r/qualitynews • u/SaulKD • 18d ago
8 policies stripped from GOP bill after Trump, Musk rebellion
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/12/20/musk-trump-children-health-debt/15
u/SaulKD 18d ago
3
1
u/daviddjg0033 15d ago
Did this bill get the last part about China because Musk would lose money? I read a piece about how Musk did not want the China part of the bill in there.
70
u/Foreign-Repeat9813 18d ago edited 18d ago
Congratulations President Musk, your corrupt influence caused funding for pediatric cancer research to be stricken from the Continuing Resolution (CR). Pediatric cancer does not present an attractive opportunity for profit driven healthcare companies. That is why the government needed to step in so that the much-needed research could occur.
This holiday, walk a pediatric cancer ward, you punk. Better yet, take a couple billion of the $200 billion you've been enriched since the election and donate it to St. Jude Children's Hospital.
Funding much needed cancer research for our children is not "pork" you insecure, narcissistic, megalomaniac.
9
u/Either-Impression-64 17d ago
And he's still carrying around a kid as a human shield.
Musk is what's leftover after infinite god given money rots away your soul.
6
2
u/OhioRanger_1803 15d ago
Guys a real life Quokkas, they toss there young at attackers to give themselves time to flee
1
1
7
u/Quick_Swing 16d ago edited 16d ago
I remember someone telling me,”if they infected the top 12 billionaires with cancer, you’d have a cure within a year.”. Wish someone could test this hypothesis.
3
u/SCCOJake 16d ago
Sure that might work. But they'd never allow the peasants to have it. Not without paying obscene amounts of money. Look at fucking insulin and HIV treatments as the guiding light for what a cure for cancer will cost.
3
2
u/Superb_Tell_8445 15d ago edited 15d ago
No, they’d find the cure and tell the public they cured themselves with vegetables, positive thinking, and exercise (narcissism and ego building). Everything would go on as it ever has. They don’t care about you, everything is for them alone, especially when money is there for the making/taking (psychopathic traits).
1
u/Quick_Swing 15d ago
I know that club, and George Carlin did too😂 https://youtu.be/Nyvxt1svxso?feature=shared
2
u/573Gator 14d ago
It's not a funding problem. The pharmaceutical companies know that the real money is in treating cancer, not curing it.
2
u/ZarkoCabarkapa-a-a 16d ago
No they would go and go holistic treatments in another country and die young…
1
u/HatchingCougar 15d ago
Steve Jobs would have liked to have a word
As would all the other super rich who Also still die of cancer
1
1
u/DareWise9174 15d ago
Steve Jobs died because he thought he was smarter than his oncologist. That's malignant narcissism for you!
1
u/TubularLeftist 14d ago edited 14d ago
People who are wildly successful in one field tend to believe that their genius extends beyond that narrow focus to include literally everything. That’s why a lot of Nobel Prize winners have been scammed and pulled into grifts, they simply believe they’re too smart to get fooled.
Steve Jobs was a genius in some respects but in a lot of ways he was also total dumbass.
Outside of his element he was just an arrogant asshole who thought he was smarter than everybody
Just like mElon Husk
1
1
15d ago
When you find out there is already multiple cures for cancer, even vaccines big bad and evil Russia has given their people for free… but we will never see them because big pharmaceutical companies.
1
u/Bluewaffleamigo 15d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a bill addressing this specific thing sitting in the senate waiting on a vote?
Why on earth would it need to be in a CR to fund the government.
1
u/Foreign-Repeat9813 15d ago edited 15d ago
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-VA, obtained unanimous consent via voice vote for funding for the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act 2.0 on the floor. (Cite: NBC News 9:28 p.m., 12-20-24).
However, the legislation that passed the Senate Friday Night is not exactly the same as the language in the original deal and is ultimately less money overall, per Senator Kaine. (Id.) Thankfully, the Democrats were ultimately able to obtain a portion of the funding.
