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/

 

[Saintman2884]

Trump supporting anti-vaxxers on their death beds...still denying they have COVID. Republican governors actually trying to prevent mask wearing during a pandemic that has killed freaking 700,000 people.

That's YOUR crazy party. Own it.

If you kick out too many moderate Dems or independent voters,.some of the voters who think like Manchin and Sinema, that crazy party will regain control of at least Senate or House, maybe both in 2022 midterms. You need to understand that voters who chose to vote for Biden last November didnt cast their votes for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If any one of those two had.won the Democratic nomination last year, Trump probably wins re-election and we're in a much worse situation right now. A majority of American voters supported and still do Biden because he's not some left-wing progressive, but a moderate Democrat.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Idealogy and idealogues can be a corrupting influence, especially when unchecked. Trump's effect and polarization of the GOP from 2016 onwards is proof is that. Like I said, progressives have well-funded pressure groups pushing them too, so their not exactly "clean" as solar, non-renewable energy resources. And you didnt exactly answer my second point I made about how progressive Dems can sometimes be their own worst.enemies?

Are why are only left-wing Democrats the only people acceptable to.sit at the table? That kind of attitude increases partisan political tribalism and will only serve to alienate voters, not attract them.
Like it or not, independents and moderates got Biden's arse elected to POTUS, not progressive Dems like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren. And you'll need them to hold onto and increase your House and Senate leads, telling them and people like Sinema and Manchin they don't have a seat at the table risks losing some of those voters.

How many moderate Democratic voters are against the $3.5 trillion spending bill? I'm willing to bet there are very few. Therefore, I don't see the relevance of your last paragraph.

If only Progressives are sitting at the table, then why haven't the two bills passed yet? Why has Bernie Sanders' original proposal of over $6 trillion dropped to $3.5 trillion? Another comment by you that is a ridiculous exaggeration and makes no sense.

Can't ANY group be their own worst enemies? I think it's pretty disingenuous to single out progressives regarding this type of issue.

I would argue moderate Democrats are their own worse enemies, for foolishly believing that they can negotiate in good faith with the Trump Cult Republican Party. Those days are over.

 

[Saintman2884]

How many moderate Democratic voters are against the $3.5 trillion spending bill? I'm willing to bet there are very few. Therefore, I don't see the relevance of your last paragraph.

If only Progressives are sitting at the table, then why haven't the two bills passed yet? Why has Bernie Sanders' original proposal of over $6 trillion dropped to $3.5 trillion? Another comment by you that is a ridiculous exaggeration and makes no sense.

Can't ANY group be their own worst enemies? I think it's pretty disingenuous to single out progressives regarding this type of issue.

I would argue moderate Democrats are their own worse enemies, for foolishly believing that they can negotiate in good faith with the Trump Cult Republican Party. Those days are over.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

If you kick out too many moderate Dems or independent voters,.some of the voters who think like Manchin and Sinema, that crazy party will regain control of at least Senate or House, maybe both in 2022 midterms. You need to understand that voters who chose to vote for Biden last November didnt cast their votes for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If any one of those two had.won the Democratic nomination last year, Trump probably wins re-election and we're in a much worse situation right now. A majority of American voters supported and still do Biden because he's not some left-wing progressive, but a moderate Democrat.

You still don't get it. No moderate Democratic voters are against the two spending bills. In fact, moderate Democratic voters will be pissed at Manchin and Sinema if they don't compromise and help get it passed.

 

[Saintman2884]

You didnt answer my question, either. Is it too much to ask you to answer some of the more legitimate criticisms many have laid at Bernie, AOC, Omar, Rashad Tlalib, or Warren?

You mention being disingenuous, that's also true of someone who uses that as a deflection as an excuse to not answer a specific question? It also sounds very Both Sidish, too.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Smaller problem? Calling for censorship or deplatforming of views the liberals don't like and parroting the propaganda of the US national security state is literally the definition of authoritarianism.

Yeah, figments of your imagination are definitely a smaller problem in the grand scheme of things. But these fantasies are obviously deeply traumatic to you, so you have my sympathies.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

You didnt answer my question, either. Is it too much to ask you to answer some of the more legitimate criticisms many have laid at Bernie, AOC, Omar, Rashad Tlalib, or Warren?

You mention being disingenuous, that's also true of someone who uses that as a deflection as an excuse to not answer a specific question? It also sounds very Both Sidish, too.

