Manchin has announced his opposition to BBB, likely to kill the bill

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic ... ter-biden/

Not surprising, but now official.

Thank you Senator Manchin, It's been something to watch the Sunday shows this morning that is for sure. Best not to alienate Manchin any further or he may change parties than the Dems will have a problem.

This was an absolutely great headline to read to start my Sunday.

Good to hear that the people of West Virginia are doing so well, that they don’t need this. I only wish that the other 49 states could catch up to their quality of life standard but WV just sets the bar so high.

I mean look at them! Their Senator lives on a yacht and drives a Maserati. Streets are paved with gold over there!

I say we celebrate by giving a few billion dollars more to the military. They earned it!

Gives cover to Kelly, Sinema and a few other Senators facing elections in moderate to conservative states. Manchin was only the loudest Dem opponent of more “free” stuff.

FGITD wrote:

Good to hear that the people of West Virginia are doing so well, that they don’t need this. I only wish that the other 49 states could catch up to their quality of life standard but WV just sets the bar so high.

I mean look at them! Their Senator lives on a yacht and drives a Maserati. Streets are paved with gold over there!

I say we celebrate by giving a few billion dollars more to the military. They earned it!

You must have watched Bernie on CNN this morning but this argument is weak. Many far left members of congress that live much more extravagant than Manchin and their district's are in worse shape. Then again many of these bills aren't designed to do anything but get more tax money out of those evil rich people that aren't paying their fair share IMO.

NIKV69 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Good to hear that the people of West Virginia are doing so well, that they don’t need this. I only wish that the other 49 states could catch up to their quality of life standard but WV just sets the bar so high.

I mean look at them! Their Senator lives on a yacht and drives a Maserati. Streets are paved with gold over there!

I say we celebrate by giving a few billion dollars more to the military. They earned it!

You must have watched Bernie on CNN this morning but this argument is weak. Many far left members of congress that live much more extravagant than Manchin and their district's are in worse shape. Then again many of these bills aren't designed to do anything but get more tax money out of those evil rich people that aren't paying their fair share IMO.

Didn’t watch Bernie, but that’s not really a relevant point because those “extravagant” far left members are voting yes on this…

I’d rather live next to a wealthy person who wants to lift up their community and help everyone, than next to wealthy person who looks at impoverished children and says “nahhh they’re doing great!”

So big money lobbyists won at the cost of the middle class and lower class income households and against the scientist of the world who would like to see the energy transition taking place before we hit the 1.5degrees threshold.

The rich lost their SALT deduction, so there’s that. Nothing in BBB would do anything the least meaningful for climate warming—maybe 0.0001%.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Gives cover to Kelly, Sinema and a few other Senators facing elections in moderate to conservative states. Manchin was only the loudest Dem opponent of more “free” stuff.

Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.

Just sad. USA falls further behind the civilized world.

With inflation exceeding 6% and the debt, already at 29 TRILLION+ being further raised by 2.5 extra TRILLION more inflationary spending and even more debt seems to not be in the interests of the economy and the people.
A few blue haired Emilys' and Karens will be upset for a while and then they will move on to the next outrage.

Another win for corporations. Privatize profit, socialize costs. It's the American way.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Gives cover to Kelly, Sinema and a few other Senators facing elections in moderate to conservative states. Manchin was only the loudest Dem opponent of more “free” stuff.

Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.

Okay, will someone significantly “left” of Sinema be elected in AZ after she is dumped in a primary? She and other moderates are holding those positions because they know what they need to do to be re-elected.

NIKV69 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Good to hear that the people of West Virginia are doing so well, that they don’t need this. I only wish that the other 49 states could catch up to their quality of life standard but WV just sets the bar so high.

I mean look at them! Their Senator lives on a yacht and drives a Maserati. Streets are paved with gold over there!

I say we celebrate by giving a few billion dollars more to the military. They earned it!

You must have watched Bernie on CNN this morning but this argument is weak. Many far left members of congress that live much more extravagant than Manchin and their district's are in worse shape. Then again many of these bills aren't designed to do anything but get more tax money out of those evil rich people that aren't paying their fair share IMO.

