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]

Manchin hasn’t killed it yet. He’s still in there negotiating. It doesn’t do any good to be mad at him or vilify him. That’s what Trump would do. Would it work? I don’t think it would work on democrats in general like it does on republicans. Biden doesn’t have a cult of followers ready to pounce on anyone he insults. Or at least not in the numbers of Republicans that are willing to protect Trump at all costs.

The reports of what he said about poor people are anonymous. Just might be more political than truthful. Unknown at this point.

I’m going to take my cue from Jayapal, who is not vilifying Manchin, but rather engaging with him, reaching out to him. I do think this will get done.

I typically agree with you a lot politically, mt. Not now, Manchin is a roadblock who's thinking only of his political capital right now. He needs to be called out for it.

And the fact that the reports about his comments are anonymous doesn't mean they're wrong. Four years under Trump should've taught you that.

 

[SamAndreas]

I typically agree with you a lot politically, mt. Not now, Manchin is a roadblock who's thinking only of his political capital right now. He needs to be called out for it.

And the fact that the reports about his comments are anonymous doesn't mean they're wrong. Four years under Trump should've taught you that.

I don't see the point.

By the time one's gotten to the point to be calling someone out they ought to be sipping a pina colada with a little blue umbrella stuck in the glass encase it rains.

 

[TampaJoe]

For a value judgement:

TCJA will cost 2T over 10 years and provided most of its benefits to businesses and high income individuals in the form of tax cuts. Manchin setting a ceiling of 1.75T four years later for BBB when infrastructure needs rebuilding and families are still struggling is just dumb. He could have put that number at 2.5T and given more space to negotiate. His # and Fox appearance has boxed him to voting NO.

TCJA was passed via reconciliation too. Trump didn’t have a “legislative mandate” when it passed with 52 votes.

I don’t disagree that both parties abuse the reconciliation process. I don’t disagree that both parties pass legislation with little to no regard for how they plan to pay for things. To me, that’s what’s dumb. Manchin worrying about how things will be paid for is one of the more sane things I’ve heard in a while coming out of the

It's not sane at all. The taxes on the wealthy and on corporations was supposed to be higher for the BBB bill, but Manchin was against it. That would have made it much easier to pay for the BBB bill.

It's really absurd for Manchin to be "concerned" about how the bill is paid for when he's against a substantial raise in taxes for the rich. What a hypocrite.

Not absurd at all. Not all taxes are the same.

BBB represents an expansion and/or the creation of entitlement spending. It’s easy to vote for benefits that someone else will have to pay for. Entitlements are the “safety net” programs that are supposed to benefit us all. We already have a looming problem with entitlement spending as FICA and Medicare are projected exceed the “trust funds” in the very near future and yet we propose to expand such programs without a clear understanding of how to fund these types of programs.

Personally, I think entitlement spending should be funded via an increase in the payroll tax rate. Funding of such safety net programs should be shared by all working people and the businesses that employ them. If we aren’t concerned enough to pay our part of that bill maybe we should question I question the commitment to these programs. As I said, it’s easy to vote for programs that are to be funded with other peoples money. Lately it seems all these programs are proposed in such a way that they are to be funded by asking certain tax payers to pay “their fair share” whatever that means. I have a feeling that if that is achieved other programs will follow also to be funded by asking the same individuals and businesses to pay still more using the “fair share” standard. I don’t think anyone really knows what “fair share” means or what the limits are.

I think both parties need to stop putting forward programs ignoring how these programs will be funded in the future. Ignoring these future consequences is reckless. Both sides complain about it when it’s the other party’s proposal and then do the same thing when it suits their political objective. They are both guilty of the same hypocrisy. They won’t pay for it. In the end it always falls to the middle class to pay for these excesses. I’m glad finally someone said “No”.

 

[J-DONK]

We sure see things differently, but I like where your heart is.

It's the weird corporate dem messaging that a progressive agenda isn't popular, and will cost seats. The only problem with that idea is actual polling, and the fact progressive idea's pass via state resolutions.

I don’t disagree that both parties abuse the reconciliation process. I don’t disagree that both parties pass legislation with little to no regard for how they plan to pay for things. To me, that’s what’s dumb. Manchin worrying about how things will be paid for is one of the more sane things I’ve heard in a while coming out of the

Not absurd at all. Not all taxes are the same.

BBB represents an expansion and/or the creation of entitlement spending. It’s easy to vote for benefits that someone else will have to pay for. Entitlements are the “safety net” programs that are supposed to benefit us all. We already have a looming problem with entitlement spending as FICA and Medicare are projected exceed the “trust funds” in the very near future and yet we propose to expand such programs without a clear understanding of how to fund these types of programs.

