HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » bluewater » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 74 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jun 7, 2019, 03:43 PM
Number of posts: 5,376

Journal Archives

The President's agenda is being blocked by a "moderate" Democrat "defending" Big Pharma

One panel Democrat, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) voted against its advance. Peters previously has opposed its inclusion of prescription drug pricing reforms, siding with the pharmaceutical industry in arguing Democrats’ current plan could curtail cutting-edge research. His stance offered a sign of the stakes Pelosi and the rest of the party face in navigating a delicate legislative process with so few votes to spare.


Allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with Big Pharma costs the taxpayers NOTHING, yet it's one of the big stumbling blocks in enacting President Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda.

How, as Democrats, can we allow our party's agenda to be derailed by a handful of people like Rep. Scott Peters?

House Budget Committee votes to pass the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill

Source: CNN

The House Budget Committee voted Saturday to pass the $3.5 trillion spending bill out of committee and send it to the House floor.

The vote was 20 to 17 with Democratic Rep. Scott Peters of California joining Republicans to vote against the bill. It came as a necessary step for the bill to reach the full House floor, where it can be amended.

Democrats have been struggling to pass President Joe Biden's economic agenda, including the massive tax and spending bill that would expand education, health care and childcare support, address the climate crisis and make further investments in infrastructure.
The bill has raised concerns among moderates who worry some of the measures, including on drug pricing and climate, go too far, as progressives say they've already compromised enough. Republicans are united in their opposition to it.

During its Saturday meeting, the House Budget committee could not change what other committees have already voted to approve.

This story has been updated with additional information.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/25/politics/house-budget-committee-biden-economic-agenda/index.html

"Democratic Rep Scott Peters joining Republicans to vote against the bill"

It's time to stop obstructing President Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda.

Democrats should not be cutting, watering down or resisting Biden's agenda

President Biden has proposed a 3.5T "Build Back Better" agenda after consultation with all wings of the Democratic party.

Since President Biden, and VP Harris of course, is the Democrat with a national mandate, why is ANY Democrat in congress publicly disagreeing with his agenda at this point in time?

The media is already harping on the "Democrats in Disarray" meme, why is any elected Democratic feeding into it?

As a progressive, I am truly baffled. Progressives and moderates have ALREADY both compromised on which programs to push for.

Why are some Democrats still insisting on more cuts that would weaken the remaining vital programs?

Why are other Democrats willing to concede that?

I am truly baffled.

How do "bipartisan" bills help us Democrats more than the rThugs?

If we only pass watered down bills that the Republicans are on board on, how does that help us in the midterms?

If we Democrats argue amongst ourselves that President Biden's 3.5T "Build Back Better" agenda is too expensive, as some Democrats are, isn't that writing the attack adds for the Republicans come the midterms?

Doesn't the danger really lie in doing too little to help people in the bottom half the American economy?

So, the idea is to put raising the debt limit in the reconciliation bill!


oooooo, nice idea!

This way President Biden's "Build Back Better" agenda can't get derailed by the two "moderate" senators.

Not raising the debt limit is political suicide and will tank the economy and crash the stock market, so no way even the two "moderate" senators can vote against such a bill.


We all win!

Could someone please put a number on it?

How many Afghans that were helping the US over the last 20 years need to be evacuated at this point in time for this mission to be a success?

I first read that the number was 21,000 special visa applicant/holders.

But then I read that 70,700 people, including about 5,000 US passport holders, have been flown out so far.

That means about 65,000 Afghan citizens have been rescued. That's 44,000 more than the original 21,000 special visa number.

And yet the news media is criticizing President Biden for leaving behind our Afghan allies, stranding them to the mercies of the Taliban.

Ok. But what number of Afghan allies are we actually suppose to rescue before the mission is considered a success?

100,000? A million? How many endangered Afghan allies are there in actuality?

Serious question.

The "Moderate 9" in the House need to suck it up and get with Biden's program

There is nothing "moderate" in bucking both President Biden's and Speaker Pelosi's legislative agenda.

If centrists like the President and the Speaker are too "far left" for these self described "moderates" in the House, perhaps they really need to think long and hard what we Democrats need to accomplish to both govern effectively and, importantly, to get re-elected in 2022 and in 2024.

In short, the "Moderate 9" all need to suck it up and get with the program.

Progressives like myself have. It's what we all should be doing as Democrats for the good of the country.

Pardon my subdued rage.

EDIT: To those that replied a deal was made this afternoon, that was only a first step towards drafting Biden's plan this fall.

