Will Manchin and Sinema crack?

[Anonymous]

Sinema’s word salad doesn’t add anything new. What a nonsense post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I LOVE seeing Schumer's signature, big and bold, on that contract. Hey Progressives - I'm guessing you were just blind cocked. Had no idea it existed did you?

Better go start sleeping outside the office of the Senate Majority Leader.

What did Schumer promise to do in this “contract”?

Nothing. He just acknowledged that Manchin isn’t guaranteeing his vote for the eventual package, which was true of every other Democrat without them feeling the need to sign a document saying so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sinema’s word salad doesn’t add anything new. What a nonsense post.

That's the point. She hasn't cracked and she won't. She and Manchin are two peas in a pod - happy to torpedo this bill and I'm so grateful to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I LOVE seeing Schumer's signature, big and bold, on that contract. Hey Progressives - I'm guessing you were just blind cocked. Had no idea it existed did you?

Better go start sleeping outside the office of the Senate Majority Leader.

It’s not a contract. Read it. It’s just a statement from Manchin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin just cracked. He’s now set the stage to negotiate a deal on reconciliation. It will definitely come down a lot. I predict it lands somewhere between $2T-$2.5T. A lot of the climate stuff will get chucked or watered down. Both the BIF and reconciliation will pass by the end of October.

He didn't crack. He waved a contract he signed with Schumer THREE MONTHS AGO that stating the bill would be no more than $1.5 Trillion. Someone call AOC and tell her to purge her wish list and move on. She's been out-flanked by real politicians.

That isn’t a contract. It’s a performative nothing. He signed that he doesn’t guarantee he will vote for anything above that. He felt he needed this performative gesture to vote to proceed back then. Thank god the rest of the Democratic Caucus are not such drama queens demanding to write their own budgets. His objections are just contrarianism, not ideological or principled, and not shared by his colleagues. He’s just performing for his ego.

That's a lot of performative talk for 'I don't know what Manchin's going to do next but I know what he's NOT going to do - vote for a $3.5 Trillion wishlist'.

+1 👍

It’s not a contract and it doesn’t say he won’t vote for more. It’s just saying his vote isn’t guaranteed. It’s a silly document.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin just cracked. He’s now set the stage to negotiate a deal on reconciliation. It will definitely come down a lot. I predict it lands somewhere between $2T-$2.5T. A lot of the climate stuff will get chucked or watered down. Both the BIF and reconciliation will pass by the end of October.

He didn't crack. He waved a contract he signed with Schumer THREE MONTHS AGO that stating the bill would be no more than $1.5 Trillion. Someone call AOC and tell her to purge her wish list and move on. She's been out-flanked by real politicians.

That isn’t a contract. It’s a performative nothing. He signed that he doesn’t guarantee he will vote for anything above that. He felt he needed this performative gesture to vote to proceed back then. Thank god the rest of the Democratic Caucus are not such drama queens demanding to write their own budgets. His objections are just contrarianism, not ideological or principled, and not shared by his colleagues. He’s just performing for his ego.

That's a lot of performative talk for 'I don't know what Manchin's going to do next but I know what he's NOT going to do - vote for a $3.5 Trillion wishlist'.

+1 👍

It’s not a contract and it doesn’t say he won’t vote for more. It’s just saying his vote isn’t guaranteed. It’s a silly document.

Statements don't have the U.S. Senate Majority Leader's signature on it for no reason.

[Anonymous]

They both will eventually vote for the package. They are just doing the Joe Lieberman play to get some special interest concessions. It’s a shakedown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchin just cracked. He’s now set the stage to negotiate a deal on reconciliation. It will definitely come down a lot. I predict it lands somewhere between $2T-$2.5T. A lot of the climate stuff will get chucked or watered down. Both the BIF and reconciliation will pass by the end of October.

He didn't crack. He waved a contract he signed with Schumer THREE MONTHS AGO that stating the bill would be no more than $1.5 Trillion. Someone call AOC and tell her to purge her wish list and move on. She's been out-flanked by real politicians.

That isn’t a contract. It’s a performative nothing. He signed that he doesn’t guarantee he will vote for anything above that. He felt he needed this performative gesture to vote to proceed back then. Thank god the rest of the Democratic Caucus are not such drama queens demanding to write their own budgets. His objections are just contrarianism, not ideological or principled, and not shared by his colleagues. He’s just performing for his ego.

That's a lot of performative talk for 'I don't know what Manchin's going to do next but I know what he's NOT going to do - vote for a $3.5 Trillion wishlist'.

