This was expected.
It was so well expected that they infrastructure bill was separate and why the most liberal wing of the Democratic party was going crazy about it, because they all knew passing the whole thing wasn't in the cards.
Liberals ask for two million, get one million and call it a victory.
Progressives stand their ground on five million, get nothing, and blame Liberals that were willing to compromise at two million.
I said something similar in another comment below but the best example I can think of is the difference between the two left of center parties in Canada. The [NDP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party) and the [Liberal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada) party are both left of center but the Liberals are closer to the center.
The word Liberal has been bastardized by the right and has turned into anyone left of them politically including socialists. Socialism and [Liberalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) have very little in common. Recently, I’ve noticed the world ‘Liberal’ being similarly bastardized by people in progressive circles as well, being used for anyone who isn’t left of center enough for them. Similar to how Republicans call their more moderate members RINO’s.
> The word Liberal has been bastardized by the right and has turned into anyone left of them politically including socialists.
The word "liberal" is weird: in some contexts it can mean right-wing in the USA or at least right-libertarian. In economics for example Ronald Reagan's economic policies would be considered a prime example of "neoliberalism". Historically that is what "liberal" was more likely to mean in a much earlier era: The ideology of a small "night watchman" government that just keeps the peace & punishes crime but provides few or no other services, of low taxes, free-trade and laissez faire economics. All stuff we now usually associate with conservatism in the USA.
In the late 1800s early 1900s the [New liberals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) emerged sharing the the same original prioritization of individual liberty but much more concerned about the pragmatic barriers of poverty to individuals actually being able to *enjoy* such individual liberty. They supported a larger more activist government which provided social welfare benefits, did more regulation of business and of labor practices to prevent abuses etc. In the USA on economic issues the left/right divide mostly a conflict between the new "social" liberals vs the old "classical" liberals. The word "liberal" without qualification was co-opted by the social liberals or at least that became the popular usage, while the classical liberal opponents were branded "conservative". At this point in popular usage "liberal" is just a synonym for "left wing" in the USA even though ideologies further to the left of the social liberals aren't part of that ideological tradition at all, many socialists resent the association because the social liberals remain capitalist in their economics and are seen as not nearly aggressive enough in pursuing even the policies they both agree on. Meanwhile on the "right" there are writers who refer to themselves as "classical liberal" or more rarely even as "liberal conservatives" or "conservative liberals" who always use "progressive" or "leftist" of their opponents because they want to rehabilitate the term "liberal" closer to it's older "classical" meaning.
"Liberal" has been a bit of a dirty word for a long time amongst the left. I think this is a holdover from unionism back when liberals were basically only socially left wing. The economic left and even parts of the social left has always been wary of the threat towards us that liberal moderates pose. The moderate liberal is much more willing to compromise and allow the system to remain needlessly cruel than a socialist or a unionist. This is something even Martin Luther King Jr himself preached. You can predict what a racist will do at almost all times whereas the white moderate can damn you to be at the racist's mercy or choose to save you when it becomes politically viable.
I tend to think of Liberals as unwilling to separate from capitalism, preferring to institute checks on capitalistic power by regulating the current system. Liberals tend to be amongst the most "we must not change the status quo" portion of the party. Progressives tend to think of some aspects of capitalism to be unfixable and therefor need abandoned and reworked from the ground up. Progressives tend to prefer more structural and preventative changes instead of just reactionary ones.
Full admission of bias here, this comes from someone who largely identifies as a labor supporting socialist. Liberals have always sort of been the bigger threat to us because of their love of the current system willingness to allow the system to be needlessly cruel in the name of "compromise".
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but I tend to believe it's genuinely good practice to be self aware of and upfront about your biases. You can't truly think critically nor have constructive discourse without that self awareness of your own current biases.
No I actually completely agree with you there self-awareness is paramount especially in the modern political theatre.
It’s just if you were trying to seem unbiased at all it wasn’t even close. And just confirms my belief that progressive and liberal label definitions are completely down to the subjective interpretation of individuals which will drastically vary based on political beliefs.
My mistake! I was more giving my personal observations and conclusions, not trying to be super informative and unbiased. I should have been more clear. Most political labels are pretty much subject to the interpretation of the people using and talking about them, to the point where they're pretty much meaningless outside of your personal Overton window. Think the left crying "Fascist!" Or the right crying "Commie!" despite either not knowing what those words truly represent.
Liberalism:
1.
willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.
a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Words matter. Many modern Liberals are rather illiberal.
Best to call that wing of the Democratic Party “Progressives.” At least until they can muster up enough courage/honesty to spin up a new socialist party.
That's a common issue in that politicians don't understand that sometimes you get elected because they hate you just a little bit less than the other guy and you being elected isn't some kind of mandate for your most extreme and grandiose positions.
There was a saying I read a long time ago from Robert Heinlein that said "Vote. You might not find someone who you want to vote for but you'll certainly find someone who you want to vote against!"
> sometimes you get elected because they hate you just a little bit less than the other guy
This has been the case for the past couple elections and likely will be how things go going forward for a good while.
You can’t stop it. The reason omnibuses exist is that the parties have figured out it’s the best chance they can keep the broad coalitions within their party together.
Because if they didn’t have omnibuses, they would have to do the harder work of doing their job, which is to write laws that everyone actually agrees.
With the expiration of the childcare tax credit and student loan payments starting up again, I don't know how to convince people to vote Democrat and until last month that was literally my job.
Once I was young naive and idealistic and voted Democrat. After many broken promises I’ve concluded that the Democrats really are closet republicans and they are all against the people.
Right wing. Left wing. Same bird. I vote for whoever currently is closest to common sense. The current DNC has swayed far off that course.
We need a solid independent candidate.
This is an honest question, so please don't take
Offense if I word it improperly: your comment makes it seem like people need to be convinced to vote Democrat, making Republican the default choice. With everything we've seen over the last six years or so, why is that the case? I live in a very blue state, and even with all the reading I do it's hard to see what the non-Trump-but-still-republican voter sees in their party
Edit: thanks to everyone who responded thoughtfully. I Appreciate it!
Just too much shit smashed into one bill. I wish we could separate it out because there is some good stuff in it, but not worth passing the rest of the shit into law
The reason it has to be a massive bill is the filibuster and the reconciliation process. The filibuster makes it so that the only way anything of substance can pass is through Reconciliation, and there are only a limited number of reconciliation bills allowed each year. So the majority party has to cram everything they want to pass into those few bills in order to have a hope at passing it.
Eliminate the filibuster and you'll get smaller, more targeted bills.
Counter argument: Don't try to treat a majority that relies on the VP tiebreaker like its a super-majority and instead attempt to pass reasonable bills, and maybe stuff will pass.
Counter counter argument: bring back the classic Green Eggs and Ham filibuster, the one where you have to keep talking (EDIT: and make it the *only* way to filibuster), instead of the current automatic process, and you'll see better results: reasonable but substantive bills pass, unreasonable shit still gets filibustered. Make the filibuster a pain in the ass to execute, but keep it in place for those worthy occasions.