The reason Pediatric Cancer Research was included in a CR is that Republicans control the House of Representatives, and the House does not follow Regular Order. That's why important funding for projects like reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge was included in the December 20, 2024, CR as well. The Port of Baltimore is ranked as the 11th largest port in the USA in terms of foreign cargo tonnage and 9th largest in terms of dollar value.
President Musk's December 20, 2024, campaign of "deception by tweet" also caused important funding for reconstruction of the Francis Scott Key Bridge to be stricken from the CR. However, the final version of the House bill which passed late Friday did include funding for the bridge, over the objection of some Republicans.
1
1
1
u/N-economicallyViable 15d ago
There should be a budget. Each year. This CR stuff and omnibus bills are bullshit on the face of it. Is it good to find child cancer research and treatment? Yes, which is why they passed it separately. I'd like to see line item vetos.
1
u/Similar_Coyote1104 15d ago
The real crime is not introducing this pediatric cancer research funding bill by itself.
Then we’d know who the heartless bastards are.
1
u/djinnorgenie 15d ago
you know that bill also increased wages for senators right? you're not this stupid are you
1
u/johnnyheavens 15d ago
Oh please. Stop justifying abuse by our lawmakers because you don’t like the source information while ignoring other similar billionaire influencers. I’ve walked those wards with my own and it still doesn’t justify tacking monies onto the CR. Imagine tracking funds in a simple one item one vote bill vs funds simply part of a massive pork project like the CR was. They could have funded that research months ago if they wanted, musk didn’t change that
1
u/johnnyheavens 15d ago
Why is anyone upvoting this bot? Checkout the post history and see how this bot simply exists to counter Elon/X.
Of all the special interests lobbies and Soros funded foundations out there, you’re worried about the simple promotion of more information? Wild because the CR shouldn’t even have been needed and the budget should have been sorted out months ago. The foreign bots may not like it but free flowing information is part of our 1A rights of a free press and free speech. Our elected representatives should be held accountable for how they vote and there is no way to do that with the current example of that bloated CR.
1
u/dwz3591 14d ago
You guys don’t seem to understand was a CR is for. If cancer research is important then create a stand alone bill. It would easily pass. A CR is intended to temporarily extend current spending, not to add additional spending.
1
u/Foreign-Repeat9813 14d ago edited 14d ago
Respectfully, you don't seem to understand that the Republican controlled House of Representatives does not subscribe to Regular Order, or that the recent battles over leadership reflect a Republican party in disarray.
A CR is intended to temporarily extend current spending, not to add additional spending.
A Continuing Resolution (CR) can and will contain all sorts of provisions that are necessary for, in this context, a Republican Speaker to gain the necessary votes for passage. Speaker Mike Johnson has the seemingly insurmountable challenge of dealing with the so-called "Freedom Caucus" members of his party.
For example, on December 20, 2024, 38 Republicans voted against the bill that ultimately passed the House of Representatives. To get the votes Speaker Johnson needed for passage of a bill, he needed to go to the Democrats.
By now, you would have thought that "super genius" Musk would have at least learned how to count. Speaker Mike Johnson can count, why doesn't Mr. Musk or even Mr. Trump seem to know how to count?
1
1
u/thepizzaman0862 17d ago
Senate passed the funding anyway if you bothered to read the comment directly above yours lol
7
1
u/Kennybob12 17d ago
Drop in the bucket compared to the criminal entourage of the insurance/pharma gang. Maybe direct your focus on the real agents of change instead of pandering to this " see we helped sick kids" mafia when they all engage in the exact opposite behavior at any other moment in their careers. Dont excuse their actions but dont berate them from not taking another tax cut in the favor of dying children. That's putting to much humanity in their existence and i would never expect a cockroach to care for my children.
If we stopped treating out politicians as people and instead treated them like the shills that they are we would have a much better focus on what/how to change this narrative. But alas. Reddit will be as far as we go.
2
0
u/Alkem1st 16d ago
It’s exactly what pork is. Funding research is important - so make a separate bill for that.
