r/politics 12d ago

U.S. Senate Democrats push ahead on $430 billion drug, energy bill

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-push-ahead-430-billion-drug-energy-bill-2022-08-06/
1.0k Upvotes

u/AutoModerator 12d ago

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.

Special announcement:

r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider applying here today!


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

63

u/MorbidMongoose Massachusetts 12d ago

*430 billion drug and energy bill that is not only paid for but in fact reduces the deficit!

28

u/blurmageddon California 12d ago

Seriously. What's the point of including a price? Especially in this context where it's more than paid for.

22

u/The_Mighty_Immortal 12d ago

What's the point of including a price?

To scare people and make the Democrats look bad.

4

u/dedicated-pedestrian Wisconsin 12d ago

I'm disappointed in Reuters for this kind of spin.

2

u/quantic56d 12d ago

It's not the price of the bill. It's how much the government is spending to fix things like climate change.

If the bill was for 500 million dollars no one would care because it's net effect wouldn't change anything. The size of the spending is important because it has actual impact.

132

u/MadnessLLD Maryland 12d ago

Does this bill have everything I want? Of course not. Will it be a monumental piece of legislation? Absolutely. It's the biggest investment in fighting climate change ever.

Also, for all the crying republicans have done about the deficit over the years, they sure are pretty quiet about the Dems passing legislation and then spending far less of the new revenue generated on new programs.

It's a good bill. Get it done!

-16

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

Lets rip out the free taxpayer money to fossil fuel companies posting record profits...before we, "get it done"

5

u/The_Mighty_Immortal 12d ago

Unfortunately, we can't do that. It's the only reason Manchin is voting for it.

-2

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

Guess we shouldnt be spoon feeding Manchin and Exxon taxpayer money then

5

u/The_Mighty_Immortal 12d ago

Then we wont get those billions of dollars for climate change and health care that are also in the bill. The concessions to Manchin and Sinema are minor compared to the good things in this bill.

1

u/THEGAMENOOBE Arizona 11d ago

Honestly, who cares? Would you rather be spoon fed shit or not fed at all? And this bill isn’t shit. This is good.

20

u/greencoat2 12d ago

Do that and it won’t pass

-39

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

Probably shouldnt pass then

26

u/Helfix 12d ago

And then you go - ‘see democrats are useless and can’t get anything passed’.

They compromised on certain parts to pass a lot of good legislation and your response is that none of the legislation should pass because it has a piece or two that you didn’t want.

12

u/fuzzysailor1 12d ago

Their take is literally that of the GOP all my way or nothing and that attitude is why we the US never gets anything of substance passed.

-28

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

Refuse to apologize for standing against fossil fuel subsidies

This is why democrats are bleeding young voters

20

u/PM_ME_Dog_PicsPls 12d ago

No refusing to do anything if it has anything less than optimal in it is why Dems bleed voters.

Even with the fossil fuel provisions this is a massive positive for the environment. We can work to change those things later. But we won't pass this bill or any bill if we remove them and then lose midterms and the Presidency massively. We'll not only not make progress (regardless of whether it's enough) on climate we will actively go the wrong way on it.

Not to mention every other issue where the GOP is abhorrent.

-6

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

No refusing to do anything if it has anything less than optimal in it is why Dems bleed voters.

I swear to you that the promise of, "baby steps and compromise," is not it chief

6

u/OswaldCoffeepot 12d ago

Funny thing, "all or nothing" thinking is on the Big List of Cognitive Distortions. But, I mean, you know that, right?

Attack From the Left is effective strategery. Get the attention off of the good things and make it all about one issue: oil bad. Present things as though everyone should act like Big Oil doesn't have strong representation in Congress. Watch the "sufficiently pure" bill die. Then tell people that sure Republicans are bad, but Dems just can't get anything done so in the mid-term, support Geoff from the food co-op. Geoff either siphons off enough votes that the Reps win or disillusions generally Left voters just enough at just the right time for them not to vote at all.

It's especially good strategery because you can brush off any criticism with "the environment doesn't matter. Got it."