I guess you have never heard of Heather Bresch and what she presided over at EpiPen. The question isn't how extravagantly Manchin lives, it's how dirty he is. Check out how his daughter got her jobs and degrees

Say what you want but Joe Manchin is a lot more popular than Joe Biden in WV. His voters support his position on BBB. He votes his state.

https://wvmetronews.com/2021/11/16/manchins-poll-bump/

Give up the inflation and deficit arguments. In the last decade Manchin (and most of his colleagues, it’s clearly a bipartisan institutional problem, and not the individuals, just to clarify) were all totally ok with spending an aggregate $9 trillion on the military.

There’s a reason Americans are so opposed to taxes. It’s because we don’t get anything from them. And then every so often, a bridge collapses or it turns out the water pipes have been poisoning a town. And everyone wonders why.

There is a reckoning coming sometime in the future. You simply cannot run a country wherein you create massive wealth gaps, the general populace subsidize the rich, and there’s always money for the military but never money for the people. A brand new F-35 never educated kids like schools of equivalent cost would. Eisenhower said it best…

FGITD wrote:

Give up the inflation and deficit arguments. In the last decade Manchin (and most of his colleagues, it’s clearly a bipartisan institutional problem, and not the individuals, just to clarify) were all totally ok with spending an aggregate $9 trillion on the military.

There’s a reason Americans are so opposed to taxes. It’s because we don’t get anything from them. And then every so often, a bridge collapses or it turns out the water pipes have been poisoning a town. And everyone wonders why.

There is a reckoning coming sometime in the future. You simply cannot run a country wherein you create massive wealth gaps, the general populace subsidize the rich, and there’s always money for the military but never money for the people. A brand new F-35 never educated kids like schools of equivalent cost would. Eisenhower said it best…

Why should we be spending 50% of the US economy on a Federal/Local government that, as you put it, we "don't get anything from?" Why would we want to make that percentage bigger?

The bill was deeply ignorant and insane (not to mention corrupt to the max). It was reallocating the equivalent of millions of people's lives. The height of arrogance. By the way I agree that, properly structured (which this was a billion miles away from), early childhood education should be a priority. Republicans should agree with that part. But not the wholesale unmaking and remaking of the country - too dangerous, too much debt and inflation.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Gives cover to Kelly, Sinema and a few other Senators facing elections in moderate to conservative states. Manchin was only the loudest Dem opponent of more “free” stuff.

Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.

Okay, will someone significantly “left” of Sinema be elected in AZ after she is dumped in a primary? She and other moderates are holding those positions because they know what they need to do to be re-elected.

Firstly, we all need to discharge overboard the fiction that conservatives have any idea what 'moderate' means. She and Manchin are nothing grander than a pair of idiots who refuse to get off the railroad tracks when they hear the whistle blowing.

But most importantly, we need to see things as they actually are. She was elected specifically not to appease an irrelevant and regressive element of society. The issue with that woman is not one of specific political position per se. It is the fact that what was on the box is not what was inside. While this is somewhat typical, she was elected for the express purpose of doing what she is now desperately trying to stand in the way of. And that is exactly how people get primaried. Like just about anyone else who matters, I will not lose sleep when the 15 minutes she traded away any usefulness she might have had fails utterly to protect her from ignominy.

FGITD wrote:

Give up the inflation and deficit arguments. In the last decade Manchin (and most of his colleagues, it’s clearly a bipartisan institutional problem, and not the individuals, just to clarify) were all totally ok with spending an aggregate $9 trillion on the military.

Maybe the plan could be renamed “Build Bigger Barricades”. Republicans would be falling over themselves to propose bigger walls, wider moats and more powerfull lasers to be mounted on the sharks and alligators to keep the violent (US armed) Mexicans out.

FGITD wrote:

A brand new F-35 never educated kids like schools of equivalent cost would. Eisenhower said it best…

The sad thing is that spending money on F35s in the stead of education means we are going to have to keep spending money on F35s. It is almost humorous how easily the uneducated keep voting for more war...

LCDFlight wrote:

Why should we be spending 50% of the US economy on a Federal/Local government that, as you put it, we "don't get anything from?" Why would we want to make that percentage bigger?

Your post is an excellent demonstration of the problem. You and I may be on different sides of the political spectrum, but we are neither R’s or D’s. We’re simply Americans and much closer in terms of what we want than it may seem.

