Suburban Rail Loop will help only the few
I am not a fan of President Trump, I have been known to make the comment 'America, land of opportunity where even a fool can be elected president'. He has obviously been misguided on the question of tariffs, but I believe he should be congratulated on recognising that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. The world is indebted to Trump and Israel for the action they have taken. The world is further indebted to Trump for now enabling the peace process to begin.
No doubt, Trump exceeded his authority in not going to Congress to obtain approval for the B2 bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities, but I believe the venture would certainly have failed had he done so.
I can't think of a previous president who would have been prepared to take this necessary action. We are now seeing politics in action by his opponents in belittling what he has achieved. Give him credit when it is due. On this occasion, he has been given expert advice and has followed through on it.
Alan Davidson, Altona
Feeling less safe
Early last week, Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have bombed Iran in order to make us 'all feel safer'. However, his actions made me, and no doubt many others, feel less safe. Now with Netanyahu having drawn Donald Trump into the 'military action', I feel significantly less safe than last week.
Is it because Netanyahu's and Trump's actions were based upon 'intelligence' that is contrary to that of both the International Atomic Energy Agency's and the US State Department? Intelligence that came from the same Israeli people and agency that ignored the warnings of Israeli borders watchers of heightened activity leading up to incursion of Hamas on the October 7, 2023, resulting in the deaths of over 1200 Israelis and now perhaps 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza?
Why was that intelligence ignored? Perhaps then US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger's words from the 1970s still ring true: 'There are only 90,000 people out there. Who gives a damn?' ('Deep Water', Good Weekend, 21/6). In the greater scheme of things, ordinary people don't matter to the powerful.
We have long known that the first causality of war is truth, and Trump has his own concept of 'truth'. Combine this with having complete disregard for rights, agreements, rules or law, and a preparedness to exert what is basically coercive control on all in his orbit makes for a dangerous combination.
At a time when we need greater global cooperation, not competition, I'd feel much safer if Trump insisted countries spent 5per cent of their budgets on addressing global warming and humanitarian aid rather than weapons of war. Trump could then show himself to be a real leader.
Rod Eldridge, Derrinallum
Israel didn't start conflict
Emma Shortis' claim (' Australia needs to find its courage ', 25/6) that Israel 'waged war on Iran' and breached international law is simply incorrect.
Israel did not start a war with Iran—rather, Iran has long waged war on Israel through its proxies, including Hamas, whose October 7 attacks were funded, armed, and likely coordinated by Iran.
Twice last year, Iran directly attacked Israel with missiles and drones. Israel responded in self-defence to prevent further escalation.
Iran openly calls for Israel's destruction, funds groups dedicated to that goal, and even has a countdown clock in Tehran marking Israel's supposed demise. Is that not an act of war?
In this context, Israel's actions were lawful self-defence. Likewise, the US acted to protect an ally and deter a regime that repeatedly calls for 'Death to America.' How is any of that illegal—or undesirable?
Stephen Lazar, Elwood
ABC charter needs attention
As Karl Quinn writes, the ramifications of the Antoinette Lattouf case are 'potentially profound' (' Lattouf case has cost much more than just the money ', 26/6). The outcome of the case does little to resolve whether ABC broadcasters are free to express their political views.
In deciding that the ABC breached the Fair Work Act by dismissing Lattouf for holding or expressing a particular political opinion, the Federal Court casts doubt over whether the ABC can continue to claim that its broadcasters are impartial, fair and balanced.
It might be time to change the ABC Charter, abandon the pretence of impartiality, and allow ABC broadcasters to express their views openly. That would be a refreshing change from the current situation in which most ABC broadcasters play at impartiality while clearly holding progressive, left-leaning worldviews.
Rod Wise, Surrey Hills
Keep opinion to yourselves
I'm amazed and disappointed that the Federal Court has said that journalist Antoinette Lattouf could post information on her social media site that showed a view on the Israel Gaza war.
