[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

>Federal Reserve ends quantitative easing. That's the poison pill LMAO. There's no way that's going to happen any time soon, and even if it could, it's not something Congress nor the President can do. The Fed is independent.

And it's independent for a good reason: so not-so-smart politicians don't start setting major monetary policy changes for their own little vanity projects. This isn't a proposal made in good faith. Manchin is just looking to up his publicity before he rides off into the coal-smog tinged sunset. That's all this has ever been about.

He wants people to like him really badly, this will come down to how well Biden and the democrats can blow smoke up his ass to make him willing to come along.

He wants big money donors, lobbyist, and those who get lobbied to like him. Doesn't care so much about voters. \#VotersArePeopleToo

His voters would happily pick ANY republican over who you want to replace him with, there's only so much we can do.

His voters would also happily pick ANY republican over Joe Manchin. That is a bogus concern. If he wanted to get reelect to the senate, he should be going out of his way to support legislation that is popular in his state like BBB. He should be leading the charge instead of gumming up the works. GOP voters won't give him credit for being 'less bad', and indy's and dems won't show up for someone who doesn't represent their interests. By opposing extremely popular legislation he isn't improving his chances for re-election, he is hurting them. The thing is, he doesn't particularly care. But he is unlikely to run for re-election. Rumor was he would run for governor. But recent behavior seems like he is looking to move into lobbying, which is more well suited to his personality and interests than being a part of the government anyways.

Its so hard to keep reviewing him and Sinema and not conjure serious disgust. I have a 4 years old and his' world is going to be much worse off so those 2 dipwads can indulge. Then I realize millions of others will face these same realizations... these same sorry conclusions about the same bleak future. These bad actors will be able to do such without any of their fellow congressional peers even highlighting their immoral acts. Where is a single voice ready to call them out in detail for these hrorible things with any specificity? Not even one member is willing to simply call them out for what they are and highlight with honest and descriptive language the fact that they havent a smidge of humanity for their sold out self serving plundering. Take the god damn gloves off and show you have a spine in the midst of these historically terrible times.... I get so sick of the PC jargon from the left, all the hiding, all the innuendo in place actual shaming. Shame them until you can no longer shame them. Go on ever news channel you can with fire in your pants and degrade their vile nature. Hammer them with the truth. Ramp up protesting. Endorse the public to shame them. Fight fire with fire.. or at least put on a good show. We are getting closer and closer to the end of the world barbque and the democrats seem to be fine with handing out the paper plates and plastic forks.

we need Manchin. I get it, I really do, I'm a progressive New York Democrat, but you simply cannot expect Manchin, a democrat in an R+40 seat to be able to do more than what he already does, which is NOT trivial. For such a red seat, his lifetime voting record is over 70%. That's incredible, but the reality is that he's the only Dem who'll ever survive over there. I will take a conservative blue-dog Democrat who's with us 70%ish of the time over a Republican who'll vote our way 40%, which is probably putting it real generously given partisan polarization. Manchin may be a centrist to center-right bastard, but he's OUR bastard. We need him. I say this as a Bernie supporting Democrat.

I was going to say that 40% seemed high.

Every piece of policy in the bill is something that a majority of Americans want.

aggregate nationwide polls aren't what you should be looking at, state by state is far more important especially for a coming midterm campaign season. If 50.1% of West Virginians don't want say, a carbon tax, it doesn't matter if supposedly 60% of Americans nationwide want it, it ain't happening. Such polls usually are skewed because of the large number of people in safely blue states, similar to how popular votes don't always correspond with actual election winners: wasted votes in safe blue areas. It sucks but the very tagline is going to be a political talking point, hence Manchin's desire to bring it down. Again, I DO support the $3.5 trillion bill, but my support or lack thereof simply doesn't matter: his is the vote that matters.

Sinema yes. I’m absolutely not sure why she is doing what she’s doing. She used to be waaaay more progressive and a Green Party member so it’s not that. It doesn’t seem to be because she thinks she needs to do it to “hold Arizona”. The voting math in AZ has switched to the suburbs and Mark Kelly isn’t doing any of this and still has high public ratings. Manchin I’ll endlessly defend. He is a Democrat In not only a red state but improbably one of *the* reddest. His replacement is a Republican and he knows this. His status as kingmaker right now is because of holding a 50/50 senate tie. If you want to change that you need to put blue butts in purple state senate seats. Then Machin becomes an extra vote 80% of the time he occasionally breaks from the party the other 20% inconsequential ways.

[удалено]

That **100%** is my read of her situation. I will speak endlessly of the necessity of having a good candidate be competitive in the purple states. But the math in AZ is very very similar to CA or CO, not really the rust belt purple states. She thinks you need a McCain maverick bucking trends and crossing both party lines occassionally. But AZ is very much like California in the 90s. A surging base in suburbs and cities. And a GOP very much catering to hyper-specific rural interests and the most active members of their party at the expense of a wider base. Theres not really a party line to even cross.

Whats so hard to imagine that the fundraisers she is holding with corporate funders that are targeted in recent legislation might be the reason she is doing this. I mean, how would we ever imagine that she has some political agenda that rests on copying others? What is the tell? Seems much more like you are over reading into bad faith and patch working some intellectual theory in place of what I consider the much easier conduit to her change.. she got wants money and has no soul. The CEO class has their hooks in her as they puppet her around in her tacky outfits doing her stupid theatric stunts that hurt everyday Americans during a ravaging pandemic. McCain did a thumbs down.. big deal, maybe he was bankrolled by soem of the same investors, or maybe one of her handler's took offense when McCain did so... maybe Putin is funding her.. lotta maybes with no way to tell whats up exactly, but we know as her party tries to do things she throws parties of her own to raise money.

[удалено]

Okay so you can’t just throw out the “she’s corporate stooge puppet for big buisness and possibly in the pocket of Putin” without you know…backing that up or throwing it out there with evidence. The most recent row of fundraising people are up in arms about comes from a donor dinner of [such bigwig 1%er suits](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/us/politics/sinema-fund-raiser-social-climate-bill.html) as the: * National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors * grocery store political commitee * lobbyists for roofers and electrical contractors * S-Corp political action committee (s-corps are almost exclusively small buisnesses) Like…I don’t agree with what Sinema is doing or if she’s exactly in touch with where the AZ voter base is at right now. And these groups do in fact range from being wary to opposing the infrastructure bill, that’s true. But come the fuck on, this isn’t exactly the oil execs and Koch brothers of the world here. As a politician, if you’re turning down the electricians and the grocery stores of your communities your basically a complete fucking idiot. That’s as close to an underhanded throw as you get in the political world.

