Time for Democrats to cut ties with Joe Manchin

[MichDem10]

I am so fed up with Manchin. It is time to strip him of his committees and make him decide if he is a Democrat or RepubliCon (ala Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman) . He has already made McTurle the de facto majority leader by refusing to support President Biden's BBB agenda. Manchin is nothing more than an obstructionist just like the RepubliCons and I believe BBB is dead no matter what. People show you who they are by their actions and Manchin does not share the vision and values of today's Democratic Party (BBB obstruction, refusal to end the filibuster, refusal to support robust VOTING RIGHTS, refusal to support climate change legislation, gutting the child tax credit, gutting covid relief payments, supporting tax code for the rich in this country, etc., etc., etc.) A leopard can not changes its spots and it is time for him to go.

I believe the report from a week or so ago that Manchin has an "exit strategy" and that he is executing it now while the President is abroad.It is time to move on and when he switches to RepuliConism the Democrats need to campaign and hammer Moscow Mitch, Money Manchin, and the RepubliCons for obstruction and holding this country hostage with THEIR GRIDLOCK. Sure it will suck but what is the freaking difference? Maybe when he switches he can participate in the bipartisanship he so much longs for. Yeah right

Exasperated in Michigan

[msongs]

1. better to just put him on party wide ignore. dont take his calls or respond to his emails. vanish

him and let him rogue all he wants

[Lars39]

2. And give his wife's appointment to someone else.

[PortTack]

3. No...we need to keep the majority every single day that we can. If Thomas, Alito drop dead

If you think 6-3 is bad imagine 7-2

[Progressive Jones]

33. RE Thomas and Alito. I cannot wait for this to happen. nt

[bluecollar2]

40. no difference between 6/3 and 7/2.

you lose either way.

[PortTack]

60. Well then why not make it 9-0? That's nonsense

[bluecollar2]

64. 9-0

8-1
7-2
6-3
5-4

Don't know why it's so hard to understand.

In every case a loss is a loss. It's not a grey area. It's black and white.

When you're on the losing end of a decision you don't get to negotiate the damage based on the relative number of votes.

American politics today is about winning and we had better get used to that fact or we will end up like the original Republican party.

[leftstreet]

4. Looks like he's doing that on his own n/t

[lapucelle]

5. ...

[bucolic_frolic]

6. I'll hold off on that until as close to 2023 as we can get.

Handing Senate control to Moscow Mitch voluntarily by alienating Sen Manchin doesn't seem like a good policy to me.

[LenaBaby61]

10. I wish Dems could punish the living HELL out of Manchin ..

But, if you get the GQP running all of the committees, Dems will be crushed in the Mid-terms. He has to be put up with .... He's killing the party though, because if Dems don't have much of a legislative agenda passed by the mid-terms thanks to him, the corporate media will run like hell with it, blame Biden solely for it and run this shit on a loop of the GQP talking smack about Dems, and about how they didn't get anything done for the American people, when in reality the GQP US Taliban Party's the one who isn't doing shit for 'the people.' The GQP are only into continuing to build up the military complex, making millionaires billionaires, and making billionaires trillionaires and making money for themselves and for their families, and for blaming Dems for everything that goes wrong that GQP US Taliban Party caused to go wrong.

Unless a miracle happens and Manchin turns into a human being, and Dems have something to talk about that they've gotten passed/done, Dems are in deep shit in the 2022 Mid-Terms.

[dem4decades]

7. Let's cut off our nose to spite our face.

I guess Democrats don't like all the judges the Senate has confirmed. I thought we were smarter than this?

The idiot Republicans understand it's all about Judges, are we not as smart as them?

[Nokillmessanger]

8. Exactly right

Manchin is the best WV Senator we are going to get. He is a sad attention seeking moron, but that is still more than I can say for the other WV Senator.

