So far, President Biden has taken a very Obama-ish no-drama attitude toward his big spending bill. This is probably smart. Things may look messy now, but he knows that once something gets passed everyone will soon forget the sausage-making that went into it.
Still, surely all the actors in this little drama—Manchin, Sinema, moderates, progressives, activists—understand that they all have a vested interest in the success of the Democratic Party. Like it or not, it's the only game in town, and the longer they keep fighting the more inept and feeble the party looks. There's plenty of time to overcome this, but not an infinite amount of time. And yet, no one seems much interested in getting something out the door now while the next debt ceiling crisis is still a couple of months away.
It's time to do a deal, folks. Obamacare expansion, childcare, family leave, and long-term care should be the top priorities. Those are programs that can be sold as middle-class benefits even though they help everyone, poor and middle class alike. And they're concrete programs, things that are easily understood and that help out with concrete problems that affect a huge chunk of the population.
They're also things that everyone can get behind. Unlike Obamacare, which Democrats largely ran away from in 2010, there's no one who needs to run away from any of these things. They're popular, and they deserve to be popular. If Democrats campaign on them, they'll be associated with the party forever, just like Social Security and Medicare.
I've seen no indication Manchin and Sinema are interestedin the success of the democratic party. In fact they seem to be doing everything they can to sink it.
Yes, neither their political careers nor their ideological preferences seem likely to be advanced by progressive Democratic successes. Liberals are always saying how sensible conservatives would be best served by abject failure on the part of the Trumpian Republican party that purged it and permitted a rebuilding on a better foundation; I'm sure many moderate, "sensible" Democrats think their interests might best be served by abject failure which permitted the ascendancy of a Third Way (aka moderate) Democrat like Bill Clinton.
Carrots and sticks again. Manchin and Sinema seem to be arguing from the position of "I can hurt you, but you can't hurt me", or even more crudely "I gotta gun and you don't". This is why it needs to be made very clear to those two that the Democratic party equates failure to pass the BBB bill to going down in 2022/2024 ... and that if the party is going down, it will do everything in its power to make sure they go down too.
Alas, the innate stupidity of those two works against us, and I wouldn't put it past Sinema to have required her 'donors' to deposit an eight-figure amount into one of those hidden accounts we've been reading so much about in the so-called Pandora Papers before she commits to a single vote.
Yeah Sinema is essentially a bimbo.
GMTA ????????
Yeah, my outsider read is both manchin and sinema have decided their personal and particularly financial interests are better served by siding with corporate donors and lobbyists.
Biden needs to tell Manchin and Sinema to shit or get off the pot. 'Cause what's the difference otherwise? Some half-assed, rube-goldberg, means-tested crap no one whose votes Democrats can't already count on is going to get it, much less change their minds in a year. And if Manchin and Sinema choose to bolt and switch to Republicans, likewise, what's the difference? Better the country see that the President's party has been defeated and put down. By two of their own. I'll bet Sinema at least spends hours self-pleasuring in anticipation of the moment she bolts.
SCOTUS and appointments generally. That's the difference.
It's odd how progressives love to direct crude sexual insults at women and no one objects. I'll bet Kevin wouldn't permit someone to make watermelon comments about Glenn Loury.
Kevin has a very laissez-faire attitude overall. Although the notice of hypocrisy is well-founded, although it's more People are People and are blind to their own hypocrisy (regarldess of their politicla colours).
Krysten Sinema is an exhibitionistic whore. Is it an insult when she clearly prides herself so much in that?
See what you did there? You named a man and a woman as being the problem and twice used sexual references about the woman, without doing the same for the man. That's misogyny right there.
Neither Manchin nor Sinema has any future in the Trump cult aka Republican Party, since both voted to remove the world’s champion grudge-holder from office.
I'm constantly amazed by people who claim that both Manchin and Sinema are Republicans or they should just switch parties.
First, if they were Republicans, they would caucus with the Republicans and Mitch McConnell would be running roughshod over the Constitution and common decency.
Second, it's extraordinarily unlikely that either one could get the Republican nomination in their respective states.
And, as you point out, voting to convict Trump is a lifetime disqualifier in the Trump GOP.
