Bipartisan Infrastructure/3.5T Reconciliation/Gov Funding/Debt Ceiling (1 Viewer)

[coldseat]

Thought it would be good to have a place to discuss all the drama on Capitol Hill and whether Democrats will get any of this signed. Given that Republican have abandoned any responsibility of doing anything for the good of country it's on Dems to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. But as with the reconciliation bill, moderates are opposing this.

I'm really trying hard to understand why Manchin and Sinema are making the reconciliation bill process so difficult and how they think that benefits them? As far as I can see, all it's doing is raising the ire of the majority of democrats towards them. It's been well known for a long time now that both the Infrastructure bill and reconciliation bill were tied together. They worked so hard to get and "Bipartisan" Infrastructure bill together (because it was oh so important to them to work together) and passed in the Senate, but now want to slow drag and bulk on the reconciliation bill (by not being able to negotiate with members of their own party)? There by, Putting both bills passage at risk and tanking both the Biden agenda and any hope of winning Congress in 2022? Make it make sense!

I suspect they'll get it done in the end because the implication of failure are really bad. But why make it so dysfunctional?

The drama and diplomacy are set to intensify over the next 24 hours, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) scrambles to keep her fractious, narrow majority intact and send the first of two major economic initiatives to Biden’s desk. In a sign of the stakes, the president even canceled a planned Wednesday trip to Chicago so that he could stay in Washington and attempt to spare his agenda from collapse.
Democrats generally support the infrastructure package, which proposes major new investments in the country’s aging roads, bridges, pipes, ports and Internet connections. But the bill has become a critical political bargaining chip for liberal-leaning lawmakers, who have threatened to scuttle it to preserve the breadth of a second, roughly $3.5 trillion economic package.
What is in and out of the bipartisan infrastructure bill?
That latter proposal aims to expand Medicare, invest new sums to combat climate change, offer free prekindergarten and community college to all students and extend new aid to low-income families — all financed through taxes increases on wealthy Americans and corporations. Liberals fear it is likely to be slashed in scope dramatically by moderates, including Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), unless they hold up the infrastructure package the duo helped negotiate — leading to the stalemate that plagues the party on the eve of the House vote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/09/29/biden-pelosi-democrats-infrastructure/

 

[samiam5211]

Here is a novel idea. Cut spending.

On what? Does all spending cost something?

Does a dollar spent on blowing stuff up and rebuilding it in other countries cost the same as a dollar spent on upgrading a road or bridge in Illinois?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Neither party cares about the long term costs and apparently you don't either. The Republicans only pretend to care about it when they are put of power. At what point should we worry about the US debt and long term costs?

Also stop with the idiotic crying about "both sides."(general statement not directed at Taurus)

There are no long term costs because the increase in taxes on the rich and on corporations will pay for these programs.

So spare us your fake, tired straw man "concerned Republican" questions.

 

[gjones]

On what? Does all spending cost something?

Does a dollar spent on blowing stuff up and rebuilding it in other countries cost the same as a dollar spent on upgrading a road or bridge in Illinois?

I’m not smart enough to equate which dollar spent will cost us more or save us more. But we have elected a couple hundred folks to do exactly this. Find the money being wasted, there is plenty, and make cuts.

This is what responsible people and companies do. I would think that out politicians are paid pretty well to do the same.

 

[samiam5211]

I’m not smart enough to equate which dollar spent will cost us more or save us more. But we have elected a couple hundred folks to do exactly this. Find the money being wasted, there is plenty, and make cuts.

This is what responsible people and companies do. I would think that out politicians are paid pretty well to do the same.

We could just roll back a few tax cuts from the past 4 years. Those had the same impact as spending money on nothing.

 

[porculator]

I’m not smart enough to equate which dollar spent will cost us more or save us more. But we have elected a couple hundred folks to do exactly this. Find the money being wasted, there is plenty, and make cuts.

This is what responsible people and companies do. I would think that out politicians are paid pretty well to do the same.

But we don't elect people that are good at that, or even campaign on that premise.

We elect people, depending on which party they are, to either give us free stuff, or punish people that aren't like us.