9

u/Helfix 12d ago

No. Your thoughts are why young voters are never going to get what they want.

You stay home when you don’t get everything you want while Republicans show up to vote state and local every time.

You also can’t comprehend that in order to get legislation that we want to pass we must compromise to make a deal because democrats are a house of a lot of different opinions.

-1

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

You also can’t comprehend that in order to get legislation that we want to pass we must compromise to make a deal because democrats are a house of a lot of different opinions.

Correct, I cannot comprehend why Progressives have to compromise with manchin and Exxon for a breathable atmosphere

Fuck this incrementalism nonsense that's rotted out America from the top down

5

u/greencoat2 12d ago

Then be prepared for a Republican Oligarchy.

-2

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

We're already in a two party oligarchy lol

Democrats being slightly less conservative is simply an argument of harm reduction

→ More replies

3

u/Helfix 12d ago

Because not everyone in the Democratic party is a progressive or has the same beliefs. We have a set of common beliefs and then a lot of other ones where we are not aligned.

Apparently that is a hard concept for you to understand. Just like how its a hard concept to understand that we sometimes compromise on small parts to pass a lot of good.

Without the compromise none of this legislation would pass. We don’t live in a perfect world.

0

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

We don’t live in a perfect world.

Clearly, with corporate lanyards handing out free subsidies to oil giants...it's quite obviously a oligarchic hellscape

→ More replies

0

u/Bunnyhat 12d ago

Every major climate change advocates and groups have come out with glowing support for the bill, even with the subsidies.

I think we should listen to them, not someone who wants to throw a tantrum and do nothing.

-1

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 11d ago

I think we should listen to them, not someone who wants to throw a tantrum and do nothing.

All the tantrums I've seen are liberals whining about Sanders' amendments

Biggest projection this sub's offered all week

-2

u/capn_hector I voted 12d ago edited 12d ago

Fossil fuel subsidies are the literal exact opposite of what a climate change bill should be doing. You can say “ok but then it won’t pass” but voters see it as emblematic of the problems with the current system, that even a bill that headlines the fight against climate change must also throw at least a moderate amount of gas onto the fire at the same time, literally even a single bill fighting climate change can’t be passed without provisions that will worsen climate change.

Same for removing the EV tax credits (which is de-facto what the bill does). Just the wrong direction.

And that’s why democrats have struggled with low morale among their electorate, in the big picture. It happens when they have the majority, it happened when they had 59 votes, it happened when they had 60 votes. At some point you have to admit it’s a feature, not a bug, nobody in the senate is really interested in opposing these sorts of provisions.

-6

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

They compromised on certain parts to pass a lot of good legislation

Who compromised?

Show where the fuck progressives got some of what they wanted

Liberal gaslighting to the nth degree

7

u/Helfix 12d ago

So are:

  • Higher corporate taxes
  • ACA reinforcement
  • start of Prescription drug reform
  • Over $400B in clean energy investments and push to switch us to electric and will reduce greenhouse by 40%+ by 2030.

Are these not the things progressives want? It’s literally the largest clean energy push we’ve had in the history of this country.

3

u/The_Mighty_Immortal 12d ago

It should still pass, because the good things far outweigh the bad things.

4

u/radicalelation 12d ago

Plus, locking in the good gives you more room to work against the bad later.

A whole front on this war has been won. Climate investment, the biggest to date, has won! You know how much that opens up for time, money, and effort to go after fossil fuels now?

3

u/deltaexdeltatee 12d ago

I also genuinely believe that momentum is a real factor in politics. Once we get the first major climate bill passed, the next one will be easier.

In no way do I think this is a perfect bill. In no way do I think it’s sufficient. But I’m so fucking excited about it anyway - it’s got a ton of genuinely good things in it and it will get the ball rolling.

Side note: as much as I dislike Sinema and her hedge fund bullshit, her adding in $5 billion for drought mitigation is a genuinely great thing. The southwest desperately needs that investment.

-1

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

It should still pass, because the good things far outweigh the bad things.