[Hortensis]

12. Some are now into "owning the MAGAts," apparently.

Am I imagining that the spread from right to left seems to have sped up dramatically lately? Whatever, thank all the gods this is virtual. At least it can't spread physically person to person while we're not looking.

I'd suggest all who like that idea please themselves by at least cutting their own ties with Manchin. No time like the present, and just think what a lesson that'll teach HIM! But while looking for how to accomplish that, probably best to keep scissors well away from the face...

[Mordred]

9. Next Summer

is the earliest you could actively alienate Manchin because that is the time when the pressure to replace Breyer will be the greatest and we need Manchin's (and Sinema's) confirmation vote or we'll be looking back at a 3-6 court as the good ole days.

[LenaBaby61]

11. THIS 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[Celerity]

13. Manchin will likely only support a moderate, slightly conservative SCOTUS nominee

[ZonkerHarris]

16. and if McConnell is Leader then no Biden nominee will get any vote at all.

[Celerity]

21. that has nothing to do with what I said, I have never once said that Manchin should switch parties

[ZonkerHarris]

22. and I said what I said.

[Celerity]

25. Yes, but your comment to me was not germane to anything I have said, and implied that I somehow

supported cutting Manchin loose, a stance I have never once advocated, ever, for clearly obvious reasons (loss of the Senate).

[ZonkerHarris]

29. There's a lot of rationalizing going on around here.

[Celerity]

31. none from me

[ZonkerHarris]

34. hahaha. That's a good one.

[Celerity]

35. Oh really? How so? Do tell. You are now trying to slate me off, so put up some evidence, instead of

oblique inference and false conflation of me with what the OP said.

[onenote]

45. He's supported every Biden judicial nominee and cabinet nominee

[Celerity]

55. no, he blocked Neera Tanden for OMB head and forced Biden to pull the plug on her nomination when he

went public, on the record, as a no vote for her nomination.

Sen. Manchin opposes Neera Tanden as Biden's budget chief, imperiling nomination

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/joe-manchin-comes-out-against-neera-tanden-biden-s-omb-n1258387

White House pulls nomination of embattled budget chief pick Neera Tanden

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-pulls-nomination-embattled-budget-chief-pick-neera-tanden-n1258738



Also, the SCOTUS is whole other kettle of fish from lower federal courts.

I trust Manchin as far as I could toss him, he has repeatedly shown poor judgement:


https://www.gq.com/story/joe-manchin-last-democrat-in-trump-country

snip

After Trump's shocking victory in 2016, Manchin was perhaps the only member of his party willing to express optimism about what lay ahead. “I don't think Donald Trump is far to the right,” Manchin told me a few days before Trump's inauguration. “I think he's pretty much centrist—a moderate, centrist conservative Democrat.” Manchin marvelled about how willing Trump seemed to be to listen to others (in contrast to Barack Obama, who, Manchin told me, “didn't seem like he had any empathy for anyone left behind because of a policy and his desire for social changes he wanted”). “We couldn't get through before,” Manchin said. “You can get through to this guy.”

Eighteen months later, despite all the evidence to the contrary, he stubbornly stands by his assessment. “Every time I've hung around the president, he is always much more comfortable trying to work something in a bipartisan way,” Manchin told me this past summer. “He tries to do the reasonable thing, the responsible thing.” As for why that attitude hasn't been reflected in the White House's legislative priorities or his public rhetoric, Manchin could only speculate and make excuses. “I think the political people around him or whatever have gotten him to believe we don't need to be bipartisan,” he offered.

from Manchin's own site

https://www.manchin.senate.gov/about/bipartisanship/legislation

Senator Manchin Votes with President Trump.

Since 2011, no Democrat currently serving in the Senate has split with the party more often, including 80 votes in which Senator Manchin was the only Democrat to break with his party and vote with the majority of Senate Republicans.
Overall, Senator Manchin has voted with the majority of Senate Republicans on 1,172 different votes or 54% of the votes he has taken as a United States Senator.

