Biden Campaign Promises

[Luvnit2]

Let's start with Biden saying he will unite the country.

69% in recent poll says BIDEN FAILED TO UNITE THE COUNTRY

Did Biden saying over and over again the 75 million who voted for Trump were a far-right extremist group called MAGA help unite the country?

Feel free to add a campaign promise Biden fulfilled or others he did not based on data.

[StoneTheCrow]

Is cancer still a thing?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/12/joe-biden-cure-cancer-campaign-richmond-bolduan-sot-ath-vpx.cnn

[*Nately120*]

(03-07-2024, 04:32 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Is cancer still a thing?

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/06/12/joe-biden-cure-cancer-campaign-richmond-bolduan-sot-ath-vpx.cnn

No, Biden cured it and everyone who says they have cancer is lying and/or was intentionally injected with cancer by an evil doctor working for the Koch Brothers.

[*pally*]

(03-07-2024, 03:15 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Let's start with Biden saying he will unite the country.

69% in recent poll says BIDEN FAILED TO UNITE THE COUNTRY

Did Biden saying over and over again the 75 million who voted for Trump were a far-right extremist group called MAGA help unite the country?

Feel free to add a campaign promise Biden fulfilled or others he did not based on data.

what do you think Joe should have done differently to unite things?  

[SunsetBengal]

Corn Pop was a baaad dude... -never forget

[Luvnit2]

(03-07-2024, 07:07 PM)pally Wrote: what do you think Joe should have done differently to unite things?  

I am not the one who committed to uniting things. Biden did and he failed. 

Maybe he will address it tonight and attempt to unite us and not blame Republicans for his bad policy decisions.  He has a choice, either embrace those with different ideas or attack them. He chose the latter. 

[Luvnit2]

I know I only posted this a few hours ago, but no one has shown Biden fulfilling a campaign promise yet.

This is your chance to provide him doing what he said he would do on the campaign trail.

[GMDino]

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true



Repeal law barring Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices

Quote:Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act will allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices

President Joe Biden achieved a major health care promise through the Democrats' legislation that will allow the federal government to negotiate prices on some medications with drugmakers for Medicare.

Medicare is the federal health insurance program for Americans older than 65. For decades, the program has lacked the authority to negotiate drug prices, which has translated into costs that are higher than those paid by other industrialized nations. 

The legislation that passed the Senate on Aug. 7 would allow the federal government to negotiate the price of 10 drugs in Medicare Part D, the outpatient prescription drug use benefit, in 2026. In subsequent years, the number of drugs that the government could negotiate prices would rise, covering both Medicare Part D and Medicare Part B. 

The drugs subject to negotiation will be selected by the Health and Human Services secretary based on a ranking of the top-selling brand-name or biosimilar drugs covered by Medicare without generic or biosimilar equivalents, said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Program on Medicare Policy at Kaiser Family Foundation.

Price negotiations won't start for a few years because the federal government needs lead time to build the capacity to address it, Cubanski said.  In fall 2023, the list of drugs selected for negotiation will be published, beginning the negotiation process between the Health and Human Services secretary and drug companies.

The list will not include brand-new drugs; the medications must have had Food and Drug Administration approval for several years. (PolitiFact's news partner Kaiser Health News is editorially independent from the foundation.)

"While it's hard to know exactly how this will play out, allowing the government to negotiate the price of drugs — even if the number of drugs subject to negotiation is limited — is expected to produce substantial savings to the federal government and lower out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries," said Cubanski. "And the savings will grow over time as the number of drugs subject to negotiation increases."

Joe Antos, an expert on health care policy and Medicare at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said the bill did not repeal the ban on Medicare negotiating prices, but rather created an exception for the selected drugs. 

"These drugs may not be the highest-price drugs, since the selection is from the biggest sellers (price time quantity)," Antos said.
"So, there is a lot of Medicare money at stake, and the feds will benefit the most from savings. It is a big deal."
For Part B drugs, beneficiaries pay 20% of the cost, so a reduction in a Part B drug cost gives the federal government 80% and the
beneficiaries 20% of the total savings, Antos said. For Part D drugs, coinsurance will presumably be based on the new regulated price; if coinsurance is 20%, the beneficiary saves 20% of the difference between the unregulated price and the regulated price.  