The first part is the problem. Why would we give them more money for nothing in return? I agree. That’s why we need a restructure of how it’s used and while it benefits. The good folks over at Boeing, Raytheon and all the other defense contractors are doing alright. Meanwhile You’ve got parents on food stamps, laboring to death, with their children living in squalor…who pay taxes to afford an aircraft carrier that does absolutely nothing to benefit them directly. Having a bridge that’s crucial to a local economy collapse due to disrepair isn’t excused by “Yea but look at all these guns we bought!”

We can’t simply say that we shouldn’t fix it because it doesn’t work in the moment, so why would it ever work.


The second part in particular drives home that point excellently. (edited it out as I’m not a fan of walls of text) Bills worth trillions shouldn’t be so long and difficult to understand with so many riders and tack ons that most Americans have no idea what’s really in it. I get the need to cover all the bases and put in the legal speak, but on a surface level it should be “here’s what we want to do, here’s how we’ll do it, here’s how much it’ll cost”

And for Gods sake, constituents should be represented unquestionably. You have Manchin voting on how to regulate pharmaceutical prices….while his own daughter got filthy rich off selling pharmaceutical products. He’s not seeing and voting based on his constituents getting access to affordable healthcare, he’s seeing his daughters bonus go down slightly.

FGITD wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Why should we be spending 50% of the US economy on a Federal/Local government that, as you put it, we "don't get anything from?" Why would we want to make that percentage bigger?

Your post is an excellent demonstration of the problem. You and I may be on different sides of the political spectrum, but we are neither R’s or D’s. We’re simply Americans and much closer in terms of what we want than it may seem.

The first part is the problem. Why would we give them more money for nothing in return? I agree. That’s why we need a restructure of how it’s used and while it benefits. The good folks over at Boeing, Raytheon and all the other defense contractors are doing alright. Meanwhile You’ve got parents on food stamps, laboring to death, with their children living in squalor…who pay taxes to afford an aircraft carrier that does absolutely nothing to benefit them directly. Having a bridge that’s crucial to a local economy collapse due to disrepair isn’t excused by “Yea but look at all these guns we bought!”

We can’t simply say that we shouldn’t fix it because it doesn’t work in the moment, so why would it ever work.


The second part in particular drives home that point excellently. (edited it out as I’m not a fan of walls of text) Bills worth trillions shouldn’t be so long and difficult to understand with so many riders and tack ons that most Americans have no idea what’s really in it. I get the need to cover all the bases and put in the legal speak, but on a surface level it should be “here’s what we want to do, here’s how we’ll do it, here’s how much it’ll cost”

And for Gods sake, constituents should be represented unquestionably. You have Manchin voting on how to regulate pharmaceutical prices….while his own daughter got filthy rich off selling pharmaceutical products. He’s not seeing and voting based on his constituents getting access to affordable healthcare, he’s seeing his daughters bonus go down slightly.

You raise a great point. According to the people defining trends in business, especially finance and SaaS, storytelling is everything in today’s communications. Why don’t the public (or members of Congress) know what’s actually in these bills? Why are so many interpretations available via various media with different agendas? All that does is muddy the water.

A leader I looked up to always told us ‘Don’t bother disseminating an idea that can’t be explained in three simple slides’. As you say, what’s the plan, the how, and the cost? Three bullet points each topic should have it covered, or it’s already too convoluted for public buy-in.

Aaron747 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Why should we be spending 50% of the US economy on a Federal/Local government that, as you put it, we "don't get anything from?" Why would we want to make that percentage bigger?

Your post is an excellent demonstration of the problem. You and I may be on different sides of the political spectrum, but we are neither R’s or D’s. We’re simply Americans and much closer in terms of what we want than it may seem.

The first part is the problem. Why would we give them more money for nothing in return? I agree. That’s why we need a restructure of how it’s used and while it benefits. The good folks over at Boeing, Raytheon and all the other defense contractors are doing alright. Meanwhile You’ve got parents on food stamps, laboring to death, with their children living in squalor…who pay taxes to afford an aircraft carrier that does absolutely nothing to benefit them directly. Having a bridge that’s crucial to a local economy collapse due to disrepair isn’t excused by “Yea but look at all these guns we bought!”

