H.R.1 - One Big Beautiful Bill Act
- Thread starter nt1
- Start date
"SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act"
Subtitle A--Nutrition
Sec. 10001. Thrifty food plan.
Sec. 10002. Able bodied adults without dependents work requirements.
Sec. 10003. Able bodied adults without dependents waivers.
Sec. 10004. Availability of standard utility allowances based on
receipt of energy assistance.
Sec. 10005. Restrictions on internet expenses.
Sec. 10006. Matching funds requirements.
Sec. 10007. Administrative cost sharing.
Sec. 10008. General work requirement age.
Sec. 10009. National Accuracy Clearinghouse.
Sec. 10010. Quality control zero tolerance.
Sec. 10011. National education and obesity prevention grant program
repealer.
Sec. 10012. Alien SNAP eligibility.
Sec. 10013. Emergency food assistance
Now. Lets examine and discuss immediate and future implications.
Sec. 10002. Able bodied adults without dependents work requirements.
Claim: you can't destory big government with more government. If welfare is abused and is the problem. Then destroy welfare. This wording destroys the citizen. Not the system.
Sec. 10003. Able bodied adults without dependents waivers.
The government telling you when you have a waiver to not work. Hiding this as destorying abused welfare. Welfare and food stamps were created by the government. Now. They are saving us from a system they created.
Statement: do not come in here with your half hearted attempts. This is a discussion for the best actions for freedom and the pursuit of happiness without a debt to the state to do so.
Statement: if a person does use and abuse. There SHOULD be a system to handle that. Outside of that. You got you taxes. Leave the citizen alone to live their one life.
I take exception to the wording of 10002 and 10003. This is the beautiful bill to destroy free loaders? What is the opposite of a free loader? No. Its not a free hardworking citizen. It is a Notfreelaborer.
Adult able body with no dependants.
The state will judge able bodies with no dependents for the reasons they MAY abuse a welfare system the government created?
This will go on to speak about tracking food stamps across state lines. You think they will do that reactively? You think reacting is cost effective?
Claim: you can't destory big government with more government. If welfare is abused and is the problem. Then destroy welfare. This wording destroys the citizen. Not the system.
Sec. 10003. Able bodied adults without dependents waivers.
The government telling you when you have a waiver to not work. Hiding this as destorying abused welfare. Welfare and food stamps were created by the government. Now. They are saving us from a system they created.
Statement: do not come in here with your half hearted attempts. This is a discussion for the best actions for freedom and the pursuit of happiness without a debt to the state to do so.
Statement: if a person does use and abuse. There SHOULD be a system to handle that. Outside of that. You got you taxes. Leave the citizen alone to live their one life.
I take exception to the wording of 10002 and 10003. This is the beautiful bill to destroy free loaders? What is the opposite of a free loader? No. Its not a free hardworking citizen. It is a Notfreelaborer.
Adult able body with no dependants.
The state will judge able bodies with no dependents for the reasons they MAY abuse a welfare system the government created?
This will go on to speak about tracking food stamps across state lines. You think they will do that reactively? You think reacting is cost effective?
Last edited:
10002
This is good
"Sunset Provision.--The exceptions in subparagraphs (F) through
(H) shall cease to have effect on October 1, 2030."
Prediction. Claim: F through H will go away because they will be illegal by 2030
Why? Because it will be illegal to be F theough H and youll be inmate labor.
SEC. 10002. ABLE BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS WORK REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Section 6(o)(3) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) Exception.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an
individual if the individual is--
``(A) under 18 or over 65 years of age;
``(B) medically certified as physically or mentally
unfit for employment;
``(C) a parent or other member of a household with
responsibility for a dependent child under 7 years of
age;
``(D) otherwise exempt under subsection (d)(2);
``(E) a pregnant woman;
``(F) currently homeless;
``(G) a veteran;
``(H) 24 years of age or younger and was in foster
care under the responsibility of a State on the date of
attaining 18 years of age or such higher age as the
State has elected under section 475(8)(B)(iii) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(8)(B)(iii));
These will be distant ti
or
``(I) responsible for a dependent child 7 years of
age or older and is married to, and resides with, an
individual who is in compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (2).''.
(b) Sunset Provision.--The exceptions in subparagraphs (F) through
(H) shall cease to have effect on October 1, 2030.