1
u/softcell1966 16d ago
Found another Austrian School of Economics cultist:
"Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is libertarian philosophy masquerading as a school of economic thought. This school is notable for its lack of formal mathematical modeling and empirical testing.[2] Among its more unusual traits, the Austrian school draws its conclusions based on deduction and thought experiments, rather than data.[note 1][3] In place of the conventional tools of science, the Austrian School favors a narrative approach called "praxeology". Despite its shortcomings, some less nutty features of the Austrian School have leaked into mainstream economics while the more nutty have found a home at libertarian think tanks (Cato Institute and Ludwig von Mises Institute)."
How did so many of you end up here in this particular discussion. It's suspicious AF.
1
u/Alkem1st 16d ago
How, how - I got recommended this, that’s how. In any case, who cares about you citing all the stuff and ad hominem attacks. Why bills can’t be focused? Is every bill going to have an emotional leverage attached to it? In any case, how a slight delay in funding going to ruin the research efforts?
1
u/ManlyVanLee 15d ago
A: it's less funding. So that's like someone saying "I need $20 to take a cab home" then being given $10. Can you get part of the way home with $10? Sure. But not all the way
B: This is how government as we've created the system works. Is it stupid at times? Absolutely. But when senators are expected to bring back benefits to their state's constituents they demand concessions for their vote
If Maryland needs a new bridge and the Senator from Maryland comes up and says "I need X amount for a bridge" what good does it do a Senator from Nevada to vote for Maryland to get that money? Not to mention if the Nevada Senator votes for that package then his next election his opponent will say "that Senator doesn't care about the people of Nevada, all he did was vote for Maryland to get money!"
Hence, pork spending added to bills. Everyone wants a piece of the pie and this is how our dumb system of government does it
1
u/Alkem1st 15d ago
Well then, make “Bridges and roads” bill, I’m sure NV could use some roads.
1
u/ManlyVanLee 15d ago
Ok now keep going with this train of thought and maybe you'll start to get it
What happens next when the Nevada Senator makes his bill? The Rhode Island Senator decides to vote for that bill he needs something in return to vote yes. Then the Senator from Missouri wants something, the Senator from Wisconsin wants something else, etc, etc, until finally someone says "Ok instead of doing 100 individual bills, why don't we do one big bill that has all these things in it and do it at once?"
Do you know what that would look like? The exact thing you're complaining about. A big bill with a bunch of stuff in it
1
u/Alkem1st 15d ago
As long as this something is a) readable with the reasonable amount of time, b) concerns the same topic - it’s alright. More or less. But when you have a 222999 page spending bill that congresslizards need to vote in 2 days - that’s not alright. Building a bridge or funding research, strictly speaking, can generally wait - while spending on basic functions of the government like salaries etc typically is more time sensitive.
-2
-1
u/fryloop 17d ago
Are there any examples of government funded medical research successfully achieving it’s goal
5
u/permanent_echobox 16d ago
Rich people have convinced poor people that the government can't do anything right, while using their money and influence to control the government because they value it.
Government or violence are the only two things the rich fear. There is no way they want the poor using it in their own interest.
Government is a tool like a hammer. The tool isn't evil. The person weilding it might be.
0
16d ago
[deleted]
2
u/permanent_echobox 16d ago
Certainly government should stick to inherently government roles. No one is arguing against the private sector being more efficient, but private companies should not be choosing who lives and dies in a situation based upon profit motive, for example.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Creepy_Ad2486 15d ago
There should be no death penalty. Period. If there's even a fraction of a tiny chance that an innocent person could be killed, which has happened a LOT in the past, then it shouldn't be allowed at all.
1
u/TheSheepSheerer 15d ago
I would argue against the private sector being more efficient. Since its focus is on profit rather than delivering a product or service, the product or service will suffer when it benefits profit. Think of a water monopoly, which has every incentive to cheapen quality of service while raising prices.
