Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[R.P. McM]

According to Hill staffers from both parties, once (or if) infrastructure is finally passed by Congress and signed into law by President Biden, that's probably going to be it in terms of big legislative accomplishments, thanks largely to Manchin & Co. not budging on the filibuster.  

Manchin & Co. want some pork barrel spending to grease their reelection campaigns. At this point, I think liberal Democrats should block the infrastructure bill. No voting rights reforms = no local projects for Manchin & Co. to tout. It's a quid pro quo, and if Manchin & Co. refuse to bend, it won't be liberal Democrats losing their seats.

[R.P. McM]

The mid-Atlantic has the worst Democrats in the country.

And Not the south?

LOL. Yeah, they're ALL terrible! Sometimes I feel as though I'm losing my ******* mind. Like, if you transparently support corporate interests above the general welfare in MN, you're going to lose. But, evidently, in a bunch of much poorer states (VA excepted), that's a winning formula. Honestly, I feel like we should just join Canada.

[R.P. McM]

The mid-Atlantic has the worst Democrats in the country.

Delaware is the credit card capitol of the US. Chris Coons and Tom Carper are corporatists like Mark Warner.

Classic article: https://newrepublic.com/article/61902/rogue-state

[R.P. McM]

Good, raising the gas tax is a guaranteed way of losing in 2022. Democrat’s intentionally raising prices at the pump writes its own propaganda

How incredibly naive to assume that "this midterm will be different" or "Democrats are not already basically guaranteed to lose." Also good policy should always take precedent over electoral concerns, Democrats need to act on climate, like yesterday.

Agreed. But given the current (undemocratic) system, Democrats have to be exceptionally sensitive to white rural backlash. I wish it weren't so, but it is. So aggressive climate change legislation is probably a pipe dream. But yeah, when disaster hits FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, etc., I'm not funding the recovery effort. They were warned, they didn't listen.

[R.P. McM]

Good, raising the gas tax is a guaranteed way of losing in 2022. Democrat’s intentionally raising prices at the pump writes its own propaganda

How incredibly naive to assume that "this midterm will be different" or "Democrats are not already basically guaranteed to lose." Also good policy should always take precedent over electoral concerns, Democrats need to act on climate, like yesterday.

Agreed. But given the current (undemocratic) system, Democrats have to be exceptionally sensitive to white rural backlash. I wish it weren't so, but it is. So aggressive climate change legislation is probably a pipe dream. But yeah, when disaster hits FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, etc., I'm not funding the recovery effort. They were warned, they didn't listen.

Speaking even as one of the most bleeding-heart environmentalists around these parts, your willingness to let the entire world burn to stick it to people who you disagree with politically is abominable. Of course, that also implies that you think that those states are uniformly against further environmental protections, which is a ridiculous falsehood incurred by electoral-college brain.

This is delusional on so many levels. Yeah, I don't want the world to burn. But you're kidding yourself if you think the representatives of FL/AL/MS/LA/TX/WV/KY/WY/etc. are going to come to Jesus before it's too late. Nonsense. They're going to prevent us from mitigating climate change, and then, when their cities are decimated, they're going to turn around and beg for a federal bailout. At which point, quite justifiably, my response is going to be a resounding no.

[R.P. McM]

Good, raising the gas tax is a guaranteed way of losing in 2022. Democrat’s intentionally raising prices at the pump writes its own propaganda

How incredibly naive to assume that "this midterm will be different" or "Democrats are not already basically guaranteed to lose." Also good policy should always take precedent over electoral concerns, Democrats need to act on climate, like yesterday.

Agreed. But given the current (undemocratic) system, Democrats have to be exceptionally sensitive to white rural backlash. I wish it weren't so, but it is. So aggressive climate change legislation is probably a pipe dream. But yeah, when disaster hits FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, etc., I'm not funding the recovery effort. They were warned, they didn't listen.

Speaking even as one of the most bleeding-heart environmentalists around these parts, your willingness to let the entire world burn to stick it to people who you disagree with politically is abominable. Of course, that also implies that you think that those states are uniformly against further environmental protections, which is a ridiculous falsehood incurred by electoral-college brain.

The (most) tragicomic thing about all this is that in the event the feds don't help at all, as McM suggests, then it will be minorities in those states who are harmed the most, and in fact, two competitive states at that. It's perfectly possible that FL and TX both flip in the 2020s, so even in pure electoral/demographic terms this would only wind up helping Republicans by ensuring minorities move away and lowering the Dem floor in those places.

