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/

 

[J-DONK]

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.

How does taxation, or wealth redistribution imped your personal liberty? Why are you talking about the constitution? We already settled the federal government has the right to tax you, and to provide social services. Taxation is used for wealth redistribution now, and in the past.

How about we cover the 2nd president, instead of the 3rd? John Adams greatest fear was the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and the birth of a new aristocracy that would circumvent popular opinion, and good governance. There was major concern amongst the founding fathers that income inequality would lead to a inequality of representation in government. Do you think he would support a billionaire tax? Do you think he would support a massive estate tax?

 

[SFIDC3]

For the life of me, I simply can’t understand how anyone can think that our current environment of billionaire/corporate tax welfare is working or will ever work….It‘s not “screwing anybody” (like it does the middle class today), it is simply creating an environment where those entities actually pay their fair share of taxes (meaning not little or none)….as for the costs of goods and services going up? Who said competition would be eliminated? It’s just nonsensical….trickle down is absolute garbage….

 

[TampaJoe]

How does taxation, or wealth redistribution imped your personal liberty? Why are you talking about the constitution? We already settled the federal government has the right to tax you, and to provide social services. Taxation is used for wealth redistribution now, and in the past.

How about we cover the 2nd president, instead of the 3rd? John Adams greatest fear was the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and the birth of a new aristocracy that would circumvent popular opinion, and good governance. There was major concern amongst the founding fathers that income inequality would lead to a inequality of representation in government. Do you think he would support a billionaire tax? Do you think he would support a massive estate tax?

What I earn and how much of that the government is entitled to take as taxes has everything to do with personal liberty. I am surprised at the question. The constitution last I checked is the law of the land and it was the culmination of much discussion and compromise by the founders. I don’t recall anything in the constitution that supports the notion that one of the duties of the federal government is wealth redistribution. Maybe I missed that somewhere.

As far as concentration of wealth, most of the richest people 50 years ago don’t make the Fortune 250 today. Our estate laws typically disperse concentrated wealth with each successive generation. I have no issue with fair and reasonable taxation of income. I have no issue with a reasonable estate tax. I don’t have an issue with election laws that govern campaign contributions and lobbying of public officials. But what we are discussing here is an expansion of entitlement programs being sold to the public using budget gimmicks to disguise the true cost of the programs. What we are discussing here is all the angst caused because one or two senators actually considered the long term costs of these programs and their effect of the national debt. What we are discussing here are Senators that choose to represent the views of their constituents rather than the views of their fellow party members. I was under the impression that was what responsible public officials are hired to do. I get that pisses off all the other professional politicians but I kinda admire their courage.

 

[MT15]

I like this proposal:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/22/manchin-build-back-better/

Excerpt:

“Here’s the path that the White House and Manchin might follow.

First, Democrats have a huge opening in Manchin’s $1.8 trillion proposal, which was reported by The Washington Post. The bill Manchin would approve includes nearly $2 trillion worth of sound policy, including universal prekindergarten programs. Securing major federal action on climate always depended on the vote of Manchin, a coal state senator, and Manchin’s offer reportedly includes funding levels close to what Biden was seeking, among other things. Democrats could put it on the floor, with the addition of a short-term (say, six-month) extension of the child tax credit. This would mean giving Manchin everything he told Biden he wants.

Manchin’s bottom line only looks bad through the lens of what it leaves out. On that front, Democrats could make an eminently reasonable ask: In return for giving Manchin everything he wants, and putting aside trillions’ worth of their demands, all they will be asking for is a short-term extension of the child tax credit, which Manchin has voted for previously and which will prevent millions of children from sliding into poverty this holiday season. Some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations off the $1.4 trillion cost of a full 10-year extension suggest that a six-month extension would cost just $70 billion. That means that cost-wise, in a $1.8 trillion bill, a short-term extension of the child tax credit is a rounding error.

A short-term extension gives Manchin something else he claims to want: the chance to negotiate a bipartisan solution to extend the credit on a long-term basis. Again, all the White House would be asking for is to keep 10 million kids out of poverty while those negotiations occur. What could be more reasonable?”

 

[J-DONK]

What I earn and how much of that the government is entitled to take as taxes has everything to do with personal liberty. I am surprised at the question. The constitution last I checked is the law of the land and it was the culmination of much discussion and compromise by the founders. I don’t recall anything in the constitution that supports the notion that one of the duties of the federal government is wealth redistribution. Maybe I missed that somewhere.

