Senate aims to hold initial vote today on Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
Washington — The Senate plans to hold a key test vote on President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" later Saturday, even as it's unclear whether the tax and spending measure has enough support to lift it over the hurdle.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said Friday he wasn't certain he had the votes to advance the bill, as the upper chamber awaited decisions on whether a number of provisions complied with the Senate's reconciliation rules, which allow Republicans to pass the bill with a simple majority. Major policy disputes also remained.
Senate Republicans did not release the final version of their bill until late Friday night, giving senators little time to digest it before taking an initial procedural vote that's necessary to move toward final passage.
Mr. Trump has pressured Congress to send him the sprawling package — which includes tax cuts and funding for his immigration and defense priorities — by the Fourth of July holiday.
In the bill, Republicans proposed slashing funding for Medicaid, which provides health insurance to low-income individuals and people with disabilities, and food assistance benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or food stamps — to help pay for those priorities.
Over the last week, the Senate parliamentarian determined that some of the most controversial provisions in the package violated a rule that governs the reconciliation process, which requires that the legislation only include provisions that have a direct impact on federal spending. The rulings directed Republicans to either drop those sections from the package or rewrite them.
Meanwhile, in the leadup to the vote, disputes over Medicaid spending cuts, the state and local tax deduction and a planned debt ceiling increase still lingered among Republicans.
House Republicans narrowly passed a version of the bill in May. and the lower chamber is expected to be called back to Washington to vote on the Senate version if it survives the upper chamber in the coming days. But House Republicans have warned that any major changes made by the Senate put its ability to make it through the House again at risk.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Crypto Investors Open Up About $200K Losses to Million-Dollar Mistakes — What Their Stories Teach About Market Psychology
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. When Reddit user mickeyhusti asked the crypto community a simple question—'How much have you lost?'—the flood of responses painted a stark picture of the current market's brutal reality. From six-figure portfolio wipeouts to million-dollar mistakes, the thread became an impromptu therapy session for investors grappling with substantial losses in Bitcoin, Ethereum, and altcoins. The original poster set the tone by revealing their own $200,000 decline from peak portfolio value, expressing shock at Bitcoin's recent dumps and calling Ethereum's performance 'brutal.' What followed was a mix of financial confessions, investment philosophies, and coping mechanisms that reveal deeper truths about crypto market psychology. Don't Miss: Trade crypto futures on Plus500 with up to $200 in bonuses — no wallets, just price speculation and free paper trading to practice different strategies. Grow your IRA or 401(k) with Crypto – unlock the power of alternative investments including a Crypto IRA within your retirement account. The losses shared ranged from the sobering to the catastrophic. One trader revealed losing nearly everything: 'Started with $90,000, reached $120,000, and now my portfolio is $400... futures...' Another investor reported being down $100,000 'so far,' while a startup employee with no salary shared their panic over a $120,000 loss. Perhaps most dramatic was the investor claiming '$4 years and 10 million USD' in losses, though the community's response suggested skepticism about such extreme figures. These aren't just numbers—they represent real financial stress, with one commenter noting they'd lost 'about 30k and my mental health.' The human cost becomes particularly clear when investors mention working without salaries or facing relationship strain due to investment decisions. Despite the substantial paper losses, a dominant theme emerged around the concept of unrealized versus realized losses. 'Nothing. Haven't sold a dime,' became a rallying cry, with many investors maintaining that losses only become real when positions are closed. This philosophy reflects a deeper investment discipline that separates long-term holders from panic sellers. As one decade-long investor put it: 'Haven't sold so nothing. Been stacking over a decade. Just DCA and enjoy the ride.' The strategy appears to have merit for those with sufficient time horizons. Several investors reported significant gains over longer periods, with one claiming to be 'up 250% (6 figures)' despite daily volatility, and another maintaining they're 'still up 130k' after investing in XRP. Trending: New to crypto? Get up to $400 in rewards for successfully completing short educational courses and making your first qualifying trade on Coinbase. A clear pattern emerged distinguishing Bitcoin performance from alternative cryptocurrencies. Many investors attributed their losses specifically to 'altcoins,' with several transitioning to Bitcoin-only strategies after disappointing experiences with other tokens. 