HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If You Think Progressives...

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:36 PM

If You Think Progressives Won't Compromise w/ Centrists, You Have It Backwards. Liberals are begging

to negotiate with centrists.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/09/sinema-progressive-democrats-biden-build-back-better-infrastructure.html



The impression has taken hold with many people who have moderate inclinations that the Democratic Party is split between moderate pragmatists and left-wing ideologues who refuse to compromise. “There are growing signs the Biden agenda could collapse because too many Democrats have unrealistic expectations and refuse to compromise,” opined one of those research firms that recirculates conventional wisdom for investors. Charlie Sykes, editor of the center-right Bulwark, claims progressive Democrats are “threatening to torpedo the bipartisan bill (and with it the Biden presidency) if they don’t get what they want.” The truth of the situation at hand is almost precisely the opposite. The people who are willing to compromise and accept half a loaf are the progressives. The ones who refuse to negotiate are the centrists. Just listen to what the progressives are saying:

“What we have said is that if there is an agreement that the president strikes on this Build Back Better agenda, we will vote for the bipartisan bill, we’re willing to negotiate,” Representative Ro Khanna said on CNN. “The president keeps begging [Senator Kyrsten Sinema], ‘Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward’ … How do you compromise when Sinema isn’t saying anything?” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to be able to actually negotiate it.” Jayapal, again: “If they don’t tell us what they want to do, which was the president’s message, and if they don’t actually negotiate on the entire bill, then we’re not going to get too close.” Representative Jim McGovern: “I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, there’s going to be a reconciliation bill.”

They are not making implacable demands. They are begging the centrists to simply negotiate. The fear hanging over their position is that, once they have their bipartisan infrastructure deal in hand, some decisive number of centrist Democrats — it would take just one in the Senate or four in the House — will take their ball and go home. Nobody knows whether that would actually happen. But the progressives are hardly imagining this possibility. Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that Sinema “has privately told colleagues she will not accept any corporate or income tax rate increases.” No other publication has matched this explosive finding, which might turn out to exaggerate her stance. On the other hand, she has not publicly denied it. Sinema also reportedly opposes both Biden’s plan to allow Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies, and even opposes a scaled-back version designed to be less unacceptable to Big Pharma. The entire Biden program is financed through a combination of taxing the wealthy through higher income or corporate taxes and cutting spending by negotiating lower drug prices.

So if Sinema actually holds the positions indicated by these reports, she would kill Biden’s program outright. Biden’s domestic legacy is only going to be as large as its financing sources, and if Sinema opposes all those sources, the size of the bill she ultimately supports isn’t going to be $3.5 trillion or $2 trillion or $1.5 trillion, but zero. Business lobbyists are very clearly hoping to pass to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill — which, at the insistence of Republicans, does not make any wealthy sources pay even a cent — and then kill Build Back Better. “Business groups and some Senate Republicans,” reports the Times, have “mounted an all-out drive to secure G.O.P. votes for a bipartisan infrastructure bill.” Since Sinema is holding fundraisers with the same lobbyists who are pushing to pass infrastructure and kill Build Back Better, it seems at least possible that she is onboard with their strategy. Perhaps she just wants to scale back Biden’s plan and has some specific objections she can share in private. The problem is that she’s acting like somebody who wants to kill Biden’s program outright. Progressives can’t be blamed for suspecting a betrayal, especially when she refuses to give even the barest reassurance.

