Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[Person Man]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills. And reinstitute the SALT deduction, so at least donor states can take care of themselves:



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

Are the two bolded bits really consistent? I assume you know where I am going with this.

Your "modest proposal" does just happen to comport with my personal financial interests, but even I admit that what is in my personal financial interest is not necessarily co-extensive with good public policy. Fancy that.

Yes, they're consistent. Maybe in a universe in which states that benefited from the SALT deduction weren't funding a disproportionate share of the federal treasury, they wouldn't be. But in this universe, they are. NJ is capable of funding its own government, as is MN. KY and WV, not so much. And I would be perfectly willing to contribute to WV's wellbeing, if their elected representatives were willing to help the rest of us mitigate climate change. But they're not. So now I have no interest in bailing them out. The people of NJ and MN should keep their own tax revenue in order to address a problem, at least locally, that the people of KY and WV won't let us rectify at the federal level.

That is your best argument, yes. While federal dollars are subsidizing the high tax states, the high tax states with higher incomes in general are subsidizing the federal government, so it is something of a wash. That assumes that there are few if any low tax, high income states. Are there any?  Bring in the quants!

That makes it fair, right?

[R.P. McM]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills. And reinstitute the SALT deduction, so at least donor states can take care of themselves:



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

Are the two bolded bits really consistent? I assume you know where I am going with this.

Your "modest proposal" does just happen to comport with my personal financial interests, but even I admit that what is in my personal financial interest is not necessarily co-extensive with good public policy. Fancy that.

Yes, they're consistent. Maybe in a universe in which states that benefited from the SALT deduction weren't funding a disproportionate share of the federal treasury, they wouldn't be. But in this universe, they are. NJ is capable of funding its own government, as is MN. KY and WV, not so much. And I would be perfectly willing to contribute to WV's wellbeing, if their elected representatives were willing to help the rest of us mitigate climate change. But they're not. So now I have no interest in bailing them out. The people of NJ and MN should keep their own tax revenue in order to address a problem, at least locally, that the people of KY and WV won't let us rectify at the federal level.

That is your best argument, yes. While federal dollars are subsidizing the high tax states, the high tax states with higher incomes in general are subsidizing the federal government, so it is something of a wash. That assumes that there are few if any low tax, high income states. Are there any?  Bring in the quants!

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

Here's a map The Economist made prior to the elimination of the SALT deduction. As you can see, the same general pattern prevailed:

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

My wild guess, very wild guess, is that the end result of all of this is that 1) infrastructure passes this year, and 2) reconciliation passes next year with some bipartisan support for a pared own package. Manchin and/or Sinema take the position that the go it with Dems alone approach just isn't working, they don't want to be rushed, and it is time for a new approach, and they are done tolerating infrastructure being held hostage and are shutting that down.

Yes, all these stupid leaks and speculations seem like desperation and/or amateur hour to me.

Do the house votes exist for the 'bipartisan' infrastructure bill to pass? The conservatives have not yet proven their ability to find a large amount of House Republicans to replace potential (or likely) Democratic no votes.

If reconciliation is de-linked, I would think so, unless the center of gravity among Dems is to tank both bills rather than to de-link and pass just infrastructure for the moment. In the end, I just don't believe the Dems will go the tank both approach during this calendar year. The optics of that I don't think will fly well at all in the coming midterms. But my forecasting ability has proven to be worse than random error, so pay me no mind. I am just wasting bandwidth here.
 

Why would they delink the bills?

As I said, to get Pub votes, if some progressives go South and would rather have nothing this year, rather than just infrastructure this year. Even the appearance of linkage, much less the fact of it,  costs Pub votes. It's a math thing.

This is in part, but only in part, in the context of Sinema allegedly saying she won't do any reconciliation unless and until infrastructure is passed, because she is in the business of leveraging others, rather than being leveraged, and was annoyed from the get go with the linkage. As a boss of my Dad once said during the Great Depression, Sinema is in the business of giving ulcers rather than getting them, and she does it very skillfully. She has a gift. Deal with it. 

I can’t imagine the sort of moral monster that admires dereliction of duty and naked abuse of office.

