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/

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

Oh so you can't read my previous posts?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Oh so you can't read my previous posts?

You wrote somewhere that the Republican Party deserves more blame on the debt issue, because they are total hypocrites when they claim to be "fiscal conservatives". You wrote that?

Well, Republicans also deserve more blame due to the fact that they have also racked-up much more debt than the Democrats, despite their claims of being "fiscally responsible".

 

[RebSaint]

So we're back to wringing our hands about the debt? There must be a Democrat is in the White House.

 

[Taurus]

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.

This "free stuff" trope is so insidious. It's not 'free' everyone knows it's not. What it is is 'already paid for' via taxes. Like universal healthcare in civilized nations. You pay for it a bit at a time via taxes, then you just show your card when it's time to visit the doctor.
Or like not having an entrance fee to national parks/museums/scenic areas.
Somehow the term "entitlements" has become a slur, when really what it means is "things I'm entitled to because I already freaking paid for them."

 

[porculator]

This "free stuff" trope is so insidious. It's not 'free' everyone knows it's not. What it is is 'already paid for' via taxes. Like universal healthcare in civilized nations. You pay for it a bit at a time via taxes, then you just show your card when it's time to visit the doctor.
Or like not having an entrance fee to national parks/museums/scenic areas.
Somehow the term "entitlements" has become a slur, when really what it means is "things I'm entitled to because I already freaking paid for them."

...This is just semantics. Obviously everything free has been paid for somehow by someone. I got a free slurpee on 7-11 day, but 7-11 was able to afford it from past revenue that I contributed to.

Look, personally, I'm not against any of the free/government-provided/however you want to phrase it, elements of the "soft infrastructure" bill, but the reality is that 50+ elected senators and their constituents are.

As a nation, via the admittedly forked up representation system of the senate, we have decided that we want the government to do less than most other industrialized nations. And there is a sizeable chunk of our population that will try to actively undermine any attempt to do more. It's just who we are. So we have to deal with it and stop trying to force it on people that don't want it for whatever reason.

Like, why can't the blue states just decide to have free pre-K and community college and let the red states continue to be stupid as shirt? I understand that there are huge challenges to states doing their own healthcare initiatives, but education has always been by the states traditionally.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

At this rate, I'm ready for both bills to fail. Screw it. The notion that progressives are to blame is ludicrous. The original bill stated at $6 trillion. It's now $1.5 trillion and Sinema and Manchin continues to tag team on what they don't want. fork it. Let both bills fail and let the cards fall where they may.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

At this rate, I'm ready for both bills to fail. Screw it. The notion that progressives are to blame is ludicrous. The original bill stated at $6 trillion. It's now $1.5 trillion and Sinema and Manchin continues to tag team on what they don't want. fork it. Let both bills fail and let the cards fall where they may.

I'm inclined to agree with you about letting the bills fail. The progressives have made a ridiculous number of concessions to those two imbeciles.

None of this is going to matter without voting rights being protected, anyway.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

but the reality is that 50+ elected senators and their constituents are

In most cases, their constituents are NOT opposed to the provisions in these bills.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

At this rate, I'm ready for both bills to fail. Screw it. The notion that progressives are to blame is ludicrous. The original bill stated at $6 trillion. It's now $1.5 trillion and Sinema and Manchin continues to tag team on what they don't want. fork it. Let both bills fail and let the cards fall where they may.

 

[porculator]

At this rate, I'm ready for both bills to fail. Screw it. The notion that progressives are to blame is ludicrous. The original bill stated at $6 trillion. It's now $1.5 trillion and Sinema and Manchin continues to tag team on what they don't want. fork it. Let both bills fail and let the cards fall where they may.

This is the problem with following politics too closely. Passing these bills will be a major success but since the process is boring and seems like its full of concessions (no, sorry, we won't be Denmark tomorrow) everyone is sick of it already. I'm annoyed by the removal of the Clean Energy Plan but whats left is way better than what we had before. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[J-DONK]

This is the problem with following politics too closely. Passing these bills will be a major success but since the process is boring and seems like its full of concessions (no, sorry, we won't be Denmark tomorrow) everyone is sick of it already. I'm annoyed by the removal of the Clean Energy Plan but whats left is way better than what we had before. This is why we can't have nice things.

Meh, its a "moderate" success at this point if the 1.5 trillion plan passes. It's 150 billion a year, or a 3% increase in the annual budget of 4.8 trillion. That's right around the average rate of inflation. I guess it's better then passing a tax cut for the rich, but dear god the average DNP voter should be furious.

 

[Paul]

This "free stuff" trope is so insidious. It's not 'free' everyone knows it's not. What it is is 'already paid for' via taxes. Like universal healthcare in civilized nations. You pay for it a bit at a time via taxes, then you just show your card when it's time to visit the doctor.
Or like not having an entrance fee to national parks/museums/scenic areas.
Somehow the term "entitlements" has become a slur, when really what it means is "things I'm entitled to because I already freaking paid for them."