Heard a good suggestion today: don't cut any of the programs in the $3.5T bill, cut the the time down from 10 years to 5. Cuts the package amount but gets the programs out there so people can see how good they are.
it's onlhy a good idea if sinema and manchin are on board with it. i doubt they are.
And I do know that Manchin was on CNN I think? saying that he was against that approach as he left it would be too hard to kill programs once established.
Every heard of a 5 year treasury bond?
They finance using the standard 10 year treasury bond because it's the basis for the full faith and credit of the U.S. government
That is why they look at it from a 10 year period
But then they look at annual expenditures to keep the American people snookered as to how much their favorite projects will cost
Case in point
Everyone thinks the $3.5T is too much to spend
Thats over 10 years
The defense department budget over the next 10 years totals $7.86T
But when it's said as $786B for next year people say "It's worth it".
Another area of messaging ineptitude, or at least failure to get the message out often & everywhere, by the Democratic Party. If good civics classes had been part of the curriculum all along, more people would be better aware of how the government works - as well as how it doesn't, & why. McConnell "helped" Biden on this budget ceiling increase only bc he helped spend that money during trump's reign, now says his help is over. Outrageous hypocrisy.
^^^^^THIS^^^^^^
Of course has been the main problem all along with the democrat party
Terrible idea. That's half assing. We need full assing. Quality over quantity.
It’s time to make a deal
It's weird, but for some reason I have the uncanny suspicion that Joe Biden, having served in the Senate for, what, 36 years?, and then as VP for 8, and now as president -- basically having spent his entire life in politics -- and having already had several groups of Senators and Reps to the WH for discussions on multiple occasions, and even traveled to Capitol Hill for meetings with various caucuses,
... might already have some inkling of this?
bbleh, from your mouth to God's ears. Assuming God is a Democrat of course.
I believe mutually assured destruction will kick in and a compromise will be found.
I said as much above, though you said it first, and better. The hard part is convincing them that the party means business.
I'm not sure Sinema understands that. She appears to think screwing her own party is the path to becoming John McCain.
Will be funny when she loses reelection in 2024 to Meghan Mc Cain.
Oh god do we have to watch that???
I think the money is already sitting in escrow somewhere offshore. She's dim, but she can't be stupid enough to think she has a career of any sort on either side of the street should she vote against BBB.
I hope that she’s not that dumb. The only way a Democrat wins in Arizona or West Virginia is if there is a strong turnout of Democratic-leaning marginal (occasional) voters. McCain had an R next to his name; not an option for her.
I’m not so sure about that. The Republicans are her strongest supporters in the state so it might make sense for her to switch. On the other hand, if she remains as the true Republican candidate but also the nominally Democratic candidate too she could get just enough residual Democrats to get her over the top.
She voted twice to impeach Trump. She can't switch.
I don’t mean that she’d explicitly switch parties. I think she’d do a variation on what Holy Joe Lieberman did which would be running with the tacit support of the GOP and the explicit endorsement/support of the Democratic leadership. The overwhelming Republican support combined with Democrats who would be swayed by their party’s endorsement would be enough to get her over the finishing line.
If you look at current polls, that’s clearly fee only hope. The number of Democrats who would rather see a Republican in the senate is still small and she can count on the Democratic leadership to round up enough support for her as a notational Democrat. I think that’s her plan.
Nope. Trump will vilify her, and the rest of his party/cult will obediently fall in line.
I'm not sure that he will or that it will make much difference if he does. The Republican base in Arizona has a surprising amount of cohesion but also a pronounced love of insane conservatives, But it's entirely possible that they'll be able to look past what Trump wants and do what's necessary to reclaim the seat for the party. And Trump's attacks can only help her to hold on to the relatively small number of Democrats necessary to hold the seat in a somewhat-Democratic trending state.
I think Lieberman is still the best example. He was notationally a Democrat and received immense support from the party's leadership in return for, basically, voting for a Democrat as majority leader if the Democrats were in the majority.
She could do basically the same thing and, like Holy Joe, she's immensely valuable to the Republicans as a notational "Democrat" who opposes nearly everything the party wants to do and also makes nearly everything the Republicans do "bipartisan" and therefore difficult to attack.
I think even Trump will recognize her value as a quisling and cut her some slack.