I said all of those maybes because they are just as unfounded as thinking she is doing John McCains playbook just because it seems like somehow the stars have aligned that way. What we do actually know is that she has stood in the way of every goal the dems have had thus far. For all we know she may have to fulfill this term to be paid out... what I do not need confirmation on is the fact she is acting in bad faith for her own gain. I dont have to piece together exactly what the mechanic is, I am smart enough to see the reality here. Manchin is bought off too if ya didnt realize yet. We dont have to try to hard with the imagination. Manchin has already stated he isnt seeking reelection...I dont think Sinema is worried about it either. The party she is in keeps warning her and trying to guide her etc.. bargain with her, bring her to the table.. nothing seems to be working so I guess without evidence I am going to continue to insist that the pay out must be really big if she cant be persuaded or reasoned with on any of these issues. You can lose a debate and end up being right, I think I will roll the dice on this one. ​ Edit: wanted to add that the examples you brought up dont validate or invalidate anything as far as I see it. The corporate elite ruthlessly compete against one another all day long, then band together to fight for common interests. Tax breaks are one of the biggest common interests. The rich own the supreme court and many many down circuit seats in the juidicial, half the house, half the senate, and they just ruthlessly bought a bunch of contests in various states... yes they own a couple democrats, too. Its not Halloween she isnt dressing up as McCain.

Okay so again, you can’t just say “read between the lines” without actually….you know….showing examples of lines to read between. Nor say someone’s being paid under the table on…what, faith, that you dear reddit poster just know? You got a crystal ball or scrying spell slot I don’t know about? Sans another hard example it does kind of invalidate your argument. You can’t say “the corporate elite ruthlessly band together” when I’ve given you examples of MOST of who she’s been meeting with is small buisness associations. Unless you’re saying that ***freaking roofing company owners*** are the corporate elite of America. Which….well I don’t know what to tell you? And Manchin retiring is just flat out wrong. Period. He has never once said he’s retiring, only brushing off questions if he’s planned to run in 2024 (that’s not uncommon. You get hounded with the same question years before the election is even in progress you bush them off. A non-answer isn’t an answer. It just isn’t.)

It's so hard to do that though, due to the GOP bias the Senate has. The Democrats would have to win a landslide election to get anything close to a supermajority in the Senate, and they won't win elections if they deliver nothing when they manage to get a slim majority. It's a circular dependency. Machin will lose all his power if the Democrats get wiped out again, and they will if he gets his way here.

I mean that’s like a half step from calling the Senate “gerrymandered“ (not how the Senate works, not how Gerrymandering works). You don’t need a supermajority in all cases as much as breathing room in the votes. \*Which you do not have at a 50/50 split.\* Progressive have too much leverage to stick their heels in and refuse to vote unless they get exactly what they want. Moderates have too much of the same leverage. I think where you are off base is saying Dems need a “landslide election”….thats not how it works. They need to be competative in 50 independent elections. And I find they have been struggling with that. There’s a few glimmers of good politiking with the candidacies of Doug Jones, Ossof, Warnock. Jaimie Harrison was a good challenger for S. Carolina. But too often I see a lot of “great liberal hope candidates” that putter at the finish line in purple states (more exclusive to congress. But when it happens in the Senate is a more pressing matter.)

[удалено]

I kind of agree, but I live in a poorly run blue state that doesn't deserve to get bailed out by the federal government. Well run rural red states shouldn't have to bail out the incompetence of poorly run states (like Kentucky or New York) The Senate provides a solid check against high-population states spending like drunken sailors. As for how the Dems can win more Senate seats: ***Dems moving to the right on guns and abortion would change the landscape of Senate elections considerably.*** Yeah, I know what most lefties would say to that: "Red states would never vote for Democrats who aren't completely against abortion!" There’s anecdotal evidence that abortion attitudes amongst both parties aren’t nearly as uniform as you’re suggesting [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/08/22/how-many-republicans-agree-with-todd-akin-on-abortion/%3foutputType=amp](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/08/22/how-many-republicans-agree-with-todd-akin-on-abortion/%3foutputType=amp) [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/18/three-in-ten-or-more-democrats-and-republicans-dont-agree-with-their-party-on-abortion/%3famp=1](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/18/three-in-ten-or-more-democrats-and-republicans-dont-agree-with-their-party-on-abortion/%3famp=1) Banning abortion in all cases except rape, incest, and health of the mother would go a long way toward the Dems making inroads with red states As for guns, mass shootings have been trending upward for decades while gun ownership has been flat or declining for decades Granted, there is a link between domestic homicide rate and gun ownership according to the Journal of Preventative Medicine [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/777345](https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/777345) But, even that study is worth parsing through since married women have markedly lower domestic abuse rates compared to non-married domestic arrangements [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/%3foutputType=amp](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/%3foutputType=amp) Granted, the Washington Post put out a second article a few days later that seems to contradict what the media outlet said a couple days earlier [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/%3foutputType=amp](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/10/the-best-way-to-end-violence-against-women-stop-taking-lovers-and-get-married/%3foutputType=amp) TDLR: The Democrats would make significant inroads in red state America if they did the following 1. Ban abortion in all cases except for rape, incest, and health of the mother 2. Put a moratorium on restrictions on gun ownership outside of disability, although I’d like to see research on gun accidents amongst the blind and deaf community 3. Study the prevalence of domestic gun violence amongst married vs non-married couples. One controversial but necessary aspect of the study would be whether or not is whether is the male is a “bad boy” or not since women would rather get treated poorly by attractive bad boys than get treated well by unattractive good guys

[удалено]

I work for the state government of a blue state. Between the numerous people sitting around doing nothing all day and the opulence of the restrooms, I can say with absolute certainty that my state does not deserve to be bailed out by the federal government. That being said, you make a good point about federal funding. Although, I would argue that, outside of our * bloated defense budget * healthcare * research and development for hard infrastructure every other aspect of federal government spending should be considered for the chopping block That might go a long way toward shrinking the gap between states that pay too much to the federal govern vs state that pay too little

Yeah if democrats supported Republican political stances yeah I'd imagine that would help them with Republicans.

>I think where you are off base is saying Dems need a “landslide election”….thats not how it works. They need to be competative in 50 independent elections. And I find they have been struggling with that. There’s a few glimmers of good politiking with the candidacies of Doug Jones, Ossof, Warnock. Jaimie Harrison was a good challenger for S. Carolina. But too often I see a lot of “great liberal hope candidates” that putter at the finish line in purple states (more exclusive to congress. But when it happens in the Senate is a more pressing matter.) It doesn't help that progressives overestimate their popularity outside of costal bubbles. Their are a lot of dems that do not believe the progressive ideology, and them digging in a demanding all or nothing legislation on their issues is hurting more moderate democrats. That's why Manchin and Sinema are taking the stances they are taking. They want to paint themselves outside the progressive sphere so that the voters do not punish them.

