Senate Passes Inflation Reduction Bill

As a former VP of the US once said, this is a Big F****** Deal (BFD)

The headlines that this is the biggest move on Climate Change the US has made for once are not hype.

The ability of Medicare to negotiate some drug prices is also huge.

The continuation of new ObamaCare subsidies are also big.

With this Joe has fulfilled a number of campaign promises.

Joe Biden is my God!

Seriously? The guy campaigned on reaching across aisle. Building bridges, uniting America, and building back better.

And we end up with no bridges being built, nobody reaching across the aisle (remember ole Joe said he could get them to do it), hasn’t untied America, and has a rebranded bill called inflation reduction bill that only got passed because he had to cave to in to two moderate bought and paid for corporate Dems.

Yeah right….. Big deal my ass, lol.

Oh and insulin isn’t capped. Last minute fuck job. Sinema nearly crashed the whole deal because her corporate masters and hedge fund pals complained.

Pfffft

Oh and don’t forget. Sanders didn't try to derail this bill. Manchin and Sinema did everything they could for two years…..

Wasn't talking about the other bills that have been passed, however there have been a number of them, including Infrastructure & improved Veteran Benefits.

Those are the Bridge building Joe ran on.

Stupid bastard:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-knocks-schumer-manchins-004347908.html

PennSpartan wrote:Stupid bastard:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-knocks-schumer-manchins-004347908.html

Sanders is stating the truth that the irems passed are not nearly enough. When he can find the votes to pass more he should do so. Nothing wrong with his advocationg for measures most of the Democratic Senators agree with.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:Stupid bastard:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-knocks-schumer-manchins-004347908.html

Sanders is stating the truth that the irems passed are not nearly enough. When he can find the votes to pass more he should do so. Nothing wrong with his advocationg for measures most of the Democratic Senators agree with.

He is filth.

What are the Republicans saying as to why they wanted to take the cap off a $35 insulin? What reasons are they giving for it?

DWags wrote:What are the Republicans saying as to why they wanted to take the cap off a $35 insulin? What reasons are they giving for it?

They claimed it violated some Senate rule. I’d like to know why all of these archaic rules were set up in the first place. Get rid of all of them.

DWags wrote:What are the Republicans saying as to why they wanted to take the cap off a $35 insulin? What reasons are they giving for it?

Didn't find anything the Senators said, here is what was said in the House.

Arguing against the bill from the House floor on Thursday, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers seemed to suggest that regulating the price of this drug that keeps people with diabetes alive would be a slippery slope to the end of capitalism as we know it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/republicans-insulin-capping-bill

PennSpartan wrote:

DWags wrote:What are the Republicans saying as to why they wanted to take the cap off a $35 insulin? What reasons are they giving for it?

They claimed it violated some Senate rule. I’d like to know why all of these archaic rules were set up in the first place. Get rid of all of them.

(Except the filibuster)

Trapper Gus wrote:

DWags wrote:What are the Republicans saying as to why they wanted to take the cap off a $35 insulin? What reasons are they giving for it?

Didn't find anything the Senators said, here is what was said in the House.

Arguing against the bill from the House floor on Thursday, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers seemed to suggest that regulating the price of this drug that keeps people with diabetes alive would be a slippery slope to the end of capitalism as we know it.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/republicans-insulin-capping-bill

Not a great explanation, but this is what I found:
https://www.newsweek.com/why-insulin-price-cap-private-insurers-wont-reconciliation-bill-1731606

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Didn't find anything the Senators said, here is what was said in the House.



https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/republicans-insulin-capping-bill

Not a great explanation, but this is what I found:
https://www.newsweek.com/why-insulin-price-cap-private-insurers-wont-reconciliation-bill-1731606

The Republicans are lying.  It is within the rules to include non-budget issues if 60 votes can be found.  At least in the House they stated their allegiance to laissez-faire capitalism, which of course is the survival of the strong and death for the weak.

Furthermore, there is a nuclear option on the filibuster itself, which is for the President of the Senate, or presiding officer, to declare the filibuster unconstitutional, which it is, but neither Party is ready to take that route.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Not a great explanation, but this is what I found:
https://www.newsweek.com/why-insulin-price-cap-private-insurers-wont-reconciliation-bill-1731606

The Republicans are lying.  It is within the rules to include non-budget issues if 60 votes can be found.  At least in the House they stated their allegiance to laissez-faire capitalism, which of course it the survival of the strong and death for the weak.

Furthermore, there is a nuclear option on the filibuster itself, which is for the President of the Senate, or presiding officer, to declare the filibuster unconstitutional, which it is, but neither Party is ready to take that route.

They only got 57 votes.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The Republicans are lying.  It is within the rules to include non-budget issues if 60 votes can be found.  At least in the House they stated their allegiance to laissez-faire capitalism, which of course it the survival of the strong and death for the weak.

Furthermore, there is a nuclear option on the filibuster itself, which is for the President of the Senate, or presiding officer, to declare the filibuster unconstitutional, which it is, but neither Party is ready to take that route.

They only got 57 votes.

It could have passed.

Only 7 Republicans voted to keep poor people alive.

The other Senators did like what the Senators did at the Coliseum in Rome to the Christian martyrs and turned their thumbs down on poor people with diabetes, putting drug company profits ahead of the lives of US citizens.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
They only got 57 votes.

It could have passed.

Only 7 Republicans voted to keep poor people alive.

The other Senators did like what the Senators did at the Coliseum in Rome to the Christian martyrs and turned their thumbs down on poor people with diabetes, putting drug company profits ahead of the lives of US citizens.

Apparently, it’s not over yet.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/schumer-may-force-senate-republicans-232250859.html

That article is from Saturday, describing what Schumer might do, and what he eventually did.