Also, the out-of-pocket max for Part D drugs will be capped at $2,000 a year.  

"Many beneficiaries who don't use the drugs subject to price setting will benefit from the cap," Antos said.

Larry Levitt, an executive vice president at Kaiser, tweeted that two political challenges remain for the Democrats — the provisions don't take effect for quite some time, and they'll have to avoid Republican attempts to roll the measures back.

The House is expected to vote on the Senate plan in the coming days. The bill is unlikely to change to ensure its passage. 

For now, Biden has delivered on his promise to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.

We rate this Promise Kept.

https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/medicare-drug-price-negotiation

Quote:Because of the prescription drug law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, Medicare is able to negotiate directly with drug companies to improve access to some of the costliest single-source brand-name Medicare Part B and Part D drugs.

Drugs Selected for the First Cycle of Negotiation
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced in August 2023 the first 10 drugs covered under Medicare Part D selected for negotiation. The negotiations with participating drug companies will occur in 2023 and 2024, and any negotiated prices will become effective beginning in 2026. 
Fact Sheet: Manufacturer Agreements for Selected Drugs for Initial Price Applicability Year 2026 (PDF)
Fact Sheet: Key Information on the Process for the First Round of Negotiations (PDF)
Fact Sheet: Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program: Selected Drugs for Initial Price Applicability Year 2026 (PDF)
Selected Drug List for Initial Price Applicability Year 2026 (ZIP)
The list of 10 drugs covered under Medicare Part D selected for negotiation for initial price applicability year 2026 was based on Total Expenditures under Part D and other criteria as required by the law.  The list will be updated over time as needed.

[GMDino]

Get bipartisan cooperation on the economy

Quote:Despite widespread GOP opposition, Biden finds bipartisan backing for infrastructure bill


Taking office during one of the most politically polarized eras in generations, Joe Biden faced steep obstacles to keeping his promise to secure bipartisan cooperation on the economy. In fact, during his first year in office, most of his key economic initiatives in Congress either passed with only Democratic votes or were moving towards consideration without any Republican support.



But one of Biden's most significant bills did pass with notable support from Republicans, and it did so as a direct result of Biden's efforts, amid eyerolls from some of his fellow Democrats, to get buy-in from GOP lawmakers: a bill to fund a significant expansion of transportation, energy, and broadband infrastructure. 



"There is evidence of bipartisan support in the passage of the infrastructure bill, on which Biden compromised and Democratic and Republican members of Congress did as well," said Christopher Wlezien, a professor of government at the University of Texas-Austin.
The first major bill Biden was able to pass was the American Rescue Plan, a coronavirus and economic relief bill. Despite broad, bipartisan passage of earlier relief bills that President Donald Trump signed, no Republican voted for the American Rescue Plan. It was able to pass because Democrats held majorities, albeit narrow ones, in both the House and the Senate.



Biden decided on a two-pronged approach when he pursued his next round of economic legislation. He decided to group together his "hard" infrastructure proposals in one bill and leave the other elements of his legislation — from Medicare drug price negotiation and paid-leave guarantees to an extended child tax credit — for a second bill. 



Biden did this because he gambled that enough Republicans would support the infrastructure bill in the Senate to make it past the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster. The second measure, which came to be known as the Build Back Better bill, would have to be passed using the "budget reconciliation" process, which enables passage with just a simple majority, which is all that Democrats currently have in the chamber.



Though the decision to split the two bills annoyed some Democrats in the House, Biden's gambit paid off, at least partially, when the infrastructure bill finally cleared both chambers.



Senate passage came on Aug. 10, when H.R. 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, cleared the chamber by a 69-30 margin. The 50 Democrats were joined by 19 Republicans in approving the measure: GOP Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Kevin Cramer and John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch of Idaho, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. 



All told, Biden's bill secured the votes of almost 40% of all Republican senators voting.



It took three months for the House to take up the measure. When it did, on Nov. 5, it passed, 228-206. Six Democrats voted against it — enough to tank the bill if only Democrats were voting for it — but the bill was passed with 13 Republicans voting for it.