According to the journalists' union the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA), journalists 'Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence'. The MEAA also informs that journalists 'Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism'.
Journalists' views, such as on politics, should be private, and they should not interfere in any way in their reporting.
Marguerite Marshall, Eltham
$8 million in super. Really?
I could hardly suppress my crocodile tears after reading the first question and answer in the latest 'Ask an expert' financial advice column (2 5/6). The questioners – a retired couple with a combined balance of $8 million in their SMSF – clearly consider the proposed new super tax to be a burden they want to avoid.
Noel's answer, assuming the SMSF's earnings in 2025/26 to be $400,000, shows that the extra tax payable would amount to just over $7000.
Given that the couple expect to draw from their fund a combined pension of $333,000 in the coming financial year, I suggest they won't struggle to pay this additional amount. And assuming a typical proportion of the funds are invested in shares, it's likely the extra tax would be more than offset by the tax refund associated with franking credits.
Kevin Bailey, Croydon
Tax helps
The headline ' We have $8 million in SMSF. How do we avoid paying the new super tax? ' makes my blood boil. It encapsulates the way superannuation has been hijacked by selfish and greedy members of our society who have no concept of the greater good. If you have that much money in super, you should be appreciative of your good fortune and be happy that your tax is helping to fund services that benefit all.
Ann Maginness, Beaumaris
Eroding trust
The exponential increase in misinformation and disinformation is not a new phenomenon, but, as mentioned in the article by Liam Mannix ″ Brett Sutton made it through a pandemic. Now he's fighting a new war ″, 25/6, has become more concerning with increasingly sophisticated AI technology.
The problem has been enabled primarily through the ubiquitous electronic media, and in particular social media which propagates beliefs and opinions often expressed by those with hidden agendas or inexperienced and unqualified ″influencers″, that are often mistakenly confused with truth and verifiable facts.
Consequently, trust in trained and experienced experts, including medical specialists, has been significantly eroded to the detriment of community health. Anything that can be done to reverse or mitigate this trend should be supported. I wish Brett Sutton every success in his endeavour to do this. Furthermore, education should from primary school on, emphasise the importance of deep, critical thinking and analysis, thereby empowering populations to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Leslie Chester, Brighton
'Red notice' red flag
I write as a concerned and angry consumer. I needed a plumber to address a toilet malfunction in my home. I selected a plumbing service from the internet that had thousands of five-star reviews. First hard learned mistake.
I am an older woman at home by myself at the time of my call to them. I was quoted more than $30,000 to address the problem.
I was absolutely floored by this, and told the attending plumber I would need to speak to my husband before any decision could be made. I was then transferred via phone to his supervisor and was told, effectively, that if I did not accept their quote without delay I would find myself with sewerage leaking everywhere and would be issued with a 'red notice' from the council that would order me to vacate my home. This man was so persistent that I felt bullied and threatened. I refused to succumb to his attempted coercion. I was advised by another plumber that no such work was necessary and the problem could be easily fixed and for far less an amount.
I know my problem is not unique. I was stunned to learn that there is very little avenue for me to address this behaviour with an appropriate governing tradesmen's body that would result in this particular plumbing service being sanctioned.
Surely, it is wrong that such scams can occur so blatantly without consequence, and that the reputation of honest tradesmen is unfairly sullied by association.
Christine Harris, Mordialloc
AND ANOTHER THING
Trump world
Trump's desire for a Nobel Peace Prize by blitz bombing Iran is a classic case of the ends justify the means – which they don't.
Greg Curtin, Nunawading
How long until Trump launches his own awards system?
Joan Segrave, Healesville
Let's hope this time Donald Trump has said something true when he says Iran's nuclear capability has been destroyed.
Tony O'Brien, South Melbourne
NATO secretary general Mark Rutte has given the concept of ″brownie points″ a complete new meaning.