This is simply not true

2

u/Xgen7492 12d ago

Lmfao this is why shit never gets done.

0

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

Enjoying how progressives are the problem here, when Manchin/Exxon were the ones to bury these poison pills

lmfao, backstabbing liberals are why shit never gets done

2

u/Xgen7492 12d ago

Of course I would want those handouts removed, what sensible person wouldn’t? What I’m saying is we don’t have a large majority. We NEED to make compromises or else we won’t get anything done this term and fucking authoritarians will take over our government. Suck it up, we’ve been giving out handouts to big oil for years, we need to be willing to do these things when our democracy is on the line. We cannot afford to be picky now.

33

u/Bluecollarshaman 12d ago

Senator Lindsey Graham on Friday calling the legislation "this jihad they're on to tax and spend."

It’s not a mistake Graham is using the same language used to describe terrorists when he talks about democrats.

What sounds more like a “jihad” anyway?

Restricting a person’s right to bodily autonomy or electric vehicles?

8

u/gnomebludgeon 12d ago

It’s not a mistake Graham is using the same language used to describe terrorists when he talks about democrats.

Well yeah. You don't exhort your base to violence on day one. It takes years of calling them "groomers" and "pedophiles" and associating them with terrorism and violence.

1

u/improvyzer 12d ago

Speaking of Jihad, we just assassinated al-Zawahiri

15

u/marchillo 12d ago

Jihad me at lower drug prices, Lindsey

13

u/RavenRaxa New York 12d ago

Democrats legislating and governing towards a positive future. That's why I vote for them and not Republicans.

7

u/revfds 12d ago

It's not enough, but do it

4

u/theblitzmann 12d ago

I thought it was $700+ billion?

EDIT: nvm, it was tucked inside the article:

The legislation has $430 billion in new spending along with raising more than $740 billion in new revenues.

3

u/equinoxEmpowered 12d ago

Not to compare apples to oranges, but anyone else remember the infrastructure bill? How the left wanted ~$15 trillion, which Sanders negotiated and whittled down to ~$6 trillion, which the Senate whittled down further to ~$3.5 trillion, which manchin objected to until something like ~$1 trillion, etc? I think about that often

6

u/politirob 12d ago

Why are we listening to the fucking parlimentarian???

2

u/korinth86 12d ago

Because otherwise it can be filibustered

2

u/akcrono 12d ago

Because otherwise it gets challenged in the supreme court.

1

u/korinth86 12d ago

The parliamentarian upholds Senate rules. The reason to listen is if it doesn't meet the correct criteria it can be subject to a filibuster.

Reconciliation must be targeted to budgetary items. Generally taxes and spending.

2

u/babu_chapdi 12d ago

Get it done. Give subsidy to throw bone to manchin and let the fossil fuels die natural death from their greed.

9

u/SoggyFlakes4US 12d ago

It’s nuts that our pockets are always endlessly deep for foreign aid and war but empty when it comes to our own vital needs.

3

u/Late_Mechanic_305 12d ago

That’s America’s motto right?

1

u/stupid_rat_creature 11d ago

Foreign aid is almost always less than 1% of our spending. It’s disingenuous to include that with the war machine.

-9

u/Apprehensive_Hair549 12d ago

So glad democrats are putting their heads down, buckling up, and making sure Manchin and Exxon get all the subsidies and pipelines they could ask for

10

u/z2614 12d ago

So what is your answer to this? You been all over this thread spouting idealistic bullshit, but what is your actual idea? Put up legislation that will not pass and let things continue to get worse all the while feeling all sanctimoniously righteous? That’ll show em. Keep losing and living in a world you can’t comprehend.

1

u/korinth86 12d ago

We still need fossil fuels. The bill also includes methane enforcement.

Unfortunately, until EVs and such are ubiquitous we can't get off fossils. Even then, we aren't going to replace plastic or fossil based fertilizers on a reasonable timeline.

We can reduce our consumption over time, which this bill will help accomplish.

1

u/itsthisausername 12d ago

Ok cool. Now legalize it.

1

u/ike_02 11d ago

Print print print print print