But as a supporter of Confederate monuments — you specifically argued that Stone Mountain should be preserved, and defended the circumstances of the Lost Cause — why should I believe you actually care? Versus a very transparent hostage situation of which I no longer want any part. I mean, to anyone interested, here are Tim's comments in another thread:

If one has that sort of vision for Stone Mountain, then it could simply be carved into the mountain alongside what is already there. Nothing can excuse the destruction of what is currently there, but one can excuse an addition.
[...]
I mean, I guess you didn't directly claim the Confederacy was a direct predecessor, but you are guilty as charged with having a perspective jaundiced by the fashions of the present.
To compare the deaths of those who died in the triangular trade to those who died in concentration camps misses the time frames in question, the differing landscapes politically, the differing social mores and causes and motivations of the actors involved, and so on.
[...]
Also - no one is saying slaveowning was good either. But I think most can agree that, if one had to choose, it would relatively better to be enslaved, than be exterminated as part of a "Final Solution", which is the fate the Nazis had planned for Jews as well as other "undesirables". Both would be very, very bad, needless to say, but it does matter.
[...]
A sizable amount of the blame for the slave trade happening has to be put at the feet of local elites in West Africa, who emptied out large swatches of the region for sake of greed, and in fact a majority of deaths related to or linked to the triangular trade were done by Africans to Africans, as just the latest manifestation of the millennia-old slave trade in Western Africa, with the Europeans being the customers, buying those slaves for their own greedy self-serving reasons.

If any biased moderator wants to continue defending Tim, thereby stepping on that racist landmine, be my guest.

[R.P. McM]

https://twitter.com/people4kam/status/1442606427919421440

Oh what the ?
It looked like the dam was breaking


Well, Kyrsten Sinema is your president now.

I love how all of the ostensibly progressive idiots on the twitter thread are praising Pelosi for caving to the corporatists. Reminds me of the Notorious RBG folks slobbering over the shriveled, egotistical @ss who gave us a 6-3 GOP Court poised to overturn Roe. Precisely why I had to switch my avatar color. There's a subset of the Democratic base that is just impossibly stupid and impossibly gullible.

Exhibit A:
https://twitter.com/yankeemommy1/status/1442612738577027074

Exhibit B:
https://twitter.com/rojo2k/status/1442651799840862229

Exhibit C:
https://twitter.com/roscoe_p_ny/status/1442617133901434881

Exhibit D:
https://twitter.com/Sam011100101/status/1442647561777520640

[R.P. McM]

You know I'd love to be proven wrong, but smug dismissal and tautological invocations of Pelosi's supposed infallibility aren't exactly convincing counterarguments.

I am not pretending I know what will happen, and it’s hardly smug to say to stop making really outlandish claims.

There's nothing outlandish there. If the House votes tomorrow without a reconciliation deal, it's over. Plain as day.

I hope that's not the case, maybe the negotiations on reconciliation are further along and something will come up today to clear everything up. But it's getting harder and harder to believe.

Yeah that's outlandish.  It's not "over."

You think the centrist Dems will agree to anything after they get the only thing they ever cared about? Now that's outlandish.

I'm don't claim to know what is going on behind the scenes, and I will draw my conclusions once events out of my control have transpired.

So you've got absolutely nothing, except insisting we shouldn't draw the obvious conclusions based on the players' incentives as they have been plainly laid out for all to see since like May. Gotcha.

I've got nothing and anybody who claims to got everything...doesn't. I don't think we can make plain conclusions.

It's pretty obvious that one way or another, the corporatists are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the reconciliation package. So some manner of coercion will have to be employed. Up until the corporatists broke their side of the agreement, that mechanism was linking the two bills. Consequently, assuming Pelosi has the votes, there are really only two conclusions to be reached from yesterday's developments. Either the progressives have caved; or Pelosi has replaced one mechanism of coercion with another (e.g., the debt ceiling), and Thursday's vote is a largely meaningless gesture. But what purpose would the latter serve? The entire reason the corporatists are demanding an immediate vote on the BIB is because they don't want to be coerced by the rest of the caucus to support the Biden agenda.

[R.P. McM]

Of course as a MAGA anti-Dem partisan I want everything to not pass but putting that aside this situation is very interesting from a game theory point of view.  It seems to me the Dem moderates have a clear negations advantage over the Dem progressives.  This is because Biden has not come out strongly and publicall7y saying that unless both the bipartisan and reconciliation bill must pass for his agenda to be successful.   Without that Pelosi and Schumer might have no choice but to try to get something passed and could always borrow GOP votes to overcome Dem progressive defections.  The Dem progressives do not have this option and puts them at a disadvantage.