'After dozens of hours here and there, I walked away from alts up a few thousand... It's just not worth the effort and stress,' explained one investor who became a 'Bitcoin maxi.' Another reported earning 'close to 40%' by simply buying $25 worth of Bitcoin weekly. This divergence reflects Bitcoin's relative strength compared to many altcoins, which have failed to recover to previous highs even as Bitcoin reached new records. Ethereum, despite being the second-largest cryptocurrency, remains at September 2022 price levels according to community observations. The discussion revealed growing concerns about crypto's relationship with traditional economic cycles and political events. Several investors expressed worry about how cryptocurrencies might perform during a prolonged recession, questioning the asset class's role as a hedge against traditional finance. Political developments, particularly around the Trump administration and potential tariff policies, emerged as significant concerns. Some investors directly blamed political uncertainty for portfolio declines, while others worried about policy impacts on the broader crypto ecosystem. 'Today feels very much different,' noted one investor. 'Crypto is already a mainstream speculative asset. Has less and less to do with anarchy and financial independence.' The thread illuminated crucial differences between successful and struggling crypto investors. Those reporting gains typically exhibited several common characteristics: Disciplined approach: Regular dollar-cost averaging rather than lump-sum investments at peaks Time horizon: Multi-year investment perspectives rather than short-term speculationRisk management: Only investing money they could afford to lose Emotional control: Avoiding frequent portfolio checking and panic decisions Conversely, those reporting significant losses often described: Investing money needed for short-term expenses Heavy use of leverage and futures trading Emotional decision-making during market volatility Concentration in speculative altcoins rather than established cryptocurrencies Perhaps most revealing were the various ways investors coped with substantial losses. Humor emerged as a common defense mechanism, with jokes about losing body parts, relationships, and sanity alongside financial assets. Others adopted philosophical approaches, viewing losses as tuition for investment education or accepting volatility as inherent to the asset class. 'You know, or at least you SHOULD KNOW, if you speculate on anything's future valuation, it's just that: a SPECULATION,' one commenter emphasized. Some investors completely disconnected from daily price movements, with one stating they're 'not checking my portfolio for many, many years.'The Reddit confessions offer several crucial insights for both crypto and traditional investors: Position sizing matters: The most distressed investors typically had oversized positions relative to their financial capacity. Those who invested only what they could afford to lose showed greater emotional stability. Time horizon discipline: Long-term holders consistently outperformed those making frequent trading decisions, regardless of their technical analysis skills. Asset allocation within crypto: Bitcoin's relative strength compared to altcoins suggests that diversification within crypto may not provide the intended risk reduction. Market cycle awareness: Understanding that crypto markets operate in cycles helps investors maintain perspective during downturns, though past performance doesn't guarantee future results. This community discussion occurs against a backdrop of increasing crypto mainstream adoption, regulatory clarity, and institutional investment. Yet the individual stories remind us that behind market statistics are real people making real financial decisions with real consequences. The thread also highlighted how crypto investment has evolved from early adopter speculation to mainstream asset allocation, bringing both opportunities and risks to a broader population of investors. For investors currently facing significant crypto losses, the community discussion suggests several potential approaches: Reassess position sizes and risk tolerance Consider the difference between speculation and long-term investment Evaluate the role of crypto within overall portfolio allocation Focus on risk management rather than return maximization Seek professional financial advice for significant positions The raw honesty of these investor confessions provides valuable perspective on crypto market psychology and the very human experience of financial volatility. Whether the current downturn represents a temporary setback or a more fundamental shift remains to be seen, but the lessons about investment discipline and emotional management remain universally applicable. Read Next: Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can invest with $1,000 at just $0.30/share. This article Crypto Investors Open Up About $200K Losses to Million-Dollar Mistakes — What Their Stories Teach About Market Psychology originally appeared on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Miami Herald