In my opinion. That sounds like.
"Work sets us free"
"Work sets you free"
"Work sets them free"
In my opinion
It wont be on a gate this time.
This is good
"Sunset Provision.--The exceptions in subparagraphs (F) through
(H) shall cease to have effect on October 1, 2030."
Prediction. Claim: F through H will go away because they will be illegal by 2030
Why? Because it will be illegal to be F theough H and youll be inmate labor.
SEC. 10002. ABLE BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS WORK REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Section 6(o)(3) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) Exception.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an
individual if the individual is--
``(A) under 18 or over 65 years of age;
``(B) medically certified as physically or mentally
unfit for employment;
``(C) a parent or other member of a household with
responsibility for a dependent child under 7 years of
age;
``(D) otherwise exempt under subsection (d)(2);
``(E) a pregnant woman;
``(F) currently homeless;
``(G) a veteran;
``(H) 24 years of age or younger and was in foster
care under the responsibility of a State on the date of
attaining 18 years of age or such higher age as the
State has elected under section 475(8)(B)(iii) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675(8)(B)(iii));
These will be distant ti
or
``(I) responsible for a dependent child 7 years of
age or older and is married to, and resides with, an
individual who is in compliance with the requirements
of paragraph (2).''.
(b) Sunset Provision.--The exceptions in subparagraphs (F) through
(H) shall cease to have effect on October 1, 2030.
In my opinion. That sounds like.
"Work sets us free"
"Work sets you free"
"Work sets them free"
In my opinion
It wont be on a gate this time.
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
You're going to go sentence by sentence through a 1000+ page bill?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
To be fair, somebody should. And I don't see any of the people whose job it is to do so bothering.
Remember. We are talking about food stamps and welfare. Remember. Its worded as if they are saving us from all of those terrible people abusing welfare. A system they created. Rather thsn cancel or stop the system. They are making it larger.
legal precedents are important. Like a snowball turns into a snowman.
10003. ABLE BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS WAIVERS.
Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015(o)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (4)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--On the request of a State agency
and with the support of the chief executive officer of
the State, the Secretary may waive the applicability of
paragraph (2) for not more than 12 consecutive months
to any group of individuals in the State if the
Secretary makes a determination that the county, or
county-equivalent (as recognized by the Census Bureau)
in which the individuals reside has an unemployment
rate of over 10 percent.''; and
(2) in paragraph (6)(F) by striking ``8 percent'' and
inserting ``1 percent''.
Striking it down to 1%. This is work or be judged.
We are supposed to work. Supposed to want to work. Rather than cancel the system or keep the system and punish those who abuse it. They have expanded it to include those who have never used it.
--
I put this in parenthesis to say its personal opinion. My goal is to bring basic light to the subject. My opinions will either be right or wrong. They are nothing more than a thought to consider as others form opinion.
(Fixing govt through controlling civilians actions is reverse engineering "modern slavery" "forced labor". Put whatever sensationalized word you'd like. It is control of freedom.
Again. I do not support abusing welfare. I barely support the idea of welfare. Welfare should be a short term fix to a larger problem. I am not in support of punishment. Either keep the system and punish those who abuse it. Or cancel it.
A sarcastic way to suggest cancelling food stamps would be fill churches and ymcas with ramen noodles and sleeping bags. 10pm to 6am. Then get out. See if people dont get a job then. Again. That is sarcastic in the face of regulating regulations.)
legal precedents are important. Like a snowball turns into a snowman.
10003. ABLE BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS WAIVERS.
Section 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015(o)) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (4)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--On the request of a State agency
and with the support of the chief executive officer of
the State, the Secretary may waive the applicability of
paragraph (2) for not more than 12 consecutive months
to any group of individuals in the State if the
Secretary makes a determination that the county, or
county-equivalent (as recognized by the Census Bureau)
in which the individuals reside has an unemployment
rate of over 10 percent.''; and
(2) in paragraph (6)(F) by striking ``8 percent'' and
inserting ``1 percent''.
Striking it down to 1%. This is work or be judged.
We are supposed to work. Supposed to want to work. Rather than cancel the system or keep the system and punish those who abuse it. They have expanded it to include those who have never used it.
--
I put this in parenthesis to say its personal opinion. My goal is to bring basic light to the subject. My opinions will either be right or wrong. They are nothing more than a thought to consider as others form opinion.
