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/

 

[GrandAdmiral]

What is the deal with people on this board labeling those they disagree with as extremist. This is the second thread I've been labeled as such in as many days. I don't think most Democrats are happy with this version of the bill. It also hasn't passed, and progressives don't appear to be signaling that they will vote for it.

Jayapal has already announced today that the progressive caucus will vote no on the infrastructure bill if it is not brought to the floor with the spending bill. I'm ok with that. Hell, I would want the Senate to pass the spending first before it gets to the House. At this point, I have zero trust in the Senate, particularly Manchin and Sinema.

 

[Paul]

He is sort of right. The part that is proven is the schooling, and social connections gained from attending top prep schools, and ivy league universities is priceless. Not to mention the capital you can raise within your own family for business ventures. A good example from this week, Sara Blakely who just sold spanx. Who is her father? A founding partner in a large Florida law firm.

It is known as the Matthew effect. Advantage begets more advantage. Nevertheless the Bill gates of the world are generally quite talented.

 

[J-DONK]

It is known as the Matthew effect. Advantage begets more advantage. Nevertheless the Bill gates of the world are generally quite talented.

Talented and psychopathic.

 

[SaintForLife]

What is the deal with people on this board labeling those they disagree with as extremist. This is the second thread I've been labeled as such in as many days. I don't think most Democrats are happy with this version of the bill. It also hasn't passed, and progressives don't appear to be signaling that they will vote for it.

It's one their many transparent message board tactics to try to malign or discredit an argument they disagree with. It's often missing any factual refutation and many times it includes ad hominem attacks toward the poster or the source.

 

[Paul]

Talented and psychopathic.

You do not have affection for people at the top. They are the wealth creators, I have no issues with them. The only rich people I dislike are the people that run the health insurance companies. They do not create wealth. All they do is charge premiums pay medical bills and keep the rest as profit.

 

[SFIDC3]

I do not disagree with your post. The politicians tell the poor what they want to hear and then take the cash from the rich to write laws that benefit the rich. That is the history of the world. This scheme is also practiced by socialists because greed is universal.

However, there will always be people at the top, people at the bottom and the rest in the middle. I do not think that can be changed. Humans exist in a spectrum of talent and competency therefore success comes easy to some and never to others.

If you don't disagree then why do you keep saying that the poor pay no taxes and ignore "the other side or 1%ers or corporations".....

Your last line is so blatantly and patently false it's ridiculous. Talent and competency are 2 spectrums in a world of many, many more.....

 

[Paul]

If you don't disagree then why do you keep saying that the poor pay no taxes and ignore "the other side or 1%ers or corporations".....

Your last line is so blatantly and patently false it's ridiculous. Talent and competency are 2 spectrums in a world of many, many more.....

I think talent (of any kind) exists in a gradient. Humans are not equally talented. I cannot hit a golf ball like Tiger Woods used to do. He is much more talented!

 

[coldseat]

Jayapal has already announced today that the progressive caucus will vote no on the infrastructure bill if it is not brought to the floor with the spending bill. I'm ok with that. Hell, I would want the Senate to pass the spending first before it gets to the House. At this point, I have zero trust in the Senate, particularly Manchin and Sinema.

Looks like most of the progressives are on board with framework of the plan now. They aren't exactly happy about the things left out, but I think they've realized that's probably the most they're going to get out of Manchin and Sinema and it's better than torpedoing both bills. They may lose a few of the hardliners, but I think it will pass.

Right now what's left is the process. The progressive want to make sure Manchin and Sinema pass the reconciliation bill in the Senate before passing the BIF.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

It is known as the Matthew effect. Advantage begets more advantage. Nevertheless the Bill gates of the world are generally quite talented.

Yes, advantage begets more advantage. But that has nothing to do with talent or competency.

 

[Paul]

Yes, advantage begets more advantage. But that has nothing to do with talent or competency.

Talented people tend to do better in life. Sometime talented people become very rich and well known. Once a person is wealthy and well-known the opportunities come out of the wood work. Everywhere you look there is an offer to make money.

The Matthew effect also works in education.

 

[zztop]

so this is what I read:

the measures that didn't make the final cut:

Tuition-free community college

Paid family and medical leave

Clean Energy Performance Program (CEPP)

Dental, vision Medicare expansion

Lower prescription drug prices

Five years of extended child tax credit

A tax on billionaire income

Investments in child nutrition

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[J-DONK]

Republicans are essentially oligarchy authoritarians. Democrats have really bounced back from the Clinton era of corporate democrats at least have a progressive group. I view American politics through the lens of enrichening corporate donors, and protecting those interest. Instead of left vs right, my view is top vs bottom. I see no real difference in Chuck Schumer, or Mitch McConnell.