Since President Trump was inaugurated, no Senator (Democrat or Republican) has split with their party more often than Senator Manchin, including 23 votes in which he was the only Democrat to vote with the Republicans on issues such as:

Immigration – Senator Manchin strongly supported President Trump’s immigration proposal and was the only Democrat to oppose a separate bipartisan proposal that provided zero funding for border security;

Increasing Domestic Energy Production – On two separate occasions, Senator Manchin cast the lone Democratic vote to support opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling;

Confirming Trump Nominees – No Democratic Senator has voted to confirm more Trump nominees (115) than Senator Manchin. Senator Manchin voted to confirm his nominee to serve on the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch. On nine occasions, Senator Manchin was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Trump nominees, including two cabinet Secretaries, three circuit court judges, and various other nominees.

Senator Manchin has voted with the Trump Administration 74% of the time and shares many of the President’s priorities when it comes to promoting fair trade, repealing Obama-era regulations, and protecting our national security:

Promoting Fair Trade – Senator Manchin voted against the U.S. – Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. – Panama Trade Promotion Agreement, and the U.S. – Columbia Trade Promotion Agreement in 2011. Senator Manchin also voted against the Trade Act of 2015 and the Trade Promotion Authority the Obama Administration used to try to negotiate other trade deals.

Repealing Obama-era Regulations – In 2011, Senator Manchin voted against the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to expand their regulatory jurisdiction over air quality. In 2012, he repeatedly supported a legislative stay on the EPA’s Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. In 2013, he voted against Obama’s nominee to run the EPA, Gina McCarthy. In 2015, Senator Manchin was one of the few Democrats to support the Keystone XL pipeline. In 2016, he opposed the Waters of the United States rule. In 2017, Senator Manchin helped lead the effort to repeal the duplicative and unnecessary Stream Protection Rule.

Protecting our National Security – Senator Manchin opposed the Iran Deal in 2015 and has repeatedly voted to stop Sanctuary Cities and ensure that our federal laws are enforced consistently throughout the country.

[ZonkerHarris]

14. Translation: Hand Mitch McConnell the reins of the Senate as Leader. No f'n thanks

hard pass.

[themaguffin]

15. What the fuck? JFC. So you WANT to hand the keys to Mitch? FFS.

[Captain Zero]

32. Looks like Mitch is borrowing the keys anyway.

A lot.

[themaguffin]

44. As fucked up as Manchin is making this, it will be infinitely worse with Mitch

[roamer65]

17. No.

Moscow Mitch should NOT be allowed back as Majority Leader.

[onenote]

18. Another DUer who doesn't want Biden's judicial nominees to be confirmed.

Hmmmm.....

[lapucelle]

19. Joe Manchin has a 100% rating of voting for President Biden's agenda.

Should Democrats cut ties with Democrats who have less than a 100% voting record of advancing President Biden's agenda? There are several in both the House and Senate.


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read profiles.

[Polybius]

24. Yeah, because he holds up bills that he doesn't like

Once he waters it down, he votes for it, and Biden signs it. So 100% may be true, but it's extremely misleading.

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Biden hasn't had much of an agenda.

Much of what has passed the House has died in the Senate and a good part of that is due to Manchin opposing the elimination of the filibuster.

I'll give him credit on the $3.5 trillion budget and voting to establish a 1/6 commission.

But a lot of those bills passed with a massive majority, including with GOP support.

If you take out nominations, and focus on actual legislation, there's only been 13 bills that have passed.

Bills like Providing emergency funding for Capitol security in response to the Jan. 6 attack and for the expansion of the Afghan visa program, which passed 98-0.

One area you'll see where Manchin HAS actively hurt the WH is on the filibuster. That includes failure to advance the For the People Act, Violence Against Women Act, Strengthening rules against wage discrimination...those things matter but regardless if Manchin is supporting it, his refusal to entertain removing, or amending the filibuster, is basically him not supporting it since it won't pass with the filibuster.