Personally, I think entitlement spending should be funded via an increase in the payroll tax rate. Funding of such safety net programs should be shared by all working people and the businesses that employ them. If we aren’t concerned enough to pay our part of that bill maybe we should question I question the commitment to these programs. As I said, it’s easy to vote for programs that are to be funded with other peoples money. Lately it seems all these programs are proposed in such a way that they are to be funded by asking certain tax payers to pay “their fair share” whatever that means. I have a feeling that if that is achieved other programs will follow also to be funded by asking the same individuals and businesses to pay still more using the “fair share” standard. I don’t think anyone really knows what “fair share” means or what the limits are.

I think both parties need to stop putting forward programs ignoring how these programs will be funded in the future. Ignoring these future consequences is reckless. Both sides complain about it when it’s the other party’s proposal and then do the same thing when it suits their political objective. They are both guilty of the same hypocrisy. They won’t pay for it. In the end it always falls to the middle class to pay for these excesses. I’m glad finally someone said “No”.

The only way I would ever endorse a payroll tax increase would be if it came attached to a Sanders style tax plan. That plan had what 20+ trillion in new revenue, and would also help solve our insane levels of income inequality. If you are going to raise taxes on the average American, the ultra-wealthy better start paying taxes as well.

 

[J-DONK]

I don't see the point.

By the time one's gotten to the point to be calling someone out they ought to be sipping a pina colada with a little blue umbrella stuck in the glass encase it rains.

Because it works, Manchin folded to pressure over the Covid-19 stimulus.

P.S. This is dead. Sinema, and Manchin worked together to kill it. Progressives called this 100%.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Progressives called this 100%.

Yep. And they were criticized for it.

 

[coldseat]

I don’t disagree that both parties abuse the reconciliation process. I don’t disagree that both parties pass legislation with little to no regard for how they plan to pay for things. To me, that’s what’s dumb. Manchin worrying about how things will be paid for is one of the more sane things I’ve heard in a while coming out of the

Not absurd at all. Not all taxes are the same.

BBB represents an expansion and/or the creation of entitlement spending. It’s easy to vote for benefits that someone else will have to pay for. Entitlements are the “safety net” programs that are supposed to benefit us all. We already have a looming problem with entitlement spending as FICA and Medicare are projected exceed the “trust funds” in the very near future and yet we propose to expand such programs without a clear understanding of how to fund these types of programs.

Personally, I think entitlement spending should be funded via an increase in the payroll tax rate. Funding of such safety net programs should be shared by all working people and the businesses that employ them. If we aren’t concerned enough to pay our part of that bill maybe we should question I question the commitment to these programs. As I said, it’s easy to vote for programs that are to be funded with other peoples money. Lately it seems all these programs are proposed in such a way that they are to be funded by asking certain tax payers to pay “their fair share” whatever that means. I have a feeling that if that is achieved other programs will follow also to be funded by asking the same individuals and businesses to pay still more using the “fair share” standard. I don’t think anyone really knows what “fair share” means or what the limits are.

I think both parties need to stop putting forward programs ignoring how these programs will be funded in the future. Ignoring these future consequences is reckless. Both sides complain about it when it’s the other party’s proposal and then do the same thing when it suits their political objective. They are both guilty of the same hypocrisy. They won’t pay for it. In the end it always falls to the middle class to pay for these excesses. I’m glad finally someone said “No”.

Paying for this bill was all accounted for until Manchin and Sinema started vetoing the very rational and logical way this bill was to be paid for (by scaling back some of the ridiculous tax cuts the Republicans gave to corporations and the wealthy). So they put up the road blocks and forced the rest of the Democrats to "work with them" so that they got what they wanted. Then they came back and complained about what they forced to be negotiated.

I mean, you narrative works if you haven't been paying attention this whole time. If they are so concerned about the budget, then the need to focus on the military spending they always vote for without complaint. We'll spend 10 trillion dollars in those 10 years on the military, but can't justify spending 4T on permanently implementing basic social services that are provided for through taxes in most modern industrial economies?

And nobody is demanding anything for "free". That's an old, tired trope. We just want the money we're paying in taxes to go to improve our country and to provide for some basic common services that are required in our modern era. I probably wouldn't receive the benefit of many of these programs, but I want our country to be better. I'm willing and do pay my fair share of taxes every year, and I'm tired of it going to only making the lives of corporations and billionaires easier while ignoring the needs of most of the country.

Also, the reason that FICA and Medicare are in the state that they're in financially is because of Congress raiding of those trust funds to pay for our military wars and leaving them bare. So let's not blame those programs for the financial state they're in. It's not mismanagement or underfunding that has caused it.

 

[TampaJoe]

It's the weird corporate dem messaging that a progressive agenda isn't popular, and will cost seats. The only problem with that idea is actual polling, and the fact progressive idea's pass via state resolutions.


