions about a nominee’s background, their qualifications and their views. Nominees for positions that require a security clearance also traditionally undergo an FBI background check.
Gabbard and Patel are expected to draw scrutiny for their records and stances on national security issues. Democrats will likely question Hegseth about a past allegation of sexual assault against him, which he denies, as well as his previous comments opposing women in combat roles. Senators on both sides of the aisle are also likely to question Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, on his views on abortion, vaccines and food policy.
How does a nominee get confirmed after a hearing?
After a committee holds a hearing, its members can report the nomination favorably or unfavorably to the full Senate for a final vote. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid led his fellow Senate Democrats in changing the chamber’s rules to require only a simple majority to invoke cloture, or end debate, on presidential nominations other than Supreme Court nominees. A simple majority is also needed for final confirmation. In 2017, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans also lowered the threshold for Supreme Court nominees.
Historically, it’s been very rare for the Senate to reject a president’s Cabinet nominee. The last time the Senate voted down a Cabinet nominee was in 1989, when senators rejected Sen. John Tower, then-President George H.W. Bush’s nominee for defense secretary, due to concerns about his drinking. Some Cabinet nominees like former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s first pick for attorney general, also bow out of the process before they go up for confirmation.
This is a really great video on covid vaccines and why people needed to take them. Tyson explains the social contract, explains why with the first vaccines you might still get a new covid strain, that the vaccine was well studied, and the risk for not taking it. Wonderful video to show every anti-vaxxer. The host is a person on the right, well known right wing media person who pushes the right’s talking point. So him being fully and quickly having his stupidity over the issue displayed to him, his ass handed to him on his own program, with someone who could hold their own and not let the host over talk them or belittle them. It is grand. Hugs
Hi Everyone. I woke at 12:22 last night. But I got up at 1 am and started making posts and doing things. So I just finished the asshat yesterday news posts. So now before I answer the comments … and I love comments everyone sends to me, I have to make a red sauce. Ron promised to make me a grand lasagna if I make the sauce. So with ear buds in, off I go to make the sauce. Hugs and loves to everyone. Remember that I really care for everyone. Add any questions or comments in the comments and I will reply there. Hugs.
If you criticize the dear leader of the maga cult then you are forever an enemy. Death to the nonbelievers. This is why the current republicans and maga is very much a cult. Hugs.
This is great. The tRump world crowed about this citizen of Greenland who praised tRump’s plan to take over Greenland. Yet the truth did come out … He was a tRump loving fanboy violent felon drug dealer prison escapee. Hugs.
For months, Meta has been restricting content with LGBTQ-related hashtags from search and discovery under its “sensitive content” policy aimed at restricting “sexually suggestive content.”
Posts with LGBTQ+ hashtags including #lesbian, #bisexual, #gay, #trans, #queer, #nonbinary, #pansexial, #transwomen, #Tgirl, #Tboy, #Tgirlsarebeautiful, #bisexualpride, #lesbianpride, and dozens of others were hidden for any users who had their sensitive content filter turned on. Teenagers have the sensitive content filter turned on by default.
When teen users attempted to search LGBTQ terms they were shown a blank page and a prompt from Meta to review the platform’s “sensitive content” restrictions, which discuss why the app hides “sexually explicit” content.
Meta reversed the restrictions on LGBTQ search terms after User Mag reached out for comment, saying that it was in error. “These search terms and hashtags were mistakenly restricted,” a Meta spokesperson said. “It’s important to us that all communities feel safe and welcome on Meta apps, and we do not consider LGBTQ+ terms to be sensitive under our policies.”
User Mag is a 100% reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, become a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribe
Under mounting pressure from lawmakers and amidst a moral panic about young people’s social media use, last year, Meta introduced a new set of “sensitive content” restrictions across Instagram, Facebook, and Threads, aimed at teenagers. “We will start to hide more types of content for teens on Instagram and Facebook,” the company said at the time.
In September, Meta doubled down, forcing users under the age of 18 to use “Instagram Teen Accounts,” a setting which could only be reversed by a parent or guardian. The goal of this change, in Meta’s words, was to “limit … the content [teenagers] see, and help ensure their time is well spent.”
These changes quickly resulted in LGBTQ+ content getting restricted across Meta apps. Meanwhile, heterosexual content, tradwife content, and content featuring straight cisgender couples (even those engaged in romantic activities) has flourished.
“Meta categorizing LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content’ is an alarming example of censorship that should concern everyone,” said Leanna Garfield, social media safety program manager at GLAAD.
Some LGBTQ teenagers and content creators attempted to sound the alarm about the issue, but their posts failed to get traction. For years, LGBTQ creators on Instagram have suffered shadow bans and had their content labeled as “non-recommendable.” The restrictions on searches, however, are more recent, coming into effect in the past few months. Meta said it was investigating to find out when the error began.
“A responsible and inclusive company would not build an algorithm that classifies some LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content,’ hiding helpful and age-appropriate content from young people by default,” a spokesperson for GLAAD said. “Regardless of if this was an unintended error, Meta should… test significant product updates before launch.”
Subscribe
Several LGBQT teenagers I spoke to said that they weren’t even aware of the sensitive content restrictions, but said that they struggled to find other LGBTQ young people to connect with through Instagram.
“For many LGBTQ people, especially youth, platforms like Instagram are crucial for self-discovery, community building, and accessing supportive information,” Garfield said. “By limiting access to LGBTQ content, Instagram may be inadvertently contributing to the isolation and marginalization of LGBTQ users.”
The downranking and hiding of LGBTQ+ content comes as LGBTQ rights across the country are under attack.
On December 4th, the Supreme Court heard a major case on banning healthcare for trans youth. Trump has pledged to roll back protections for LGBTQ students, and right wing groups like the Heritage Foundation are working together with Democrats to dismantle civil liberties and restrict young people from accessing social media under dangerous proposed legislation such as the very poorly named Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA).
KOSA co-sponsor Rep. Marsha Blackburn claimed that it’s essential to restrict teens access to social media to “protect minor children from the transgender [sic] in this culture and that influence.”
One of the most prominent voices pushing legislation like KOSA and boosting policies like Meta’s sensitive content restrictions is NYU Stern School of Business professor Jonathan Haidt, whose dubious book, The Anxious Generation falsely ties social media use to teen mental health issues in order to push a moral panic about kids and technology use. This moral panic is then used to justify harmful laws that restrict speech and civil liberties online, and do immense harm to marginalized LGBTQ youth.
“Meta categorizing LGBTQ hashtags as ‘sensitive content’ is an alarming example of censorship that should concern everyone”
Mark Zuckerberg recently dined at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida and is seeking an “active role” in Trump tech policy as the two are “now warming to each other,” according to The Guardian.
The increased censorship of LGBTQ content online is already having devastating effects on young people. For queer teens who rely on social media to connect with their peers and find support, these policies are cutting off vital access to community and representation.
“Meta should not only stop suppressing LGBTQ content in this way, it should also clarify how and why [this error occurred],” said Garfield.
User Mag is a 100% reader-supported publication. To support my work, become a free or paid subscriber. I could not do this work without your support.
Scottie's Playtime 