 

[gjones]

But we don't elect people that are good at that, or even campaign on that premise.

We elect people, depending on which party they are, to either give us free stuff, or punish people that aren't like us.

Correct. Then the answer is raise taxes on the people, because our politicians are incompetent. Man we are in a heck of a spiral.

 

[SaintForLife]

The time to worry about the debt was 2001, again in 2004-2007, once more in 2012-2019.
When you're digging a hole (2004-2007) stop.
When times are good, try to keep that momentum (2001, 2012-2019).
Right now we're in a hole and need to lift out of it. An investment based spending plan, like the Infrastructure package, is such an investment.
Tax cuts for the rich isn't an investment, it's payola.

But you know that most of the infrastructure bill is made up of liberal policies they have tried to get passed for a while and a small amount is for actual infrastructure.

 

[porculator]

Well like Samiam said, raising taxes of top earners when they were just cut to a historic low a couple years ago shouldn't a be a huge reach, but apparently it is.

The problem right now is that the democrats are the only ones that recognize that we as a nation need to invest in certain things that can only be done efficiently on a federal level - infrastructure, climate, research & development - the kind of stuff with a long runway that needs to be insulated from the ebbs and flows of the private sector and local budgets. But they also think that every other single societal ill is the federal government's to fix, with some one-size-fits-all approach, and try to shoehorn it into the same bill. There's no moderation.

 

[Taurus]

But you know that most of the infrastructure bill is made up of liberal policies they have tried to get passed for a while and a small amount is for actual infrastructure.

Do you mean hardware like bridges? Because many of those 'liberal policies' like pre-k and daycare are investments that let parents advance their careers, which leads to higher-paying jobs, which leads to more tax revenue.

 

[gjones]

Do you mean hardware like bridges? Because many of those 'liberal policies' like pre-k and daycare are investments that let parents advance their careers, which leads to higher-paying jobs, which leads to more tax revenue.

And many are not

 

[Taurus]

And many are not

And?

I mean, if pearls need clutching wrt the debt/deficit, there's an olive-drab elephant in the room that needs addressing.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

But you know that most of the infrastructure bill is made up of liberal policies they have tried to get passed for a while and a small amount is for actual infrastructure.

And your point is?

 

[efil4]

You didn't answer the question. At what point should we start worrying about the US debt or should we let the US Oligarchs continue to run the country into oblivion?

dude, you were not worried when Trump announced how he could "care less about the national debt" because he didnt think he would be in office when it became an issue.???

I didnt see you post a thread about just how threatening that statement was for the future....or did i miss it?




Not one person from the GOP decried his announcement and said " we have to do something about it NOW"

The only thing they DID do was stop his ridiculous Wall project in 2018...but make no mistake no one on the GOP side was bellachin about

GOP Congress rebuffs Trump and goes on a spending spree

Appropriators resisted Trump’s calls for cuts and instead poured money into federal agency programs in a massive spending bill.

www.politico.com

GOP spends money- its been long standing tradition that under a R spending goes haywire. See here for yourself....

PolitiFact - Here's how the deficit performed under Republican and Democratic presidents, from Reagan to Trump

This article was updated Aug. 2 to include a graph with the annual federal deficit in constant dollars. A viral post por

www.politifact.com

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Here is a novel idea. Cut spending.

We can do both. And I suggest we start spending cuts with the bloated defense budget.

 

[SaintForLife]

Do you mean hardware like bridges? Because many of those 'liberal policies' like pre-k and daycare are investments that let parents advance their careers, which leads to higher-paying jobs, which leads to more tax revenue.

Yeah but that’s not infrastructure

 

[MT15]

You do know there are two bills?

 

[SaintForLife]

There are no long term costs because the increase in taxes on the rich and on corporations will pay for these programs.

So spare us your fake, tired straw man "concerned Republican" questions.

Try to keep up. I previously said that neither party cares about the debt.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Try to keep up. I previously said that neither party cares about the debt.

Except Republicans have claimed ad naseum for 40+ years to be the party of fiscal responsibility, not Democrats.

So perhaps you should admit that the Republican Party is much more full of shirt when it comes to this tiresome discussion about the debt?