snip

61 replies, 3709 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply If You Think Progressives Won't Compromise w/ Centrists, You Have It Backwards. Liberals are begging (Original post)
Celerity Sep 29 OP
Walleye Sep 29 #1
Autumn Sep 29 #2
Hortensis Sep 29 #10
Autumn Sep 29 #49
Hortensis Sep 29 #53
Autumn Sep 29 #54
TheRealNorth Sep 29 #3
LT Barclay Sep 29 #4
BradAllison Sep 29 #23
Scrivener7 Sep 29 #5
Celerity Sep 29 #8
Scrivener7 Sep 29 #52
Celerity Sep 29 #55
BlueLucy Sep 29 #6
FBaggins Sep 29 #7
qazplm135 Sep 29 #9
FBaggins Sep 29 #12
qazplm135 Sep 29 #17
FBaggins Sep 29 #24
qazplm135 Sep 29 #31
FBaggins Sep 29 #35
qazplm135 Sep 29 #37
The Magistrate Sep 29 #19
FBaggins Sep 29 #22
Voltaire2 Sep 29 #28
qazplm135 Sep 29 #32
FBaggins Sep 29 #38
The Magistrate Sep 29 #33
FBaggins Sep 29 #36
The Magistrate Sep 29 #43
FBaggins Sep 29 #50
KPN Sep 29 #27
FBaggins Sep 29 #29
Celerity Sep 29 #13
FBaggins Sep 29 #15
Celerity Sep 29 #18
qazplm135 Sep 29 #40
FBaggins Sep 30 #60
themaguffin Sep 29 #11
Celerity Sep 29 #20
themaguffin Sep 29 #34
Nixie Sep 29 #26
wellst0nev0ter Sep 29 #48
Celerity Sep 29 #56
Johnny2X2X Sep 29 #14
The Magistrate Sep 29 #16
Celerity Sep 29 #21
bluewater Sep 29 #25
Spider Jerusalem Sep 29 #30
Celerity Sep 29 #57
Spider Jerusalem Sep 29 #58
Celerity Sep 29 #59
Tadpole Raisin Sep 29 #39
qazplm135 Sep 29 #42
bluewater Sep 29 #46
soldierant Sep 29 #41
The Magistrate Sep 29 #44
Celerity Sep 29 #45
DanieRains Sep 29 #47
Evolve Dammit Sep 29 #51
Carlitos Brigante Sep 30 #61

Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:42 PM

1. You are right. The media loves to pronounce Joe Biden's career dead

I’ve lost count of how many times he has been underestimated. Also I think the Speaker knows what she’s doing. I don’t see the Democrats can bully other Democrats into a yes or no vote. It has to be negotiating in good faith. Sinema should just explain what the hell she is doing. If she’s only in this for the money she could at least be honest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:47 PM

2. To hear people tell their bullshit, Progressives are the problem.

But hey. Those moderates like Manchin and Sinema vote with Joe 100% of the time. Or so I've been told

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:13 PM

10. Yes. And bullshit for the other market is that "moderates" (grabbag slander

for the 95 liberal progressive New Dems + conservative Blue Dogs + very often moderate conservative non-Democrats) are the problem. No matter where we align in the Democratic Party, we're targets of massive slander and denials of who we are.

Target: Democratic Party and all we're working to accomplish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 03:10 PM

49. I agree, conservative moderates are the problem. There are no moderate Republicans. Not a one.

Progressive are willing to negotiate on some things. Moderates like Sinema, Manchin and the ones they are giving cover to aren't.

“What we have said is that if there is an agreement that the president strikes on this Build Back Better agenda, we will vote for the bipartisan bill, we’re willing to negotiate,” Representative Ro Khanna said on CNN. “The president keeps begging [Senator Kyrsten Sinema], ‘Tell us what you want. Put a proposal forward’ … How do you compromise when Sinema isn’t saying anything?” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal: “They need to tell us what they don’t agree with. And we need to be able to actually negotiate it.” Jayapal, again: “If they don’t tell us what they want to do, which was the president’s message, and if they don’t actually negotiate on the entire bill, then we’re not going to get too close.” Representative Jim McGovern: “I think a lot of us want to make sure we have an assurance that, in fact, there’s going to be a reconciliation bill.”


Target: Needs of the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #49)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 03:33 PM

53. :) That first's not quite what I meant. All Democrats are slandered as

something different from what they are -- to cause those vulnerable to distrust and despise each other. Divide and conquer. All liberals are progressive, practically by definition, and by far most Democrats are liberal, differing from liberals who call themselves "Progressives" not in ideals, and very little in goals but rather in how big and fast we should to pursue them, best methods to achieve them, and worst case how much we'll settle for less than we want to avoid achieving nothing.

