The Build Back Better Plan gets watered down

[Metric Mouse]

They don't trust Manchin and Sinema particularly Sinema. Do you blame them?

They will pass the Infratructure Bill when they said they would pass it. They have been very consistent. Its Mamchin, Sinema and the Centrists that have been all over the map, that is when their cloaking devices were not on full power.

They said they would pass it by Sept. 27th... what are you even talking about?

 

[jnug]

They said they would pass it by Sept. 27th... what are you even talking about?

Pelosi said they would. Pelosi is not the head of nor even in what is referred to as the "Progressive Caucus" of the DEM Party. That Sept 27th was targeted has nothing to do with anything.

 

[j brown's body]

This is bullshit. Complete and total bullshit.

You cut care for seniors but give health young Americans welfare>

The DEms can go **** themselves.

There is another political party whose members could step up to the plate.

Naaaaaaaaah.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I don't think he caved at all. He knows Manchin well and knew he could get him to someplace other than no and he did. I think he, being very experienced in these things, got what he knew he could get.......but who knows.

Anyone can get someone to say yes if you meet all of their demands.

As far as voter rights and police reform.........I think he will push for elimination of the filibuster for just these two things.

Manchin and Sinema ditching the filibuster? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[j brown's body]

Blame at this point is an internal game among Democrats. I don't think the public at large care who's responsible for the infrastructure bill not being passed. Perhaps most have forgotten about it except us political junkies on sites like this one. Regardless, you have 30 liberals, progressives saying they won't vote for it. Perhaps you're correct, they're not posturing about their no vote. They've come right out and said they wouldn't. 15 GOP votes can't overcome the 30 votes from progressive democrats. So no infrastructure bill. It's quite simple isn't it?

They suspect that no deal will hurt moderates more than it will hurt them, and they're probably right.

 

[j brown's body]

The quality of life in this country has been declining for years, along with increasing consequences of climate change. Conservatives and many moderates seem to be fine with that.

 

[Perotista]

And the House Progressives will pass it when they have always said they would pass it. Manchin and Sinema did themselves no favors nor the party any favors pingponging significant Bill components between them. They have lost the trust of the House Liberals and have nobody to blame but themselves with the one exception that IMO Jayapal should have sat them down in a private meeting and gotten the straight dope on their positions long ago. Manchin liked the original Bill funding. Sinema didn't. Sinema liked the tax the rich idea, Manchin didn't. Both voted for the budget framework that would have provided the money for the BBB reconciliation and then bailed. Give me a BREAK. They have stayed in the spotlight far too long with this nonsense. But lets face it, its the spotlight that they were after especially Sinema who loves to whisk by reporters and have them chase her down the hallway. Frankly she does not deserve to be chased anywhere.

Just for good measure, Manchin's comment about waiting till the next election cycle and let the people decide was pure BS. The American people already voted Joe.

I'd say to the public at large, the perspective is the house progressives are holding up the infrastructure bill. Manchin and Sinema have done their job voting for the infrastructure bill. Now it's up to the Democratic controlled house.

It's very true, Biden won the presidency, but in the same election the Democrats lost 13 house seats, a governor and 2 state legislatures. If 2020 wasn't a presidential year, the GOP would be crowing about how good they did and the Democrats frowning. 2020 in my opinion was an election which rejected Trump. But not one that gave the Democrats a mandate or endorsed their agenda. It was a total mix bag if one looks at the whole election results.

In fact, only once in our history has a presidential candidate won the popular vote and lost seats in the house. 1884, Grover Cleveland and he barely won the popular vote. Biden joins him. Biden had no coat tails. Biden didn't bring along a single democrat with him in his big 7 million plus vote margin. There were tons of ticket splitters voting for Biden for president, against Trump then voting Republican down ballot. The ticket splitters wanted to be rid of Trump, but apparently didn't want to endorse the Democratic Party.

