Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of handwaving and finger pointing, but I did note three of you in the past day or have it right:

This is another self-inflicted wound from an incompetent President and an incompetent Congressional leadership. Professional Democrats and their masters are responsible, it's not a question. You can disagree widely about what should happen next, but it's clear that there are a group of Democrats that should loose their jobs soon.

Any who should tighten their jobs?

This kind of lame 'cleverness' is about as good as this place gets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of handwaving and finger pointing, but I did note three of you in the past day or have it right:

This is another self-inflicted wound from an incompetent President and an incompetent Congressional leadership. Professional Democrats and their masters are responsible, it's not a question. You can disagree widely about what should happen next, but it's clear that there are a group of Democrats that should loose their jobs soon.

Really, Mitch? How so? Please do tell how this is about Democratic incompetence and not about naked Republican obstruction. Be specific. I’ll wait.

+1

Not a single Republican could get on board with this no matter how much it would benefit the people of America.

100% true. Republicans aren’t in the business of helping Americans, unless they are billionaires. The rest can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of handwaving and finger pointing, but I did note three of you in the past day or have it right:

This is another self-inflicted wound from an incompetent President and an incompetent Congressional leadership. Professional Democrats and their masters are responsible, it's not a question. You can disagree widely about what should happen next, but it's clear that there are a group of Democrats that should loose their jobs soon.

Really, Mitch? How so? Please do tell how this is about Democratic incompetence and not about naked Republican obstruction. Be specific. I’ll wait.

+1

Not a single Republican could get on board with this no matter how much it would benefit the people of America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very surprised by the reaction from Dems tonight. I remember lots of you praising Liz Cheney and John McCain for taking principled stands against their own party, so I was sure the same standard would apply here for Manchin. /s

What’s the principled stand here? Not enough money for fossil fuels? How brave.

Not spending TRILLIONS off the backs of tax payers.

BBB was paid for. The increase in defense funding was not but Manchin had no problem voting yes there.

Your idea of paid for and not paid for is vastly different from mine.

What is yours? Mine is revenue minus spending. If it’s positive, then it’s paid for.

NP. My definition means that when something like the child tax credit is intended to be in place for the foreseeable future, you consider in your equations more than its cost for just one year.

The costs are balanced with revenue every year too, silly.

Think again.

The costs are listed for one, two or three years. The revenue is spread out over 10 years.
That is not a recipe for successful budgeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very surprised by the reaction from Dems tonight. I remember lots of you praising Liz Cheney and John McCain for taking principled stands against their own party, so I was sure the same standard would apply here for Manchin. /s

What’s the principled stand here? Not enough money for fossil fuels? How brave.

Not spending TRILLIONS off the backs of tax payers.

BBB was paid for. The increase in defense funding was not but Manchin had no problem voting yes there.

Your idea of paid for and not paid for is vastly different from mine.

What is yours? Mine is revenue minus spending. If it’s positive, then it’s paid for.

NP. My definition means that when something like the child tax credit is intended to be in place for the foreseeable future, you consider in your equations more than its cost for just one year.

The costs are balanced with revenue every year too, silly.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of handwaving and finger pointing, but I did note three of you in the past day or have it right:

This is another self-inflicted wound from an incompetent President and an incompetent Congressional leadership. Professional Democrats and their masters are responsible, it's not a question. You can disagree widely about what should happen next, but it's clear that there are a group of Democrats that should loose their jobs soon.

Really, Mitch? How so? Please do tell how this is about Democratic incompetence and not about naked Republican obstruction. Be specific. I’ll wait.

Anonymous wrote:Lots of handwaving and finger pointing, but I did note three of you in the past day or have it right:

This is another self-inflicted wound from an incompetent President and an incompetent Congressional leadership. Professional Democrats and their masters are responsible, it's not a question. You can disagree widely about what should happen next, but it's clear that there are a group of Democrats that should loose their jobs soon.

Any who should tighten their jobs?