(Fixing govt through controlling civilians actions is reverse engineering "modern slavery" "forced labor". Put whatever sensationalized word you'd like. It is control of freedom.
Again. I do not support abusing welfare. I barely support the idea of welfare. Welfare should be a short term fix to a larger problem. I am not in support of punishment. Either keep the system and punish those who abuse it. Or cancel it.
A sarcastic way to suggest cancelling food stamps would be fill churches and ymcas with ramen noodles and sleeping bags. 10pm to 6am. Then get out. See if people dont get a job then. Again. That is sarcastic in the face of regulating regulations.)
SEC. 10004. AVAILABILITY OF STANDARD UTILITY ALLOWANCES BASED ON
RECEIPT OF ENERGY ASSISTANCE.
(a) Allowance to Recipients of Energy Assistance.--
(1) Standard utility allowance.--Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)
of the of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)) is amended by inserting ``with an elderly
or disabled member'' after ``households''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 2605(f)(2)(A) of the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act is amended by inserting
``received by a household with an elderly or disabled member''
before ``, consistent with section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)''.
(b) Third-party Energy Assistance Payments.--Section 5(k)(4) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(k)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``without an elderly
or disabled member'' after ``household'' the 1st place it
appears; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``with an elderly or
disabled member'' after ``household'' the 1st place it appears
This would require the statues applicable.
My issue would be that we have moved from food to energy. Lights.
(We are at number 3 and we have gone from food to lights. This isnt a way to fix big govt. This isnt the methods of someone with the rhetoric we have recieved. Drain the swamp. This is 'turn the swamp into an ocean".)
RECEIPT OF ENERGY ASSISTANCE.
(a) Allowance to Recipients of Energy Assistance.--
(1) Standard utility allowance.--Section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)
of the of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)) is amended by inserting ``with an elderly
or disabled member'' after ``households''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 2605(f)(2)(A) of the
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act is amended by inserting
``received by a household with an elderly or disabled member''
before ``, consistent with section 5(e)(6)(C)(iv)(I)''.
(b) Third-party Energy Assistance Payments.--Section 5(k)(4) of the
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2014(k)(4)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``without an elderly
or disabled member'' after ``household'' the 1st place it
appears; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``with an elderly or
disabled member'' after ``household'' the 1st place it appears
This would require the statues applicable.
My issue would be that we have moved from food to energy. Lights.
(We are at number 3 and we have gone from food to lights. This isnt a way to fix big govt. This isnt the methods of someone with the rhetoric we have recieved. Drain the swamp. This is 'turn the swamp into an ocean".)
10005. RESTRICTIONS ON INTERNET EXPENSES.
Section 5(e)(6) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014(e)(6)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Restrictions on internet expenses.--Service
fees associated with internet connection, including,
but not limited to, monthly subscriber fees (i.e., the
base rate paid by the household each month in order to
receive service, which may include high-speed
internet), taxes and fees charged to the household by
the provider that recur on regular bills, the cost of
modem rentals, and fees charged by the provider for
initial installation, shall not be used in computing
the excess shelter expense deduction.''.
Edited my comment out.
Section 5(e)(6) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2014(e)(6)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(E) Restrictions on internet expenses.--Service
fees associated with internet connection, including,
but not limited to, monthly subscriber fees (i.e., the
base rate paid by the household each month in order to
receive service, which may include high-speed
internet), taxes and fees charged to the household by
the provider that recur on regular bills, the cost of
modem rentals, and fees charged by the provider for
initial installation, shall not be used in computing
the excess shelter expense deduction.''.
Edited my comment out.
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 20,340
All that says is the cost of your internet connection isn't one of the household expenses deductible from your income when calculating benefits.
This is jargon to the common person. What needs to be understood is federal and state government are supposed to be as seperated as possible.
1792 was our first president. I ask you to make it up to the 2 min mark. At 1:20. You will get "the generation of founding father's found running for office uncouth)
(I cant properly explain that we werent supposed to have a president and we were supoosed to be states that govern individually. Yes. I am not fully accurate. Yes. I am partially correct. Yes. I have the general idea correct. It wasnt supoosed to be a federal government for the same reason they ran from a king. Now. The federal govt has done great things for the country. 48 seperate states would have turned into internal wars due to himan nature. That does not releave us of the attempt to maintain the idea of freedom.)
