US Politics: Maniac Manchin

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Also, unrelated, but it appears police reform talks are now dead. Just add that to this awful week in Washington.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Oh the Repubs not taking their open shot to destroy the dems once and for all:

 

 

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think anyone has said it should be cut that low, and I doubt Manchin is set in stone at that number. If he is then yes that would be acting in bad faith.

YOU have said if that's all that they can get out of Manchin, then the progressives should just take it.  Repeatedly.  How you don't get that my problem is with your approach here - not that you agree that such a low number is "wrong" - is baffling.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

When I proposed at 20% you specifically said at that time that progressives should not compromise, at all.

No, I didn't.  Please stop lying.

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's also hard to let them off the hook if they kill it prematurely, which they as of right now have said they'll do. I've seen several members of the CPC say it's $3.5T or nothing.

Again, "killing" the vote next Monday, if it even happens, is not killing anything.  It's simply the progressives refusing to give away their only leverage before a deal on reconciliation is reached.  Pelosi can schedule another vote whenever she wants.  Which makes sense to anyone that understands these negotiations.

[Gorn]

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's only a fact if you accept the logic that Sanders can throw out an insane number, then say $3.5T is my compromise. That's not how a good faith negotiation works. And yes you have said several times that's the compromise number and progressives should not accept anything less while also acknowledging that it will be less than that.

It is both sides fault if things collapse, and trying to assign blame to only one side is not an accurate read of the situation.

Paid sick leave, paid medical/family leave, increase of Social Security benefits, increase of Pell grants, tax credit for child care - these are all major Democratic 2020 campaign promises that are missing from the $3.5T bill, and they were obviously cut as a result of behind-the-scenes compromises.

[DMC]

11 senators urge House to pass $3.5T package before infrastructure bill:

Quote

The senators said they voted to pass a nearly $1 trillion infrastructure bill in August with “the clear commitment” that the deal would move alongside the Democrats’ larger spending plan. 

They said passing the smaller physical infrastructure bill in the House before the social spending plan, which will move through the budget reconciliation process to bypass a GOP filibuster, “would be in violation of that agreement.” 

“Congress must not undercut the president’s proposals that will create new opportunities for America’s families and workers,” they said. “The House of Representatives should wait to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill until the budget reconciliation bill, which enacts the rest of the President’s Build Back Better agenda, is sent to the president’s desk.”

 

[Kalbear]

36 minutes ago, DMC said:

11 senators urge House to pass $3.5T package before infrastructure bill:

 

Thank goodness, now that Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker have come along, Joe Manchin is SURE to turn things around

(I know that's not why you posted it, but I thought it was funny)

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

Paid sick leave, paid medical/family leave, increase of Social Security benefits, increase of Pell grants, tax credit for child care - these are all major Democratic 2020 campaign promises that are missing from the $3.5T bill, and they were obviously cut as a result of behind-the-scenes compromises.

Uh...most of that appears to be in there:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/politics/senate-reconciliation-package/index.html

Quote

The budget framework seeks to establish a universal Pre-K program for 3- and 4-year-olds and a new child care benefit for working families.

The framework also calls for enhancing child care for working families. Under Biden's proposal, low- and middle-income households would pay no more than 7% of their income on child care for kids younger than age 5. Parents earning up to 1.5 times the median income in their state would qualify. The President also wants to invest more in the child care workforce to bring their wages up to $15 an hour, from the typical $12.24 hourly rate they earned in 2020.

Quote

The resolution calls for increasing the Pell Grant award and making investments in historically Black colleges and universities, as well as other institutions that cater to students of color. The President's plan would provide up to approximately $1,400 in additional assistance to low-income students by increasing the Pell Grant award.

Quote

The blueprint asks to create the first federal paid and medical leave benefit. The American Families Plan calls for giving workers a total of 12 weeks of guaranteed paid parental, family and personal illness/safe leave by the 10th year of the program.

What is missing then?

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

Thank goodness, now that Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker have come along, Joe Manchin is SURE to turn things around

Hey, Booker got Rosario Dawson to sleep with him, do not discount his powers of persuasion.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Hey, Booker got Rosario Dawson to sleep with him, do not discount his powers of persuasion.

Cory Booker's dick is the only thing that can save Joe Manchin's soul.

[Week]

11 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

Uh...most of that appears to be in there:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/09/politics/senate-reconciliation-package/index.html

What is missing then?

God, think about the inflation! /weeps

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I mean, I know we'll never get it but Biden did mention something about a public option, police reform, and, I guess, allowing us to declare bankruptcy on student loans. I see all three of those being cut in initial negotiations.

I think most of us who care about the above have kept quiet because the infrastructure package has serious climate change policies in it. If Manchin has his way, I imagine he'd go for those policies to be cut. For me, that's the line. We're out of time, and dicking around so Manchin can keep raking in his own personal fortune is not worth it. 

[TrackerNeil]

On 9/21/2021 at 2:41 PM, Gorn said:

Can we please stop defending and excusing serial sexual harassers because they have similar political views? Thank you.