How did that work out for Joe Lieberman?
Worked out real good for him. Welcomed back to the senate like a conquering hero.
Need Lamont was the Democrat nominee in 2006. He had the official assent of the Democrat Party.
Barry Hussein Osama, et. al., crudely declined to endorse Ned over Droopy Dogg for the sake of a future crossover endorsement if the presidential nominee in 2008. (Of course, we know how that ended up.)
But Lieberman had the unofficial but very emphatic backing of the Democratic establishment who made it clear that Holy Joe was a good guy and good Democrats should vote for him even though he’d betrayed one previous Democratic president (Bill Clinton, who evidently held no grudges) and two Democratic presidential candidates (Al Gore and Obama).
As you point out, Obama magnanimity was rewarded by being stabbed in the back numerous times, including on Obamacare.
Ugh, yes, I think we all remember that one all to well. On this, I agree with you: The Traitor in the Camp trope, an ancient and honorable storytelling device, seems to have been dogging the Democratic party since, well, back to the nineteenth century at least. And the ones we do have seem to have an uncanny knack for knowing just when a heel turn will cause maximum damage.
I will say this about Lieberman though: he's a Hell of a lot smarter than the likes of Manchin and Sinema. And methinks more spiteful as well.
I generally agree. I think Manchin and Sinema have concluded that their positions are unassailable. If the Democrats survive, it would surely be by the slimmest of margin so Manchin and Sinema will remain indispensable. If the Democrats are crushed (or even if the republic falls), they feel certain of being rewarded for their betraying.
I suspect that the republic is unlikely to survive. But if we sink, I’d like to be sure that they both get to go down with the ship.
I seem to have a feeling that Jayapal and her buddies are more of a roadblock than Manchin or Sinema. I think that House progressives feel that they will have no power after 2022, so are very unwilling to come down from their maximum demands.
And they are ideologues. You know how intransigent ideologues can be.
Both?
Then Biden will tell Pelosi to go with the nuclear option on the infrastructure deal and the DNC will actively primary every progtard. Morons like Guthman and other idiots that post on this board don't seem to realize how useless they are to the DNC in finality. The wave is over, they don't sell. The American people never liked them.
As usual, everything SpadesoGrey says is wrong
And despite its recent lack of "lolz" & other such inanities, it has again resorted not just to failed arguments but blatant insults, as I just observed below.
Well, sometimes not coherent enough to even be wrong.
Nonsense. All the progressive caucus is doing is stating the obvious - the BBB proposal is very popular, but there's no way it will pass if the bipartisan bill passes first. It is not a radical agenda, it's just what Biden ran for election on. Most of the "idealogues" have already compromised on the content of BBB; they just don't want to get screwed out of it after making a deal - a deal that is good for both the Democratic Party and the American people.
The only roadblocks are Manchin, Sinema, and a unified Republican party that doesn't dive a damn about doing what's right by anybody.
Heh, the troll thinks Biden is a 'progressive'. Don't feed it.
This is wrong: Jayapal and Bernie are squarely behind Biden's agenda, the one he won the election on. Almost every single item on that bill is an election promise by Joe Biden.
If progressives had the power they would demand a much larger investment. But they don't and they know it. And unlike the few holdouts (4% of the caucus) they are interested in and knowledgeable about policy. Manchinema are not, they truly don't care for policy; it is all about looking like a moderate, about the appearance.
If Biden's bill were 100 dollars they would demand 25 for the same purpose.
This is absolutely right. This is Biden’s agenda that he campaigned on.
Problem here is that Bernie is NOT a democrat he's an independent. You are aware that Vermont has only elected ONE Dem senator since the Civil war and that is Patrick Leahy. ALL the others were republicans or independents.
Who will replace Bernie in 24?
For THAT matter who will replace Angus King (I) Maine in 24?
Both are gone then. Thats two seats the D's need to pick up, as well as hold the line on the other 48 in both 22 then in 24
THAT'S why Kyrst/Joe is so dangerous now. BOTH could switch parties and still win. Then comes 24 and the majority of senators up for re-election are Dems and the I replacements
Maine has rank choice voting for U.S. Senate races
Vermont is nowhere near a DEM stronghold.