But no, the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives isn’t going to let some freshmen Senator issue ultimatums on behalf of her sense of entitlement, her monied patrons, or your masturbatory pleasure. (Yes mistress, spank me harder, rob that insulin, take that bribe, oh yes, oh yes)

Aside from that, you seem to be under the impression that canning his entire agenda and doing what two asshole’s rich friends want is a win. I highly doubt that anyone that doesn’t share your hatred of republican principles does.

[wbrocks67]

The main problem here is that Manchin is not willing to be a part of the team. And he's willing to say that whatever he wants is literally more important than what 49 other senators want. The selfishness that goes into that is astounding. I get having leverage, but this is nothing more than a power trip.

[R.P. McM]

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1449385953563381767

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[GP270watch]

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1449385953563381767

Arby's has more employees than there are coal miners.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

[R.P. McM]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills.

I always knew that socialists in this country are as dumb as a brick.

“Give me everything I want or I will destroy this country”

LOL. Don't worry — I'm not going to report the ad hominem attack. But yeah, I have no interest in passing Manchin's BIB without the climate change provisions in the BBB reconciliation bill. If they're unable to safeguard democracy or mitigate climate change, then this Democratic majority is completely worthless. And it's not the ~95% of the party that insists on destroying everything, it's the two blood-sucking corporate parasites named Manchin and Sinema.

[pppolitics]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills.

Why not roll out the red carpet for Trump?

[R.P. McM]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

It would be helpful in that prosperous folks in blue states wouldn't be contributing as much to a completely feckless federal government. Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts. Including mitigating climate change. Listen, it's not going to happen at the federal level. So the best we can hope for is that CA, NY, NJ, MN, etc., take matters into their own hands. Stop worrying about funding the Gulf states' disaster relief — we're not going to save them from themselves, F-em — focus more on effective local remedies.

[R.P. McM]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills.

Why not roll out the red carpet for Trump?

That's a good question for Manchin and Sinema — are their personal financial interests really worth risking a fascist, authoritarian coup? Seemingly, they are. Because bloodsuckers like Manchin and Sinema assume no one in their class will actually pay the price. Risky bet.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

[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.

[R.P. McM]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills.

I always knew that socialists in this country are as dumb as a brick.

“Give me everything I want or I will destroy this country”

LOL. Don't worry — I'm not going to report the ad hominem attack. But yeah, I have no interest in passing Manchin's BIB without the climate change provisions in the BBB reconciliation bill. If they're unable to safeguard democracy or mitigate climate change, then this Democratic majority is completely worthless. And it's not the ~95% of the party that insists on destroying everything, it's the two blood-sucking corporate parasites named Manchin and Sinema.

Oh no, pppolitics (and everyone else DARVOing away their destruction of Biden's agenda) is very aware that Manchin and Sinema are the ones holding up the bill.

These people know what they're doing. People like pppolitics and compucomp know they're lying about who started it. They're just so willing to destroy the progressive movement that they're willing to make Biden a do-nothing president.

In other news, these pople hate progressives and see them as a greater enemy than the GOP. They'll pay any price to destroy us - even 4 more years of Trump.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

Then why would you need a SALT deduction for political viability when you could just make taxes on the wealthy even higher? Anyone civically minded should support that. Now obviously, voters on the left won't support higher taxes to an infinite extent and vice versa for the right but it just seems improbable that a bill to tax and spend for climate in blue states would pass in the presence of a SALT deduction but narrowly fail in its absence. That's an awful lot of conjecture. And from an economic perspective, the idea that you need lower federal taxes to spend locally on climate (not that this is a problem that can be fixed with local solutions, of course) totally ignores how opportunity cost actually works.