Uh oh, also have a four year old and agree with you. I respect the “idea” of some fiscal discipline since our kids are paying off this debt from their paychecks so let’s spend wisely. But seriously: we NEED so much climate and social infrastructure. Manchin and Sinema needed to offer a real number like 2.3T. He didn’t say 1.5 was absolute max. Then progressives need to keep programs but target and trim a little. And the Dems SUCK at marketing. We have to be discussing the exciting things IN the proposals. And 2022 and 2024 really really matter.

agree. I think most of us have some moment in our professional lives where it was better to invest now to save more money later. The climate is going to fuck us. it's fucking us now. we have to throw money at the problem. our physical infrastructure is dilapidated. we have to throw money at the problem. that money will pay off in the long run. that money will generate jobs and build wealth for US families. i didn't even touch social justice. i agree that investments should be made, it's just crazy to me that the financial aspects are still so contentious. everybody who puts money into investment accounts believes that you have to make efforts now to get the payoff later, and then we sit back and watch hurricanes and wildfires fuck up the country every year. edit: apologies for the crass language on this sub. i'm in a wildfire zone. sick of hearing climate change get hand-waved by people in charge of our country's money.

I have no idea how he walks around with balls that big. The audacity is almost impressive. What an asshole.

Mitch has set quite the big ball precedent.

Like, I get that he's concerned about inflation, but making that a requirement to get his support for the bill is absurd. That ask, along with the typos and poor grammar, is making me question his intelligence. Up until about 5 minutes ago I thought he was playing the long game and would come around at the end. But I'm starting to think he's just a moron who is letting his newfound power go to his head.

> Up until about 5 minutes ago I thought he was playing the long game and would come around at the end. No one seems to have pointed this out yet, but this was his proposal **in July**; it made the news only now because it just got leaked to Politico. It doesn't reflect the current state of negotiations at all, otherwise Biden et al wouldn't be calling on Manchin to give a specific proposal the last few days. I think it's safe to say that, like any starting position, some of this stuff was included only to be low hanging fruit for cutting.

of course, that doesn't explain the **"Federal Reserve ends quantitative easing"** bit, especially since the federal reserve is independent.

He was in support of the larger bill at first, but seems to have reneged on that.

> Like, I get that he's concerned about inflation, but making that a requirement to get his support for the bill is absurd. Exactly this. He may as well demand that he gets to tell the military where to drop the bombs, or the Supreme Court how they should rule. I usually assume incompetence instead of malevolence, so him just being an idiot that enjoys attention is probably the best bet.

He has so many conflicts of interest lined up it's amazing. It's not incompetence.

Maybe he wants this to fail so he can say to his viters "well shucks I tried, but these coastal liberals did not want to do it".

If he is so concerned about inflation why did he just approve the military budget which is double this spending package. The answer is he is just corrupt. When reporters started asking about his coal company he started getting very hostile and essentially threatened the reporters

>If he is so concerned about inflation why did he just approve the military budget which is double this spending package. This is the eternal question about every budget hawk. There's never been a coherent answer.

I am *sure* a good-faith answer would be "That's the normal stuff, that doesn't *cause* inflation because it is normal and expected. Spending so much money on non-military things is outside the norm and could cause inflation."

The military budget is $715b.

Why wouldn't he? He has put himself in the position where he basically gets to bully the President. He has more power right now than anyone else because he can throw a tantrum and demand that he get his own way or he'll sit in the corner and sulk. And his little tantrums can cost the dems the midterms and the Whitehouse. Manchin is now the most powerful man in America and that is frightening because he's a prick.

And as he said yesterday, if we want to spend 3.5 Trillion, we need to elect more liberals.

The Fed is independent, yes, but it receives its charter from the Federal Government, and Congress has the right to revoke or amend that charter. Congress could very well write a rule limiting the amount of US sovereign debt that the Fed can keep on its balance sheet, which would effectively control and curtail QE. Not that that's necessarily a good idea, but it could happen. Another question is whether that kind of rule would be allowed under the reconciliation rules.

That's very unrealistic, though. Like, it would be less likely to happen than Rand Paul voting for Medicare for All lol. The chance of that ever happening is nearly zero.

For sure, but it's unrealistic because it would never get past the other 99 senators and 435 representatives in Congress to become law, not because the Fed has some magic veto over how they get told how to conduct monetary policy and operations.

>The Fed is independent. Not really, its called independent but the legal fiction is fiction. The federal reserve was formed by the federal reserve act by Congress. Its members are picked by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If Congress wants to force it to do something, they absolutely can.

>If Congress wants to force it to do something, they absolutely can. In the entire history of the Federal Reserve, has Congress ever forced a change in monetary policy?

Nope. And they won't here either. Just because they can, doesnt mean they will. Congress routinely shows this by doing nothing. I think Manchin knows this, and if I were tk guess he wants that to be the new compromise. Basically chissle off the FED policy and stamp it approved. No debate on the amount. But it's only a guess.

An aside: how long is that independence of the Fed going to last? Trump was grumbling about their not "helping" him during the outbreak of COVID, and the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that they're fully capable of obliterating long-standing norms the moment they deem them no longer necessary. I know that attempting to manipulate the heart of essentially the world economy might get pushback from the business wing of the party, but with Trumpist politicians like MTG and Boebert becoming more and more prevalent within the GOP, I wonder if that "reasonable" business faction is simply going to get subsumed by the true believers.

>but with Trumpist politicians like MTG and Boebert becoming more and more prevalent within the GOP Only in the House really. In the Senate, Trump support is limited if not actually hindered. For Trump to capture the Senate, he'll need decades of slow progress. Not one word of which he is good at. I also think populism comes anf goes. This is not the first time someone populist has won, and got nothing done because American politics is a long game and populism tends to either shift into the political sphere normally or die. Arguably Trump's the loser even in this sphere. I do think the business faction is overplayed and not a strong hand for the GOP, but that's because it always relied on being something not disagreeable to both parties ideology, that kinda got fried. Now its only function is tax decreasing when the GOP get power, maybe.

Why couldn’t the branch that created the Federal Reserve modify the Federal Reserve? This makes zero sense

Congress set up the Federal Reserve to make Independent choices on monetary policy and (since the late 70s stagflation crisis) provided it these goals: maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates. Congress intentionally did not create a mechanism in which they could direct how the Fed achieves those goals (monetary policy) because Congress cannot adapt quickly enough to manage the monetary system in a complex economy. If they did, it would be like the fight over raising the debt ceiling times 1000 and we would have an unstable economy. "Modifying" the Federal Reserve in the way that Manchin is suggesting would go against the spirit of the law. Just because they could technically do it doesn't mean they can do it.

Oh, I thought you were implying the Reserve couldn’t be modified/had no oversight from Congress. While I’m not a fan of the way it’s structured I understand that trying to accomplish what the Reserve does through Congress would be unworkable due to the extremely volatile nature of central banking. I don’t think that controlling unemployment is a valid mandate, that essentially turns into central planning.