18 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Map Shows States Americans Are Moving From and To
With declining births and slower immigration following the Trump administration's strict deportation policies, domestic migration is bound to become an increasingly more important driver of U.S. population change, a recent study found. Florida and Texas, which have both been among the fastest-growing states in the nation for years, know what a positive impact a booming population can have on the local economy and job market, as well as what happens when this demographic explosion starts to wane. This year's State of the Nation's Housing report, released earlier this week by the Joint Center for Housing Studies (JCHS) of Harvard University, found that the movement of Americans across the country has declined in 2024 all across the country, including in the states that are traditionally the most popular among movers. Last year, according to researchers, the nation reported the lowest rates of household mobility on record since the 1970s. According to the latest Current Population Survey, about 8.3 percent of households (10.9 million) reported moving over the past year, a rate unchanged from a year earlier and down from 9.8 percent (12.6 million) before the pandemic, in 2019. In the same year, the homeowner mobility rate dropped to an all-time low of 3.1 percent, down from 3.7 percent in 2023 and 4.3 percent in 2019. That means U.S. homeowners made 24 percent fewer moves last year than in 2019, before the pandemic unleashed a surge of remote workers relocating from large, busy metropolises to smaller, more affordable towns. The South was the main beneficiary of this influx of people relocating to cheaper, more livable parts of the nation, with Florida and Texas adding hundreds of thousands of new residents over the past five years. The rate of domestic migration in Florida increased from 6.5 in 2019 to 8.1 in 2020, 11.4 in 2021, and reached a peak of 14.2 in 2022. In 2023, it fell to 8.2, and in 2024, it plunged to 2.7. In Texas, the rate increased from 4.2 in 2019 to 5.6 in 2020, 6.7 in 2021, 7.4 in 2022, and 6.3 in 2023, only to fall to 2.8 in 2024. While domestic migration remained the main source of population growth last year for 11 states, primarily in the South, net gains from migration fell in several of these states. In North Carolina, domestic migration decreased by 17 percent from the previous year, while in Tennessee, it decreased by 20 percent. Not only has in-migration-the process of relocating permanently to another part of one's home country-slowed down in the states that were most benefiting from it over the past five years, but out-migration from states that were hemorrhaging residents also slowed down last year. The number of residents moving out of California, for example, dropped by 30 percent in 2024, from −344,000 in 2023 to −240,000 in 2024. New York, another state where out-migration has surpassed in-migration in recent years, lost 121,000 people on net to interstate migration in 2024, about 30 percent fewer than in 2023 (−177,000) and 60 percent fewer than in 2022 (−296,000). Since 2019, the cost of homeownership has skyrocketed nationwide, including in states that previously offered more affordable options. The median sale price of a typical U.S. home was $313,000 in the first quarter of 2019, according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau; in the first quarter of 2024, it had surged to $426,800. As of the first quarter of 2025, $416,900. Mortgage rates have also gone through the roof since 2019. If historically low monthly payments during the pandemic spurred a homebuying frenzy nationwide, rates lingering around the 7 percent mark are now hindering demand, pushing buyers to the sidelines. The result is that packing up and moving to another state has become a trickier operation for many Americans, considering the overall cost of purchasing a new property. On top of that, return-to-office orders from companies that had been pressured to offer remote working options during the pandemic are now forcing many employees to go back to the same busy metros they had left. According to the JCHS study, last year there was a slowdown in moves out of urban centers across the U.S., which had accelerated during the pandemic. Net moves from dense urban counties, such as those in New York City, researchers found, fell for the third consecutive year in 2024, down 17 percent from the previous year. At the same time, net moves into suburban counties fell 16 percent year-over-year, while gains in smaller metros and non-metro counties declined by 12 percent and 31 percent, respectively, over the past year; however, these remain higher than pre-pandemic levels. Related Articles Map Shows States With the Best Major Airports in the Shows 10 Housing Markets Where Buyers Have More PowerMap Shows Most Expensive Home Sales Across USMap Shows Which States Will Feel Hottest Today 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