Is that what is happening here? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

YOU have said if that's all that they can get out of Manchin, then the progressives should just take it.  Repeatedly.  How you don't get that my problem is with your approach here - not that you agree that such a low number is "wrong" - is baffling.

Because again if it's something or nothing, and those are literally the only two choices, you probably have to hold your nose and accept something short of what you want. I never once said you just take the shitty offer without first trying to negotiate like hell to raise the number.

Quote

No, I didn't.  Please stop lying.

You 100% did and I asked you the same basic question a number of different ways. You repeated over and over that progressives should not compromise on the $3.5T number and that it was incumbent on Manchin to be the one to relinquish his stance.

Quote

Again, "killing" the vote next Monday, if it even happens, is not killing anything.  It's simply the progressives refusing to give away their only leverage before a deal on reconciliation is reached.  Pelosi can schedule another vote whenever she wants.  Which makes sense to anyone that understands these negotiations.

I think you're seriously miscalculating just how little trust there is in the party right now, and that it's a two way street. Why should the moderates trust Pelosi if she holds up the vote, and why should they trust their progressive colleagues if the kill the bill, because yes if this goes to a vote and they spike it Sinema has said talks are over for now. Things will just continue to get worse after that point and no one seems to have a backup plan. 

And like I said before, regardless of who is doing it, the strategy of demanding you get everything you want or everyone gets nothing is a terrible way to negotiate with members of your own party. Their leverage point has been a bad one from the jump, and just further feeds in to the erosion of trust.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

You 100% did and I asked you the same basic question a number of different ways. You repeated over and over that progressives should not compromise on the $3.5T number and that it was incumbent on Manchin to be the one to relinquish his stance.

No, I didn't.  Please stop lying.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think you're seriously miscalculating just how little trust there is in the party right now, and that it's a two way street. Why should the moderates trust Pelosi if she holds up the vote, and why should they trust their progressive colleagues if the kill the bill, because yes if this goes to a vote and they spike it Sinema has said talks are over for now. Things will just continue to get worse after that point and no one seems to have a backup plan. 

I doubt that's the case, but even if it is, then that's on Sinema.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, I didn't.  Please stop lying.

Just went back and checked and yes you did. You said a number of times that 48 senators and House progressives should not have to compromise with Manchin and Sinema, and that they had to accept the deal they "promised" to accept, even though they never actually promised to accept it. Though after some time you did acknowledge it was never actually going to be $3.5T, but you said they still shouldn't accept even a $3T deal because that was too big of a cut. 

Quote

I doubt that's the case, but even if it is, then that's on Sinema.

Nope, again, that's on both sides. Her statement was that she'd give up on the reconciliation bill if and only if the House progressives killed the infrastructure deal. You keep trying to absolve them of any blame here when that is simply not the case.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Just went back and checked and yes you did.

No, I didn't.  Please stop lying.  I said that 48 Senators should not compromise so much just to appease Manchin and Sinema - obviously emphasizing the disproportionality of giving them more than minor concessions.  That you misunderstood that is your own problem.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You keep trying to absolve them of any blame here when that is simply not the case.

It is the case.  You are living in some pathetic reality if you haven't realized the deal the entire time was both bills would be passed simultaneously.  If Sinema and Manchin want a "pause" on the reconciliation bill, then it is entirely unequivocally fair for the progressives to ask for a "pause" on the infrastructure bill.

[Kalbear]

Once again, @DMC and @Tywin et al. - can you please take this to DMs?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, I didn't.  Please stop lying.  I said that 48 Senators should not compromise so much just to appease Manchin and Sinema - obviously emphasizing the disproportionality of giving them more than minor concessions.  That you misunderstood that is your own problem.

Nah, in one post you literally said that because 48/50 senators supported it the other two should just accept it without change. Reading a number of your old posts you bounced between accepting a tiny compromise and saying that Manchin and Sinema should just accept the deal while saying progressives shouldn't have to give anything. You did however say they shouldn't even accept a 5% cut in the bill, which in effect is saying give me basically the full deal or get nothing. A strategy that is very likely going to backfire unless something significant changes.

Quote

It is the case.  You are living in some pathetic reality if you haven't realized the deal the entire time was both bills would be passed simultaneously.  If Sinema and Manchin want a "pause" on the reconciliation bill, then it is entirely unequivocally fair for the progressives to ask for a "pause" on the infrastructure bill.

"The deal"

There are now a number of deals and they contradict one another. I'm fine with the House taking a pause too to give the Senate more time, but that is Pelosi breaking one of her deals, and it doesn't help that progressives are loudly saying they'll tank the bill if they don't get exactly what they want, which is the full $3.5T number. To place the blame on one side is just showing bias. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, Kaligator said:

Once again, @DMC and @Tywin et al. - can you please take this to DMs?

I'm good just ending it.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

Once again, @DMC and @Tywin et al. - can you please take this to DMs?

As long as he stops lying about what I said.