Oh Fuck Joe Manchin and his socialistic bullshit

[berni_mccoy]

He just used the RW talking point that he is “concerned” the bill is too “social” and moving toward an entitlement government vs a reward based system. FFS!



This was in response to a direct question on what amount of spending he would commit to given he said 3.5 Trillion is too much. He didn’t answer that question and gave the above new talking point, the ol’ socialism boogeyman.

[BlueIdaho]

1. The Senator from big oil

Has been given his marching orders.

[soldierant]

45. And big pharma.

[BlueIdaho]

64. Yup...

If it’s BIG he’s on the payroll.

[soldierant]

75. His daughter "works" in Big Pharma.

[LakeArenal]

2. "vs a reward based system."

Republicans have given billions of handouts of MONEY and tax breaks and shade to the rich.

You bet I want an Entitlement System.

I am entitled to as much as those rich dudes who pay less in taxes than anybody.
Especially those of us without tax breaks and special help.

[Mad_Machine76]

6. +1000

[berni_mccoy]

63. This

[CentralMass]

3. +1

[Caliman73]

4. This is the problem with misuse of words over time.

Entitlement means, historically:

the fact of having a right to something.

and

the amount to which a person has a right.

Later on the idea of "false entitlement" was stated and from there, people have begun to associate entitlement with "false entitlement".

We are entitled to the fruits of our labor being distributed equitably. Because the wealthy have outsized influence within government because of sell outs like Joe Manchin, Kristen Sinema, and the entire Republican Party; we become entitled to less and less every year as the wealthy take more and more of the fruits our our labor.

[LakeArenal]

8. Careful, some people call it trashing Democrats.

[Mad_Machine76]

7. With "friends like Joe"

Has anybody noticed how many "Joes" (excluding Biden) have been the bane of our party over the years? Joe Lieberman was a plague on the party under Obama and now Joe Manchin seems determined to play that role under Biden.

[NurseJackie]

12. Count your blessings. Aren't you glad he caucuses with the Democrats?

Without him... if he were to switch parties... that would mean Mitch McConnell would be in charge.

[wellst0nev0ter]

17. Where have I heard that line before?

We've been through that "better Blue no matter who" nonsense in 2009-2010, and look at all the problems we had.
Demand better from fellow Democrats.

[Mad_Machine76]

18. Well

Numerically, I'm glad he's a Democrat. But he's not much of a help otherwise.

[NurseJackie]

20. You're correct.

[RainCaster]

27. No. He gave us the majority & none of the power

He serves the interests of big business, same as every other republican.

[berni_mccoy]

40. It's politically worse that Manchin is a Dem

He gives us a fake majority for which we will take all the blame when nothing gets done. Dems look very bad because they can’t convince their own caucus on a confident direction to move to. We were given the majority for a reason. It’s be better if he were a Republican.

[NurseJackie]

42. We don't have a majority. The senate is split 50/50.

It’s be better if he were a Republican.

You think it would be better if Joe Manchin were a Republican? Really? That's so funny, berni_mccoy!

[Justice matters.]

49. Well, Chuck Schumer selects the committees chairs and that's pretty much it.

Almost nothing else gets done.

Mississippi gets two Senators with 0.92% of the U.S. population...

California gets two Senators with 12.04% of the U.S. population...

There's something very fundamentally WRONG with that system...

[NurseJackie]

50. Nobody said it was fair. But it is what it is and it's not going to change in our lifetimes...

... it's best to just accept reality and make the best of it rather than wallowing in our own self-pity and getting nothing done. I've always thought it would be a good idea to go after vulnerable Republicans and try to flip those seats rather than attacking our own.

If we lose just ONE senate seat, that puts us at a TWO vote disadvantage.

There's something very fundamentally WRONG with that system...

I remember seeing an interesting "Adam Ruins Everything" segment on that very topic.

[MineralMan]

48. That is simply ridiculous on its face.

[Demsrule86]

68. McConnell would be in charge if it wasn't for Manchin, The ACA would be gone if it wasn't for

Manchin...it is thinking like this that causes us to lose ground to an increasingly unpopular GOP party. Nothing would get done if not for Manchin...if Manchin were a Republican, we would not have a majority.