Now I can understand the Democrats wanting to forget the down ballot results and only look at the presidential. They want to take the presidential as a mandate for them. I'd say it wasn't a mandate for the Democrats, but a mandate to get rid of Trump. If it were a mandate for the Democrats, Biden would have brought along some Democratic house and senate members. He didn't. In 2008 Obama brought along 23 new House Democrats, Reagan brought along 34 new house Republicans, now those elections were closer to having a mandate than losing 13.

Now we'll see what happens next year. Can the Democrats ride the displeasure for Trump in order to keep control of the house and the senate or will the people become upset with the democratic control and give them back to the Republicans. A year out, mixed signals are there also. Much like the 2020 election.

 

[Craig234]

"Didn't expand" is not the same thing as "cut" though.

That's - sorry for the bluntness - an idiotic argument. This is a spending bill to do things. It's not about 'cutting' anything. So things are either included or they're not. There was a bill the budget committee designed and wrote, and then things are being cut from that bill to make it a smaller bill. Cut is a correct word.

 

[Craig234]

True. They are expanding Medicare, but it will not include dental and vision care. Hearing Aids are in there. They did extend pell grants (substitute for tuition free community college) and have more clean energy. I don't view it as a "loss". We're just getting less.

What is wrong with people, talking about 'not a loss' from a spending bill? The bill has gone from a $10 trillion plan to a $1.75 trillion dollar plan. The topic is what has been cut from the original plan and what is kept, there is no "loss" to existing programs that's relevant to the topic. This is not a bill about cutting programs.

 

[Rogue Valley]

It's not a struggle between Dem progressives and Dem centrists.

It's a struggle between Dem progressives and corporations. The Dem centrists are proxies.

 

[Craig234]

This is not correct.

The Infrastructure bill legislation and the Hard Infrastructure bill (Build Back Better Plan) are two different things. We're already going to be spending another 3 trillion this year.

First of all, the 'hard infrastructure' bill is the smaller, $1 trillion *over 10 years* infrastructure bill the conservatives like and insisted be split off. The second, original bill is the fuller 'human infrastructure' or 'family' or 'people' bill, referred to as the primary Build Back Better bill, that is now reduced to $1.75 trillion *over 10 years*. Neither is remotely related to $3 trillion this year, they have zero this year.

Then there was the Covid relief act months ago, which is still not close to '$3 trillion this year'. Not sure what you're talking about but you seem confused.

 

[Court Jester]

almost two trillion (at the moment) and REPUBLICANS are screaming about it being too weak.


that's so typical.

Just like a socialist you have no concept about what a trillion dollars is, who ends up paying for it, and what that cost really is.

 

[Craig234]

It's not a struggle between Dem progressives and Dem centrists.

It's a struggle between Dem progressives and corporations. The Dem centrists are proxies.

Actually, not even the 'Dem centrists' are proxies for the wealthy interests.

The Democrats are nearly half the progressive caucus - 96 members - and 'moderates' - a bit over 100 members - and THEY ALL AGREE on the $3.5 trillion plan; they seemed to agree on the $6 trillion plan, which was reduced when Manchin said he would only agree to $4 trillion. This is about 96% of Democrats, progressives and moderates, against two Senators and from one to nine in the House - they are the wealthy proxies.

 

[jnug]

I'd say to the public at large, the perspective is the house progressives are holding up the infrastructure bill. Manchin and Sinema have done their job voting for the infrastructure bill. Now it's up to the Democratic controlled house.

It's very true, Biden won the presidency, but in the same election the Democrats lost 13 house seats, a governor and 2 state legislatures. If 2020 wasn't a presidential year, the GOP would be crowing about how good they did and the Democrats frowning. 2020 in my opinion was an election which rejected Trump. But not one that gave the Democrats a mandate or endorsed their agenda. It was a total mix bag if one looks at the whole election results.

