Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[compucomp]

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."

I can't even imagine the sheer amount of privilege it takes to unironically believe this.

It's not even about me believing it, I'm just a sh**tposter on the Internet. I'm a bit mystified, honestly, that the left has collectively forgotten that Sinema and Manchin are the 49th and 50th votes to make Chuck Schumer the Senate Majority Leader. It's not just the activists either, even the elected officials have joined in. All this talk about progressives being ascendant, having all the leverage, being in the drivers' seat, etc, they all forget that Sinema and/or Manchin could wave their hand and all that would go up in smoke. That's not just the reconciliation bill, no judges nor Senate confirmations would go through either. Sinema and Manchin clearly hold the ultimate nuclear option in this dispute, just like Jeffords did in 2001, and it's probably time for the left to be reminded of that.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

You do realize that any Senator can be Joe Manchin, right?

[emailking]

It's not even about me believing it, I'm just a sh**tposter on the Internet. I'm a bit mystified, honestly, that the left has collectively forgotten that Sinema and Manchin are the 49th and 50th votes to make Chuck Schumer the Senate Majority Leader. It's not just the activists either, even the elected officials have joined in. All this talk about progressives being ascendant, having all the leverage, being in the drivers' seat, etc, they all forget that Sinema and/or Manchin could wave their hand and all that would go up in smoke. That's not just the reconciliation bill, no judges nor Senate confirmations would go through either. Sinema and Manchin clearly hold the ultimate nuclear option in this dispute, just like Jeffords did in 2001, and it's probably time for the left to be reminded of that.

Is that a real article you wrote? Where is it?

[compucomp]

It's not even about me believing it, I'm just a sh**tposter on the Internet. I'm a bit mystified, honestly, that the left has collectively forgotten that Sinema and Manchin are the 49th and 50th votes to make Chuck Schumer the Senate Majority Leader. It's not just the activists either, even the elected officials have joined in. All this talk about progressives being ascendant, having all the leverage, being in the drivers' seat, etc, they all forget that Sinema and/or Manchin could wave their hand and all that would go up in smoke. That's not just the reconciliation bill, no judges nor Senate confirmations would go through either. Sinema and Manchin clearly hold the ultimate nuclear option in this dispute, just like Jeffords did in 2001, and it's probably time for the left to be reminded of that.

Is that a real article you wrote? Where is it?

Lol no, that's a photoshop mocking me, I think it's cropping from a Guardian article about Sinema.

You do realize that any Senator can be Joe Manchin, right?

Yes, it's true any Democratic senator can threaten to withhold his/her vote and bring down  Democratic control, but for most of them the threat should not be taken seriously since it would be quite irrational for them to do that. Their policy positions are much closer to the Democratic caucus than the Republican caucus, and switching parties would likely prevent them from being re-elected. Manchin however is an exception to this, he may now actually be closer to the Republican caucus on policy than the Democratic (remember this ad), and he could easily conclude that going R is his best hope of being re-elected in 2024. Now I don't know what Sinema is doing, as it would be irrational for her to try to join the Republicans, but she might just be irrational enough to do it.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

[GP270watch]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

 Because this country has been bred to have contempt for progress and to see expenditures on things that help the many as wasteful, when things that help the few profiteer like dumb foreign wars are unquestionable.

[Torie]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

[Torie]

And in other news, there is no need to read the linked essay by Doug Schoen. Why? Because he basically has recycled the same article for about 15 years now: if the Dems don't moderate, they will lost the next election, and say it more than once to boot to pad out the epistle that is devoid of data points, or makes tendentious/inappropriate use of them. This one has the claim that "his" poll has the Dems down with independents by 5 points. Oh my, the horror, the horror, of that. The Dems might as well give up. I guess his picture is by the term "concern troll" in the dictionary.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/576104-democrats-combative-approach-to-politics-is-doing-more-harm-than-good

[compucomp]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

[compucomp]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

I disagree, pretty sure that Manchin would prefer nothing to pass rather than the original $6 trillion bill. Remember this dude got elected shooting the cap and trade bill and promising to take on the Obama administration. I can't recall any statement by Manchin that he would support a $3.5 trillion bill, he merely voted to start debate on the bill, which as we saw with the debt ceiling vote, is not binding him to supporting it. I'll give you that only Manchin can credibly make this statement and that Sinema is behaving irrationally, but still, that's still the 50th vote you need.