[R.P. McM]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

Then why would you need a SALT deduction for political viability when you could just make taxes on the wealthy even higher? Anyone civically minded should support that. Now obviously, voters on the left won't support higher taxes to an infinite extent and vice versa for the right but it just seems improbable that a bill to tax and spend for climate in blue states would pass in the presence of a SALT deduction but narrowly fail in its absence. That's an awful lot of conjecture. And from an economic perspective, the idea that you need lower federal taxes to spend locally on climate (not that this is a problem that can be fixed with local solutions, of course) totally ignores how opportunity cost actually works.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You live in a reality in which senators representing wealthy blue states haven't already agreed to fund climate change provisions, Medicare expansion, etc. So not this reality. Sucks to say, but the people blocking Biden's agenda are poor, white, Christian rednecks. More money for MN means more is accomplished on the climate change front; more money for the federal government means that Manchin and Sinema piss and moan and sell their votes for corporate contributions. No thanks.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

Then why would you need a SALT deduction for political viability when you could just make taxes on the wealthy even higher? Anyone civically minded should support that. Now obviously, voters on the left won't support higher taxes to an infinite extent and vice versa for the right but it just seems improbable that a bill to tax and spend for climate in blue states would pass in the presence of a SALT deduction but narrowly fail in its absence. That's an awful lot of conjecture. And from an economic perspective, the idea that you need lower federal taxes to spend locally on climate (not that this is a problem that can be fixed with local solutions, of course) totally ignores how opportunity cost actually works.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You live in a reality in which senators representing wealthy blue states haven't already agreed to fund climate change provisions, Medicare expansion, etc. So not this reality. Sucks to say, but the people blocking Biden's agenda are poor, white, Christian rednecks.

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the SALT deduction being a prerequisite for the political viability of blue states doing Build Back Better alone.

[R.P. McM]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

Then why would you need a SALT deduction for political viability when you could just make taxes on the wealthy even higher? Anyone civically minded should support that. Now obviously, voters on the left won't support higher taxes to an infinite extent and vice versa for the right but it just seems improbable that a bill to tax and spend for climate in blue states would pass in the presence of a SALT deduction but narrowly fail in its absence. That's an awful lot of conjecture. And from an economic perspective, the idea that you need lower federal taxes to spend locally on climate (not that this is a problem that can be fixed with local solutions, of course) totally ignores how opportunity cost actually works.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You live in a reality in which senators representing wealthy blue states haven't already agreed to fund climate change provisions, Medicare expansion, etc. So not this reality. Sucks to say, but the people blocking Biden's agenda are poor, white, Christian rednecks.

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the SALT deduction being a prerequisite for the political viability of blue states doing Build Back Better alone.

It's not a prerequisite. I just believe, based on the current reporting, that BBB is destined to fail. In which case, blue states should minimize their federal tax contributions and enact progressive legislation on their own accord.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

Then why would you need a SALT deduction for political viability when you could just make taxes on the wealthy even higher? Anyone civically minded should support that. Now obviously, voters on the left won't support higher taxes to an infinite extent and vice versa for the right but it just seems improbable that a bill to tax and spend for climate in blue states would pass in the presence of a SALT deduction but narrowly fail in its absence. That's an awful lot of conjecture. And from an economic perspective, the idea that you need lower federal taxes to spend locally on climate (not that this is a problem that can be fixed with local solutions, of course) totally ignores how opportunity cost actually works.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You live in a reality in which senators representing wealthy blue states haven't already agreed to fund climate change provisions, Medicare expansion, etc. So not this reality. Sucks to say, but the people blocking Biden's agenda are poor, white, Christian rednecks.

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the SALT deduction being a prerequisite for the political viability of blue states doing Build Back Better alone.

It's not a prerequisite. I just believe, based on the current reporting, that BBB is destined to fail. In which case, blue states should minimize their federal tax contributions and enact progressive legislation on their own accord.

So you see (wealthy individuals, in this specific context) contributing less to the federal government as a good thing, and a goal in itself? Just making sure I have that down correctly.

[R.P. McM]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

Then why would you need a SALT deduction for political viability when you could just make taxes on the wealthy even higher? Anyone civically minded should support that. Now obviously, voters on the left won't support higher taxes to an infinite extent and vice versa for the right but it just seems improbable that a bill to tax and spend for climate in blue states would pass in the presence of a SALT deduction but narrowly fail in its absence. That's an awful lot of conjecture. And from an economic perspective, the idea that you need lower federal taxes to spend locally on climate (not that this is a problem that can be fixed with local solutions, of course) totally ignores how opportunity cost actually works.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You live in a reality in which senators representing wealthy blue states haven't already agreed to fund climate change provisions, Medicare expansion, etc. So not this reality. Sucks to say, but the people blocking Biden's agenda are poor, white, Christian rednecks.

