Biden strikes out with King Manchin

[Anonymous]

The $3.5T bill is ridiculous. It's not clear what is in it and no way to balance it with future revenue. We are spending money like it grows on trees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. Dem here - some of the crap in the bills have nothing to do with Infrastructure. Get rid of the extraneous like immigration payouts and paid leave for all.

Payouts for immigrations?? WTF is that and why should we pay for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

That plus Sinema and Manchin answer to a different public that the liberal metropolis. As I recall Sinema is the sole reason the $15/hr national minimum wage failed and she's still in office. No protests in Arizona.

Meanwhile Manchin rules West Virginia.

Their voters don't want this. They don't want a $3.5 trillion 'infrastructure' plan. They offered to come down to $1.5 trillion which is fair.

Sine a and Manchin were part of the Senate bipartisan team that spearheaded the Senate passed version. Why? Because their constituents want it. That is the leverage to use on them by the House progressives. Also, Sienna and Manchin want about 1.5 trillion infracture spending through budget resolution. Why? Because their constituents want safety net items (may be with means testing, but they want them). That is another leverage on the two senators. Mind you, Dems have slim margin in the House. It is near impossibility to bring along over 100 progressives for a 1.5 trillion proposal. Many progressives come from very blue constituencies. Sienna and Manchin will, in the end, come around to agreeing for 3 trillion figure (a reduction of 0.5 trillion) and declare victory.

I think they’ll settle closer to $2 trillion. I look forward to the cuts. As far as I remember the Finance committee go a un-prescribed blank check for $1 trillion and $800 billion alone is for paid leave and pre-school. Plus $300 billion for immigrants.

Why the heck we need to pay $1T for paid leave? It should be employer's responsibility and you give them breaks of some kind with some other kind of taxes. There is no way we should borrow money to issue paid leave. $300B for immigrants. For what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

That plus Sinema and Manchin answer to a different public that the liberal metropolis. As I recall Sinema is the sole reason the $15/hr national minimum wage failed and she's still in office. No protests in Arizona.

Meanwhile Manchin rules West Virginia.

Their voters don't want this. They don't want a $3.5 trillion 'infrastructure' plan. They offered to come down to $1.5 trillion which is fair.

Well other can play the spoiler. I hear the progressive will not vote for the the bill. So no bill, no infrastructure plan. We all know conservatives are totally dependent on big government spending. It’s the only thing propping up their failed states.

Failed red states? You mean Texas and not NJ? NJ and IL has the highest debt per capita and states are broke. Some of the red states are not doing good either but you can't say that all of them are bad and all the blue states are good. Even after significant tax breaks, businesses are not staying in NJ, NY, CT, IL, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

That plus Sinema and Manchin answer to a different public that the liberal metropolis. As I recall Sinema is the sole reason the $15/hr national minimum wage failed and she's still in office. No protests in Arizona.

Meanwhile Manchin rules West Virginia.

Their voters don't want this. They don't want a $3.5 trillion 'infrastructure' plan. They offered to come down to $1.5 trillion which is fair.

Well other can play the spoiler. I hear the progressive will not vote for the the bill. So no bill, no infrastructure plan. We all know conservatives are totally dependent on big government spending. It’s the only thing propping up their failed states.

Failed red states? You mean Texas and not NJ? NJ and IL has the highest debt per capita and states are broke. Some of the red states are not doing good either but you can't say that all of them are bad and all the blue states are good. Even after significant tax breaks, businesses are not staying in NJ, NY, CT, IL, etc.

What? Sitting here in Jersey with a $10.1 BILLION budget surplus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

That plus Sinema and Manchin answer to a different public that the liberal metropolis. As I recall Sinema is the sole reason the $15/hr national minimum wage failed and she's still in office. No protests in Arizona.

Meanwhile Manchin rules West Virginia.

Their voters don't want this. They don't want a $3.5 trillion 'infrastructure' plan. They offered to come down to $1.5 trillion which is fair.

Well other can play the spoiler. I hear the progressive will not vote for the the bill. So no bill, no infrastructure plan. We all know conservatives are totally dependent on big government spending. It’s the only thing propping up their failed states.

Failed red states? You mean Texas and not NJ? NJ and IL has the highest debt per capita and states are broke. Some of the red states are not doing good either but you can't say that all of them are bad and all the blue states are good. Even after significant tax breaks, businesses are not staying in NJ, NY, CT, IL, etc.

What? Sitting here in Jersey with a $10.1 BILLION budget surplus.