You may claim that you would rather nothing to pass than your preferred reconciliation package, but that's your pride and spite talking, and those are irrational emotional factors that really shouldn't be interfering with the business of policy making.

[Torie]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

I disagree, pretty sure that Manchin would prefer nothing to pass rather than the original $6 trillion bill. Remember this dude got elected shooting the cap and trade bill and promising to take on the Obama administration. I can't recall any statement by Manchin that he would support a $3.5 trillion bill, he merely voted to start debate on the bill, which as we saw with the debt ceiling vote, is not binding him to supporting it. I'll give you that only Manchin can credibly make this statement and that Sinema is behaving irrationally, but still, that's still the 50th vote you need.

You may claim that you would rather nothing to pass than your preferred reconciliation package, but that's your pride and spite talking, and those are irrational emotional factors that really shouldn't be interfering with the business of policy making.

And as part of the process of agreeing to reconciliation instructions to start the process with a 3.5 trillion cap to which you refer in the bolded bit above, he and Schumer signed a memo a couple of weeks earlier where it set forth that 1.5 trillion was Manchin's max as to the sum of money that would come out the other end (with a host of other conditions as well). So the bait and switch version of events is refuted by an actual signed document. I suspect Manchin insisted on that document because he was aware that down the road the bait and switch charge would be levied against him, and he wanted to shield himself from that. Manchin is a very methodical and quite meticulous man actually.

[MillennialModerate]

Every time I see a new post on this thread I think I’m going to click on the thread to find a quoted tweet that shows major progress and every time I’m disappointed….

Im officially really really concerned

[RINO Tom]

A certain Green avatar is practically on the verge of becoming the first poster on my ignore list because of the inane and asinine posts being made on this thread.

It's OK DEMs, PUBs, LBTs, IND's etc.... We can agree/disagree wrangle etc....

but really starting to look like one individual is excessively spamming the thread with nobody else responding to their comments.

Most people have put Mr. Kanye West on ignore. I did it the first day. He’s a troll bot. Why he isn’t banned is beyond me

You know not of what you speak, newbie.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

I disagree, pretty sure that Manchin would prefer nothing to pass rather than the original $6 trillion bill. Remember this dude got elected shooting the cap and trade bill and promising to take on the Obama administration. I can't recall any statement by Manchin that he would support a $3.5 trillion bill, he merely voted to start debate on the bill, which as we saw with the debt ceiling vote, is not binding him to supporting it. I'll give you that only Manchin can credibly make this statement and that Sinema is behaving irrationally, but still, that's still the 50th vote you need.

You may claim that you would rather nothing to pass than your preferred reconciliation package, but that's your pride and spite talking, and those are irrational emotional factors that really shouldn't be interfering with the business of policy making.

What I’m saying is that there was no good reason to oppose the original ~$6 trillion bill.  In any case, $3.5 trillion was the final compromise and that has nothing to do with pride or spite.  Manchin committed that he would be a team player on reconciliation if the Senate passed the infrastructure bill and he has been anything but.  

There is more value in denying Sinemanchin the win of passing their pet piece of crap (especially if the Dems are smart enough to make it known that any lobbying firm that hires them will be blacklisted) than there is in giving them a win in exchange for a reconciliation bill that has been watered down to the point of uselessness.  It’ll show that folks aren’t gonna be rewarded for f***ing over the rest of the party by killing the Democratic agenda on orders of Republican donors.  If Sinemanchin get a legislative win out of this, then party discipline will be dead for the foreseeable future.  That cannot be allowed to happen.  

Moreover, progressives have consistently bent over backward to accommodate Sinemanchin as much as reasonably possible and then some.  Sinemanchin have been the personification of unreasonable, rigidly inflexible behavior and consistently acted in bad-faith at every turn.  

You’ve even acknowledged Sinema is not behaving rationally and Manchin has consistently behaved like a spiteful, ego-driven spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum because the grown ups aren’t indulging his delusions of grandeur.  The man seems to think he can just arbitrarily make a bunch of ridiculous, bad-faith demands and then expect everyone to do whatever he wants without question.  It doesn’t work that way.  He is not God-Emperor of America and while he can kill other folks’ legislation, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  

Plus, his behavior isn’t pragmatic or reasonable; it’s just the congressional equivalent of a temper tantrum by a toddler who is throwing his feces at everyone b/c he’s angry about being told he has to eat his vegetables before he can have ice cream.