The bottom 50% pays little or no federal tax. For them is free.

 

[samiam5211]

The bottom 50% pays little or no federal tax. For them is free.

The percentage of their income that is used on sales tax is much higher than the top 5%.

 

[MT15]

Meh, its a "moderate" success at this point if the 1.5 trillion plan passes. It's 150 billion a year, or a 3% increase in the annual budget of 4.8 trillion. That's right around the average rate of inflation. I guess it's better then passing a tax cut for the rich, but dear god the average DNP voter should be furious.

This is a self-defeating attitude. The average democratic voter should be thrilled that they have a framework for 1.75T. It will improve the lives of millions of ordinary people. Which is not only something the Republicans haven’t done, it’s something they have vigorously opposed every step of the way.

If Democrats don’t celebrate this and proclaim its benefits from the mountaintop, they will deserve their defeat at the polls in the next election and not only will further progress be doomed but the Rs will roll back everything gained.

Your views are extreme. They don’t represent the majority of the party, let alone the majority of the people who vote in this country.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

The bottom 50% pays little or no federal tax. For them is free.

Have you ever considered why the bottom 50% pay so little in income taxes? Hopefully, you understand that wealth inequality in this country has a lot to do with that.

The top 1% controls approximately 38.5% of the wealth in this country. In contrast, the bottom 50% control only 2% of the wealth in this country. This inequitable distribution of wealth is not healthy for any democracy. And it's much worse in this country than any democracy in Europe.

So yeah, there is a good reason the wealthy in the U.S. pay most of the taxes -- because they have all the forking money in this country.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

This is a self-defeating attitude. The average democratic voter should be thrilled that they have a framework for 1.75T. It will improve the lives of millions of ordinary people. Which is not only something the Republicans haven’t done, it’s something they have vigorously opposed every step of the way.

If Democrats don’t celebrate this and proclaim its benefits from the mountaintop, they will deserve their defeat at the polls in the next election and not only will further progress be doomed but the Rs will roll back everything gained.

Your views are extreme. They don’t represent the majority of the party, let alone the majority of the people who vote in this country.

What's more self-defeating is the Democrats not protecting voting rights. None of this is going to matter if that isn't dealt with quickly.

Democrats do not "deserve" to lose next year if these two bills are not passed. They are the only party doing anything to try to help the average American. Republicans have completely abdicated their legislative responsibility regarding these two bills, just like they have abdicated all of their other legislative responsibilities since Biden became President and the Democrats took over the House and Senate.

If anything, the Republicans "deserve" to be punished for this betrayal of their governing responsibility and for the Jan 6 insurrection. You are normalizing the Republicans' Trump cult behavior and obstruction by holding the Democrats to a much higher standard and you shouldn't do that.

 

[MT15]

I’m not setting the standard, the voters will do that.

They’re not done with voting rights. Let’s wait and see what they do next.

 

[Paul]

Have you ever considered why the bottom 50% pay so little in income taxes? Hopefully, you understand that wealth inequality in this country has a lot to do with that.

The top 1% controls approximately 38.5% of the wealth in this country. In contrast, the bottom 50% control only 2% of the wealth in this country. This inequitable distribution of wealth is not healthy for any democracy. And it's much worse in this country than any democracy in Europe.

So yeah, there is a good reason the wealthy in the U.S. pay most of the taxes -- because they have all the forking money in this country.

Inequality leads to revolution; everybody knows that. The oligarchy prevents the revolution by giving alms to the poor as we are seeing now with the progressives and even some conservatives in Washington DC. The problem with this paradigm is that the wealth difference remains.

Many wonder why throughout history there was always inequality. At the onset it was tyranny and domination. Todays is rather simple: Once a person has economic success making additional wealth is rather easy. In other words wealth begets more wealth. Even the most passive investor can make large sums of money with no effort. This is known as the Matthew principle in economics and that is a tough one to get around.

"The Matthew effect of accumulated advantage, Matthew principle, or Matthew effect for short, is sometimes summarized by the adage "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer".[1][2] The concept is applicable to matters of fame or status, but may also be applied literally to cumulative advantage of economic capital. In the beginning, Matthew effects were primarily focused on the inequality in the way scientists were recognized for their work. However, Norman Storer, of Columbia University, led a new wave of research. He believed he discovered that the inequality that existed in the social sciences also existed in other institutions.[3]

The term was coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton in 1968[4] and takes its name from the parable of the talents or minas in the biblical Gospel of Matthew. Merton credited his collaborator and wife, sociologist Harriet Zuckerman, as co-author of the concept of the Matthew effect.[5]

The Matthew effect may largely be explained by Preferential attachment whereby individuals probabilistically accrue a total reward (eg., popularity, friends, wealth) in proportion to their existing degree. This has the net effect of it being increasingly difficult for low ranked individuals to increase their totals, as they have fewer resources to risk over time; and increasingly easy for high rank individuals to preserve a large total, as they have a large amount to risk.[6]"
WIKI