Want to win in 24? Then pick up seats in 22 - pass Biden's agenda and see what happens............
No chance at all Sinema could win by switching parties. None.
Manchin could, but that's been true for a decade.
I think we will have to deal with replacing Sanders and King when the time comes but, (since I believe both are standing for reelection) for the moment, all that matters is 2022 and 2024, which, as even Max Boot has observed, will probably determine whether this country remains a democracy.
Manchin might be able to win as a Republican but it's not for sure that the WV Republicans would be willing to clear a path for him. I could easily see enough residual Republican support for likely GOP primary candidates that he might not make the general election ballot. Whereas, the Democratic leadership seems to treasure him as an individual even though he's likely to cost the party both the Congress and the White House. So, my guess is that he needs to stay a nominal Democrat.
Similarly, I think Sinema can only survive as a Democrat for the reason I gave above. The far right (which is a good chunk of the party's base) won't accept her for a variety of reasons so she'll need Democratic support to get on the ballot. What's more, she only has value to Republicans as a Democratic quisling; being on the Democratic Party's ballot line and enjoying the support of the party's leadership/establishment even as she derails it's agenda and electoral prospects is invaluable to Republicans. If she loses that Democrat label, she loses not only most of her Democratic support but probably most of her Republican support would go to electing an actual Republican at that point (rather than a carpetbagger).
King has already announced no run in 24. Bernie back in May said there's a very VERY slim chance he would run again. He would be 83 then
33 seats up for grabs in 24
2 Inds
10 Republicans
21 DEMs
The math favors the GOP
It would seem so. Thanks for the info about King and Bernie. All things considered, it doesn’t look like the Democrats are going to hold Congress for a combination of no accomplishments and gerrymandering/voter suppression/outright stealing.
On that basis, maybe the Democrats should make a virtue out of necessity and start laying the groundwork for an eventual comeback by trying to rebuild the party’s once vaunted state and local infrastructure. And make it a point to defenestrate Manchin and Sinema in 202& while the defenestrating is good
Huh? They've already shown (much, much) more willingness to negotiate than Manchin and Sinema. And it's kind of silly to call them 'ideologues' when they are standing with 95% of the party - including the 'moderate' President.
But they have thus far given Biden their unwavering support. They’d agreed to a deal and stuck to it. It was the posturing and preening “moderates” who busted the deal and turned Biden’s presidency into a game of 52-pickup. If you’re looking for the roadblocks in the progressive camp, you’re looking in the wrong
Whatever it is, get it done by December 3rd.
Meet Joe Manchin,
https://www.businessinsider.com/senator-joe-manchin-half-million-year-coal-stocks-climate-crisis-2021-9
and meet his daughter,
https://twitter.com/BetteMidler/status/1438600768307802123
Kirsten Sinema, I assume, has simply taken a terrific bribe, probably with some kind of twist of blackmail quietly in the background.
Nothing will come from these people.
Err retard. Joe Manchin comes from a fossil fuel state. The fact you can't get that blows me away.
That you breathe air blows me away.
I think we're on the same page with Sinema. She's definitely in take the money and run territory.
I think she may be dumber than that.
It may be that some heavily moneyed group (promoted by someone like Peter Thiel) came to her with a genius plan about how she can position herself as 'a centrist maverick' who will be able to rally disaffected Republican voters and 'sensible Democrats' when the Republicans entirely self-destruct and the Democrats are hopelessly enfeebled, and so leaving her as the perfect, Angela Merkel-like, choice for president.
A group who, of course, will dump her the instant her usefulness as an obstructive tool evaporates, but meanwhile she can have a great time surfing the stupid.
DAS MADCHEN LIBEL.
So you give her even less credit for smarts than I do. Though on the flip side I give her even less credit for morals and ethics 😉
Rockefeller Republican Kevin Drum really expects the Spleen Screw Deal to go thru after the Woke Kulture just claimed one of its biggest scalps, Jon Gruden?
Honestly, surprised there wasn't a lament for Ol' Redfaced Jon of the 2 Banana on this site...
Judging by your comments here I can only imagine what gems are in your old emails.
More like 20 to 25 year old emails, but close enough.
