Bipartisan Infrastructure/3.5T Reconciliation/Gov Funding/Debt Ceiling (2 Viewers)

[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/

 

[Lapaz]

Yeah? Please tell me the last time a bunch of Republican voters tried to overthrow an election, like they did on Jan 6. Please tell me the last time a former President constantly stated that the election was stolen from him, with no evidence.

Again, you underestimate the threat.

I think you're wrong that we're underestimating the threat. Republican voters have become very dangerous to the existence of democracy, but your solution is not the only solution. Your solution is to accept our approach or nothing. That doesn't work, and will create more problems. Achievements are needed, but goals are also needed. The best way to help keep Democratic majorities is to achieve something, and campaign on what you will do if elected. Hopefully, Republicans will moderate their minority rule governance and attacks on Democracy, and instead adjust to governing for their constituents within the framework of democracy.

 

[Lapaz]

It doesn't matter if these crazy Republicans are in the minority -- they already know this. Their goal is permanent minority rule. That is the whole point of the new voter suppression laws and new gerrymandering in states like Texas and Georgia. You don't fully understand the threat.

If Manchin and Sinema are not going to vote with the other 48 Democrats in the Senate to protect democracy, then yes go ahead and become Republicans right now. Because it's over in 2022 anyway if they don't eliminate the filibuster for HR1 and HR4 right now.

That attitude could give Republicans a supermajority. Just because Republicans are abandoning the principles of democracy, doesn't mean that Democrats should as well. Democrats need to keep pointing out the unfairness, and challenge the laws in court. Manchin and Sinema don't support the bills as written, and there's nothing wrong with that. I still welcome them in the party, as I do the most liberal members. Democrats nor society are monoliths. Opinions vary, and a Democratic society should debate the merits of each position, and then find compromises that can garner a majority. Even some Republicans voted for the hard infrastructure. I think with modification, some Republicans would also vote for the soft infrastructure bill. Being an absolutist only works in non-Democratic societies.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I think you're wrong that we're underestimating the threat. Republican voters have become very dangerous to the existence of democracy, but your solution is not the only solution. Your solution is to accept our approach or nothing. That doesn't work, and will create more problems. Achievements are needed, but goals are also needed. The best way to help keep Democratic majorities is to achieve something, and campaign on what you will do if elected. Hopefully, Republicans will moderate their minority rule governance and attacks on Democracy, and instead adjust to governing for their constituents within the framework of democracy.

Nope, I'm not wrong at all. Both of you are underestimating the threat.
We should compromise with Manchin and Sinema when it comes to the fundamental right to vote??? bullshirt. If that's the case, good riddance to both of them. They are essentially guaranteeing permanent Republican rule starting in 2022. They might as well declare themselves Republicans right now if that's the case.

Democratic achievements in Congress are not going to overcome voter suppression and gerrymandering in states like Texas and Georgia. You cannot overcome a rigged game. You literally do not get it.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

That attitude could give Republicans a supermajority. Just because Republicans are abandoning the principles of democracy, doesn't mean that Democrats should as well. Democrats need to keep pointing out the unfairness, and challenge the laws in court. Manchin and Sinema don't support the bills as written, and there's nothing wrong with that. I still welcome them in the party, as I do the most liberal members. Democrats nor society are monoliths. Opinions vary, and a Democratic society should debate the merits of each position, and then find compromises that can garner a majority. Even some Republicans voted for the hard infrastructure. I think with modification, some Republicans would also vote for the soft infrastructure bill. Being an absolutist only works in non-Democratic societies.

See my previous post. The infrastructure bill is irrelevant to this whole discussion. You just don't get it. Your Democratic achievements simply ain't going to matter in the 2022 election if HR1 and HR4 are not passed by Congress.

 

[Lapaz]

I understand Republican voters perfectly. I don't understand why you are holding Democrats to a higher standard. If Republican voters don't care about legislation and achievements, then why does it matter what the Democrats do?

None of your analysis matters if HR1 and HR4 are not passed. Republicans will steal the elections anyway if that is the case. Quibbling about 5% of Democrats who are stupid enough to vote for Trumpsters simply ain't going to matter if HR1 and HR4 are not passed by Congress.

Trumpism is going NOWHERE. Stop deluding yourself.