[berni_mccoy]

69. McConnell IS in charge.

[MineralMan]

71. No. No, he is not.

[berni_mccoy]

72. Really? Because he sure seems to be getting his way on this

Wonder how that meeting went between him and Manchin…

[MineralMan]

74. The Senate is equally divided between Democrats and Republicans

That situation will always lead to compromises to get bills passed. You know about Manchin and Sinema, because they have been in the news. You do not know about other Democratic Senators and their attitudes, though.

Mitch McConnell is the MINORITY leader. As such, he has considerable sway over Republicans in the Senate. Chuck Schumer is the MAJORITY leader, but only because VP Harris can cast a deciding vote in the case of a tie. Things do not get more difficult in the Senate, when it comes to getting bills passed. They simply do not.

So, if your expectations are that the most progressive possible bill will be passed are misguided. That will not occur. So, adjustments must be made to get something passed, even if it is not the ideal something. The alternative is that nothing gets passed through the Senate. That is not a desirable outcome.

And your expectations appear to be just as I described above. So, you're disappointed. I assure you that your disappointment would be much greater if McConnell were the MAJORITY leader. You do not want to settle for less than your ideal? Guess what? None of us want less than what we see as ideal. However we will always get something less when the Senate is equally divided.

So, that is where my earlier, unanswered, question comes in. Who are your two Senators? How will they vote? If they are not both Democrats, then I wonder why you are focused on one senator from West Virginia? Perhaps you should focus on correcting the situation in your own state, if that is the case.

Joe Manchin will decide how Joe Manchin votes. Krysten Sinema will decide how Krysten Sinema votes. Neither must answer to Speaker of the HOUSE Pelosi. Both are in the Senate, you see. They needn't answer to Chuck Schumer, either, and they especially do not need to answer to you or me. They have been elected by the voters in their respective states. If they wish to be re-elected, they must answer to those people, and those people alone.

What you want and what I want are irrelevant to a US Senator from a different state than ours. Completely irrelevant.

[certainot]

47. without limbaugh trumpism is done and so is the current GOP - manchin and the conservadems

are using leverage that flew out of limbaugh's ass.

not only is global warming a 'real thing' now, much if not most of the denier constituencies he points to to enable his service to the fossil industry were created with constant lying from limbaugh, lead central messenger for 1500 radio stations. his dittoheads policed the GOP politicians and media about global warming but now they are rudderless.

without limbaugh rw radio is screwed and so is the GOP - it's too bad that's not common knowledge because manchin and the conservadem leverage depends on dem and media ignorance of that fact.

[48656c6c6f20]

9. That does it, now the Manchin police are going to

Come out the basement. Way to ruin a great Monday!

[berni_mccoy]

11. As Biden said, "let them come"

[48656c6c6f20]

15. It's not always the ones on the outside

You have to worry about.

[Lancero]

16. I remember someone saying something about it's better to have them inside the tent pissing out...

Than outside pissing in.

Frankly, I don't think the people walking buy the tent would agree. Seriously, would you want to walk into a tent after someone inside it just took a piss all over your leg?

[Mad_Machine76]

19. I'd be ok with that

As long as the person pissing stops it when asked to do so.

[Hortensis]

10. Agree. He's smearing the Democratic Party's progressive liberalism.

When we get the power long enough, we'll eventually (at very least partially) socialize some public services within a capitalism-fueled economy that pays for them, the way some European nations have. Just requires legislating them into existence, like we did unemployment insurance.

But that's as far from a being a socialist nation (Sanders' lifelong dream) as it would be from a hierarchical authoritarian state (tRump's/GOP's). There're big reasons those would require revolutions/coups d'etat.

[Bettie]

22. We're WAY closer to a hierarchical authoritarian state

than you may think.

2024 may be it's beginning if we don't take voting rights seriously.

[Hortensis]

35. Appallingly possible. But that still requires overthrowing our government,

not using it as it's meant to be used.

[Sympthsical]

13. That rewards based system, like his kid jacking up the price of epi-pens?

I mean, she got rewarded.

Sure, sick people got screwed. People could literally die from it.

But it's the reward for her efforts that's important.

[moondust]

14. Welfare queens in Cadillacs, Joe?

That one is right up your alley.

