US Politics: Biden vs. Ron DeCardassian in the Delta quadrant

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

And I'm saying they shouldn't.

That's certainly a position to have, though I disagree with it. Sometimes small minorities of senators are right and should block the caucus from doing something, or at least try to. Not in this case; in this case I'd spend way more than $3.5 trillion since debt is so cheap still. But for instance anytime Ron Wyden almost single hand-idly blocks yet another terrible online copyright law, he is making way more than a 2% change. And anyone who cares about the internet should be very glad he does. In my opinion anyway.

Also, my original point wasn't about the should, just about the would/could. But should is an opinion, and I've stopped trying to change opinions.

[Martell Spy]

Progressives already compromised before this began, on the policy content of the bill. We went from universal health care, or a large step toward, to Biden being for a public option. Then, Medicare's age was going to be lowered, and now that was cut. If there wasn't a lot of good things in this bill, progressives would already be in full revolt.

As for cutting the 3.5 number, it really matters what is cut. I'm going to be upset and calling politicians if the medication plan, the paid leave portion, or the increased transfers to children are cut.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Not in this case; in this case I'd spend way more than $3.5 trillion since debt is so cheap still.

K then.

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, my original point wasn't about the should, just about the would/could. But should is an opinion, and I've stopped trying to change opinions.

That's on me.  I verged from the empirical to the normative there.  However, I do think it's an empirical point too - when I say "and I'm saying it shouldn't," I think it's pretty clear I'm speaking for the vast majority of the Democratic caucus right now, at least according to recent reports.  And, most importantly, speaking for the leadership.  Think it's hard to argue Pelosi and Schumer aren't saying the same thing - and I entirely agree with them.  Enough is enough.  If Manchin, Sinema, et al. want some condolence prizes fine.  Otherwise, get in fucking line.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Gimme a fucking break.  It is entirely relevant that 48 of 50 within your caucus agree to something.  Or somewhere abouts.  Let's say it's 5-10% in both chambers that have a problem with the 3.5 number.  K, I don't think this is best way to operate - and there's obviously other important aspects to the bill beyond the final dollar figure - but that would mean a 5-10% cut would be an appropriate compromise?  No?

Yeesh.  So what exactly is your argument here?  The "progressives" should just accept because it's better than nothing?  How about the other way around?  Why isn't it that the "moderates" should just accept it "because it certainly would be better than nothing" - both policywise and electorally?  You're either bending over to, like, 15 moderate - and frankly assholic - MCs, or shilling for them.

To the first part, I agree with Fez. It shouldn’t be the rule every time, but yes, now and then a small portion of the caucus will disproportionately impact major legislation.

And if you recall from a while back I did say the moderates should have just gone along with the $3.5T number. Their interests seem to be politically driven with policy being a secondary concern. I believe the moderates are wrong to think this will hurt them electorally. Nobody is going to care if the final number is $2.5T, $3.5T or something in between. All that matters is passing the bill while looking competent and making sure it’s designed in such a way to get the funds out quickly so people can feel the real world impact.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

To the first part, I agree with Fez. It shouldn’t be the rule every time, but yes, now and then a small portion of the caucus will disproportionately impact major legislation.

No, they don't.  Not like this (sorry Switch).  And even if they did, the point is they should not in this case.  That is what the leadership is maintaining, that is what the progressives are maintaining, that is what the vast majority Democrats - elite, organizationally, and electorally - are maintaining.  I stand by them.  Your position very obviously seemed to be the opposite - as in they should eat a 25% cut.  I strongly disagree, if that's still your position.

[Zorral]

How far this will go, though, who knows, with the anxieties about which party gets or keeps majorities.

Quote

House committee seeks documents from agencies on January 6 Capitol attack, signaling massive investigative effort

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/politics/january-6-house-documents-investigation/index.html

 

[Zorral]

"August 24, 2021
6 In 10 Floridians Support Requiring Masks In Schools, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; 61% Say Recent Rise In COVID-19 Cases In Florida Was Preventable"

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?

Quote

As COVID-19 makes a frightening resurgence, it's Tallahassee vs. the teaching institutions. Thumbs down from Floridians on DeSantis' ban on mask requirements in public schools. Thumbs down on DeSantis' call to freeze pay of administrators who mandate mask wearing. And he gets scant support from fellow Republicans on penalizing the school leaders who defy him,"
said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy.

 

[Maithanet]

Quinnipiac consistently predicts that Democrats are going to win Florida by 8-15 points.  They are so bad at polling Florida it has become something of a joke to Florida politicos like Steve Schale (Obama's Florida campaign manager).  I wouldn't take any Florida poll of theirs seriously. 

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Quinnipiac consistently predicts that Democrats are going to win Florida by 8-15 points.