We can’t simply say that we shouldn’t fix it because it doesn’t work in the moment, so why would it ever work.


The second part in particular drives home that point excellently. (edited it out as I’m not a fan of walls of text) Bills worth trillions shouldn’t be so long and difficult to understand with so many riders and tack ons that most Americans have no idea what’s really in it. I get the need to cover all the bases and put in the legal speak, but on a surface level it should be “here’s what we want to do, here’s how we’ll do it, here’s how much it’ll cost”

And for Gods sake, constituents should be represented unquestionably. You have Manchin voting on how to regulate pharmaceutical prices….while his own daughter got filthy rich off selling pharmaceutical products. He’s not seeing and voting based on his constituents getting access to affordable healthcare, he’s seeing his daughters bonus go down slightly.

You raise a great point. According to the people defining trends in business, especially finance and SaaS, storytelling is everything in today’s communications. Why don’t the public (or members of Congress) know what’s actually in these bills? Why are so many interpretations available via various media with different agendas? All that does is muddy the water.

A leader I looked up to always told us ‘Don’t bother disseminating an idea that can’t be explained in three simple slides’. As you say, what’s the plan, the how, and the cost? Three bullet points each topic should have it covered, or it’s already too convoluted for public buy-in.

The BBB plan lacked clarity, which was intentional. It seemed like an orgy of corruption, with a few crumbs for regular people thrown in, using the selling point that "any money the government borrows and spends is just wonderful."

I think the government should fund a decent public education and health care system, and military. Including early childhood education. But it should use private vendors, effectively managed. The government should mostly be a procurement office, and the total budget should be much smaller than today. Germany spends much less than we do on health care (summing public and private). They probably spend less than we do on education. We are not stingy with money, we are just inefficient and corrupt.

And people are not taking the money situation seriously at all... that's a huge red flag.

If we're going to stop the polarization and absolutism of American politics, centrism has to stand for something besides "conspicuously refusing to solve problems," and the Senate has to be something more than the place where legislation goes to die. Has Manchin got anything to offer us beside "no" votes?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Gives cover to Kelly, Sinema and a few other Senators facing elections in moderate to conservative states. Manchin was only the loudest Dem opponent of more “free” stuff.

Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.

She wasn't born into privilege like Pelosi, she has worked hard to get to where she has gotten. You also may be misunderstanding the AZ electorate but trust me she can survive outside of politics.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Firstly, we all need to discharge overboard the fiction that conservatives have any idea what 'moderate' means. She and Manchin are nothing grander than a pair of idiots who refuse to get off the railroad tracks when they hear the whistle blowing.

But most importantly, we need to see things as they actually are. She was elected specifically not to appease an irrelevant and regressive element of society. The issue with that woman is not one of specific political position per se. It is the fact that what was on the box is not what was inside. While this is somewhat typical, she was elected for the express purpose of doing what she is now desperately trying to stand in the way of. And that is exactly how people get primaried. Like just about anyone else who matters, I will not lose sleep when the 15 minutes she traded away any usefulness she might have had fails utterly to protect her from ignominy.

All I see here is the same thing I see when members of the far left progressive caucus react when the electorate rejects them. Tone deafness and more identity politics. Both of which is why both parties can't ever get anything done. Joe Biden made a deal with the Devil and now the midterms are looming to be very bad and they still just keep repeating this garbage.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Gives cover to Kelly, Sinema and a few other Senators facing elections in moderate to conservative states. Manchin was only the loudest Dem opponent of more “free” stuff.

Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.

Okay, will someone significantly “left” of Sinema be elected in AZ after she is dumped in a primary? She and other moderates are holding those positions because they know what they need to do to be re-elected.

Sinema doesn't come up for re-election until 2024. Kelly next year, but the Republicans candidates like the current Attorney General doesn't appear to be very popular with the Trump base.

NIKV69 wrote:

All I see here is the same thing I see when members of the far left progressive caucus react when the electorate rejects them..

Humm, In Monmouth polling, support for the Build Back Better plan hasn't changed much over the course of 2021: In June, for example, 61 percent of Americans endorsed the package. Six months later, it still has 61 percent support. So the electorate does approve the basis for this bill. Once again the Senate which rules allow the minority to control /destroy the progressive dreams.