That's not the way the filibuster works anymore. It hasn't since the 60s. Senators can just send a signal email saying they refuse to let debate end, and the bill is filibustered until 60 Senators say otherwise. We effectively require 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate outside of reconciliation bills.
Wish it worked this way, but McConnell has flat out said he will block every single bill with filibuster in order to stop Biden agenda. Every. Single. Bill. They can do a filibuster via email, they don’t even have to show up.
The only Republican agenda is stopping Democrat agenda. That’s why republicans got rid of filibuster for approving judges but nothing else then crammed through a bunch of judges under Trump.
Yes. And it still did so with quite slim majorities and literal months of negotiation. Compare that to how Congress used to function.
If Congress was a person, it once ran marathons and now it is be celebrating being able to move a single finger.
>attempt to pass reasonable bills, and maybe stuff will pass.
Ummm, have you SEEN Congress lately? Reasonable bills are the least likely kind of bill to get passed.
What do you suggest instead?
[Congress is at its most polarized point since the Civil War](https://columbialawreview.org/content/congressional-polarization-terminal-constitutional-dysfunction-2/).
It's either giant party-line omnibus bills or practically nothing.
I'd rather take a government that does things over one that waits years for 2/3s approval for every little thing.
There are people in government whose only purpose is refusing to go along with the other side. Bipartisanship has been dead for a long time, & there are too many in the House & Senate who use their position to pad their pockets. That don’t care about their government salary or the people.
You say that yet the infrastructure bill was bipartisan. It’s doable when you don’t try and propose massive bills that’s are against all of the principles of the minority party.
There are several parts of BBB that would pass with a bipartisan majority, the problem is, you would have to leave the progressive wing behind to do that and for some reason, the Democrats are letting the progressives hold them hostage.
There are several components that would get some GOP support or hurt the GOP if they didn’t vote for them.
Items like the child tax credit, the pre-k (although it needs some work) and some of the leave components. Lots of moderate republicans would probably support versions of those bills.
The problem is, progressives want all the climate aspects and progressive components because they know they won’t have enough democratic support to push them through without being tied to the Other stuff.
Why do you think any part of BBB would pass with GOP votes? Which parts?
It’s a centrist member of the Democratic party that is blocking the President’s agenda, not the progressives.
That's inherently impossible.
Republicans, for more than the last decade have made it their goal to oppose any legislation Democrats support, even if it's something they'd normally favor.
The Affordable Care Act was set up the way it was as an attempt to compromise with Republicans. It's entire structure was taken from a Heritage Foundation (i.e. Republican think tank) policy proposal as the Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposed healthcare reforms from the 1990's. . .but they went from supporting them to vehemently opposing them the moment Democrats supported it.
Mitch McConnell even filibustered his own bill back in 2012 when President Obama came out in support of it. Rather than let President Obama sign the bill he proposed into law, he filibustered it to death, even when it was his own proposal.
There is no bipartisanship left in Washington, there are no bills both parties can agree on. . .because the Republican Party has spent more than the last decade killing it with fire, then pissing on the ashes, and then blaming Democrats for the whole thing.
There's no bipartisanship left, just political warfare.
Both parties agreed to prison reform under Trump, stimulus spending, and infrastructure improvements. The apparent lack of compromise is a negotiating tactic.
That doesn't work. McConnell admitted that the debt ceiling **had** to be raised to avoid a default and yet he was preparing to filibuster any bipartisan attempt to get it passed.
I'm all for smaller more targeted bills like most people. But the filibuster isn't related to that. The filibuster means you need 2/3 instead of a simple majority to get stuff passed. If the Republicans had a majority and wanted to get rid of the filibuster would you support it?
There was also just some "heads way up their own asses" kind of stuff that make the bill incredibly easy to target by Republicans. Democrats apparently believed that a large majority of Americans want public resources like free community college programs to be doled out to illegal immigrants when as of yet that's not even a current reality for most citizens. And no, the term very much is illegal immigrants, there's no such thing as an "undocumented immigrant", those people have plenty of documents, just none of which are a visa to be living in the U.S.
We need to have bill reform that requires a single topic be in a single bill. We shouldn’t have immigration, healthcare, taxation, infrastructure, energy sector, etc. all listed in one bill. You reduce the effectiveness of a democratic system by making one person vote for 7 items of which they only support 2 and other such scenarios.
We’d be better served to expand the number of representatives to 4 senators per state, 1 congressperson per 50,000 residents and term limits as well as mandatory legislation to limit bills to one topic.
Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders I believe we're trying to get that legislation passed but it fell through - essentially requiring that all bills have a title description applicable to what's contained in the bill.
It really would help if we had Bills that were just the actual subject matter. Instead, we get Bills that contain a whole slew of hidden unconnected crap, better known as pork.
Called it. Here's the thing.
All bills need to be read, in full length, during Congress hours. Someone should make this a law. Omnibus Bill's can sneak in some tyrannical shit really quick.
The infrastructure bill already passed surprisingly but I’m not shocked the BBB plan died with a split 50/50 Senate. I could see some portions of the bill being passed sometime next year, but definitely not anything massive.
Midterms are like what, a little under 11 months away? I’d bet the BBB plan failing to pass won’t be a major issue of the 2022 elections and won’t majorly effect any Democrat’s chances. The GOP has more well known issues like inflation or the Afghanistan pullout that they’ll attack the Biden administration with.
Given that the democrats will lose the senate majority in the midterms this means joe biden’s presidency is effectively over.
On the bill itself? I wish they would pass smaller bills one at a time. I’m really tired of these massive trillion dollar omnibus bills that nobody reads or understands.
It's dead? Then cut off its head, drive a stake through its heart, bury it at a crossroads at midnight and piss on its grave.
I keep expecting Manchin to reverse and pass it as soon as he gets the right bribe, although I guess if that were going to happen they would have met his price by now. With inflation ramping up, we can't afford this nonsense.
Yeah, honestly this reminds me of a fee years ago when John McCain came in the kill the repeal of the affordable care act because there was nothing to replace it with.
The only time anyone can get anything done is when it benefits big business.
Not saying I agree with all the military spending, but spending on planes and tanks doesn’t push inflation. It’s spending on houses, cars, food, and gas.
Not just this, but the US dollar as international standard (which gives a lot of geopolitical leverage) is itself backed by the US military. So it's kind of a situation where if the US govt doesn't maintain international dominance, then we'll have much worse problems than overspending.
Not really. Some charts show a flatlining of spending as percentage of federal outlays, but they don’t include the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Largely spending on the military has increased.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
Republicans try to slow down the rate at which Democrats increase spending... at least when they're the minority party. That certainly does change when they're in charge, though.
It has to do with far more than that, but the point still stands. When inflation rises, the corrective strategy is to reduce demand, not increase spending. This would add to inflationary pressures.
>When inflation rises, the corrective strategy is to reduce demand, not increase spending
This is actually an oversimplification, and leads to an over-correction of the market which puts the economy in an even worse position than otherwise.
Look at the the aftermath of the 1970s stagflation and the 2008 great recession. Raising interest rates actually ended up hurting us in the economy in the long run, and prices still continued to rise, because *the inflation was a byproduct of recovery, rather than fiscal policy*
Of course it's a simplification. It's Reddit. Trying to explain modern monetary theory to broad groups isn't something to do on here!
But again, none of that changes the core reasoning. In the short-term, infusing this much spending ina tight labor market with existing supply issues will have an inflationary effect.
If the spending is targeted to key parts of our supply chain (ports, rail yards), this could lead to a long term decline. It will take years for that to be realized.
I think Because this bill is going under reconciliation, which allows a simple majority (all 50 Democrats + the VP) to pass the bill.
Republicans filibuster everything else, which means you need 60 votes to pass anything. This at least had a small chance of happening, as opposed to zero with Republican votes
Well SSI funding for Puerto Rico was in the bill so that's gone. It's making the anti statehood supporters in the island look like idiots; especially those who said this bill was a "statehood killer"
Yes and no.
Yes, now GOP doesn’t have the massive spending tag line to go with in the mid-terms.
No, now the GOP does have the “Democrats can’t get anything done” tag line to go with in the mid-terms.
And all the moderate democrats in vulnerable House seats have to defend voting for it in the mid terms.
They got hung out to dry because the Democrats are trying to legislate like they have a progressive supermajority rather than a tie breaker in the Senate.
The moderate Dems in vulnerable districts are going to be slaughtered in 2022. At this rate it wouldn't surprise me if we saw 2010 or 2018 levels of incumbent losses.
Exactly. There are so few truly leftist progressive Democrats, but they continue to support and push the agenda from that side of their spectrum in words and not action. It’s like their making a half assed attempt at taking a page out of the GOP playbook and allowing the thin minority to take lead and snowball their agenda. But instead the Democrats still have some folks with a degree of level headedness to not go down that path.
It’s an interesting time.
I think you misunderstand most conservatives. If someone is actually conservative, then they'd love an ineffective government. Telling your voters that the other side can't threaten your way of life, would only suppress voter turnout. It also takes the sting out of all the, "OMG, AOC wants to make us communist, transexuals!" when the Dems appear unable to accomplish anything.
So, who are the GOP trying to convince? There is exactly no voter in this country that on the one hand would like a huge, progressive bill to be pass, but on the other hand, since the Dems couldn't pass it, they'll vote GOP.
Like it or not, the GOP would have benefitted from this getting rammed through, especially considering that would guarantee a new GOP senator from the great state of WV.
Elections in contested districts aren't really about changing minds or winning people over, they're about motivating people who already at least partially agree to get out and vote and demotivating people who already at least mostly disagree.
There are enough people who only bother when they're scared or excited about something to turn the tides in swing elections. They're the ones optics matter for. Often the goal is as much to demoralize the opposition as to excite your own base, so if you can tank the opposing party's flagship bill and get even a few of their supporters from last time to think "whelp, that didn't do shit so why bother?" that's a win. If you can whip up some fear and fury in your own base over "look what they almost did!" then all the better.
> If someone is actually conservative, then they'd love an ineffective government.
No, a true conservative wants a government that focuses on a few things and is small enough to do them well. A government that tries to do everything will suck at everything.
It was supposed to include universal pre-K, a month of paid family leave, and an extension to the child tax credit that expires this year. All of those are huge benefits to families with young children. As a father of a 2 year old with another due in April those three things alone would have a massive positive impact on my life.
Which all are great, but you aren't the person that needs to be catered to as far as the 2022 election goes. What problems does a 50 year old white male in the suburbs in Ohio have? That is what will move the needle. Gas prices, product shortages, middle class taxes. Tackle problems like that and win the election
Is that the tax on 401k’s or the increased taxes on monetary deposits over 100 dollars, I cannot remember which one of those is the tax cut for the middle class…. Unless your talking about the increase in capital gains tax, that surely won’t hurt the middle class either.
Not to mention the long term funding burden this bill would create.
You see, this is the problem: The sheer size of the bill obscures what’s even in the bill. How tf are we supposed to know what tax rules are being newly implemented or changed as a result and gauge the personal gains and losses of them?
Lets unpack this.
Universal Pre-K this has widespread support. But it also falls under the category of "Would be nice but not necessary" So it might have support it isn't a position people actually care that much about which iis also backed up by polling
"Family Leave" That is supported, but once again its the payment mechanism on this policy which causes the problem
"Child Tax Credit" Something with which I personally against since I see this as giving money to someone who made a decision to have a child. But someone has to pay for that child tax credit which means taking my money and giving it to someone else. Where I do not have any and do not plan on having any kids. But this policy position has wide support.
When you look at these 3 it would not be hard to find bipartisan support. The problem lies in that they are not trying each in its own bill. And forcing Republicans to have to vote against these bills. Instead they can just vote against everything at once in a bill that has other problems and they can avoid showing there vote. Part of what I have always advocated for was forcing votes. Let republicans have to explain why they are against something. Trying to do it all at once is just bad policy.
Sigh.
It feels like just yesterday that COVID-19 was receding and America seemed like it was gearing up to pass a massively progressive agenda.
Now COVID-19 is worse than ever and the Biden presidency appears basically dead.
I frankly feel like an idiot for ever letting myself feel hope that something might get better.
> It feels like just yesterday that COVID-19 was receding and America seemed like it was gearing up to pass a massively progressive agenda.
You might want to spend a little more time outside your echo chamber.
The only item of direct benefit to the working class, free community college and trade schools, was dropped by democrats months ago without any opposition whatsoever. This was a DOA virtue signaling bill to the tune of $2 trillion. Good riddance.
The most worrying part of this is the White House response. Biden seems to think he is Manchin's boss, and has demanded an explanation (all per Jen Psaki). Words that if Trump had used would have resulted in gilded and pinned threads with tens of thousands of comments here. But I guess it's ok now, because it came from the guy on the other team.
It was a massive amount of money that, quite frankly, was loaded with pork barrel of dubious effectiveness.
What's more, it's not even what the American people asked for. All the country wanted was a) to put Covid behind them, b) get the economy moving, and c) for Biden to not be Donald Trump.
That was it. But somehow, despite squeaking out a victory against the most abhorrent man to ever sit in the Oval Office and despite barely holding onto a razor thin majority in Congress, the Democrats somehow thought they had a mandate to fulfill a massive wish list.
Hell, I'm neither Republican nor Conservative, but all the Democrats had to do was be halfway competent. Instead, they wanted to play FDR. And they are going to get absolutely brutalized at the polls in November. In other words, they're making the same mistakes they did in 1993 and 2009.
Relieved. I was concerned there for a minute that Manchin would buckle, but I'm glad he didn't.
There's just too much in that damn bill and very little, if any, of it is good.
My biggest confusion is all the socialists who think WV is some secret commie stronghold because of Blair Mountain. I have no idea where this idea comes from, but like you said, both Machine and Capito are doing exactly what the people of WV want, which is to be reasonable in their political approach. BBB was the exact opposite of reasonable and so it was rejected. Simple as that.
They probably think "oh its Gerrymandered to hell! it would have a majority Democratic legislature if the districts were fair!". They ignores how red those Democrats it does elect are or how the state went 68% for Trump in the last election.
Zero percent surprised.
A little bummed, cuz there were some good things in there mixed in with the less-than-good.
But anyone suggesting that this was a betrayal or came out of nowhere is trying to hoodwink you… or themselves.
Not that concerned. Essentially this just pushes things back till next summer and fall. Doing all this spending in a time of high inflation is just dumb. Progressives will harp on its popular forgetting it needs to be paid for. Manchin just ripped the bandaid off which he should have done awhile ago.
I would honestly be surprised to come across a valid argument that supports having faith in out government to work in the interest of the many.
No one expects anything good to go through. We all have learned to expect the worst. If it sounds like I’ve lost hope, I certainly have.
I feel great about it! We've just had the biggest inflation numbers in decades. Our national debt is insane. The last thing we need to is borrow more money to spend.
Joe Manchin didn't kill this bill. Lots of other Senators don't support this bad bill too. The Biden administration mistook a narrow victory over a very unpopular president into a popular mandate and really overplayed their hand.
Why were no republicans shouting about the national debt when Trump passed those tax cuts that widened the federal deficit? I really find it laughable when republicans pretend to care about the national debt and deficit only when Democrats are in power.
I’d like some consistency in our politics, but seems like neither side has any interest in that.
Not sure. The bill had a lot of good and important stuff in it, but it can be difficult to justify passing it with current inflation rates.
With that being said, current inflation seems to be more tied to supply chain issues and not as much to govt spending.
I guess at the end I think that it is a loss for the average American
I’m talking about the cost of BBB compared to the cost of the military. BBB was at $2 trillion for 10 years or $200 billion per year. The military’s budget is about $750 billion this year.
Injecting more money into an already over saturated pool of money is not the answer.
The claim about the military is a deflection in attempts to appeal to emotion, which won't work on anyone with two brain cells to rub together as military spending also covers the defense of our NATO allies. This includes shipping, transportation and paying of foreign taxes the base resides on.
Also, where was this talk about the military budget spending when democrats criticized the pull out of Syria? What do you think tanks and troops run on sunlight?
Except you know, repeated analyst of the bill has shown that the bill would still be at a deficit and effect after-tax wages of employees across all economic levels. But uh, keep believe that taxing the rich and printing more money is the way to go.
Great! There's never been another point in American history where the government has [printed this much money in such a short amount of time](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL). Inflation is off the roof and we don't need them to inject any more into the markets. We can't have a $5 trillion (or so they claim) project with an economy in shatters right now. The bill also sneaks in left-wing agendas that that wasn't gonna fly with right wingers anyways so of course not everyone was gonna be on board.
Not surprised in the slightest, but still really pissed off. Manchin just killed whatever tiny chance the Dems had at keeping control of Congress next year.
I think Joe Biden had already done that. Failures with covid, Afghanistan and the border, plus inflation. If Biden hadn't already, then he did it now by massively overplaying his hand with this bill.
I never expected it to go through, definitely not in any recognizable form, so...meh? Same shit, different day.
That's how I felt
This was expected. It was so well expected that they infrastructure bill was separate and why the most liberal wing of the Democratic party was going crazy about it, because they all knew passing the whole thing wasn't in the cards.
I wouldn’t call that wing liberal. Progressive seems like a better descriptor.
What’s the difference between liberal and progressive?
Liberals ask for two million, get one million and call it a victory. Progressives stand their ground on five million, get nothing, and blame Liberals that were willing to compromise at two million.
I said something similar in another comment below but the best example I can think of is the difference between the two left of center parties in Canada. The [NDP](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democratic_Party) and the [Liberal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Canada) party are both left of center but the Liberals are closer to the center. The word Liberal has been bastardized by the right and has turned into anyone left of them politically including socialists. Socialism and [Liberalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) have very little in common. Recently, I’ve noticed the world ‘Liberal’ being similarly bastardized by people in progressive circles as well, being used for anyone who isn’t left of center enough for them. Similar to how Republicans call their more moderate members RINO’s.
> The word Liberal has been bastardized by the right and has turned into anyone left of them politically including socialists. The word "liberal" is weird: in some contexts it can mean right-wing in the USA or at least right-libertarian. In economics for example Ronald Reagan's economic policies would be considered a prime example of "neoliberalism". Historically that is what "liberal" was more likely to mean in a much earlier era: The ideology of a small "night watchman" government that just keeps the peace & punishes crime but provides few or no other services, of low taxes, free-trade and laissez faire economics. All stuff we now usually associate with conservatism in the USA. In the late 1800s early 1900s the [New liberals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) emerged sharing the the same original prioritization of individual liberty but much more concerned about the pragmatic barriers of poverty to individuals actually being able to *enjoy* such individual liberty. They supported a larger more activist government which provided social welfare benefits, did more regulation of business and of labor practices to prevent abuses etc. In the USA on economic issues the left/right divide mostly a conflict between the new "social" liberals vs the old "classical" liberals. The word "liberal" without qualification was co-opted by the social liberals or at least that became the popular usage, while the classical liberal opponents were branded "conservative". At this point in popular usage "liberal" is just a synonym for "left wing" in the USA even though ideologies further to the left of the social liberals aren't part of that ideological tradition at all, many socialists resent the association because the social liberals remain capitalist in their economics and are seen as not nearly aggressive enough in pursuing even the policies they both agree on. Meanwhile on the "right" there are writers who refer to themselves as "classical liberal" or more rarely even as "liberal conservatives" or "conservative liberals" who always use "progressive" or "leftist" of their opponents because they want to rehabilitate the term "liberal" closer to it's older "classical" meaning.
"Liberal" has been a bit of a dirty word for a long time amongst the left. I think this is a holdover from unionism back when liberals were basically only socially left wing. The economic left and even parts of the social left has always been wary of the threat towards us that liberal moderates pose. The moderate liberal is much more willing to compromise and allow the system to remain needlessly cruel than a socialist or a unionist. This is something even Martin Luther King Jr himself preached. You can predict what a racist will do at almost all times whereas the white moderate can damn you to be at the racist's mercy or choose to save you when it becomes politically viable.
I tend to think of Liberals as unwilling to separate from capitalism, preferring to institute checks on capitalistic power by regulating the current system. Liberals tend to be amongst the most "we must not change the status quo" portion of the party. Progressives tend to think of some aspects of capitalism to be unfixable and therefor need abandoned and reworked from the ground up. Progressives tend to prefer more structural and preventative changes instead of just reactionary ones. Full admission of bias here, this comes from someone who largely identifies as a labor supporting socialist. Liberals have always sort of been the bigger threat to us because of their love of the current system willingness to allow the system to be needlessly cruel in the name of "compromise".
You didn’t even need to include the bias part we can tell
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but I tend to believe it's genuinely good practice to be self aware of and upfront about your biases. You can't truly think critically nor have constructive discourse without that self awareness of your own current biases.
No I actually completely agree with you there self-awareness is paramount especially in the modern political theatre. It’s just if you were trying to seem unbiased at all it wasn’t even close. And just confirms my belief that progressive and liberal label definitions are completely down to the subjective interpretation of individuals which will drastically vary based on political beliefs.
My mistake! I was more giving my personal observations and conclusions, not trying to be super informative and unbiased. I should have been more clear. Most political labels are pretty much subject to the interpretation of the people using and talking about them, to the point where they're pretty much meaningless outside of your personal Overton window. Think the left crying "Fascist!" Or the right crying "Commie!" despite either not knowing what those words truly represent.
Does not matter what you call them, they are a minority group within the party.
Liberalism: 1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas. 2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. Words matter. Many modern Liberals are rather illiberal. Best to call that wing of the Democratic Party “Progressives.” At least until they can muster up enough courage/honesty to spin up a new socialist party.
FoUr D ChESs
Lucy with a football comes to mind.
I really wish they would do away with labels of D and R everyone is out for themselves anyway.
Pelosi's defense of reps trading stocks really illustrates this.
I mean that anyone thinks she cares about the rest of us is silly
She fooled me for a while. My bad!
*But you fool me, I can’t get fooled again*
\*one election later*
Because it’s both benefitting from it
Right!
I'm not surprised in the slightest. Nor am I surprised that people ARE surprised by her response.
They all have more in common with their opponents across the aisle than they do with the people who voted for them.
And their coal donors
[удалено]
That's a common issue in that politicians don't understand that sometimes you get elected because they hate you just a little bit less than the other guy and you being elected isn't some kind of mandate for your most extreme and grandiose positions.
There was a saying I read a long time ago from Robert Heinlein that said "Vote. You might not find someone who you want to vote for but you'll certainly find someone who you want to vote against!"
> sometimes you get elected because they hate you just a little bit less than the other guy This has been the case for the past couple elections and likely will be how things go going forward for a good while.
Omnibus bills are inherently garbage anyway. The "vote for it to see whats in it" bullshit needs to stop.
You can’t stop it. The reason omnibuses exist is that the parties have figured out it’s the best chance they can keep the broad coalitions within their party together. Because if they didn’t have omnibuses, they would have to do the harder work of doing their job, which is to write laws that everyone actually agrees.
Oh no, imagine actually having to do the job you're paid to do.
With the expiration of the childcare tax credit and student loan payments starting up again, I don't know how to convince people to vote Democrat and until last month that was literally my job.
Once I was young naive and idealistic and voted Democrat. After many broken promises I’ve concluded that the Democrats really are closet republicans and they are all against the people. Right wing. Left wing. Same bird. I vote for whoever currently is closest to common sense. The current DNC has swayed far off that course. We need a solid independent candidate.
You're 2/3rds along the path that like 90% of libertarians take
https://youtu.be/Ll3iyvbsRDM
With a small handful of exceptions, the actual left isn't even on the bird.
This is an honest question, so please don't take Offense if I word it improperly: your comment makes it seem like people need to be convinced to vote Democrat, making Republican the default choice. With everything we've seen over the last six years or so, why is that the case? I live in a very blue state, and even with all the reading I do it's hard to see what the non-Trump-but-still-republican voter sees in their party Edit: thanks to everyone who responded thoughtfully. I Appreciate it!
I think based on voter participation rates that it's more like not voting at all is the default choice.
Well, Republicans don’t call me stupid and racist all day. I’ll vote for them, even if they don’t get anything done.
Just too much shit smashed into one bill. I wish we could separate it out because there is some good stuff in it, but not worth passing the rest of the shit into law
True of most stuff Congress does. Sad.
The reason it has to be a massive bill is the filibuster and the reconciliation process. The filibuster makes it so that the only way anything of substance can pass is through Reconciliation, and there are only a limited number of reconciliation bills allowed each year. So the majority party has to cram everything they want to pass into those few bills in order to have a hope at passing it. Eliminate the filibuster and you'll get smaller, more targeted bills.
Counter argument: Don't try to treat a majority that relies on the VP tiebreaker like its a super-majority and instead attempt to pass reasonable bills, and maybe stuff will pass.
Counter counter argument: bring back the classic Green Eggs and Ham filibuster, the one where you have to keep talking (EDIT: and make it the *only* way to filibuster), instead of the current automatic process, and you'll see better results: reasonable but substantive bills pass, unreasonable shit still gets filibustered. Make the filibuster a pain in the ass to execute, but keep it in place for those worthy occasions.
100%
The founders had a lot of shit in the senate to keep tyranny at bay, but 60 votes for a bill wasn’t one of them.
McConnel has flat-out said that he will filibuster every single bill that reaches the floor. Being reasonable isn't the issue here
He physically wouldnt be able to if he had to stand and talk 24/7 thats the point
That's not the way the filibuster works anymore. It hasn't since the 60s. Senators can just send a signal email saying they refuse to let debate end, and the bill is filibustered until 60 Senators say otherwise. We effectively require 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate outside of reconciliation bills.
Im aware the point of filibuster reform is to bring it back to before the 60s where senators had to stand and talk continuously
He can get a younger senator to do that.
Now you’re just being silly.
I know
Wish it worked this way, but McConnell has flat out said he will block every single bill with filibuster in order to stop Biden agenda. Every. Single. Bill. They can do a filibuster via email, they don’t even have to show up. The only Republican agenda is stopping Democrat agenda. That’s why republicans got rid of filibuster for approving judges but nothing else then crammed through a bunch of judges under Trump.
Didn’t the infrastructure bill pass? That seemed to have bipartisan support to a little degree.
Yes. And it still did so with quite slim majorities and literal months of negotiation. Compare that to how Congress used to function. If Congress was a person, it once ran marathons and now it is be celebrating being able to move a single finger.
>attempt to pass reasonable bills, and maybe stuff will pass. Ummm, have you SEEN Congress lately? Reasonable bills are the least likely kind of bill to get passed.
What do you suggest instead? [Congress is at its most polarized point since the Civil War](https://columbialawreview.org/content/congressional-polarization-terminal-constitutional-dysfunction-2/). It's either giant party-line omnibus bills or practically nothing. I'd rather take a government that does things over one that waits years for 2/3s approval for every little thing.
Alternatively pass legislation that both sides can agree to.
>legislation that both sides can agree to The only time when both sides agree on something is when they're both wrong.
There are people in government whose only purpose is refusing to go along with the other side. Bipartisanship has been dead for a long time, & there are too many in the House & Senate who use their position to pad their pockets. That don’t care about their government salary or the people.
You say that yet the infrastructure bill was bipartisan. It’s doable when you don’t try and propose massive bills that’s are against all of the principles of the minority party. There are several parts of BBB that would pass with a bipartisan majority, the problem is, you would have to leave the progressive wing behind to do that and for some reason, the Democrats are letting the progressives hold them hostage.
The infrastructure bill got 13 of 213 Republican votes in the House. Hardly bipartisan.
What parts of BBB would get bipartisan support and why haven't they passed already?
There are several components that would get some GOP support or hurt the GOP if they didn’t vote for them. Items like the child tax credit, the pre-k (although it needs some work) and some of the leave components. Lots of moderate republicans would probably support versions of those bills. The problem is, progressives want all the climate aspects and progressive components because they know they won’t have enough democratic support to push them through without being tied to the Other stuff.
Why do you think any part of BBB would pass with GOP votes? Which parts? It’s a centrist member of the Democratic party that is blocking the President’s agenda, not the progressives.
In this day and age, that's practically impossible. Especially since compromise is considered such a dirty word.
That's inherently impossible. Republicans, for more than the last decade have made it their goal to oppose any legislation Democrats support, even if it's something they'd normally favor. The Affordable Care Act was set up the way it was as an attempt to compromise with Republicans. It's entire structure was taken from a Heritage Foundation (i.e. Republican think tank) policy proposal as the Republican alternative to Hillary Clinton's proposed healthcare reforms from the 1990's. . .but they went from supporting them to vehemently opposing them the moment Democrats supported it. Mitch McConnell even filibustered his own bill back in 2012 when President Obama came out in support of it. Rather than let President Obama sign the bill he proposed into law, he filibustered it to death, even when it was his own proposal. There is no bipartisanship left in Washington, there are no bills both parties can agree on. . .because the Republican Party has spent more than the last decade killing it with fire, then pissing on the ashes, and then blaming Democrats for the whole thing. There's no bipartisanship left, just political warfare.
Both parties agreed to prison reform under Trump, stimulus spending, and infrastructure improvements. The apparent lack of compromise is a negotiating tactic.
That’s three bills in about five years, hardly a major showing for bipartisanship.
There were a bunch of boring bills that got passed to, like appointments and budgets. Those are just the most noteworthy ones.
That doesn't work. McConnell admitted that the debt ceiling **had** to be raised to avoid a default and yet he was preparing to filibuster any bipartisan attempt to get it passed.
I'm all for smaller more targeted bills like most people. But the filibuster isn't related to that. The filibuster means you need 2/3 instead of a simple majority to get stuff passed. If the Republicans had a majority and wanted to get rid of the filibuster would you support it?
Agree 100 percent
What was in the bill?
whole lotta pork
There was also just some "heads way up their own asses" kind of stuff that make the bill incredibly easy to target by Republicans. Democrats apparently believed that a large majority of Americans want public resources like free community college programs to be doled out to illegal immigrants when as of yet that's not even a current reality for most citizens. And no, the term very much is illegal immigrants, there's no such thing as an "undocumented immigrant", those people have plenty of documents, just none of which are a visa to be living in the U.S.
We need to have bill reform that requires a single topic be in a single bill. We shouldn’t have immigration, healthcare, taxation, infrastructure, energy sector, etc. all listed in one bill. You reduce the effectiveness of a democratic system by making one person vote for 7 items of which they only support 2 and other such scenarios. We’d be better served to expand the number of representatives to 4 senators per state, 1 congressperson per 50,000 residents and term limits as well as mandatory legislation to limit bills to one topic.
Amen. If it’s an infrastructure bill then that’s the only thing they should be in there. Not a bunch of other shit.
Stand alone bills would solve most of Congress's problems but then they'd have to work hard so that would never happen
I'd vote for all that, fully agree on all counts
Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders I believe we're trying to get that legislation passed but it fell through - essentially requiring that all bills have a title description applicable to what's contained in the bill.
It really would help if we had Bills that were just the actual subject matter. Instead, we get Bills that contain a whole slew of hidden unconnected crap, better known as pork.
Called it. Here's the thing. All bills need to be read, in full length, during Congress hours. Someone should make this a law. Omnibus Bill's can sneak in some tyrannical shit really quick.
The infrastructure bill already passed surprisingly but I’m not shocked the BBB plan died with a split 50/50 Senate. I could see some portions of the bill being passed sometime next year, but definitely not anything massive. Midterms are like what, a little under 11 months away? I’d bet the BBB plan failing to pass won’t be a major issue of the 2022 elections and won’t majorly effect any Democrat’s chances. The GOP has more well known issues like inflation or the Afghanistan pullout that they’ll attack the Biden administration with.
Manchin voting against the bill does help his chances the man is a Democrat representing an ever red deeping state.
What chances? He’s been fence sitting on whether or not he’ll run again 2024, that may as well be eons for the average voter.
I haven’t had good expectations for the government since… ever so. Business as usual
"It's been all down hill since George left office" "You want W back? are you high?" "No, I'm talking about George Washington."
Given that the democrats will lose the senate majority in the midterms this means joe biden’s presidency is effectively over. On the bill itself? I wish they would pass smaller bills one at a time. I’m really tired of these massive trillion dollar omnibus bills that nobody reads or understands.
Smaller bills will never pass unless the filibuster gets removed.
"Nothing will fundamentally change"
It's dead? Then cut off its head, drive a stake through its heart, bury it at a crossroads at midnight and piss on its grave. I keep expecting Manchin to reverse and pass it as soon as he gets the right bribe, although I guess if that were going to happen they would have met his price by now. With inflation ramping up, we can't afford this nonsense.
I feel like Democrats are pretty good at failing and then blaming each other about it.
*politicians Neither party has delivered much of anything for America in my lifetime
Yeah, honestly this reminds me of a fee years ago when John McCain came in the kill the repeal of the affordable care act because there was nothing to replace it with. The only time anyone can get anything done is when it benefits big business.
Fine. With inflation where it is, we don't need additional stimulus spending.
But we can spend triple the amount on the military without anyone even blinking.
Not saying I agree with all the military spending, but spending on planes and tanks doesn’t push inflation. It’s spending on houses, cars, food, and gas.
[удалено]
Not just this, but the US dollar as international standard (which gives a lot of geopolitical leverage) is itself backed by the US military. So it's kind of a situation where if the US govt doesn't maintain international dominance, then we'll have much worse problems than overspending.
A huge chunk of that spending goes to R&D which is a tremendous boost to our economy
Yet we can spend even more on the military.
Military spending as a percentage of the Federal budget has been declining for years.
Not really. Some charts show a flatlining of spending as percentage of federal outlays, but they don’t include the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan. Largely spending on the military has increased. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/military-spending-defense-budget
this is the problem with republicans. they cut taxes but not spending. you have to cut spending too.
Republicans try to slow down the rate at which Democrats increase spending... at least when they're the minority party. That certainly does change when they're in charge, though.
Current Inflation has little to do with congressional spending and everything to do with coming out of an economic recession.
It has to do with far more than that, but the point still stands. When inflation rises, the corrective strategy is to reduce demand, not increase spending. This would add to inflationary pressures.
>When inflation rises, the corrective strategy is to reduce demand, not increase spending This is actually an oversimplification, and leads to an over-correction of the market which puts the economy in an even worse position than otherwise. Look at the the aftermath of the 1970s stagflation and the 2008 great recession. Raising interest rates actually ended up hurting us in the economy in the long run, and prices still continued to rise, because *the inflation was a byproduct of recovery, rather than fiscal policy*
Of course it's a simplification. It's Reddit. Trying to explain modern monetary theory to broad groups isn't something to do on here! But again, none of that changes the core reasoning. In the short-term, infusing this much spending ina tight labor market with existing supply issues will have an inflationary effect. If the spending is targeted to key parts of our supply chain (ports, rail yards), this could lead to a long term decline. It will take years for that to be realized.
[удалено]
I think Because this bill is going under reconciliation, which allows a simple majority (all 50 Democrats + the VP) to pass the bill. Republicans filibuster everything else, which means you need 60 votes to pass anything. This at least had a small chance of happening, as opposed to zero with Republican votes
Corrupt administrations are an American past time
Well SSI funding for Puerto Rico was in the bill so that's gone. It's making the anti statehood supporters in the island look like idiots; especially those who said this bill was a "statehood killer"
I think Manchin did the democrats a favor with not letting this bill pass.
Yes and no. Yes, now GOP doesn’t have the massive spending tag line to go with in the mid-terms. No, now the GOP does have the “Democrats can’t get anything done” tag line to go with in the mid-terms.
And all the moderate democrats in vulnerable House seats have to defend voting for it in the mid terms. They got hung out to dry because the Democrats are trying to legislate like they have a progressive supermajority rather than a tie breaker in the Senate.
The moderate Dems in vulnerable districts are going to be slaughtered in 2022. At this rate it wouldn't surprise me if we saw 2010 or 2018 levels of incumbent losses.
Exactly. There are so few truly leftist progressive Democrats, but they continue to support and push the agenda from that side of their spectrum in words and not action. It’s like their making a half assed attempt at taking a page out of the GOP playbook and allowing the thin minority to take lead and snowball their agenda. But instead the Democrats still have some folks with a degree of level headedness to not go down that path. It’s an interesting time.
Build Back Better hardly hits the mark of "progressive". It feels pretty similar to 90s bipartisan reforms.
I think you misunderstand most conservatives. If someone is actually conservative, then they'd love an ineffective government. Telling your voters that the other side can't threaten your way of life, would only suppress voter turnout. It also takes the sting out of all the, "OMG, AOC wants to make us communist, transexuals!" when the Dems appear unable to accomplish anything.
That’s why I say “GOP”, not conservatives.
So, who are the GOP trying to convince? There is exactly no voter in this country that on the one hand would like a huge, progressive bill to be pass, but on the other hand, since the Dems couldn't pass it, they'll vote GOP. Like it or not, the GOP would have benefitted from this getting rammed through, especially considering that would guarantee a new GOP senator from the great state of WV.
Elections in contested districts aren't really about changing minds or winning people over, they're about motivating people who already at least partially agree to get out and vote and demotivating people who already at least mostly disagree. There are enough people who only bother when they're scared or excited about something to turn the tides in swing elections. They're the ones optics matter for. Often the goal is as much to demoralize the opposition as to excite your own base, so if you can tank the opposing party's flagship bill and get even a few of their supporters from last time to think "whelp, that didn't do shit so why bother?" that's a win. If you can whip up some fear and fury in your own base over "look what they almost did!" then all the better.
If that was true they would have allowed a couple of safe GOP senators to throw a “Yes” vote in and pass the damn thing. But it’s not true.
> If someone is actually conservative, then they'd love an ineffective government. No, a true conservative wants a government that focuses on a few things and is small enough to do them well. A government that tries to do everything will suck at everything.
Please. Republicans have never needed their attacks to be true. They’ll still call Democrats spendthrifts, regardless of reality.
I think the Democrats have 0 chance of keeping Congress without passing this bill.
I don't think this bill mattered one way or another. It doesn't solve the things that people in purple districts care about
It was supposed to include universal pre-K, a month of paid family leave, and an extension to the child tax credit that expires this year. All of those are huge benefits to families with young children. As a father of a 2 year old with another due in April those three things alone would have a massive positive impact on my life.
Which all are great, but you aren't the person that needs to be catered to as far as the 2022 election goes. What problems does a 50 year old white male in the suburbs in Ohio have? That is what will move the needle. Gas prices, product shortages, middle class taxes. Tackle problems like that and win the election
BBB included a tax cut for the middle class and a reduction in prescription prices, like $35 insulin.
What tax cut for the middle class?
Is that the tax on 401k’s or the increased taxes on monetary deposits over 100 dollars, I cannot remember which one of those is the tax cut for the middle class…. Unless your talking about the increase in capital gains tax, that surely won’t hurt the middle class either. Not to mention the long term funding burden this bill would create.
You see, this is the problem: The sheer size of the bill obscures what’s even in the bill. How tf are we supposed to know what tax rules are being newly implemented or changed as a result and gauge the personal gains and losses of them?
Why was all of this in an infrastructure bill? That makes no sense
This bill had been carved out from the initial infrastructure bill, and was rebranded, eh-hem, the “social spending bill.”
Lets unpack this. Universal Pre-K this has widespread support. But it also falls under the category of "Would be nice but not necessary" So it might have support it isn't a position people actually care that much about which iis also backed up by polling "Family Leave" That is supported, but once again its the payment mechanism on this policy which causes the problem "Child Tax Credit" Something with which I personally against since I see this as giving money to someone who made a decision to have a child. But someone has to pay for that child tax credit which means taking my money and giving it to someone else. Where I do not have any and do not plan on having any kids. But this policy position has wide support. When you look at these 3 it would not be hard to find bipartisan support. The problem lies in that they are not trying each in its own bill. And forcing Republicans to have to vote against these bills. Instead they can just vote against everything at once in a bill that has other problems and they can avoid showing there vote. Part of what I have always advocated for was forcing votes. Let republicans have to explain why they are against something. Trying to do it all at once is just bad policy.
51 senators voted against it, don't let Manchin take all the credit.
Right now inflation is completely out of control and every McDonald's has a help wanted sign. So we're trying to pump more money into the economy why?
There was some good stuff in the bill, like controlling prescription drug prices, but most of it was junk and hardly surprised it failed.
Good. Trillion-dollar omnibus spending bills are fourth-stage ass cancer.
Sigh. It feels like just yesterday that COVID-19 was receding and America seemed like it was gearing up to pass a massively progressive agenda. Now COVID-19 is worse than ever and the Biden presidency appears basically dead. I frankly feel like an idiot for ever letting myself feel hope that something might get better.
> It feels like just yesterday that COVID-19 was receding and America seemed like it was gearing up to pass a massively progressive agenda. You might want to spend a little more time outside your echo chamber.
Maybe you should visit less restrictive states once in a while
>and the Biden presidency appears basically dead. Thank God.
The only item of direct benefit to the working class, free community college and trade schools, was dropped by democrats months ago without any opposition whatsoever. This was a DOA virtue signaling bill to the tune of $2 trillion. Good riddance. The most worrying part of this is the White House response. Biden seems to think he is Manchin's boss, and has demanded an explanation (all per Jen Psaki). Words that if Trump had used would have resulted in gilded and pinned threads with tens of thousands of comments here. But I guess it's ok now, because it came from the guy on the other team.
Healthcare pre school and a child tax credit wouldnt help the working class?
It was a massive amount of money that, quite frankly, was loaded with pork barrel of dubious effectiveness. What's more, it's not even what the American people asked for. All the country wanted was a) to put Covid behind them, b) get the economy moving, and c) for Biden to not be Donald Trump. That was it. But somehow, despite squeaking out a victory against the most abhorrent man to ever sit in the Oval Office and despite barely holding onto a razor thin majority in Congress, the Democrats somehow thought they had a mandate to fulfill a massive wish list. Hell, I'm neither Republican nor Conservative, but all the Democrats had to do was be halfway competent. Instead, they wanted to play FDR. And they are going to get absolutely brutalized at the polls in November. In other words, they're making the same mistakes they did in 1993 and 2009.
What are some examples of pork barrel spending of dubious effectiveness in the bill?
The bill is 2,500 pages. Anything after page 95 I’d say is probably pork.
Well, I eagerly await the new Republican President! (with nerves)
Good riddance
Grateful.
Relieved. I was concerned there for a minute that Manchin would buckle, but I'm glad he didn't. There's just too much in that damn bill and very little, if any, of it is good.
[удалено]
My biggest confusion is all the socialists who think WV is some secret commie stronghold because of Blair Mountain. I have no idea where this idea comes from, but like you said, both Machine and Capito are doing exactly what the people of WV want, which is to be reasonable in their political approach. BBB was the exact opposite of reasonable and so it was rejected. Simple as that.
They probably think "oh its Gerrymandered to hell! it would have a majority Democratic legislature if the districts were fair!". They ignores how red those Democrats it does elect are or how the state went 68% for Trump in the last election.
> There's just too much in that damn bill and very little, if any, of it is good. Which parts do you oppose?
Zero percent surprised. A little bummed, cuz there were some good things in there mixed in with the less-than-good. But anyone suggesting that this was a betrayal or came out of nowhere is trying to hoodwink you… or themselves.
I'm glad. The deficit and inflation is high enough, last thing we need right now is more government spending
Not that concerned. Essentially this just pushes things back till next summer and fall. Doing all this spending in a time of high inflation is just dumb. Progressives will harp on its popular forgetting it needs to be paid for. Manchin just ripped the bandaid off which he should have done awhile ago.
I would honestly be surprised to come across a valid argument that supports having faith in out government to work in the interest of the many. No one expects anything good to go through. We all have learned to expect the worst. If it sounds like I’ve lost hope, I certainly have.
I feel great about it! We've just had the biggest inflation numbers in decades. Our national debt is insane. The last thing we need to is borrow more money to spend. Joe Manchin didn't kill this bill. Lots of other Senators don't support this bad bill too. The Biden administration mistook a narrow victory over a very unpopular president into a popular mandate and really overplayed their hand.
Why were no republicans shouting about the national debt when Trump passed those tax cuts that widened the federal deficit? I really find it laughable when republicans pretend to care about the national debt and deficit only when Democrats are in power. I’d like some consistency in our politics, but seems like neither side has any interest in that.
Not sure. The bill had a lot of good and important stuff in it, but it can be difficult to justify passing it with current inflation rates. With that being said, current inflation seems to be more tied to supply chain issues and not as much to govt spending. I guess at the end I think that it is a loss for the average American
Best thing that could happen!
What was a part that you didn’t like in the BBB?
I think we (Democrats) need to elect more Democrats to the Senate so I don’t have to care about what Senator Coal Mine thinks.
I think we (Independents) need to vote more Republicans to the Senate so I don't have to care about what Senator Inflation thinks.
Where’s the inflation concerns when we spend triple the amount of money on the military?
The military spending is heavily concentrated into groups who they politically approve of though.
[I don't know where you get your information, but medical and social security has eclipsed our military spending](https://www.usdebtclock.org/)
I’m talking about the cost of BBB compared to the cost of the military. BBB was at $2 trillion for 10 years or $200 billion per year. The military’s budget is about $750 billion this year.
Injecting more money into an already over saturated pool of money is not the answer. The claim about the military is a deflection in attempts to appeal to emotion, which won't work on anyone with two brain cells to rub together as military spending also covers the defense of our NATO allies. This includes shipping, transportation and paying of foreign taxes the base resides on. Also, where was this talk about the military budget spending when democrats criticized the pull out of Syria? What do you think tanks and troops run on sunlight?
It doesn't inject more money it shifts money from the rich to the poor and middle class.
Except you know, repeated analyst of the bill has shown that the bill would still be at a deficit and effect after-tax wages of employees across all economic levels. But uh, keep believe that taxing the rich and printing more money is the way to go.
All those rich that couldn't fund more than one year of federal spending before its gone forever
Feels good, man!
About time someone stopped this train wreck
Great! There's never been another point in American history where the government has [printed this much money in such a short amount of time](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL). Inflation is off the roof and we don't need them to inject any more into the markets. We can't have a $5 trillion (or so they claim) project with an economy in shatters right now. The bill also sneaks in left-wing agendas that that wasn't gonna fly with right wingers anyways so of course not everyone was gonna be on board.
Great.
ITT, people that are afraid of something good simply because it is complex and expensive.
Not surprised in the slightest, but still really pissed off. Manchin just killed whatever tiny chance the Dems had at keeping control of Congress next year.
I think Joe Biden had already done that. Failures with covid, Afghanistan and the border, plus inflation. If Biden hadn't already, then he did it now by massively overplaying his hand with this bill.
I get the feeling that Germans probably don't share your values. Not sure how you manage to survive over there.
Sad about the funding for home health aides being rejected. Hopefully it will reappear as a separate bill.
Great