[Pres Mike]

Every time I see a new post on this thread I think I’m going to click on the thread to find a quoted tweet that shows major progress and every time I’m disappointed….

Im officially really really concerned

It was always a fantasy that Democrats would have both the BIF and Reconciliation done by October 1st.

If it wasn’t for Manchin/Sinema, we would have a 2 trillion infrastructure package and a 6 trillion reconciliation package done by August recess. Along with killing the filibuster, voting rights, immigration, minimum wage increase and abolishing the debt ceiling

Imagine a world where Democrats had won senate seats in Maine, North Carolina and Iowa….

[compucomp]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

I disagree, pretty sure that Manchin would prefer nothing to pass rather than the original $6 trillion bill. Remember this dude got elected shooting the cap and trade bill and promising to take on the Obama administration. I can't recall any statement by Manchin that he would support a $3.5 trillion bill, he merely voted to start debate on the bill, which as we saw with the debt ceiling vote, is not binding him to supporting it. I'll give you that only Manchin can credibly make this statement and that Sinema is behaving irrationally, but still, that's still the 50th vote you need.

You may claim that you would rather nothing to pass than your preferred reconciliation package, but that's your pride and spite talking, and those are irrational emotional factors that really shouldn't be interfering with the business of policy making.

What I’m saying is that there was no good reason to oppose the original ~$6 trillion bill.  In any case, $3.5 trillion was the final compromise and that has nothing to do with pride or spite.  Manchin committed that he would be a team player on reconciliation if the Senate passed the infrastructure bill and he has been anything but.  

There is more value in denying Sinemanchin the win of passing their pet piece of crap (especially if the Dems are smart enough to make it known that any lobbying firm that hires them will be blacklisted) than there is in giving them a win in exchange for a reconciliation bill that has been watered down to the point of uselessness.  It’ll show that folks aren’t gonna be rewarded for f***ing over the rest of the party by killing the Democratic agenda on orders of Republican donors.  If Sinemanchin get a legislative win out of this, then party discipline will be dead for the foreseeable future.  That cannot be allowed to happen.  

Moreover, progressives have consistently bent over backward to accommodate Sinemanchin as much as reasonably possible and then some.  Sinemanchin have been the personification of unreasonable, rigidly inflexible behavior and consistently acted in bad-faith at every turn.  

You’ve even acknowledged Sinema is not behaving rationally and Manchin has consistently behaved like a spiteful, ego-driven spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum because the grown ups aren’t indulging his delusions of grandeur.  The man seems to think he can just arbitrarily make a bunch of ridiculous, bad-faith demands and then expect everyone to do whatever he wants without question.  It doesn’t work that way.  He is not God-Emperor of America and while he can kill other folks’ legislation, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  

Plus, his behavior isn’t pragmatic or reasonable; it’s just the congressional equivalent of a temper tantrum by a toddler who is throwing his feces at everyone b/c he’s angry about being told he has to eat his vegetables before he can have ice cream.

Are you still under the illusion that Manchin is a closet liberal or that there's a "Manchin Cycle" and that Manchin will ultimately back whatever the Democratic party leadership wants? Manchin is not a liberal, he's the last of the old-school conservative Southern Democrat. He made his way to Congress running against Democrats, shooting a copy of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, promising to defend Second Amendment rights, cut federal spending and "repeal the bad parts of Obamacare", and to take on the Obama administration. It's entirely reasonable to think that he may genuinely prefer nothing than an excessive reconciliation bill, and that's why he should have all the leverage and dictate what goes into the bill, since no other Democrat can credibly claim that. You guys on the left may hate it, sure, but he's the 50th vote on this legislation and without him you have nothing, and since you would prefer anything over nothing, you have to let him have his way. The alternative is being a petulant child, behaving irrationally and blowing it all up because you can't have everything you want.

Maybe Manchin should run some ads of him taking a copy of the reconciliation bill and shooting it just to make the point more clear to you.

[Pericles]

This stupid idea of never passing the BIF makes no sense. The BIF is better for America than the status quo, so worst-case Democrats should make sure to pass it in this Congress even if the reconciliation fails. Of course tactically though, they should hold it hostage to make it more likely that Manchin and Sinema vote for reconciliation, but basically the threat should be a bluff. The ultimate question is the degree of progress made, anything is better than nothing.