The 13 Republicans were Don Bacon of Nebraska; Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania; Andrew Garbarino, John Katko, Nicole Malliotakis and Tom Reed of New York; Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio; Adam Kinzinger of Illinois; David McKinley of West Virginia; Chris Smith and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey; Fred Upton of Michigan; and Don Young of Alaska.



Backing the Democratic-backed bill was no easy vote for GOP lawmakers in either chamber. Trump attacked McConnell, blasting out an email asking, "Why is it that Old Crow Mitch McConnell voted for a terrible Democrat Socialist Infrastructure Plan, and induced others in his Party to do likewise, when he was incapable of getting a great Infrastructure Plan wanting to be put forward by me and the Republican Party?"



Trump also reportedly attacked the 13 House members who voted for the bill during remarks at a National Republican Congressional Committee dinner.



The fate of the Build Back Better bill, meanwhile, was tenuous at best going into the Christmas holiday. Sen. Joe Manchin — a West Virginia Democrat whose vote would be needed to approve the bill on a simple majority — backed off support on Dec. 19, though a reformulated measure could reemerge in the new year. If it does, though, there is little indication that any Republicans will support it.

In the meantime, political experts expect that it will be hard to replicate the bipartisan cooperation of the infrastructure bill during Biden's second year in office, since it's an election year in which both history and the current political mood suggest Republican gains in at least the House and possibly the Senate. Such factors would tend to reduce the incentive for Republicans to join in legislation that could help the Democrats achieve their aims. 



"I don't think we will see any bipartisan compromise on major contested legislation" in the coming year, said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Claremont McKenna College political scientist.



While Biden faced universal Republican opposition to much of his agenda and proceeded with a Democratic-only approach on several key bills, the infrastructure bill was an exception. With that bill, Biden persisted in a bipartisan strategy despite doubts among some of his fellow Democrats, and significant numbers of Republican lawmakers enabled the bill to pass, despite heavy criticism from Trump, the party's loudest voice.



We rate this promise a Compromise.

[GMDino]

Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act

Quote:Biden signs bill that closes the ‘boyfriend loophole’

In June, President Joe Biden signed a compromise gun violence measure, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, in response to the mass shooting at a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school. The new law fulfills a campaign promise to protect more victims of domestic violence from guns.

In March, Biden had signed a reauthorization of the lapsed Violence Against Women Act. However, the negotiations to secure bipartisan agreement in the Senate required the removal of language to close the "boyfriend loophole," which involves expanding the categories of people who are prevented from owning or purchasing guns after being convicted of domestic violence.

Because Biden had specifically cited the boyfriend loophole in his promise to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, we rated this promise a Compromise. 

The new law completes this promise.

Prior to passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, only people who had been married to a victim, lived with them, or had a child with them could be barred from owning a gun due to domestic violence. 

Under the new law, however, intimate partners who have dated could be barred from owning a gun due to a domestic violence conviction. The definition in the law covers individuals with "a continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature." In the absence of an official document, such as a marriage license, the law encourages courts and lawyers to weigh whether a relationship constitutes dating by looking at how long the people have been involved with each other and how often they saw each other.
The law specifically states that casual or work relationships don't apply.

For people convicted of domestic violence against someone they've married, or against someone they had a child with, the ban on owning a firearm is permanent. In all other cases, the abuser is barred from owning a firearm for five years. After that time, they regain the right, so long as they have committed no other offenses. 

During the debate over the bill, opponents of closing the boyfriend loophole argued that there can be uncertainty over whether people are dating. Gun ownership, they said, is a constitutional right, and any moves to limit that must get over a high bar.
In the end, however, the bill passed with bipartisan support in both chambers. It cleared the Senate in a 65-33 vote and the House in a 234-193 vote.

The combination of Biden's signing of the Violence Against Women Act and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act completes the fulfillment of his campaign promise. 


