Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Dems basically have to win 2024 at the presidential level or they lose the Senate for a generation.  The inevitable Class I Senate seat wipeout needs to be postponed long enough that they can compete throughout the South/Southern Plains by the time it happens. 

For the same reason, if Dems have to lose in 2024, they would probably be best off losing it to Trump.

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Any idea when the next vote will be held?

[Bootes Void]

Why did the Az democrats even endorse Sinema for her 2018 senate run. She's basically a crypto republican at this point

[wbrocks67]

Why did the Az democrats even endorse Sinema for her 2018 senate run. She's basically a crypto republican at this point

The weird thing is that this all feels very sudden. She didn't seem this way in 2018, and honestly not even through 2020. She was very supportive of Mark Kelly in 2020 and they seemed to be on the same page. It's like for whatever reason, as soon as she got some power with the Biden win that she veered right.

I assume talks are ongoing today and tomorrow since Biden needs something to be done before he leaves next week?

[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.

Dems basically have to win 2024 at the presidential level or they lose the Senate for a generation.  The inevitable Class I Senate seat wipeout needs to be postponed long enough that they can compete throughout the South/Southern Plains by the time it happens.  

For the same reason, if Dems have to lose in 2024, they would probably be best off losing it to Trump.

Even if Dems win the Presidential election and lose four seats in 2022, they probably lose the senate until 2032 at least.  If they are at 46 after 2022, they still probably lose three seats in 2024 even if they win the Presidency in 2024, putting them at 43.  Then in 2026, they probably lose a couple of seats again (some combination of MI, GA, MN, NH), potentially bringing them down to 40.  Then in 2028, they very likely lose the Presidency (almost impossible to hold the Presidency for three consecutive terms), which again limits their gains to maybe a seat or two on that class that they keep getting screwed on (2004, 2010, 2016, and likely 2022), putting them around 42 seats.  Then in 2030, maybe they finally gain Texas, putting them at 43.  

They would have been better off letting Trump win in 2020 with 51 senators (Perdue would have avoided a runoff) and pick up WI, PA, and NC in 2022 (I don’t think they would have been able to win FL and OH in this situation even in a Trump midterm), getting Dems to 52.  In 2024, a Dem very likely would win the Presidency and potentially hold losses to just WV (the 2024 environment would be much better for Dems after eight years of Trump than four years of Biden) for 51 seats.  In 2026, Dems would probably have lost the senate but not by much (maybe down to 48-49 seats).  2028 would have been a wash with the Dem President probably getting re-elected.  2030 is when Dems would have faced a bad midterm with the class 1 wipeout in this case.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

https://www.axios.com/manchin-sanders-reconciliation-fight-789c8441-fa49-404f-9d36-4adaa8e1d908.html
Yeah, I'm not liking Manchin anymore.
Manchin reportedly does not care if a bill gets passed.

[jojoju1998]

Why did the Az democrats even endorse Sinema for her 2018 senate run. She's basically a crypto republican at this point

The weird thing is that this all feels very sudden. She didn't seem this way in 2018, and honestly not even through 2020. She was very supportive of Mark Kelly in 2020 and they seemed to be on the same page. It's like for whatever reason, as soon as she got some power with the Biden win that she veered right.

I assume talks are ongoing today and tomorrow since Biden needs something to be done before he leaves next week?

What's funny for me is that Mark Kelly ran as the moderate. Sinema ran as the progressive ( well progressive for arizona ).

And now Kelly is behind for most of Biden's agenda. And Sinema is the one doing all the antics.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.axios.com/manchin-sanders-reconciliation-fight-789c8441-fa49-404f-9d36-4adaa8e1d908.html
Yeah, I'm not liking Manchin anymore.
Manchin reportedly does not care if a bill gets passed.

More like arguing and debating that a serious threat IMO. Another example:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1451221743276810240

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Why did the Az democrats even endorse Sinema for her 2018 senate run. She's basically a crypto republican at this point

The weird thing is that this all feels very sudden. She didn't seem this way in 2018, and honestly not even through 2020. She was very supportive of Mark Kelly in 2020 and they seemed to be on the same page. It's like for whatever reason, as soon as she got some power with the Biden win that she veered right.

I assume talks are ongoing today and tomorrow since Biden needs something to be done before he leaves next week?

Why did the Az democrats even endorse Sinema for her 2018 senate run. She's basically a crypto republican at this point

The weird thing is that this all feels very sudden. She didn't seem this way in 2018, and honestly not even through 2020. She was very supportive of Mark Kelly in 2020 and they seemed to be on the same page. It's like for whatever reason, as soon as she got some power with the Biden win that she veered right.