You might check your polling again,

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/am ... ll-itself/

Besides, polls don’t make a bill pass, it takes 218 votes on the House and 51 in the Senate. Biden doesn’t have political power to push it thru the Senate—his polling isn’t great 40%-ish approve of his performance. House moderates walked the plank for Pelosi and got screwed. A lot of evidence that 2022 is a wave election and it won’t be pretty.

NIKV69 wrote:

She wasn't born into privilege like Pelosi, she has worked hard to get to where she has gotten. You also may be misunderstanding the AZ electorate but trust me she can survive outside of politics.

I understand AZ politics just fine as there is not much to understand. Sinema's plan for her future is to work as she can can to invent an existence that combines the meaning of optimism and stupid.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

All I see here is the same thing I see when members of the far left progressive caucus react when the electorate rejects them. Tone deafness and more identity politics. Both of which is why both parties can't ever get anything done. Joe Biden made a deal with the Devil and now the midterms are looming to be very bad and they still just keep repeating this garbage.

And what happens after you wake up from that fantasy?

LCDFlight wrote:

We are not stingy with money, we are just inefficient and corrupt.

Unchecked capitalism in the cottage industries that feed/serve the political, financial, and legal professions are the reason. Market imperatives in the merry-go-round of access to those realms drives that inefficiency, but make no mistake, most of the 'corruption' you allude to is in fact, very legal - unfortunately. Consider for a moment how many attorneys and claims adjusters would no longer be employed if we had a single national standard for analyzing and settling insurance claims instead of a 50-state system? These are among the knock-on effects the founders could not foresee.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

And what happens after you wake up from that fantasy?

You have either been living on a deserted island cutoff from the world or are in denial to make that statement. Either way I will be more than happy to discuss it the morning after election day.

910A wrote:

Humm, In Monmouth polling, support for the Build Back Better plan hasn't changed much over the course of 2021: In June, for example, 61 percent of Americans endorsed the package. Six months later, it still has 61 percent support. So the electorate does approve the basis for this bill. Once again the Senate which rules allow the minority to control /destroy the progressive dreams.

Senate rules are simple. The Dems control the Senate and need 50 votes since the VP breaks the tie. A member of the majority voted no. Not a member of the minority. See this is the smoke screen that always get thrown out there when the Dem party can't keep their caucus unified. Reject the AOC wing already and maybe get some legislation that can pass to the floor. Don't use stale talking points to try to explain it away.

Why can't the US fix itself? It is bloody obvious what needs to be done on education, infrastructure, climate change, healthcare and to give people a reasonable living wage and some security. America is a great country, but very one-sided. Social mobility is less than in other high-income countries. How can Americans stand for that? Would BBB fix it all? No of course not, but in my view, it would be a step in the right direction.

Dutchy wrote:

Why can't the US fix itself? It is bloody obvious what needs to be done on education, infrastructure, climate change, healthcare and to give people a reasonable living wage and some security. America is a great country, but very one-sided. Social mobility is less than in other high-income countries. How can Americans stand for that? Would BBB fix it all? No of course not, but in my view, it would be a step in the right direction.

Too large to manage and maintain cohesion between the various interests of different states at this point, is the simple answer.

A relatable example: in a company you can realize incredible pace of execution and mission precision when all employees have bought into whatever vision is in vogue. The US is a like a company where all department are siloed, collaboration is fractured, and every manager clutches pearls and plays CYA instead of coordinating and sharing resources.

Aaron747 wrote:

Too large to manage and maintain cohesion between the various interests of different states at this point, is the simple answer.

If that is the problem, the solution must be, either to break-up the union into smaller, more manageable pieces or have a reform whereby there is more institutionalized cohesion, or not to have a two-party system with constituencies, but a multi-party system with nationwide parties. The latter won't happen, because which electoral body will reform in such a way, that they will not be voted in, themselves.

In german, we say: Feind, Todfeind, Parteifreund. Enemy. Archenemy. Party Fellow.

To me the decision of Sen. Mancin in his own words and other reasons have several elements.

While many people would benefit from the BBB bill, no one wants to pay for it or continue to increase the massive national debt.

