Also, you are aware that by your own definition of “biological female” (does not have a Y chromosome), pregnancy is not strictly unique to females? https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/ask352#:~:text=Yes, it is possible for,for a baby to grow. A more biologically accurate wording would be that pregnancy is unique to people who have a uterus (who almost always don’t have a Y chromosome, but on rare occasions do).
Republicans complain that the Democratic Congress an Biden aren focusing on things that really matter to Americans like addressing inflation and then are upset that in a bill addressing inflation they don’t deal with the definition of a women.
quite impressive to see the spineless democratic party actually do something for once. It was getting annoying how republicans and the two faux democrat manchin and sinema tank anything that Biden was trying to push through.
Since the inflation reduction act doesn't actually address inflation (What is in the Inflation Reduction Act? : NPR - per the CBO, it will have a negligible effect on inflation), it doesn't really seem relevant what other non-inflation related measures are included or not included. I guess when Americans say their number one concern is the economy and inflation, one way to take advantage is to pass your pet projects (clean energy, corporate taxation, and prescription drug prices) and call it the Inflation Reduction Act.
The big pharm lobby is the most powerful lobby in the US - a huge accomplishment to finally enable Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Big win for seniors and taxpayers. It could have been better. Too bad the Republican Party is more concerned about the def of a woman than doing good for Americans. We were 3 votes short of reining in big pharma abuses on insulin prices.
Majority of those using insulin are probably Republican and have no clue or don't care that their party voted to block this.
Republicans can’t defend the vast majority of their decisions, so they focus on culture wars and just lying it’s why we have idiots completely ignoring what was passed and crying about some irrelevant male vs female debate
Fox News and Bubba from FB won’t tell them, so they’ll have no clue…if it is told them to them, it will be spun as being the Democrats fault like they tried to do with the recent vet bill before the pressure was too much and Republicans had to reverse course because nobody was buying their bullsh*t I remember seeing a video years ago where Republicans would be told about what’s in Obamacare without knowing it’s Obamacare they’re talking about and like it, but then when told that it’s Obamacare they’re talking about, they would be dumbfounded because it went against their programming
It's debatable how much effect the bill will have on inflation but by your own languange shows that it will have an effect on inflation if at least very small.
It wasn't my language; it was the CBO's language (straight from the link I also provided). It is pretty sad if the Inflation Reduction Act's effect on inflation is "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant," which is the definition of negligible.
So u r telling me a bill should consist of only one thing that is addressed by the title? With that mindset nothing will get passed cause the Republicans literally could reject everything and any bill. Just b glad meaningful stuff got passed. Shame insulin cap couldn't be passed also, literally no reason to veto it. It helps the poor and elderly, but Republicans once again reject its.
Yes. In fact, there should be a Constitutional amendment which requires that a bill consist of only one thing that is addressed by the title, and that it be limited in length (I would prefer a single page, but could go as high as five). Good, the less that is passed, the better. I would be happy to limit things to that which can get broad bipartisan support. I don't like what was passed, so I am not glad that it was. I am sad that gullible people will be tricked into believing that they passed something that will meaningfully impact inflation.
I guess I have to give credit to you at least playing the role of GOP spin doctor even despite the odds. I mean you are literally trying to make a case that it was wrong to pass a bill that: -Finally addresses corporations paying nothing in taxes -Helps setup better infrastructure of clean energy in US/Helps the US be an industrial leader in the most important global business sector moving forward -Helps bring down drug prices You like cannot get more popular in 3 key areas a bill can address unless you were maybe able to get back the Child Tax Credit. If I understand your principles correct, the brand you are selling is: -Trickle down economics -Pro Corporate welfare -Pro Pollution and Pro-climate disaster -US last in growing industrial sectors -Pro medical price gauging -Pro Constitutional Amendments for the importance of Congressional Bill title consistency LOL... Have fun continuing to sell that agenda
Just to note - a $35 per month cap on insulin for seniors (through Medicare) passed. It's part of the inflation reduction act. The same for those on private insurance (a different bill) was blocked by Republicans (you need 60 votes to pass it and we were close - we got to 57 votes; 43 Republicans blocked it).
I thought I saw somewhere that the Democrats still could have gotten the cap to apply to private insurance by just ignoring the parliamentarian, but they decided to put it up for vote anyway to get it on the voting record of Republicans who'd vote "no". That's pretty terrible, if true.
It's debatable at the macroeconomic level (though everything I read is from some very small reduction to moderate reduction in inflation). It's not debatable at the microeconomic level (or individual level - can you feel it ). Seniors will see a huge drop in prescription costs. Energy costs should go down through increased supply.
It's not true. It's extremely rare. And you would only do it if you know you still have 50 senators agreeing to just ignore the parliamentarian rule. At least one (the Senator from AZ has said her vote depends on parliamentarian rule). There wasn't an option to just ignore it and be able to pass the bill. The other option is you fire her and get someone else that rules differently - but that is a pure power move and one that has the similar effect of some Senator abandoning the bill for such a power move. FWIW- I agree with the ruling (on technical ground).
So you like Democrats doing the same thing with precedent that we complain Republicans are doing. Its a sound long term strategy anyway, get Republicans on record leading up to midterms and stay in control of both chambers and do even more. Don't let perfect get in the way of actual progress. Why we always gotta nitpick good things and say how it could be better?