Generally, yeah, but 8-15 is a bit much.  Dunno why I feel defensive but I do.  Here's this:

Quote

If the final Quinnipiac poll of Florida holds up, Joe Biden is headed to a big win over Donald Trump in the Sunshine State.

In a live dial survey of 1,657 likely voters conducted between Oct. 28 and Nov. 1  on both landlines and cellphones, Biden is the choice of 48% and Trump just 43%.

 

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Generally, yeah, but 8-15 is a bit much.  Dunno why I feel defensive but I do.  Here's this:

Yes, I'm exaggerating a bit, but they had Biden by double digits in Florida several times over the course of the race.  Which everyone who knows anything about Florida knew was wrong. 

Likewise they had big leads for Clinton in '16 and Gillum in '18.  They are consistently wrong about Florida. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

No, they don't.  Not like this (sorry Switch).  And even if they did, the point is they should not in this case.  That is what the leadership is maintaining, that is what the progressives are maintaining, that is what the vast majority Democrats - elite, organizationally, and electorally - are maintaining.  I stand by them.  Your position very obviously seemed to be the opposite - as in they should eat a 25% cut.  I strongly disagree, if that's still your position.

No, they shouldn’t, but that’s what is happening right now. I have always maintained that everyone should have moved on the $3.5T package the second the hard infrastructure bill got out of the Senate. Full stop. I have never once moved off that position, except for maybe being open to even more spending if it made sense. I also did not say, or mean to imply, that they should just eat a 25% cut. What I was saying is that it’s better to get 75% of something you want than nothing at all. As to the 20% I guessed they might ask for, I threw that out there because like I said before, it’s hard to see Manchin and Sinema doing this for just a tiny cut. If they counter with $3.25T the progressive wing should grab it in a second. If it’s a bigger cut, push back to some degree, but regardless of the final sum these two bills represent transformative legislation and it should not be blown up over one side or the other feeling like they need to win the negotiation. Take the easy victory in front of you and pop champagne in the Oval Office like you just won the Superb Owl already.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Likewise they had big leads for Clinton in '16 and Gillum in '18.  They are consistently wrong about Florida. 

I understand.  Just felt it worthwhile to say the error wasn't that large when taking into consideration the poll Zorral cited.  In other words, while it might not actually be 61% - and is almost certainly lower - it's still probably a majority.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What I was saying is that it’s better to get 75% of something you want than nothing at all.

K.  Just seems curious how you blow a gasket if the "left" throws its weight around on negotiations, but have this insanely conciliatory approach when the "moderates" do the same exact thing.  Kinda shows where you stand on things.  Which is way far right for my tastes, but you do you.

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

it’s hard to see Manchin and Sinema doing this for just a tiny cut.

Why?  Manchin did performative dance for a bunch of bullshit during the stimulus bill.  Why should we believe this will actually be different?

19 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Take the easy victory in front of you and pop champagne in the Oval Office like you just won the Superb Owl already.

Agreed.  The "moderates" should stop being so needlessly obstinate and take the win.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nobody is going to care if the final number is $2.5T, $3.5T or something in between. All that matters is passing the bill while looking competent and making sure it’s designed in such a way to get the funds out quickly so people can feel the real world impact.

This is not quite true. For a little over a decade, the US has been conducting an interesting experiment to see how much money can be injected into the economy without causing inflation. It worked much better than anyone could have expected: the money flow started under G.W. Bush and really went full steam under Obama (for the Great Recession) and then Trump (for the pandemic) without any abnormal inflation whatsoever (it was near the 2% target as recently as 2020 and spring of 2021). However, it's clear that this cannot go on forever: if enough money is injected, there will be inflation (imagine a stimulus of $50,000 per person or something like that) and in fact over this summer we've finally seen inflation rates of over 5%.

Now, it could be that the current inflation is due to a confluence of extraordinary factors which will not repeat (e.g. the chip shortage) and it is perfectly safe to inject another $4-5T (remember, the reconciliation is on top of the bipartisan spending) this fall. However, it can also be that we've reached the end of the line with this experiment and the time has come to pay the piper. Most younger people in the US have no memory of double digit inflation, but Manchin is old enough to remember and I doubt he wants to go back to that world.

The question is then what amount do people like Manchin and the corporate backers of the moderate Democrats think is safe. From what Manchin and Sinema have said so far, I think $3.5T is a good deal too far, but it's hard to be sure.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The question is then what amount do people like Manchin and the corporate backers of the moderate Democrats think is safe. From what Manchin and Sinema have said so far, I think $3.5T is a good deal too far, but it's hard to be sure.

Actually, in terms of policy, the operative question is always how much is going to be put back into the economy.  And there's no evidence any of the $3.5 trillion bill won't.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

K.  Just seems curious how you blow a gasket if the "left" throws its weight around on negotiations, but have this insanely conciliatory approach when the "moderates" do the same exact thing.  Kinda shows where you stand on things.  Which is way far right for my tastes, but you do you.

This has nothing to do with right/left ideology and everything to do with getting something passed. Priorities one, two and three need to be don't fuck this up, don't fuck this up and seriously guys, don't fuck this up. As of now what I've seen is Manchin and Semina want a smaller bill, but I'm not sure just how much smaller that is. The loudest voices of the progressive side have countered that they'll walk away if that's the case. The moderates were dumb to create this mess in the first place, but my fear is if that ultimately it will be the progressive who balk at a final deal.

Quote

Why?  Manchin did performative dance for a bunch of bullshit during the stimulus bill.  Why should we believe this will actually be different?

Sure, but this feels different. At the time I was not worried about it and said let him bitch and moan. I always assumed he'd get in line in the end. 

Right now I suspect Manchin and Senima are asking for significant cuts to the bill. To what extent I cannot say, but I have to believe if they were asking to trim it by $100B-$250B that Schumer and Pelosi would have made that deal. That's why I threw out a larger number like 20%. Can progressives accept that deal or will they walk away? And if so, where do they go from there? I don't think talks could be restarted right away and the whole ordeal could poison the well on both sides for sometime moving forward, which is the single worst outcome. 

So yes, the moderates should have always taken the initial offer from the jump, as I've always said, but that doesn't justify some of the brinkmanship from the progressives. It's rather stunning both how easy this all should have been and how much damage could be caused by negotiations breaking down, which is what I've actually been blowing a gasket about since this all began and why I've consistently stressed that this needs to get wrapped up quickly. The longer it drags out, the more likely this all collapses in on itself. 

[rotting sea cow]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

This is not quite true. For a little over a decade, the US has been conducting an interesting experiment to see how much money can be injected into the economy without causing inflation. It worked much better than anyone could have expected: the money flow started under G.W. Bush and really went full steam under Obama (for the Great Recession) and then Trump (for the pandemic) without any abnormal inflation whatsoever (it was near the 2% target as recently as 2020 and spring of 2021). However, it's clear that this cannot go on forever: if enough money is injected, there will be inflation (imagine a stimulus of $50,000 per person or something like that) and in fact over this summer we've finally seen inflation rates of over 5%.

I'm not economist and neither I know the details of the living standards in the US, but I have the impression that prices have increased sharply in other areas, instead of showing up in daily products. For example, housing prices have increased a lot around the world, with associated investement typical at blame. College tuitions have also increased in US as far as I understand, same with health insurance. I'm unsure if they are typically included in inflation statistics, but the burden of the increasing live costs is being felt around the world. 

 

[Ser Reptitious]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

So yes, the moderates should have always taken the initial offer from the jump, as I've always said, but that doesn't justify some of the brinkmanship from the progressives. It's rather stunning both how easy this all should have been and how much damage could be caused by negotiations breaking down, which is what I've actually been blowing a gasket about since this all began and why I've consistently stressed that this needs to get wrapped up quickly. The longer it drags out, the more likely this all collapses in on itself. 

In short, if this deal falls apart, you will automatically blame the progressives, regardless of who is really at fault, because they didn't bend over far enough for the moderates. 

[Zorral]

50 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

prices have increased sharply in other areas, instead of showing up in daily products.

No longer true.  We've got such a labor shortage across entire food industry, from artisanal farming to meat packing to restaurants to truck drivers, etc.  We've got drought, wildfires, floods and crop diseases in all the best agricultural regions that produce everything from industrial commercial products such as alfalfa, corn, grains and cereals and corn to feed dairy and meat animals from chickens to pork. They have hit the wine grape growing regions -- and don't forget this affects beer too.  As well the difficulties for getting packaging, from aluminum for cans (beer! hard selzer!) already in place last winter is increasing.  And on and on.

Prices are increasing.  I have been watching them closely for months, so yes.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, rotting sea cow said:

I'm not economist and neither I know the details of the living standards in the US, but I have the impression that prices have increased sharply in other areas, instead of showing up in daily products. For example, housing prices have increased a lot around the world, with associated investement typical at blame. College tuitions have also increased in US as far as I understand, same with health insurance. I'm unsure if they are typically included in inflation statistics, but the burden of the increasing live costs is being felt around the world.

You are right in that the prices of several categories of goods not tracked by the most common inflation indexes have been increasing longer (and in some cases quite sharply), but this year, the prices of pretty much everything -- including indexed goods -- are up by quite a bit. There's no hiding from the fact that inflation is here anymore; the debate is now over whether it is temporary and will go away by itself or something actually has to be done about it. If the latter, then injecting more money into the economy is rather like pouring gasoline on a fire.