Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[Pres Mike]

lmao, I would NOT count of the GOP to be bound to any sense of political caution not to slash social programs next time they have the trifecta. The only reason they didn't slash Obamacare was because of two "moderates" and one quixotic weirdo who had a grudge with the president. The quixotic weirdo is dead and the "moderates" are on their way out, and besides Republicans have a much easier path to winning 52+ Senate seats than Democrats. We've been saved from true conservative rule for the past 20 years or so by the fact that Democrats have consistently punched above their weight in Senate races, but eventually we're going to run out of luck, and when we do, we're in for a rude awakening. Republicans don't care that their socioeconomic agenda is unpopular, because their strategy is all about diverting attention away from socioeconomic grievances with culture war bullsh*t, and this strategy has almost always worked for them. The fact that they're seen as the "party of the working class" after 4 years of further oligarchic entrenchment says everything you need to know.

You are RIGHT. Kinda

Yes, if Republicans had a trifecta with 55 senate seats, they would do a LOT of damage. And yes, Democrats have punched above their weight in several senate races and we got lucky

That said, Republicans are wary to lose elections. And they follow the cues of the business community. If these programs create the economic growth they are supposed to do, the CEO of Walmart and Amazon might not be happy if they are cut. They rather their slaves...eh I mean workers get Medicaid instead of company insurance.

[Mr.Phips]

lmao, I would NOT count of the GOP to be bound to any sense of political caution not to slash social programs next time they have the trifecta. The only reason they didn't slash Obamacare was because of two "moderates" and one quixotic weirdo who had a grudge with the president. The quixotic weirdo is dead and the "moderates" are on their way out, and besides Republicans have a much easier path to winning 52+ Senate seats than Democrats. We've been saved from true conservative rule for the past 20 years or so by the fact that Democrats have consistently punched above their weight in Senate races, but eventually we're going to run out of luck, and when we do, we're in for a rude awakening. Republicans don't care that their socioeconomic agenda is unpopular, because their strategy is all about diverting attention away from socioeconomic grievances with culture war bullsh*t, and this strategy has almost always worked for them. The fact that they're seen as the "party of the working class" after 4 years of further oligarchic entrenchment says everything you need to know.

You are RIGHT. Kinda

Yes, if Republicans had a trifecta with 55 senate seats, they would do a LOT of damage. And yes, Democrats have punched above their weight in several senate races and we got lucky

That said, Republicans are wary to lose elections. And they follow the cues of the business community. If these programs create the economic growth they are supposed to do, the CEO of Walmart and Amazon might not be happy if they are cut. They rather their slaves...eh I mean workers get Medicaid instead of company insurance.

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

If the deal passes in the form being discussed here, that’s still a definite win. If it gets cut down any further though, it’s going to be too watered down to be effective.

[emailking]

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

Republicans might not be able to maximize potential games in 2022 as well. We don't know what will happen.

[Pres Mike]

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

Republicans might not be able to maximize potential games in 2022 as well. We don't know what will happen.

Democrats don't have to lose in 2022

Republicans need to defend WI and PA

They will try to reclaim NV, NH, AZ, and GA

AZ and GA have very popular incumbents with monster fundraising. NV is stablish for Democrats.

NH is the big danger, but we could win easily in PA with the right person

[It’s so Joever]

lmao, I would NOT count of the GOP to be bound to any sense of political caution not to slash social programs next time they have the trifecta. The only reason they didn't slash Obamacare was because of two "moderates" and one quixotic weirdo who had a grudge with the president. The quixotic weirdo is dead and the "moderates" are on their way out, and besides Republicans have a much easier path to winning 52+ Senate seats than Democrats. We've been saved from true conservative rule for the past 20 years or so by the fact that Democrats have consistently punched above their weight in Senate races, but eventually we're going to run out of luck, and when we do, we're in for a rude awakening. Republicans don't care that their socioeconomic agenda is unpopular, because their strategy is all about diverting attention away from socioeconomic grievances with culture war bullsh*t, and this strategy has almost always worked for them. The fact that they're seen as the "party of the working class" after 4 years of further oligarchic entrenchment says everything you need to know.

If the Republicans cut Obamacare, 2018 would have been an even bigger massacre.

[Mr.Phips]

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

Republicans might not be able to maximize potential games in 2022 as well. We don't know what will happen.

Democrats don't have to lose in 2022

Republicans need to defend WI and PA

They will try to reclaim NV, NH, AZ, and GA

AZ and GA have very popular incumbents with monster fundraising. NV is stablish for Democrats.

NH is the big danger, but we could win easily in PA with the right person

If Dems can’t even win VA this year (quite possible) where Biden won by 10, they aren’t winning any of the above in 2022.

[emailking]

Doing bad in the off year is not a good sign for '22, but I still think it's pretty decoupled given that it's a year away. The economy could be roaring by then. Or maybe we will be in the throngs of the Nu variant, who knows. McAuliffe might also win by a lot. I actually think that's more likely than him losing.

