This is . . . interesting:
Has this been Sinema's position all along? That she won't tolerate any of the usual ways of paying for things? Nor, I assume, will she tolerate a bill that increases the deficit.
So how does she want to pay for it? Inquiring minds want to know.
this is exactly why your whole "just make a deal, stupid dems" posting makes no sense. i think the party leaders all WANT to make a deal, including leading progressives. the ones who don't are manchin and particularly sinema. stop punching left, kevin.
+1
+2
A deal has already been street to. It's just the right time to announce it.
She doesn't want to pay for it. She doesn't want the government to do it. She just wants to make a reputation for herself that she can parlay into hosting a cables news show.
Sure, she wants to pay for it. She supports removing most of the Trump Tax cuts except what the Senate baseline on corporate tax rates were (25%/15%).
Amazing how stupid this article is by Drum. It's a lie inside a lie.
Maybe. But the fact remains if this was a deal breaker for her all along, it's bordering on cruel (or just craven) not to have mentioned it before now. Unless she really isn't overly interested in BBB at all. She could have mentioned other sources (raising IRS funding, lower limits on bank reporting) and/or that the bill she'd like to see will be payed for by repealing the Trump tax cuts that's she's apparently for.
Sorry, just looks like clout chasing and not even much interested in legislating or getting things done. Holding back infrastructure seems to be the only way to get her engaged, so that seems to be a very very worthy tactic, despite what Drum has said.
Naderite/Proto-Berner wants free stuff?
Dog bites man.
I think that's unlikely. She has been remarkably media-averse for a politician.
She's normally so... flexible.
Sexually?
Katie Hill is worth 3 of her.
Katie Hill is immediately sus given her friendship with Matt Gaetz.
Will her and Manchin switch parties before or after 2022?
Moot point.
Story today indicated Manchin will switch to independent.
Mother Jones has the story.
Manchin is denying it.
gain 3 seats and tell them to get on board or go away.
I don't see how Manchin survives as an independent. The reason the Democratic establishment gives for the party's base in WV to hold their collective noses and vote for him is that he votes for Schumer to be majority leader. Once he's no longer even a notational Democrat, even a party as passive and inept politically is likely to start organizing in WV and trying to expand its support.
As I have mentioned many times, Manchin tends to survive his votes to deprive WV of stuff because of the peculiar dynamic of being supported by some conservatives and all Democrats. As an independent, the GOP would be running hard against him (no Liberman value anymore) and Democrats would be going all out against him for a variety of reasons. I know he has a lot of personal support but I doubt if it would be enough if you take away most Republicans and nearly all Democrats.
Plus, the Democratic candidate would be free to attack him with all of the popular and good stuff that's being denied to the people of WV because of Manchin and also I think the Democrats could start to make real inroads on climate change if they push what's in the NYT article.
Mitch-
Nah, don't buy it. Right now the squishy I voters are the ones ruling the roost. We gave Biden the WH and congress is determined to undermine his performance for whatever reason. Personalities aside neither M nor S are keen on much higher spending - but both saw a need and an advantage for their states in passing BIP. Their tepid endorsement for BBB should have been the warning signs for us, but we ignored them.
What's curious is that I think Manchin and Sinema have taken a liking to the Bernie and Angus type of politician. Rancerous enough to satisfy those who are mildly against them while pissing off those rabidly against them.
As pointed out eh other day when polled American support for BBB is below 50% when the full brunt of the tax increases are put before them. But pay for it with slight of hand accounting, closing loopholes etc and support sky rockets upwards. Conservative and moderate DEMs and all republicans believe deep down that the tax code is UNFAIR but they don't want to change it. They just want current rules enforced, hence the support for closing loopholes.
I've said this many times, Sinema and Manchin, for all their faults are far better than my 2 senators, Richard Burr and Tom Tillis.
Sinema and mancin WILL GO Independent and caucus with DEMS. They will be the self described bulwarks against progress democrat agendas for the near future.