[Pres Mike]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

I disagree, pretty sure that Manchin would prefer nothing to pass rather than the original $6 trillion bill. Remember this dude got elected shooting the cap and trade bill and promising to take on the Obama administration. I can't recall any statement by Manchin that he would support a $3.5 trillion bill, he merely voted to start debate on the bill, which as we saw with the debt ceiling vote, is not binding him to supporting it. I'll give you that only Manchin can credibly make this statement and that Sinema is behaving irrationally, but still, that's still the 50th vote you need.

You may claim that you would rather nothing to pass than your preferred reconciliation package, but that's your pride and spite talking, and those are irrational emotional factors that really shouldn't be interfering with the business of policy making.

What I’m saying is that there was no good reason to oppose the original ~$6 trillion bill.  In any case, $3.5 trillion was the final compromise and that has nothing to do with pride or spite.  Manchin committed that he would be a team player on reconciliation if the Senate passed the infrastructure bill and he has been anything but.  

There is more value in denying Sinemanchin the win of passing their pet piece of crap (especially if the Dems are smart enough to make it known that any lobbying firm that hires them will be blacklisted) than there is in giving them a win in exchange for a reconciliation bill that has been watered down to the point of uselessness.  It’ll show that folks aren’t gonna be rewarded for f***ing over the rest of the party by killing the Democratic agenda on orders of Republican donors.  If Sinemanchin get a legislative win out of this, then party discipline will be dead for the foreseeable future.  That cannot be allowed to happen.  

Moreover, progressives have consistently bent over backward to accommodate Sinemanchin as much as reasonably possible and then some.  Sinemanchin have been the personification of unreasonable, rigidly inflexible behavior and consistently acted in bad-faith at every turn.  

You’ve even acknowledged Sinema is not behaving rationally and Manchin has consistently behaved like a spiteful, ego-driven spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum because the grown ups aren’t indulging his delusions of grandeur.  The man seems to think he can just arbitrarily make a bunch of ridiculous, bad-faith demands and then expect everyone to do whatever he wants without question.  It doesn’t work that way.  He is not God-Emperor of America and while he can kill other folks’ legislation, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  

Plus, his behavior isn’t pragmatic or reasonable; it’s just the congressional equivalent of a temper tantrum by a toddler who is throwing his feces at everyone b/c he’s angry about being told he has to eat his vegetables before he can have ice cream.

Are you still under the illusion that Manchin is a closet liberal or that there's a "Manchin Cycle" and that Manchin will ultimately back whatever the Democratic party leadership wants? Manchin is not a liberal, he's the last of the old-school conservative Southern Democrat. He made his way to Congress running against Democrats, shooting a copy of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, promising to defend Second Amendment rights, cut federal spending and "repeal the bad parts of Obamacare", and to take on the Obama administration. It's entirely reasonable to think that he may genuinely prefer nothing than an excessive reconciliation bill, and that's why he should have all the leverage and dictate what goes into the bill, since no other Democrat can credibly claim that. You guys on the left may hate it, sure, but he's the 50th vote on this legislation and without him you have nothing, and since you would prefer anything over nothing, you have to let him have his way. The alternative is being a petulant child, behaving irrationally and blowing it all up because you can't have everything you want.

Maybe Manchin should run some ads of him taking a copy of the reconciliation bill and shooting it just to make the point more clear to you.

The problem with Manchin is that he is uncompromising despite everyone bending the knee.

Biden has invited Manchin to the White House multiple times. He gave his wife a very comfy high pay job in the federal government. Biden and Schumer are basically letting him write the bill. Manchin is being treated like a king. I can't think of anyone else in government who gets this treatment. In the 60s, LBJ would act very differently....

But Manchin is being difficult. He isn't compromisng. No one else is being told "Name your price". Yet time after time, he has refused to name how much he wants or what he wants cut. All he wants is to drag this out which is unacceptable. He only came to 1.5 trillion AFTER he Summer memo was leaked to the press. Otherwise, I think he would have waited until next year to get serious.

Everyone has principals. Everyone has morals. But you do not become a successful senator/represenative by not compromising. No one was pleased with Obamacare, yet 20 million people now have health insurance. That is 10% of the adult population of this country. That is because people compomised. Manchin is not comprosing

[Antonio the Sixth]

This stupid idea of never passing the BIF makes no sense. The BIF is better for America than the status quo, so worst-case Democrats should make sure to pass it in this Congress even if the reconciliation fails. Of course tactically though, they should hold it hostage to make it more likely that Manchin and Sinema vote for reconciliation, but basically the threat should be a bluff. The ultimate question is the degree of progress made, anything is better than nothing.