Yes, the government does have this ability.

What is redistribution of wealth:

A. Taxing an individual via a variety of means
B. providing a social service, or giving money via refunds, or credits, etc.

If you think the government has the right to do A, and B, then yes they can redistribute wealth. The government already does this, and has done this centuries for now. How are you missing this?

As far as concentration of wealth, most of the richest people 50 years ago don’t make the Fortune 250 today. Our estate laws typically disperse concentrated wealth with each successive generation. I have no issue with fair and reasonable taxation of income. I have no issue with a reasonable estate tax. I don’t have an issue with election laws that govern campaign contributions and lobbying of public officials. But what we are discussing here is an expansion of entitlement programs being sold to the public using budget gimmicks to disguise the true cost of the programs. What we are discussing here is all the angst caused because one or two senators actually considered the long term costs of these programs and their effect of the national debt. What we are discussing here are Senators that choose to represent the views of their constituents rather than the views of their fellow party members. I was under the impression that was what responsible public officials are hired to do. I get that pisses off all the other professional politicians but I kinda admire their courage.

The richest Americans are:

1. Elon Musk
2. Jeff Bezos
3. Bill Gates
4. Mark Zuckerberg
5. Warren Buffet

The only person in that list who came from a middle class background is Warren Buffet. The idea of social mobility in this country is largely a myth.

As far as stuff like the estate tax, it's easily circumvented via trust, and tops out at 40%. Has it been higher? Again, back in the Golden Era(50-70's) it was 77%.

Also, Manchin, and Sinema don't actually care about the debt. Both of these "courageous" souls voted for the 777 billion dollar military spending bill.

 

[Dragon]

It is actually rather simple

Look at it as from the view of 2 different companies

Company A skimps on everything - The machinery which produces the product they sell are only maintained if it is absolutely necessary. They never pay for upgrades and if something breaks down completely it is replaced with the cheapest quality which can be bought for money. The owners withdraw every cent they can from the company every year.

Company B keeps its machinery up to date, do the regular maintenance checks, makes sure that every upgrade is installed and have a quality control procedure to ensure that everything is working as it should. The owners reinvest a certain amount of the profit every year in order to improve the production and the quality of the product


Which company will have the best long term future ?

 

[Saintman2884]

I think Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer were not fools, and I don't think suddenly out of the blue that Manchin lowered the boom on them yesterday.

I think is was weeks ago that Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer were informed that one or more of the vulnerable Senators had folded and what they did in splitting those bills was done to salvage what they could.

I'm thankful that they did salvage what they could. There was that budget resolution and the debet limit bills to move too. So what we've seen since a month ago can best be called politics. Sometimes in politics things are not what they seem.



BTW I have AOC of the squad down as a woman who might become President someday, on the same short list with Sinema of Arizona. I'm one of AOC's strong supporters. I support both of them as different as they are because they are amoung our parties rising stars with charisma, that essential ingredient for being elected to high office.

Well, when she said that Manchin's comment about not being able to realistically "sell" BBB back home in West Virginia, she called it a farce but according to her, "she represents just as many, if not more people in her 14th Congressional District". Politifact called her comment a forking boldface lie because her congressional district covers maybe 696,000 people, while Manchin's constituency covers entire state of West Virginia, which has a population of 1.7 million people, 2.6x times more people than AOC's own district. Plus, politically, as you've already described, West Virginia is a blood-red, socially and politically conservative state where liberal, progressive ideals are a hard, difficult sell and AOC lives in and works with a deep blue, safe Congressional District.

Thats one of AOC problems. She comes.across as aloof, out-of-touch, naive, and a partisan firebrand who doesnt believe in compromising. A likable fringe candidate that attracts a certain edgy kind of audience like Bernie did and has over the past several years. She's good at rallying progressives and liberal Democrats to causes on the far left of the Democratic Party in big cities and Liberal islands like Berkeley, but throw her arse in enemy territory to hostile, unreceptive audiences in huge conservative areas like the Deep South, conservative parts of Midwest like Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, western New York, Kentucky, rural Wisconsin, central Pennsylvania, and lets see how her rhetoric gets recieved there.