Many who would pay for it see some parts as encouraging people not getting jobs, being 'lazy', more dependence on the Federal government especially other than White European decedent persons.

For some benefits the Federal government would only pay part of them, states would have to put up some funds and/or the staffing to carry them out with its costs and no way do any of those state politicians want to raise taxes to do so.

Just too much in the bill, including dealing with immigration in ways many find unacceptable. Break up the elements of this bill bundle and vote on them in smaller groups that would likely pass like the subsidies and price regulations on diabetes drugs.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Gives cover to Kelly, Sinema and a few other Senators facing elections in moderate to conservative states. Manchin was only the loudest Dem opponent of more “free” stuff.

Sinema will not make it to an election. Obviously, she does not understand what being primaried means, but she will shaking a cup for a living outside the AZ state capital soon enough.

She holds her office until the general election not the primary. So she's in office until the end of 2024

I'm a progressive on many issues, especially the environment.

However, I'm glad Manchin is doing this for one simple reason: the proposed bill includes restoring the SALT deduction, which is a massive government give away for people who live in Atherton, Brentwood, and Central Park South.

If the Democrats were serious about improving the lives of "the less fortunate" and "fighting climate change", they would not have restored the SALT deduction. If the Democrats had not restored the SALT deduction, I'd be far more upset about Manchin's decision.

Including the SALT deduction proves that much of this bill is a give away to favored constituents and campaign donors of the Democratic party...and, before I get flamed, I realize that Republicans do exactly the same thing in their spending bills, and I find Republicans' behavior equally upsetting.

ltbewr wrote:

To me the decision of Sen. Mancin in his own words and other reasons have several elements.

While many people would benefit from the BBB bill, no one wants to pay for it or continue to increase the massive national debt.

Many who would pay for it see some parts as encouraging people not getting jobs, being 'lazy', more dependence on the Federal government especially other than White European decedent persons.

For some benefits the Federal government would only pay part of them, states would have to put up some funds and/or the staffing to carry them out with its costs and no way do any of those state politicians want to raise taxes to do so.

Just too much in the bill, including dealing with immigration in ways many find unacceptable. Break up the elements of this bill bundle and vote on them in smaller groups that would likely pass like the subsidies and price regulations on diabetes drugs.

It is being paid for by those wealthiest Americans by repealing the Republican 2017 tax cut. That tax cut was not replaced with anything.

Manchin should just stop pretending he is a Democrat. He has not been for a long time. Swap him out for one of the RINOs who voted for impeachment the second time.

FGITD wrote:

Good to hear that the people of West Virginia are doing so well, that they don’t need this. I only wish that the other 49 states could catch up to their quality of life standard but WV just sets the bar so high.

I mean look at them! Their Senator lives on a yacht and drives a Maserati. Streets are paved with gold over there!

I say we celebrate by giving a few billion dollars more to the military. They earned it!

Half of the military would tell you a 1000 ways they could cut US military spending and be a better, more efficient military for it. The waste is usually in the form of Congressional mandates to push pet projects, funding equipment to ensure Congressional votes for other issues, and a massive bloated civilian employee/contractor structure.

Even the US military, as overfunded as it likely is, remains a smallish portion of mandated spending like social pensions and health care for the poor and aged of the total budget.

The reality is that the US cannot afford much more spending, and certainly not more entitlements. The current entitlements likely need aggressive means testing to maintain any sense of sustainability as the worker to retiree ratio in the US slowly works its way to parity.

NIKV69 wrote:

Thank you Senator Manchin, It's been something to watch the Sunday shows this morning that is for sure. Best not to alienate Manchin any further or he may change parties than the Dems will have a problem.

What happened to the Republican notion of "but if our guy loses, we will support the president no matter what to show you hate filled 'liberals' a thing or two"?

Newark727 wrote:

If we're going to stop the polarization and absolutism of American politics, centrism has to stand for something besides "conspicuously refusing to solve problems," and the Senate has to be something more than the place where legislation goes to die. Has Manchin got anything to offer us beside "no" votes?

The Founders intended the Senate precisely to be a place where legislation dies.