We all know that Bezos works billions of times harder sitting in his corner office under air conditioning than his warehouse workers and drivers under strict quotas who don't have time to go to the bathroom.

[FBaggins]

21. Wait... this is today?

I had hoped that the message coming out of the House (combined with few comments from Manchin) meant that they were close to getting something finalized.

[Bettie]

23. I believe that Manchin is banking on

the "bipartisan" bill passing so he can completely scuttle the reconciliation bill.

He'll say "well, we did infrastructure, so that's that, and we're done, no more money for not-rich people!"

[Celerity]

60. the Progressive Caucus (96 members strong) are crazy if they pass that absolutely gutted bi-partisan

infrastructure bill before that reconciliation bill is passed. The tiny gang of 13 conservadems (Manchin, Sinema, plus the 11 House renegade Problem solvers) will gut it like a trout, if they even allow a vote on it.

In the bi-partisan bill, almost 80% of Biden's new spend + his environmental tax credits were ripped out by Manchin, Sinema, and the Rethugs,. It is a shell of what it was, only $550 billion in new programmes over 10 years, so 55 billion usd per year, which is less than ONE PERCENT of what was spent on the total budget ($6.1 trillion) in 2020 alone. The other $650 billion is just renewals of old programmes that were around under Trump.

[Demsrule86]

70. That is not true. It is a good bill and needs to be passed. There are always those who want what

they want and are willing to walk away with nothing. I heard 'we should not pass the imperfect ACA but wait for the public option or Medicare for all' Don't settle...that was the message from some. But the ACA has saved millions of lives and changed the way people think about healthcare-most view it is a 'right 'now. You get what is possible and come back for more. We need a bigger majority.

[Celerity]

73. Disagree, both about giving up leverage, and the ACA analogy.

The entire 'pass it now or it is dead' (the bi-partisan bill) is a false choice dilemma.

The Progs and most all of the rest of the Dems are the ones fighting for Biden's vision and agenda. It is only a tiny clique of 13 (Manchin, Sinema, and the now 11 (11 after Peters signed on by being the only Dem in the House Committee to vote no) renegade conservadem Problem Solver types in the House) who are fighting him tooth and nail, trying (and vastly succeeding with the bi-partisan bill, where new spend was shedded from 2.6 trillion down to 550 billion) to block the Biden agenda on a multiplicity of fronts.

If that bi-partisan bill is passed before and without the reconciliation bill being passed, most all leverage is lost. Manchin alone could kill it until 2022 (and maybe for good). Even if it comes to a vote, it will likely be far more gutted than it would be if the bi-partisan was still attached at the hip.

[aggiesal]

24. He gets paid by the government. Maybe we should remove his pay ...

Another Irony Deficient member of congress.

[leftstreet]

25. Maybe he's standing in for that "strong Republican party"

Pelosi was talking about?

[MineralMan]

26. No! Work to change his mind.

He is still a Democrat. We don't say, "Fuck Democrats" here.

[Bettie]

28. Do you honestly believe that Joe Manchin will change his mind

in a way that is useful to Democrats?

If he changes his mind it will be because McConnell told him to. Remember, several republicans have declared that he is "locked-down" and on their side.

[MineralMan]

30. What I think is irrelevant. I do not bash Democrats.

Those who do are breaking an important DU TOS rule.

[berni_mccoy]

32. Manchin breaks DU rules every day

[MineralMan]

34. He is not a member here.

You are. I am. Read the TOS!

[berni_mccoy]

38. Been here nearly 20 years

I know them.

[MineralMan]

46. I don't care. I've been here since 2008, and I know them, too.

What do you think saying Fuck You to Manchin accomplishes. Do you think that will change his mind?

Instead, it's more likely to make him switch parties or become an independent with not bond with the Democratic caucus, which would put Mitch McConnell in the position of Majority Leader in the Senate. Think about that possibility. We already have one too many Independents in the Senate.

Another DUer we both remember said "Fuck you" to Barack Obama and likened him to a "POS Used Car Salesman." He is no longer a member here.

We need desperately to maintain our 50 vote margin in the Senate. That ties that house of Congress, which makes our VP the deciding vote in ties. What part of that do you not understand.

I'm familiar with you on DU. How could I not be? I have no doubt that you are familiar with me, or think you are, at least.