I assume talks are ongoing today and tomorrow since Biden needs something to be done before he leaves next week?

What's funny for me is that Mark Kelly ran as the moderate. Sinema ran as the progressive ( well progressive for arizona ).

And now Kelly is behind for most of Biden's agenda. And Sinema is the one doing all the antics.

Guys, it's really not. Sinema has always been extremely conservative, she was running around praising actual Nazi Russell Pearce when she was a state rep 'because he's my boss', she had the highest voting alignment with the Trump administration of any House Dem, and she was catapulted to the Senate because she got cash dumped on her from Emily's List and the HRC (wow, rich white women and rich white gays love the allegedly queer woman that works slavishly and exclusively for rich people, how'd a thunk it) and the national party, read Schumer, discouraged any other serious candidates from running in the D primary because the take away from 2016 wasn't don't coronate sh**tty candidates, it was don't have primaries.

Anyway, my point here is she's always been extremely conservative, arguably to the right of the median Republican voters nevermind elected dems, and everyone just ignores it because she's a youngish woman who dresses weird and is into New Age bullsh**t, so she must be some kind of hippy.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://www.axios.com/manchin-sanders-reconciliation-fight-789c8441-fa49-404f-9d36-4adaa8e1d908.html
Yeah, I'm not liking Manchin anymore.
Manchin reportedly does not care if a bill gets passed.

Yeah, he's just saying what he's always been saying, pass the BIF so I can kill reconciliation. This isn't new and the President, Senate, and House aren't dumb, so it's not happening.


But I will collect apologies from every idiot that ran around here commenting how we need to pass the BIB to placate Manchin and Sinema.

[roxas11]

https://www.axios.com/manchin-sanders-reconciliation-fight-789c8441-fa49-404f-9d36-4adaa8e1d908.html
Yeah, I'm not liking Manchin anymore.
Manchin reportedly does not care if a bill gets passed.

More like arguing and debating that a serious threat IMO. Another example:

https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1451221743276810240

Joe Manchin is so full of it lol

He would never walk away from being a Democrat right now because he loves all the attention and power that he now has. He loves the spotlight and would never willingly give it up.

If Manchin really wanted to become independent who would have done it a long time ago, but he knows if he does he would lose a lot of the influence that he currently has over Democrats

[jaichind]

Biden just said there are not the votes for tax hikes.  Excellent.

[jaichind]

 https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/sinema-agrees-to-broad-tax-hike-outline-to-fund-biden-agenda

"Sinema Agrees to Broad Tax Hike Outline to Fund Biden Agenda"

I suspect Biden is talking about "no vote for tax rate hikes" is

The possible breakthrough comes after a day of discussions among Democratic leaders and Sinema and her staff over the tax policy goals for the bill. Sinema had previously said that she would likely not support increases to corporate and individual tax rates, prompting Democrats to look at alternative tax options to increase revenue without upping the headline rates.  Democrats are considering options including an excise tax on stock buybacks, a levy on the unrealized gains of billionaires and corporate minimum taxes as a fallback on tax rate hikes. However, those ideas have yet to be fully developed and could face political resistance from other Democrats.

Where tax rate increases are out due to Sinema but I guess they got her to agree to tax on stock buybacks or corp min tax.  I can even see some GOP house and Senate members backing copr min tax.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

From the CNN townhall, seems like the Medicare expansion is dead. Sigh.

[H. Ross Peron]

Biden just said there are not the votes for tax hikes.  Excellent.

More money for your sex trafficking ring presumably?

[R.P. McM]

Why did the Az democrats even endorse Sinema for her 2018 senate run. She's basically a crypto republican at this point

The weird thing is that this all feels very sudden. She didn't seem this way in 2018, and honestly not even through 2020. She was very supportive of Mark Kelly in 2020 and they seemed to be on the same page. It's like for whatever reason, as soon as she got some power with the Biden win that she veered right.

I assume talks are ongoing today and tomorrow since Biden needs something to be done before he leaves next week?

Why did the Az democrats even endorse Sinema for her 2018 senate run. She's basically a crypto republican at this point

The weird thing is that this all feels very sudden. She didn't seem this way in 2018, and honestly not even through 2020. She was very supportive of Mark Kelly in 2020 and they seemed to be on the same page. It's like for whatever reason, as soon as she got some power with the Biden win that she veered right.

I assume talks are ongoing today and tomorrow since Biden needs something to be done before he leaves next week?

What's funny for me is that Mark Kelly ran as the moderate. Sinema ran as the progressive ( well progressive for arizona ).

And now Kelly is behind for most of Biden's agenda. And Sinema is the one doing all the antics.