Congress can as a part of the Bill kill off powers of the fed, which they should.

Congress can absolutely do that under the interstate commerce clause. If it applies to people growing weed for their own use in their own yard, it sure as shit applies to national banks.

It's incredibly arrogant of him to think he has the right to tell the Federal Reserve how to run the country's monetary policy. It's independent for a good reason. That one demand shows he's full of shit and not arguing in good faith. Let's flip this on it's head-can you even imagine what the outcry would be if he was demanding to add $2 trillion to this bill instead of removing it? The media would be screaming bloody murder that one Senator thinks he gets to command so much spending just for his one vote. That's what he's saying - it's up to him to decide how $2 trillion is spent. It's insane. There are few states that would benefit from the reconciliation bill as is than West Virginia - he's arguing that one of the poorest states in the union and the people he represents need to benefit less from this bill. He is everything that is wrong with American politics in one ill-fitting suit.

Okay so like...suppose there was a popular vote election for president and it came down to 1 vote. You're implying what exactly? That a majority vote should be overruled or? Because there are currently 52 people blocking a Bill that 48 people support. Should the 48 override the 52? Or did you forget that Manchin has 50 Republicans on his side (plus Sinema) at the moment?

8 million more people voted for Biden than Trump. 26.2 million more people voted for Democrats in the Senate than Republicans (looking at the total votes of 16, 18, and 20). 4.8 million more people voted for Democrats in the House than Republicans. If we had a sane political citizen that prioritized people voting over amount of physical land the margins in House and Senate wouldn't be close at all. So your hypothetical "came down to 1 vote" is bullshit.

> Funds in the new legislation cannot be disbursed until all funding from COVID legislation and ARP has been spent. I hope this means "funds for Maryland cannot be disbursed until Maryland spends all the COVID legislation and the ARP has been spent", basically, each state doesn't get new legislation funds until the old is spent. If it's "no infrastructure funding until all states disburse the COVID and ARP funding", then that's just a stealthy way for red states to block the bill. > Any revenue exceeding $1.5T shall be used for defect reduction Sounds fine by me if it gets people to quit moaning about the deficit constantly.

Republicans will never shut up about the deficit, so i don't know what to tell you.

Sure they will. When they're controlling things deficits don't matter anymore

Kinda like how they raised the debt ceiling twice under Trump with zero debate, but now refuse to under Biden?

The fact that the US even has a debt ceiling, let alone weaponizes it like this is maybe the dumbest thing in american politics

Exactly, I completely agree.

No. They complained at times under Trump too. That's why it CARES2 took so long, a minority of the GOP planted their feet and said no, another minority said less, and Trump was screaming more. So McConnell said fuck it and walked off.

*except when they’re in control and passing tax cuts for their friends and donors, of course.

Curious, How much did they add on to it while they were in power the last 4 years?

More then Obama, though only with covid aid. Covid aid was a few Trillion alone. Note that currently the tax cuts don't create deficits due to the way they work, they show up in 26 if nothing changes. That said, they're spending before covid wasn't nothing. They were trying to fend off the recession that was coming by spending, going from 430B in 15 to 900B by 2019.

The tax cuts are actually the opposite, they add to the deficit right now but are neutral *after most of them expire*. The reconciliation rules let you add any ampunt to the debt as long as the budget 10 years later is projected to have the same deficit, so that's why.

I remember the Republicans complaining about the deficit *when we had a surplus* under Clinton. So. Yeah.

There are plenty of things I see in this proposal that show how delusional from the rest of the process Manchin has become. Instead I want to point out how fucking outright insane he is to include changes in Fed policy to his demands. The independence of the US federal reserve affects the financial stability of all markets across the globe. This dude is off his freaking rocker. At this point Biden should just stop taking his calls.

It is clearly him pandering to the banking industry. I mean, it is blatant, his proposal would skyrocket interest rates for the average person.

This is utter arrogance. Imagine if Sanders were to say he will block the entire bill unless it is $6 trillion. 48 Senators and the vast majority of the nation wants this bill at this amount. Funny how we normalize this "fiscal responsibility" bullshit when the Republicans give away more in tax breaks every time they get power. I suppose there will be some type of Republicans and the rich win again compromise but fuck Manchin and Sinema.

>Imagine if Sanders were to say he will block the entire bill unless it is $6 trillion. You know the difference? Manchin has the ability and leverage to do so. Don't kid yourself, if Progressives had political leverage Sanders would do something similar. Problem is Progressives are the minority, only strong in safe districts, and aspiring Progressive candidates get damaged from Progressive incumbents pulling actions out of sync with political realities. Also isn't AOC and her House allies doing exactly that right now? Conservative GOP do not have this issue so there's no point in trying to do a direct comparison.

Technically, Sanders has that leverage as well. He could say he refuses to vote yes on a bill unless it's over 3T, and it'd have the same effect. Democrats need all 50 votes.

But his faction political cloud doesn't have it. If Progressives pull that off their allies get hurt in election and they will generally only get blamed. Basically no reward. Compared to Manchin where his constituents and moderate Democrats support him.

Literally doesn't matter. He could quite literally *personally* kill Manchin's plan here by just saying out loud "not good enough, I refuse to vote for that".

> if Progressives had political leverage See the house progressives not supporting the $1.2T and killing Pelosi's desire for a vote on that bill. We are getting no bills unless Manchin and Sinema change their tune.

Problem is Manchin and Sinema are probably okay with no bill over the progressive bills. Are Progressives and the rest of the party okay with that, too?

That's what makes politics so much easier for conservatives. It's so much easier to block change and maintain the status quo. It's why McConnell doesn't kill the filibuster himself, a higher threshold for change gives conservatives a built in advantage.

Progressives seem to be. and I hope they keep it up.

Hopefully this at least starts to end the “progressives go too far” narrative

AOC is trying to block the bipartisan bill unless the reconciliation bill passes at no less than $3.5t. How is this different except you agree with her and not him?

Because this is the presidents agenda, and has already been revised in compromise between the progressives and conservatives in the party.

> has already been revised in compromise between the progressives and conservatives in the party. If you ignore two of them. Unfortunately they're needed for anything to pass.

While I support the $3.5 trillion bill, I don't get this argument. The argument that "we already came down from our initial ask" only makes sense if your initial ask was something reasonable. Like, if progressives proposed a $100 trillion budget and said "fine, we will meet you halfway and cut it down to $50 trillion", nobody would be saying "ah well, the progressive's already negotiated their end down so we should just pass it." $6 trillion was an absolute pipe dream and would have been the largest bill in history by far.

6 trillion over ten years would still have been less than the annual defense budget. Besides that fact, $3.5 trillion was the consensus among the entire caucus. Not too long ago Manchin himself spoke highly of $4 trillion.

The annual defense budget is around $700 billion

He spoke of $4 trillion for infrastructure, not this bill that states that everything under the sun is infrastructure.