The game theory calculation from the GOP point of view is also interesting.  I am sure most of them, like me, just want everything to fail and then wait for the 2022 anti-Dem wave.  But lending support to the Dem moderates to get the bipartisan bill passed might increase the divide between Dem moderates and Dem progressives.  There is an argument that it is easier to defeated a divided Dem party that got something done versus a united Dem party that go nothing done in 2022.  Not clear which is better for the GOP but some in the GOP might take the former option and have the talking point of "hey, we did help get something passed."

I don't think you need to get this complicated. It was never creditable for an instant to me that the progressives (that Seattle congresswoman's posturing to the contrary notwithstanding), really disliked the infrastructure bill on its own terms, and would only support in exchange for something big in reconciliation. It was just a hostage game, so it was just a matter of time until their bluff was called, and they folded. They know it would disastrous for the Dems to be seen as having killed both, because they did not get both. The Pubs in the House who vote for infrastructure will do so only because they think it is in their political interest to do so, or believe in it on its own merits, and not to bail out Pelosi. From a solely political standpoint, the Dem dog in the manger scenario is the best for them.

Having both bills go down would be disastrous for the ~10 corporatist holdouts and their centrist colleagues. Not only would they lose their seats, they'd shoulder the blame for wrecking the Biden presidency. They'd become pariahs to the Democratic base, and future roles within the party would be all but impossible. Pelosi could've balked at their demands, scheduled a vote on the reconciliation package, and dared the small sliver of corporatist holdouts to effectively end their own political careers.

[R.P. McM]

Obama got slaughtered with his watered down health care bill. Imagine how bad the Dems will do if all they have to show is a watered down infrastructure bill after all the effort which came with getting them elected.

Some "moderates" in this thread are content with achieving as little as possible while in power. What do they even stand for? Is it just a game between blue vs. red for them? Do they fetishize third way politics so much they find doing nothing to be exciting?

Well, they used to take great satisfaction in the notion that their opinions were inherently more prudent and sophisticated. Unfortunately, the past two decades have been very unkind to that perspective. From Iraq to Trump, they've been wrong about essentially everything. So now, at this point, I think the "moderate" sensibility is little more than an involuntary reflex. Which is how they now find themselves aligned with ~10 petulant obstructionists against the Biden agenda and ~90% of the Democratic Party.

[R.P. McM]

Progressives can't cave. If the coporatists won't play ball, then kill their precious "bipartisan" bill. 2022 is going to be a blood bath, and if Democrats can't pass this popular, important reconciliation bill, then they deserve every bit of what's coming.

Thankfully, it'll be the centrist/corporatist wing of the party that gets annihilated.

[R.P. McM]

Manchin's not going to f*** president Biden over in the end. He's going to try to lower the 3.5T some, claim credit for it, and then vote for both bills.

Sinema ... I hope that's ultimately true about her too, but unlike Manchin who seems to be throwing suggestions out there, she's just stonewalling as every other Democrat in both Houses of Congress gets more and more apoplectic.

I think this interview with Ro Khanna strongly supports the theory that Manchin is engaged in a bit of political theater, whereas Sinema is genuinely a flaky, backstabbing, contrarian moron:

[R.P. McM]

Progressives can't cave. If the coporatists won't play ball, then kill their precious "bipartisan" bill. 2022 is going to be a blood bath, and if Democrats can't pass this popular, important reconciliation bill, then they deserve every bit of what's coming.

Thankfully, it'll be the centrist/corporatist wing of the party that gets annihilated.

Maybe it would be for the best. Purge the far-right from the party and rebuild it by and for working people.

One could hope

But serious question, as I've been reading your posts closely. What could Biden realistically do to get Manchin and Sinema in line? All this "be like LBJ" talk is really just vague nothingness. They have all the leverage, and if we threaten to take their committees and kick them out of the caucus, I'm not sure if that actually brings them in line, what stops them from just sinking our agenda anyway.

To accept the centrist/corporatist narrative, you'd have to swallow the BS that members of Congress don't care if their bills are passed, or if they retain their seats. Suuuuuuuure /s. But, additionally, the Democratic Party could adopt provisions making it nearly impossible for Sinema/Manchin/etc. to lobby any current members of the Democratic caucus. Which would make it very difficult for them to secure lucrative post-Congressional corporate gigs. I call it Dead To Us, and it would mean that, essentially, your lifetime working within the Democratic Party (in the case of Manchin, at least) is basically worthless.