+1 👍

It’s not a contract and it doesn’t say he won’t vote for more. It’s just saying his vote isn’t guaranteed. It’s a silly document.

Statements don't have the U.S. Senate Majority Leader's signature on it for no reason.

This one does.

[Anonymous]

Why do we call the BBB bill a 3.5T bill when it is actually 350M bill per year? Why do not treat our defense bill the same way? Why are we okay with a 7.5T defense budget and not okay with 3.5T budget for our own people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we call the BBB bill a 3.5T bill when it is actually 350M bill per year? Why do not treat our defense bill the same way? Why are we okay with a 7.5T defense budget and not okay with 3.5T budget for our own people?

Defense is for all of our people. All 330 million. And has profitable expenditures like the $90 billion submarine deal just signed with Australia.

Whereas $2.6T of $3.5T will be spent on a very select few with no tangible dividends to speak of. At least trains and physical infrastructure improve commerce and therefore revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we call the BBB bill a 3.5T bill when it is actually 350M bill per year? Why do not treat our defense bill the same way? Why are we okay with a 7.5T defense budget and not okay with 3.5T budget for our own people?

Defense is for all of our people. All 330 million. And has profitable expenditures like the $90 billion submarine deal just signed with Australia.

Whereas $2.6T of $3.5T will be spent on a very select few with no tangible dividends to speak of. At least trains and physical infrastructure improve commerce and therefore revenue.

The defense bill is not for all the people. It is to keep the Military fat cats fat forever. Our Defense presence all over the world needs to stop.

Investing in our country's people to uplift them (even if I personally do not benefit from some programs) is beneficial to all of us in long run. JMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we call the BBB bill a 3.5T bill when it is actually 350M bill per year? Why do not treat our defense bill the same way? Why are we okay with a 7.5T defense budget and not okay with 3.5T budget for our own people?

Defense is for all of our people. All 330 million. And has profitable expenditures like the $90 billion submarine deal just signed with Australia.

Whereas $2.6T of $3.5T will be spent on a very select few with no tangible dividends to speak of. At least trains and physical infrastructure improve commerce and therefore revenue.

The defense bill is not for all the people. It is to keep the Military fat cats fat forever. Our Defense presence all over the world needs to stop.

Investing in our country's people to uplift them (even if I personally do not benefit from some programs) is beneficial to all of us in long run. JMO.

I’m not paying for $400,000 HHI couples to get free $300/month payouts per child from my tax dollars forever. Full stop. If you want to cut defense and pull back soldiers from strategic and non-strategic positions - do it. IDC I was happy when we got out of Afghanistan. It’s nothing but a slushfund for contractors.

[Anonymous]

I think we all just saw via the juicy federal unemployment and other slush, that providing endless government largess simply encourages people to not work . . . hence the current shortage of workers/inflation. I used to be an Andrew Yang/UBI-er. Now I really think government should work to get out of the way of small businesses and shrink where possible. Very grateful to Manchin & Sinema for standing up for common sense where a lot of democrats probably feel bullied to endorse this . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we all just saw via the juicy federal unemployment and other slush, that providing endless government largess simply encourages people to not work . . . hence the current shortage of workers/inflation. I used to be an Andrew Yang/UBI-er. Now I really think government should work to get out of the way of small businesses and shrink where possible. Very grateful to Manchin & Sinema for standing up for common sense where a lot of democrats probably feel bullied to endorse this . . .

Asking as only a half joke, are you a bot? You’re practically spamming this thread with the phrase “very grateful” in relation to Sinema and Manchin. It’s the second time this page you’ve used the phrase. And for what? For them taking money from their corporate donors? For actively preventing America from making progress for all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we all just saw via the juicy federal unemployment and other slush, that providing endless government largess simply encourages people to not work . . . hence the current shortage of workers/inflation. I used to be an Andrew Yang/UBI-er. Now I really think government should work to get out of the way of small businesses and shrink where possible. Very grateful to Manchin & Sinema for standing up for common sense where a lot of democrats probably feel bullied to endorse this . . .

Asking as only a half joke, are you a bot? You’re practically spamming this thread with the phrase “very grateful” in relation to Sinema and Manchin. It’s the second time this page you’ve used the phrase. And for what? For them taking money from their corporate donors? For actively preventing America from making progress for all?

For actively preventing this fantasy list from passing while inflation is at record-high levels. Go figure out how to fund Social Security first.

- DP