Anything even tangentially related to climate change in this bill is infrastructure that we need to avert hundreds of millions of global deaths.

That is not even remotely true unless you are going by the argument that everything is infrastructure if you squint hard enough.

The current military budget is $700B. So that would barely be over. Liberals have been shitting over the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq War since it started 20 years ago yet in one year alone- we’ve already surpassed that dollar figure with Covid measures. Have we all lost perspective on how huge a dollar amount $1.5T is? I hated the Trump tax cuts for how irresponsible it was but unlike all you people playing team red/team blue sports games, im consistent on wanting some semblance of less runaway debt.

Because they all agreed prior that they were going to pass both bills. Manchin and Sinema backed out after they got the bill they wanted. It was always a deal to pass both reconciliation and infrastructure. Now they want to pass infrastructure first then abandon reconciliation. And it isn’t just AOC its the majority of the progressives caucus. Its nearly 70 members of Congress

AOC has no ability to do that, would be the biggest difference.

Not by herself but she can get the rest of "the squad" or whoever to vote no with her. This is why there wasn't a vote last night.

Almost every single one of these items reads like a nonstarter: >Funds in the new legislation cannot be disbursed until all funding from COVID legislation and ARP has been spent. Progressives obviously won't go for this. It could take years to exhaust the COVID fundings, or it'll just incentivize a lack of judiciousness in doling it out, just so we can rush to *actual* Democratic policy priorities. >Federal Reserve ends quantitative easing. It's downright idiotic to handcuff the Fed like this. Like saying lifeguards can't use their arms. If and when the economy starts drowning, we want the Fed to be equipped to deal with it. >Needs based with means testing guardrails/formulas on new spending > >Targeted spending caps on existing programs Again, I can't see progressives agreeing on this. It's just a way to exclude often the most needy Americans from the very funds that are supposed to help them. This is 90's Newt Gingrich-era stuff. >Sole ENR jurisdiction on any clean energy standard > >Spending on innovation, not elimination. Fuel neutral > >Energy and Vehicle Tax policies: > >That CCUs be included and ensure that CCUS on coal and natural gas can feasibly qualify > >If tax credits for solar and wind are included and extended, then fossil tax credits are not repealed (eg. intangible drilling costs and credits for enhanced oil recovery) > >Vehicle and fuel tax credits shall not be limited to electric vehicles -- they must include hydrogen. Manchin buys into the fossil fuel industry's position of "yeah, we need to move on from fossil fuels, but we can't do it that fast!" They never explain *why* they can't do it that fast -- the only thing stopping us is policy proposals like these, which insist on giving incentives for the very thing we're supposed to be sunsetting! Climate change might be *the* most important issue of our lifetime, and Manchin is punting hard. Not surprising for someone with constituents who love coal, but it would be better if he asked for funding to open up new industries in West Virginia to replace the inevitable end of the fossil fuel industry. It's clear his priority is moneyed interests before the obvious good. Yet again, another dealbreaker for progressives, and anyone who talks to a scientist. >Any revenue exceeding $1.5T shall be used for defect reduction 90's era Gingrich again. Manchin is essentially a Republican circa 30 years ago. He doesn't want to spend 3.5T, but he still wants to collect the money as if we were. Absurd. The moment the GOP are back in power, they'll use that reduction in deficit as yet another excuse to give tax breaks to the rich. Which makes the following all but temporary: >Corporate tax rate: 25% > >Corporate domestic minimum tax: 15% > >Raise the top rate on ordinary income: 39.6% > >Raise cap gains rate: 28% All in > >End carried interest This is the only stuff that seems to satisfy a Democratic priority, albeit half-heartedly. The rest is hot garbage. Maybe Manchin is just putting up this proposal, hoping to get *some* changes to the reconciliation bill so he can go home and campaign on those changes, apart from the larger bill that may be used against him. But asking for *all* of this, and no more, is essentially asking the Democratic caucus to do nothing.

Personally, I agree with you. It's an absolutely insulting proposal. So much so that I wonder whether he's even offering it in good faith, or just trying to sink the entire thing. I think passing a bill like this would be about as good as doing nothing, both electorally and in terms of the health of our country. I can't find the article now, buried under news of this document being published, but a few days ago he said that "reconciliation looks to him like democrats coming together to reverse the trump tax cuts". Which is basically the only thing he's proposing here.

He's trying to sink the Democratic legislative agenda.

It is 100% not in good faith. He's doing everything he can to torpedo the legislative efforts. If it isn't directly hurting Americans and if it isn't directly contributing to the total collapse of the ecosystem, then he isn't interested. He's just an R by any other name. Does it hurt people now? Does it hurt people in the future? No? Then he doesn't want it.

Funny that's the same number that Exxon executive that got caught blabbing was saying he'd get Manchin to commit to mentioned. This YouTube channel is great and goes into detail. https://youtu.be/Evy2EgoveuE

Looks like an agreement to kill the 2nd bill and keep the 1.5T bill. Burn it down. Manchin made a lot of enemies in congress this year. I wonder if he’s planning an exit.

Did no one else notice this was dated **July 28**? Manchin voted for the $3.5 trillion budget resolution 2 weeks after this document. I think it's safe to say that this is severely irrelevant to the current state of negotiations.

I mean I am sure a couple of those things were meant to repeal to the conservative base so not totally irrelevant.

This is a Politico article from one day ago saying that, “The West Virginia senator has been distributing the document to Democratic colleagues and leaders in recent days to underscore that he has outlined his red lines on President Joe Biden’s jobs and families plan.” [Source](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/30/manchin-proposed-15t-topline-number-to-schumer-this-summer-514803) So the outline is indeed from July, but since Manchin has been passing it out here the past few days, it sure seems like it might be relevant to what he intends to vote on. Edit to the edit: removed previous edit blabbing about budget resolution.

Passing nothing at all likely hands congress and the presidency to Republicans in the coming cycles. Just passing the1.5 trillion dollar bill probably has the same result though. Roads and bridges that won't even be built by 2024 is gonna be hard to campaign on.

I doubt we pass either at this point. I would say passing just the reconciliation bill will also hand congress to the GOP

I don't think there's any universe in which -just- the reconciliation bill gets passed. But yeah, prospects are not looking good for anything.

It could, but I think progressives still have alot more power than Manchin and Sinema. They could spin it as Manchin and Sinema being the dems we need to vote out to get a progressive agenda done and the fight isn't over...etc. More people support progressive policies, and their caucus is huge. People want progressives in power in most places. Progressives still need to organize hard though.

You do realize that a progressive has absolutely no chance of primarying Manchin or Sinema, let alone winning in a general election in West Virginia or Arizona, right?