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the SALT deduction being a prerequisite for the political viability of blue states doing Build Back Better alone.

It's not a prerequisite. I just believe, based on the current reporting, that BBB is destined to fail. In which case, blue states should minimize their federal tax contributions and enact progressive legislation on their own accord.

So you see (wealthy individuals, in this specific context) contributing less to the federal government as a good thing, and a goal in itself? Just making sure I have that down correctly.

In terms of SALT deductions? Absolutely. I want that money to stay in MN, versus whatever deplorable machinations SineManchin have in mind. Yes, I trust the state government of MN far more than those corporate ratf**kers in DC. And I assume other residents of blue states feel likewise. Doesn't mean that I think all forms of federal taxation should be eliminated — obviously, DC has powers the states don't. But I'm sick of propping up red states without a smidgen of reciprocation. So that needs to end. If you can't help us mitigate climate change, don't come begging for a bailout the next time a hurricane hits. The crazy thing is, I live in Minneapolis, and there are morons in Miami aggressively resisting climate change legislation. But I suppose you can't fix stupid, or save people from themselves.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Huh? No, the high tax states are subsidizing the federal government. What I'm suggesting is reinstituting the SALT deduction, thereby reducing the disparity, and letting the respective states address climate change/infrastructure with their own funds. Which the donor states are perfectly capable of doing. This wouldn't be an issue, but it seems pretty clear that a number of the recipient states are determined to block any federal effort to mitigate climate change.  

That wouldn't return money to state governments. It would return the money to the pockets of individual rich people who incidentally live in blue states. Not really sure how that would be helpful...

Likewise, they wouldn't whine as much when state governments ask them to contribute to worthwhile statewide efforts.

You sure about that? Especially to the extent that it actually changes the policy outcome that individual state governments pursue? People who want to pay lower taxes will always want their taxes to be lower than they would otherwise be, regardless of the absolute value they're set at. And they have no incentive to play ball when they could just try and pay even less.

I have no idea where you live, but yeah, at least in MN, wealthy people pride themselves on their civic-mindedness and their philanthropy. Again, I have no idea where you live, but here, I would certainly trust the state government over its national counterpart.

Then why would you need a SALT deduction for political viability when you could just make taxes on the wealthy even higher? Anyone civically minded should support that. Now obviously, voters on the left won't support higher taxes to an infinite extent and vice versa for the right but it just seems improbable that a bill to tax and spend for climate in blue states would pass in the presence of a SALT deduction but narrowly fail in its absence. That's an awful lot of conjecture. And from an economic perspective, the idea that you need lower federal taxes to spend locally on climate (not that this is a problem that can be fixed with local solutions, of course) totally ignores how opportunity cost actually works.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You live in a reality in which senators representing wealthy blue states haven't already agreed to fund climate change provisions, Medicare expansion, etc. So not this reality. Sucks to say, but the people blocking Biden's agenda are poor, white, Christian rednecks.

I'm not entirely sure what that has to do with the SALT deduction being a prerequisite for the political viability of blue states doing Build Back Better alone.

It's not a prerequisite. I just believe, based on the current reporting, that BBB is destined to fail. In which case, blue states should minimize their federal tax contributions and enact progressive legislation on their own accord.

So you see (wealthy individuals, in this specific context) contributing less to the federal government as a good thing, and a goal in itself? Just making sure I have that down correctly.

In terms of SALT deductions? Absolutely. I want that money to stay in MN, versus whatever deplorable machinations SineManchin have in mind. Yes, I trust the state government of MN far more than those corporate ratf**kers in DC. And I assume other residents of blue states feel likewise. Doesn't mean that I think all forms of federal taxation should be eliminated — obviously, DC has powers the states don't. But I'm sick of propping up red states without a smidgen of reciprocation. So that needs to end. You can't help us mitigate climate change, don't come begging for a bailout next time a hurricane hits. The crazy thing is, I live in Minneapolis, and I have morons in Miami aggressively resisting climate change legislation. But I suppose you can't fix stupid, or save people from themselves.