We do have some moderate conservatives in our party. They're real. The house's Blue Dog caucus an example; only 2 or 3 are hard-core Republican supporters. We do often have to compromise a bit with them, but their tail does not wag our our dog.

The conservative Democratic senators are in a different position -- they do have the legislation in a choke hold right now, and we have no choice but to negotiate with them, to give up some to get most. They know it. We know it.

What's so amazing to me is Sinema is going renegade, shocking her voters with her betrayals, blatantly taking money before the votes, etc. You know who do that and get away with it, whose voters reelect them determinedly anyway, of course -- her Republican colleagues. A lesson in choosing candidates for proven integrity.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 04:08 PM

54. Progressives are slandered by both Republicans and moderates. Sinema took a shot at them today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:47 PM

3. Is it even correct to call Manchin and Sinema "centrists".

Clearly, they have staked a claim to the right-wing side of the Democratic party. As for political centrist- when you have Republicans stampeding off the right end of the table, what is "the center" moves right, so the term really becomes a meaningless label.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:48 PM

4. Ooooh you are really stirring the pot. People ain't gonna be happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LT Barclay (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:57 PM

23. What are they gonna do? Cheerlead for Pharma Joe Manchin and Krysssstiieennnn?

And their non-existent "demands".

Nah, just probably blame AOC for posting a TikTok or whatever of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:49 PM

5. Oy. Staaahp! This designation of Manchin and Sinema as

"Moderates" pr "centrist" is silly. They are TWO PEOPLE who comprise our version of the lunatic fringe. They certainly don't represent the middle of our party.

Pitching them as the "faction" that is distinguished from progressives is a real insult to those in the middle of the ideology of our party.

These articles are just a way to divide Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:04 PM

8. as if calling them (which you just did) 'our version of the lunatic fringe' is not divisive?

They are TWO PEOPLE who comprise our version of the lunatic fringe.




also

They certainly don't represent the middle of our party.


'Centrist' is referring to the overall spectrum in American politics, not where they fall inside our Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 03:29 PM

52. Well, then. I guess that different usage of "centrist" makes it OK to be divisive of Democrats.



And no, calling Manchin and Sinema our lunatic fringe is not divisive. It may be insulting to those two people, but the vast majority of Democrats agree that they are extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #52)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 04:38 PM

55. you actually are trying to sell an angle that calling a centrist/moderate or moderate conservative

(all very widely accepted and used labels) is somehow divisive BUT

And no, calling Manchin and Sinema our lunatic fringe is not divisive.


lol

oki

you roll with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:49 PM

6. I don't think those two are centrist.

They're opportunist. I'm a centrist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 12:53 PM

7. A bit disingenuous

They're anxious to negotiate now. Now that a deadline is approaching and they're worried about losing leverage.

But they weren't all that interested over the last several months - including when the reconciliation resolution was passed and moderates said that the number had to come down?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:08 PM

9. Lol

At what point during any of this time frame did the folks blocking things now lay out any specifics on which to compromise?

Saying"the number has to come down" isn't negotiating if you refuse to say what.

This game has been going on for well over a month so the only person being disingenuous is you.

Just admit that you like Sinema and Manchin don't want any reconciliation bill, you want BIF and nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:17 PM

12. They're currently begging him to give them a number.

Several weeks ago he said that he could see backing $1Trillion or even as high as $1.5Trillion. He's actually said 1.5 for months.

Did anyone say "gee... we can't get lower than 2.7 trillion... how much can you come up?" ? Nope. They said that $3.5 was as low as they would go. We may not agree with him, but he's been quoted as being concerned with several specific aspects of the package. Has anyone said "what if we took that out? Could you support it then?" Not that I've seen. It's just "we support the president's entire agenda".