I also view most of the media as pro-corporate. After all, it's owned by corporations, and has a vested interest in every story protecting corporations, and the oligarchy that run them. It's why this bill was touted as a 6.5 trillion spending billion instead of 650 billion over 10 years. It's why progressive policies that citizens of every other 1st world country enjoy are labeled as extreme. It's also why progressives are the whipping boy every cycle that Democrats don't perform well.

There are Democrats on this board who will still tell you the reason why Dems didn't win Florida was because of progressives pushing the envelope to far. The truth is far more troubling. Biden lost Florida while a higher minimum wage past. Places like Idaho past a medicad expansion. Ex-con voting rights restored in multiple states including FL. What does all this mean? It appears progressive policies are popular on their own. It's the DNP people don't like. The why is very evident. It's a willful ignorance at this point.

P.S. The older I get the group I hate the most is the "woke" moderates of the DNP. You know who else hated their guts? MLK

 

[Paul]

Republicans are essentially oligarchy authoritarians. Democrats have really bounced back from the Clinton era of corporate democrats at least have a progressive group. I view American politics through the lens of enrichening corporate donors, and protecting those interest. Instead of left vs right, my view is top vs bottom. I see no real difference in Chuck Schumer, or Mitch McConnell.

I also view most of the media as pro-corporate. After all, it's owned by corporations, and has a vested interest in every story protecting corporations, and the oligarchy that run them. It's why this bill was touted as a 6.5 trillion spending billion instead of 650 billion over 10 years. It's why progressive policies that citizens of every other 1st world country enjoy are labeled as extreme. It's also why progressives are the whipping boy every cycle that Democrats don't perform well.

There are Democrats on this board who will still tell you the reason why Dems didn't win Florida was because of progressives pushing the envelope to far. The truth is far more troubling. Biden lost Florida while a higher minimum wage past. Places like Idaho past a medicad expansion. Ex-con voting rights restored in multiple states including FL. What does all this mean? It appears progressive policies are popular on their own. It's the DNP people don't like. The why is very evident. It's a willful ignorance at this point.

P.S. The older I get the group I hate the most is the "woke" moderates of the DNP. You know who else hated their guts? MLK

We are entering are era of feudalism once again. IN medieval times the oligarchs use the Catholic Church as an ally to keep the poor down. The Church preached the virtue of being poor as the gateway to heaven and hence poor people accepted their status assuming their reward of going to heaven was just around the corner.

Today the role of the Church is played by the media and politicians. They tell the poor the government will take care of you. This will prevent a revolution and will create a sense of satisfaction and the poor envision a socialist Utopia that will never happen. Meanwhile as in feudal times the oligarchs will have absolute control of the masses with the likes of social media, google, amazon, etc.

 

[MT15]

What actually explains the reconciliation bill is the abuse of the filibuster by Republicans. Sirota has it wrong here. This linkage of two huge bills isn’t an ideal way to pass legislation but they had little choice in the matter.

What gets to me is that Republicans are actually not even trying to govern for their constituents, they have proven that they will abandon any principles they once said they believed, and they do nothing but obstruct any actions at all whether they are in the majority or the minority. Yet, the “horseshoe effect” people both criticize the Democrats.

Yes, they exist in a world where corporate dollars matter. But they are at least trying to ease the burden on the working class. They understand that the wealth divide is an actual threat to American democracy and are working to lessen that divide.

 

[MT15]

We are entering are era of feudalism once again. IN medieval times the oligarchs use the Catholic Church as an ally to keep the poor down. The Church preached the virtue of being poor as the gateway to heaven and hence poor people accepted their status assuming their reward of going to heaven was just around the corner.

Today the role of the Church is played by the media and politicians. They tell the poor the government will take care of you. This will prevent a revolution and will create a sense of satisfaction and the poor envision a socialist Utopia that will never happen. Meanwhile as in feudal times the oligarchs will have absolute control of the masses with the likes of social media, google, amazon, etc.

I think I have rarely read such a cynical take. It must be terrible to think that way.

 

[Paul]

I think I have rarely read such a cynical take. It must be terrible to think that way.

Do you have something else to say? Joel Kotkin wrote a book about this:

“Second, there is a working class who are becoming more like medieval serfs, with diminishing chances of owning significant assets or improving their lot except with government transfers.”


“It’s ironic that while we enjoy easier access to information than ever before, we are falling behind in real knowledge. We are replacing books with blogs, and essays with tweets.”


“In Wired magazine, Antonio García Martínez describes the contemporary Silicon Valley as “feudalism with better marketing.” He sees a clear elite of venture capitalists and company founders. Below them are the skilled professionals, well paid but living ordinary middle-class lives, given the high prices and heavy taxes. Below them lies the vast population of gig workers, whom García Martínez compares to sharecroppers in the South. At the bottom, there is an untouchable class of homeless, drug addicts, and criminals."
― Joel Kotkin, The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class

 

[MT15]

No, I don’t care to debate the point. I posted my opinion.