Will Manchin and Sinema crack?

[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?

I am not a bot, and I doubt I'm the only grateful poster. I'm a very boring and very grateful mom of two larlas who I hope will not inherit a country drowning in debt. Would a bot know the dcum larla verbiage? Doubt it. Believe it or not, everyone who disagrees with you is not a Russian troll. Some people just think for themselves and have their own opinions - imagine that!

[Anonymous]

I say we just go for $1 Trillion on Climate and $500 billion on 'everything' else and call it a day.

$850 Billion on Climate
$400 Billion on Long-term care
$250 Billion on Housing

Scrap all the child-related benefits and start a new bill for childcare, paid leave, pre-k, community college etc. Stop trying to hide behind what should be a $1 Trillion climate change and $1 Trillion physical infrastructure bills.

If you want a Children's Welfare bill - own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Schumer didn't lie, he just had to put on a dog & pony show in front of the cameras for the Green New Deal contingent.

$1T bipartisan infrastructure + $1.5T for green tech + social infrastructure is still A LOT of spending. I love to see it!

Yeah. I like this = the priority is physical infrastructure and addressing climate change and THAT'S IT. Fantastic. Take your welfare programs up in a separate bill on a separate vote instead of trying to hide it under CC and Infrastructure.

“Welfare programs.”

I don’t understand why some of you are so virulently opposed to economic progress. We have tried it the GOP way, for decades, and it was crazily successful for a small sliver of people and absolutely detrimental to others.

Economic progress? A free handout you mean. Meanwhile there's threads on the real estate forum snearing at the homeless because they'd dare appear in your eyesight while you enjoy a mall or a park.

Please. Prices are rising for the poorest in the aisles of the grocery stores nationwide because of these handouts. Enough.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/1004354.page

Oh are you in favor of getting rid of the carried interest loophole? How about Medicare?

I'm in favor of keeping the programs as they are, shorting up support for things like Social Security and the ACA, and moving on. No wishlist items of half a dozen new programs the progressives threw in like we wouldn't notice they ballooned the cost of the programs by $2 Trillion.

Why are you in favor of the radical socialist programs like social security, Medicare and the ACA?

You mean the ones that already exist and are currently so low on funds that they may not be solvent?

I work for SSA, and this is not accurate. It is definitely solvent. The question is, for how long. Obviously, FICA taxes went down significantly during COVID. Less $ in, same beneficiaries. The insolvency moves a year closer. I was surprised it wasn’t worse. But, these are all projections. We won’t eat COVID levels forever. We hit a boom year, and we add a year or two to the projection that doesn’t mean social security is suddenly saved.

Understand two other things:

One, demographics are in SSA’s favor. In 20 years, Gen X will be Boomers will be dead for the most part and Millineals, which is a much larger generation than Gen X, will be at peak earning years. That will help a lot.

Two, “insolvent” doesn’t mean checks stop. It mean we can’t pay full benefits. Instead, it would be 85-90%. Again, projections change. There are two ways to stabilize the trust fund— more money in or less money out. So, either raise FICA or lower benefits. If we hit insolvency without raising FICA, the decision is made. Benefits will be cut 12% or 15% or whatever the figure is. Functionally, that is no different than Congress voting to lower benefits

I’m not saying it’s not a problem. Just be clear about what the problem is.

Also: here’s what is a problem: the disability trust fund really is almost insolvent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Schumer didn't lie, he just had to put on a dog & pony show in front of the cameras for the Green New Deal contingent.

$1T bipartisan infrastructure + $1.5T for green tech + social infrastructure is still A LOT of spending. I love to see it!

Yeah. I like this = the priority is physical infrastructure and addressing climate change and THAT'S IT. Fantastic. Take your welfare programs up in a separate bill on a separate vote instead of trying to hide it under CC and Infrastructure.

“Welfare programs.”

I don’t understand why some of you are so virulently opposed to economic progress. We have tried it the GOP way, for decades, and it was crazily successful for a small sliver of people and absolutely detrimental to others.

Economic progress? A free handout you mean. Meanwhile there's threads on the real estate forum snearing at the homeless because they'd dare appear in your eyesight while you enjoy a mall or a park.

