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

[Llevron]

49 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Yea it seems like we (and I mean the collective we) want to both complain they are weak but then also complain when they stand their ground and demand more out of the process. 

 

For me, I think it depends on the issue. In this case, I actually agree they should get what they want and then go for a phase 2. The biggest reasons for me are: 

1. We are in desperate need of infrastructure so anything would be better than nothing. 

2. Dems can show the real benefits of infrastructure to build support phase 2. 

 

If they can't get anything done there is literally no way dems win the WH or the house or senate in 2024. Could easily be a complete sweep. 

 

 

Its a very uncomfortable position to be in to be honest. To want to take what you can get, but still understand it should be your right to demand more out of your politicians. I argue that AOC (since she's the face) and the rest of the progressives are doing what they (and Biden, who really did run on most of the things they are asking for) were voted in for this exactly. If we compromise with the republicans and again get a watered down version of what we really want, what's the point of voting them in? I think we have seen that apathy is what kills the Dems at the ballot box. Maybe a little fight helps in this. Maybe.... I really don't know what the eff I'm talking about. This is just how I feel as a mostly uneducated voter. 

 

I know I personally am tired of the Dems giving in to the bad guys and getting watered down versions of things just to get anything. I think we should have learned from this with ACA. 

 

To your specific points:

1. We are in very desperate need. So desperate that eventually Republicans will actually have to do something about it themselves, and what would be a loss for Dems would ultimately be good (?) for the country? I don't know. I'm trying to rationalize it in a way that ends up being good (?) in the long run. Saying its such a politically obvious and advantageous thing to do for them, that they would do it just to win the political points. Maybe? Either way the point I GUESS is take everything we want now, or settle for what we can get later which will just be the bare minimum anyway. Again I'm rationalizing because I want to believe this works out. Feel free to tell me why that's stupid. 

2. I thought I had a retort when I started this but I don't really. My only thing is that I see the political landscape changing a bit. Soon Dems will be able to run on anger like republicans, and failing here could help with that? Dunno. That's the rationalizing thing again. But I heard this argument on MSNBC, that Dems ran successfully in Cally on the anger at the unvaccinated and it worked. I can see the same thing happening here. Point out that republicans are to blame for this failure. And maybe it works for us.  

 

Lots and lots of coffee is responsible for this mess of a reply so dont judge the sober me. 

 

46 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I suppose you are right, but only if it works. But I don’t think it will work. I think we will get nothing,  because that works in the republicans favor. They are fine with nothing.

On the other hand if the Democrats can get everyone on there side to agree on something they don’t need the republicans, which is why I think they should deal with the infrastructure bill separate. Right now they are fighting amongst themselves, which as I said benefits republicans.

 

I actually feel like Democrats can use this as leverage to get rid of the more moderate Dems and maybe even gain seats. Especially if it fails. I dont think we need to fear 'nothing' honestly. We will see. I dont know enough to be trusted on this. Its all my opinion. 

 

[Larry]

Just a topic to kick around.  Maybe there's a way to get back to a more bipartisan, negotiated, Congress like we used to have, without going nuclear on the filibuster.  

 

Bring back earmarks.  

 

Would that bring these supposed "moderate Republicans" to the table?  Support an infrastructure bill, and you get to steer some of the pork?  They don't even have to take the blame for bringing back earmarks.  The Dems can do that on their own.  The R's just get to take credit for steering the money.  (If they also break the partisan gridlock.)  

 

[Hersh]

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just a topic to kick around.  Maybe there's a way to get back to a more bipartisan, negotiated, Congress like we used to have, without going nuclear on the filibuster.  

 

Bring back earmarks.  

 

Would that bring these supposed "moderate Republicans" to the table?  Support an infrastructure bill, and you get to steer some of the pork?  They don't even have to take the blame for bringing back earmarks.  The Dems can do that on their own.  The R's just get to take credit for steering the money.  (If they also break the partisan gridlock.)  

 

 

100% we should bring back earmarks. It was dumb to get rid of cause it wasn't that much money. 