1
u/ManlyVanLee 15d ago
People seem to have forgotten how private industry used to demand its workers put in 80 hour work weeks and die in the mines so that the owners could enjoy massive profits. All of this of course until governmental regulations came about protecting workers
Private industry is great for you if you're part of ownership or a stockholder, not so much for anyone else
2
u/kejartho 16d ago
Of course they can't, that's obviously why the Republicans spend hundreds of millions trying to win elections. It's so inefficient that they specifically try to break it further and extract more out of it for themselves.
You know, the best way to make something inefficient is to break it yourself, right?
1
16d ago
[deleted]
1
u/kejartho 16d ago
Did you just both sides the parties when one side literally campaigns on breaking the system?
It's a ridiculous notion to say that they are the same here when the system is supposed to be built on compromise but one side has single-handedly been trying to dismantle institutions in favor of deregulation and regressive tax structures.
Nah man, Republicans are many times worse for their inability to function and their desire to break the system instead of fixing it. All so the elites get tax breaks and the poor can fight over social issues.
1
u/softcell1966 16d ago
What a coincidence you're an Austrian Economics cultist.
"Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is libertarian philosophy masquerading as a school of economic thought. This school is notable for its lack of formal mathematical modeling and empirical testing.[2] Among its more unusual traits, the Austrian school draws its conclusions based on deduction and thought experiments, rather than data.[note 1][3] In place of the conventional tools of science, the Austrian School favors a narrative approach called "praxeology". Despite its shortcomings, some less nutty features of the Austrian School have leaked into mainstream economics while the more nutty have found a home at libertarian think tanks (Cato Institute and Ludwig von Mises Institute)."
1
u/IgamOg 16d ago edited 16d ago
You should try working for private companies to see how they operate, particularly when they have access to public money.
1
u/seraphimofthenight 15d ago
Private companies drive up costs to make profit. Efficiency only occurs in the free market when there is legitimate competition and accountability. Privatizing of postal service and healthcare leads to lower quality/cost services due to profit-incentive and desire to cut corners to drive up numbers. Some public services are inherently unprofitable, because they are a service we pay into for affordability and quality.
Gutting the government and stuffing it with incompetent cronies instead of career civil servants is literally the source of inefficiency. Lack of financial oversight committees results in budgets getting run up and reality is many projects are never straightforward which is why budgets end up going over the expected.
People always say the government sucks and is inefficient and can never provide real examples that don't arise from gutting government to make it ineffective.
1
u/IamHydrogenMike 13d ago edited 13d ago
Except for you can generally rely on clean water coming from your tap every morning when you go to but use your teeth…
Edit: if you are going to reply to this, blocking me from replying back just shows what a child you are.
3
u/Nari224 17d ago
Most commercialized medications can be traced back to NIH funded research, so yes. Also, outside of the US, almost all advances are government funded.
1
u/Audacious_avacado 15d ago
Literally 99.4% of the drugs that went to market in the last 10 years received funding from the NIH in the US. Many received significant funding at that, something like 25% to 75% of the total R&D costs.
3
2
u/varelse96 16d ago
Are there any examples of government funded medical research successfully achieving it’s goal
Do you not know what research is? Even a paper that says “this doesn’t work” is successful if it meaningfully adds to the body of knowledge in the field. That said, NIH is the largest funder of medical research in the world IIRC and NDF funded research (along with the national labs I think?) lead to the MRI. It might actually be harder to find good modern medical research that didn’t have any government funding.
2
u/WolfOffSesameStreet 16d ago
Almost all medications on the market today are the result of government funded medical research.
2
u/Tokyogerman 16d ago
I bet, you researched thoroughly and are an expert on where medications come from and how they are funded before making this insinuation.
0
u/fryloop 16d ago
I’m not that’s why I’m asking that question so I can learn more
1
u/softcell1966 16d ago
You're an Austrian Economics true believer. Nothing will convince you that government does something better than private companies.
"Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is libertarian philosophy masquerading as a school of economic thought. This school is notable for its lack of formal mathematical modeling and empirical testing.[2] Among its more unusual traits, the Austrian school draws its conclusions based on deduction and thought experiments, rather than data.[note 1][3] In place of the conventional tools of science, the Austrian School favors a narrative approach called "praxeology". Despite its shortcomings, some less nutty features of the Austrian School have leaked into mainstream economics while the more nutty have found a home at libertarian think tanks (Cato Institute and Ludwig von Mises Institute)."
I LOVE Rationalwiki. They cut straight through the Conservative bs and then mock it relentlessly.
2
u/No-Translator9234 16d ago
Almost all of it is government funded.
Do you think capitalists actually take risks?
0
u/fryloop 16d ago
I mean, which ones successfully achieved their goal? If we can cure cancer with more research money then we gotta be going all in right? Like let’s put a trillion in this thing and get it done
1
u/bwc6 15d ago
There are as many different types of cancer as there are different types of cells in a human body. Have you heard people taking about breast cancer or prostate cancer? Those are especially deadly types of cancer.
There are dozens of other types of cancer that have effective cures. We've done it. Many different cures exist for many different types of cancer.
You're uninformed on this subject, so let me make this clear. Government funding is the main driver of truly groundbreaking research. There is an obvious return on the investment in new technology, actual human lives, and even money.
1
u/fryloop 15d ago
Yes I'm uninformed that's why I'm asking the question. Can you provide more details? I don't think the return is obvious. I'm not even sure how you communicate what the return has been. What is the expected return for the funding being discussed here?
1
u/bwc6 13d ago edited 13d ago
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=nih+return+on+investment
No, it's not obvious, but there are people out there studying it and trying to calculate it.
Yes, I'm being cheeky with that link, but it honestly seems like a good place to start.
1
u/seraphimofthenight 15d ago
why even engage with news or people anymore, do people seriously not know how much progress has been made across breast, blood and pediatric cancer over the past 30 years?
1
u/af_cheddarhead 15d ago
Most vaccines are the result of government funded medical research (See COVID). In addition the AIDS drugs are the result of government funded medical research.
I could go on but I suspect you don't really care.
1
u/AnAttemptReason 15d ago
The worlds first vaccine that worked against cancer was developed in Australia with government funded medical research.
An Australian government science organization also invented Wi-Fi and a bunch of other important things.
1
-36
u/Particular-Pen-4789 18d ago
What a bad faith virtue signal
18
u/Angel_Eirene 18d ago
He literally told children to cancer to go fuck themselves by getting the funding removed. There’s no virtue signal, he literally is supervillain evil taking advantage of children with cancer
-19
u/Accomplished_Tour481 18d ago
No, he did not. Why would you even go there?
There is to much bloat in the budget now. I am not saying pediatric cancer research is not a good idea, but if it was not authorized previously, increased funding should not be leveraged in a CR. I support funding this in an actual budget, and fund it by decreasing funding somewhere else.
9
18d ago
I agree with this. Jumping onto cancer research when I'd bet you my last paycheck that there's a bunch of bad stuff in that bill. The message should be "world's richest man coparents Republicans with their Russian husband."
→ More replies6
u/Angel_Eirene 18d ago
I don’t disagree that there’s too much bloat, but the main places there are military or adjacent and those are never getting cut because that’s literally where Elon gets his billions as a defence contractor
Like… he literally is stealing — he’s an unelected official applying threats and pressure to change the budget of a country so yes it is stealing — money from research to cure children from cancer, just so he can line his pockets through more — excessive — defence spending.
He is taking advantage of children with cancer.
→ More replies5
u/mrpopenfresh 17d ago
It wasn’t authorized before because Rand Paul kept blocking it.
→ More replies→ More replies3
u/InexorablyMiriam 16d ago
Only bloat in the federal budget is bombs for Israel and contracts for Elon Musk. The rest of it is the product of our taxes.
25% of our debt is Donald Trump. 55 other presidents and he is responsible for a quarter of it. GWB is another huge chunk. Elon just flipped his lid because the CR stripped out the blank check for him until 2028.