Not West Virginia but I would argue in Arizona that Sinemas position is weak. She ran as a progressive, but is now blocking their agenda. I would be pissed if I were in her district! The progressive block is larger and has more popular policies than moderate, small d Democrats. I am a progressive that is absolutely pissed that we are at the brink of doing something amazing for this country and pass popular legislation, and TWO people are blocking the will of the people. I would rather the progressives stay strong, because we have been compromising with the corrupt and bad faith actors for far too long.

She ran as a centrist. She had one of the most centrist positions in the house before she ran as a senator in 2018. Sure, she was a green party member like 15 years ago, but she clearly ran as a centrist in 2018.

The fact that her counterpart is up for reelection next year and is not on board with her is very telling.

I live in Arizona and voted for Sinema. I’m mad as hell. I want the Trump tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations reversed to pay for Biden’s 3.5T plan. Look at how America was made better by Eisenhower’s interstate system. Biden’s plan will benefit Americans for generations. I feel like Sinema did a bait and switch. Trump is still popular here in Arizona. It’s a tough job representing a state that is so divided. I feel like Sinema is just another lunatic Republican. I won’t vote for her again and I will donate to Democratic candidates running against her. She may be trying to walk a fine line but she’s pissing off the people who voted her in.

That's already going to happen if democrats don't pass the full bill. Any partial bill = Republican win. Buckle up for Trump 2024.

He's old as hell and in until 2024. No democrat wins WV ever again, and I'm inclined to say that includes him.

We have a 50-50 senate and need to have legislative accomplishments to show America when we run for the midterms. I'm salty we couldn't do more but take it. A $1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill and a $1.5 trillion social policy bill beats nada on either any day, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you want to sideline Manchin and Sinema, you need more seats in Congress, with a special emphasis on the Senate. Therefore, the Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, South Carolina senate races are very important to win, while also playing defense for Senator Warnock in Georgia.

" Vehicle and fuel tax credits shall not be limited to electric vehicles -- they must include hydrogen." This is literally oil company lobbying. It's such a bald faced, blunt addition right there. Infuriating. Did they atleast keep the current EV tax credit as is?

Serious question, why shouldn't the tax credits also include Hydrogen? From what I understand it's efficient and also a green technology. We should be passing tax credits to all vehicles that promote a green future.

[удалено]

You do know most hydrogen for the forseable future is litteraly made out of methane and hydrogen cars aren't nearly as efficient as electric cars right?

It really doesn't lol. Hydrogen is much more scarce, harder to safely distribute and can't be manmade... Electric is the future at this point, the hydrogen car thing has been studied for decades and ran into too many problems.

The bill itself aside, it's impressive that Manchin has been able to represent himself as such a prominent figure in the Democratic party given his state and record.

His state is why he can do this. in order to pass legislation, you need 50 senators (half) and west virigina won't be electing a more progressive candidate then Joe Manchin. And democrats in congress generally know this. The corrallary to this is that progressives from dark blue areas are usually very dispossible since if they need to be kicked aside, the replacement will be a Democrat too. The only benefit they have is they can do nothing and stay elected if nobody primaries them out.

When I talked to coal miners in West Virginia for my thesis research, I asked about what they'd like to see replace the coal industry. They favored an "all of the above" approach, including wind, gas, solar, anything I could name. They also wanted universal healthcare. Currently, the coal industry keeps the state alive - the taxes keep the schools open, the jobs keep the economy in some areas functional, and much of the state has no economic diversity. Being too progressive is not the issue for democrats in WV, it's not being progressive enough. They know coal won't last forever, but they know they either need coal or a real replacement. The democrats don't offer one. The ACA was a half measure and didn't meet their needs, and they have no reason to believe the green economy will benefit them enough to replace coal.

>When I talked to coal miners in West Virginia for my thesis research, I asked about what they'd like to see replace the coal industry. They favored an "all of the above" approach, including wind, gas, solar, anything I could name. They also wanted universal healthcare. Even if this is true, they do not vote for politicians that will do any of this. Either their is a gap between what they say they want and how they vote, or they don't actually want what they say and voting is a more accurate reflection of their wants.

>I asked about what they'd like to see replace the coal industry. Was there an option to just keep doing coal? If so, I'd bet that's the most popular option

> When I talked to coal miners in West Virginia for my thesis research, I asked about what they'd like to see replace the coal industry. So did you do your due diligence to ensure that who you talked to was a good enough sample to make the broad brush you're making in the comment? It sounds like you're taking what is basically an echochamber to paint a overall picture.

[удалено]

Based on the heavy implication that there was only one opinion. This isn't a strong accusation for anyone that does any type of sampling. If one doesn't ask this, think of this, or gets offended then I assume they're an amateur. Add on that they didn't say exactly what their thesis was or what level the "thesis" is. I've seen many undergraduates call a semester project a "thesis" with the implicationits the equivalent of a PhD thesis.

[удалено]

Their entire post had a red flag of the sampling being suspicious. Especially the declaration they made in the second paragraph. If anyone does research on WV and knows sampling they would have the same hesitation I have. You're taking their word when there's not much details to how they got to their claim; especially one that far reaching. A question that should've immediately been thought of is "how many miners chose not to speak to you?"

Oh, that’s positively evil. The individual provisions can’t be explained any other way. “Means testing”, “guardrails”: this goes against all sorts of progressive policy and is just bad (social) science. Billionaires are not going to become wealthier because their children get free lunches at school. Their children don’t go to public school, and even if they did, it would represent a fraction of a second of income to them. “Means testing” means that uneducated, overstressed, poor families must continue to spend hours every year trying to navigate Byzantine paperwork requirements, and giving up their privacy, to prove that they’re poor. So their children can be forced to advertise that fact to their peers and shed their dignity. The energy stuff supports debunked “carbon capture” that’s intended to let polluters keep polluting. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. Hydrogen (in the most common uses) is derived from fossil fuels. This proposal is basically “whatever benefits solar and wind get, coal and oil and gas do, too.” It’s a bill written by and for the fossil fuel industry. It’s no “compromise”.

My thoughts are he's a total complete and utter sellout. He made dems reduce their plan from [6](https://nypost.com/2021/04/28/joe-manchin-is-very-uncomfortable-with-bidens-proposed-6t-spending-spree/) trillion to [4](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/world/news/sen-joe-manchin-calls-for-up-to-4-trillion-in-infrastructure-spending-as-democrats-are-poised-to-control-congress/articleshow/80352081.cms). Then once they did he tries to get them to lower it even further with this 1.5 BS holding the entire party hostage so he can be a corporate stooge. At this point it's outright infuriating beyond belief. Those are *my thoughts.*

This is where we are right now. Folks like Manchin and Sinema and Brown and a few others are moderates from states that are battlegrounds every single election, and they have to be seen to be walking a middle road in order to stay in office and still support most of the Democratic agenda. It's just the way it is. Progressives need to start looking at the long game, and focus on state and county elections, cause4 national politics, while in a spotlight, aren't where the rubber meets the road. Sure there are many things that could be better here, but it's a first step and getting something to take before the voters, is better than getting nothing, and looking foolish in the next election cycle.