[R.P. McM]

Progressives can't cave. If the coporatists won't play ball, then kill their precious "bipartisan" bill. 2022 is going to be a blood bath, and if Democrats can't pass this popular, important reconciliation bill, then they deserve every bit of what's coming.

Thankfully, it'll be the centrist/corporatist wing of the party that gets annihilated.

Maybe it would be for the best. Purge the far-right from the party and rebuild it by and for working people.

One could hope

But serious question, as I've been reading your posts closely. What could Biden realistically do to get Manchin and Sinema in line? All this "be like LBJ" talk is really just vague nothingness. They have all the leverage, and if we threaten to take their committees and kick them out of the caucus, I'm not sure if that actually brings them in line, what stops them from just sinking our agenda anyway.

To accept the centrist/corporatist narrative, you'd have to swallow the BS that members of Congress don't care if their bills are passed, or if they retain their seats. Suuuuuuuure /s. But, additionally, the Democratic Party could adopt provisions making it nearly impossible for Sinema/Manchin/etc. to lobby any current members of the Democratic caucus. Which would make it very difficult for them to secure lucrative post-Congressional corporate gigs. I call it Dead To Us, and it would mean that, essentially, your lifetime working within the Democratic Party (in the case of Manchin, at least) is basically worthless.

1. The Democrats can't really threaten Manchin electorally. AOC/Pelosi/Biden attacking him is basically a campaign ad for him given his state. I think given Trump's margin and his own and least 33% of his voters voted for Trump. Sinema is of course another story.

2. I don't think your "Dead to us" is workable at all. Even if the Dems could pass a rule in there caucus (which I highly doubt) how would they ever enforce it? Tap the phones of their members? Ban Democrats from  even talking to them? And what happens to a Dem that breaks these rules? How do you prove a Democrat was lobbied?  The only Democrats who would ever follow that would never be the ones Manchin or Sinema could lobby. Do you think a lobbing firm hires Manchin expecting him to successfully lobby AOC?

They need staff, right? So you make it so that anyone who conceals a meeting/communication with Manchin/Sinema/etc. is permanently excommunicated. Likewise, you reward staff members loyal to the party for turning in elected officials circumventing the policy. Once it becomes clear that violating the policy is a political death sentence, few will dare to do so. Not unlike a Republican contemplating criticizing Donald Trump.

On the flip side, no industry group is going to bother hiring a persona non grata forced to lobby in secret. It's just not worth the effort/expense.

[R.P. McM]

Progressives can't cave. If the coporatists won't play ball, then kill their precious "bipartisan" bill. 2022 is going to be a blood bath, and if Democrats can't pass this popular, important reconciliation bill, then they deserve every bit of what's coming.

Thankfully, it'll be the centrist/corporatist wing of the party that gets annihilated.

Democrats lose the majority in both houses, then in 2024, Biden gets thrown out of office and replaced by Trump.

Great job destroying the party.

Republicans didn't even have to lift a finger.

LOL. It's the ~2% of corporatist trash in the caucus that's threatening to block Biden's agenda and destroy the entire party. If they succeed in committing electoral suicide, good riddance. Alternatively, if you don't want the Exxon/PhRMA slimebags to lose, you better persuade them to support the reconciliation package. Because Ilhan Omar and Betty McCollum have absolutely nothing to fear. Can't say the same for Sinema, Schrader, Murphy, Gottheimer, etc.

[R.P. McM]

"It is wrong, it is really not playing fair, that one or two people think they should be able to stop what 48 members of the Democratic caucus wants, what the American people want, what the president of the United States wants," he said. "Two people do not have a right to sabotage what 48 want."

This is a Bernie blast. It doesn't make any sense of course. At least it does not to me. It seems like a party loyalty test. The Pubs once had a majority of the majority "rule" of some sort in the House back when I think.

Joe might ask Bernie if he would be happier if he left the Democratic caucus.

Oh FFS,
1) Refusing to do something because the opposition opposes is just dumb
2) Yes, when you have overwhelming agreement in your caucus and 2 people decide to be sh**ts, that’s an issue of party loyalty

We get that you don’t want the reconciliation package. That doesn’t mean you need to act perplexed that everyone is mad at the 10% of Dem Senators deciding that they make the party policy now.