I don't think you do understand the more moderate Republicans. You think they can't vote for a lunatic, yet polls show they waffle back and forth, because they don't believe that Trump was that dangerous. A small percentage will vote for the Democrats if they have something to offer, otherwise they will waffle back to Trump. They won't realize that they've made a mistake until all our checks and balances have been compromised and we've lost democracy.

I hold Democrats to a higher standard, because I generally vote for Democrats, and I hold myself to a higher standard. It is dumb to go for all or nothing. It is a recipe for losing. These bills are not written in stone on the mountain. They can be amended to become more palatable to many. That's how bills and legislation are passed. There are still about 10% of Republicans that can be reached, so all is not lost, but taking an inflexible position will surely result in a loss.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I don't think you do understand the more moderate Republicans. You think they can't vote for a lunatic, yet polls show they waffle back and forth, because they don't believe that Trump was that dangerous. A small percentage will vote for the Democrats if they have something to offer, otherwise they will waffle back to Trump. They won't realize that they've made a mistake until all our checks and balances have been compromised and we've lost democracy.

I hold Democrats to a higher standard, because I generally vote for Democrats, and I hold myself to a higher standard. It is dumb to go for all or nothing. It is a recipe for losing. These bills are not written in stone on the mountain. They can be amended to become more palatable to many. That's how bills and legislation are passed. There are still about 10% of Republicans that can be reached, so all is not lost, but taking an inflexible position will surely result in a loss.

Forget it. You don't comprehend a word that I'm telling you -- It doesn't matter how 10% of moderate Republicans or 5% of moderate Democrats vote in 2022, if HR1 and HR4 are not passed by Congress. You are quibbling at the margins and missing the bigger picture.

Republicans will steal the elections in states like Texas and Georgia anyway, if HR1 and HR4 are not passed by Congress. Your obsession with "Democratic achievements" regarding the two spending bills is misguided and misses the point.

 

[Lapaz]

Forget it. You don't comprehend a word that I'm telling you -- It doesn't matter how 10% of moderate Republicans or 5% of moderate Democrats vote in 2022, if HR1 and HR4 are not passed by Congress. You are quibbling at the margins and missing the bigger picture.

Republicans will steal the elections in states like Texas and Georgia anyway, if HR1 and HR4 are not passed by Congress. Your obsession with "Democratic achievements" regarding the two spending bills is misguided and misses the point.

I was talking about what the democrats should do with the infrastructure bills, not the voting rights bills HR1 and HR4. This thread is about the infrastructure bills.

There is another thread for voting rights, and getting into that hijacks this thread. All I'll say about those bills is that there is a lot of hyperbole about the impact of not passing those as well, and some amendments can gain more support for them. In the other thread, rather than just saying that they have to pass, you should list what they do, and why those provisions are important, then those provisions can be discussed/debated individually.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I was talking about what the democrats should do with the infrastructure bills, not the voting rights bills HR1 and HR4. This thread is about the infrastructure bills.

There is another thread for voting rights, and getting into that hijacks this thread. All I'll say about those bills is that there is a lot of hyperbole about the impact of not passing those as well, and some amendments can gain more support for them. In the other thread, rather than just saying that they have to pass, you should list what they do, and why those provisions are important, then those provisions can be discussed/debated individually.

You were the one mistakenly trying to tie these two spending bills to the 2022 election. These two spending bills will have zero impact on the 2022 election if HR1 and HR4 are not passed, because Republicans will steal the 2022 election regardless.

You obviously haven't learned anything from recent history, either. Obama and the Democrats saved the economy in 2009 during the Great Recession with the $700 billion stimulus bill, yet they still got hammered in the 2010 election with the rise of the racist mentally disturbed Tea Party.

The fact is that virtually no Republicans care about legislation and accomplishments. It was true 10 years ago and it's even more true now. The same is true with all of the fake "Independents" out there who really support the Trump Cult Republican Party. Their hatred of liberals and "owning the libs" is all that matters to these imbeciles.

 

[J-DONK]

If the Democrats do that, get ready for McConnell to take over the Senate again. It wouldn’t cost Manchin any votes in WV to declare himself an independent and start caucusing with the Republicans. Sinema maybe also, and she’s a complete wildcard that I don’t trust at all.