[goskins10]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

Its a very uncomfortable position to be in to be honest. To want to take what you can get, but still understand it should be your right to demand more out of your politicians. I argue that AOC (since she's the face) and the rest of the progressives are doing what they (and Biden, who really did run on most of the things they are asking for) were voted in for this exactly. If we compromise with the republicans and again get a watered down version of what we really want, what's the point of voting them in? I think we have seen that apathy is what kills the Dems at the ballot box. Maybe a little fight helps in this. Maybe.... I really don't know what the eff I'm talking about. This is just how I feel as a mostly uneducated voter. 

 

I know I personally am tired of the Dems giving in to the bad guys and getting watered down versions of things just to get anything. I think we should have learned from this with ACA. 

 

I get this I really do. And I for the most part really agree. However, that's not reading the electorate right now very well. While many of us see the need for massive change, too many are not there or have been made to fear potential consequences regardless of how foundationless they may be. So for me this is a time to get what you can then fight for the rest. 

 

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

To your specific points:

1. We are in very desperate need. So desperate that eventually Republicans will actually have to do something about it themselves, and what would be a loss for Dems would ultimately be good (?) for the country? I don't know. I'm trying to rationalize it in a way that ends up being good (?) in the long run. Saying its such a politically obvious and advantageous thing to do for them, that they would do it just to win the political points. Maybe? Either way the point I GUESS is take everything we want now, or settle for what we can get later which will just be the bare minimum anyway. Again I'm rationalizing because I want to believe this works out. Feel free to tell me why that's stupid. 

 

Not stupid jsut not how I am seeing it. My biggest issue with it is that I do not see Republican's ever doing anything about it. So I disagree wit the bolded. They have shown they are more than willing to watch it all burn down around them to either get what they want ort to keep others from getting what they want. There are no more morals or common sense among republicans. Even the ones who talk a good game at times like Mitt Romney. How many times did he rail against trump only to vote lockstep with republicans? Susan Collins the same thing. And the list goes on. So i jsut see no other way to get there but baby steps and showing real progress. 

 

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

2. I thought I had a retort when I started this but I don't really. My only thing is that I see the political landscape changing a bit. Soon Dems will be able to run on anger like republicans, and failing here could help with that? Dunno. That's the rationalizing thing again. But I heard this argument on MSNBC, that Dems ran successfully in Cally on the anger at the unvaccinated and it worked. I can see the same thing happening here. Point out that republicans are to blame for this failure. And maybe it works for us.  

 

Lots and lots of coffee is responsible for this mess of a reply so dont judge the sober me. 

 

No judgement here. Enjoy your coffee. 

 

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

 

 

I actually feel like Democrats can use this as leverage to get rid of the more moderate Dems and maybe even gain seats. Especially if it fails. I dont think we need to fear 'nothing' honestly. We will see. I dont know enough to be trusted on this. Its all my opinion. 

 

 

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I do fear doing nothing. I think that is way worse than not getting all of what we need now. This is exactly what Republicans want so they can say - see I told you they were incompetent. And when someone points at their record they have that - What about them?? huh ? Huh? Huh????  Is it childish? Yes. Is it non-value added? Of course. Is it in the end damaging to the country? Yes again. But this is what those voting republican want right now. They want childish, they want damaging to others even if it hurts them! It's a amazing phenomenon. Historians 100+ yrs from now will have a good time trying to sort this out. They will be both amused and disgusted at the same time. 

 

 

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by goskins10

[TheGreatBuzz]

I want to renew my previous statement that I'm pretty disappointed all this effort seems to be going to the Infrastructure deal.  Voting rights should be the #1 topic.

[goskins10]

11 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I want to renew my previous statement that I'm pretty disappointed all this effort seems to be going to the Infrastructure deal.  Voting rights should be the #1 topic.

 

I get that but you have to pick one and for me if you can get Infrastructure through it makes voter rights a little easier. But I would have been Ok either way. They just need to get something done. Then they can show results. 

[88Comrade2000]

6 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

Chris Hayes said that Manchin is the person who will draft the climate part of the infrastructure bill...wtf??

Rachel did an awesome job of explaining the debt ceiling in her A block.  I was riveted. 

Very informative.  Wonder who will replace her? She is giving her nightly show next year.

[TheGreatBuzz]

9 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I get that but you have to pick one and for me if you can get Infrastructure through it makes voter rights a little easier. But I would have been Ok either way. They just need to get something done. Then they can show results. 

