• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Progressives Blink First, Offer To Cut Spending Short To Reduce $3.5 Trillion Plan

VySky

VySky

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
51,085
Reaction score
20,157
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
lol…. Seems the old woman schooled the new kids on the block? Dems should give Manchin some type of prestigious award like the Nobel or something lol….
——

House progressives have just become the first to blink in a congressional standoff with Senate moderates over the price tag on the Biden administration's massive domestic agenda - and are now open to scaling back programs by attaching expiration dates, rather than them be permanent according to Bloomberg.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), head of the 96-member Congressional Progressive Caucus
"One of the ideas out there is to fully fund what we can fully fund, but instead of funding it for 10 years, fund it for five years," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in a statement to CBS's "Face the Nation."

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
All part of negotiations and coming to an agreement which I believe they will. One that pleases absolutely no one 100%...which is what good deals should do.
 
SO thrilled to get an opinion from ZeroHedge :rolleyes:
 
It's kind of funny how when they stand firm, they are accused of being uncompromising, and when the compromise, they are accused of "blinking."

Damned if you do; damned if you don't.
 
Callen said:
All part of negotiations and coming to an agreement which I believe they will. One that pleases absolutely no one 100%...which is what good deals should do.
Click to expand...
Not in America where the new kids got spanked.
 
RedFishBlueFish said:
Since "blinking" means negotiating (in this case), blinking is good. Means progress is being made on Biden's agenda. Looking forward to the implementation of the "human infrastructure" components. Even if some are on a less than 10 year basis.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'm all for spending money on infrastructure, but $3.5T is too much, in my opinion.
 
armycowboy said:
Agreed. I'm all for spending money on infrastructure, but $3.5T is too much, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I'd be happy with the full $3.5 T. But it looks like we can't get that because 0 Republicans are interested and Sinema and Manchin have much more negotiating power than they deserve. Negotiation/compromise is the Progressives only option, it appears.
 
They are banking on it being difficult to turn off goodies to make these "temp" programs de facto permanent.

Yeesh. No thanks.
 
Callen said:
All part of negotiations and coming to an agreement which I believe they will. One that pleases absolutely no one 100%...which is what good deals should do.
Click to expand...

Since the GOP has no actual policies or ability to govern, this kind of stuff is completely foreign to them.
 
That's a smart move by the progressives. The important thing to them is to get the policies/programs started that they want and focusing on the bottom line number as a success gives them the opportunity.
 
armycowboy said:
Agreed. I'm all for spending money on infrastructure, but $3.5T is too much, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

What, specifically would you like cut out on this? And the 3.5T is over 10 years.
 
armycowboy said:
Agreed. I'm all for spending money on infrastructure, but $3.5T is too much, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Numbers are arbitrary. Everyone saying we can't afford this or afford that, but the cost is born over 10 years, if you read the Bill. There is never too little money for another aircraft carrier or fighter jet or nuke. However, I agree, the purse has limited space, so it amuses me that those who quibble over the price tag don't also quibble for what the money is used for. So maybe the Progressives take away free pre-K and the Moderates and Repubs accept one less fighter jet, and start from there and work towards the middle.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Numbers are arbitrary. Everyone saying we can't afford this or afford that, but the cost is born over 10 years, if you read the Bill. There is never too little money for another aircraft carrier or fighter jet or nuke. However, I agree, the purse has limited space, so it amuses me that those who quibble over the price tag don't also quibble for what the money is used for. So maybe the Progressives take away free pre-K and the Moderates and Repubs accept one less fighter jet, and start from there and work towards the middle.
Click to expand...
If you you're saying we're spending too much on the military, I agree with you.
 
President Joe Biden vowed on Friday that Democrats will deliver on their agenda.

"We're going to get this done," Biden told reporters. Pressed on a timeline, the President said, "It doesn't matter when. It doesn't whether it's in six minutes, six days, or six weeks -- we're going to get it done."

So, no more target dates for getting things done. Is delay in achievements a win for the progressives, slowing the Biden agenda? Progressive leaders are now open to negotiating the price tag for the $3.5 trillion social economic package.

CNN reports, "As they left the meeting with Biden, several lawmakers said that the President had informed them that the top-line number where they are likely to find agreement is somewhere between $1.9 trillion and around $2 trillion."

However, the Democrats have a very serious problem.

The social economic package is often referred to as the reconciliation bill because the only way it will become a reality is a Democrats only vote. That is reconciliation, but it can only be used once a year.

The debt ceiling needs to be raised immediately.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has told lawmakers the U.S. will run out of ways to pay its bills around Oct. 18. If Congress fails to suspend or raise the debt limit before the deadline, lawmakers risk a default that could cost millions of jobs, jeopardize government benefits and crash the financial markets.

Senate Republicans will not cooperate with the Democrats. CNN reports, "Republicans have shot down two other Democratic efforts to address the issue. Republicans insist Democrats should raise the limit on their own."

Meaning reconciliation.

The Hill reports, "Republicans are attempting to use the debt limit to roil Biden’s economic agenda by forcing Democrats to raise the ceiling through the budget reconciliation process — the vehicle for their multi-trillion dollar social services and climate bill."

Therein lies the problem. Do the Democrats use reconciliation on the social economic package or raising the debt ceiling.

The Hill continued, "Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday that Democrats will not use budget reconciliation to raise the federal debt ceiling, raising doubts over whether Congress will find a way to avert potential economic disaster.

"Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) also shot down using that process to prevent the U.S. from defaulting on its debt."

The debt ceiling needs to be raised to pay off "debt." in others words, existing bills, 98% of which were accrued before Biden took office. Most of that debt occurred during the Republican administration of Donald J. Trump.

That is why Democrats are insisting that Republicans share in the responsibility of raising the debt ceiling.
 
The only part of this that matters is that a deal is made in enough time for the GOP to decide whether or not they want to let the US default on its debts or not
 
Trump was smart. He avoided ever having to blink by having no legislative agenda at all.
 
cpwill said:
They are banking on it being difficult to turn off goodies to make these "temp" programs de facto permanent.

Yeesh. No thanks.
Click to expand...


It's almost like these programs are more popular than tax cuts for the rich or military spending...
 
VySky said:
lol…. Seems the old woman schooled the new kids on the block? Dems should give Manchin some type of prestigious award like the Nobel or something lol….
——

House progressives have just become the first to blink in a congressional standoff with Senate moderates over the price tag on the Biden administration's massive domestic agenda - and are now open to scaling back programs by attaching expiration dates, rather than them be permanent according to Bloomberg.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), head of the 96-member Congressional Progressive Caucus
"One of the ideas out there is to fully fund what we can fully fund, but instead of funding it for 10 years, fund it for five years," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in a statement to CBS's "Face the Nation."

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
Click to expand...
😄 You’re just pissed that there is encouraging news.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom