seb146 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

Indeed, Senator Manchin is representing his state. If he were to cave I guarantee he would not get reelected, and rightfully so.

This bill would help citizens of his state by providing child care and better paying jobs. So, he and his constituents are against that? Oh, that's right... it would give Biden and Democrats a win and, really, that is more important than improving people's lives...

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Interesting. When Democrats stood up for what they believed in, before now, they were called all sorts of nasty names and told how hated we are and how unpatrioitc we are for standing in the way of MAGA and Republican bills. Funny how things change....

I don’t think the mainstream people had any problem with standing against MAGA. Standing against Trump was easy, kind of compulsory in universities. Kind of like chastity was compulsory at universities in the 1950s. Different, but sharing a vein of cultural conformity.

But, here's the thing:

People listened to both sides and did their own research and found MAGA and their dear leader were bad for freedom and bad for the Constitution. Why is that not possible?

hashtagconfused wrote:

seb146 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Indeed, Senator Manchin is representing his state. If he were to cave I guarantee he would not get reelected, and rightfully so.

This bill would help citizens of his state by providing child care and better paying jobs. So, he and his constituents are against that? Oh, that's right... it would give Biden and Democrats a win and, really, that is more important than improving people's lives...

Is it possible people want those things, but just don't want to achieve them the way outlined in the spending bill?

seb146 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

Indeed, Senator Manchin is representing his state. If he were to cave I guarantee he would not get reelected, and rightfully so.

This bill would help citizens of his state by providing child care and better paying jobs. So, he and his constituents are against that? Oh, that's right... it would give Biden and Democrats a win and, really, that is more important than improving people's lives...

ItnStln wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

seb146 wrote:

This bill would help citizens of his state by providing child care and better paying jobs. So, he and his constituents are against that? Oh, that's right... it would give Biden and Democrats a win and, really, that is more important than improving people's lives...

Is it possible people want those things, but just don't want to achieve them the way outlined in the spending bill?

Indeed, while I am against the majority of the bill the cost doesn't justify the few items in the bill that I want.

bennett123 wrote:

So which bits is he still unhappy with?.

DLPMMM wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

So which bits is he still unhappy with?.

I think his major problem is that BBB has the spending over 3 years while the income is spread over 10 years, making the real cost more like $6 trillion over the 10 years and an additional $4 trillion in deficit spending over the period.

Smoke and mirrors accounting.

LCDFlight wrote:

DLPMMM wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

So which bits is he still unhappy with?.

I think his major problem is that BBB has the spending over 3 years while the income is spread over 10 years, making the real cost more like $6 trillion over the 10 years and an additional $4 trillion in deficit spending over the period.

Smoke and mirrors accounting.

Correct, when people say it is "paid for," it really means that they are either fools, or untrustworthy liars.

I don't even think Joe Manchin is a good person. I think he is a corrupt coal guy. But, he has higher morals than nearly everyone else, because DC is a swamp absolutely filled with white collar criminals.

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

DLPMMM wrote:

I think his major problem is that BBB has the spending over 3 years while the income is spread over 10 years, making the real cost more like $6 trillion over the 10 years and an additional $4 trillion in deficit spending over the period.

Smoke and mirrors accounting.

Correct, when people say it is "paid for," it really means that they are either fools, or untrustworthy liars.

I don't even think Joe Manchin is a good person. I think he is a corrupt coal guy. But, he has higher morals than nearly everyone else, because DC is a swamp absolutely filled with white collar criminals.

So it IS paid for. And taxes will not be raised on those making under $400,000. Money does not just appear, unless you are the military. BBB needs seed money and it will be paid when all is said and done.

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Correct, when people say it is "paid for," it really means that they are either fools, or untrustworthy liars.

I don't even think Joe Manchin is a good person. I think he is a corrupt coal guy. But, he has higher morals than nearly everyone else, because DC is a swamp absolutely filled with white collar criminals.

So it IS paid for. And taxes will not be raised on those making under $400,000. Money does not just appear, unless you are the military. BBB needs seed money and it will be paid when all is said and done.

The point being made is they are counting ten years of revenue (probably rosy projection too) against three years of expenses. At any point in time, it is 30% paid for. The rest (70%) is debt, meaning inflation and interest rate costs, which of course aren’t included either. I don’t know if either side is correct, but at least that is the argument taking place.

cairns wrote:

Dead in the water thank God. Your would think Bareshelves Democrats would learn.

NIKV69 wrote:

cairns wrote:

Dead in the water thank God. Your would think Bareshelves Democrats would learn.

Nope they are going all the way with the radical, extremist members of their party and now not much will get done. Sadly no matter what happens in the mid terms meaningful legislation isn't possible until we get someone different in the white house.

Tugger wrote:

Not different. Someone who is not bad and is not deified and is not vilified.

Tugger wrote:

Not different. Someone who is not bad and is not deified and is not vilified.

And that will mean getting people in the legislature that are willing to compromise and do "back room deals" etc.

Tugg

Aaron747 wrote:

I am not confident conditions exist for having a POTUS like that again.

NIKV69 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Not different. Someone who is not bad and is not deified and is not vilified.

And that will mean getting people in the legislature that are willing to compromise and do "back room deals" etc.

Tugg

Aaron747 wrote:

I am not confident conditions exist for having a POTUS like that again.

How a president is treated by the media and other elected officials has nothing to do with whether he or she will sign or not sign a bill or how said person deals with his party when there is infighting and lack of support on a bill. A true leader say like Magaret Thatcher didn't let things like that interfere with being a leader. Also once again I need to remind you that BBB is not dead in the water because of the GOP. Many here are trying to ignore that fact.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Not different. Someone who is not bad and is not deified and is not vilified.

And that will mean getting people in the legislature that are willing to compromise and do "back room deals" etc.

Tugg

Aaron747 wrote:

I am not confident conditions exist for having a POTUS like that again.

How a president is treated by the media and other elected officials has nothing to do with whether he or she will sign or not sign a bill or how said person deals with his party when there is infighting and lack of support on a bill. A true leader say like Magaret Thatcher didn't let things like that interfere with being a leader. Also once again I need to remind you that BBB is not dead in the water because of the GOP. Many here are trying to ignore that fact.

Deification and vilification do not only occur in the media - they happen within parties and legislatures, as you well know.

You’ll also note Thatcher enjoyed 60% disapproval ratings when leaving office.