Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: Maniac Manchin

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

My answer is not accepting $1.5 trillion as an acceptable counter-offer.  Which to you it is.  And, frankly, it doesn't matter what I think because it's not an acceptable offer to "progressives" or even the Democratic leadership.  That's the bottomline son.  The fact you can't get that, again, is your own business.  

And then what happens next, if progressives turn it down? Do you think you'll get a better deal, absent any evidence that's the case?

Unlikely, we both know. So then what? Be realistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

And then what happens next, if progressives turn it down? Do you think you'll get a better deal, absent any evidence that's the case?

Unlikely, we both know. So then what? Be realistic. 

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DMC said:

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

I have a great idea. We can cut the payments to poor families. Manchin can then go home and brag about all the money he saved. It'll be just like the very serious Paul Ryan inflicting maximum damage on the poors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, DMC said:

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

He's already said he'd walk if it's $3.5T, take it or leave it, so no, I haven't overlooked anything. And the negative fallout for him would be less than for all the other major actors at play, so again, you gotta play ball with him, not the other way around.

You keep leaning on killing the bipartisan bill as a leverage point to get him to do everything you want. That's very clearly failed. And your response has been..... keep leaning on killing the bipartisan deal. Okay then....

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You keep leaning on killing the bipartisan bill as a leverage point to get him to do everything you want. That's very clearly failed. And your response has been..... keep leaning on killing the bipartisan deal. Okay then....

:lmao:How has it failed?  Only in your deluded little mind has it failed.  You keep on spewing bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.  Which is it?  Do you think Manchin is the only one with leverage - which is ludicrously naive - or do you think the rest of the party retains leverage against him - in which case your arguments are demonstrably wrong?  You have insisted it's one or the other, so make a choice or stop bothering me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

:lmao:How has it failed?  Only in your deluded little mind has it failed.  You keep on spewing bullshit out of both sides of your mouth.  Which is it?  Do you think Manchin is the only one with leverage - which is ludicrously naive - or do you think the rest of the party retains leverage against him - in which case your arguments are demonstrably wrong?  You have insisted it's one or the other, so make a choice or stop bothering me.

Silly personal attacks again without any substance, per usual. What's new? A side of more nonsensical bullshit?

No Manchin is not the only one with leverage, but his is the strongest. If you can't figure that out, well, that's a you issue. 

Or are you going to quote me again saying that people will need to accept that a $3.5T deal is off the table (which you also said, btw), and then argue that means I'm stating that everyone needs to accept a $1.5T deal? That was rather pathetic. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

then argue that means I'm stating that everyone needs to accept a $1.5T deal? That was rather pathetic. 

Agreed, the multiple quotes of you explicitly saying everyone needs to accept a $1.5 trillion deal are rather pathetic.  But that's your own problem.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No Manchin is not the only one with leverage, but his is the strongest. If you can't figure that out, well, that's a you issue. 

Well, that's a hell of a lot different than you saying the only leverage anyone had was "political suicide:"

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Heads up, you're only leverage is political suicide

Honestly, it's too easy to demonstrate how you argue against yourself.  You flail and shift pathetically to pose as if you know what you're talking about, but in the end there's nothing substantive about your arguments at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

$900 billion of increases on corporations.  Top rate of 26.5%

Biden wanted 28, Manchin wanted 25.  26.5 sounds fair.  Anyway, sounds like $2.9 trillion will be payed for before "dynamic scoring."  As others have mentioned, hard to see how Manchin justifies going lower than the payfors in the name of "fiscal responsibility." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DMC said:

Biden wanted 28, Manchin wanted 25.  26.5 sounds fair.  Anyway, sounds like $2.9 trillion will be payed for before "dynamic scoring."  As others have mentioned, hard to see how Manchin justifies going lower than the payfors in the name of "fiscal responsibility." 

Bill is out.  Lots and lots of stuff in it. (It’s over 800 pages).  I’m still digesting it, but there is an 18 page summary of the revenue raisers that  I’m posting here if people are interested:

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/documents/SubtitleISxS.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sen. Feinstein would totally do something about the filibuster if democracy was at stake, but she just doesn't think it is. Just don't see it folks, sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DMC said:

What then for Manchin?  Is he willing to hold up Biden's bill for two trillion dollars and kill his own bill and then explain that to his constituents?  You keep on looking at this from only one perspective and it's insanely myopic.  More importantly, it is empirically naive based on how Manchin has negotiated with Biden and the Democratic leadership over the past nine months.  YOU are the one that is being unrealistically obstinate here -- and for no apparent reason betting Manchin will too.

I heard somewhere (I wish I could find it, but I can't seem to locate it) that Manchin is working behind the scenes with Schumer and Biden right now on a deal that will send a ridiculous amount of money to West Virginia. I think he'll get what he wants, and so long as Sinema doesn't obstruct, the bills should pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I heard somewhere (I wish I could find it, but I can't seem to locate it) that Manchin is working behind the scenes with Schumer and Biden right now on a deal that will send a ridiculous amount of money to West Virginia. I think he'll get what he wants, and so long as Sinema doesn't obstruct, the bills should pass.

That was Byrd’s methodology for staying in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That was Byrd’s methodology for staying in office.

Robert Byrd was never in serious danger of losing reelection.  He brought home a shit ton of pork, of course, but it's not comparable to the jeopardy Manchin is in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all are all super focused on the Senate.  I think that is myopic.  The House is also VERY, VERY close.  I personally think the bigger obstacles are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Y'all are all super focused on the Senate.  I think that is myopic.  The House is also VERY, VERY close.  I personally think the bigger obstacles are there.

I think they're largely one and the same.  "Manchin" is just for simplicity's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think they're largely one and the same.  "Manchin" is just for simplicity's sake.

I think the dynamics are different.  But whatever, let's see what actually comes out of the next few days negotiations on this before it goes to the Senate (and is summarily gutted and replaced with the Senate version, to produce a frankenstein monster in committee).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I think the dynamics are different.

How?  Pelosi and the House leadership have been very clear they're going to design the bill specifically under the auspice that it will also pass the Senate.  I'm hard pressed to see how Manchin, or Sinema, would agree to a deal that wouldn't get the necessary votes in the House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...