Why parrot the lie that this is about spending? That’s a lie. You know it is. If it was about spending then why raise the debt ceiling with no limit for the full term?
Why take it from the poor when the man is the richest in the world?
6
u/Ambitious-Second2292 18d ago
Today on people that don't understand what bad faith or virtue signalling actually mean but sure as shit will spout off about them
→ More replies3
u/EvidenceOfDespair 18d ago
It’s abuse of the term like this that ruins an actually useful term. “Cutting funding for children with cancer is barbarous” is not virtue signaling. Stuff like “if you like shipping characters in toxic relationships you’re a sexual predator” is virtue signaling.
→ More replies3
u/TransiTorri 18d ago
Man told kids with cancer they should go die because they're unprofitable.
You'd struggle finding a lower low.
1
1
u/softcell1966 16d ago
Are you looking in a mirror and mocking your ridiculous Austrian Economics cult?
"Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is libertarian philosophy masquerading as a school of economic thought. This school is notable for its lack of formal mathematical modeling and empirical testing.[2] Among its more unusual traits, the Austrian school draws its conclusions based on deduction and thought experiments, rather than data.[note 1][3] In place of the conventional tools of science, the Austrian School favors a narrative approach called "praxeology". Despite its shortcomings, some less nutty features of the Austrian School have leaked into mainstream economics while the more nutty have found a home at libertarian think tanks (Cato Institute and Ludwig von Mises Institute)."
1
u/Particular-Pen-4789 16d ago
What I find funny the most is that while I find most of the stuff in this sub to be just bot content, there's a few things I follow in there.
It's usually got some relevant and recent news regarding milei which I like. I then check for a valid source reporting on the matter, as the sources in that sub are always dubious
But what's funny to me is how you pin me in some sort of cult...
But then you link me a ridiculously biased data source that is too far left to be credible (go ahead and ask me what news sources i consider good so I can shut down your pedantic counterargument real quick
I'm not the one in a cult buddy ;)
13
18d ago
Wow good thing they don't want to criminalize sexual harassment on the internet. That would have really harmed society.
2
u/ph4ge_ 18d ago
It would have meant Musk would have to hire a few people to police Twitter and he will probably lose a segment of his most active users. The poor guy can't afford that.
1
18d ago
Yeah and who is using that technology to harass female members of congress? Like is there a conflict of interest? Rape culture. F this shit it's hate speech.
1
u/the8bit 17d ago
Look, don't you realize that if it is illegal to create fake porn of real people, we will never ever have any frozen peaches ever again! The first amendment directly hinges on our ability to platform nazis, you see! /s
1
u/OkPossession9253 16d ago
At this point we should create mass deep fake porn of musk with Trump and flood internet with it and see how they react (probably by spending some money to make it disapear and pretend it never happen but at least it would be funny)
1
u/Frosty-Buyer298 15d ago
How the fuck do you get sexually harassed on the internet? Just fucking block people and move on with you life.
4
u/BlaktimusPrime 18d ago
What happened to it all being “for the kids”?
7
u/Ok-Tackle5597 18d ago
How many times must they show they only give a shit about controlling women and don't actually care about kids before their sycophants clue in?
2
2
u/evasive_dendrite 18d ago
They don't give a shit about kids. They consider women birthing machines and want to strip them of bodily autonomy. But as soon as that child is born, it's considered a lazy parasite on society that should fend for itself.
1
u/Anthro_the_Hutt 18d ago
Particularly since Elon is supposedly so concerned that folks aren’t having enough kids. I guess once they pop out they don’t count anymore? That’s been the GOP ideology for a while now.
1
5
2
2
u/franktronix 17d ago
Ugh of course the part against shitty pharmaceutical profiteering was left out (PBMs)
2
u/No_Clue_7894 16d ago
How could that which began so promisingly now end with Donald Trump, a man who disrupts the system and whose policies are rooted in lunacy.