SEC. 10006. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2013(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) Subject to'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--Subject to''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Matching Funds Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Federal share.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of the cost of allotments described
in paragraph (1) in a fiscal year shall be--
``(I) for each of fiscal years 2026 and
2027, 100 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2028 and each fiscal
year thereafter, 95 percent.
``(ii) State share.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
the State share of the cost of allotments described in
paragraph (1) in a fiscal year shall be--
``(I) for each of fiscal years 2026 and
2027, 0 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2028 and each fiscal
year thereafter, 5 percent.
``(B) State quality control incentive.--Beginning in fiscal
year 2028, any State that has a payment error rate, as defined
in section 16, for the most recent complete fiscal year for
which data is available, of--
``(i) equal to or greater than 6 percent but less
than 8 percent, shall have its Federal share of the
cost of allotments described in paragraph (1) for the
current fiscal year equal 85 percent, and its State
share equal 15 percent;
``(ii) equal to or greater than 8 percent but less
than 10 percent, shall have its Federal share of the
cost of allotments described in paragraph (1) for the
current fiscal year equal 80 percent, and its State
share equal 20 percent; and
``(iii) equal to or greater than 10 percent, shall
have its Federal share of the cost of allotments
described in paragraph (1) for the current fiscal year
equal 75 percent, and its State share equal 25
percent.''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not pay
towards the cost of allotments described in paragraph (1) of section
4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(a)), as
designated by subsection (a), an amount greater than the applicable
Federal share described in paragraph (2) of such section 4(a), as added
by subsection (a).
Here are all subsections of Section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2013, precisely and in full for comparative analysis:
---
7 U.S.C. § 2013 – Establishment of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(a) In general
> Subject to the availability of funds appropriated under section 2027 of this title, the Secretary is authorized to formulate and administer a supplemental nutrition assistance program under which, at the request of the State agency, eligible households within the State shall be provided an opportunity to obtain a more nutritious diet through the issuance to them of an allotment, except that a State may not participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program if the Secretary determines that State or local sales taxes are collected within that State on purchases of food made with benefits issued under this chapter. **The benefits so received by such households shall be used only to purchase food from retail food stores which have been approved for participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Benefits issued and used as provided in this chapter shall be redeemable at face value by the Secretary through the facilities of the Treasury of the United States.**
---
(b) Food distribution program on Indian reservations
1. In general — Distribution of commodities, with or without SNAP, shall be made when requested by a tribal organization.
2. Administration
(A) State agencies generally handle distribution.
(B) Tribal organizations may administer, subject to Secretary’s determination.
(C) No household may participate in both SNAP and reservation food distribution simultaneously.
3. Disqualified participants — Individuals disqualified under this program are also ineligible for SNAP for a period set by the Secretary.
4. Administrative costs
(A) Secretary pays at least 80% of distribution costs.
(B) Full (100%) waiver possible for tribal organizations financially unable to pay more.
(C) Benefits cannot be reduced for tribes granted waivers.
(D) Tribal funds or other Federal funds may cover non-Federal share.
5–6. Traditional & locally/regional foods — The Secretary may purchase such foods (including bison meat), and establishes funds requiring at least 50% Native American production, subject to appropriations.
5. Availability of funds — Funds for this subsection remain available for two fiscal years for both general and administrative costs.
---
(c) Regulations; notice to Congress
> The Secretary shall issue regulations consistent with this chapter for effective administration and promulgate them under 5 U.S.C. § 553. Before issuing any regulation, the Secretary must provide the House and Senate Agriculture Committees with a copy and a detailed justification.
---
1792 was our first president. I ask you to make it up to the 2 min mark. At 1:20. You will get "the generation of founding father's found running for office uncouth)
(I cant properly explain that we werent supposed to have a president and we were supoosed to be states that govern individually. Yes. I am not fully accurate. Yes. I am partially correct. Yes. I have the general idea correct. It wasnt supoosed to be a federal government for the same reason they ran from a king. Now. The federal govt has done great things for the country. 48 seperate states would have turned into internal wars due to himan nature. That does not releave us of the attempt to maintain the idea of freedom.)
SEC. 10006. MATCHING FUNDS REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2013(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(a) Subject to'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Program.--
``(1) Establishment.--Subject to''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Matching Funds Requirements.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Federal share.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of the cost of allotments described
in paragraph (1) in a fiscal year shall be--
``(I) for each of fiscal years 2026 and
2027, 100 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2028 and each fiscal
year thereafter, 95 percent.
``(ii) State share.--Subject to subparagraph (B),
the State share of the cost of allotments described in
paragraph (1) in a fiscal year shall be--
``(I) for each of fiscal years 2026 and
2027, 0 percent; and
``(II) for fiscal year 2028 and each fiscal
year thereafter, 5 percent.
``(B) State quality control incentive.--Beginning in fiscal
year 2028, any State that has a payment error rate, as defined
in section 16, for the most recent complete fiscal year for
which data is available, of--
``(i) equal to or greater than 6 percent but less
than 8 percent, shall have its Federal share of the
cost of allotments described in paragraph (1) for the
current fiscal year equal 85 percent, and its State
share equal 15 percent;
``(ii) equal to or greater than 8 percent but less
than 10 percent, shall have its Federal share of the
cost of allotments described in paragraph (1) for the
current fiscal year equal 80 percent, and its State
share equal 20 percent; and
``(iii) equal to or greater than 10 percent, shall
have its Federal share of the cost of allotments
described in paragraph (1) for the current fiscal year
equal 75 percent, and its State share equal 25
percent.''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--The Secretary of Agriculture may not pay
towards the cost of allotments described in paragraph (1) of section
4(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2013(a)), as
designated by subsection (a), an amount greater than the applicable
Federal share described in paragraph (2) of such section 4(a), as added
by subsection (a).
Here are all subsections of Section 4 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2013, precisely and in full for comparative analysis:
---
7 U.S.C. § 2013 – Establishment of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(a) In general
> Subject to the availability of funds appropriated under section 2027 of this title, the Secretary is authorized to formulate and administer a supplemental nutrition assistance program under which, at the request of the State agency, eligible households within the State shall be provided an opportunity to obtain a more nutritious diet through the issuance to them of an allotment, except that a State may not participate in the supplemental nutrition assistance program if the Secretary determines that State or local sales taxes are collected within that State on purchases of food made with benefits issued under this chapter. **The benefits so received by such households shall be used only to purchase food from retail food stores which have been approved for participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Benefits issued and used as provided in this chapter shall be redeemable at face value by the Secretary through the facilities of the Treasury of the United States.**
---
(b) Food distribution program on Indian reservations
1. In general — Distribution of commodities, with or without SNAP, shall be made when requested by a tribal organization.
2. Administration
(A) State agencies generally handle distribution.
(B) Tribal organizations may administer, subject to Secretary’s determination.
(C) No household may participate in both SNAP and reservation food distribution simultaneously.
3. Disqualified participants — Individuals disqualified under this program are also ineligible for SNAP for a period set by the Secretary.
4. Administrative costs
(A) Secretary pays at least 80% of distribution costs.
(B) Full (100%) waiver possible for tribal organizations financially unable to pay more.
(C) Benefits cannot be reduced for tribes granted waivers.
(D) Tribal funds or other Federal funds may cover non-Federal share.
5–6. Traditional & locally/regional foods — The Secretary may purchase such foods (including bison meat), and establishes funds requiring at least 50% Native American production, subject to appropriations.
5. Availability of funds — Funds for this subsection remain available for two fiscal years for both general and administrative costs.
---
(c) Regulations; notice to Congress
> The Secretary shall issue regulations consistent with this chapter for effective administration and promulgate them under 5 U.S.C. § 553. Before issuing any regulation, the Secretary must provide the House and Senate Agriculture Committees with a copy and a detailed justification.
---
SEC. 10007. ADMINISTRATIVE COST SHARING.
Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2025(a)) is amended by striking ``50 per centum'' and inserting ``25
percent''.
Seems to double the burden on the state.
(Which is fine. Lump the entire burden on the state. But then let them regate it. Get out of the states business)
Section 16(a) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2025(a)) is amended by striking ``50 per centum'' and inserting ``25
percent''.
Seems to double the burden on the state.
(Which is fine. Lump the entire burden on the state. But then let them regate it. Get out of the states business)
SEC. 10008. GENERAL WORK REQUIREMENT AGE.
