Biden/Harris Legislative/Policy Discussions - Now with a Republican House starting 2023

[visionary]

What if the GOP doesn't want a win?  Or they don't care if they win as long as Biden loses.

Edited May 27, 2021 by visionary

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, visionary said:

What if the GOP doesn't want a win?  Or they don't care if they win as long as Biden loses.

I think that is the working assumption. The GOP wants to do what they did with Obabmacare. Negoiate in bad faith, get concessions that water it down, then don’t vote for it anyways. 
 

I think and hope Biden knows that. I’m just wondering would people think would be a good number to get through regular order, assuming hypothetically there are 10 Republicans that are interested in actually governing in good faith (which I don’t actually assume).

[bearrock]

22 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Anyone have thoughts on what figure would be a "win" for Biden to get enough Rs on board to pass it under normal order?  Obv. the details matter, but if it's $1.33 trillion or more, I'd say that would be a win.  

 

To me, details matter more than numbers.  I can see reasonableness in a position that says infrastructure bill should be limited to physical infrastructure, whatever that number ultimately ends up being.

 

The bigger issue is how Congress pays for it.  Best way imo is to raise revenue through taxes and enforcement, preferably targeted.  Adding on to the deficit seems unwise and unnecessary given that US government in recent years gave a huge chunk of the revenue back to individuals and corporations that didn't need it.  To fund it in whole or in part by clawing back money marked for covid relief is insanity and a nonstarter.  Last scenario is a loss even if the bill comes out at 10 trillion dollars.

[PleaseBlitz]

14 minutes ago, bearrock said:

To me, details matter more than numbers.  I can see reasonableness in a position that says infrastructure bill should be limited to physical infrastructure, whatever that number ultimately ends up being.

 

Calling it an "infrastructure bill" and then insisting that it be limited to physical infrastructure is a GOP talking point.  While it includes infrastructure, the White House deliberately calls it the American Jobs Plan because it is not limited to physical infrastructure and was never intended to be. 

 

It should be paid for by raising taxes on people making over $400k per year and especially the ultrawealthy, raising the corporate tax rate to something approaching what it was 4 years ago, and by funding the IRS to collect much more of the legally-owed taxes than it currently does.  

Edited May 27, 2021 by PleaseBlitz

[bearrock]

41 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Calling it an "infrastructure bill" and then insisting that it be limited to physical infrastructure is a GOP talking point.  While it includes infrastructure, the White House deliberately calls it the American Jobs Plan because it is not limited to physical infrastructure and was never intended to be. 

 

It should be paid for by raising taxes on people making over $400k per year and especially the ultrawealthy, raising the corporate tax rate to something approaching what it was 4 years ago, and by funding the IRS to collect much more of the legally-owed taxes than it currently does.  

 

I understand that.  What I'm saying is if the GOP says we're only willing to do the infrastructure part of the bill and only include physical infrastructure on a bipartisan basis and if Biden says ok, I can live with that as a compromise (then Dems have a decision to make on whether they can and should go at it alone on the rest of the jobs plan).

 

Edited May 27, 2021 by bearrock

[PleaseBlitz]

19 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I understand that.  What I'm saying is if the GOP says we're only willing to do the infrastructure part of the bill and only include physical infrastructure on a bipartisan basis and if Biden says ok, I can live with that as a compromise (then Dems have a decision to make on whether they can and should go at it alone on the rest of the jobs plan).

 

 

Totally agree.  If 10 GOP Senators sign on to an approx. $1.33 trillion (or even a bit less, but >$1T) bill that is entirely traditional infrastructure, I would count that as a big fat win for Joe (and the country). 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Why take that when you can pass it through reconciliation and get a better bill? 

[bearrock]

45 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Why take that when you can pass it through reconciliation and get a better bill? 

 

One, with Manchin and Sinema, reconciliation, especially in the face of a relatively palatable bipartisan alternative (if such were to be posed, not saying it exists as o now), is not a given.

 

Two, they can still go the reconciliation route for the jobs portion and say "we worked and compromised with the GOP on issues they were willing to work together on.  But they stonewalled pretty much everything, so we had go at it alone on things that needed to get done without them"

[PleaseBlitz]

And three, optics.  If Biden and the democrats can be seen as making Congress somewhat functional again, that will be a big argument in their favor with some voters ahead of the midterm.  This is also why I have zero faith that anything will ever pass via regular order.  

[Fresh8686]

 

,

[TradeTheBeal!]

Give em hell, Joe!