Every political group has members that make ill-advised comments from time to time. Including your moderate Democrats that you hold in such high esteem.

Why do their comments deserve more criticism than the crazy shirt that comes out of Trump and other Republicans' mouths every single day?

 

[Saintman2884]

You still don't get it. No moderate Democratic voters are against the two spending bills. In fact, moderate Democratic voters will be pissed at Manchin and Sinema if they don't compromise and help get it passed.

But, you're still not getting it, either. Those moderate Dems didnt vote Biden in to be President for your side of the party, pal. And yes, Ive got the opinion polls, data to.back me up on this and more then a few NYT or Washington Post articles to reinforce it even more.

Its goes a lot deeper then just 1-2 issues like you seem to think and feverishly insist it is. You think its just about those two spending bills, no, no, no, there's going to be a lot more issues going to be judged upon in next year's midterms and unlike AOC, Omar, or Warren, a lot of moderate Dems are going to be judged by their constituents about what they did or didn't do, and these two spending bills will be just one part of the equation. If you're not careful, you might lose that slim Democratic majority in both Houses.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

But, you're still not getting it, either. Those moderate Dems didnt vote Biden in to be President for your side of the party, pal. And yes, Ive got the opinion polls, data to.back me up on this and more then a few NYT or Washington Post articles to reinforce it even more.

Its goes a lot deeper then just 1-2 issues like you seem to think and feverishly insist it is. You think its just about those two spending bills, no, no, no, there's going to be a lot more issues going to be judged upon in next year's midterms and unlike AOC, Omar, or Warren, a lot of moderate Dems are going to be judged by their constituents about what they did or didn't do, and these two spending bills will be just one part of the equation. If you're not careful, you might lose that slim Democratic majority in both Houses.

What part of "moderate Democratic voters also want the $3.5 trillion spending bill" do you not understand???

Does this misguided crusade against progressives somehow make you feel good??

If the two bills don't pass, why are the progressives solely to blame? Because you say so?

 

[Saintman2884]

Every political group has members that make ill-advised comments from time to time. Including your moderate Democrats that you hold in such high esteem.

Why do their comments deserve more criticism than the crazy shirt that comes out of Trump and other Republicans' mouths every single day?

Uhh, because you refuse to acknowledge their crazy shirt because you don't see or your incapable of seeing their flaws? You don't think Bernie was wrong praising Castro's Cuba, a one-party Communist dictatorship or being reticent about his willingness to criticize a failed, left-wing authoritian government in Venezuela? A nation that used to have a functional democracy and one of the strongest economies in Latin America, but who's economy has a bad case of Dutch disease and considered by some to be the Zimbabwe of South America.

If some progressive Dems make stupid, ill-informed comments, you don't just act all high and mighty like some self-righteous prig, pretending that just because every political group said or does something stupid, then that's some kind of final, decisive answer to the question.

It is not and its Both-Sidism, at its worst and just because Republicans are much worse, that doesn't mean your side is immune and exempt from being held.accountable.

 

[Saintman2884]

What part of "moderate Democratic voters also want the $3.5 trillion spending bill" do you not understand???

Does this misguided crusade against progressives somehow make you feel good??

If the two bills don't pass, why are the progressives solely to blame? Because you say so?

I'm saying those same moderate Democratic voters will be judging quite a few of their senators, congressmen by a lot more then just two spending issues? You're going on tangents for things I'm not even saying? Do you have some misguided perception that you think you know what I stand for?

What's so hard for you to understand about that, now?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Uhh, because you refuse to acknowledge their crazy shirt because you don't see or your incapable of seeing their flaws? You don't think Bernie was wrong praising Castro's Cuba, a one-party Communist dictatorship or being reticent about his willingness to criticize a failed, left-wing authoritian government in Venezuela? A nation that used to have a functional democracy and one of the strongest economies in Latin America, but who's economy has a bad case of Dutch disease and considered by some to be the Zimbabwe of South America.

If some progressive Dems make stupid, ill-informed comments, you don't just act all high and mighty like some self-righteous prig, pretending that just because every political group said or does something stupid, then that's some kind of final, decisive answer to the question.

It is not and its Both-Sidism, at its worst and just because Republicans are much worse, that doesn't mean your side is immune and exempt from being held.accountable.