So a 10 year old email forced a coach down. Then half of all NFL players should leave the league. It's overkill.
1. 10 years ago gruden was a grown-ass man. most players were not.
2. it wasn't one email. it wasn't even one dozen. it was dozens, covering the commish, the players' union, players, officials, owners, just about every aspect of the nfl. he hit just about every offensive category imaginable, including homophobic, racist, misogynistic and just plain old-fashion stupidity (complained about the league trying to reduce concussions. how horrid of the league attempting to keep player's brains from turning into jello)
3. the emails were as recent as three years ago.
you don't have to be "woke" to be offended by gruden's remarks, just a reasonably decent human being.
try to keep up, pal.
Yeah Gruden really screwed himself this time
He can't explain away all the stupidity he demonstrated
He offended blacks
He offended women
He offended First Ladies
He offended the concussion protocols in the NFL
He offended the Commissioner
A recent study paid for by the NFL suggests that 48% of the 134M football fans in the U.S. are women.
Thats a LOT of people. No wonder Jerry Jones gave non answers to sharp questions about the Gruden thing.
This isn't about blacks or women in particular. It's about filling the stadiums and selling the products and 67M people are a heck of a group to offend. IT's all money.
Gruden cancelled himself. I 'm glad.
One point that was brought to bear by one of the talking heads was this:
This was part of the toxic culture investigation of the Washington Football Team. The culled the emails from the CEOs computer and the mailing list is extensive apparently with loads of high paying, notable folks on that email group.
I can't wait to see who else got them, and didn't say a word about Grudens attitude
Bruce Allen, the brother of MACACA!
Gruden is one of the most anti-racist coaches in football. Taking quotes out of context is a modern woke stuff.
Homophobic and against modernization on sexual issues yup. I have some ties to this in ohio. He didn't cover his tracks enough.
& the last emails were from 2017-18, right before he took the Raiders job.
The Medicare Expansion nor 3.5 million dollar total wasn't Biden's despite media attempts to portray it that way. He via the Senate asked for 2.7 trillion over 10 years.
The poor response of the House created this mess, but it's not a historical anomaly. Things take time.
Just do it.
Then limit the filibuster and get some voting rights protection.
Then replace Breyer.
Then tell Manchin and Sinema to go to hell.
“We watched a group of nine Democratic voters in Pennsylvania who ran the gamut—from Bernie-stans to a lady who had voted for Trump in 2016.
Every single one of them thought Biden was doing a bad job.
But that’s not the bad news.
Every single one of them thought things were crappy in America right now.
Still not the bad news.
Not one of them liked Biden personally. They all viewed him as a normal, lying politician.
Now we’re there. Here’s the really bad news:
None of them believed that Republicans were to blame for the administration’s failures.
If you are a Democrat, this should scare the living death out of you. Because it means that your own voters:
Think the environment is bad.
Blame you for it being bad.
Don’t like you in the first place.
Aren’t even seeing you as the lesser evil.”
I don’t think that’s necessarily fair. I don’t know what these people expected. I’m guessing none of the other 2020 democrats would fare any better, but I know who to blame. Jim Clyburn. He sold Biden as the savior to the idiot voters of SC and that was that. The rest of us were to sit down and shut up. It’s kinda funny.
It is only fair to point out that Biden turned out to be a much better President than anybody (not even Clyburn I'd bet) expected.
It is the return of the pandemic (partly his fault because he overpromised) and the return from Afghanistan--a good and necessary thing to do--that soured folks on him.
‘We’ didn’t sit down and shut up, we gave Biden a seven-million vote margin. Eighty-one million votes is a lot of us idiots, товарищ.
Nine whole voters? Well, that's it, time to pack up and head home.
Once again, not a single mention of the GOP, whose lockstep marching in obstruction against doing anything actually useful is the only thing forcing the Democratic party to do the same, to get anything done.
Without GOP obstruction, nobody would know who Manchin was.
The worst possible outcome of the last election was what we got. A tied senate.
It gives leverage to every damned idiot in the Senate and puts a relatively unproven person, (Kamala Harris) as THE deciding vote on many things. This is grossly unfair to her.