That surplus is the result of emergency pandemic policies that gave billions of Federal dollars to states, including those with ridiculously high tax burdens like NJ.

The surplus in NJ is NOT the result of healthy state tax policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Manchineel is like the tail that tries to wag the dog. In response the over hundred democratic representatives in the house issue an ultimatum to Manchineel and Senema. Either they support the 3.5 trillion proposal or they will see the bipartisan infrastructure deal they put together will fail in the House.

Who do you think holds the winning cards in this scenario? You seem to think it's the reps that issued an ultimatum threatening to tank the bipartisan bill, but this is wrong. In fact, the public will judge democrats harshly if they tank a bipartisan bill with broad support because they didn't get their wishlist of stuff that doesn't enjoy as much support. Seems to me that Biden and Sinema know this.

That plus Sinema and Manchin answer to a different public that the liberal metropolis. As I recall Sinema is the sole reason the $15/hr national minimum wage failed and she's still in office. No protests in Arizona.

Meanwhile Manchin rules West Virginia.

Their voters don't want this. They don't want a $3.5 trillion 'infrastructure' plan. They offered to come down to $1.5 trillion which is fair.

Well other can play the spoiler. I hear the progressive will not vote for the the bill. So no bill, no infrastructure plan. We all know conservatives are totally dependent on big government spending. It’s the only thing propping up their failed states.

Failed red states? You mean Texas and not NJ? NJ and IL has the highest debt per capita and states are broke. Some of the red states are not doing good either but you can't say that all of them are bad and all the blue states are good. Even after significant tax breaks, businesses are not staying in NJ, NY, CT, IL, etc.

What? Sitting here in Jersey with a $10.1 BILLION budget surplus.

That surplus is the result of emergency pandemic policies that gave billions of Federal dollars to states, including those with ridiculously high tax burdens like NJ.

The surplus in NJ is NOT the result of healthy state tax policies.

Pandemic aid was applied with equal opportunity to all 50 states. Ask me how I know. The fact that states like Texas and South Dakota are circling the drain have nothing to do with the federal government and all to do with local leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The $3.5T bill is ridiculous. It's not clear what is in it and no way to balance it with future revenue. We are spending money like it grows on trees.

$3.5T is the gross cost, not the net cost after accounting for additional tax revenues and other spending cuts. The plan had been to pay for nearly all of it with offsetting tax increases and spending decreases. However, the “moderates” who are so very concerned about the debt and deficit have been nixing all of the additional revenue streams (Medicare drug price negotiation, corporate tax rate increase, capital gains increase, etc.). I have yet to hear any of them argue against any of the specific spending plans. The objections are all to 1) the ways to pay for it, and 2) the gross cost of the bill.

[Anonymous]

If Manchin holds tight, he is actually doing a favor to the Dems in swing districts.

They don't want to vote for this boondoggle... they know their reelection hinges on crap like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Dem here - some of the crap in the bills have nothing to do with Infrastructure. Get rid of the extraneous like immigration payouts and paid leave for all.

Payouts for immigrations?? WTF is that and why should we pay for it?

That will probably be stripped out due to reconcilliation rules. The spending is the only way to try and get it included. They added it because despite the overwhelmingly popularity of DACA Congress has been unable to pass anything for a decade. Frankly, it's a political stunt. Things like that are in there in part to lower the overall cost after the parliamentarian rules on what is allowed to stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lisa Murcovsky is more reliable than Susan Collins.

Collins will never go out on a limb. She'll join Murkowski sometimes but will never do anything on her own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Manchin holds tight, he is actually doing a favor to the Dems in swing districts.

They don't want to vote for this boondoggle... they know their reelection hinges on crap like this.

And the popularity of this among most voters is not relevant to you, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Manchin holds tight, he is actually doing a favor to the Dems in swing districts.

They don't want to vote for this boondoggle... they know their reelection hinges on crap like this.

And the popularity of this among most voters is not relevant to you, I guess?

Most voters don't understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Manchin holds tight, he is actually doing a favor to the Dems in swing districts.

They don't want to vote for this boondoggle... they know their reelection hinges on crap like this.

And the popularity of this among most voters is not relevant to you, I guess?

Most voters don't understand it.

Yeah, 99% have voters have no idea what this bill is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Manchin holds tight, he is actually doing a favor to the Dems in swing districts.

They don't want to vote for this boondoggle... they know their reelection hinges on crap like this.

And the popularity of this among most voters is not relevant to you, I guess?

Most voters don't understand it.

Yeah, 99% have voters have no idea what this bill is.

To be fair, there's less than 500 people in the country that know what's in the bill.