She may have a few admirers here and there, but for the most part, overwhelming majority of those abovementioned areas view her as some out-of-touch, fringed, left-wing firebrand who has the safety of a safe Congressional District to hide behind when she goes on her public political tirades. Just like Bernie Sanders before her and Elizabeth Warren now with the same constiuency.

You need to be able to listen to and ability to win over hostile audiences if you hold Presidential ambitions, AOC's background and her political stances as a socialist isn't going to fly over deep, conservative red states, if anything makes her a pariah. Any notion of her realistically running for POTUS is foolish, wish-casting at best, much less winning. No amount of partisan sophistry, elitist brown-nosing at the opposition or their electoral base is going to change that reality other than making one feel better afterwards for blasting how stupid you think they all collectively are.

 

[SamAndreas]

Well, when she said that Manchin's comment about not being able to realistically "sell" BBB back home in West Virginia, she called it a farce but according to her, "she represents just as many, if not more people in her 14th Congressional District". Politifact called her comment a forking boldface lie because her congressional district covers maybe 696,000 people, while Manchin's constituency covers entire state of West Virginia, which has a population of 1.7 million people, 2.6x times more people than AOC's own district. Plus, politically, as you've already described, West Virginia is a blood-red, socially and politically conservative state where liberal, progressive ideals are a hard, difficult sell and AOC lives in and works with a deep blue, safe Congressional District.

Thats one of AOC problems. She comes.across as aloof, out-of-touch, naive, and a partisan firebrand who doesnt believe in compromising. A likable fringe candidate that attracts a certain edgy kind of audience like Bernie did and has over the past several years. She's good at rallying progressives and liberal Democrats to causes on the far left of the Democratic Party in big cities and Liberal islands like Berkeley, but throw her arse in enemy territory to hostile, unreceptive audiences in huge conservative areas like the Deep South, conservative parts of Midwest like Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, western New York, Kentucky, rural Wisconsin, central Pennsylvania, and lets see how her rhetoric gets recieved there.

She may have a few admirers here and there, but for the most part, overwhelming majority of those abovementioned areas view her as some out-of-touch, fringed, left-wing firebrand who has the safety of a safe Congressional District to hide behind when she goes on her public political tirades. Just like Bernie Sanders before her and Elizabeth Warren now with the same constiuency.

You need to be able to listen to and ability to win over hostile audiences if you hold Presidential ambitions, AOC's background and her political stances as a socialist isn't going to fly over deep, conservative red states, if anything makes her a pariah. Any notion of her realistically running for POTUS is foolish, wish-casting at best, much less winning. No amount of partisan sophistry, elitist brown-nosing at the opposition or their electoral base is going to change that reality other than making one feel better afterwards for blasting how stupid you think they all collectively are.

In that I'm figuring that AOC will mature. I see potential because what I see is a great charisma in her, that star quality that is so rare in individuals.

That's the secret sauce, good policy comes a distant second. That's wrong, not how it ought to be, but it's how I think the world actually is.

So imagine an AOC who becomes grounded over time as she continues to grow up. Right now she's such a kid, but a kid with a lot of potential.

 

[coldseat]

Democrat's and optimist are smoking crack is they think any type of voting rights legislation is going to pass in this Congress. Not with the two sore thumbs sticking out of their conference that are halting any kind of progress on really all legislation right now. Republicans will be free to cheat in the upcoming elections and have their way from here on out.

No more significant legislation will come out of this Congress before the midterms, then we'll get the return of the Benghazi Congress. Unfortunate given that something could actually be done to address it, but ....

Manchin delivers blow to Democrats as he signals opposition to changing Senate rules to advance voting bill

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the pivotal Senate swing vote, made clear on Tuesday that he remains deeply skeptical of overhauling the chamber's rules on a simple majority basis to advance voting legislation, a clear sign that a frantic push by Democrats to win his support to change the...

www.cnn.com

 

[zztop]

yeah.. it is not looking good.

 

[CoolBrees]

Yes, the government does have this ability.

What is redistribution of wealth:

A. Taxing an individual via a variety of means
B. providing a social service, or giving money via refunds, or credits, etc.

If you think the government has the right to do A, and B, then yes they can redistribute wealth. The government already does this, and has done this centuries for now. How are you missing this?