Yes, Republicans are much worse, as you stated. A rational person complains about the crazy Republicans who don't believe in COVID or who believe in QAnon fairy tales.

An irrational person nitpicks at ill-advised comments made by a few progressives, in order to show how "fair" and impartial they are.

Which one are you?

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I'm saying those same moderate Democratic voters will be judging quite a few of their senators, congressmen by a lot more then just two spending issues? You're going on tangents for things I'm not even saying? Do you have some misguided perception that you think you know what I stand for?

What's so hard for you to understand about that, now?

Really? What else are Democrats going to be judged on besides these two spending bills, other than the COVID relief bill that already passed?

Republicans aren't going to compromise on any bills, so what else is there besides this??

More empty rhetoric and hyperbole.

 

[Saintman2884]

Yes, Republicans are much worse, as you stated. A rational person complains about the crazy Republicans who don't believe in COVID or who believe in QAnon fairy tales.

An irrational person nitpicks at ill-advised comments made by a few progressives, in order to show how "fair" and impartial they are.

Which one are you?

So, you're not going to comment on Bernie Sanders idiotic comments or Omar's alleged antisemitic comments. I'm not being irrational to say or ask you what you think of those comments?
You just don't want to answer it because its beneath you and you frankly, don't care so I won't waste any more time trying to explain it to you. And because I'm not letting you weasel away by not answering it at all by insisting upon it and honestly, you have come across in some of our replies in this thread making broad, unsubstantiated characterizations about me and what you think I am, some of it absurdly so, so keep on being a cheerleader. And saying Republicans don't believe in Covid is low, man. If that were the case, why in the hell are most, if not all, employees at Fox News fully vaccinated if not most GOP House and Senate members.


Goodbye.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

So, you're not going to comment on Bernie Sanders idiotic comments or Omar's alleged antisemitic comments. I'm not being irrational to say or ask you what you think of those comments?
You just don't want to answer it because its beneath you and you frankly, don't care so I won't waste any more time trying to explain it to you. And because I'm not letting you weasel away by not answering it at all by insisting upon it and honestly, you have come across in some of our replies in this thread making broad, unsubstantiated characterizations about me and what you think I am, some of it absurdly so, so keep on being a cheerleader.

Goodbye.

I debate the battles that matter. Like the crazy arse Republican Party and their fascist movement to end democracy in the U.S. You see, that's relevant. Like the Battle of Gettysburg.

You, on the other hand, well....you're fighting some Civil War skirmish west of the Mississippi River, somewhere in the Ozarks of your mind.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

... it still pales in comparison to the Democratic party that is attached at the hip to the CIA/FBI propaganda and supports censorship of any views that go against the liberal orthodoxy.

Were you the guy that called into the T. Ben Boudreaux show and carried on about the Marxist sodomite vampires? This whole 'CIA/FBI' controlled Democratic party routine is some painfully obvious talking point you grabbed from Ben Shapiro or some other self-styled 'Libertarian' pundit.

Fox News, OAN, RSB, and even kookier outlets exist yet views are going to get shut out? It's not even logistically possible in 2021.

 

[RobF]

But
Maybe you werent alive back then or were too young to remember, but Callaghan's Labour regime actually had a halfway decent reason they stuck to their 5% recommended pay raise protocol: runaway inflation due to UK's economy suffering terrible repeated OPEC oil shocks, gradual steady rise in consumer goods, and the even more glaring reality that a good portion of existing British heavy industry was outdated, old and antiquated. Even as late as the 1970's, quite a bit of British steel, iron ore and coal plants, or "pits" lagged far behind in terms of innovation, worker productivity, creativeness, compared to.newer, more technologically sophisticated, advanced economies of France, West Germany, and Scandivinavian countries. UK was actually labeled.by many times economists as "the new sick man of Europe" because of lack of.government investment by both Labour and Tory regimes going back to Atlee's creation of British modern welfare state and massive nationalization program from 1945-51. Honestly, in terms of actual work effective decent working political government in UK's "post-WWII consensus" from 1945-79 was certainly Atlee and Harold Wilson for his social reforms. Even during this period, the UK economy had some noticeable ups and downs, IIRC, they nearly defalted on their debt payments in mid-60's,.or some major near-disaster was averted in the mid-60's in the country's financial markets. The pound was devalued, and the TUC, the political backbone of the Labour Party, particularly more so back then, DID ACTUALLY become a bit more politically vindictive and petty, Wilson nationalized the steel industry but TUC leaders wanted a lot more then that. There was a sense by the mid-70's, internally England was becoming an overly difficult place to govern properly. The IRA had flaired up again. There were massive power outages, which caused businesses, stores, offices to close and even adopt.a three-day work week. The TUC werent and shouldn't be viewed as blameless because some commentators viewed or suspected they were becoming too unreasonable, demanding, and even worse, militant. Some have argued they deliberately called a 1974 miner's strike to force Heath's resignation, which caused its intended effect. Sure, they were strong, but that doesn't necessarily mean back then they were always acting rationally and logically because there are notable instances where one might be forgiven to think they weren't. Labor or trade unions are just as likely to be corrupted or become not to reasonable actors as much as politicians or parties. Look at the long, well-documented history of American organized labor's association with Mafia ties, how Jimmy Hoffa and successive Teamsters leaders made their members retirement funds unofficial slush funds to build lavish, underworld-controlled Las Vegas casinos and beat up, intimidate, murder any investigative reporters who dared to do any deep digging or ask too many unnecessary questions.