[Pres Mike]

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

Republicans might not be able to maximize potential games in 2022 as well. We don't know what will happen.

Democrats don't have to lose in 2022

Republicans need to defend WI and PA

They will try to reclaim NV, NH, AZ, and GA

AZ and GA have very popular incumbents with monster fundraising. NV is stablish for Democrats.

NH is the big danger, but we could win easily in PA with the right person

If Dems can’t even win VA this year (quite possible) where Biden won by 10, they aren’t winning any of the above in 2022.

Yet Democrats have led in every poll. They have a 3 point lead on 538 and the polls actually under estimated Democrats in 2020 VA polls

Plus, its now looking like BIF and BBB will both pass by Halloween which will boost Democrats in VA

[Mr.Phips]

Doing bad in the off year is not a good sign for '22, but I still think it's pretty decoupled given that it's a year away. The economy could be roaring by then. Or maybe we will be in the throngs of the Nu variant, who knows. McAuliffe might also win by a lot. I actually think that's more likely than him losing.

The political environment almost never improves significantly for the President’s party from this point in the President’s first term until the midterms.  

[Associate Justice PiT]

Doing bad in the off year is not a good sign for '22, but I still think it's pretty decoupled given that it's a year away. The economy could be roaring by then. Or maybe we will be in the throngs of the Nu variant, who knows. McAuliffe might also win by a lot. I actually think that's more likely than him losing.

The political environment almost never improves significantly for the President’s party from this point in the President’s first term until the midterms. 

     Also worth noting that the last four midterms have been bad for the President's party. 2002, with its single-digit gains in both chambers for the Bush GOP, was an anomalous event riding the coattails of Bush's 9/11 popularity spike (he still had 68% approval on election day). Before 1998 and 2002, you have to go back to 1934 to find an election where the party that held the White House saw a strong midterm performance.

[emailking]

I think they lose seats, I'm just not convinced yet it will be a blowout like the last several midterms.

[Mr.Phips]

Doing bad in the off year is not a good sign for '22, but I still think it's pretty decoupled given that it's a year away. The economy could be roaring by then. Or maybe we will be in the throngs of the Nu variant, who knows. McAuliffe might also win by a lot. I actually think that's more likely than him losing.

The political environment almost never improves significantly for the President’s party from this point in the President’s first term until the midterms.  

     Also worth noting that the last four midterms have been bad for the President's party. 2002, with its single-digit gains in both chambers for the Bush GOP, was an anomalous event riding the coattails of Bush's 9/11 popularity spike (he still had 68% approval on election day).

Yes and Dems need to expect every midterm to be bad for them when they hold the White House.  I don’t know what certain House members from swing districts like Conor Lamb and Charlie Crist were thinking by leaving their seats open to run for Senate/governor races that they can’t win in a midterm of a Dem President.  Of course Dems always think “this time will be different”.  Well it never is won’t be different this time.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Plus, its now looking like BIF and BBB will both pass by Halloween which will boost Democrats in VA

No? Dems has only been teasing, that they hope, they will agree on "framework" by the end of this week. Imo, it's unlikely they'll have passed it by Halloween.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/aduehren/status/1450900908313911309

WSJ EXCLUSIVE: Democrats’ Planned Tax-Rate Increases in Jeopardy Due to Sinema’s Opposition
Democrats considering alternatives that would raise money without touching top rates

WASHINGTON—Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s opposition to tax increases is causing Senate Democrats to look at financing their sprawling social policy and climate package without raising tax rates on businesses, high-income individuals or capital gains, according to people familiar with the matter.

The Arizona Democrat has told lobbyists that she is opposed to any increase in those rates, according to a person familiar with her remarks, but her stance is now pushing Democrats to more seriously plan for a bill that doesn’t include those major revenue increases. Other planks of President Biden’s tax agenda, including tightening the net on U.S. companies’ foreign earnings and enhancing tax enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service, are still on the table, according to one of the people familiar with the matter.

Ms. Sinema’s office declined to comment. Senate Democrats need all 50 members of their caucus to back the same plan, and Ms. Sinema has held a series of meetings with White House officials in recent weeks over her concerns with the administration’s plans.

Another person familiar with the talks said that how and whether to raise rates remained unresolved because of Ms. Sinema’s opposition.

[Pres Mike]

Doing bad in the off year is not a good sign for '22, but I still think it's pretty decoupled given that it's a year away. The economy could be roaring by then. Or maybe we will be in the throngs of the Nu variant, who knows. McAuliffe might also win by a lot. I actually think that's more likely than him losing.

The political environment almost never improves significantly for the President’s party from this point in the President’s first term until the midterms.  

To be fair, there are almost always reasons for a president party to lose seats in the midterms. Also because of the buyers remorse

The electorate is far more inelastic. And the Democratic electorate is far smarter than we were in 2010 and 2014

[wbrocks67]

It's truly insane and unfortunate that Democrats could lose everything because of just two senators actions. Just two.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

It's truly insane and unfortunate that Democrats could lose everything because of just two senators actions. Just two.

