Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023


goskins10

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, tshile said:

@bearrock   @Momma There Goes That Man
i like your posts because I’m on board but you have to be honest about what you’re doing. You are. So I’m good with that. Gonna mean something stupid down the road though. 

 

Yeah, when they make Die Hard the National Christmas Movie, I'll realize how stupid my position was.

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:


that means you get 50 filibusters a year. Out of 52 weeks, during many of which the senate isn’t even working. This is basically a free pass to block everything 

Perhaps, but if Shumer brings up all 300 bills that the House passed last year that McConell refused to allow a vote on... the GOP could run out of subpoenas in a week 🥴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wondering.  

 

I think that when Trump took office, he made a mistake.  (As in, something wrong for the country.  Not necessarily an accident.)  

 

I thought that, if he really wanted to be the "political outsider who's not part of either traditional Party", then the first thing he should have done, was a massive infrastructure bill.  Seemed to me, that would have been his best shot at doing something bipartisan, at least to start.  After all, what politician doesn't like federal pork for his district?  

 

Is Biden making the same mistake?  Should his first legislation be an infrastructure package?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

More FB goodies...

 

image.png.56be78efc175f62c47180c625ae35270.png

 

Even if those things were true - they are not, I would still NOT miss trump. So there's that. 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Larry said:

Wondering.  

 

I think that when Trump took office, he made a mistake.  (As in, something wrong for the country.  Not necessarily an accident.)  

 

I thought that, if he really wanted to be the "political outsider who's not part of either traditional Party", then the first thing he should have done, was a massive infrastructure bill.  Seemed to me, that would have been his best shot at doing something bipartisan, at least to start.  After all, what politician doesn't like federal pork for his district?  

 

Is Biden making the same mistake?  Should his first legislation be an infrastructure package?  

 

I think so. Infrastructure should be one of his very top priorities. Everyone talks a big game during the election but then never delivers. trump has a lot of company on that one and it looks like Joe is about to join them all. They all just keep focusing on what the don't agree on. 

Edited by goskins10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I think so. Infrastructure should be one of his very top priorities. Everyone talks a big game during the election but then never delivers. trump has a lot of company on that one and it looks like Joe is about to join them all. They all just keep focusing on what the don't agree on. 

 

It just seems to me like, if you're looking for something, anything, that can pass with a bipartisan vote, just to get ONE, infrastructure might well be it.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

It just seems to me like, if you're looking for something, anything, that can pass with a bipartisan vote, just to get ONE, infrastructure might well be it.  

Couple of thoughts I have about this...

How long would it take to come up with an acceptable (bipartisan) infrastructure bill?  Seems like a massive undertaking with so many moving parts.  I generally agree that it’s a good one to address fairly early on - jobs, unity, improving America, having something to show the American people, etc - but it could take weeks or even (many) months IMO.  

 

 

Looking at bills the House passed that never saw the Senate floor, I have to think the expedient thing to do - in terms of the quickest path to showing unity/bipartisanship - is to re-introduce the most bipartisan of them. 
 

This article breaks down the number of House bills into (generally) how much bipartisan support they had.  Article spends much of the time breaking down the definition of bipartisan (not an objective measurement), and then near the bottom goes into number of bills and amount of GOP support.  I thought the numbers were pretty surprising (article is a bit outdated I believe - early 2020, but recent enough, IMO):

 


Let's start with the 116 roll call votes: 71 passed with the support of a majority of Republican members of the House, ranging from 100 votes to 196 votes. Seven bills passed with anywhere from 55 to 93 GOP votes, and 38 passed with fewer than 50 Republican votes — 23 of which passed with fewer than 10 Republican votes.

 

Voice votes:

 

Looking at the 112 bills with a Democrat as the sponsor, five have more than 50 Republican co-sponsors and the rest have 32 or fewer Republican co-sponsors. Of those, 95 have fewer than 10 Republican co-sponsors.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20200213/fact-check-how-many-bipartisan-bills-has-congress-passed%3ftemplate=ampart

 

 

Lastly, there are 2 areas that stand out having majority support from Dems, Independents and Republicans - maternity leave and increased government assistance for childcare.  

Article below is from March and includes a few other issues that are supported by majority of public, but minority of Republicans (and as soon as the GOP rails against them, you gotta figure that slice gets smaller, especially if sponsored by Dems).  
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/03/27/majority-of-americans-support-progressive-policies-such-as-paid-maternity-leave-free-college.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

How long would it take to come up with an acceptable (bipartisan) infrastructure bill?  Seems like a massive undertaking with so many moving parts.  I generally agree that it’s a good one to address fairly early on - jobs, unity, improving America, having something to show the American people, etc - but it could take weeks or even (many) months IMO.  

 

Oh, I have no doubt that any infrastructure bill will require months of members waiting for lobbyists to pay them carefully considering which kinds of pork they want for their district.  

 

That's why I see the final bill having bipartisan support.  

Edited by Larry
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big pharma is smiling big right now. The big three insulin producers are Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, and Sanofi S.A., in which they dominate more than 90% of the world insulin market by value. After swearing-in, U.S. President Joe Biden’s HHS froze the Trump administration’s December 2020 drug policy that mandates community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients.

 

https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/83900/pharma-biden-freezes-trumps-lower-cost-insulin-and-epinephrine-rule

 

And the pandering to big pharma begins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

Big pharma is smiling big right now. The big three insulin producers are Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, and Sanofi S.A., in which they dominate more than 90% of the world insulin market by value. After swearing-in, U.S. President Joe Biden’s HHS froze the Trump administration’s December 2020 drug policy that mandates community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients.

 

https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/83900/pharma-biden-freezes-trumps-lower-cost-insulin-and-epinephrine-rule

 

And the pandering to big pharma begins. 


one misleading part of this is that a judge had already stopped this Trump EO from taking effect. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/bidens-hhs-freezes-trump-insulin-epinephrine-rule-until-march
 

The HHS Thursday froze the former Trump administration’s December drug policy that requires community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients. 

Centers that don’t pass on the savings wouldn’t qualify for federal grants. The rule, which was finalized in late December, is delayed until March 22, the Department of Health and Human Services said in a Federal Register post. 

This freeze is part of the Biden administration’s large-scale effort announced this week that will scrutinize the Trump administration’s health policies. If the previous administration’s policies raise “fact, law, or policy” concerns, the Biden HHS will delay them and consult with the Office of Management and Budget about other actions. 

Former HHS leaders argued the drug rule would benefit patients who struggle to pay for expensive insulin and allergy medication. However, the health centers said they already pass on those savings and this rule is merely an administrative burden that paints them as entities that price-gouge patients. It’s not clear how many facilities would have to follow the rule or face funding restrictions.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hersh said:


one misleading part of this is that a judge had already stopped this Trump EO from taking effect. 

Similar to the transgender EO (I believe) - courts had ruled against workplace discrimination and the EO implemented the ruling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, clskinsfan said:

Big pharma is smiling big right now. The big three insulin producers are Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, and Sanofi S.A., in which they dominate more than 90% of the world insulin market by value. After swearing-in, U.S. President Joe Biden’s HHS froze the Trump administration’s December 2020 drug policy that mandates community health centers to pass on all their insulin and epinephrine discount savings to patients.

 

https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/83900/pharma-biden-freezes-trumps-lower-cost-insulin-and-epinephrine-rule

 

And the pandering to big pharma begins. 

 

2 hours ago, Hersh said:


one misleading part of this is that a judge had already stopped this Trump EO from taking effect. 

 

Also observing that at least your post doesn't say a thing about "Big Pharma"'s prices, only that local community health centers can't jack up the prices they pay.  

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...