Most of Manchin’s voters consider themselves Republicans. They don’t support the human infrastructure bill as much as you guys think. We went over that before I left last week. One poll funded by the Democratic Party found a slim majority support among Republicans nationwide for the 3.5T bill, but Pew found only 17-25% support among Republicans nationwide. Maybe you can find a poll specifically for WV, I haven’t seen that. I would be interested in seeing it.

WEST VIRGINIA POLL SHOWS VOTERS SUPPORT $3.5 TRILLION INVESTMENT PACKAGE IN CONGRESS WHEN PAID FOR BY BILLIONAIRES AND CORPORATIONS - WV Citizen Action Group

The poll comes at a critical moment as the U.S. House of Representatives may vote on the plan this week with the U.S. Senate expected to follow shortly thereafter.

wvcag.org

This poll shows it dead even until you include a tax the rich option then support skyrockets:

• By 70% to 24%, voters support “clos[ing] the loophole that often allows the wealthy to avoid paying taxes on investment gains for their entire lives.” This was a net positive of 46% among all voters and 26% among Republican voters.

All Democrats have to do is start running ads in his state, and he will fold just like last time.

I'll add this though, and this is being voiced elsewhere in this thread. Sinema, and Manchin should get a Ed Markey level of support from the DNP for all future primary challenges.

 

[Lapaz]

You were the one mistakenly trying to tie these two spending bills to the 2022 election. These two spending bills will have zero impact on the 2022 election if HR1 and HR4 are not passed, because Republicans will steal the 2022 election regardless.

You obviously haven't learned anything from recent history, either. Obama and the Democrats saved the economy in 2009 during the Great Recession with the $700 billion stimulus bill, yet they still got hammered in the 2010 election with the rise of the racist mentally disturbed Tea Party.

The fact is that virtually no Republicans care about legislation and accomplishments. It was true 10 years ago and it's even more true now. The same is true with all of the fake "Independents" out there who really support the Trump Cult Republican Party. Their hatred of liberals and "owning the libs" is all that matters to these imbeciles.

I disagree that the spending bills won't help Democrats in 2022, but I don't disagree that the voting bills are also needed. Even if the voting bills passed without compromises, Democrats are burying their chances if they don't compromise on the spending bill to show some success. Remember that Obamacare got zero Republican votes, while the hard infrastructure bill already has Republican votes. Obamacare was the main reason that Democrats lost in 2010. Even though Obama tried to compromise, and it was a based on Romneycare, he didn't get any Republican votes. The soft infrastructure bill can only pass with a lot of compromises, and that might get it some Republican votes, but if it doesn't, then it won't help much in the election, but some help is better than nothing, not to mention that it contains some existential matters that are needed, even if it doesn't help. The responsible thing to do is to pass the existential matters, regardless of the political impact. The compromises have the benefit of leaving things on the table until a bigger majority exists. The country is almost 50/50, so the margins gained by having success in the spending bill will help.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I disagree that the spending bills won't help Democrats in 2022, but I don't disagree that the voting bills are also needed. Even if the voting bills passed without compromises, Democrats are burying their chances if they don't compromise on the spending bill to show some success. Remember that Obamacare got zero Republican votes, while the hard infrastructure bill already has Republican votes. Obamacare was the main reason that Democrats lost in 2010. Even though Obama tried to compromise, and it was a based on Romneycare, he didn't get any Republican votes. The soft infrastructure bill can only pass with a lot of compromises, and that might get it some Republican votes, but if it doesn't, then it won't help much in the election, but some help is better than nothing, not to mention that it contains some existential matters that are needed, even if it doesn't help. The responsible thing to do is to pass the existential matters, regardless of the political impact. The compromises have the benefit of leaving things on the table until a bigger majority exists. The country is almost 50/50, so the margins gained by having success in the spending bill will help.

Wrong. Obamacare had nothing to do with the Democrats' defeat in 2010. The results would have been the same whether or not Obamacare existed or not.

The racist Tea Party didn't want a black man in the White House. This energized the entire Republican Party full of closet racists to vote en masse for the racist Tea Party candidates. Trump is just an extension of that same Tea Party movement from 2009 - 2010.