The richest Americans are:

1. Elon Musk
2. Jeff Bezos
3. Bill Gates
4. Mark Zuckerberg
5. Warren Buffet

The only person in that list who came from a middle class background is Warren Buffet. The idea of social mobility in this country is largely a myth.

As far as stuff like the estate tax, it's easily circumvented via trust, and tops out at 40%. Has it been higher? Again, back in the Golden Era(50-70's) it was 77%.

Also, Manchin, and Sinema don't actually care about the debt. Both of these "courageous" souls voted for the 777 billion dollar military spending bill.

I agree with everything you say……


Except Jeff Bezos is self made. Purely.

 

[zztop]

at this point I'm very skeptical

Manchin returns to Build Back Better negotiations with climate, child care demands

The West Virginia Democrat stayed in touch with senior White House officials over the holidays.

www.axios.com

 

[B4YOU]

at this point I'm very skeptical

Manchin returns to Build Back Better negotiations with climate, child care demands

The West Virginia Democrat stayed in touch with senior White House officials over the holidays.

www.axios.com

Manchin in my mind, “Now that I have established I will hold this bill hostage unless I get exactly what I want, we can start negotiating again.”

 

[Optimus Prime]

Manchin in my mind, “Now that I have established I will hold this bill hostage unless I get exactly what I want, we can start negotiating again.”

Has he ever said exactly what he wants though other than it costs too much

 

[SamAndreas]

Has he ever said exactly what he wants though other than it costs too much

I think he has, however cost is a large concern that he genuinely does feel matters. He's said 1.5 trillion constantly insofar as his limit, and he's made it clear from the beginning that he's not impressed by cost analysis illusions that others have tried to use to gloss over his cost concerns.

I suggest that if the Liberals in the Senate play it straight with him they will get his vote as long as they keep it below 1.5 trillion.

 

[Taurus]

I think he has, however cost is a large concern that he genuinely does feel matters. He's said 1.5 trillion constantly insofar as his limit, and he's made it clear from the beginning that he's not impressed by cost analysis illusions that others have tried to use to gloss over his cost concerns.

I suggest that if the Liberals in the Senate play it straight with him they will get his vote as long as they keep it below 1.5 trillion.

I suggest he get reminded of the poll results in his state that are in full support of the bill(s) and have AOC give a speech calling him out as a corporate stooge. Followed by a private conversation indicating the President might also give such a speech if he doesn't fall in line.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Democrat's and optimist are smoking crack is they think any type of voting rights legislation is going to pass in this Congress. Not with the two sore thumbs sticking out of their conference that are halting any kind of progress on really all legislation right now. Republicans will be free to cheat in the upcoming elections and have their way from here on out.

No more significant legislation will come out of this Congress before the midterms, then we'll get the return of the Benghazi Congress. Unfortunate given that something could actually be done to address it, but ....

Manchin delivers blow to Democrats as he signals opposition to changing Senate rules to advance voting bill

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, the pivotal Senate swing vote, made clear on Tuesday that he remains deeply skeptical of overhauling the chamber's rules on a simple majority basis to advance voting legislation, a clear sign that a frantic push by Democrats to win his support to change the...

www.cnn.com

If nothing happens by MLK Day on Jan 17th, then it's over.

I think it's possible that both Manchin and Sinema will vote Yes to change the filibuster rules and vote for the voting rights bill(s) if a vote occurs on the Senate floor during the next 9 - 10 days. The pressure on both of them is overwhelming, even more so than for the BBB bill.

Manchin knows that Senate Republicans completely ignored his proposed voting rights bill a few months ago. The Republicans wouldn't even agree to vote on the bill after he negotiated with them in good faith. He got played by the Republicans and they made him look pretty foolish. That can't sit well with him.

 

[Taurus]

If nothing happens by MLK Day on Jan 17th, then it's over.

I think it's possible that both Manchin and Sinema will vote Yes to change the filibuster rules and vote for the voting rights bill(s) if a vote occurs on the Senate floor during the next 9 - 10 days. The pressure on both of them is overwhelming, even more so than for the BBB bill.

Manchin knows that Senate Republicans completely ignored his proposed voting rights bill a few months ago. The Republicans wouldn't even agree to vote on the bill after he negotiated with them in good faith. He got played by the Republicans and they made him look pretty foolish. That can't sit well with him.

He needs to be forcefully reminded of that.