The mental gymnastics that PPs are doing to defend the indefensible of Manchin obstructing this bill along with his GOP clown posse is hilarious. Oh it’s the economics - except it’s not. Oh it’s the budget - except it’s not. Oh it’s blah, blah, blah. Talk about cutting off your noses to spite your faces all in pursuit of power, big business interests, and fascism. Red states and their citizens would be the primary beneficiaries of the BBB. There would be some progress to stem climate change, some relief for working and middle class families.

But the GOP clown posse and Manchin (heretofore CP+M) are more interested in half truths and blockades that actually HURT their constituents, giving tax breaks to billionaires, and watching our planet shrivel and die. Oh, and march us toward fascism while they’re at it.

I hope this vote - and the fact that Manchin was aided by every single Republican - will not be forgotten. Vote in 2022 like your life depends on it. Because it does.

Lots of handwaving and finger pointing, but I did note three of you in the past day or have it right:

This is another self-inflicted wound from an incompetent President and an incompetent Congressional leadership. Professional Democrats and their masters are responsible, it's not a question. You can disagree widely about what should happen next, but it's clear that there are a group of Democrats that should loose their jobs soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very surprised by the reaction from Dems tonight. I remember lots of you praising Liz Cheney and John McCain for taking principled stands against their own party, so I was sure the same standard would apply here for Manchin. /s

What’s the principled stand here? Not enough money for fossil fuels? How brave.

Not spending TRILLIONS off the backs of tax payers.

BBB was paid for. The increase in defense funding was not but Manchin had no problem voting yes there.

Your idea of paid for and not paid for is vastly different from mine.

What is yours? Mine is revenue minus spending. If it’s positive, then it’s paid for.

NP. My definition means that when something like the child tax credit is intended to be in place for the foreseeable future, you consider in your equations more than its cost for just one year.

+1 the accounting gimmicks these imbeciles play are just embarrassingly shameful and it’s fundamentally dishonest to the American people. No wonder Americans view congress so poorly on both sides of the aisles. Clownish buffoons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very surprised by the reaction from Dems tonight. I remember lots of you praising Liz Cheney and John McCain for taking principled stands against their own party, so I was sure the same standard would apply here for Manchin. /s

What’s the principled stand here? Not enough money for fossil fuels? How brave.

Not spending TRILLIONS off the backs of tax payers.

BBB was paid for. The increase in defense funding was not but Manchin had no problem voting yes there.

Your idea of paid for and not paid for is vastly different from mine.

What is yours? Mine is revenue minus spending. If it’s positive, then it’s paid for.

NP. My definition means that when something like the child tax credit is intended to be in place for the foreseeable future, you consider in your equations more than its cost for just one year.

Anonymous wrote:We really do not want Manchin to switch parties. Do you really want McConnell to be the Senate leader for the next three years?

At least we are able to bring legilsation to the floor and get some judges and appointees through.

If McConnell were leader again, Biden wouldn't be able to replace Breyeer if he were to retire, or any other SCOTUS slots if they were to open.

No thanks.

How about we work on the 20 open seats in the Senate in 2022 and make it so Manchin isn't the kingmaker anymore?

I’m sure he would prefer that too. I don’t think he loves the limelight as much as people say.

We really do not want Manchin to switch parties. Do you really want McConnell to be the Senate leader for the next three years?

At least we are able to bring legilsation to the floor and get some judges and appointees through.

If McConnell were leader again, Biden wouldn't be able to replace Breyeer if he were to retire, or any other SCOTUS slots if they were to open.

No thanks.

How about we work on the 20 open seats in the Senate in 2022 and make it so Manchin isn't the kingmaker anymore?

I guess Harris was wrong when asked who is the real president Joe Biden or Joe machin lol

He has been anti-Trump since 2015, so he can't really switch parties. His end game is to take as much Koch money as possible and make as much from his coal interests as possible and protect his daughter from healthcare related lawsuits as possible.