For the last few years the GOP has led by a margin big enough for people like Susan Collins to show "concern" about certain GOP extreme positions without damaging the cred of the party as a whole. She could publicly vote against something while privately supporting it. No harm no foul but good for her public persona of being a moderate GOP senator
Neither side can do that in a 50 - 50 senate
I don't think a tied Senate, with Democrat Charles Schumer in control is worse than a Republican Senate led by Mitch McConnell. Come on, man!
Also, I dispute your characterization of Vice President Harris as an inexperienced naive young girl. Talk about being "grossly unfair"!
I agree that letting individual Senators control all of Congress's legislation is a bad situation. But it ought to be used to continue to point out that just a few Republican votes would tip the scales -- but they're voting in lockstep to sabotage the country, taking zero responsibility, refusing to DO THEIR JOBS. That's the story, not Manchinema.
In a normally functioning democracy, I wouldn't strongly disagree with you. But we're not facing a normal cycle of elections. Putting to one side my disagreements with the Democratic leadership, even with the best of fortune, the structural elements of the political system seem to have restricted the Democrats to periodic interregnums within a universe of Republican domination.
So, it seems to me that there's an important question worth addressing:
At a political level, is it really to have Schumer "in charge" if nominal Democratic control results in little or no progress in the progressive or Democratic agendas but simply is yet another brief period where Democrats repair the damage of prior Republican administrations before handing back control to the Republicans (who are relentless in pushing their agenda)?
It also seems to me to be very difficult to for Democrats to again ask for power in 2022 and 2024 when they have done little or nothing with it even after voters struggled and sacrificed to put Biden and the Democratic Party in power? What's the rationale for voting Democratic when it is Democrats who are derailing the party's agenda?
How do you craft a slogan to keep Democrats in power when it's the party's moderate and two senators who are responsible for trashing everything?
All good, albeit depressing points. The logical move would be for Democrats to give up, disband, and welcome the Trumpublican Kleptocracy. MAGA!
But Democratic congressfolks and senators aren't the only Dems or the only lefties. DC isn't the only government. And somebody needs to expose and fully air the Republican scam of breaking things and leaving behind a big mess, so that they can run on the Dems failure to implement the Democratic agenda and often, to have failed to totally fixed the Republican mess in the two years (in fact, one) that they have between elections.
It'll take a generational change, much like slowing down climate change. Simply giving up won't get it done.
No, the logical move would be for the Democrats to would be to tell certain people that we have sticks in addition to carrots. And that when the party’s need are in conflict with the needs of one’s friends in the pharmaceutical or fossil fuels industries, the needs of the party and of the country must come first. This is naturally be followed by point that that it’s hard to be a lobbyist if you’re persona non grata with your own party.
The other thing is stop putting the needs of our useless consultants ahead of winning elections and to do exactly what you’re talking about and begin to take back state and local governments.
Mitch the problem with your theory is that Arizona is in no way shape or form Connecticut. I highly doubt GOP primary voters would support Sinema. I think the only way your plan could work is in a 3 way race where there is split vote between a rabid wingnut for the GOP, a more compliant Democrat and Sinema running as an independent.
To
I wasn’t clear about this but your analysis is exactly why Sinema can only survive in the Democratic Party. I think her assumption is that the strong support of the Democratic establishment will get her into the general election. Then the question will be whether the Republican establishment can sotto voice persuade enough Republicans to vote for Sinema because her value as a Quisling and saboteur is of inestimable value, as was Lieberman.
At the same time, as the nominal candidate of the Democratic establishment, they will pull out all the stops to get her re-elected.
The question, as you point out, is how much support Sinema bleeds at each end of the political spectrum. If the far right come together strongly behind a wing nut, there’s the risk for Sinema that too much of the Republican support she’s obviously relying upon won’t be there. Similarly, if there’s a large enough number of Democrats who come out of a bitter primary campaign refusing to support her even if it means six years of a (openly declared) Republican occupying that seat in the senate.
But her plan is essentially the same as was that of Lieberman: be so valuable to the Republican Party that they’ll go in the tank for him even as the Democratic establishment rounds up votes for him in spite of his being a Quisling and a saboteur.
oh come on! it ain't that difficult being vice president. if you have a 50-50 senate and you're vp, you vote the party line. that's the job.