We rate it a Promise Kept.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2024, 09:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true



Repeal law barring Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices




https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/medicare-drug-price-negotiation

It's an interesting read to see what this site constitutes as a broken promise versus what's "in the works".  Biden seems to be given a good bit of leeway in this regard.  A few examples, "reduce infant mortality rate": Health experts applaud Biden’s efforts to reduce maternal mortality rate, but results may take years.  Did he lower them or not?  This is a hard data answer.  Also, "end wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East", U.S. is out of Afghanistan; involvement in Yemen is reduced but continues.  I guess no update since 10/07/23 eh?  Also, an interesting take on Afghanistan, seeing as how many Dems argue that the end date was forced on them by Trump, making him to blame for the result.  A bit of a have your cake and eat it too moment, no?

Like I said, interesting.  Read some more all, I'm sure you'll find some others worth commenting on.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-07-2024, 09:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-promise-tracker/?ruling=true



Repeal law barring Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices




https://www.cms.gov/inflation-reduction-act-and-medicare/medicare-drug-price-negotiation

So, in your book, a promise only a 1/4 kept is good?  That's almost like almost like telling your wife "Sure, I'll pick up the kids from practice at 6", and then showing up home drunk at 9:30 without them..

[GMDino]

(03-07-2024, 09:23 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: So, in your book, a promise only a 1/4 kept is good?  That's almost like almost like telling your wife "Sure, I'll pick up the kids from practice at 6", and then showing up home drunk at 9:30 without them..

Luvnit wanted examples of promises kept.

That original link has many examples of compromises, items in the works and promises not kept.  Working toward the promises is good.  Considering he has the most useless House in recent history to deal with it's pretty amazing he gets anything done.

You example is awful, IMHO.

  

[Belsnickel]

Honestly, presidents just need to stop campaigning on things that require congressional action. I know that some folks think everything can done by executive fiat, but that is not how our government is designed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2024, 09:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Luvnit wanted examples of promises kept.

That original link has many examples of compromises, items in the works and promises not kept.  Working toward the promises is good.  Considering he has the most useless House in recent history to deal with it's pretty amazing he gets anything done.

You example is awful, IMHO.

  

Using your own source Trump fulfilled/compromised on more promises.  Any comment on the odd criteria for broken promises vs. "in the works" promises?

[Stewy]

This is irrelevant to me. All politicians over promise and lie.....all of them. Except Trump - he tells nothing but the truth, which is why I'm not voting for him.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2024, 10:17 PM)Stewy Wrote: This is irrelevant to me.  All politicians over promise and lie.....all of them.  Except Trump - he tells nothing but the truth, which is why I'm not voting for him.

Chapelle's description of him as an honest liar is very accurate.  He lies about dumb things and then tells the truth about mind blowing things.  

[*pally*]

Was calling for and attempting unity a lie or simply a victim of a lack of success? I would also point out he has never insulted a Trump voter. He does however call out Trump's lies, bent toward authoritarianism, and corruption

If lack of success equals a lie in your book then Donald Trump lied many times
-repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act-failed
-Mexico paying for wall-failed
-build a wall-failed
-fix infrastructure-fail
-drain the swamp-not only failed but added to it
-COVID-we are at the anniversary of the infamous "shut down the country for 10 days and it will be gone

[*Nately120*]

(03-07-2024, 09:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, presidents just need to stop campaigning on things that require congressional action. I know that some folks think everything can done by executive fiat, but that is not how our government is designed.

The issue is that people expect politicians to oversell themselves, so if you are honest then they'll assume you aren't offering much at all.  It's like when I was doing the internet dating thing a decade ago.  I'm 5'10, that's my honest height I'm not lying, why lie about something people will instantly find out about?  The issue is that women are so used to men lying about their height on those profiles that they automatically subtract 2 or 3 inches from the height you put on there, so if you are honest about your height you are putting yourself in a situation where you'll be at a disadvantage because a lie is expected.

So basically I put 5'10 because I'm 5'10 and when I'd meet women they'd say that I was taller than they expected and I'd say that I put 5'10 which I am and they'd say "Putting 5'10 means you are 5'8" so I'd ask if I should have lied and said I was 6' and it was somewhat amusing because you aren't SUPPOSED to lie but lying is expected and almost accepted.

Basically, if you have 2 politicians and one lies about what he can accomplish and the other is honest the voting public will knock expectations down a notch for both of them and the liar will look better.

[Mike M (the other one)]

He's doing a great job uniting everyone against Immigrants.