The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.

petertenthije wrote:

Maybe the plan could be renamed “Build Bigger Barricades”. Republicans would be falling over themselves to propose bigger walls, wider moats and more powerfull lasers to be mounted on the sharks and alligators to keep the violent (US armed) Mexicans out.

Why are secure borders a completely unreasonable thing for which to ask?

WA707atMSP wrote:

I'm a progressive on many issues, especially the environment.

However, I'm glad Manchin is doing this for one simple reason: the proposed bill includes restoring the SALT deduction, which is a massive government give away for people who live in Atherton, Brentwood, and Central Park South.

If the Democrats were serious about improving the lives of "the less fortunate" and "fighting climate change", they would not have restored the SALT deduction. If the Democrats had not restored the SALT deduction, I'd be far more upset about Manchin's decision.

Including the SALT deduction proves that much of this bill is a give away to favored constituents and campaign donors of the Democratic party...and, before I get flamed, I realize that Republicans do exactly the same thing in their spending bills, and I find Republicans' behavior equally upsetting.

If the US left was serious about climate change, they would support things like nuclear power.

If the US right was serious about national security, they would support environmental policies that diversify energy sources towards a large variety of renewables with an eye to building an sustainable market towards them.

Dutchy wrote:

If that is the problem, the solution must be, either to break-up the union into smaller, more manageable pieces or have a reform whereby there is more institutionalized cohesion, or not to have a two-party system with constituencies, but a multi-party system with nationwide parties. The latter won't happen, because which electoral body will reform in such a way, that they will not be voted in, themselves.

Once upon a time, the Union was meaningfully split in 36 or 48 or 50 manageable pieces.

That's the whole design behind the system...i.e. if Massachusetts or Missouri want to have different policies, then those would reflect the desires of those populations who would have pretty direct access to their representatives to reflect those wishes.

seb146 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

To me the decision of Sen. Mancin in his own words and other reasons have several elements.

While many people would benefit from the BBB bill, no one wants to pay for it or continue to increase the massive national debt.

Many who would pay for it see some parts as encouraging people not getting jobs, being 'lazy', more dependence on the Federal government especially other than White European decedent persons.

For some benefits the Federal government would only pay part of them, states would have to put up some funds and/or the staffing to carry them out with its costs and no way do any of those state politicians want to raise taxes to do so.

Just too much in the bill, including dealing with immigration in ways many find unacceptable. Break up the elements of this bill bundle and vote on them in smaller groups that would likely pass like the subsidies and price regulations on diabetes drugs.

It is being paid for by those wealthiest Americans by repealing the Republican 2017 tax cut. That tax cut was not replaced with anything.

Manchin should just stop pretending he is a Democrat. He has not been for a long time. Swap him out for one of the RINOs who voted for impeachment the second time.

I agree that Manchin is a DINO.

However, the wealthy are definitely NOT paying their fair share in this bill. Reinstating the SALT deduction will probably lower the tax burden for wealthy taxpayers, at least if you live in a place like Atherton, Brentwood, or Central Park South where lots of Democratic campaign donors live.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Thank you Senator Manchin, It's been something to watch the Sunday shows this morning that is for sure. Best not to alienate Manchin any further or he may change parties than the Dems will have a problem.

What happened to the Republican notion of "but if our guy loses, we will support the president no matter what to show you hate filled 'liberals' a thing or two"?

Probably with the Democrats voting for the Iraqi Liberation Act, and multiple AUMFs and then running as anti-war types while troops were contact.

Oh, and for those scoring at home...the military received a 2.9% pay raise, while it was 5.7% (IIRC) for Social Security in an economy with something like a 6.3% core rate of inflation, at least.

FlapOperator wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

If we're going to stop the polarization and absolutism of American politics, centrism has to stand for something besides "conspicuously refusing to solve problems," and the Senate has to be something more than the place where legislation goes to die. Has Manchin got anything to offer us beside "no" votes?

The Founders intended the Senate precisely to be a place where legislation dies.

The Founders likely didn't intend for the US to be a massive nanny state.

I judge a system by results, not intentions. And the result of the current construction of the Senate is not careful government or benign neglect. The executive and judicial branches have become unaccountable, state governments are free to try every stupid power play in the books, while a few well-connected people use the loopholes in current law to get what they want done, and the whole planet warms past the point of no return.