[Captain Wiggles]

[Larry]

22 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

And three, optics.  If Biden and the democrats can be seen as making Congress somewhat functional again, that will be a big argument in their favor with some voters ahead of the midterm

 

But they can't.  

 

The reason you're seeing "We must all vote against it, no matter how many concessions they make, because if we do it will hurt our election message" is because their election message is going to be "We unanimously voted against every single thing he proposed.  just look how partisan they are."  

 

They did it to Obama.  And I don't see any indication that the American electorate is getting smarter.  

[techboy]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

It should be paid for by raising taxes on people making over $400k per year and especially the ultrawealthy, raising the corporate tax rate to something approaching what it was 4 years ago, and by funding the IRS to collect much more of the legally-owed taxes than it currently does.  

 

In this thread I have learned that @PleaseBlitzearns $399,000 per year.

[PleaseBlitz]

19 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

But they can't.  

 

The reason you're seeing "We must all vote against it, no matter how many concessions they make, because if we do it will hurt our election message" is because their election message is going to be "We unanimously voted against every single thing he proposed.  just look how partisan they are."  

 

They did it to Obama.  And I don't see any indication that the American electorate is getting smarter.  

 

Yes, that is why I put "This is also why I have zero faith that anything will ever pass via regular order" at the end of my post, which you strangely selectively omitted.  

[Fresh8686]

Biden’s prop game is on ten today. Ice cream bully pulpit, got no time for GOP bull****. 

 

 

[Captain Wiggles]

The real important question is.... what flavor ya get Joe? 😎

Edited May 27, 2021 by clietas

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

,

This is the type of stuff Dems should have been doing for years.

[LD0506]

ugghhh..... It gets so damned tiresome, the actual $$ number cost is NOT the issue, it is and should be about the value of it, ie. what does it do and who/where does it help? You generate a bunch of decent paying infrastructure jobs and voila! A bunch of people are paying income taxes on them. Then those people go out and buy curtains and lawnmowers and groceries and re-voila! You generate a bunch of economic growth and activity. You cut taxes on the rich and it disappears into offshore tax havens, the value is a negative number. You pump $$$ into the bottom of the economy and it bubbles up to the top, spawning additional wealth as it moves.

 

As with anything, arguing cost instead of value gets you stuck with a bunch of cheap crap that doesn't do the job. Just like we have been giving away the vaccines, that cost a bunch but now we are seeing the value of it as far as reopened businesses, etc.

 

But the Rs have painted themselves into a corner with their lies, they know it but there isn't a teaspoonful of guts or character amongst the lot of them that might allow them to admit it.

 

Four decades of simpleton talking points has gutted this country.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[Larry]

Still like to see a proposal to end telemarketing. LOVE to watch the GOP unanimously oppose that one. 
 

A dream would be a consumer privacy law. The one I'm thinking of is that the information gathered during a retail transaction can be used for the purpose of completing said transaction, and no other purpose. (I think I would carve out an exception that vendors may retain credit card information, but only for the purpose of providing refunds, if needed).

[dfitzo53]

Are telemarketers even a problem anymore? My phone stays on vibrate, and if I don't know your number it goes to voicemail anyway.

 

Besides, all the GOP has to do is get the word out that telemarketers represent good American values. Jesus was the first telemarketer, they'll enthusiastically remind us. And liberals hate telemarketers, by the way. Boom, instant support.

[Larry]

11 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Are telemarketers even a problem anymore? My phone stays on vibrate, and if I don't know your number it goes to voicemail anyway.

 

 

Yes.  Or I can avoid telemarketers by simply not having a phone.  

 

1)  I shouldn't have to.  Owning a phone is not consent for criminals to walk into my living room.  

2)  And I'm looking for a job right now.  Blocking all phone numbers that aren't in my contacts list could be problematic.  

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, dfitzo53 said:

Are telemarketers even a problem anymore? My phone stays on vibrate, and if I don't know your number it goes to voicemail anyway.

 

Besides, all the GOP has to do is get the word out that telemarketers represent good American values. Jesus was the first telemarketer, they'll enthusiastically remind us. And liberals hate telemarketers, by the way. Boom, instant support.

I get calls all the time. A lot are either my cars warranty is about to expire (I don’t own a car) or something about my social security number and me going to jail. 

[The Evil Genius]

How do you chase ambulances if you don't own a car, PB?

 

And yes, telemarketing and spam calls are still a ****ing nuisance.  The sad part is that I strongly suspect cellular companies could end 99.9% of it easily. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by The Evil Genius