Callaghan had to be the man who do what Heath and Wilson werent willing to do and refused to do, reign in rampant, runaway inflation, and by late 1978-early 79, inflation had finally gone to.single digits. The "Winter of Discontent" ruined what had, by that point, been a very auccessful PM tenure and any British historian will tell you Callaghan was as pro-union as you were going to find. He never actually called up or decided to implement the National Emergency Contingency Plan, mostly because he couldn't believe the rank-and-file TUC who frankly didnt know shirt about how to stop or curtail runaway inflation would turn against them, or him.

And I sincerely hope those Ford workers, road haulage workers, striking lorry drivers in cities like Hull and even gravediggers in Liverpool went on strike and left many grieving families unable to bury their dead, so they were stored en masse at storage facilities. There was even rumors floating around that if the Liverpool grave diggers union wasnt settled soon, they'd be forced to bury dead people at sea. Roof, WTF is that all about? Thats major time BS. I hope they enjoyed their pay rises, because their actions, unintentionally as they may have seen them, actually brought in to power a very hardline Tory government led by a forceful woman determined not to let Labour or its TUC allies hold the UKs economy hostage again. If Callaghan's Lib-Lab power-sharing agreement had stayed in power in early 1979, a lot of the drastic, devastating economic carnage Thatcher brought might've been avoided and Old Labour's once-dominant status couldve evolved or reformed itself better.


And yes, there was talk, rumors going around in certain circles, mostly among high-ranking, retired or semi-retired military officers, aristocrats about feasibility or possible success of a military coup. We know about a secret, high-level meeting between Lord Mount batten and several potential coup plotters who personally didn't like Wilson, held on to persistent he had KGB kopromat being used against him based on a trade delegation earlier in his political career some deemed a bit too chummy, and he had allowed a racist, South African-styled apartheid regime in Rhodesia announce UDI in 1965 led by a charismatic white Rhodesian populist, Ian Smith, make a fool out of him and reveal just how powerless UKs attempts to sanction him to agree to a black majority rule regime. Wilson had a rumored reputation as being anti-monarchist, and pro-Republican and there's several episodes in The Crown TV series that discuss these issues as well the discussed 1967 coup. There's even been conflicting accounts Wilson may have been forced out in 1976 by a coalition of conservative British generals, officers and some political enemies he'd made in the Labour.

There were segments, presented as hypothetical scenarios on BBC TV programs during the 1970's about what a military putch, might look like if lets say, Scotland unilaterally declares its independence or the massive violence, bombings in Northern Ireland become so uncontainable, British military would essentially have to take over from civilian leadership to run the region's security or increase its then already-vast military presence to try and keep Provos/IRA/Sein Fein and Ulster Defense League from going full frontal to a state of near-civil war.

That's an interesting read, and thank you for taking the time to write it, but it does miss the crucial point that I was making.

I did know about the inflation - I mentioned it - and the rationale for the pay rise cap, but the point I was making is that Callaghan tried to keep the cap on pay increases of 5% beyond the point where that was sustainable, not that it was there at all, or that there was no rationale at all for it at any point.

And I think that's what gets missed is a lot of these analyses. Talking about inflation in the abstract can miss the fact that, without measures to address it, it leaves working people literally unable to pay their bills, which is unsustainable. That is what drove the strikes and the winter of discontent, not some sudden random changes of minds in union leadership.