Go +3 Dem plurality and I would almost guarantee that they go full blown republican after 2024. Trump, at that point will be either in the WH or in the process of being forgotten for good because of his age and will pose NO THREAT to either Joe or Kyrsten. Trump will be 78 in 2024, and 82 or dead by 2028, if not before then.
I'll take whatever we can get passed in these two bills. a $1.9T BBB bill PLUS $0.6T BIP is all new spending totaling $2.5T above what we have already committed to. That will be enormous.
Then elect more DEMs to get more climate change legislation, voting rights legislation passed. Finally when all is said and done pass tax reform. Go back to the 1950s style economic outlook.. I call it BB +1. Balanced Budget plus $1T extra to pay off the war bonds like we did back then.
take the voodoo out of the discussion. Like this
https://images.app.goo.gl/Li1XfCAgxDV2ucPe7
It's difficult to say. For Sinema, it would be a very tricky maneuver. She has no natural base of support in the GOP and it's unlikely that her support int he Arizona GOP would grow much between now and 2024. So, she'd probably face an even tougher primary in the GOP, might lose Trumpist support in the party, too. At the same time, she'd (finally) be burning her bridges with the Democratic establishment that courted her and strongly supported her. And the base of the party (which is who got her elected in the first place) hates her guts.
And, for her to switch parties, might be the best thing for the Democrats and the worst thing for her, particularly her main value outside of a 50-50 Senate is that she's a Democrat who is derailing the Biden agenda so it's very difficult for the Democrats politically to craft ads against the GOP for obstructing things or to explain why people should give the Democrats power when they don't deliver.
For Manchin, it might be difficult to switch, too. I've noticed how very prickly he is about even the most tepid Democratic efforts to establish a foothold in WV (as a party, not as Manchin's fief). It makes me wonder if things like the popular Democratic programs he's killing and the NYT article about how devastating climate change is and will be to WV would make him vulnerable if he ran as a Republican.
If Machin ran as a Republican, the Democrats would be running on extremely popular stuff that WV would have had but for Manchin and on saving peoples' homes and businesses which would be lost to climate change if he stays in the senate. And Manchin would be running on being Manchin. So, who knows? I think maybe he'd be worse off as a Republican
Mitch
Remove the monikers
McCain was a maverick. Thats what she wants
What's more "mavericky" then going I???????
It would piss off both D's and R's alike
Now take an Arizona politician, put her in the mavericky stage and have that politician come out against illegal immigration, less spending and better more accessible water for AZ and you have a winner.
She and Joe are gunning to be the next Bernie and Angus - not progressive or moderate - just squishy pols !!! They say the right things at the right times and they get re-elected by the squishy middle.
MOST Americans are neither progressive nor tea party conservative. If you drop the R or D identifier then Manchin and Sinema become more palatable.
Obviously we disagree about Bernie. But I also disagree that Manchin and Sinema get re-elected because they are maverick centrists. Each relied on the unique dynamics of their state but both relied heavily on very solid Democratic support. In Manchin’s case he enjoyed totally undemanding Democratic support) but that sold Democratic support is what allowed them to worry only about attracting independents and Republicans.
McCain win because he had a well established power base in the Republican Party yet was considered moderate enough to attract some Democrats. Sinema lacks that base of support. If she’s forced to leave the Democratic Party and forfeit that support, she cannot win as either a Republican or an independent. Same with Manchin. That’s why I say the leadership can squeeze them.
Bothe voted to remove Trump from office. Neither has any future in the cult formerly known as the Republican Party. Not as long as they bow to the fiercest grudge-holder of all time.
Got it in one.
Yes, I agree that is a critical point. Whenever the "pragmatism" of the Republican establishment has conflicted with Trump's wishes or grudges, the establishment has lost badly. I don't see Donnie or his minions and stooges welcoming either of these assholes into the Republican Party.