 

[Lapaz]

Wrong. Obamacare had nothing to do with the Democrats' defeat in 2010. The results would have been the same whether or not Obamacare existed or not.

The racist Tea Party didn't want a black man in the White House. This energized the entire Republican Party full of closet racists to vote en masse for the racist Tea Party candidates. Trump is just an extension of that same Tea Party movement from 2009 - 2010.

Racism may have been a factor in 2010, but Obama won in a landslide in 2008 despite that racism, so I don't think racism was a major factor in the 2010 midterms. Plus, Obama wasn't on the ballot in 2010, and the analysis that I've seen was that it was due to anger over Obamacare, because it was sold as a socialist takeover, although it became popular once people realized that it wasn't the socialist boogieman claimed. The hard infrastructure bill is very popular and bi-partisan, unlike Obamacare, and aspects of the the soft are popular as well. They will help if compromise is reached. Historically the incumbent party loses in midterms, but Democrats have a chance to avoid losing both houses, however they are going to kill it that chance if they don't pass compromise bills. They have to at least pass the bi-partisan hard infrastructure bill to save their chances in the midterms.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Racism may have been a factor in 2010, but Obama won in a landslide in 2008 despite that racism, so I don't think racism was a major factor in the 2010 midterms. Plus, Obama wasn't on the ballot in 2010, and the analysis that I've seen was that it was due to anger over Obamacare, because it was sold as a socialist takeover, although it became popular once people realized that it wasn't the socialist boogieman claimed. The hard infrastructure bill is very popular and bi-partisan, unlike Obamacare, and aspects of the the soft are popular as well. They will help if compromise is reached. Historically the incumbent party loses in midterms, but Democrats have a chance to avoid losing both houses, however they are going to kill it that chance if they don't pass compromise bills. They have to at least pass the bi-partisan hard infrastructure bill to save their chances in the midterms.

Racism was a HUGE factor in the 2010 election. Why didn't anyone ever hear of the Tea Party before Obama became President???

Yes, racist Republicans are going to come out and say, "I don't want a black President". Yes, of course. They wouldn't possibly lie about this. This was a much bigger factor than Obamacare.

Obama benefitted from large turnout in 2008, due largely to the economic collapse in Sept 2008. If it wasn't for that, McCain may have won.

Democrats have a bad habit of not voting in large numbers in mid-term elections, which is another reason the Republicans had so much success in 2010.

 

[MT15]

WEST VIRGINIA POLL SHOWS VOTERS SUPPORT $3.5 TRILLION INVESTMENT PACKAGE IN CONGRESS WHEN PAID FOR BY BILLIONAIRES AND CORPORATIONS - WV Citizen Action Group

The poll comes at a critical moment as the U.S. House of Representatives may vote on the plan this week with the U.S. Senate expected to follow shortly thereafter.

wvcag.org

This poll shows it dead even until you include a tax the rich option then support skyrockets:



All Democrats have to do is start running ads in his state, and he will fold just like last time.

I'll add this though, and this is being voiced elsewhere in this thread. Sinema, and Manchin should get a Ed Markey level of support from the DNP for all future primary challenges.

I think that might be the same poller I originally found that claimed over 50% of Republicans nationwide support the 3.5 T bill. Pew was way off from that, and I trust them a bit more. Polling is sort of dicey these days even from reputable outfits.

 

[Lapaz]

Racism was a HUGE factor in the 2010 election. Why didn't anyone ever hear of the Tea Party before Obama became President???

Yes, racist Republicans are going to come out and say, "I don't want a black President". Yes, of course. They wouldn't possibly lie about this. This was a much bigger factor than Obamacare.

Obama benefitted from large turnout in 2008, due largely to the economic collapse in Sept 2008. If it wasn't for that, McCain may have won.

Democrats have a bad habit of not voting in large numbers in mid-term elections, which is another reason the Republicans had so much success in 2010.