Ruth Davis, Carrum
Don't upset Donald! It is plaintive to watch the NATO leaders in The Hague to kowtowing to Donald Trump to keep the alliance together. For Trump the solipsist it was all that mattered - he was the centre of attention.
Helena Kilingerova, Vermont
Can the world's focus please be put back on the situation in Gaza? Israel is committing murder and mayhem.
Rhonda Cox, Diamond Creek
Re Megan Herbert's cartoon, 26/6: It was Hamas. It did house strategic targets. There never was a negotiating table.
Sam Bando, Malvern
Bezos' wedding
Foam party? (' Protesting locals force Bezos to move Venice wedding spectacular ', 26/6). A foam party for 50 to 60-year-olds? And here's me thinking the US president was childish
Pam Cupper, Dimboola
Furthermore
Twice this week the majority of the sport section has been devoted to the trials and tribulations of just one AFL football club. Enough! Apart from Carlton supporters – who cares! There are 17 other AFL clubs.
Brian Kidd, Mt Waverley
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
35 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Does Sir Joh remind you of someone else?
Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar. Joh - the Last King of Queensland MA 15+, 98 minutes, Stan 4 Stars What was it about Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the outlandish state premier who drove a tractor through the democratic process in Queensland and then made a move on Canberra? The string of colourful, catchy phrases that people use to nail his outsize personality in this new documentary profile range from force of nature to corrupt bastard, with one standout. That Joh wrote the playbook for Trump. That's it. As we keep asking ourselves, as though in the grip of OCD, how the US could have come up with such a president, twice, this film is particularly timely. While it's unlikely Trump noted the remarkable success Down Under of the state's National Party leader from 1968 to 1987, it seems fair to say that these two men, similar in typology, share a political mindset that developed while they built their business empires with free rein. This is a timely political documentary, replete with archival footage, interviews with members of the Bjelke-Petersen family, and a wide range of expert opinion. Director Kriv Stenders, who shares screenwriting credits with author and journalist Matthew Condon, offers a portrait of a politician whose influence was long-lasting, and polarising. A touch of docudrama appears every now and then in scenes with actor Richard Roxburgh as Joh, reminding us of his commanding personality, his fumbling speaking style and slight limp. These scenes reimagine Joh's final days in power, inspired by the fact that he actually did lock himself in his office, refusing to accept that he had been stood down. It is very effective, as Roxburgh prowls the stage in declaratory mode, justifying his character's actions, insisting on the value of his legacy. The opening sequences didn't need to be so emphatic but the tone quickly fades, in the transition to interviews with Joh's son and daughters providing insight into the family man. A rural upbringing in tough circumstances when he helped his father with the milking before school, had developed a work ethic and approach to problem-solving. He left school early anyway and forged a thriving business in clearing bushland across the Downs. There was some peanut farming on the side, but it was his bush clearing business with tractors and anchor chain that made him a wealthy man. From sun-up until sundown and into the night, it was a solitary life until his 30s, when he married. Some more on his wife Flo, who became a politician in her own right, would have been a further interesting dimension. There is an impressive line-up of expert opinion assembled here. There are contributions from journalists Quentin Dempster and Chris Masters, political analyst Amy Remeikis, lawyer Terry O'Gorman, psephologist Antony Green, historian Frank Bongiorno and fellow Queensland politicians Bob Katter and David Littleproud. It is almost a surfeit of material for a feature of standard running time. A limited series would have also worked well. The reflections on Bjelke-Petersen's influence on Queenslanders in how they were encouraged to see themselves are intriguing. Authoritarian towards opposition forces in its own community, his regime polarised the Queensland community for decades. The gerrymander, by which country votes were worth more than city votes, kept him in power while he fanned hostility towards the federal system. Long years in power seemed to go to Bjelke-Petersen's head as he quelled the anti-apartheid protesters during a tour by the Springboks declaring a state of emergency. The footage of the police crackdown show how vicious their response was. Over an impressive career, filmmaker Stenders has shown considerable range, from the lovable family favourite Red Dog to the recent menacing political drama The Correspondent. The same can be said of Condon, author of a biography of Terry Lewis, a former Queensland commissioner of police under Bjelke-Petersen who was jailed for corruption. If the doco has insufficient detail on how Joh and his supporters were able to maintain a rigged state electoral system to stay in power, it is completely clear about the culture of police corruption that had taken hold in Queensland. Joh was never found legally responsible for the rot, but it's hard to accept that he was unaware of it and didn't manipulate it for his own purposes. As someone observes, Joh's concept of democracy was that he'd been voted for, so he could do what he wished. Sounds familiar.