Just admit that you like Sinema and Manchin don't want any reconciliation bill, you want BIF and nothing.

Not even close. But feel free to continue to debate straw men if that's all you can handle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:34 PM

17. Everyone

In the Senate and the House and the White House has continually said he isn't giving specifics. But apparently either they are all lying or don't have access to the info you have lol

Giving a top line number without saying what you want to cut to get there isn't negotiating. All he has to do then or now is say don't want this ok with this here's my proposal. There's literally nothing stopping him from laying out clearly what he wants. Biden has asked him repeatedly to give specifics, I guess he's lying too.

Manchin also said we should wait til next year and why the rush but sure he's been negotiating this whole time lol

Sinema says no new taxes. Guess what kinda hard to find any bill if you won't raise taxes to pay for it.

They don't want the bill. You're fine with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:57 PM

24. Continually?

That's an odd way to spell "for the last 3-5 days".

Giving a top line number without saying what you want to cut to get there isn't negotiating.

Nevertheless... it's what the progressives are calling for now. Of course... that's really just a game they're playing. They want to take everything in the current bill and sunset it a little earlier so that they can get everything they want and just say that it hits the top-line number that he provides.

A progressive he certainly is not... but stupid he is not either.

Manchin also said we should wait til next year and why the rush

Clearly a negotiating position to say that he feels no pressure to get anything done before infrastructure passes.

Sinema says no new taxes.


No she didn't. She opposed specific taxes. The bill originally was only going to pay for half of the new spending - until there were other senators that insisted on paying for the entire thing.

They don't want the bill. You're fine with that.

Untrue. I don't even think it's true about them. They just want a much smaller bill and know that delay gives them more leverage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #24)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:16 PM

31. a simple google search

shows it has been more than 3-5 days, so why are you lying?

Manchin was urging a pause in negotiating for reconciliation in AUGUST.

A simple google search shows that too.

A simple google search shows the NYT article that Sinema wants no new income taxes.

Gaslighting isn't your forte.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:25 PM

35. A simple google search that you won't include?

How strange.

Manchin was urging a pause in negotiating for reconciliation in AUGUST.

Duh. Of course he was. From the moment moderates in the House got Pelosi to commit to a date certain for a vote on the infrastructure bill, his obvious course was to stall Senate negotiations past that point. It was discussed here at great length at the time.

But that isn't the same thing as not telling progressives what he objected to in the bill. He's been in the press ("simple google search" for months that the price tag was way too high for him and that he wouldn't support it. He's been saying for several weeks (likely months) that he has problems with the climate sections of the bill and won't support them.

There has been no movement on any of that. Progressives have been just as clear that they won't support his bill until he accepts the full $3.5T. And so here we are. Now the party leadership is saying that a vote is going to be held and they don't want to hold it unless they can close a deal in a shockingly short period of time. Suddenly they say that they want to negotiate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #35)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:33 PM

37. strange that

I think you could do a simple google search?

Not really, but I've overestimated people before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:39 PM

19. Three And A Half, Sir, Is Already A Compromise Figure

It is less than the original proposal, and much less than the progressive elements desire. If I told a man the price was four and half, and then when I came down by almost a quarter, he started saying, you know, can't you cut the price by sixty percent more, just for me, I would tell him to clear out of the store, that he couldn't possibly be serious. He's proposing, on your outlook one third of the original, and calls this a compromise proposal. It is not.

When a man makes demands he knows there is little chance of getting satisfied, it is a fair conclusion he seeks to avoid successful compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:52 PM

22. It wasn't a compromise with the moderates

It was a "compromise" entirely within members crafting the initial proposal that had even progressives balking at the price tag. An actual "compromise" usually involves enough people to actually pass the bill. That obviously never happened.

It also plays games a bit with the numbers. If all you do is artificially chop off the number of years for a program (knowing full well that you have no intention of actually ending the program after X years)... then you aren't really compromising. You're just making the numbers look better.

A simple thought problem. If they cut $2.5Trillion out of the original plan... there must be some really BIG priorities that had to be removed. What were they?