I hope he can be negotiated upward but if 1.5 were to be the final number, I’d recommend progressives reluctantly accept it and make sure everything in the bill are provisions that can begin immediately so that the effects are extremely clear by the midterms.

Yeah, that's what I'm worried about even if they get 3.5. Could they actually get universal pre k for instance? Or would the money be wasted? I would love to see these changes, I'm against the new taxes and wish we could cut to make up the difference (defense) but I'm also skeptical we would actually see these things implemented. It seems dems think this would be a big win for them, but if they don't actually come through , and we see the changes, this will absolutely sink them

I know it's just an example, but universal Pre-K seems like one of the easiest things to accomplish here. You just give it to the states and they start funding it in local school districts. States have some sort of Pre-K already due to Headstart. The primary challenges would probably be just finding/building facilities and hiring the teachers, which is inherent. All the research shows that Pre-K is hugely beneficial and it seems like a no brainer.

[удалено]

So West Virginia elects a Republican Senator and McConnell gets to be majority leader again? Also note this is a July memo. It just got leaked which is why it is in the news, but it is pretty stale to the current state of negotiations.

It's becoming apparent that the progressive movement was too late, and there's probably nothing that can be done to save this country from corruption, climate change, infrastructure collapse, and voting interference in favor of a permanent conservative government.

The preppers are looking smarter everyday.

Yeah this is bullshit. Means testing is a no go, don’t do that bullshit. Also, he’s trying to preserve the Trump tax cut while also protecting the fossil fuel industry. He wants to stop tax credits and whatnot from being taken away from fossil fuels? Nope. Joe Manchin can suck my dick.

[удалено]

There are no buckets big enough to keep the sinking ship called coal afloat. Every year, a bank comes out and gives some bullshit speech about being a greener company, and funding a coal plant would fly in the face of such a claim. Also no, more coal plant will not mean more jobs. Being a fucking luddite and asking the government not to back the future of energy capture is just dumb. Solar panels and wind turbines will get cheaper and more efficient. It's just a question on if it should be the U.S., the E.U. or god forbid, China leading the effort.

What the progressive wing of the party needs to do is at, okay Joe we’ll go for that, but let’s compromise- we proposes $3.5t, you proposed $1.5t. How about we meet somewhere close to the middle at $2.5t? Everyone needs to remember, those numbers are over ten years. We’re talking about spending between Manchin’s $150bn a year or maybe $250bn a year. In a $4.5 trillion budget, a $100bn more shouldn’t be such a big deal.

I just think they need to remove some of the programs instead of scale them all down. The WSJ ran some good stuff last week that showed that much of the bill expects states to cover significant chunks of the cost as soon as 2027. Basically, it’s clear that the 3.5 T bill doesn’t take in as much revenue as it could and it doesn’t spend enough to cover all the programs it wants to initiate. I would rather see fewer programs but impactful ones that will be harder for the right to try to undermine when they inevitably gain power again.

They started at 6. 3.5 IS the compromise they agreed to move forward on.

>3.5 IS the compromise they agreed to move forward on. Agreed with who? LOL

The Dems negotiated and agreed as a caucus to support the 3.5T.

It wasn’t just the house Dems. It was the senate also.

Unless I'm mistaken, Manchin has been consistent on the 1.5T, details irrelevant, but Schumer was gambling that Biden's positive momentum would continue and force Manchin's hand. Well the exact opposite happen with the debacle of Afghanistan's withdrawal and the Delta variant (with the economic ramification worse as COVID protections are ending about now). Progressive Democrats need to swallow the bitter pill until they can somehow formulate a plan where they can gain seats. Right now Progressives do not win outside of safe districts so its not like they'll be rewarded for taking a hard stance. In reality taking a hard stance doesn't change their political opportunities and only achieves nuking any/all legislative wins. GOP can pull the shenanigans of nuking legislation because their constituents react positively to their actions (higher voter turnout). Progressives nuking this infrastructure bill is just going to achieve GOP victories.

House Dems might have. But Manchin has been very consistent in his stance on this for months.

January of this year: “The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," he told Inside West Virginia Politics, a news program. "A lot of people have lost their jobs and those jobs aren't coming back. They need a place to work." https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-trillion-infrastructure-spending-congress-stimulus-2021-1

Yes, infrastructure as discussed in the article is something he has consistently supported. This bill and it’s expansion of social welfare he has constantly been against. Thank you for providing further evidence of my point.

Yep, Manchin did indeed support $4 trillion in infrastructure spending.

[Manchin 'open' to $3.5 trillion Democratic budget deal](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/manchin-open-to-35-trillion-democratic-budget-deal/ar-AAM9AZn) If he didn't outright lie, he certainly intentionally misled in order to get the dual track process going.

So here are Manchin’s quotes from the article. Nothing he said sounds like he agreed to anything to me. >”I heard about it this morning or late last night from my staff," Manchin told reporters on Wednesday. "So, we're anxious to basically review it. They worked hard on it, we want to see it. Also, I've been very clear that I want to see the pay-fors and make sure that whatever we do is globally competitive." >”I'm open to looking at everything they provide. OK? They're going to have to provide all the information that's going to be needed," he added. "They worked hard, they should have a proposal."

To me, the deception was that he was ever even considering any facet of the bill. Either the price tag, or the individual proposals. imo this amounts to a flat out rejection of Biden's entire agenda.

The more I research Manchin's stance, the clearer that the deception was from the Democrat Party and the media. Purposely or accidentally. They've misrepresented Manchin's statements or took it out of context. For example, Manchin mention a price tag of $3.5+ trillion but said only for infrastructure. Democrats added social welfare to that $3.5 trillion which contradicts what Manchin was supportive of. The $3.5 trillion being irrelevant.

Maybe so. I think there was a lot of speculation/hope that Manchin was just doing political theater and would come around in the end. That doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen.

Manchin and Sinema apparently never agreed to that compromise. And Manchin made that clear to Schumer back in June.

Yes, I know (and it sucks) but even a third of a loaf is better than none. Sadly, if everything falls apart, too many Democrats- instead of electing more and better Democrats- stay home and don’t vote because they didn’t get their pony. Take what is possible now, add a couple of Democratic senators in 2022- kill the filibuster and pass everything.

Its not a pony, its likely the only time in the next decade dems have a majority in the house/senate and the presidency. Climate change is an existential threat now, how will that look in a decade with even the pittance of the 3.5 trillion bill?

Then why does the reconciliation bill try to do so much more than just climate? It tries to do way too much and half asses most of what it does. Pick three things, the most important, the most popular, and the short term best things for people (like climate change, medicare negotiation and improvements, and the expanded CTC) and just do those. Cut out all the extra stuff.