In fact, only once in our history has a presidential candidate won the popular vote and lost seats in the house. 1884, Grover Cleveland and he barely won the popular vote. Biden joins him. Biden had no coat tails. Biden didn't bring along a single democrat with him in his big 7 million plus vote margin. There were tons of ticket splitters voting for Biden for president, against Trump then voting Republican down ballot. The ticket splitters wanted to be rid of Trump, but apparently didn't want to endorse the Democratic Party.

Now I can understand the Democrats wanting to forget the down ballot results and only look at the presidential. They want to take the presidential as a mandate for them. I'd say it wasn't a mandate for the Democrats, but a mandate to get rid of Trump. If it were a mandate for the Democrats, Biden would have brought along some Democratic house and senate members. He didn't. In 2008 Obama brought along 23 new House Democrats, Reagan brought along 34 new house Republicans, now those elections were closer to having a mandate than losing 13.

Now we'll see what happens next year. Can the Democrats ride the displeasure for Trump in order to keep control of the house and the senate or will the people become upset with the democratic control and give them back to the Republicans. A year out, mixed signals are there also. Much like the 2020 election.

And there is the first problem. The "public at large". I don't have much good to say about the public at large in this country these days. Its not that they are not as politically savvy as they should be....they are simply entirely driven now by celebrity and transactional self interest. IMO, celebrity is worthless and even more so in governance and while some self interest is fine, we are wallowing in it now.

If you asked this bunch to jump off those Higgins boats at Normandy beach I would put money on a good many of them saying "no thanks".

 

[Craig234]

I'm disappointed the full $3.5 trillion package is no longer in play. However, I'll be happy to see the $1.75 trillion version passed along with the infrastructure bill.

Agreed, except $3.5 trillion wasn't 'full', $10 trillion was.

Being an eternal optimist, I think there is a possibility that the 'drug costs' parts of the proposed legislation can possibly make it through Congress with Republican support as a separate measure.

There are two chances for this needed, simple, obvious measure: there are still negotiations that might restore some negotiation, a member of the negotiations said last night on MSNBC, and while you can't count on Republicans later - they're the ones who snuck in the negotiation ban in 2003 - there's always a chance to pull off a few.

 

[gbg3]

Manchin and Sinema ditching the filibuster? I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm with you. Manchin, in particular, will never ditch the filibuster. Which is very smart IMO.

 

[Jay59]

Go tell it to Detroit. They have already weighed in. They don't agree with you.

That happens every time Congress throws money at them.

Classic liberals are Republicans these days?

In the tradition of Locke and Mill. Recall that classic liberalism also included a lot of economic thought like Adam Smith and Jean-Batiste Say.

Progressive more resemble crown loyalists of the day, seeking to participate in and expand the power of the central authority.

Republicans like Donald Trump, Paul Gosar, Eastman, Hawley, Cancun Ted Cruz, Mo Brooks just to name a few.

Trump is not a Republican though the party adopted him. Gosar, Eastman, Brooks, and Hawley I do not follow closely enough to say. I know that they are supposed to have had a hand in the 6 January protest which is a point in favor of calling them liberal. Cruz definitely.

You are dreaming.

Sticking to facts. The liberal idea of a free market is very common among Republicans.

What is left of the Republican Party is all in for Autocracy and any other from of authoritarianism they can think of.

That would be you, projecting again.

They are pushing us toward Putin style democracy which is simply bullshit democracy and taking the Republic down along the way.

You've lost it. Putin does not have a democracy and ideologically he is closer to progressives.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Just like a socialist you have no concept about what a trillion dollars is, who ends up paying for it, and what that cost really is.

I actually think it's too much.

It's just hilarious that it's come down and "conservatives" think it's "weak".

 

[HangLow]

Anyone can get someone to say yes if you meet all of their demands.
Manchin and Sinema ditching the filibuster? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Perotista]

And there is the first problem. The "public at large". I don't have much good to say about the public at large in this country these days. Its not that they are not as politically savvy as they should be....they are simply entirely driven now by celebrity and transactional self interest. IMO, celebrity is worthless and even more so in governance and while some self interest is fine, we are wallowing in it now.