When a man makes demands he knows there is little chance of getting satisfied

Sorry... which side are you referring to here? It appears to apply to both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:06 PM

28. lulzd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:18 PM

32. thank you

when I see stuff like this...

It also plays games a bit with the numbers. If all you do is artificially chop off the number of years for a program (knowing full well that you have no intention of actually ending the program after X years)... then you aren't really compromising. You're just making the numbers look better.


I know to no longer take you seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to qazplm135 (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:35 PM

38. Care to take a shot at proving your position?

The question was right there in the post you claim you don't have to take seriously.

If we cut almost half of an original $6 Trillion package. What did we lose? There's a massive amount of progress fit into that $3.5T... there must have been something almost as massive that we had to give up from the President's priorities. What were they?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:20 PM

33. Nonesense, Sir

The obstructionists made noise about the original proposal, and got it reduced appreciably.

There is no doubt who is causing the problem, who is balking the passage of legislation that is popular with the people and needed by the country.

Your point about duration opens another line, namely that the entire '3.5 trillion dollars' is allocated over ten years, and so is actually about three hundred fifty billions a year. Which is less than half the annual defense budget. Pretending this isa great, unprecedented, crippling expense, is ludicrous. But there's really not much besides that serves as the basis for 'moderate' objections, though of course they want the cuts to come from things their donors do not approve of, or that they think they can smear as 'welfare for lazy moms and unemployed people' or 'pie in the sky climate nonesense'.


"This pretense of not knowing what any fool knows has come to dominate our political discourse."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #33)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:33 PM

36. You appear to be dodging the part that would prove your position

Let's try again?

A simple thought problem. If they cut $2.5Trillion out of the original plan... there must be some really BIG priorities that had to be removed. What were they?

the entire '3.5 trillion dollars' is allocated over ten years, and so is actually about three hundred fifty billions a year.

And assuming that's true... the tax increases should almost entirely cover it, right? So here's an interesting question. Let's say we get to the point where the debt ceiling has to be increased through reconciliation and we have to actually pick a new number to get us through the next year or two.

How much do you think the debt limit will have to be increased to cover BBB over the next 12-24 months? Accepting that we already run a significant deficit and that the stimulus and infrastructure bills will add a bunch... how much extra do you expect to see for BBB?

The correct answer is informative for both the debt ceiling debate and the BBB negotiations.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #36)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:43 PM

43. The 'Debt Ceiling' Sir

Ought to be raised to about ten quadrillions, which should settle the matter for several centuries. It is patent idiocy as it stands. Voting to spend is voting to acquire the money to be spent, if it is not already in hand. This particular hostage to fortune needs to be squelched once and for all.

Your acknowledgement that so substantial a reduction was made to reach the 3.5 figure does not really operate in your favor. It highlights just how absurd the obstructionists are being.

One side has come down. The onus is on the other side to come up and meet, not insist on further reductions. If that latter is what they do, they are not looking for a deal, they are looking to scuttle the works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 03:15 PM

50. No doubt. And that might dodge the political issue if they can get away with it.

Your acknowledgement that so substantial a reduction was made to reach the 3.5 figure

I missed that acknowledgment. I was asking you to demonstrate that there had actually been a reduction of substance rather than an accounting trick that implemented the same programs at a lower-scored figure.

The President's initial proposal was closer to $4.5T... and roughly a trillion of that was shifted to the infrastructure bill... leaving us about where we are now. Sanders' plan was larger but the only clear "compromise" I remember is that he backed off on a substantial Medicare expansion. But that wasn't eligible for reconciliation so it hardly counts as a compromise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:01 PM

27. Lol. $1T and $1.5T weren't numbers that represented "negotiating" in the

least. Manchin’s counter had zero credibility it to mention specificity. Only an idiot would counter a a ridiculously disingenuous and off-the-cuff counter like Manchin’s “maybe $1 to 1.5T”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KPN (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:08 PM

29. How much are the Republicans offering?

You could start at $20 Trillion and "negotiate" down with yourself to 10 and then 5. But if "yourself" represents 48 senators... that has never meant that bills get passed.