I disagree.  Voting rights well help field a better crop of politicians which will make it easier to do infrastructure along with many other topics.  Voting rights is the main linchpin holding together the machine of dysfunction.

[goskins10]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

I disagree.  Voting rights well help field a better crop of politicians which will make it easier to do infrastructure along with many other topics.  Voting rights is the main linchpin holding together the machine of dysfunction.

 

I see what you are saying and agree to a point. But I am not sure there is as much support for voter rights (not saying there shouldn't be) as for infrastructure. Get what you can, show improvement, then run on that to get more of your agenda through. 

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

I see what you are saying and agree to a point. But I am not sure there is as much support for voter rights (not saying there shouldn't be) as for infrastructure. Get what you can, show improvement, then run on that to get more of your agenda through. 

 

 

But it doesn’t have as much support because they aren’t giving it as much focus.  Just like they are with infrastructure, they need to go get the support.

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:

 

I see what you are saying and agree to a point. But I am not sure there is as much support for voter rights (not saying there shouldn't be) as for infrastructure. Get what you can, show improvement, then run on that to get more of your agenda through. 

 

 

Honestly, I’m not well-versed enough to really make much of an argument, but the way I see it

1) specific to Dems, a voting rights likely does more - and I’d argue far more - to get someone re-elected than touting an infrastructure bill

2) I’d probably include campaign finance reform in a voting rights bill (pros and cons to this, so maybe not)

3) running on infrastructure runs into problems - overall cost vs what you’re bringing to a specific state/community

4) seems like infrastructure takes a while to bear fruit, while voting rights impacts people as soon as the next election (actually, some months before that point)

5) It’s been my thinking since prior to Biden winning that a voting rights bill is the preeminent bill the Dems need passed to really challenge the GOP (of course, maybe this is causing some stubbornness in my thinking here).  All advantages are with the GOP at the moment - gerrymandering, the state houses/secretaries of state purging voting rolls, limiting polling places/drop boxes, limiting vote by mail, etc.  It’s not the only way the Dems can win, but IMV it’s the ‘game changer’.  It also might be the only way to bring back moderate GOPers as they might be forced to also play to moderates/independents vs pandering to the substantial loony base.

 

I might feel a bit differently if Dems could get a group of GOPers on board with their infrastructure plan as it would show some partisanship and perhaps build some bridges - two things that help put the Dems above the last GOP congress - but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards… unless they go along with a heavily watered down version, in which case the Dems look like they’re caving “as usual” and have less to tout to the public.  There’s probably a ton of nuance here, but that’s an issue in and of itself - most of the American public doesn’t do ‘nuance’.

 

Open to having my mind changed

 

Edited September 22, 2021 by skinny21

[goskins10]

3 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Honestly, I’m not well-versed enough to really make much of an argument, but the way I see it

1) specific to Dems, a voting rights likely does more - and I’d argue far more - to get someone re-elected than touting an infrastructure bill

2) I’d probably include campaign finance reform in a voting rights bill (pros and cons to this, so maybe not)

3) running on infrastructure runs into problems - overall cost vs what you’re bringing to a specific state/community

4) seems like infrastructure takes a while to bear fruit, while voting rights impacts people as soon as the next election (actually, some months before that point)

5) It’s been my thinking since prior to Biden winning that a voting rights bill is the preeminent bill the Dems need passed to really challenge the GOP (of course, maybe this is causing some stubbornness in my thinking here).  All advantages are with the GOP at the moment - gerrymandering, the state houses/secretaries of state purging voting rolls, limiting polling places/drop boxes, limiting vote by mail, etc.  It’s not the only way the Dems can win, but IMV it’s the ‘game changer’.  It also might be the only way to bring back moderate GOPers as they might be forced to also play to moderates/independents vs pandering to the substantial loony base.

 

I might feel a bit differently if Dems could get a group of GOPers on board with their infrastructure plan as it would show some partisanship and perhaps build some bridges - two things that help put the Dems above the last GOP congress - but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards… unless they go along with a heavily watered down version, in which case the Dems look like they’re caving “as usual” and have less to tout to the public.  There’s probably a ton of nuance here, but that’s an issue in and of itself - most of the American public doesn’t do ‘nuance’.