Well it looks like Manchin is done after the clean energy portion was killed. The ridiculous child tax credit cuts were explicitly rejected by other Senators (because it turns out West Virginia Senators don’t get special extra constitutional powers), Brown explicitly ruled it out.
Also notable, the threat he floated through Mother Jones specifically moved his topline number to basically where Biden has been at (1.75 vs 2). The resident Republican and the weirdo that idolizes Sinema are already crowing about Democrats caving in response to the news.

It’s really just down to Sinema now. And Sinema doesn’t really have a leg to stand on.

[President Johnson]

I always preferred the presidential system, but seeing this unfolding, I'm actually glad Germany is run differently and we're actually getting a government that can (very likely) get stuff done. It would be so much better if the Democrats had a majority that would follow Joe Biden to pass urgent reforms.

It's truly insane and unfortunate that Democrats could lose everything because of just two senators actions. Just two.

Thank Maine voters and either Cal Cunningham for his lack of discipline or Bill Nelson for sleeping during the 2018 campaign.

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/1445737345907523587


Pitiful.

[LabourJersey]

I always preferred the presidential system, but seeing this unfolding, I'm actually glad Germany is run differently and we're actually getting a government that can (very likely) get stuff done. It would be so much better if the Democrats had a majority that would follow Joe Biden to pass urgent reforms.

It's truly insane and unfortunate that Democrats could lose everything because of just two senators actions. Just two.

Thank Maine voters and either Cal Cunningham for his lack of discipline or Bill Nelson for sleeping during the 2018 campaign.

Why did you prefer a Presidential system even before this?

In the modern era there's never been a benefit to a presidential system over a parliamentary system, aside from having a huge number of minor parties which is more the fault of PR and low thresholds than the actual system as a whole. There's a reason the US never exported its model of governing to nations it occupied.

[roxas11]

I think they lose seats, I'm just not convinced yet it will be a blowout like the last several midterms.

When Obama and Dems got crushed during their first midterm in 2010 the unemployment rate was at 9.6 percent and Republicans succeeded in turning the ameican people against Obama's agenda

Biden is currently not facing anything like that and his agenda is still very popular with the American people. If anything you can argue that the political environment for Dems is better under Biden and than it ever was under Obama

The current unemployment rate is at 4.8 and will continue to drop by the time we got to November 2022 and even the covid situation is getting better. plus if the dems can actually pass thier popular infrastructure bills that could also help them.

All of this leads me to agree with emailking that Dems may lose some seats but unless the economy gets as bad as it was in 2009-2010 I don't see a blowout happening

[Mr.Phips]

I think they lose seats, I'm just not convinced yet it will be a blowout like the last several midterms.

When Obama and Dems got crushed during their first midterm in 2010 the unemployment rate was at 9.6 percent and Republicans succeeded in turning the ameican people against Obama's agenda

Biden is currently not facing anything like that and his agenda is still very popular with the American people. If anything you can argue that the political environment for Dems is better under Biden and than it ever was under Obama

The current unemployment rate is at 4.8 and will continue to drop by the time we got to November 2022 and even the covid situation is getting better. plus if the dems can actually pass thier popular infrastructure bills that could also help them.

All of this leads me to agree with emailking that Dems may lose some seats but unless the economy gets as bad as it was in 2009-2010 I don't see a blowout happening

Remember that Dems had far more seats going in to the 2010 midterm (257) than 2022 (222).  Because of having far less to lose, 2010 type loss (R+7 popular vote) would mean a loss of around 25-30 seats for Dems.

[Shadows]

Sinema is basically hard right on economic issues. If he wants to preserve all of Corporate & Wealthy Income tax cuts, then she is basically a Republican. Even Manchin wants some partial roll-back however minor it is & he is in a Trump +30 odd state (WV) while Sinema is in a state Biden with another Dem Senator who also won comfortably !

[wbrocks67]

I think they lose seats, I'm just not convinced yet it will be a blowout like the last several midterms.

When Obama and Dems got crushed during their first midterm in 2010 the unemployment rate was at 9.6 percent and Republicans succeeded in turning the ameican people against Obama's agenda

Biden is currently not facing anything like that and his agenda is still very popular with the American people. If anything you can argue that the political environment for Dems is better under Biden and than it ever was under Obama

The current unemployment rate is at 4.8 and will continue to drop by the time we got to November 2022 and even the covid situation is getting better. plus if the dems can actually pass thier popular infrastructure bills that could also help them.

All of this leads me to agree with emailking that Dems may lose some seats but unless the economy gets as bad as it was in 2009-2010 I don't see a blowout happening

This. There's still plenty of time to turn things around by Nov 2022. If COVID recedes, Biden passes his bills, and "supply chain issues" subside, Biden would obviously be in a much better place.