Oh I get why they are mad. I don't get their sense of entitlement, other than out of control hubris. I posted before that I have no idea what is best to put into reconciliation. It's complicated and I am not adequately informed to form an opinion on that that is worth a damn, and ditto the macro-economic situation. So it's about process. My instinct is that all this caterwauling from the progressives about not getting what they want with paper thin Dem majorities and less than a  majority ready to it their way, as to what and when and how, is in the end going to net them less than otherwise. Insulting in public those whose votes you need, however few, seems the ultimate exercise in counterproductive hubris. We shall see - maybe.

Progressives are the ascendant wing of the party, so centrists/corporatists are just painting targets on their own backs. I voted for Biden in the primary, but if these backstabbers wreck the reconciliation bill and fail to do anything to safeguard democracy, I will fully support purging them from the party. It's put-up or shut-up time for the Democratic establishment. Either prove you can accomplish something significant legislatively, or let the left/GOP forcibly retire you.

[R.P. McM]

Via Axios:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is telling colleagues that progressives need to pick just one of President Biden’s three signature policies for helping working families and discard the other two, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.

Why it matters: By forcing progressives to choose among an expanded child tax credit, paid family medical leave or subsidies for child care, Manchin is complicating any potential deal— but also signaling his willingness to negotiate.

The amazing part is, the electorate of WV is so stupid that when Manchin retires (or is defeated), his Republican replacement won't even give them 1/3 of a loaf! LOL. The residents of NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, etc., are laughing all the way to the bank! Yeah, I think WV has failed so badly (losing population at an unprecedented rate), statehood probably ought to be revoked. Respecting WV as an equal partner is just guaranteed to make the world a worse place.

[R.P. McM]

My optimistic hope is that he's counter offering 1/3 so they can "compromise" on 2/3 and $2T. They can try for the third next year.

Fair enough. I could certainly live with that compromise. But it is darkly humorous to me that the person insisting on this massive reduction in benefits is supposedly representing one of the poorer states in America. A failed state that's losing population at a catastrophic rate. And when Manchin is done, they're going to elect someone even more miserly! LOL. Well, I guess they vote for what they get, and get what they deserve. No more sympathy from this Midwestern liberal.

[R.P. McM]

I love Sinema

Biden himself has sounded exasperated at both Manchin and Sinema, according to Democratic lawmakers who have spoken to him. The President told progressives this week that he has spent many hours with the two senators "and they don't move," two sources said. Biden even contended that Sinema didn't always return calls from the White House, the sources added.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-manchin-biden-agenda/index.html?utm_content=2021-10-08T03%3A04%3A56&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link

We know you do. The only question for the rest of us is whether it makes more sense to accept whatever scraps SineManchin are willing to concede; or, alternatively, to so thoroughly destroy these two individuals that no member of the Democratic Party ever attempts a similar act of sabotage. Personally, I'm split, but if they aren't willing to make any effort to safeguard democracy, they're essentially worthless, and should be made examples of.

[R.P. McM]

Via Axios:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is telling colleagues that progressives need to pick just one of President Biden’s three signature policies for helping working families and discard the other two, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.

Why it matters: By forcing progressives to choose among an expanded child tax credit, paid family medical leave or subsidies for child care, Manchin is complicating any potential deal— but also signaling his willingness to negotiate.

The amazing part is, the electorate of WV is so stupid that when Manchin retires (or is defeated), his Republican replacement won't even give them 1/3 of a loaf! LOL. The residents of NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, etc., are laughing all the way to the bank! Yeah, I think WV has failed so badly (losing population at an unprecedented rate), statehood probably ought to be revoked. Respecting WV as an equal partner is just guaranteed to make the world a worse place.

Are you seriously considering revoking statehood over political leanings?
Same here to be honest.

If the alternative is living in a racist, authoritarian hellhole ravaged by climate change, then yes, I'd rather forcefully deprive WV, KY, AL, AR, etc., of representation before it's too late.

[R.P. McM]

I love Sinema

Biden himself has sounded exasperated at both Manchin and Sinema, according to Democratic lawmakers who have spoken to him. The President told progressives this week that he has spent many hours with the two senators "and they don't move," two sources said. Biden even contended that Sinema didn't always return calls from the White House, the sources added.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/07/politics/bernie-sanders-joe-manchin-biden-agenda/index.html?utm_content=2021-10-08T03%3A04%3A56&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twCNN&utm_term=link

We know you do. The only question for the rest of us is whether it makes more sense to accept whatever scraps SineManchin are willing to concede; or, alternatively, to so thoroughly destroy these two individuals that no member of the Democratic Party ever attempts a similar act of sabotage. Personally, I'm split, but if they aren't willing to make any effort to safeguard democracy, they're essentially worthless, and should be made examples of.