Actually I believe the job of being President of the Senate is harder than being the Vice President of the nation in many respects. She had only been a senator for 4 years.
That is grossly unfair. Sure, during normal times the VP rarely casts a vote in the Senate but in the 50/50 Senate of today?
That's bad and unfair to put on Harris.
No disrespect intended towards her just stating a fact. She was a junior senator with a bright future and that future now will be at the beck and call of the 50 - 50 Senate.
So it's a bad thing that Vice President Harris's job is "limited" to riding in to be the hero? Hey, beats attending lots of funerals in place of the Prez.
Yeah, how is this a difficult choice for Harris? Any vote she is going to cast is going to be after they've worked out all the details so that all 50 D senators are on board. How would she have to even think about the vote? She's a rubber stamp at that point.
" She's a rubber stamp at that point."
Pence - certifying the election - acting as a rubber stamp
How did that work for him?
He was very lucky that Donnie is a bad Don.
"Unproven".
There is something else that irks me in this context: Kevin's message lately has been "do something for the middle class". A year ago he argued just as passionately in favor of means testing.
How do you do something for the middle class: By NOT means testing. Easy.
I'd suggest cutting the timetable down to 8 (eight) years. Although Congress can change programs and funding every year, with the GQP in Mitch McConnell "Stop All Democrats!" mode, it's a cinch that the US will be back on the "continuing resolution" track for as long as McConnell lives, so it's worth while to lock in BBB for a good long period.
Also, do NOT drop or scale back the environmental provisions! These are literally a life or death issue. Scale back program boosts that help only the elderly; do not short the kiddos, and that also applies to programs that permit their parents to hold jobs. (From which the government collects taxes, I might add.)
Also, might I add that not much of anything can be done this week, because the Senate is taking a recess? The House is waiting on the Senate, because there's no point in preparing or passing legislation unless they know the Senate will pass it. And that means Manchinema, because the entire Republican Party is anti-governance.
Got to keep making that clear: there is no negotiation, no compromise with the Trumpublican Party, because they refuse to even get into the game.
Salamander
"Also, do NOT drop or scale back the environmental provisions! These are literally a life or death issue"
Life or death? When? Climate Change happens naturally according the science. We are adding to the speed of the change but when will it boil down to life or death?
Is Mike Huckabee gonna wake up tomorrow and find his Florida beach front property under water? Hardly.
Do we need to do something? Absolutely. WE need to START reversing the carbonizing of our atmosphere that started with the Industrial Revolution. We need the whole world in on it because it is a global issue.
But life or death? The worlds population quadrupled in the last 70 years as the population exploded. Ours did too. We lead the world in polluting the atmosphere and we should do more. But we cannot do it alone.
I wonder if the challenge is something close to they can't make a deal. Let me expand:
- Manchin and Sinema will only agree to X (size of bill, limits on revenue types (no negotition on drug prices for example), and terms (means testing at X limit).
- The remaining Democrats each have their pet issues (climate change, family tax credit, expand Medicaid in non expansion states, restore SALT deduction etc)
IF you do the Venn diagram, there is no common area: a cut in one area loses a couple Senators etc...
To be clear, I HOPE that is not the current nor final situation. However, I am growing concerned
Yeah. Screw climate change and the middle class folks that's going to help.
2 of those initiatives do nothing.
Hey Kevin. Please stop calling it Biden's "big spending bill." That's the framing right out of the RNC Talking Points Manual. Most mainstream journalists fall for it hook, line, and sinker, but you should know better.
Call it the reconciliation bill. Or the human infrastructure plan. Or the Build Back Better plan.
"Spending" is when a guy goes out and blows his paycheck on an AR-15. Putting money into climate mitigation or better public health or child care assistance is called "investment in the future."
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - Countryside Business Association
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - LenexworldLenexworld
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - US Clock News
Pingback: Pundit Roundup Short: More Boosters Coming Soon - R4 News
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - Paper Tribune
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - hydejacksonsquare.org
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Extra boosters quickly to be within the combine – Money Making Methods
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - Hispanic Education Association
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - Vale News
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - Alilapee
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix - News Network Center
Pingback: Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: More boosters soon to be in the mix – Ridarswear