Section 6(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``over the age of 15 and under the age of 60''
and inserting ``over the age of 17 and under the age of 65'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``child under age six'' and
inserting ``child under age seven''; and
(B) by striking ``between 1 and 6 years of age''
and inserting ``between 1 and 7 years of age''.
Seems fine.
Section 6(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), in the matter preceding clause
(i), by striking ``over the age of 15 and under the age of 60''
and inserting ``over the age of 17 and under the age of 65'';
and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``child under age six'' and
inserting ``child under age seven''; and
(B) by striking ``between 1 and 6 years of age''
and inserting ``between 1 and 7 years of age''.
Seems fine.
This one. Is a warning.
Abusing foodstamps in two states is not a reason for states to data share and track. If the rhetoric is cutting spending. The cheapest way to share data and track for double foodstamps in multiple states is not to search. Its to track everyone. One simple program.
SEC. 10009. NATIONAL ACCURACY CLEARINGHOUSE.
Section 11(x)(2) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2020(x)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Data sharing to prevent other multiple
issuances.--A State agency shall use each indication of
multiple issuance, or each indication that an
individual receiving supplemental nutrition assistance
program benefits in 1 State has applied to receive
supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits in
another State, to prevent multiple issuances of other
Federal and State assistance program benefits that a
State agency administers through the integrated
eligibility system that the State uses to administer
the supplemental nutrition assistance program in the
State.''.
Abusing foodstamps in two states is not a reason for states to data share and track. If the rhetoric is cutting spending. The cheapest way to share data and track for double foodstamps in multiple states is not to search. Its to track everyone. One simple program.
SEC. 10009. NATIONAL ACCURACY CLEARINGHOUSE.
Section 11(x)(2) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2020(x)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Data sharing to prevent other multiple
issuances.--A State agency shall use each indication of
multiple issuance, or each indication that an
individual receiving supplemental nutrition assistance
program benefits in 1 State has applied to receive
supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits in
another State, to prevent multiple issuances of other
Federal and State assistance program benefits that a
State agency administers through the integrated
eligibility system that the State uses to administer
the supplemental nutrition assistance program in the
State.''.
More federal over state.
SEC. 10010. QUALITY CONTROL ZERO TOLERANCE.
Section 16(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(c)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (II)--
(A) by striking ``fiscal year thereafter'' and
inserting ``of fiscal years 2015 through 2025''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) for each fiscal year
thereafter, $0.''.
SEC. 10010. QUALITY CONTROL ZERO TOLERANCE.
Section 16(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7
U.S.C. 2025(c)(1)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (II)--
(A) by striking ``fiscal year thereafter'' and
inserting ``of fiscal years 2015 through 2025''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting
``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) for each fiscal year
thereafter, $0.''.
Thank you. Ill edit my comment out. If i find a follow up ill let you know
Sec. 10011. National education and obesity prevention grant program
repealer.
Sec. 10012. Alien SNAP eligibility.
Sec. 10013. Emergency food assistance.
Subtitle B--Investment in Rural America
Sec. 10101. Safety net.
Sec. 10102. Conservation.
Sec. 10103. Supplemental Agricultural Trade Promotion program.
Sec. 10104. Research.
Sec. 10105. Secure rural schools; forestry.
Sec. 10106. Energy.
Sec. 10107. Horticulture.
Sec. 10108. Miscellaneous.
I wasnt sure if it was a question. But it was
Sentences. It was a play on prision sentences.
repealer.
Sec. 10012. Alien SNAP eligibility.
Sec. 10013. Emergency food assistance.
Subtitle B--Investment in Rural America
Sec. 10101. Safety net.
Sec. 10102. Conservation.
Sec. 10103. Supplemental Agricultural Trade Promotion program.
Sec. 10104. Research.
Sec. 10105. Secure rural schools; forestry.
Sec. 10106. Energy.
Sec. 10107. Horticulture.
Sec. 10108. Miscellaneous.
I wasnt sure if it was a question. But it was
Sentences. It was a play on prision sentences.
Tero
Philosopher
Susan Colling is concerned
slate.com
There’s an Alarming Part of Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” You Probably Haven’t Heard Much About
Two historic changes in the Republican budget bill haven’t gotten that much attention.
Last edited:
"This legislation is the principal vehicle to advance President
Trump’s America First agenda."