 

Open to having my mind changed

 

 

I am very open to being wrong here but for me that ignores the electorate that either does not see a problem or thinks a voter rights bill needs to be more like what's being passed here in GA and other places. They like more rigorous voter ID. They like closing polling stations. They like removing voting by mail. I am not sure those people want the kind of voter rights packages you and I and the dems/progressive's want. And thus they would not vote more people in that feel that way. 

 

As for infrastructure being the long burn - that's a fair to a point. But there are programs you can put in place that have immediate impact, especially putting unskilled labor back to work in better jobs. 

 

I should probably be more clear on my actual position - I see them as very close to the same as importance. I also think they have an easier road getting infrastructure done which is why I defended that position. Having said that, it would in no way make me disappointed if they had started with voters rights, or in fact if they changed direction right now and went voters rights, even if it meant abandoning infrastructure. 

 

My biggest concern of all is that they do nothing. We cannot be sitting here this time next year with the mid-terms coming up and the dems having not gotten any major legislation through. So whatever they think they can do, do it!  This whining and haggling back and forth within and externally will not get it done. Find a place where you can move forward and do it. 

[tshile]

Re: compromising vs standing your ground

 

i personally break that into two categories:

 

- right now I don’t expect democrats to compromise with republicans. They are, whether they admit it or not or whether it’s all of them or just a sizable chunk (and the others keep quiet about it), and existential threat to our democracy. At the moment. Hopefully things change and I can come off that opinion sometime in the future. 
 

- I fully expect democrats to compromise with each other. Because they’re the only thing we have to fight said existential threat. 
 

I think AOC is right and we need to invest more. I also think AOC should compromise with the other Dems to get something done now (just using her as an example, not saying she won’t compromise)

2 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I want to renew my previous statement that I'm pretty disappointed all this effort seems to be going to the Infrastructure deal.  Voting rights should be the #1 topic.

I agree with you but I think the reason infrastructure was chosen first is because Biden thought he could get some Republican support, and that would help with a lot of things right now. 
 

he was wrong. I knew he was wrong when he first tried it. I think most of us knew he was wrong. 
 

but I think that’s really why they did. 
 

I also think the reconciliation aspect plays into it. They wanted to use it as a threat to try to encourage support from republicans. They got none; and now they can’t even execute the threat. 

[Larry]

6 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

100% we should bring back earmarks. It was dumb to get rid of cause it wasn't that much money. 

actually as I understand it, earmarks don't cost anything. 
 

Supposedly, an earmark turns a bill that says " we will spend $10B on highway improvements", into a bill that says "we will spend $10B on highway improvements, and $2M of it will be spent building a rest stop at mile 342."  

[tshile]

Education policy idea that’s not worth its own thread:

don’t change anything about existing funding, it’s not a penalty. 
but states get a % in bonus funding if they abolish localized school funding and establish a state wide funding equality framework

maybe even throw in some extra over time if you can show good faith efforts in the results of significant increases in outcomes 

Edited September 23, 2021 by tshile

[Momma There Goes That Man]

8 months into his admin and Biden is quickly being made a lame duck by members of his own party 

[Jumbo]

 

i'll stick with what i posted on this whole marathon a few months ago (i've less angst than many, tho know a lot of tis slog is 'for real'))

 

i'm still sure enough of my analysis --which includes regarding the majority  of the drama we have seen within the dems as mostly choreographed knowing it would be a long haul in timing no matter what, given the numbers and range of views/constituents, and the pressure that 'everything' is on the table

 

i'd call a lot of the extended process 'posturing' if  i thought most of it was insincere, but it's not imv, and is largely driven by the lunacy and obstructionism that is the gop....much of this long-running sturm und drang  is really important 'positioning' for most dem congressional members in appeal to their own local constituencies and all of them knowing it would be a long negotiation process....even if 'pre-ordained' by plan to end in compromise agreement that they all know they're going to make...and i don't mean 'just' movement awhile back from  6 trillion down to 3.5 on the reconciliation part

 

of course as you'd expect we have a few dems in each chamber that are playing more at the edges of the party where their voters live, but they will join in the end once something is widely declared final by the leadership (a bigger group than just the top 4)

 

in my speculation of how their strategy is laid out they have been prepared all along for having things finally get to a point where the filibuster will be removed for most everything,  and even joe and kirstin will yield once they can point to a time where they can say "i fought as long and hard as i could to for moderation and we made major gains in that effort that show in what we will be passing, but the obstruction of the gop has left even us no choice  beyond those gains"...it's the kind of process and position that will cover their ass...

