Jump to content

Update: Senate shelves the BBB Act

b_m_b_m_b_m
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Sure, don't do the most popular item on the agenda

 

Fucking corrupt clowns

 

And the press is doing the usual bullshit of calling them "moderate" Democrats. I'm pretty sure when a small minority takes a wildly different position than everyone else it's called extremism.

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Maybe trying to pack an entire agenda into one bill is a bad idea...

Dayen-Infrastructure%20Summer%20091521.j

Infrastructure Summer: The Sophie’s Choice of the Reconciliation Bill - The American Prospect

PROSPECT.ORG
Democrats may have to decide whether to do a few things well or a bunch of things not so well.

 

Thanks to manchin and sinema (and a few other Dems who are ok letting these two take the heat) for making sure the filibuster retains it's place in our constitutional order :flag:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Thanks to manchin and sinema (and a few other Dems who are ok letting these two take the heat) for making sure the filibuster retains it's place in our constitutional order :flag:

 

"The filibuster is permanent," Manchin said Monday.
 
Quote

It is not part of the US Constitution, becoming theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules only in 1806 and not used until 1837.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#Senate

 

Quote

In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster#House_of_Representatives

  • Guillotine 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason

Jason

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Sanders must not be reading any of the news. His wing of the party is not in control. The final deal will end up being between 1.5-2.5 trillion dollars.

 

His wing of the party is the one trying to get Biden's agenda passed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Massdriver

Massdriver

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Jason said:

 

His wing of the party is the one trying to get Biden's agenda passed. 

Ok so saying they’re not in control was hyperbole. What I meant is his wing of the party doesn’t have enough power to push 3.5 trillion dollars through. Sanders is saying 3.5 trillion and then I just read this in a politico article: 

 

Quote

One former Democratic Senate staffer who’s now a lobbyist was more blunt. “It’s not passing at all like this in the Senate,” they said of Neal’s tax plans, calling it “laughable” that House Democrats are “even thinking about this.”

So the House Plan which is already watered down is being snickered at by lobbyists. Everything I’ve read has similar projections that in the end this will be between 1.5-2.5 rather than 3.5 trillion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Remarkableriots

Remarkableriots

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Neither bill is going to be passed, quote me now

 

7 hours ago, Massdriver said:

Ok so saying they’re not in control was hyperbole. What I meant is his wing of the party doesn’t have enough power to push 3.5 trillion dollars through. Sanders is saying 3.5 trillion and then I just read this in a politico article: 

 

So the House Plan which is already watered down is being snickered at by lobbyists. Everything I’ve read has similar projections that in the end this will be between 1.5-2.5 rather than 3.5 trillion. 

The human race is fucked because we don't have the willpower to do what needs to be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
  • Author
Posted
14 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:


I wouldn’t be shocked at all. I fully expect it to exceed that.

They're gonna cut so much it may not have the votes to pass. Since the terms.of the debate are abstract numbers instead of programs or things we need to do, they're avoiding the discussions around what now they're insisting on cutting. Is it the child tax credit? Paid leave? The climate provisions? The expansion of the medicaid ltc home healthcare program? Are we going to do a bunch of stuff badly or a couple things well?

 

This is why I don't think it will pass, it's being sabotaged by corporate democrats to be less than useless

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

They're gonna cut so much it may not have the votes to pass. Since the terms.of the debate are abstract numbers instead of programs or things we need to do, they're avoiding the discussions around what now they're insisting on cutting. Is it the child tax credit? Paid leave? The climate provisions? The expansion of the medicaid ltc home healthcare program? Are we going to do a bunch of stuff badly or a couple things well?

 

This is why I don't think it will pass, it's being sabotaged by corporate democrats to be less than useless

 

I know what the conservatives are trying to do. However, considering the infrastructure bill exceeded $1 trillion, this is one I fully expect will surpass that as well. I feel on this board, people were poo pooing the first bill's prospects, which exceeded a trillion despite people thinking nothing was going to happen and Obama pitching way less than that.