18 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Voters Are Losing Faith With Trump
Once the cornerstone of his political strength, President Donald Trump's base is showing signs of erosion. The latest YouGov/Economist poll, conducted June 20-23 among 1,590 adults, shows that Trump's approval rating among those who voted for him in 2024 stands at 83 percent, while 14 percent disapprove, giving him a net approval rating of +69 points, down from +80 last month. The poll had a margin of error of +/-3.5 percentage points. Last month's poll was conducted before Trump carried out airstrikes against three key Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend. In retaliation, Iran fired missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. A ceasefire between Iran and Israel was agreed to the same day, though tensions remain high. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have since accused Iran of violating the ceasefire and threatened to strike Tehran in response—an accusation Tehran denies. The rapid escalation has spotlighted the risks of deeper U.S. military involvement in the Middle East and highlighted the evolving nature of American foreign policy under Trump, who once promised to protect "America's vital interests" without engaging in "endless wars" overseas. The strikes appear to have triggered a shift in public attitudes—even among Republicans—with polls showing signs of declining support for Trump's agenda. Additional data from the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted June 21–23 among 1,139 respondents, reinforces the trend: 84 percent of Republicans said they approve of the president's job performance, down from 90 percent last month. The latest poll had a margin of error of +/-3.2 percentage points. Political analysts say Trump's declining approval ratings are tied to a growing disconnect between his actions and voter priorities—particularly after his recent military intervention in Iran. Thomas Gift, founding director of the University College London Centre on U.S. Politics, told Newsweek Trump's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities has unsettled many in the MAGA movement who expected him to avoid foreign entanglements. "Trump's recent actions in Iran have done little to reassure the MAGA base that he'll steer clear of another endless war in the Middle East," Gift said, noting that even former chief strategist Steve Bannon has warned the conflict could escalate into "U.S. boots on the ground." Gift added that a core tenet of Trump's 2024 message was that "'America First' meant staying out of foreign conflicts," but now "that promise is starting to ring hollow." Peter Loge, a political communications professor at George Washington University and former Obama advisor, told Newsweek Trump's approval ratings are falling for broader reasons as well. "Trump's numbers are down because that's how public opinion works," Loge said. "He is pursuing policies people don't like, while ignoring things people care about." He pointed to "thermostatic politics"—the idea that voters often react against the party in power, even when it does what they asked for—as a key factor. "Trump started in a weak position with a lot of soft support," Loge explained. "That he is getting less popular is unsurprising." Loge added that many of Trump's headline policies—such as sending troops into American cities or escalating military conflicts abroad—don't match what most voters are asking for. "Most voters mostly want things to work," he said. "They want to be able to afford gas and groceries, pay their medical bills, and know their kids have a shot at a good future." Instead, Trump's agenda—threatening Medicaid, risking inflation with tariffs, and engaging in costly foreign conflicts—"either ignores what most voters care about, or threatens to make those things worse." "President Trump likes people to pay attention to Donald Trump," Loge said. "Voters would rather pay attention to their families." It comes as polls show that a majority of Americans do not approve of U.S. airstrikes in Iran. The YouGov/Economist poll found just 29 percent think the U.S. should be carrying the strikes, while 46 percent said it should not. The Washington Post found modestly higher support for the U.S. military bombing Iran. In a poll, 25 percent of adults supported "the U.S. military launching airstrikes against Iran over its nuclear program," while 45 percent were opposed. The poll also found that 82 percent of Americans were either "somewhat" or "very" concerned about getting involved in a full-scale war with Iran. Analysis by pollster G. Elliott Morris showed that 21 percent of Americans said last week that they supported U.S. involvement in Iran, while 57 percent opposed. And it seems that Trump's decision to launch airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities has exposed deep divisions within the party. Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky called Trump's move unconstitutional. "This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution," Massie posted on X, formerly Twitter. Far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a Trump ally, struck a cautious tone after the bombing, posting on X: "Let us join together and pray for the safety of our U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East." But just 30 minutes before the announcement of the airstrikes, Greene voiced frustration: "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war... Israel is a nuclear armed nation. This is not our fight. Peace is the answer." Former Trump adviser and War Room podcast host Steve Bannon was even more direct in his criticism, blasting the president for publicly thanking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the operation. "It hasn't been lost... that he thanked Bibi Netanyahu, who I would think right now – at least the War Room's position is – [is] the last guy on Earth you should thank," Bannon said. Bannon, who has long opposed U.S. military involvement in Iran, questioned Trump's reliance on intelligence reportedly provided by Israel, rather than U.S. sources. "I don't think we've been dealing from the top of the deck," he said, and described Trump's post-strike remarks as "very open-ended," adding: "I'm not quite sure [it was] the talk that a lot of MAGA wanted to hear." While Bannon insisted that "the MAGA movement will back Trump," he noted growing discomfort with the president's increasingly hawkish posture, recalling that opposition to "forever wars" was a defining issue in Trump's 2016 campaign. "One of the core tenets is no forever wars," Bannon told an audience in Washington days before the strike. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, also appeared to diverge from the president. Trump recently criticized the intelligence community's assessment that Iran had not taken the political decision to build a nuclear bomb, saying they were "wrong." Gabbard has denied any serious disagreement. Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing influencer, warned ahead of the strikes that Trump risked alienating his base. "Trump voters, especially young people, supported [him] because he was the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war," he said. But after the strikes, Kirk appeared to soften, reposting a clip of Vice President JD Vance praising the pilots involved. "They dropped 30,000 pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine... Whatever our politics, we should be proud," Vance said. Nonetheless, polls suggest that Trump's MAGA base is largely supportive of the strikes. A recent J.L. Partners poll showed that support for U.S. military action against Iran is strongest among Trump's most devoted base. Two-thirds of self-identified "MAGA Republicans" (65 percent) back U.S. strikes, far surpassing support among "Traditional Republicans" (51 percent). Most Republican voters also view Israel's war with Iran as a shared American cause, with 63 percent saying "Israel's war is America's war"—a figure that rises to 67 percent among MAGA Republicans. And a new Washington Post/George Mason University survey finds Republican support for a strike rising from 47 percent to 77 percent. For comparison, political independents moved 10 points in Trump's direction, and Democrats stayed put. For pollster G Elliott Morris, there is a simple explanation for this. "Many Republicans do not hold isolationism as a value above their partisanship," he wrote in a blog post. "When push comes to shove, party loyalty and following the leader override some abstract commitment to staying out of foreign conflicts. If Trump decides that the MAGA movement should abandon isolationism altogether and invade Iran, then a large chunk of the movement will follow suit. The speed and scale of the shift in Republican opinion after Trump's decision to bomb Iran is a textbook example of this." He continued: "Of course, partisanship is not just a Republican phenomenon, but Trump's gravitational pull on opinion is unlike the force wielded by any other politician." Aaron Evans, president of Winning Republican Strategies, summed up why Republicans support Trump's actions in Iran. "Americans know President Trump did exactly what he promised: he stopped Iran from getting nuclear weapons without dragging us into another endless war," Evans told Newsweek. "While Democrats rushed to scream 'World War III,' Trump exposed their weakness and lack of seriousness on foreign policy. He showed strength, poise, and strategic discipline—doing what others only talk about: keeping nukes out of the hands of a terror regime while securing peace through strength. The media can spin, but voters see the truth. President Trump acted with precision, avoided war, and protected American lives. He's a man of action, not talk—and that's exactly why his base remains strong." However, the most recent YouGov/Economist poll found that only 47 percent of Trump 2024 voters think the U.S. should take active part in world affairs, while 37 percent disagreed and 19 percent said they are not sure. Related Articles Donald Trump Approval Rating Falls To All-Time LowBirthright Citizenship: What Polls Show About Americans' ViewsNew 2028 Democratic Front-Runner Surges Ahead of Kamala Harris-PollSusan Collins' Chances of Winning Re-election in Maine, According to Polls 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