 

in the end enough will get passed all the way around to successfully bolster the dems electoral picture for 2022...i'll even say i haven't had too many doubts (tho we'll have goper states muddying things up with challenges of course) that the dems will defy 'everything' in the media and 'historical trends' to hold onto the house...i'm even hopeful at the end of the day they can increase their majority in the senate by one or two, but that will be tougher i think

[goskins10]

16 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

i'll stick with what i posted on this whole marathon a few months ago (i've less angst than many, tho know a lot of tis slog is 'for real'))

 

i'm still sure enough of my analysis --which includes regarding the majority  of the drama we have seen within the dems as mostly choreographed knowing it would be a long haul in timing no matter what, given the numbers and range of views/constituents, and the pressure that 'everything' is on the table

 

i'd call a lot of the extended process 'posturing' if  i thought most of it was insincere, but it's not imv and is largely driven by the lunacy and obstructionism that is the gop....but all this long-running sturm und drang  is really important 'positioning' for most dem congressional members in appeal to their own local constituencies and knowing even just that would be a long negotiation--even if pre-ordained by plan to end in some compromise agreement at the end that they all know they're going to make...and i don't mean 'just' movement awhile back from  6 trillion down to 3.5 on the reconciliation part

 

of course as you'd expect we have a few dems in each chamber that are playing more at the edges of the party where their voters live, but they will join in the end once something is widely declared final by the leadership (a bigger group than just the top 4)

 

in my speculation of how their strategy is laid out they have been prepared all along for having things finally get to a point where the filibuster will be removed for most everything,  and even joe and kirstin will yield once they can point to a time where they can say "i fought as long and hard as i could to for moderation and we made major gains in that effort that show in what we will be passing, but the obstruction of the gop has left even us no choice  beyond those gains"...it's the kind of process and position that will cover their ass...

 

in the end enough will get passed all the way around to successfully bolster the dems electoral picture for 2022...i'll even say i haven't had too many doubts (tho we'll have goper states muddying things up with challenges of course) that the dems will defy 'everything' in the media and 'historical trends' to hold onto the house...i'm even hopeful at the end of the day they can increase their majority in the senate by one or two, but that will be tougher i think

 

I mean this as an honest question. do you really believe this? I do not. The republicans are really good it and do exactly what you describe. **** and moan publicly dropping hints like they may defect and fain indignance, especially during trump, but they always fell in line when it came to a vote. I just do not see dems being that committed to solidarity. I truly believe munching and sinema, and a few we are not hearing from, will let it all burn to the ground before actually supporting people and the party. 

 

I 100% hope you are right and I am wrong here but nothing I have seen so far indicates those two will vote with dems on the important issues, preferring nothing to appearing to give in to "socialist" policies. 

[Jumbo]

@goskins10

 

i gave no sign i was joking---i know how it will come off to many here, and of course i may be all wet...i expect a majority here to think i am... but usually i'm not  

 

i actually have a great record making a lot of specific predictions re: both sides of the aisle since trump got the nom---often way ahead of media pundits on a number of things...no brag, just fact 😁

 

and i agree with your take in some fundamental aspects...i think a majority of posters in here would...but i think both what i'm saying and what you're saying---minus your call on final outcomes---can exist together in one reality 

 

i'm not saying it's all 'scripted' either of course but a lot of this is beltway/media drama and today's politicking realties dictating a time-consuming process with a ton of gamesmanship all around

 

 and i know most of us would like me to be right 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[88Comrade2000]

I think Jumbo will be wrong. I think there are a handful of Dems, that aren’t vocal; who will have no problem too see the reconciliation part fail. They will then blame progressives when the bipartisan deal fails. I expect full open warfare between moderates and progressives in 22; should neither bill get passed.