I say we pass it in the lame-duck session, after moderates have to go back to their districts and explain to their constituents why they got nothing done.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

I disagree, pretty sure that Manchin would prefer nothing to pass rather than the original $6 trillion bill. Remember this dude got elected shooting the cap and trade bill and promising to take on the Obama administration. I can't recall any statement by Manchin that he would support a $3.5 trillion bill, he merely voted to start debate on the bill, which as we saw with the debt ceiling vote, is not binding him to supporting it. I'll give you that only Manchin can credibly make this statement and that Sinema is behaving irrationally, but still, that's still the 50th vote you need.

You may claim that you would rather nothing to pass than your preferred reconciliation package, but that's your pride and spite talking, and those are irrational emotional factors that really shouldn't be interfering with the business of policy making.

What I’m saying is that there was no good reason to oppose the original ~$6 trillion bill.  In any case, $3.5 trillion was the final compromise and that has nothing to do with pride or spite.  Manchin committed that he would be a team player on reconciliation if the Senate passed the infrastructure bill and he has been anything but.  

There is more value in denying Sinemanchin the win of passing their pet piece of crap (especially if the Dems are smart enough to make it known that any lobbying firm that hires them will be blacklisted) than there is in giving them a win in exchange for a reconciliation bill that has been watered down to the point of uselessness.  It’ll show that folks aren’t gonna be rewarded for f***ing over the rest of the party by killing the Democratic agenda on orders of Republican donors.  If Sinemanchin get a legislative win out of this, then party discipline will be dead for the foreseeable future.  That cannot be allowed to happen.  

Moreover, progressives have consistently bent over backward to accommodate Sinemanchin as much as reasonably possible and then some.  Sinemanchin have been the personification of unreasonable, rigidly inflexible behavior and consistently acted in bad-faith at every turn.  

You’ve even acknowledged Sinema is not behaving rationally and Manchin has consistently behaved like a spiteful, ego-driven spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum because the grown ups aren’t indulging his delusions of grandeur.  The man seems to think he can just arbitrarily make a bunch of ridiculous, bad-faith demands and then expect everyone to do whatever he wants without question.  It doesn’t work that way.  He is not God-Emperor of America and while he can kill other folks’ legislation, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  

Plus, his behavior isn’t pragmatic or reasonable; it’s just the congressional equivalent of a temper tantrum by a toddler who is throwing his feces at everyone b/c he’s angry about being told he has to eat his vegetables before he can have ice cream.

Are you still under the illusion that Manchin is a closet liberal or that there's a "Manchin Cycle" and that Manchin will ultimately back whatever the Democratic party leadership wants? Manchin is not a liberal, he's the last of the old-school conservative Southern Democrat. He made his way to Congress running against Democrats, shooting a copy of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, promising to defend Second Amendment rights, cut federal spending and "repeal the bad parts of Obamacare", and to take on the Obama administration. It's entirely reasonable to think that he may genuinely prefer nothing than an excessive reconciliation bill, and that's why he should have all the leverage and dictate what goes into the bill, since no other Democrat can credibly claim that. You guys on the left may hate it, sure, but he's the 50th vote on this legislation and without him you have nothing, and since you would prefer anything over nothing, you have to let him have his way. The alternative is being a petulant child, behaving irrationally and blowing it all up because you can't have everything you want.

Maybe Manchin should run some ads of him taking a copy of the reconciliation bill and shooting it just to make the point more clear to you.

Anyone defending Manchin has no business accusing anyone of being irrational or a petulant child.  Both of those terms describe Manchin far more than they do progressives.  Also, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has made it pretty clear that a flaming pile of dog crap is not, in fact, better than nothing.  

And practically speaking, they’re right for the reasons you’d have seen had you bothered reading my post before responding.  I realize you don’t want to admit it because it doesn’t help your preferred narrative, but the progressive mindset is not “anything is better than nothing,” it’s “we’ll accommodate as much as reasonable, but if you tank our priorities then we’ll walk away and tank yours too.”