The only way I would ever endorse a payroll tax increase would be if it came attached to a Sanders style tax plan. That plan had what 20+ trillion in new revenue, and would also help solve our insane levels of income inequality. If you are going to raise taxes on the average American, the ultra-wealthy better start paying taxes as well.

I am always open to ideas to making income taxes more fair. I highly doubt that a Sanders style plan would do that. I highly doubt it would solve income equality other than to make all of us equally poor. I don’t think the founders e nvisioned such a role for the federal government and I doubt that such a plan would get enough support from the Democrats caucas to reach 50 votes in the Senate. But that’s just an opinion.

 

[TampaJoe]

Paying for this bill was all accounted for until Manchin and Sinema started vetoing the very rational and logical way this bill was to be paid for (by scaling back some of the ridiculous tax cuts the Republicans gave to corporations and the wealthy). So they put up the road blocks and forced the rest of the Democrats to "work with them" so that they got what they wanted. Then they came back and complained about what they forced to be negotiated.

I mean, you narrative works if you haven't been paying attention this whole time. If they are so concerned about the budget, then the need to focus on the military spending they always vote for without complaint. We'll spend 10 trillion dollars in those 10 years on the military, but can't justify spending 4T on permanently implementing basic social services that are provided for through taxes in most modern industrial economies?

And nobody wants demanding anything for "free". That's an old, tired trope. We just want the money we're paying in taxes to go to improve our country and to provide for some basic common services that are required in our modern era. I probably wouldn't receive the benefit of many of these programs, but I want our country to be better. I'm willing and do pay my fair share of taxes every year, and I'm tired of it going to only making the lives of corporations and billionaires easier while ignoring the needs of most of the country.

Also, the reason that FICA and Medicare are in the state that they're in financially is because of Congress raiding of those trust funds to pay for our military wars and leaving them bare. So let's not blame those programs for the financial state they're in. It's not mismanagement or underfunding that has caused it.

The trust funds are a myth. FICA and Medicare are entitlement programs paid for via taxes, specifically payroll taxes. The surpluses have been going from the trust funds to the general fund and the deficits will be funded from the general fund. The trust funds are nothing more than a shell. It’s the government borrowing from itself. Don’t be fooled into thinking it’s anything else. It’s just like any other entitlement program.

My point is that if we want to expand those programs then everyone including the ultra wealthy and corporations should pay a piece of the cost. But that’s not what being proposed. What’s being proposed is a plan that’s being sold to the public as being paid for by someone else. We’re told it’s paid for and would cost nothing. Common sense says nothing is free. The middle class wage earner always winds up paying the tab.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I don’t disagree that both parties abuse the reconciliation process. I don’t disagree that both parties pass legislation with little to no regard for how they plan to pay for things. To me, that’s what’s dumb. Manchin worrying about how things will be paid for is one of the more sane things I’ve heard in a while coming out of the

Not absurd at all. Not all taxes are the same.

BBB represents an expansion and/or the creation of entitlement spending. It’s easy to vote for benefits that someone else will have to pay for. Entitlements are the “safety net” programs that are supposed to benefit us all. We already have a looming problem with entitlement spending as FICA and Medicare are projected exceed the “trust funds” in the very near future and yet we propose to expand such programs without a clear understanding of how to fund these types of programs.

Personally, I think entitlement spending should be funded via an increase in the payroll tax rate. Funding of such safety net programs should be shared by all working people and the businesses that employ them. If we aren’t concerned enough to pay our part of that bill maybe we should question I question the commitment to these programs. As I said, it’s easy to vote for programs that are to be funded with other peoples money. Lately it seems all these programs are proposed in such a way that they are to be funded by asking certain tax payers to pay “their fair share” whatever that means. I have a feeling that if that is achieved other programs will follow also to be funded by asking the same individuals and businesses to pay still more using the “fair share” standard. I don’t think anyone really knows what “fair share” means or what the limits are.

I think both parties need to stop putting forward programs ignoring how these programs will be funded in the future. Ignoring these future consequences is reckless. Both sides complain about it when it’s the other party’s proposal and then do the same thing when it suits their political objective. They are both guilty of the same hypocrisy. They won’t pay for it. In the end it always falls to the middle class to pay for these excesses. I’m glad finally someone said “No”.

My previous reply still stands. You completely ignored what I said about the Demcocrats increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pay for the BBB bill. Manchin is the one objecting to that.

Instead, you just post a bunch of rambling empty platitudes.

 

[J-DONK]

I am always open to ideas to making income taxes more fair. I highly doubt that a Sanders style plan would do that. I highly doubt it would solve income equality other than to make all of us equally poor. I don’t think the founders e nvisioned such a role for the federal government and I doubt that such a plan would get enough support from the Democrats caucas to reach 50 votes in the Senate. But that’s just an opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean by the federal government having that role? I'm confused. The federal government can collect tax, and they can provide social services. What are you talking about? Sanders largely espouses a return to tax returns of the 50-70's. This is already a precedent for this in America's "Golden Era".