I don't know why you throw in your sarcasm about "I don't want a black President". No one denies that there are racists that voted against Obama, but I guarantee they were there voting against Obama in 2008, so their affect was small in 2010. The Tea Partiers may have contained the racists, but its agenda wasn't racist. It was closer to traditional conservatism, however within its ranks were the racist that found a place in which they could rail against Obama. Your last statement about Democrats not turning out in midterms was a much bigger factor, and so was the "socialist" Obamacare that not a single Republican voted for. On the other hand, pass a major bill like the hard infrastructure, and it will help. Push through a "socialist" soft infrastructure without any moderates, and we'll get a repeat of 2010. Amend the soft infrastructure to deal with the existential issues, draw in some moderates, and it at worst won't hurt, and may help a lot.

 

[J-DONK]

I don't know why you throw in your sarcasm about "I don't want a black President". No one denies that there are racists that voted against Obama, but I guarantee they were there voting against Obama in 2008, so their affect was small in 2010. The Tea Partiers may have contained the racists, but its agenda wasn't racist. It was closer to traditional conservatism, however within its ranks were the racist that found a place in which they could rail against Obama. Your last statement about Democrats not turning out in midterms was a much bigger factor, and so was the "socialist" Obamacare that not a single Republican voted for. On the other hand, pass a major bill like the hard infrastructure, and it will help. Push through a "socialist" soft infrastructure without any moderates, and we'll get a repeat of 2010. Amend the soft infrastructure to deal with the existential issues, draw in some moderates, and it at worst won't hurt, and may help a lot.

Obama was a huge disappointment by 2010 to a portion of people who voted for him.

Jon Stewart I felt like summed it up:

The difficulty has been the difference between rhetoric and reality. When you run on hope and change - "Yes we can", "We are the ones we've been waiting for" - that is a message of true reform. And then you govern from the perspective of "I will put a new coat of paint on this termite-infested place".

 

[samiam5211]

I don't know why you throw in your sarcasm about "I don't want a black President". No one denies that there are racists that voted against Obama, but I guarantee they were there voting against Obama in 2008, so their affect was small in 2010. The Tea Partiers may have contained the racists, but its agenda wasn't racist. It was closer to traditional conservatism, however within its ranks were the racist that found a place in which they could rail against Obama. Your last statement about Democrats not turning out in midterms was a much bigger factor, and so was the "socialist" Obamacare that not a single Republican voted for. On the other hand, pass a major bill like the hard infrastructure, and it will help. Push through a "socialist" soft infrastructure without any moderates, and we'll get a repeat of 2010. Amend the soft infrastructure to deal with the existential issues, draw in some moderates, and it at worst won't hurt, and may help a lot.

Well, the 2010 midterms couldn't have really been about Obamacare, because most of it had not been implemented by the time the mid terms came around.

The racists stayed home in 2008, and did not repeat that mistake in 2010. Sure, Obamacare and socialism may have been the dog whistles that were used to activate them, but they wanted to stand up against the black guy.

If the Republicans had nominated a populist in 2012, they would have won in a landslide, but Romney reminded the confederacy of those Republicans that sold them out to pass the Civil rights act.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I don't know why you throw in your sarcasm about "I don't want a black President". No one denies that there are racists that voted against Obama, but I guarantee they were there voting against Obama in 2008, so their affect was small in 2010. The Tea Partiers may have contained the racists, but its agenda wasn't racist. It was closer to traditional conservatism, however within its ranks were the racist that found a place in which they could rail against Obama. Your last statement about Democrats not turning out in midterms was a much bigger factor, and so was the "socialist" Obamacare that not a single Republican voted for. On the other hand, pass a major bill like the hard infrastructure, and it will help. Push through a "socialist" soft infrastructure without any moderates, and we'll get a repeat of 2010. Amend the soft infrastructure to deal with the existential issues, draw in some moderates, and it at worst won't hurt, and may help a lot.

The Tea Party agenda was always fake. That's why the vast majority of them became Trumpsters and took over the Republican Party with their racist no agenda "own the libs" bullshirt.

You still can't explain why nobody had ever heard of these idiots before Obama was elected President in 2008. The Tea Party, at its core, was always a racist movement.

Who cares if no Republican voted for Obamacare? Who cares if 10 - 15 Republicans vote for the new infrastructure bill? Bipartisanship simply doesn't matter when 90% of the Republican Party is full of fascists, racists, and obstructionists with no legislative agenda to speak of.

Bipartisanship is not always a good thing, in case you weren't aware of that. Especially when dealing with the racist and traitorous Trump Cult Republican Party.