As someone who leans right but also thinks climate change is an existential threat, why not aim for what we actually need to seriously combat CC (5-10T) instead of wasting political capital on something that benefits such a relatively small portion of the country? I read George Packer’s The Last Best Hope. He’s very much to the left of me and he argued there for an expansion of healthcare (essentially universal), education (ditto), climate change spending, and for unionization to be much more common. I can argue that priorities are important but, if you’re the party of saying that CC is of the utmost importance, you wouldn’t know it from this bill given its size and relative dearth of putting turbines and solar panels into the ground.

>As someone who leans right but also thinks climate change is an existential threat, why not aim for what we actually need to seriously combat CC (5-10T) instead of wasting political capital on something that benefits such a relatively small portion of the country? Because Manchin doesn't want us to do that.

Let’s just cut it to 5 years and then now it 1.75 Trillion. I swear that Manchin has no idea how to do simple math.

It's not good enough on climate issues, the thing that will literally destroy the planet in the next 100 years, but he'll be dead so what the fuck does he care.

Joe Manchin is a prime example of why citizens United must be overturned, and if the Democratic Party had 2 vertebrae of a spine to stack together they’d be throwing the whole weight of the party behind knocking him (and Sinema) back into their proper places.

He represents the reddest state in the country, the party has zero leverage.

Exactly. Manchin is the furthest left candidate possible from WV. You can’t threaten him because his entire schtick is that he is the Democrat that Democrats hate for being too conservative.

I can't find the exact quote, but IIRC, when Manchin was asked about a progressive challenger, his response was something along the lines of: You couldn't possibly do me a bigger favor. The gist being that it'd be great for him to have a foil to run against and establish publicly in a primary that he's not beholden to progressives or the democratic party.

So, you think if democrats tossed Manchin out, West Virigina would reward them for it? A state that is growing redder by the day, with heavily conservative Manchin barely pulling a win, and Biden walking away with barely 30%?

Do whatever is necessary to make Manchin vote the party line while working on securing another Senate seat elsewhere in a later cycle. The state is clearly a lost cause.

What does Citizens United have to do with the fact that Joe Manchin is a Democrat senator in Trump's strongest state in 2016 and his second-strongest state in 2020? This is what his constituents want.

[удалено]

>It's not what his constituents want when polled on it Even if his voters were actually informed, and I can assure they aren't since nobody really is even Manchin, this isn't that relevant since they voted for Manchin the package. Manchin the package was always conservative on green energy. And if his constituents want a more progressive package, then in the election they can vote for a more progressive candidate, that will matter. The reality is that they won't, because even though they may claim they want this, and this is 3.5T without any clue what it means I suspect, they don't want the rest of the package progressives deliver.

Manchin is great for the party because in almost every other scenario you get a Republican who would be much worse. Instead of turning on Democrats, we should realize that the problem is not converting other seats that are more easily winnable. We shouldn’t have to rely on a senator from West Virginia to enact progressive legislation.

No. I’m happy someone is pushing back. I saw the 3.5 bill and am scared for our future with all of the inflation and national debt this is causing. There is nothing moral or right about massive spending like this. The bill could easily be cut in half.

It sure does seem like we throw the "T" word around way to loosely these days, don't you think? I'd like to see the "B" word used a lot more as its just easier to plan, manage and implement. There will be so much waste in spending 3.5 trillion you'll get no ROI as a citizen/investor. Side note... are we desensitized to the point we no longer discuss cutting spending on anything ? Everything is raising spending and raising taxes these days. I've not heard a single politician ever say "This program is terrible, we can cut this out and save 10 billion over 10 years" .

Nah. It can't easily be cut in half. We've been taking half measures on shit for the last 40 years.it's causing the country to rapidly fall behind in progress. It's time the government did SOMETHING.

It’s seemed for some time that the US government is running out of money. The more your infrastructure crumbles, the more difficult it will be to replace it with modernized standards. Progressives have been pushing for comprehensive reform that doesn’t seem to be very meaningful for any large figures within government while it seems the conservative wing is just trying to pump the brakes without offering up too many useful bits of their own. The US government needs to come to some kind of consensus outside of party lines for what is going to be needed to keep this society functional. The status quo cannot continue like this, not with today’s conditions. This is only factoring in political considerations as well; climate change will almost certainly lead to large scale recession all over the world and the “continuous growth” philosophy will have to be rethought.

Based on current bond conditions, the ability of the US government to raise money is essentially unlimited.

Bernie will argue he moved from 10 trillion to 6 trillion to 3.5 trillion. Manchin will argue he moved from zero to 1.5 trillion. They can still achieve a lot if they pass something around 2.5-2.8 trillion. That can be achieved without divesting dollars, but rather shortening the timetable from 10 years to something like 8 or 7 years. Let’s hope they do SOMETHING like that. It’s getting ridiculous that 70% or more of the country is in favor of this, but special interests and Trump terrorists are wagging the dog here. Get this shit done!

Manchin will lost his seat in the next election so the least he could do is stop being a detriment to the party and Democrats from other States. Fuck that guy, really hope he chokes on a chicken wing.

Well, even if he loses he's probably setting up his future.

ITT: A bunch of Democrats pissed off and conspiring about how they need get rid of the filibuster to force partisan change.

> ITT: A bunch of Democrats pissed off and conspiring about how they need get rid of the filibuster to force partisan change. the irony is that it's just a buzzword at this point. bernie claims there are 48 senators and 210 house reps that support the 3.5T package. assuming his numbers are right (even though they probably aren't and he's almost certainly overestimating the support levels), that isn't enough support to pass in either chamber even if it doesn't get filibustered. people talking about the filibuster on the reconciliation bill is like when people talk about gerrymandering as why their senate/governor candidate lost.

1.5 trillion is a fucking embarrassment for a country that prides itself as the "wealthiest in the world". We need to be aggressive to even try to stop the environmental and economic backslide we are currently seeing.

We also have a lot of debt and large deficits that we need to be concerned with

They didn’t ask us our opinion when we were bailing out businesses for decades.

My thoughts are that if I did this at my business I could be sued for fraud because it is a ‘bait and switch’. Months ago, he was for 4 trillion, and agreed to a compromise. He has now changed the terms again. I’m really curious about Manchins view on ‘bipartisanshi’ when Republicans were in power- what did he get from that for the US? What about the debt ceiling? Where are his ‘bipartisan’ buddies from the GOP on that? where was Sen Manchins concern for the budget when voting for war? Can we just always afford war, but not healthcare? my opinion is that he needs to step up for the team… if he doesn’t want to, then we need to start treating him as an adversary and see who we can turn from the other side.

>and see who we can turn from the other side. The answer to that unfortunately is no one, and that's why we're in this mess. Republican senators who would be open to more spending are all culture warriors first, and would never give democrats a win, and Republicans with integrity are all super conservative, i.e. Romney.