Do not say "Fuck You!" to Democrats in Congress. That is absurd, unless you wish to change the balance in one of the houses of Congress.

You can criticize any Democrat, but you cannot bash any Democrat who serves in public office. Not here. Not now.

I'm sure you're sorry that Bernie Sanders did not win the primary race in 2020. We have a Democratic President, though. Let him work on convincing Democrats who are on the fence on individual issues. Do not attack Democrats who have votes in Congress. That is just foolishness. Moderate your language and criticize them, but do not say "Fuck You!" to any elected Democrat who routinely votes with the Democratic Caucus.

No, thank you very much. Please think before you rant.

[berni_mccoy]

51. You do exactly the same shit to progressives and you know it

I know you too.

[MineralMan]

53. I have never said "Fuck you" to any progressive who votes with Democrats

In Congress. Never. You said, and I quote, "Fuck Joe Manchin" in your OP title.

This is not about me, and you can't make it so.

[berni_mccoy]

58. If specific words are what has you hung up and not the sentiment

Then you are not being honest about your own intentions. Sounds like Manchin.

[MineralMan]

61. Not so. You are "saying the thing that is not" about me.

I an done with this...

[berni_mccoy]

31. It's clear he is not working in good faith

He has no plans to approve the bill regardless of what’s in it. He won’t negotiate with Democrats and he isn’t going to be convinced.

[Voltaire2]

59. Democrats are routinely bashed here.

As long as they are on the left.

[Bettie]

62. Yeah, but apparently that is A-OK

but if you say anything even mildly critical of a conservadem....the knives come out and a swarm appears to defend them.

SMH.

[flying_wahini]

29. Will or can the DNC pull any money for his re-election campaign? Would they? Please?

[LiberalFighter]

44. But he is "entitled" to it.

[Justice matters.]

52. Where's Michael Bloomberg when we need him?

Why would he not tell Manchin to refund his fossil-fuel donors and replace their purchase tag with his own?


In fact, where's he hidding these days? Haven't heard of him for over a full year since he withdrew?

[flying_wahini]

76. Still licking his wounds.

[rdking647]

33. the EPA should start imposing very strict restrictions on coal

choke off his coal investments as well as the whole state of WV's coal industry
and let him know if he plays ball the restrictions go away

[calimary]

37. "We'll let up as soon as you do, Senator Manchin. Deal?"

[IbogaProject]

36. He's a millionaire by inheritance

He's a millionaire by inheritance so a reward based system would heavily tax inheritance and have a progressive income tax. Bet he doesn't want either of those two, so hollow retoritc.

[bucolic_frolic]

39. This economy produces enough to lift all to Federal poverty level

Think of it as "indexing for Americans". If all can participate in a growing economy with index funds, a rising tide can lift all boats, trickle down can cause a deluge once in 100 years, and people relieved of economic stress will produce and consume.

I like Sen. Manchin's concern for bipartisanship, but his mental constructs are GOP, 1925.

[IbogaProject]

41. He's a millionaire by inheritance

He's a millionaire by inheritance so a reward based system would heavily tax inheritance and have a progressive income tax. Bet he doesn't want either of those two, so hollow retoritc.

[LiberalFighter]

43. He must think that Social Security and Medicare being "entitled programs"....

are a bad thing.

[Carlitos Brigante]

54. K&Fuckin'R! nt

[Xipe Totec]

55. What an entitled asshole! nt

[Evolve Dammit]

56. Enough of this asshole. What a corporate lackey.

[Salviati]

57. Why doesn't he agree with the republican voters in his constituency?

likely republican voters in WV support the 3.5 trillion package by a margin of +22. Are they too socialist for him?


https://www.filesforprogress.org/memos/bbb-wv.pdf

[joetheman]

65. Biden needed to carry his message directly to the people of W.VA. the Governor may have helped him.

[Polybius]

66. He didn't say that he would vote against it

Maybe he just wants to cover his bases, and say "I didn't want to sink the entire bill, so I voted for it even though I oppose some of the social parts." I'd be ok with that if he votes for it.

[berni_mccoy]

67. That's too much wishful thinking for this situation

[Polybius]

77. Turns out you were right

I tried to be hopeful, but it was false hope.