Guys, it's really not. Sinema has always been extremely conservative, she was running around praising actual Nazi Russell Pearce when she was a state rep 'because he's my boss', she had the highest voting alignment with the Trump administration of any House Dem, and she was catapulted to the Senate because she got cash dumped on her from Emily's List and the HRC (wow, rich white women and rich white gays love the allegedly queer woman that works slavishly and exclusively for rich people, how'd a thunk it) and the national party, read Schumer, discouraged any other serious candidates from running in the D primary because the take away from 2016 wasn't don't coronate sh**tty candidates, it was don't have primaries.

Anyway, my point here is she's always been extremely conservative, arguably to the right of the median Republican voters nevermind elected dems, and everyone just ignores it because she's a youngish woman who dresses weird and is into New Age bullsh**t, so she must be some kind of hippy.

The superficial subset of the party that's deeply invested in performative displays of progressivism. Like RBG's worthless dissents, or her stupid exercise routine.

[R.P. McM]

From the CNN townhall, seems like the Medicare expansion is dead. Sigh.

Not my cardinal concern — this generation of geriatrics has had it relatively good. Still, the whole thing is pretty disappointing. What the Biden Administration is poised to accomplish with Democratic congressional majorities I wouldn't even consider half a loaf. Frankly, it's so pathetic, I've seriously contemplated sitting out 2022 in order to hasten the eventual collapse. I probably won't, but at the very least, aggressive efforts need to be expended purging the Sinema's, Manchin's, and Feinstein's of the party. The latter is key, because we shouldn't assume that SineManchin are the only potential Lieberman's. Until proven otherwise, we should assume that everyone over the age of 70 who isn't overtly progressive (i.e., Sanders) is a potential member of the corporate fifth column.

[R.P. McM]

reinstitute the SALT deduction

The WWC had their chance, now it's time to cut the dead weight. No more bailouts, every state for itself.

Socialism is when you sound like a turbo-charged Neoliberal, the more turbo-charged Neoliberal you sound the more Socialist you are.

I'm one of those socialists who, to paraphrase Ron White, doesn't believe he can fix stupid. Yeah, you get the government you voted for, but the rest of the planet shouldn't have to suffer for your idiotic decisions.

Not exactly Alle Menschen werden Brüder or 'Workers of the World, unite!' (I prefer the former, but accept that the latter has been extremely influential, historically), is it? I think you may have confused 'being a socialist' with 'having a personality disorder'.

Another ad hominem attack? Yeah, I am interested in implementing a socialist agenda, including legislation to address climate change. However, I'm fully aware that no such legislation will ever pass until the anti-majoritarian power of states like WV/KY/AL/AR/LA/etc., is permanently destroyed. The WWC voters of said states will never elect politicians interested in safeguarding their material wellbeing. Because they're trashy, lobotomized racists. So what do you want me to say? The truth is, minus the South and interior West, we would already be living in a social democracy akin to Canada or Western Europe. Can I at least lay blame at the feet of the people responsible for the dire circumstances of the present moment?!

The implicit alternative is that I just STFU, allow the SineManchin's of the world to torpedo working-class/climate change legislation, and then the next time the voters of WV/AZ/LA/FL need a bailout, the people of MN just open up the checkbook. No thanks. It's called political accountability — yes, you are responsible for the representatives you elect.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1451344941280604163


So Kyrsten Sinema’s whole dance was because she doesn’t want to reverse the tax cuts that she voted and campaigned against.

Couple of things here:
First, we had a framework in July on taxes. The Corp/upper bracket/cap gains would only be increased to about halfway to were they were before the Trump admin’s giveaways. Given that she immediately then went about torching that agreement, why would anyone trust her to stick to any framework on the wider deal. Specifically why would the House move on her pet bill, the one that the entire House, White House, and most of the Senate Dems were cut out of drafting in favor of Rob Portman and Explicitly-Not-President Romney, on the basis of any agreement she makes. I’ve been saying this forever, but no reconciliation, no bill. It should be obvious to everyone right now that any promises she makes (errata: to anyone that doesn’t write her a check) can’t be taken seriously. In general, why would anyone ever deal with her again? The 50-50 Senate is almost certainly gone one way or another after midterms and her insistence on Rule 22 means that the vast majority of the time we need her plus 10 Republicans, is just getting 11 not easier that guessing wether she’s lying to you or will get paid to change her mind?
I don’t see why anyone at any level will ever work with her again, Republicans and Mr. Manchin but I repeat myself excepted.