Misleading article and post. That is not what she has said.
Refusing to pay for services has become a new middle class value and Sinema has embraced the role of representing this class.
Sigh. We’ll never have nice things like our peer countries and will likely sink to developing world status in a generation or two. Oh well. It was a good run at the top of the developed world until we decided we didn’t like taxes, infrastructure, social services, livable temperatures, democracy or competent and effective governance. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It is increasingly looking like you could chronicle the "History of the decline and fall of the American empire" by using the "find and replace" feature of a word processor. Other empires have risen and fallen sine 476 A.D. but they've made their own mistake; only we have consistently learned nothing from the Fall of Rome. And we seem to be repeating each error right on schedule; only the names of the guilty have been changed because we speak English instead of Latin— but everyone still seems interchangeable.
Too pessimistic. When the Roman Republic fell because of the intransigence of the rich, Rome lasted another 400 years under an Emperor. When the American Republic falls shortly because of the intrangisence of the rich, who's to say it won't last centuries under the Emperor?
I don't think I'm pessimistic enough.
I wouldn't describe myself as a great fan of the Roman Republic because it was more of an oligarchy than a democracy. So, in many ways, Ceasar was more democratically legitimate or at least as democratically legitimate as the Senate he overthrew to become dictator for life.
And we might, over the centuries, have ourselves five good emperors but I doubt it. The one we're likely to start out with (Trump) is likely to make Caligula look like a responsible adult. And my guess is that it's all downhill from there.
Hey the Ottomans had NINE good Sultans in a row. You can go on a run.
Put me on the throne and a golden age will flow
Now they’ve got one mediocre autocrat. Really, Japan and Western Europe (nearly all the former colonies of GB outside of Africa and Asia)seem to be the only ones that were able to create stable liberal democracies of some sort.
And now we’re probably finished too.
Mac Arthur curated a nice liberal democracy in Japan so he wouldn't have to at home.
It’s interesting that countries with some form of hereditary monarchy seem to have fared much better in term of evolving into stable liberal democracies while many of those with more “democratic” prétentions have turned out rather badly, with the USA coming up hard on the rails in that category.
The weather.
It would be one thing if we were being offered a tax increase for more universal social services, like single-payer health care. But the BBB plan is offering higher taxes for high incomes and for many middle class people (like my family) in return for an expansion of social service for other people.
And nothing in Washington ever gets paid for. The tax revenue numbers for every proposal are always fictional and everyone knows it.
LOL.
>> So how does she want to pay for it? Inquiring minds want to know.<<
Cutting taxes, of course. How else do you pay for stuff (if you are a Republican).
Conventional economics is largely bullshit, but it does know that the true cost of anything is what you have to give up in order to get it. My question to the "gotta pay for" policy pushers is what do we have to give up to get BBB?
I clearly disagree with Sinema's tax perspective.
With that said, the US COULD utilize the same tax revenue system used in basically all of Europe and Japan: we could have a value added tax (VAT).
Of course, a VAT would clearly break the Biden pledge of no taxes for anyone below $400K of income.
It would also be a colossal catastrophe if an attempt was made to cobble something together as an emergency measure to stop BBB falling apart. It would take months of staff work to develop a workable system, and Republicans would not believe their luck in being able to rant non-stop about all the prices going up another 20%.
If Sinema stands by all her loopy pronouncements, Democrats are obviously screwed. But, given her apparent flakiness, I don’t know that is particularly likely.
1999 Anti-WTO Sympathizer is confused on policy?
See page A16.
Why is there no link?
"So how does she want to pay for it?"
Assumes facts not in evidence. To the best of my knowledge, she's never said she wants anything in the BBB bill.
She wants it to fail.
Kevin,
When asked what part of the bills or how she would pay for them Sinema always answer " ".. by changing subject or leaving the room.
She doesn't want to take ownership of anything, allowing her to stay immaculate.