If you asked this bunch to jump off those Higgins boats at Normandy beach I would put money on a good many of them saying "no thanks".

I have no doubt you're correct about Normandy. The fact is most Americans aren't political junkies like those of us on DP. Politics don't enter their mind much if at all until an election nears. I've referred to elections as beauty contests, popularity contests. Votes are determined by the people's perspectives of the candidates involved, their personal likes and dislikes. Yeah, you have those who vote the R and the D regardless of who the candidates are. But for the rest, call them swing voters or independents, it's how they perceive the present and the candidates. Especially independents, swing voters which I'm one.

Personality decided the last two elections in my opinion. Both were decided by independents, swing voters. Personality, independents viewed Trump as obnoxious, rude, uncouth, even childish, but in 2016 he went up again a candidate in Hillary Clinton who independents perceived as aloof, elitist, a know it all and fake. Trump won the independent vote 46-42 over Hillary with 12% voting third party against both.

2020 you still had the childish, obnoxious, uncouth, rude candidate going up against Biden, who in a way had no personality. He was old, bland, uninspiring, but behaved and acted like an adult instead of a spoiled four year old brat. Independents went for Biden 54-41 with 5% voting third party against both. So I don't think it surprising that independents gave Biden a six month honeymoon instead of the normal 100 days. Biden basked in the sunlight from not being Trump. But come August, the focus of independents changed from Trump to Biden and company. The result was a 10 point drop across the board in their approval of Biden and the democrats in congress. The question is will this trend continue? The appearance of empty shelves in some stores, the price of gas rising over a dollar a gallon, rising prices in general says it probably will. But we'll see.

 

[Craig234]

I just think that trying to fit square peg Manchin into round hole 'coal baron' isn't really correct, it's trying to make the situation simpler for politics. Reportedly Manchin is getting $500,000 a year from the coal ownership, which might be enough to have an effect on him but is hardly 'baron' wealth. The boat he lives on isn't really in the league of what 'yacht' means today, such as Tiger Woods' yacht or Bezos' $500 million yacht, it's a pretty modest lifestyle it seems.

The real issues are a little more complicated, involving the many hundreds of billions at stake for the fossil fuel industry and the great power they have.

A good picture of what's happening came out when activists tricked fossil fuel lobbyists into exposing their activities, which included praise for Manchin as a key ally and saying they had meetings with his staff every week.

This 'maybe you don't live in a real democracy' has truth to it, but not because Manchin is a "baron". These aren't the situations where 'robber barons' sat in the Senate. It's where corrupted hirelings sit in the Senate serving powerful interests outside of it.

The much larger issue than Manchin, is why the forces of corruption completely own 50 seats in the Senate held by their servants, called 'Republicans'. The American people should have supermajorities of Democrats in the Senate as they have under FDR and LBJ, to actually get things done, instead of a zero vote majority making Manchin a king.

 

[Callen]

I'm with you. Manchin, in particular, will never ditch the filibuster. Which is very smart IMO

We'll see. He might just do it as a one off on voters rights after the GOP burned him.

 

[Deuce]

That's - sorry for the bluntness - an idiotic argument. This is a spending bill to do things. It's not about 'cutting' anything. So things are either included or they're not. There was a bill the budget committee designed and wrote, and then things are being cut from that bill to make it a smaller bill. Cut is a correct word.

That's - sorry for the bluntness - an idiotic argument. This is a spending bill to do things and such bills can still cut things that already exist in order to maintain better budgetary impact.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Pelosi said they would. Pelosi is not the head of nor even in what is referred to as the "Progressive Caucus" of the DEM Party. That Sept 27th was targeted has nothing to do with anything.

It has to do with the House passing an important bill by the deadline they set.

 

[Craig234]

That's - sorry for the bluntness - an idiotic argument. This is a spending bill to do things and such bills can still cut things that already exist in order to maintain better budgetary impact.

No longer going to read your posts. This bill has nothing to do with cutting any programs. Your commentary is a waste of time.