The 220-212 vote was a first step toward drafting Biden’s $3.5 billion rebuilding plan this fall, and the narrow outcome, in the face of stiff Republican opposition, showed the power a few voices have to alter the debate and signaled the challenges ahead still threatening to upend the president’s agenda.

After a turbulent 24 hours that brought House proceedings to a standstill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her colleagues before the vote that the legislation represents a federal investment on par with the New Deal and the Great Society.

Pelosi brushed aside the delays. “That’s just part of the legislative process,” she said, according to an aide granted anonymity to discuss a closed-door caucus meeting.

Tensions had flared as a band of moderate lawmakers threatened to withhold their votes for the $3.5 trillion plan. They were demanding the House first approve a nearly $1 trillion bipartisan package of other public works projects that’s already passed the Senate.

In brokering the compromise, Pelosi committed to voting on the bipartisan package no later than Sept. 27, an attempt to assure lawmakers it won't be left on the sidelines. It's also in keeping with with Pelosi's insistence that the two bills move together as a more complete collection of Biden's priorities. Pelosi has set a goal of passing both by Oct. 1.

Easing off the stalemate will shelve, for now, the stark divisions between moderate and progressive lawmakers who make up the Democrats' so-slim House majority. But as the drama spilled out during what was supposed to be a quick session as lawmakers returned to work for a few days in August, it showcased the party differences that threaten to upend Biden's ambitious rebuilding agenda.

I fear that the "Moderate 9" will continue to raise objections and threaten the President's 3.5 trillion dollar rebuilding plan.

So, as I said, the "Moderate 9" need to get with the program and stop bucking Biden's proposal. The President was elected with 81 MILLION votes to implement his goals for the country, no nine so called "moderates" should be impeding that.

Maskless Maggat confronts me then cowers. A true and revealing event.

I was shopping last Friday for groceries and was one of the few people in the store wearing a mask.

As I wheeled my cart down the coffee isle a forty year old looking guy, a guy much younger than me, a guy not wearing a mask, spotted me and headed straight towards me, agitated.

When he got within 15 feet of me or so he started shouting, "What are you afraid of, dude. What's with the f*cking mask..."

Not in the mood to engage this asshole, I replied "I'm wearing it because I don't feel well."

Seriously, the guy stopped dead in his tracks and the color drained from his face. He literally backed away and left the isle without saying another word.

So much for another fearless and maskless Trumper, eh?

Taliban 2.0 versus The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

A distinction without a difference?


I mean, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian theocratic state oppressing women.

How oppressed are women in Saudi Arabia? Well, the World Economic Forum ranked Saudi Arabia near the bottom in its 2015 Global Gender Gap Index, with the country falling at 134 out of 145 countries. And it was only in December 2015 that Saudi women finally got the right to vote and run for office—and even then only in municipal elections.


It has the death penalty for being gay.

20 Most Dangerous Places For Gay Travelers
#4. Saudi Arabia

“Saudi Arabia is another of the countries on our list which implements the death penalty for consensual homosexuality under their interpretation of Sharia law,” says Fergusson. “Other punishments include 100 whips or banishment for one year ‘Men behaving as women’ or wearing women’s clothes, and vice versa, is also illegal in Saudi Arabia, making this a particularly unfriendly country for members of the trans community.”


It prohibits the free practice of religion.

Saudi Arabia

The Basic Law of Governance establishes the country as a sovereign Arab Islamic state in which Islam is the official religion. The Basic Law says sharia is the “foundation of the Kingdom” and states the country’s constitution is the Quran and the Sunna. The Basic Law contains no legal recognition or protection of freedom of religion. Conversion from Islam to another religion is grounds for the charge of apostasy, which is legally punishable by death, although courts have not carried out a death sentence for apostasy in recent years.

Blasphemy against Islam may also be legally punishable by death, but courts have not sentenced individuals to death for blasphemy in recent years. Punishments for blasphemy may include lengthy prison sentences and lashings. Criticism of Islam, including expression deemed offensive to Muslims, is forbidden on the grounds of preserving social stability.

The 2017 counterterrorism law criminalizes “anyone who challenges, either directly or indirectly, the religion or justice of the King or Crown Prince.” On January 25, authorities issued implementation regulations that criminalize “calling for atheist thought in any form or calling into question the fundamentals of the Islamic religion.” The right to access legal representation for those accused of violating the counterterrorism law is limited; according to the law, “the Public Prosecutor may, at the investigative stage, restrict this right whenever the interests of the investigation so require.” There is no right to access government-held evidence.


I could go on an on posting other similarities, but you get the gist.

For those criticizing the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a point to consider...


Excellent point.

Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 74 Next »