 

[TampaJoe]

My previous reply still stands. You completely ignored what I said about the Demcocrats increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations to pay for the BBB bill. Manchin is the one objecting to that.

Instead, you just post a bunch of rambling empty platitudes.

I didn’t ignore it. I acknowledge that Manchin and Sinema didn’t support the party line. I have a feeling that other moderate Dems had similar concerns but didn’t speak up for no political reasons. You appear to believe that raising taxes on investors and business has no impact on the costs of goods and services. Correct me if I’m wrong. I just don’t share that view.

 

[Taurus]

I didn’t ignore it. I acknowledge that Manchin and Sinema didn’t support the party line. I have a feeling that other moderate Dems had similar concerns but didn’t speak up for no political reasons. You appear to believe that raising taxes on investors and business has no impact on the costs of goods and services. Correct me if I’m wrong. I just don’t share that view.

We've tried 40 years of trickle-down economics that coddles the rich and soaks the middle class.

It hasn't worked as advertised but has worked as intended. The rich are richer now than ever.

I'd like to see 40 years of screwing the rich as hard as we've been screwed since Reagan. Let's put tax rates up to where they were in 1957, let's hammer corporations that move overseas in order to avoid taxes and let's use that money to build things in America instead of destroying things in swarthy nations.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I didn’t ignore it. I acknowledge that Manchin and Sinema didn’t support the party line. I have a feeling that other moderate Dems had similar concerns but didn’t speak up for no political reasons. You appear to believe that raising taxes on investors and business has no impact on the costs of goods and services. Correct me if I’m wrong. I just don’t share that view.

The wealthiest 1% of Americans paid a 90% income tax rate in the 1950s, which was the most prosperous time period for the middle class in the history of this country.

Therefore, history says that you are wrong.

 

[TampaJoe]

I'm not sure what you mean by the federal government having that role? I'm confused. The federal government can collect tax, and they can provide social services. What are you talking about? Sanders largely espouses a return to tax returns of the 50-70's. This is already a precedent for this in America's "Golden Era".

I don’t think the founders envisioned a federal government that would regulate income equality in what is supposed to be a free country. I don’t think they envisioned that level of control. I don’t dispute that the federal government can tax and I don’t dispute that the government can provide services. That’s pretty much settled law.

Sanders doesn’t espouse a return to the tax returns of the 50’s thru the 70’s. He espouses returning to those rates. The Internal Revenue Code of the 50’s through the 70’s had loopholes that you could fly a 747 thru. The effective rates in that time weren’t close to the marginal rates.

As I said, I’m all for tax reform. I started my career in taxation in the early 80’s. There’s a certain sense of logic to much of the code. I’m all for addressing those areas that are inconsistent with that sense of logic. Carried interest for instance.

 

[J-DONK]

I don’t think the founders envisioned a federal government that would regulate income equality in what is supposed to be a free country. I don’t think they envisioned that level of control. I don’t dispute that the federal government can tax and I don’t dispute that the government can provide services. That’s pretty much settled law.

You don't know much about the founders then. Thomas Jefferson makes Sanders look like a member of the CATO institute. Jefferson is widely considered one of the more conservative founding fathers as well. I'm sure a man so well educated on the founders vision knows all this, but let's look at his tax policy.

What does this sound like to you?

We are all the more reconciled to the tax on importations, because it falls exclusively on the rich, and with the equal partitions of interstate estates, constitutes the best agrarian law… Our revenues once liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings.

"his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings."

 

[insidejob]

You don't know much about the founders then. Thomas Jefferson makes Sanders look like a member of the CATO institute. Jefferson is widely considered one of the more conservative founding fathers as well. I'm sure a man so well educated on the founders vision knows all this, but let's look at his tax policy.

What does this sound like to you?



"his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings."

Commusocialist!

 

[TampaJoe]

You don't know much about the founders then. Thomas Jefferson makes Sanders look like a member of the CATO institute. Jefferson is widely considered one of the more conservative founding fathers as well. I'm sure a man so well educated on the founders vision knows all this, but let's look at his tax policy.

What does this sound like to you?



"his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spare a cent from his earnings."

I don’t think Jefferson is the only founder. Seems like there were other folks in the room. However, what they ended up with was a constitution that limited the reach of the federal government and provided for personal liberty. Not everybody agreed with Jefferson. What we ended up with was a compromise.

I personally don’t favor taxation policies designed to screw anyone. That’s not the purpose of taxation. IMO redistribution of wealth also is not the business of the federal government. I don’t trust them in that role anymore than I would trust a corporate CEO to make that decision. But again. That’s just my opinion.