Please. Prices are rising for the poorest in the aisles of the grocery stores nationwide because of these handouts. Enough.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/0/1004354.page

Oh are you in favor of getting rid of the carried interest loophole? How about Medicare?

I'm in favor of keeping the programs as they are, shorting up support for things like Social Security and the ACA, and moving on. No wishlist items of half a dozen new programs the progressives threw in like we wouldn't notice they ballooned the cost of the programs by $2 Trillion.

Why are you in favor of the radical socialist programs like social security, Medicare and the ACA?

You mean the ones that already exist and are currently so low on funds that they may not be solvent?

I work for SSA, and this is not accurate. It is definitely solvent. The question is, for how long. Obviously, FICA taxes went down significantly during COVID. Less $ in, same beneficiaries. The insolvency moves a year closer. I was surprised it wasn’t worse. But, these are all projections. We won’t eat COVID levels forever. We hit a boom year, and we add a year or two to the projection that doesn’t mean social security is suddenly saved.

Understand two other things:

One, demographics are in SSA’s favor. In 20 years, Gen X will be Boomers will be dead for the most part and Millineals, which is a much larger generation than Gen X, will be at peak earning years. That will help a lot.

Two, “insolvent” doesn’t mean checks stop. It mean we can’t pay full benefits. Instead, it would be 85-90%. Again, projections change. There are two ways to stabilize the trust fund— more money in or less money out. So, either raise FICA or lower benefits. If we hit insolvency without raising FICA, the decision is made. Benefits will be cut 12% or 15% or whatever the figure is. Functionally, that is no different than Congress voting to lower benefits

I’m not saying it’s not a problem. Just be clear about what the problem is.

Also: here’s what is a problem: the disability trust fund really is almost insolvent.

Okay, thank you for addressing this and putting out an informative analysis. Now - say that someone on SS is only get 85% of benefits and they were expecting a check of $1,250. Knowing that inflation is the highest its ever been - groceries are sky high, gas is sky high, medicine is sky high, rent is sky high - how are these people, who were depending on a full check and suddenly getting $900 or $800 - supposed to live?

A payment less $100 for a senior on no income means choosing between heat in the winter and food. This isn't free money. They've paid into these benefits with their jobs their whole lives. And the government knows that the full benefits are not coming. Yet they want to spend more on new programs when old programs and critical benefits are being cut?

This makes no sense to me. At all.

[Anonymous]

House and Senate leaders are probably going to try one last-ditch effort to put a package together with climate and child care. Maybe ACA. I'm sure Biden will weigh in. Who knows if the progressives and Manchin can agree to anything at this point.

[Anonymous]

Great strategy...... criticize the one man whose vote you need. Good thing it won't faze Joe Manchin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great strategy...... criticize the one man whose vote you need. Good thing it won't faze Joe Manchin.

Manchin and Sinema are literally tanking Biden’s agenda, no progressives. The two main issues for Biden supporters are COVID and Climate Change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great strategy...... criticize the one man whose vote you need. Good thing it won't faze Joe Manchin.

Manchin and Sinema are literally tanking Biden’s agenda, no progressives. The two main issues for Biden supporters are COVID and Climate Change.

Exactly. So why does the BBB have more than 4/5ths of the bill devoted to social welfare? We wanted Covid and Climate Change tackled. THAT'S IT. No one asked for a progressive wish list to be pushed in like a liberal wet dream.

[Anonymous]

On a related note, whoever coined the "Build Back Better" moniker should get sacked pronto.

What a stupid name. It's like a dumbed down version of MAGA.

[Anonymous]

OOOPS

[Anonymous]

This is rich...we are on the same page!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is rich...we are on the same page!

Read that whole thread - amazing! Sinema should be hounded by Arizonians too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is rich...we are on the same page!

Read that whole thread - amazing! Sinema should be hounded by Arizonians too.

As far as cost of living goes - his 'yacht' is the cheaper option in the D.C. area. His fellow Senators and Pelosi are living in $2 million rowhomes and condos.

[Anonymous]

Manchin has said that any bill coming to the Senate without the Hyde Amendment is dead on arrival.

[Anonymous]

Plebes coming to beg to a rich good 'ol boy on his yacht. You can't make this sh#t up.