Like I said, I think that's easily missed. For example, you say you "hope they enjoyed their pay rises"? Probably not that much, no, because those pay rises still left them worse off than they were in real terms previously. But it at least gave them a better shot at paying the bills.

It's fine to say, in the abstract, "let's keep pay rises to no more than 5%, that'll help inflation," but whether you can actually do that depends in large part on whether the people you're asking to have no more than 5% pay rises can manage on that. If they can't, you're not going to be able to do it for long, and you need to recognise that. Because if you do, then you can at least manage what happens, potentially without strikes, and enabling more control over being able to moderate what the outcome is.

If you don't... well, see what actually happened.

None of that is to say unions didn't, and don't, have problems; as I said in the post, I think the adversarial approach to the relationship is a problem in union-government and union-business relationships as well, which, I think, leads to a lot of other problems; for example, an increased focus on gaining and maintaining power, and distancing between the different groups involved, which can be not just between unions and government, but even between unions and their members.

For example, Labour just had a vote at their conference on whether to adopt a policy of electoral reform towards proportional representation. 80% of local party votes supported it. But it lost with 58% against overall, because 95% of votes from affiliates (which is largely the unions) opposed it. Obviously 'local party members' are not directly equivalent to 'union members', but that is a massive gulf there, and it's hard to think the unions don't oppose it because it potentially dilutes their own power.

Also, countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have a bit of a fundamentally different economic model used thats different than its French, Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Its called the Nordic Model and its works primarily because Scandivinavian countries tend to have less corruption, graft, and slick, duplicitous power-hungry demogagoes looking to advance their careers. There's also a greater.sense of knowing "not to press" or push shirt in terms of big-government spending, they don't go too far or massively overreach their authority. Labor or trade unions also, IMHO, also tend to have a smarter, more mature, less politically adversarial sense of "social responsibility" compared.to.their British or Continental neighbors. Good government works when it knows its exact responsibilities and big government works even better when the regime in charge doesn't believe it can keep on pushing, they know where the lines are drawn and never crosses them because they develop some "entitlement complex".

OK. But is that less politically adversarial approach something that just happens, or is it at least in part encouraged and sustained by the systemic processes and structures in place, including the electoral system, which can lead to more cooperative, rather than adversarial, approaches?

Because when I look at UK, and US, politics, that seems to me to be a significant factor. You have people who in other nations would be in different parties, and potentially forming coalitions in which the agreements are made between those parties on shared principles, instead being forced into one of two parties, with an increased likelihood of what we're seeing in this thread; just one or two people holding a balance of power.

 

[zztop]

If you kick out too many moderate Dems or independent voters,.some of the voters who think like Manchin and Sinema, that crazy party will regain control of at least Senate or House, maybe both in 2022 midterms. You need to understand that voters who chose to vote for Biden last November didnt cast their votes for Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. If any one of those two had.won the Democratic nomination last year, Trump probably wins re-election and we're in a much worse situation right now. A majority of American voters supported and still do Biden because he's not some left-wing progressive, but a moderate Democrat.

I don't agree with some of the harassment they have faced, because I think psychologically it will just make them dig their heels in even more. Some months ago Manchin was for 4 trillion. Then $omething happened. I can only guess some big donor got him to change his mind. My understanding is negotiation took place in good faith, but Manchin and Sinema yanked the football away at the last moment (like in the old peanuts cartoon)

Sen. Joe Manchin calls for up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending as Democrats are poised to control Congress

The West Virginia Democrat also indicated he could still support $2,000 stimulus checks as part of a broader relief package.

www.businessinsider.com

In January, Manchin said he'd back up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending, as then-president-elect Joe Biden laid out his plans for office.

"The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," Manchin told Inside West Virginia Politics in January.

He reaffirmed his support for a larger package in April, as Senate Republicans readied their own much smaller infrastructure package.

"We're going to do whatever it takes. If it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion, but we have to pay for it," Manchin told reporters at the time, saying that he would go big if the situation warranted it.

The document obtained by Politico is dated July 28, meaning that it came about two weeks after Senate Democrats announced their $3.5 trillion reconciliation deal. Ahead of that deal, Manchin said any Democratic-only plan would need to be fully paid for, and not require borrowing money