That doesn't even get into the whole current fiasco.

[lapucelle]

38. $1.9 trillion in a relief funding, $1.2 trillion in hard infrastructure, and $1.75 trillion

in human infrastructure and environmental spending (when it passes) ... but by all means let's spin the wins into nothing much at all.

[Drunken Irishman]

48. Except that last one hasn't passed.

[lapucelle]

50. That's what I said.

$1.9 trillion in a relief funding, $1.2 trillion in hard infrastructure, and $1.75 trillion

in human infrastructure and environmental spending (when it passes)

[Drunken Irishman]

51. So it's not relevant to the discussion at this point.

[lapucelle]

52. Yes it is. N/T

[Drunken Irishman]

53. Na.

But keep clinging to this hope that Manchin will somehow come through in the end despite the fact he's been pretty open about torpedoing everything dealing with infrastructure.

Sometimes people are just shitty.

[lapucelle]

56. You used the word "agenda". Do you know what it means?

=====================================================================

agenda (noun)
Essential Meaning of agenda
1 : a list of things to be considered or done

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agenda

===============================================================================

President Biden is confident; so is Ro Khanna... or are they too just "just clinging to this hope"?

I'm not sure why anyone would using the language on hopeless on election day. I do agree that sometimes people are just shitty.

[Drunken Irishman]

58. Blame Manchin.

He's the one who is actively making Biden's agenda not happen - whether it's his refusal to support reforming the filibuster to his constant throwing cold water on the BBB deal.

I'd ask why a senator felt it necessary, a day before a pivotal election, to come out and hold a press conference raising doubts about a bill that is pivotal to Biden's agenda actually becoming a reality.

[Celerity]

30. that is based off final votes only, it is laughable to imply Manchin supports Biden's agenda 100%

For instance he blocked Neera Tanden for OMB head, when he was the first and only (as Biden pulled her nomination soon thereafter) Dem Senator to come out publicly and officially on the record and say he would vole against her. Also, he and Sinema have shredded bills ($3.8 trillion and counting plus entire key centrepiece programmes gutted from both the BIF and the BBB Act as two examples) before they came to a final vote.

You are employing sophistry by trying to equate symbolic (and materially meaningless to passage) protest votes (that stopped NOTHING of Biden's agenda from passing) with Manchin's outright blockage and legislative component destruction that he and Sinema are actively engaging in.

The difference, (from that link you and others continually toss out to try and false frame/overstate things for approaching half a year now) between a perfect 100% record and the lowest Senator (in this case Sanders) in terms of a Biden score is TWO symbolic protest votes, one from winter 2021, and one from spring 2021.

Sanders voted against Vilsack (he and others wanted Marcia Fudge there) in February for Secretary of Agriculture, at the urging of multiple progressive (concerned about corporate consolidation of farming that Vilsack did little to stop his first go-round as AgSec) and black farmers/civil rights groups who vehemently opposed his track record, especially over the Shirley Sherrod case. (Vilsack was easily confirmed, 92-7 and afterward, Sanders said "I think he'll be fine, but not as strong as I would like." )

His other No vote, from late spring, was against the Endless Frontier Act, when Maria Cantwell tossed in an amendment that was a $10 billion giveaway to Bezos via Blue Origin and then actively worked to scupper his amendment that would have pulled it out. The Act past easily, 68-32.

Sanders materially blocked nothing via either protest vote.

Unlike Manchin and Sinema, Sanders (and the vast majority of other Dems) has been tirelessly trying to get as much as is possible of Biden's agenda passed intact.

[lapucelle]

36. "Bernie Sanders Casts First Democratic Vote Against a Biden Cabinet Nominee"

Bernie Sanders Casts First Democratic Vote Against a Biden Cabinet Nominee

[T]he Vilsack vote exhibited the first tiny crack in the solid edifice of Democratic unity, as Bernie Sanders joined six right-wing Republicans in opposing the confirmation. It was the first Democratic vote cast against a Biden nominee (although Joe Manchin has announced he would vote against OMB nominee Neera Tanden if she makes it that far).