Second, is their a more charitable plausible explanation than she’s been bribed? She publicly opposed the tax cuts until this year and she ‘agreed’ (scare quotes because she was lying) to a partial repeal. Then she suddenly won’t talk to anyone, not only the constituents she studiously ignores but colleagues, her local party organs, press, and even the White House, the meetings, as best we can tell, we’re her just saying nothing and giving her ultimatum only an idiot would agree to, she starts hanging out with venture capitalists and investment bankers, gets a bunch of campaign donations from corporate lobbies and Republican super donors and direct advertising campaigns from GOP aligned super-pacs, and then it comes out that actually now she loves those tax cuts and will destroy any legislation that gets in the way. Of the conclusions a rational person can reach, she’s trading her vote for money is best light she can be portrayed in. I have another theory, based on her crappy book and the quotes from Arizona politicos that show up in those periodic WTF is Wrong with Kyrsten articles, but it doesn’t put her in a better light necessarily. There is always the possibility that she is just mentally ill or irresponsible to the point that she simultaneously changes her core beliefs every few weeks and works tirelessly to bend the nation to her caprice. But that would be worse than bog standard corruption, in the way that late Roman Republican Senators are better than Caligula,

[wbrocks67]

It's utterly mindboggling why Sinema won't raise a single cent on corporations.

[wbrocks67]

Good. This sh**t needs to get done before Biden leaves for Europe and 11/2. It's already been way too long. The Senate and House should be willing to go 24/7 the next few days to make this happen.

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1451499420923703298

[jaichind]

It's utterly mindboggling why Sinema won't raise a single cent on corporations.

While I am pleased that Sinema has taken a position that I support I am confused by this.  From a game theory point of view, it does not make sense for her to take this position.  Manchin's positions and behavior are consistent with what he has said and what is likely best for his long-term political interests.    This does not seem to be true for Sinema.  I assume she will a) not run for re-election in 2024 or b) join GOP in 2024 and hope to win the GOP primary.  If a) or b) are true then her behavior is a lot easier to explain.

[Person Man]

It's utterly mindboggling why Sinema won't raise a single cent on corporations.

While I am pleased that Sinema has taken a position that I support I am confused by this.  From a game theory point of view, it does not make sense for her to take this position.  Manchin's positions and behavior are consistent with what he has said and what is likely best for his long-term political interests.    This does not seem to be true for Sinema.  I assume she will a) not run for re-election in 2024 or b) join GOP in 2024 and hope to win the GOP primary.  If a) or b) are true then her behavior is a lot easier to explain.

She can even say that “I’ve been doing pretty well lately and feel like I’m moved up in the world and now I’m a Republican instead of a struggling Democrat.”

[wbrocks67]

All I know is that when this thing passes, Democrats need to do the best messaging they've ever done. They need to literally lay out, in bullet points, everything that is going to help people. TV ads, social media, interviews, etc. EVERYTHING. So the American people actually know how it's going to help them and Dems get the credit for it.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Dems basically have to win 2024 at the presidential level or they lose the Senate for a generation.  The inevitable Class I Senate seat wipeout needs to be postponed long enough that they can compete throughout the South/Southern Plains by the time it happens.  

For the same reason, if Dems have to lose in 2024, they would probably be best off losing it to Trump.

Even if Dems win the Presidential election and lose four seats in 2022, they probably lose the senate until 2032 at least.  If they are at 46 after 2022, they still probably lose three seats in 2024 even if they win the Presidency in 2024, putting them at 43.  Then in 2026, they probably lose a couple of seats again (some combination of MI, GA, MN, NH), potentially bringing them down to 40.  Then in 2028, they very likely lose the Presidency (almost impossible to hold the Presidency for three consecutive terms), which again limits their gains to maybe a seat or two on that class that they keep getting screwed on (2004, 2010, 2016, and likely 2022), putting them around 42 seats.  Then in 2030, maybe they finally gain Texas, putting them at 43.  

They would have been better off letting Trump win in 2020 with 51 senators (Perdue would have avoided a runoff) and pick up WI, PA, and NC in 2022 (I don’t think they would have been able to win FL and OH in this situation even in a Trump midterm), getting Dems to 52.  In 2024, a Dem very likely would win the Presidency and potentially hold losses to just WV (the 2024 environment would be much better for Dems after eight years of Trump than four years of Biden) for 51 seats.  In 2026, Dems would probably have lost the senate but not by much (maybe down to 48-49 seats).  2028 would have been a wash with the Dem President probably getting re-elected.  2030 is when Dems would have faced a bad midterm with the class 1 wipeout in this case.

If they can get past 2024 without a wipeout, they will be ready to contest enough of the South and Plains by 2028/32 that it will be a fair fight again even if they get wiped out of Class I 2030.  Class I is eventually going to be D's worst map no matter what.  Will be interesting to see if they ever get a favorable environment when Class III is up.