 

There's been a lot of good news that's followed the reconciliation bill as well (hell, just the fact that it's backed by Joe freaking Biden), but we only get left-wing Twitter here and it's healthier and more informative to just look elsewhere for infrastructure news since only the bad stuff that gets people tied in knots gets shared here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I know what the conservatives are trying to do. However, considering the infrastructure bill exceeded $1 trillion, this is one I fully expect will surpass that as well. I feel on this board, people were poo pooing the first bill's prospects, which exceeded a trillion despite people thinking nothing was going to happen and Obama pitching way less than that.

 

There's been a lot of good news that's followed the reconciliation bill as well (hell, just the fact that it's backed by Joe freaking Biden), but we only get left-wing Twitter here and it's healthier and more informative to just look elsewhere for infrastructure news since only the bad stuff that gets people tied in knots gets shared here.

It's quite hard to look at the upcoming meat grinder that will arbitrarily cut good, necessary spending and be thrilled about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaysWho?

SaysWho?

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

It's quite hard to look at the upcoming meat grinder that will arbitrarily cut good, necessary spending and be thrilled about it!

 

It's easy to look at a slew of fantastic proposals and be excited about it, especially if you're not just on this board just following left-wing Twitter reacting to each development as if one meeting between Biden and Manchin is it. Did any of you read that "Biden bombs" article? It was a low-drama conversation and they will continue to discuss the bill; this "bombed" conversation happened after a big speech Biden made, which is a speech that suggests to me that Biden is just getting started on this arm-twisting blitz.

 

Nobody shared Biden's speech yesterday or put that into context. Isn't it kind of a big deal that the president even supports this? During the Obama administration, the board relentlessly bitched that everything was compromised and we weren't being ambitious at all. The infrastructure bill was far bigger than much of what Obama proposed. The reconciliation bill is one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation proposed in my life. And the stimulus at the beginning of the year was much more significant than the one in 09, with people continuing to feel the effects of it and hundreds of thousands lifted out of poverty.

 

Did people here think if you started bigger there still wouldn't be bad-faith debating? Did people think if you proposed something much more ambitious that it wouldn't get cut at all? 

 

It'll "arbitrarily cut good, necessary spending?" Anything you propose will have something cut stupidly because nothing passes as is in government. You're playing an expectations game rather than simply what actually gets into the bill. You could have started with a $40 trillion bill and there's still gonna be stuff you're upset that's cut. If the proposal was $600 billion but then they got it to $900 billion, would that have been better because nothing was arbitrarily cut, only increased, even though that would be a very small bill? Are we just gonna be upset that stuff was cut or proud of what you're able to get through the mechanisms of government with the majorities we have if we get a reconciliation bill with Paid Leave? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
b_m_b_m_b_m

b_m_b_m_b_m

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Don't get me wrong having some things is better than no things. But you can be mad about losing a lot of good things which probably could have gotten 40-45 votes in the senate (if not a majority for some provisions) and may be able to pass the house while being "ok" to happy with an inadequate bill that can be built from. 

 

But it again comes back to cutting to 1.5T means further serious cuts (remember Bernie's opening bid was 6T). This leads to two questions: what is getting cut, and why? And I'm not thrilled about the answers! Doubly so since a lot of the cuts are due to two senators and the solution leading to a higher compromise is literally "we needed more Dems".

 

And that we may have to wait another decade for another trifecta, some things can't wait like the climate provisions of the budget (which are wholly inadequate in and of themselves but that's another discussion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jwheel86

Jwheel86

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2021 at 8:35 AM, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

But it again comes back to cutting to 1.5T means further serious cuts (remember Bernie's opening bid was 6T). This leads to two questions: what is getting cut, and why?

 

Not only what gets cut but does the cut make the policy nonfunctional. The Home Care component was $400b to achieve 2 objectives: clear the HCBS waiting lists and raise wages for HCBS workers . $190b can't do both and probably can't clear the waiting lists. Worse, the States probably won't take the money if it is too little or has a sunset. The COVID bills had a lot of HCBS money but because the money was temporary the money went to hazard pay and PPE, not getting people out of Nursing Homes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...