 

Everything is pointing to big gop wins in 22.

[China]

Patience wanes as Democrats demand Sinema and Manchin reveal views on Biden agenda

 

She gets summoned to the White House for private audiences with President Joe Biden -- and is in regular communication with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his senior aides. And Republicans are hoping she will hold the line against liberals in her caucus.

 

Yet there are very few in the Capitol who know where Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema actually stands, as she -- along with West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin -- hold the key to her party's agenda and potentially the fate of her party's chances in next year's midterm elections.

In interviews with a range of Democrats --- including with House liberals, top leaders and key committee chairmen -- patience is clearly wearing thin and anxiety is growing that the party could see the entirety of the agenda collapse amid deepening disputes between their warring moderate and progressive wings. There is nearly universal consensus: They want to hear Sinema and Manchin publicly detail their demands -- and the price tag they'd accept for the bill.

"We just need to get a number right?" said Rep. Ro Khanna, a Democrat from California and member of the House's progressive caucus. "The House is going to be unified. We need to get one number from one senator, and I think we got to make it very clear that that's holding everything back."

The White House seems keenly aware of the dynamic, with Sinema holding a meeting with Biden and then two separate meetings with the President's top aides on Tuesday alone -- and Manchin also getting face time with the President for more than an hour. Sinema herself has had 10 official meetings at the White House since this summer, aides say.

But sources familiar with the sessions said there were still ample areas of disagreement -- and it was far from clear how quickly a deal could be reached.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Lol Biden can move in with Manchin and talk to him every day if he wants. He’s not coming off which means this admin is effectively cooked 8 months in. 

 

 

[Jumbo]

it's sinema i'd be most concerned about

 

she is a scruple-free place-holder politically, of modest personal wealth, maximizing her current prominence as her best shot ever at some kind of major score...she's also a policy pinhead but when you're thinking of her political positions, her general 'character' and intellect as you've observed, just imagine a little conspiracy scenario where a few folks suggest to her that about $250 mil in dark money might find it's way into some island bank acct for her to retire on, or do whatever,  if she singe handedly sinks the entire dem deal by refusing to give her vote to any compromise

 

she can always say it's 'too high' no matter how much they come down and claim it's her being true to her ethics as a 'responsible moderate dem' with a more conservative constituency...and those same folks can add a sweetener if she wants to continue in politics by suggesting she change her party affiliation to 'r' and in the future run for any big office as a new hero/star and all the gopers will make her a shoo-in for taking out the whole dem agenda

ok---now you dark money guys who read here---don't really do this, ok?

 

i'm just fooling around with this stuff 

[NoCalMike]

It's cooked. It's over.  Neither Sinema  nor Manchin are offering any details about what it is in the bill they don't agree with or want cut in order to get it passed.  Not only that but everytime they are interviewed they basically use GOP talking points as their defense.  This nonsense about "vengeful taxing" is straight out of the trickle down "punishing success" playbook.  If the taxes are the ultimate roadblock, it isn't getting done.  If they aren't willing to raise taxes on the same group of people who have continued getting their taxes cut for the last 30 years, which has caused irreparable damage to the country and economy, then they were never serious about voting yes on this bill in the first place.

 

Manchin is who he is, always been this guy.  Sinema comes off more like a snake, she was a Green Party advocate before she rose to fame and has obviously been corrupted by either personal wealth amassed or her corporate donors who are paying her off. 

 

Neither of them will give a number they want the bill capped at, nor will they specifically point to anything in the bill they would like to see cut.   

 

It's the taxes....on their donors.  It always has been.

 

They will contribute to tanking Biden's presidency by refusing to help pass a popular piece of legislation that is a g-d no brainer at this point.  This is life changing/helping funding for the country and they are arguing on bad faith because their rich donors don't want to pay more taxes. 

 

When Trump is elected in 2024 he will cut their taxes, so they win. 

 

EDIT: To add insult to injury, after the GOP takes the House & Senate, they will block everything and wait for Trump to return in 2024, and once he is in there, they will pass their own window dressing infrastructure bill that does little to actually help people and instead just hands out contracts to huge corporations they have financial ties to. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by NoCalMike

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1000% what will happen imo