The Advertiser
37 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Trump's tax-cut bill heads to a final vote in US House
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default. Republicans in the US House of Representatives have advanced President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill toward a final yes-or-no vote, appearing to overcome internal party divisions over its cost. During a marathon overnight session, lawmakers cleared a final procedural hurdle needed to begin debate on the bill in a 219-213 vote about 3.30am. It was not clear when they would hold a final vote. As dawn broke in Washington on Thursday, the top House Democrat, Hakeem Jeffries, was well into what was turning into an hours-long speech, calling out Republican lawmakers by name as he blasted the package as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans. "This one big, ugly bill - this reckless Republican budget - this disgusting abomination is not about improving the quality of life of the American people," he said, a scathing reference to Trump's name for his signature legislation: One Big Beautiful Bill. "The focus of this bill, the justification for all of the cuts that will hurt everyday Americans is to provide massive tax breaks for billionaires." Democrats are united in opposition to the bill, but on their own lack the votes to stop the bill in the chamber, which is controlled 220-212 by Trump's Republicans. Republicans can afford no more than three defections to get a final bill passed. The past two weeks have shown deep Republican divides on the bill, which would add $US3.4 trillion ($A5.2 trillion) to the nation's $US36.2 trillion in debt and make major cuts to social programs including Medicaid. Republican lawmakers have long railed against the growth of the debt, which has continued during the past two decades regardless of which party was in control in Washington. A handful of Republican holdouts have objected to the bill. One, senator Thom Tillis, opted not to seek re-election after voting against it. Nonetheless, Trump has succeeded in getting the votes to advance the legislation at each step of the way. Votes in the House were held open for hours on Wednesday during the day and overnight as House Speaker Mike Johnson and the White House talked with reluctant members. Johnson expressed optimism on Wednesday night, saying lawmakers had a "long, productive day" discussing the issues. He praised Trump for making phone calls to the holdouts through the early hours of Thursday morning. "There couldn't be a more engaged and involved president," Johnson told reporters. The Senate passed the legislation by the narrowest possible margin on Tuesday after intense debate on the bill's hefty price tag and $US900 million in cuts to the Medicaid healthcare program for low-income Americans. Any changes made by the House would require another Senate vote, which would make it all but impossible to meet Trump's self-imposed deadline of getting the legislation approved by the July 4 holiday. The bill would raise the nation's debt ceiling by $US5 trillion, a necessary step to avoid a devastating default in coming months. The legislation contains most of Trump's top domestic priorities. It would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, cut health and food safety net programs, fund Trump's immigration crackdown, and zero out many green-energy incentives. It also includes a $US5 trillion increase in the nation's debt ceiling, which lawmakers must address in the coming months or risk a devastating default.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Hakeem Jeffries trying to ‘go for the record' of longest speech in US Congress
On tonight's episode of Paul Murray Live, Sky News host Paul Murray discusses a lengthy Democrats' speech in Congress, Labor's growing bureaucracy, Liverpool soccer star's shock death, and more. Mr Murray said Hakeem Jeffries is trying to 'go for the record' of the longest speech in US Congress. 'The story right now is a bloke who is seemingly trying to take every moment he can to speak for as long as possible, to get as many eyeballs on his opposition and his party's opposition to the 'Big Beautiful Bill'.'