I'm sure that the Republicans have some things they want to fund too... but their 50 votes doesn't get them anywhere because they still aren't a majority.

$1.5Trillion is a really large number. It's laughably low compared to what most of the part wants. But "most of the party" isn't a majority.

I said at the time that his number likely meant that there was a compromise to be had around $2.25T. But nobody has moved off of $3.5T - which appears to have just as much credibility with Manchin as the 1.5 has for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #7)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:23 PM

13. Neither Sinema or Manchin will even list most of the exact programmes they want to cut

from the reconciliation bill, other than a few things. Sinema has said she is is dead set against the pharmaceutical price reduction part, plus is against Biden's level of corporate tax increases, which destroys a major part of the key funding mechanisms and thus likely kills the bill IF she doesn't back down.

Manchin is even saying he wants to kick the whole thing back to 2022 perhaps (his 'strategic pause').

Sinema is now hesitant to even discuss what she wants stripped out of the reconciliation bill until the the already dramatically (almost 80% of Biden's new spending and tax incentives removed) reduced bi-partisan bill passes.

That is a major violation of the pre-existing agreements. She is not operating in good faith. Manchin is doing the same thing, more or less.

News w/ @burgessev:

During a private meeting with the president, Sinema made clear she’s still not on board with the party’s $3.5 trillion social spending plan and is hesitant to engage on some specifics until the infrastructure package passes the House






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:28 PM

15. Sorry for the lack of clarity. It's the progressives that are anxious now.

Manchin and Sinema have no reason that I can think of to be anxious. Delay merely boosts their leverage.

I was replying to the original article that was pretending that progressives have been willing to compromise with the centrists/moderates/whatever. That really only began in earnest once Pelosi said that a vote was going to be held on the infrastructure passage. They really don't appear to want to hold that vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FBaggins (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:36 PM

18. I realised that and changed my post before you replied.

I do disagree that the 96 member strong Progressive caucus (the biggest single Democratic caucus in Congress) has only just now started asking for numbers and clarity from Manchin and Sinema and the 11 (11 now that Scott Peters voted No, the only Dem No, in committee on a procedural vote) Problem Solvers conservadem types in the House.

I also disagree on this

Manchin and Sinema have no reason that I can think of to be anxious. Delay merely boosts their leverage.


If they keep stonewalling the pressure is going to go through the roof on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:36 PM

40. depends on which is more important to them

blocking any reconciliation bill or getting the BIF.

If it's the former, no pressure will matter, if it's the latter, it would explain why they want the BIF NOW!! to reduce the pressure on them later.

Their ideal is clearly no reconciliation bill plus getting the BIF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #13)

Thu Sep 30, 2021, 11:49 AM

60. It turns out that none of that was true

Just like moderates in the House negotiated a deal with Pelosi in order for the reconciliation process to move forward... We now know that Manchin made a deal with Schumer as well - dated over two months ago. It listed several specific requirements including a topline figure of $1.5T, specific funding mechanisms and a long list of policy positions.

A copy of the deal (including Schumer's signature) is making the rounds now. I'll see if I can get a copy in a sharable form before someone else posts it.

On edit - Politico has a copy in PDF format

https://static.politico.com/1e/ef/159cabd547868585f9b1a8f06388/july-28-2021.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:14 PM

11. JFC, I wish people would stop calling those two Senators "centrist" or "moderate"

They have already been exposed as fucking this up on behalf of their donors.