Manchin wants to tank reconciliation to appease his Republican donors while still passing the BIP so that he can indulge his delusions of grandeur by claiming to be one of the #GreatMenOfTheSenate for passing something with votes from both parties.  He’s just throwing a temper-tantrum b/c the CPC has shown they’re just as willing to walk as he is and that’s thrown a wrench in his (and Sinema’s) plan.

I don’t really give a f*** if Manchin’s a conservative or not or why he’s behaving the way he is; at a certain point it doesn’t really matter.  At the end of the day he still has to play well with others if he wants to get his way.  If he walks away, then he walks, but he’s not getting the BIP win until he gets his act together and stops being such a jack***.

[compucomp]

Why is it irrational for Bernie or Warren to demand certain positions but fine for Sinema and Manchin?

Assuming it were for real rather than a bluff, it would only be rational if they preferred zero dollars for reconciliation over 1.5 trillion, and potentially zero dollars for infrastructure, if they can't get 3.5 trillion.

The whole affair is this weird contest, where the issue is whether Manchin/Sinema would rather have nothing as opposed to 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and more than 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the one hand, and Sanders/Warren would also rather have nothing rather than 1.2 trillion for infrastructure and only 1.5 trillion for reconciliation, on the other hand.

It's weird because one scenario is that the meeting of the minds on the least bad option is to zero everything out. And that outcome is so weird, that it seems less weird to just assume that somebody is bluffing, and patiently wait for the bluff to be called.

Precisely. Anyone on the left prefers any amount of spending on the reconciliation bill, even $0.01, over passing nothing. They also prefer the infrastructure bill to not having the infrastructure bill. In short, half a loaf is better than none. So when presented with the option of passing something over passing nothing, if they behaved rationally they would vote for "something". This may not be true of Manchin, if the reconciliation bill is bad enough in his view, he may prefer throwing away the infrastructure bill to passing it.

So if everyone behaved rationally Manchin would have all the leverage and he would get his way on the reconciliation bill. However irrational factors, such as spite, pride, bruised egos, fear of humiliation, etc have gotten involved, and I think it's possible that nothing will pass.

If everyone was behaving rationally, we'd have passed a single ~$6 trillion infrastructure bill combining any good stuff in Sinemanchin's pet bipartisan piece of crap and full-funding for all of the Build Back Better agenda which was the original plan until Sinemanchin had a temper-tantrum and for no remotely sensible reason began demanding that it be split into two bills while agreeing to support a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill.  Sinemanchin are going back on their word b/c their donors in the Koch political network want them to kill the reconciliation bill.  Anyone suggesting that progressives are the ones behaving unreasonably is ignorant at best and deliberately engaging in revisionist history at worst.

I disagree, pretty sure that Manchin would prefer nothing to pass rather than the original $6 trillion bill. Remember this dude got elected shooting the cap and trade bill and promising to take on the Obama administration. I can't recall any statement by Manchin that he would support a $3.5 trillion bill, he merely voted to start debate on the bill, which as we saw with the debt ceiling vote, is not binding him to supporting it. I'll give you that only Manchin can credibly make this statement and that Sinema is behaving irrationally, but still, that's still the 50th vote you need.

You may claim that you would rather nothing to pass than your preferred reconciliation package, but that's your pride and spite talking, and those are irrational emotional factors that really shouldn't be interfering with the business of policy making.

What I’m saying is that there was no good reason to oppose the original ~$6 trillion bill.  In any case, $3.5 trillion was the final compromise and that has nothing to do with pride or spite.  Manchin committed that he would be a team player on reconciliation if the Senate passed the infrastructure bill and he has been anything but.  

There is more value in denying Sinemanchin the win of passing their pet piece of crap (especially if the Dems are smart enough to make it known that any lobbying firm that hires them will be blacklisted) than there is in giving them a win in exchange for a reconciliation bill that has been watered down to the point of uselessness.  It’ll show that folks aren’t gonna be rewarded for f***ing over the rest of the party by killing the Democratic agenda on orders of Republican donors.  If Sinemanchin get a legislative win out of this, then party discipline will be dead for the foreseeable future.  That cannot be allowed to happen.  

Moreover, progressives have consistently bent over backward to accommodate Sinemanchin as much as reasonably possible and then some.  Sinemanchin have been the personification of unreasonable, rigidly inflexible behavior and consistently acted in bad-faith at every turn.  