(Personal opinion. Without the word "President "any current's" administration's agenda". A president of the U.S. needs no agenda. Ever. Except for his or her administration's agenda that is for the people.
We truly need to be controlled at the state level. I'm not sure that is possible in modern times. But functionally, that should be a U.S. citizens focus. The state and where they live. This would allow for certain regulations to not be sweeping. Citizens could move based on regulations that fit their freedom. Again, in modern times. It most likely would be too disjointed to function. Its unrealistic at this point.)
With full context.
It starts poorly. At least it addresses some issues that desperately need a long term plan.
"This legislation is the principal vehicle to advance President
Trump’s America First agenda. It delivers tax relief for Americans,
reforms entitlement programs to ensure they are serving the most
vulnerable, keeps our nation safe, and rolls back burdensome, ex-
pansive government regulations.
The gross federal debt is currently $36.2 trillion—121 percent of
GDP. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), it is projected to increase to $59.2 trillion in 2035—134.8
percent of GDP. The fiscal year 2025 deficit is projected to be $1.9
trillion and CBO projects that by 2035 the annual deficit will have
grown to $2.5 trillion.
"Interest spending this year is estimated to be $952 bil-
lion or 3.2 percent of GDP and exceeds what we spend each year
on our military."
CBO estimates that over the decade interest
spending will total $13.8 trillion and consume up to forty percent
of all individual income taxes. These interest payments provide no
benefits and finance no government service or operations. Instead,
they divert resources from true needs.
Spending is also estimated to explode, from $7 trillion annually
in 2025 to $10.6 trillion in 2035."
It starts poorly. At least it addresses some issues that desperately need a long term plan.
"This legislation is the principal vehicle to advance President
Trump’s America First agenda. It delivers tax relief for Americans,
reforms entitlement programs to ensure they are serving the most
vulnerable, keeps our nation safe, and rolls back burdensome, ex-
pansive government regulations.
The gross federal debt is currently $36.2 trillion—121 percent of
GDP. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), it is projected to increase to $59.2 trillion in 2035—134.8
percent of GDP. The fiscal year 2025 deficit is projected to be $1.9
trillion and CBO projects that by 2035 the annual deficit will have
grown to $2.5 trillion.
"Interest spending this year is estimated to be $952 bil-
lion or 3.2 percent of GDP and exceeds what we spend each year
on our military."
CBO estimates that over the decade interest
spending will total $13.8 trillion and consume up to forty percent
of all individual income taxes. These interest payments provide no
benefits and finance no government service or operations. Instead,
they divert resources from true needs.
Spending is also estimated to explode, from $7 trillion annually
in 2025 to $10.6 trillion in 2035."
I just wonder if any of you are smart or dumb enough to think a 1000 page bill appears out of thin air from one orange man. This isnt an administration. It isnt a party. This is it.
If you cant comprehend its not possible to erect this level of legislation from one man or one or two terms. This isnt trump. This isnt biden. This isnt bi partisan. This is it. The new world. I hope you enjoyed your participation. You earned it.
The left is the new hillbilly. And the right. Is in full submission.
I really hope you are happy with your choices. Because its coming. And its in that bill.
I honestly feel bad for those that participated in this operation and dont fully understand the destruction and misery their actions will result in.
What was your freedom is in that bill. There is no stopping it. Most of us wont live to see it. But look at your children and grand children. And know. They will see it.
If you cant comprehend its not possible to erect this level of legislation from one man or one or two terms. This isnt trump. This isnt biden. This isnt bi partisan. This is it. The new world. I hope you enjoyed your participation. You earned it.
The left is the new hillbilly. And the right. Is in full submission.
I really hope you are happy with your choices. Because its coming. And its in that bill.
I honestly feel bad for those that participated in this operation and dont fully understand the destruction and misery their actions will result in.
What was your freedom is in that bill. There is no stopping it. Most of us wont live to see it. But look at your children and grand children. And know. They will see it.
While the nation is better off with Congress rejecting this bill, I did see at least one thing I like in it. It partially deregulates silencers and eliminates the $200 making and transfer taxes. I've been making silencers as a hobby for over 20 years and that $200 tax is rather annoying. Especially when the material to make the silencer is as little as $10.
Minnesota legislators managed to make silencers legal by putting a silencer provision into a large budget bill. If Governor Dayton wanted to veto the silencer bill, then he would have also been eliminating funds to prevent child trafficking. Politics is ugly.