This has nothing to do with policy values or political spectrum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to themaguffin (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:43 PM

20. I was simply using the title of the article, which are labels (centrist, along with moderate and

'moderate conservative' (which Manchin calls himself) that has been applied to them for ages.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #20)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:20 PM

34. I know. My comment is in reference to the media.

The problem is that their stance isn't based on a political viewpoint. They are compromised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to themaguffin (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:00 PM

26. Exactly. Two Senators. And they are using the same extremist

BS as one highly vaunted Senator whose claim to fame is bucking Democrats. It’s ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to themaguffin (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 03:02 PM

48. They are certainly centrists compared to the trumpanzee goops

Sure, that doesn't reflect well on them, but that's where we are now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wellst0nev0ter (Reply #48)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 04:42 PM

56. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:26 PM

14. We knew this week was going to be stressful

I have mostly tuned out, I know Nancy, Chuck, and Joe will get a deal of some kind, so why follow the drama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:31 PM

16. Exactly, Ma'am

At this point, it is the 'centerists' or 'moderates' who are the uncompromising ideologues.

It's a funny thing. Our left contingent is at times a problem in campaign season, due mostly to having a tin ear for the mass market. When we have a majority, though, it is not the left wing of the Party but its right wing which causes problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 01:44 PM

21. Good points Sir.

Our left contingent is at times a problem in campaign season, due mostly to having a tin ear for the mass market. When we have a majority, though, it is not the left wing of the Party but its right wing which causes problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:00 PM

25. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:12 PM

30. "Progressive" and "liberal" are not synonyms.

I am not surprised that Jonathan Chait is unaware of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #30)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 04:52 PM

57. they seem to often be used interchangeably in the US (and often only the US, as in the vast majority

of other advanced nations (absolutely here in Sweden and the other Nordics), 'liberal' means centre right, business friendly, free (rarely fair) trade, low tax, low regulation types).

When I say interchangeably used in the US, I mean used by the MSM, by very casual, low information voters, and also (in another manner) by the Rethugs (who have falsely equated 'liberal' as some sort of radical wild-eyed lefty, even sometimes a the even more disconnected false label of socialist, which is just insane)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Reply #57)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 06:25 PM

58. Only by people who are ignorant of nuance

liberalism is fundamentally centre-right. Progressivism, at least in its modern incarnation, is further left and less deferential to capital (compare and contrast Obama or Clinton vs Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez, etc).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #58)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 06:46 PM

59. whist I agree with you on this (as I already intimated) wholeheartedly

liberalism is fundamentally centre-right


I can see some here taking umbrage with that.

I am not criticising you in the slightest, so I hope you do not take it as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:35 PM

39. If Manchin wants to wait until next year I feel like one of the things he is doing

is limiting how many times they can use reconciliation (what did they find out - they can use it 2x a year?). If they miss this round it will then have to be used next year and takes away another potential bill for reconciliation next year while wasting the opportunity this year. Plus I thought I saw that he advocated for a 3T+ bill during the TFG administration.

Sinema is just more craven. She specifically lobbied for things during her campaign which she is now acting coy about.

In some ways it reminds me of when I saw republican congressmen speaking on the floor advocating everyone should have a healthcare plan like they have, a safe thing to say when you believe it will never come to a vote. But if in the future it does come to a vote, well now you have to find a way to get out of supporting it because you never did in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tadpole Raisin (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:37 PM

42. not just that

he knows full well that you aren't getting a major spending bill passed in an election year very often. Pushing it off to next year is just killing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tadpole Raisin (Reply #39)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:54 PM

46. Exactly! +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:36 PM

41. The image is that Progressives are "extreme"

but you have to go a hell of a lot farther left than American progressives before you come to anyone who is even remotely extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soldierant (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:46 PM

44. Hear Hear, Ma'am

Our political spectrum has undergone an absurd degree of red shift.

Chancellor Merkel of the CDU, the center-right party in Germany, would pass for a solid leftist in our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to soldierant (Reply #41)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:50 PM

45. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 02:57 PM

47. I Can't Even Say What I Think

Legislation 80% of Americans want.

What kind of (blank) gets in the way of this.

You got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Wed Sep 29, 2021, 03:27 PM

51. Indeed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Celerity (Original post)

Thu Sep 30, 2021, 02:36 PM

61. K&Fuckin'R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread