US Politics: Maniac Manchin

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Will, first of all because he insisted on maintaining the bipartisan group throughout the spring.  Second, it's rather obvious the only reason he voted to advance the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill in the first place was to ensure the infrastructure bill was passed.  Third, and most obviously, if he didn't care about anything passing he wouldn't be engaging in a media onslaught the past week or so that directly puts himself out there if both bills fail.

Sure, there is no doubt that he wants to pass the infrastructure bill and a smaller (i.e. not $3.5T) reconciliation bill. What I don't understand is how you get from this to the far less obvious conclusion of what he would choose between passing the $3.5T bill (which he has said multiple times is unacceptable) and not passing the infrastructure bill in September.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Calm yourself Derek. 

Don't do that.  It's incredibly douchy.

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I very explicitly said progressives should be willing to take 80% of the $3.5T deal knowing there was another $1.1T in spending alongside it. 

Second, I did say Progressives may have to accept a deal that is less than that.

Exactly!  You said they would have to accept anything as low as $1.5 trillion.  Which is incredibly feckless.  This percentages game you're playing doesn't matter at all.  I'm glad you've finally admitted you're willing to do whatever Manchin says, which, fortunately, Democratic leaders are not prepared to do.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I did also say that by dragging things on they're increasinging the chance that they get a worse deal, or no deal at all. Seems pretty accurate so far, no?

Nope, doesn't seem accurate at all.  They haven't finished marking up the bills yet.  You saying they're "dragging things on" is simply making things up.

[DMC]

Just now, Altherion said:

What I don't understand is how you get from this to the far less obvious conclusion of what he would choose between passing the $3.5T bill (which he has said multiple times is unacceptable) and not passing the infrastructure bill in September.

I'm saying it's a false choice and the progressives - and especially the Democratic leadership - have just as much leverage as Manchin does.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

Don't do that.  It's incredibly douchy.

Compare that to the many things you've said to me and others in numerous threads. You've lost the right to play that card buddy.

Quote

Exactly!  You said they would have to accept anything as low as $1.5 trillion.  Which is incredibly feckless.  This percentages game you're playing doesn't matter at all.  I'm glad you've finally admitted you're willing to do whatever Manchin says, which, fortunately, Democratic leaders are not prepared to do.

Reading, not your strong suit apparently. I said progressives have to look themselves in the mirror if all they can get is a $1.5T bill on top of $1.1T infrastructure deal. And yes, if that is a take it or leave situation they should take it. That said, we're a long ways from that point, and as I've also said several times, his offer should be declined, which Schumer quickly did, as expected. 

Quote

Nope, doesn't seem accurate at all.  They haven't finished marking up the bills yet.  You saying they're "dragging things on" is simply making things up.

You think the mark up is what's actually happening? Dude that's just for show. none of us are seeing what's really going on. I ventured to guess that Machin wanted to cut the bill by 20%. Who could have known he wanted to trim it down to $1.5T without him first saying so?

[DMC]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Reading, not your strong suit apparently. I said progressives have to look themselves in the mirror if all they can get is a $1.5T bill on top of $1.1T infrastructure deal. And yes, if that is a take it or leave situation they should take it.

My reading is that you're being spineless in saying the progressives - and even Biden - have to accept whatever Manchin offers.  Which is exactly what you just said.  Your position is feckless and ignorantly acts as if Manchin has all the leverage.  It's amateur hour, and luckily the Dem leadership are not behaving in any way close to how you suggest they should.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You think the mark up is what's actually happening? Dude that's just for show. none of us are seeing what's really going on.

 No, the mark up is not just for show.  Once completed, it will force Manchin to identify exactly what he wants cut.  This is exactly how to get Manchin to comply - as evidenced by the fact it's exactly how they reached a deal on the voting rights bill, which he repeatedly said he opposed only to eventually reach a deal with minimal concessions.  If you understood how the legislative process actually works, you would understand this.

[Altherion]

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm saying it's a false choice and the progressives - and especially the Democratic leadership - have just as much leverage as Manchin does.

In what sense is it a false choice? Manchin's choices are:

1) To go back on his words and vote for the $3.5T bill (or something very similar).

2) To stand by his words and continue demanding that the $3.5T be reduced by a non-trivial amount even if this results in the House not passing the infrastructure bill.

I don't see anything else he can do and I don't know which of these options he will choose if the House Democrats vote against the infrastructure bill -- and I don't see how anyone except Manchin himself would know the latter.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

In what sense is it a false choice? Manchin's choices are:

1) To go back on his words and vote for the $3.5T bill (or something very similar).

2) To stand by his words and continue demanding that the $3.5T be reduced by a non-trivial amount even if this results in the House not passing the infrastructure bill.

Option 3 is to relent with minimal concessions, like he did with the stimulus bill and - while it still has no chance of passing cloture - the voting rights bill.  Prior behavior clearly suggests Manchin is much more pliable than you're portraying.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Again, I'm not a moderate. I argued here that money can be done away with at the expense of losing some respect from @Mlle. Zabzie and @Iskaral Pust, for example. But I also said that would probably happen long after we're all dead. I have firm beliefs, but I also believe that things need to get done and I'm not going to blow everything up just because I don't get exactly what I want. 

Survive and advance baby! 

I mean, hard to lose what you don’t have….  But on further reflection that might be more sports ball related, or possibly entertainment related….Anyhow, I think it’s a cute idea………

I AM a moderate.  And while y’all were measuring your long a$$ progressive bona fides, WSJ published a summary of the 4 page summary of the increases portion of the bill, expected to be released tomorrow:

• $1 trillion of increases on individuals.  Raising individual rate to 39.6, kicking in basically at $400K ($450 married).  Adding Medicare tax on active income (3.8%).  Increasing top cap gains rate to 28.8 (that includes 3.8% Medicare tax, so would be 25%).
• $900 billion of increases on corporations.  Top rate of 26.5%, raising GILTI to 16.5% on a country by country basis.
• Funny money stuff that won’t count for scoring on IRS enforcement.
• Something about drug pricing policy changes.
• No estate tax fix.
• Possibly a $1 million limit on deductible exec. Comp. (that’s actually going to be a huge market shock).
• Possibly finally killing the carried interest preference.

This is another Zabzie full employment act.  Which will be renewed in either 4 or 8 years when control of the presidency and Congress inevitably flips again.  It’s actually not so great - sort of a sign of our unstable regime.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I love how history always gets re-written to favor moderates. Moderates already negotiated the bill down from a higher number.

As Bernie said, he already negotiated down from 6.5 trillion. Progressives need to hold strong and not pass any of it if people like Manchin are just going to arbitrarily change their minds on what's best for the rest of us. He was once saying 5 trillion would be acceptable, but he said even that was low. His obstruction changes at a whim.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I'm saying it's a false choice and the progressives - and especially the Democratic leadership - have just as much leverage as Manchin does.

Agreed. And I've been really surprised and impressed with both Pelosi and Schumer on this. They want to see Biden's legislation pass, and they're positioning themselves against so-called "moderate" dems. They have lots of leverage, and while Manchin can tank the bills, I think there will be repercussions for him if he does. I'm curious to see what the establishment party has in mind. (Note: not curious enough that I want to see the infrastructure bills die)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Agreed. And I've been really surprised and impressed with both Pelosi and Schumer on this. They want to see Biden's legislation pass, and they're positioning themselves against so-called "moderate" dems. They have lots of leverage, and while Manchin can tank the bills, I think there will be repercussions for him if he does. I'm curious to see what the establishment party has in mind. (Note: not curious enough that I want to see the infrastructure bills die)

What consequences should the Democratic Party impose on Manchin?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

My reading is that you're being spineless in saying the progressives - and even Biden - have to accept whatever Manchin offers.  Which is exactly what you just said.  Your position is feckless and ignorantly acts as if Manchin has all the leverage.  It's amateur hour, and luckily the Dem leadership are not behaving in any way close to how you suggest they should.

Lol, in your mind maybe. What I've said, over and over and over again, is that there needs to be a deal. And you, in turn, have said that you have pocket aces and everyone needs to respect that despite you having seven-two offsuit. That's how delusional you've been. You have never once argued why your strategy will work. Not once. Just underpants gnomes logic. That's literally all you've offered. But keep calling me feckless despite your inability to articulate a strategy, or even remembering the basics of what I've said.

And amatuer hour is when Pelosi offered a deal that cannot not work. We're about to see that play out unless, yes, the liberals fold, because I don't see the moderates doing so and if they don't and the progressives walk, good luck with that.

Quote

 No, the mark up is not just for show.  Once completed, it will force Manchin to identify exactly what he wants cut.  This is exactly how to get Manchin to comply - as evidenced by the fact it's exactly how they reached a deal on the voting rights bill, which he repeatedly said he opposed only to eventually reach a deal with minimal concessions.  If you understood how the legislative process actually works, you would understand this.

Says the guy talking to someone with real experience in this area. They're all putting on a front. What's actually happening is much harder to figure out, but what's clear is that Manchin is not going to vote for a package that's $3.5T. You can keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel good, but we'll talk when the real world slaps you in the face and makes you realize you've been dead wrong all along. Manchin isn't going to agree to anything near that price tag, and your refusal to accept that is squarely on you. 

53 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I mean, hard to lose what you don’t have….  

Go Zabz yourself. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

42 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

As Bernie said, he already negotiated down from 6.5 trillion. 

Which is a laughable number. By this logic if I offer an absurd number, anything less than that, even it still feels absurd to some, is a compromise. Get it into your head that $3.5T was never an acceptable number, so claiming that it's a compromise based on this logic is a joke.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lol, in your mind maybe. What I've said, over and over and over again, is that there needs to be a deal. And you, in turn, have said that you have pocket aces and everyone needs to respect that despite you having seven-two offsuit. That's how delusional you've been. You have never once argued why your strategy will work. Not once. Just underpants gnomes logic. That's literally all you've offered. But keep calling me feckless despite your inability to articulate a strategy, or even remembering the basics of what I've said.

I keep calling you feckless because your "strategy" is feckless.  You just said the "progressives" - which means effectively the entire Dem party - should just accept it if Manchin insists on only $1.5 trillion.  That, objectively, is saying the Dem party should do whatever Manchin says.  Which, in turn, is objectively feckless.  Deal with that fact however you like.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And amatuer hour is when Pelosi offered a deal that cannot not work.

Pelosi offered to hold a vote, not a deal.  You can't even get that straight.  Your inability to grasp the situation continues to be amateur hour.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Says the guy talking to someone with real experience in this area.

You have no experience in negotiating a trillion dollar presidential initiative.  Your delusions of grandeur have gotten to seriously disturbing levels if you think you do.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I now have my hands on the doc itself, so going to add some additional substance to the arm chair legislating going on here:

1. Carry not dead - proposing a 5 year holding period.  This is a gift to Schwartzman and NAREIT.

2. Did propose to halve the estate tax exemption and to do away with valuation discounts for minority positions (except g-d mythical family farms).  There is also something inchoate about grantor trusts.

3. Limits interest deductions in the US of multi-national groups in proportion to “earnings”.  Lord knows what that means.

4. Exec. Comp. limits just for public companies.  See 1.  I see a huge wave of take privates about to happen.

5.  There’s some stuff on tobacco.

6.  There is some arcane stuff on BEAT, FDII, etc.

7.  There is something inchoate on derivatives.

Anyhow, we will see what is actually released tomorrow, and how it scores.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

I keep calling you feckless because your "strategy" is feckless.  You just said the "progressives" - which means effectively the entire Dem party - should just accept it if Manchin insists on only $1.5 trillion.  That, objectively, is saying the Dem party should do whatever Manchin says.  Which, in turn, is objectively feckless.  Deal with that fact however you like.

No, I said over and over we now know what the floor is. The key is finding out how much you can raise his ceiling by. And yes, whatever that ceiling is is probably what progressives are going to have to accept in the short term, or they can eat nothing and tell their base they fought the good fight, but came back with empty hands on the promise that somehow a better deal exists tomorrow, which it very much does not.

You have yet to lay out anything that will actually produce the results you claim to want to achieve. Just more repeating a doomed strategy that has no chance, but hey, you can claim you weren't feckless. Maybe Manchin completely changes his mind, because that's all you have to bank on. 

Quote

Pelosi offered to hold a vote, not a deal.  You can't even get that straight.  Your inability to grasp the situation continues to be amateur hour.

She offered to hold a vote on a bill everyone knows must pass. Full stop, no debate. If it fails, we'll know exactly why and how and those parties will eat the blunt of the blame along with Biden. Pelosi knows this, and she knows that bill has to pass. Anything short will be a complete failure on her part.

Quote

You have no experience in negotiating a trillion dollar presidential initiative.  Your delusions of grandeur have gotten to seriously disturbing levels if you think you do.

No, not for a trillion dollar bill, nothing close to it. But I have been in legislative negotiations with actual bills at stake.

You haven't, and probably never will. Why would anyone want you there given how you've comported yourself? I like you, but leaning in on being a complete asshole isn't going to accomplish much, especially when you're laughably wrong on basically everything. You can't even remember the positions I've taken and just keep making them up for whatever reason. Then you keep on insisting on a strategy that has almost no chance of prevailing.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You haven't, and probably never will. Why would anyone want you there given how you've comported yourself? I like you, but leaning in on being a complete asshole isn't going to accomplish much, especially when you're laughably wrong on basically everything. You can't even remember the positions I've taken and just keep making them up for whatever reason.

Your position has repeatedly been the Dems have to accept whatever Manchin offers.  You keep on trying to deflect from that while simultaneously admitting as much in the same exact posts.  That's my problem.  That you can't get that is your own problem.  And just because you were some low level staffer doesn't mean you know what the fuck you're talking about in the slightest.  You're just some silly kid that blatantly wants to put the blame on progressives instead of where it belongs.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Your position has repeatedly been the Dems have to accept whatever Manchin offers.  You keep on trying to deflect from that while simultaneously admitting as much in the same exact posts.  That's my problem.  That you can't get that is your own problem.  And just because you were some low level staffer doesn't mean you know what the fuck you're talking about in the slightest.  You're just some silly kid that blatantly wants to put the blame on progressives instead of where it belongs.

Except I've never said that. Not once. I have never said the left just has to roll over and take what he offers. Quite the opposite, as time after time I've said they need to know what his floor is so then they can negotiate up from there. Pretty easy to understand, I would think. Quit putting words in my mouth.

And yes, if we exclude state politics I've never worked more than a middling position for an elected official, but that's still a lot more than most can say, including yourself I believe. And yes I was there at times during these exact kinds of discussions without ever getting anyone a cup of coffee. Truth is what you've argued would be roundly laughed at. So far all you've said is Manchin should do a complete about face, and that will solve everything. Hello buddy, that's almost certain to not happen, so repeating it over and over just makes you look like a fool. You must accept that he isn't going to capitulate to the demands of progressives. Sure you can burn it all down if you want, but what good does that do anyone? And if you're not going to burn it all down you have to play his game, shitty as it may be. Thems are the breaks, bro, and barking at the moon isn't going to change anything. 

Lastly, no, I don't want to blame progressives. I actually side with them a lot more than I ever would with Manchin. I'm very clearly telling you they will be the ones who will get blamed regardless if that's fair or not. Wake the fuck up. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Except I've never said that. Not once. I have never said the left just has to roll over and take what he offers. Quite the opposite, as time after time I've said they need to know what his floor is so then they can negotiate up from there. Pretty easy to understand, I would think. Quit putting words in my mouth.

You've said it three times in the last four hours!  Seriously, how you can be this delusional is beyond me.  It's frankly not even worth responding to at this point.  But in case you're wondering what you yourself said, here ya go:

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Second, I did say Progressives may have to accept a deal that is less than that.

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I said progressives have to look themselves in the mirror if all they can get is a $1.5T bill on top of $1.1T infrastructure deal. And yes, if that is a take it or leave situation they should take it.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yes, whatever that ceiling is is probably what progressives are going to have to accept in the short term, or they can eat nothing and tell their base they fought the good fight, but came back with empty hands on the promise that somehow a better deal exists tomorrow, which it very much does not.

It's a shocking delusion that you don't get what you're actually arguing.  I think Manchin can be reasoned with.  Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden all think Manchin can be reasoned with.  You're the only one that thinks the Dems have to accept whatever terms he stipulates and capitulate to his demands.  It's a completely ignorant and naive position you've taken that is not based on Manchin's own behavior since Biden took office.

If you want to shill for Manchin, that's your own business.  But please stop acting as if he's the only one with leverage and the party has to bend to his will.  It's a preposterous position.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Which is a laughable number. By this logic if I offer an absurd number, anything less than that, even it still feels absurd to some, is a compromise. Get it into your head that $3.5T was never an acceptable number, so claiming that it's a compromise based on this logic is a joke.

Yeah, he just made up a number. Or, he saw we've neglected infrastructure and American workers for decades and said, "hey, this is a minor step in the right direction." 

Are you a Republican or something? You sure are concerned about restoring meager amounts of prosperity to Americans.

I mean, you either have no clue how 3.5 trillion over ten years looks compared to yearly budgets, or you're just being disingenuous.