Service funding is going up, and the increase is being paid for primarily by the rich
Such BS, according to every source I can find outside of trumpologist lists from the right side of congressional aisles.
So does that mean it's BS according to some source you've found that's neutral, unbiased and objective? Or do you mean all your leftist sources agree it's BS?
Perplexity -
Q: “does funding go up for services under the new budget bill?”
Seriously? You're offering, as evidence, the emissions of an Artificial Imbecile that literally did not understand the question and literally does not understand its own output. An "A.I.", at its best, is what you get if the developers graft "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"'s "Ask the Audience" lifeline onto an Eliza program -- the audience is usually right because 90% don't know the answer and vote randomly, and 10% do know the answer and that's usually enough to break the tie. An "A.I.", at its more typical, is what you get if the developers graft "Ask the Audience" onto an Eliza program but deliberately exclude the portion of the audience who they know disagree with their own views from the training data, and consequently sometimes lose the 10% who know the answer.
A: Funding for social services does not go up under the new budget bill; in fact, the bill introduces significant cuts to major social programs. Key details include:
• Medicaid and SNAP (food assistance) face steep reductions, with Medicaid alone seeing cuts of nearly $1 trillion over a decade, potentially causing millions to lose health insurance.
• Funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and military spending increases, while resources are shifted away from public services like Medicaid and clean energy initiatives.
• The bill also reduces or phases out tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles, and imposes new restrictions and paperwork requirements on Medicaid recipients, which is expected to further reduce access to these services.
While some areas, such as immigration enforcement, receive more funding, the overall trend for social services is a decrease in funding and eligibility. The budget reallocates resources away from public health, nutrition, and clean energy programs.
So, which fact above isn’t a fact
Like I said before, Medicaid is going up. There's a limit to my patience for doing your research for you so I'm not going to bother with specifics about other social services; and clean energy promotion isn't a social service anyway. I'm confident that total funding for the rest of social services is going up because it's
always going up. If you dispute that then you're making an extraordinary claim, so unless you have extraordinary evidence, let's stay focused on Medicaid.
, and if they are facts, what is the basis for your statement?
Sixty-odd years of experience with reality in America; but you knew that, and I think that's not what you're really challenging me to produce. I take it what you want is links to sources I googled after you challenged me that back up what I already knew, yes? Here ya go...
See the table on page 10, "CMS Annually Appropriated Accounts (Dollars in Millions)" and check the "Grants to States (Medicaid)" line.
The 2025 budget was $711,733.765. The administration's budget request for 2026 is $769,212.611. Trump asked Congress to authorize a $57 billion raise for Medicaid next year.
Here's an explanation for why this 8% increase is almost universally being described as a massive cut, from a source I hope you won't dismiss as "trumpologist lists from the right side of congressional aisles." It took some digging, but I finally found a mainstream-media source that told the truth. Kudos to NBC.
As Democrats go on offense, the two parties are racing to define the terms of a debate that will shape the fight for control of Congress as surveys reveal the public holds nuanced views.
www.nbcnews.com
Buried in that otherwise typical report, there are the four little words that say the quiet part out loud.
"The bill would impose about $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid relative to current law"
The "journalists" who call it a massive cut and don't mention the "relative to current law" bit by and large know all about that part. They leave it out either because they're mendacious and mentioning it doesn't serve the spin they want, or, more charitably, because they take for granted that their readers already know the way these discussions go and already understand that "cuts" are always characterized "relative to current law" rather than relative to zero-based-budgeting. I already knew it -- that was "the basis for my statement" that you asked about. Didn't you already know it? The sources Perplexity was trained on surely for the most part already knew it. But Perplexity didn't already know it.
www.claimsjournal.com