Cool.

[compucomp]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills.

I always knew that socialists in this country are as dumb as a brick.

“Give me everything I want or I will destroy this country”

LOL. Don't worry — I'm not going to report the ad hominem attack. But yeah, I have no interest in passing Manchin's BIB without the climate change provisions in the BBB reconciliation bill. If they're unable to safeguard democracy or mitigate climate change, then this Democratic majority is completely worthless. And it's not the ~95% of the party that insists on destroying everything, it's the two blood-sucking corporate parasites named Manchin and Sinema.

Oh no, pppolitics (and everyone else DARVOing away their destruction of Biden's agenda) is very aware that Manchin and Sinema are the ones holding up the bill.

These people know what they're doing. People like pppolitics and compucomp know they're lying about who started it. They're just so willing to destroy the progressive movement that they're willing to make Biden a do-nothing president.

In other news, these pople hate progressives and see them as a greater enemy than the GOP. They'll pay any price to destroy us - even 4 more years of Trump.

Um, no, you're the ones that won't take half a loaf and will irrationally take none, a sure way to destroy the credibility of the Democratic trifecta and Joe Biden and increasing the chances of Trump comeback. You're the ones that insisted the two bills be linked together, despite this forcing you to take the irrational position of preferring nothing to the BIP. You're the ones who smeared Hillary and voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, bringing Trump to power in the first place.

Manchin and Sinema may be holding up the bill but they have the right to do so because they have the leverage in this negotiation. It can be a rational decision for them to prefer nothing to an excessive reconciliation bill, particularly for Manchin who has been an old-school conservative Southern Democrat his whole career, while the progressive position is irrational since it forces them to prefer nothing to BIP + watered down reconciliation bill, which is 100% opposite to their ideology.

[R.P. McM]

If Manchin won't pass any climate provisions, then we need to kill both bills.

I always knew that socialists in this country are as dumb as a brick.

“Give me everything I want or I will destroy this country”

LOL. Don't worry — I'm not going to report the ad hominem attack. But yeah, I have no interest in passing Manchin's BIB without the climate change provisions in the BBB reconciliation bill. If they're unable to safeguard democracy or mitigate climate change, then this Democratic majority is completely worthless. And it's not the ~95% of the party that insists on destroying everything, it's the two blood-sucking corporate parasites named Manchin and Sinema.

Oh no, pppolitics (and everyone else DARVOing away their destruction of Biden's agenda) is very aware that Manchin and Sinema are the ones holding up the bill.

These people know what they're doing. People like pppolitics and compucomp know they're lying about who started it. They're just so willing to destroy the progressive movement that they're willing to make Biden a do-nothing president.

In other news, these pople hate progressives and see them as a greater enemy than the GOP. They'll pay any price to destroy us - even 4 more years of Trump.

Um, no, you're the ones that won't take half a loaf and will irrationally take none, a sure way to destroy the credibility of the Democratic trifecta and Joe Biden and increasing the chances of Trump comeback. You're the ones that insisted the two bills be linked together, despite this forcing you to take the irrational position of preferring nothing to the BIP. You're the ones who smeared Hillary and voted for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, bringing Trump to power in the first place.

Manchin and Sinema may be holding up the bill but they have the right to do so because they have the leverage in this negotiation. It can be a rational decision for them to prefer nothing to an excessive reconciliation bill, particularly for Manchin who has been an old-school conservative Southern Democrat his whole career, while the progressive position is irrational since it forces them to prefer nothing to BIP + watered down reconciliation bill, which is 100% opposite to their ideology.

Not sure which, if any, party you're purporting to speak for. But from my perspective, as a former centrist turned radical liberal, you can't imagine what you're contributing to the cause! Yes, the system is fundamentally broken, and incapable of addressing climate change, income inequality, the preservation of democracy, etc.! Yes, the centrists are worthless, and we should no longer support them!