You act like Sinema and Manchin wrote contracts in blood binding them to the Democratic party. Yes, under most circumstances it would not be in their interests to defect, but if you progressives keep abusing them like this, at some point I imagine they say "enough is enough".

If I were them and this abuse continues, I might start strategically leaking that I'm pondering joining the Republicans, maybe a photo with Mitch McConnell, a "secret" trip to Mar-a-Lago, that kind of thing. Send the message that "hey, you need me and I'm not your slave, so back off."

A world in which Manchin/Sinema no longer need the Democratic Party as a vehicle for their political/lobbyist ambitions is a world in which they didn't vote to remove Trump from office. TWICE. So now they're F-ed — they can either respect the will of the vast majority of the party, or they can be done. Completely finished in Washington in any meaningful capacity.

[R.P. McM]

Via Axios:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is telling colleagues that progressives need to pick just one of President Biden’s three signature policies for helping working families and discard the other two, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.

Why it matters: By forcing progressives to choose among an expanded child tax credit, paid family medical leave or subsidies for child care, Manchin is complicating any potential deal— but also signaling his willingness to negotiate.

The amazing part is, the electorate of WV is so stupid that when Manchin retires (or is defeated), his Republican replacement won't even give them 1/3 of a loaf! LOL. The residents of NYC, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, etc., are laughing all the way to the bank! Yeah, I think WV has failed so badly (losing population at an unprecedented rate), statehood probably ought to be revoked. Respecting WV as an equal partner is just guaranteed to make the world a worse place.

Are you seriously considering revoking statehood over political leanings?
Same here to be honest.

If the alternative is living in a racist, authoritarian hellhole ravaged by climate change, then yes, I'd rather forcefully deprive WV, KY, AL, AR, etc., of representation before it's too late.

We already know you fetish another Civil War happening but the rest of us dont

I fetish genuine democracy. I fear that imposing it on your racist, authoritarian party would result in secession and/or a second civil war. But I don't care, because I have no interest in living through a climate catastrophe, or a rural white Christian Trumpist autocracy. Post-insurrection, every time the Grassley's and Reynold's of the establishment wing share a stage with Trump, they're just confirming what I've been saying all along: the GOP is a fascist political organization beyond redemption. We're in the midst of a cold civil war, and there's no point in listening to or respecting turncoats (SineManchin) and enemies (Republicans). A peaceful partition is the most logical and harmonious outcome.

[R.P. McM]

Progressives made a good effort in standing their ground here, but what they didn’t realize is that Manchin and Sinema don’t really care if neither infrastructure bill gets passed. They couldn’t care less if the whole thing is blown up, whereas they know that progressives wouldn’t actually go that far.

They called progressives’ bluff, and now the size of the reconciliation bill will go down and down.

It’s unfortunate that they are either major attention seekers or have chosen to represent certain corporate donors or both. Americans support what’s in the bill as-is.

Nonsense. SineManchin are bluffing, because they're self-interested, and because they don't want their political/lobbyist careers destroyed. They don't want the national Democratic Party to disown them, and they don't want Manchin's parasitic children to be exposed for the ways in which they're bleeding the WWC of Appalachia. Likewise, they don't want Sinema to be regarded as a modern-day Franz von Papen (who should've been dealt with in the same manner as the French dealt with their Vichy traitors).

[R.P. McM]

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1449164352246931460?s=20

If that's the case, then both bills simply need to die, and Joe Manchin's political career with them. As far as I'm concerned, climate is non-negotiable. I suspect many of the liberal senators feel likewise. If Biden's presidency amounts to nothing more than destroying the last vestiges of the backstabbing corporate/conservative wing of the Democratic Party, so be it.

[R.P. McM]

Manchin is irate at Bernie going into WV to sell the bill

Live footage of the joe Manchin vs Bernie sanders fight....



Honestly, this behavior is embarrassing for both of them. These are grown man who are acting like children

Rather than coming together in order to get things done on behalf of the American people they much rather have this pointless and ridiculous public fight.

In the end, I guess their bruised egos are far more important than actually helping the American people

Yes, because Joe Manchin's desire to scale back family leave, Medicare benefits, free community college, and green energy is rooted in a desire to help the American people /s.