You’ve even acknowledged Sinema is not behaving rationally and Manchin has consistently behaved like a spiteful, ego-driven spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum because the grown ups aren’t indulging his delusions of grandeur.  The man seems to think he can just arbitrarily make a bunch of ridiculous, bad-faith demands and then expect everyone to do whatever he wants without question.  It doesn’t work that way.  He is not God-Emperor of America and while he can kill other folks’ legislation, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  

Plus, his behavior isn’t pragmatic or reasonable; it’s just the congressional equivalent of a temper tantrum by a toddler who is throwing his feces at everyone b/c he’s angry about being told he has to eat his vegetables before he can have ice cream.

Are you still under the illusion that Manchin is a closet liberal or that there's a "Manchin Cycle" and that Manchin will ultimately back whatever the Democratic party leadership wants? Manchin is not a liberal, he's the last of the old-school conservative Southern Democrat. He made his way to Congress running against Democrats, shooting a copy of the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, promising to defend Second Amendment rights, cut federal spending and "repeal the bad parts of Obamacare", and to take on the Obama administration. It's entirely reasonable to think that he may genuinely prefer nothing than an excessive reconciliation bill, and that's why he should have all the leverage and dictate what goes into the bill, since no other Democrat can credibly claim that. You guys on the left may hate it, sure, but he's the 50th vote on this legislation and without him you have nothing, and since you would prefer anything over nothing, you have to let him have his way. The alternative is being a petulant child, behaving irrationally and blowing it all up because you can't have everything you want.

Maybe Manchin should run some ads of him taking a copy of the reconciliation bill and shooting it just to make the point more clear to you.

Anyone defending Manchin has no business accusing anyone of being irrational or a petulant child.  Both of those terms describe Manchin far more than they do progressives.  Also, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has made it pretty clear that a flaming pile of dog crap is not, in fact, better than nothing.  

And practically speaking, they’re right for the reasons you’d have seen had you bothered reading my post before responding.  I realize you don’t want to admit it because it doesn’t help your preferred narrative, but the progressive mindset is not “anything is better than nothing,” it’s “we’ll accommodate as much as reasonable, but if you tank our priorities then we’ll walk away and tank yours too.”

Manchin wants to tank reconciliation to appease his Republican donors while still passing the BIP so that he can indulge his delusions of grandeur by claiming to be one of the #GreatMenOfTheSenate for passing something with votes from both parties.  He’s just throwing a temper-tantrum b/c the CPC has shown they’re just as willing to walk as he is and that’s thrown a wrench in his (and Sinema’s) plan.

I don’t really give a f*** if Manchin’s a conservative or not or why he’s behaving the way he is; at a certain point it doesn’t really matter.  At the end of the day he still has to play well with others if he wants to get his way.  If he walks away, then he walks, but he’s not getting the BIP win until he gets his act together and stops being such a jack***.

You've allowed pride and spite to cloud your judgement, like a spoiled petulant child, and forgotten the only thing that matters, and that's whether you prefer policy A or policy B. When policy B is no additional government spending, and policy A is some additional government spending, since you're on the left, you prefer policy A to policy B. If you were acting rationally, you would always choose policy A to policy B, and thus even if Manchin switches parties tomorrow, you should still support the BIF. As Pericles points out the threat to vote down the BIF is a bluff by the progressives and cannot possibly be a genuine rational policy position.

However, it seems for you the irrational emotional factors are now in the forefront and rational judgment has been lost. If progressives really think like you do, then they've really gone off the deep end of irrationality and have become the mirror image of the Freedom Caucus.

[Torie]

You two are both  Atlas at its best, the parry and thrusts of the swordplay most excellent to savor, but perhaps at this point it is time to await  further developments before the next attempt to decapitate the foe. Thank you both for you being you in the meantime.

Myself, more and more, I feel my tired old brain is just not able to parse what I discern is going out there. It all seems just so "foreign" to me.

[Utah Neolib]

A certain Green avatar is practically on the verge of becoming the first poster on my ignore list because of the inane and asinine posts being made on this thread.

It's OK DEMs, PUBs, LBTs, IND's etc.... We can agree/disagree wrangle etc....

but really starting to look like one individual is excessively spamming the thread with nobody else responding to their comments.

Most people have put Mr. Kanye West on ignore. I did it the first day. He’s a troll bot. Why he isn’t banned is beyond me

Heretic!

[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.