The answer lies in
Netanyahu explores ‘Elon Musk-style’ role for Eli Cohen after Foreign Ministry reshuffle
3
u/icnoevil 17d ago
Word on the street is that Musk sabotaged the budget deal because it would have restricted trade with China where many of his manufacturing plants are located. Did you know that, MAGA repubs?
2
1
u/decidedlycynical 17d ago
A lot of people fell for it. The bill to,fund the cancer facility was on the floor in March of this year. They sat on it. Don’t believe any politician.
1
1
u/CaptainMike63 16d ago
Not true. The house passed that bill as a stand alone bill last year and it’s sat in the senate. Please know your facts because it makes you look ignorant. The cancer bill has been sitting in the senate and the democrats in the senate will not bring it up
1
1
1
u/Vast-Carob9112 16d ago
As it should have been done from the beginning. Bills deserve up or down votes based on their individual merits, not used as bargaining chips.
1
u/ThePennyMiser 16d ago
They seem to be really good at thoughts and prayers.
1
u/FoogYllis 16d ago
They just say thoughts and prayers, but in actuality I doubt they give any, otherwise they wouldn’t be cutting funding from kids with cancer.
1
u/ChipOld734 15d ago
How would corrupt politicians pad a bill to make sure their wasteful spending gets paid for? By putting in a provision that will fund something like children’s cancer research.
That way when it gets scrapped they can blame the mean old republicans who don’t care about the children.
In reality, they should stop adding things like this to spending bills and pass it on its own bill.
BTW get used to it because they’re going to do it for the next four years.
1
1
u/AMW1955 15d ago
Better check your pony hoss, the bill signed into law was not the same bill, and as for add one it’s called pork and it is was McConnell favorite game. That’s how he became a multi-millionaire with only the government as a paycheck.
1
1
u/ArcadesRed 14d ago
Not a great argument. Almost all of them become millionaires. They join congress and suddenly start making such great stock picks.
1
1
u/BMWtooner 15d ago
Maybe putting pediatric research into that bill was the problem. Looks like it'll pass bipartisan on its own anyway, which is great. Apparently, Congress can agree, when it's law like this.
Now when they try to pass this bill next month as an omnibus with 500 new pages including an added provision to help secure more funding for gender neutral bathrooms in Congress we'll see where it goes.
1
u/Electronic-Stop-1720 15d ago
What’s it called when the richest man in the world runs a country unilaterally?
1
u/LividWindow 13d ago
I think the right word applies to wealthy people squarely and not just the richest. To make the word you seek you’ll need a few prefixes.
1
u/Frosty-Buyer298 15d ago
Good less government means more freedom.
1
u/Wise_Concentrate_182 15d ago
You mean that pointless 1500 page bill?
Why not have bills focused on issues as with every other country on the planet?
1
u/thetburg 13d ago
US Congress can't pass a budget each year like normal countries, but sure, let's insist they do a clean bill on everything else.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that they should be doing those things, but I wouldn't ask my dog to drive a school bus either.
1
1
1
1
u/Jaded_Medium6145 13d ago
After musk’s rebellion. Several things in the bill would have hurt his finances
0
43
u/pphili2 18d ago
Looks like the Senate did it instead:
Senate passes funding for pediatric cancer after it was stripped out of original CR
Kate Santaliz Sen. Tim Kaine, D-VA, obtained unanimous consent via voice vote for funding for the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act 2.0 on the floor tonight.
The legislation reauthorizes funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for pediatric cancer after it was stripped out of the original bipartisan deal on Wednesday. The bill reauthorizes through FY2028 a pediatric disease research initiative within NIH and requires the NIH to coordinate pediatric research activities to avoid duplicative efforts.
The legislation passed the House in March and has been sitting in the Senate since.
Democrats in the House and Senate have criticized Republicans over the last few days for taking out key provisions from the bipartisan deal, most notably pediatric cancer funding. However, the legislation that passed the Senate tonight is not exactly the same as the language in the original deal and is ultimately less money overall, per Kaine.