STUNNER: Joe Manchin Says He Will NOT Support Biden’s Multi-Trillion Dollar Spending Plan As It Stan

You recall the Grace Commission also I see.

People blaming Reagan for higher spending should first have read the report he directed be made to the public.
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/m1/1/high_res_d/IP0281G.pdf

 

No my friend. The only fact here is that Trump lives firmly in your head.

As he should be.

 

no matter who is President, I pay about the same tax, the difference is where the money goes

 

That's what parasites do.

 

I say good on Manchin. It is good to see some fiscal responsibility, it is just surprising to see it come from Democrats after 4 years of drunken spending by republicans.

Here is a partial breakdown of the 1.25 trillion infrastructure bill:

• $110 billion to fund new roads and bridges
• $73 billion to move from fossil fuels to clean energy and upgrade power infrastructure
• $66 billion to address deferred maintenance on Amtrak trains, expand service, and modernize rail service
• $65 billion to build reliable high-speed internet across America through broadband infrastructure
• $55 billion to replace lead pipes and service lines and provide clean drinking water across the country
• $50 billion for weather-proofing infrastructure and creating infrastructure that’s resilient to the impacts of climate change and cyber attacks
• $39 billion of new investment to modernize and improve public transit and and improve accessibility for the elderly and people with disabilities
• $25 billion for airports to address repair and maintenance backlogs, reduce congestion, and reduce carbon emissions
• $21 billion in environmental remediation to address legacy pollution like superfund sites, abandoned mines, and uncapped oil and gas wells
• $17 billion in port infrastructure
• $15 billion for electric vehicles, busses, and trucks and creating the infrastructure needed to charge them
• $11 billion towards a “Safe Streets for All” program which will work to reduce car crashes and fatalities and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists

I understand that roads and bridges are falling apart but why are the feds paying for this initiative? Is it a failure of state and local governments?

Amtrak? I am on the side of privatizing Amtrak.

Should the federal government be paying to get high speed internet out to rural communities or should it be a state responsibility? If your state has failed you elect new governors. The USDA already allocates about $170 million to fund infrastructure projects. I believe the rest should be on the shoulders of the states and state taxes. As far as low income households I think we already have many programs to help low income individuals. Do we need one specific to internet access in a city?

These are just a few of the items. I think we could discuss every point of the infrastructure bill. I have see a lot of talk about the infrastructure bill in general but nothing discussing the details. Do you think it is the role of the federal government to be paying for these items? Why have the states failed to step up? What are the alternatives? Is privatizing some aspects like Amtrak a viable solution?

 

So the president is in charge of two houses of Congress?

 

Thanks for exposing the Drunken spending attempts by the Democrats.

 

No. That's what paranoid Democrats have!

 

Yes, thank you.

 

I am really tired of irresponsible fiscal policy from both sides. I have pretty much given up on any party doing it right. The problem really comes down to the voters and tribalism. People here pick partisan sides and support policies solely based on what they think their leader want. No one looks at policies and tried to determine what is good for them or their society. They support and oppose things solely along party lines. When you ask for discussion all you get are stereotypical name calling.

I want people to talk about which aspect of the infrastructure bill they like or hate. Should the federal government be spending $110 billion to fix roads and bridges. What role should the state play? Why are governors not raising taxes to fix the problem.

Why are willing to pay 65 billion to build new infrastructure for internet? Should we be paying to get high speed internet to rural communities more than we are already doing?

I consider myself fiscally conservative but if you can show me why we need to spend this money I am open to change. The discussion needs to be on policy not parties.

 

so Biden doesn't get the blame for these spending bills if they pass?

 

Some say they spend like drunken sailors but drunken sailors spend their own money.

 

What this thread makes clear, to me, anyway, is that there is a lot of spin at play, somewhere. Reading this thread, the unmistakable impression given is that all of President Biden's/the Democrats' agenda is imperiled and, at the very least, is in for substantially more delay, as well as further pruning. What is especially interesting, is that this is not just the spin of partisan PF posters, but is the slant of the linked & Snipped news articles-- not a bunch of Breitbart articles or the like, but mainstream articles by CNN!

When I turn on MSNBC, however, they are quoting Speaker Pelosi, saying that there are only some loose ends to tie up, and that she could have all the details worked out as soon as today. She would then send the agreement to be written up, in bill form, and it could theoretically be brought to the floor for a vote, as soon as this Thursday. But even the MSNBC people, are expressing some caution about how close, in actuality, this process will hem to that timeline.

So there are four different pictures being presented, depending on who is talking.
1) Some posters, and probably some articles in the Right Wing media, are pronouncing this part of the infrastructure legislation, essentially caput, at least for the foreseeable future.

