So the current negotiating number is between 1.9 and 2.3tn dollars.

[OnDoutside]

It might be a complete coincidence but the cost for the 3.5tn is spread out over 10 years so to fully fund the programs for 6 years would be 60% of 3.5 = 2.1 trillion, slap bang in the middle of the suggested negotiating numbers. I think most people would take that and hope that the Democrats can get 2 more Senators, to make this more of a permanent fixture.

[PoliticAverse]

1. Has Manchin gone up from 1.5? Do we know for sure where Sinema's number is?

Last edited Sat Oct 2, 2021, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)

And what about taxes?

[Amishman]

2. The taxes to pay for it are key

I'd like it to really be paid for, not some phony numbers like the Pubs did with their tax cut theft.

I want to see wall Street pay for a lot of it. The bullshit described in this article needs to be crushed. A very good read on senior managerial compensation at large public companies using TI as an example. https://www.epsilontheory.com/yeah-its-still-water/

(Texas Instruments driving almost all profits into stock buybacks while simultaneously selling steeply discounted shares to its own senior management)

[Celerity]

6. Not just taxes. $700 billion in funding comes from the savings that allowing Medicare

to negotiate pharma prices generates.

The very thing that Sinema (after receiving shedloads of dosh and adverts from Big Pharma) flipped on and now is against.

[OnDoutside]

4. That was the range they quoted from sources on MSNBC. Also Manchin

1.5 TN was not a top line number apparently, where Sinema gave no number at all.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

8. I would say Sinema's an idiot

but that would be an insult to idiots. She doesn't want to do the hard work of being a senator -- she just wants the perks, like the huge amounts of money she's getting from her corporate donors. And all she has to do is be cute, coy, and obtuse.

[PoliticAverse]

9. Yeah I see where that range is coming from...

Acknowledging the need to find that sweet spot, Biden on Friday twice threw out a range that congressional Democrats should be looking at: $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion, according to two lawmakers in the room.

From: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/574991-progressives-cheer-moderates-groan-as-biden-visit-caps-chaotic-week

[MacKasey]

3. I was thinking just that

Go for 6 years to start and then renew

I always thought they went big to start because they knew they would have to compromise

[OnDoutside]

5. If it gives time to get the show on the road and elect two extra

Senate Dems... presumably Pennsylvania will provide one.

[PoliticAverse]

11. If the Democrats don't pass the bill(s) will they still hold the House after 2022? n/t

[OnDoutside]

12. Probably not, but then if they only pass a sham of a Reconciliation bill

or only the bipartisan deal, the same could well happen.

[gab13by13]

7. The numbers are bs diversion,

It's almost entirely paid for, so maybe that's the problem. Manchin and Sinema's sugar daddies don't want their taxes raised, maybe that's the problem. The number is meaningless, 3.5 trillion would not be added to the debt like Trump's tax cute for the rich continue year after year to add to the debt. It's about the return on investment. The benefits of passing Build Back Better will be overwhelming.

As a side note, for people here blaming progressives for not wanting to compromise, the Build Back Better Bill was written by president Biden, let that sink in before criticizing progressives for wanting to pass it.

I like the idea of keeping the programs and cutting back the years, make it happen.

[MacKasey]

10. Agree

This is about M1, and churning those $1.00

There will be a huge ripple effect for the economy

Tax breaks for the rich do squat for the 99%