Some people are opposed to deregulation of silencers, no kidding. 
I'm not sure why Schumer thinks that reducing the tax and easing registration requirements makes silencers much easier for criminals to get. It is not like the $200 tax is any obstacle for a criminal who makes their own silencer. While silencers would be removed from the NFA of 1934, they would still be defined as firearms by the GCA of 1968 and forbidden to be possessed by criminals. A NICS background check would still be required to buy a silencer from a licensed dealer.
Silencers have been controlled since 1934. Many police want silencers for themselves, on the job and off the job. I watched the police lobby the WA state legislature to allow silencer use, for police and civilians back in 2011.
I would argue that the vast majority of those who want silencers are law abiding; not the criminals that Schumer makes us out to be.
Minnesota legislators managed to make silencers legal by putting a silencer provision into a large budget bill. If Governor Dayton wanted to veto the silencer bill, then he would have also been eliminating funds to prevent child trafficking. Politics is ugly.
I'm not sure why Schumer thinks that reducing the tax and easing registration requirements makes silencers much easier for criminals to get. It is not like the $200 tax is any obstacle for a criminal who makes their own silencer. While silencers would be removed from the NFA of 1934, they would still be defined as firearms by the GCA of 1968 and forbidden to be possessed by criminals. A NICS background check would still be required to buy a silencer from a licensed dealer.
Silencers have been controlled since 1934. Many police want silencers for themselves, on the job and off the job. I watched the police lobby the WA state legislature to allow silencer use, for police and civilians back in 2011.
I would argue that the vast majority of those who want silencers are law abiding; not the criminals that Schumer makes us out to be.
I am out of my depth here: why on earth would law abiding people want silencers? Isn’t their only use to make killings more silent?
MostlyHarmless
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 254
They don't really make firearms all that quiet, but enough so that there is less risk of hearing damage.
And they fire their arms so often in self-defence that this is a consideration?
Don’t mind me: I am a Dane, and nobody has firearms here if they are not hunters or criminals.
Tristan Chi
Critical Thinker
Silencers are woke.
Thermal
August Member
Practice at the range. You can have no desire to shoot anyone and love the sport of target shooting.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Of course if someone doing target shooting they probably already have ear protection (in the form of ear muffs) so that a silencer probably isn't needed.
Thermal
August Member
You might not be so sure if you lived or worked near a range. There are also people there who are not on the range but near enough to be getting the shock. Also, people in rural areas sometimes shoot in their yards and don't want to unnecessarily alarm the neighbors. Sound travels quite a ways, especially at super sonic velocities.
Eta: of course you don't *need* a silencer, any more than you need cufflinks or Gouda cheese. But they have their limited place among the law abiding. Criminals generally don't use them, movie plots aside. When Luigi popped the CEO with a home made silencer, the NYC police even commented that you don't see those things in the wild; it was so unusual they didn't even think it was a silencer used for days, and thought it was an obscure handgun.
Last edited:
A silencer will lower muzzle blast noise by about 30 decibels. A rifle chambered in 22lr shooting subsonic ammo will reduce noise to about 115-120 decibels. The short duration of the noise makes it seem to be less noisy than it actually is. High powered rifles will still be about 140 decibels and louder when suppressed.
While most shooters use hearing protection, a silencer reduces the noise right at the muzzle so that it affects everyone nearby less.
Do you actually think a suppressed firearm is more silent? They're actually "less noisy". Big difference. I like to use a silencer on my guns just as I prefer to use mufflers on my motorcycles and other vehicles. Surely you would not just tell other people nearby to use hearing protection when they go out for a drive?
MostlyHarmless
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 254
Honestly, I wasn't always sold on making them legal, even with a permit. After firing a few I didn't see the problem. I mean, I think I would still recognize it as gunfire at a significant distance.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
I was successfully argued out of this position quite a few years ago. I believe Ranb was a large part of that.
Well, I get that the subject is complicated, and I apologise for the detraction.
If I may get back to the Big Beautiful Bill: some time ago, somebody found a law hidden in the BBB that would prevent the judiciary, including the SCOTUS from intervening in Trump’s decisions. I would have thought that many would be up in arms over this, but it has not been mentioned since.
Is it forgotten, or has it turned out that it will not have effect, or what?