2) Other "Conservative," PF posters are tacking closer to CNN's line, that there's still a lot more to do, and we are not nearly as close as we thought, to a vote on this. Still, I am almost surprised to see some of my fellow debaters, who are on the Right, nevertheless concede that the bill will ultimately pass, at some point, which went further than the mainstream articles, which I saw (see SNIP in my quote, above). Actually, I think there might also be some "Left-leaning," posters who see things that way.

3) More partisan, if still mainstream, media-- from my small sample-- seems to be portraying this as a slowdown in progress on the bill, but leaving the timeline variable. For two examples, showing the range of delay, I heard one reporter quote, "someone who is very knowledgeable about how things work," in Congress, say that, "it's when things get noisiest, that you know you're close to a deal," because everyone is putting in their last minute pitches (& putting out their preparatory sound-bites, I would add). Another host-- Angela Mitchell, I believe it was-- suggested that what Manchin wants, a prediction on how the bill would affect the economy, is what is provided by the government's CBO (Congressional Budget Office) score; but it will be some time, before we would see that. This sort of optimistic, but unsure of the time factor, is probably representative of the lion's share of PF members, on the Left.

4) Lastly, we have Nancy Pelosi, who is not typically the type to blow smoke; and it seems hard to see how it would benefit her, to claim that this is going to be the week, if in that short time, she will be proven to have been wrong.

So I am really interested in seeing which group (or individual) is making the correct diagnosis of the situation. But it is a reminder not only of the errant judgements, one encounters, in discussing politics, but the disingenuous spinners, who abound, as well.

The effect of focusing on this, though, cannot but help to push one towards considering more conspiratorial angles on events-- which is a good thing(?). So, I will now have to weigh into my own gauging of the current state of affairs, the possibility that Pelosi could be purposely promoting an unrealistically positive view (which is not my reflex, when it comes to the Speaker), because she could think that it might help some Democratic candidates, nationally (like Terry McAuliff, in the close VA governor's race). On the other side of that coin, however, I now must contemplate the possibility that this renewed signal of intransigence, by Senator Manchin, could be indicative of some kind of payoff that he took, from some party that sees a delay of this bill as improving the chances for McAuliff's opponent, as well as for Republican candidates, in general.

Oh, what a tangled web...!

 

The progressives in the dem party will not vote for the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the other bloated monstrosity is passed.

 

It is simply ignorant to call WV a hick State. People are swarming to WV from MD and VA to live as I did 15 years ago to improve their quality of living. There is a University and 2 large Federal datacenters within 20 minutes of where I live. I didn't see any hicks as I drove around today. Define what exactly do you mean by "hick?" Is this a racist or cultural stereotype? Don't you people claim to decry stereotypes?

And if you want to label Manchin as a white conservative, what is this based on? Manchin has always been a moderate to left leaning Democrat. Don't you remember Manchin supporting Obama on gun control? If not, you people have a short memory.

 

Yup and its sad.

 

Just goes to prove that the democrat party has moved so far left that moderates are now considered conservative.

 

Lol….democrats are playing the race card on Manchin.

 

Here it’s posted within the context of my thread so I have no objection to it in that supporting context.

 

It was MOVED here.
It had been previously posted as a Separate Thread.

 

I miss moderates and centrist! We really need more in the middle!

 

Biden promised progressives he'd given them what they wanted in exchange for their vote. He again promised them he'd have both bills on his desk before signing the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Now he wants progressives to vote for the smaller infrastructure bill by promising them he'd get the safety net bill signed soon after. He's writing bad checks that can't be cashed.

 

Biden promised progressives both bills would be on his desk before he signed the Infrastructure bill. Both Manchin and Sinema put a halt to that promise so now Biden has promised progressives he'd have the Safety net bill on his desk if they'd vote for the bipartisan Infrastructure bill which so far progressives have not agreed to. They want the bill in writing and sent to the Senate with assurances they'd pass it before they voted for the smaller bill but so far no safety net bill has been written or sent to the Senate. Biden put himself in this jam.

 

CNN never said the Safety Net bill was bipartisan. They are angry at Republicans for not supporting a bill to help Americans. The only bipartisan bill is the smaller Infrastructure bill that Manchin is for and wants congress to send it to Biden to be signed. Yes this whole fiasco is confusing but Biden has no one to blame but himself by making promises he can't keep.

 

Manchin has been saying the same thing since about day 1 and yet the left refuse to listen to him. They keep on having meetings with Manchin in order to sway him over to their way of thinking while refusing to even listen to what he is actually saying. The Democrats have been playing shell games, etc and Manchin isn't buying it.