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/02/sanders-first-democrat-to-vote-against-biden-cabinet-nominee.html

============================================================================================

Sorry, but the narrative that the progressive final votes against President Biden don't really count because they're "symbolic" is problematic at best, especially after what happened at the Democratic caucus meeting on October 23 after which it was made known that the junior senator from VT was still insisting on his numbers ($3.5 trillion and $6 trillion) rather than President Biden's number. If and when the final package passes, will the progressive final votes not really count either?

https://www.axios.com/manchin-sanders-reconciliation-fight-789c8441-fa49-404f-9d36-4adaa8e1d908.html

People cannot have it both ways. They can't say "It's OK when my guy does it because he has constituents to answer to", as when the sophomore representative from NY-14 changed a "no" vote to "present" a few weeks ago. They can't vote for a trillion dollar program in wasteful military spending or against common sense gun laws and then say "It's OK when I do it. I have constituents and/or interest groups to answer to".

It's not a good look when people reserve privileges to themselves that they do not extend to colleagues. That's the very definition of entitlement.

Today is election day and a segment of the Democratic caucus have managed to spin $1.5 trillion in social and environmental spending into a defeat, all the while slandering a fellow Democrat (who delivers a blue senate seat in a +35 Trump/deep red state) as corrupt.

Cui bono?

[betsuni]

37. +1

[Celerity]

39. More spin, Sander's 2 protest votes blocked nothing, whilst Manchin and Sinema are ripping Biden's

agenda to shreds right before our eyes.


Also, your claims here:

Sorry, but the narrative that the progressive final votes against President Biden don't really count because they're "symbolic" is problematic at best, especially after what happened at the Democratic caucus meeting on October 23 after which it was made known that the junior senator from VT was still insisting on his numbers ($3.5 trillion and $6 trillion) rather than President Biden's number.

are false

(and you still insist on continuing your failed attempts to claim that the $3.5 trillion BBB was somehow the progressive number and not Biden's. I already showed your claims to be false, and now will do so yet again)

you said

what happened at the Democratic caucus meeting on October 23 after which it was made known that the junior senator from VT was still insisting on his numbers ($3.5 trillion and $6 trillion) rather than President Biden's number.

Sanders had already said weeks before (October 3rd):

Bernie Sanders says spending bill's $3.5 trillion price tag likely to be lowered

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-35-trillion-infrastructure-bill-lowered/story?id=80368168



and

junior senator from VT was still insisting on his numbers ($3.5 trillion and $6 trillion) rather than President Biden's number.

is NOT TRUE

you are entitled to your own opinions but NOT your own facts

here is my OP showing your claims to be utterly wrong, using Biden's own words

The $3.5 trillion for BBB and the $2.6 trillion for BIF proposals WERE BIDEN'S proposals, not the progressives.

The progs months ago agreed to come down from their $6 trillion for BBB and $4 trillion for BIF proposals and agreed to fully support Biden's $3.5 trillion BBB proposal and his $2.6 proposal for BIF (then the progs further agreed to support the BIF after Manchin, Sinema, and the 'moderate' Rethugs gutted out almost 80% of Biden's new spend/tax credits, dropping it form $2.6 trillion all the way down to $550 billion new spend (the other $650 billion in the BIF is simply renewals of mostly transportation programmes that date back to the Trump and Obama administrations).


here you go with the OP that once again shows your claims to be false:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215921251

Definitive debunking today by Biden himself of the false claims by some here that the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better Act's (the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill's initial top-line number put out by Biden) initial proposal was some sort of wild-eyed Bernie/Squad progressive 'pie-in-the-sky' wish list and that Biden did not write it.


That claim is simply not true. The progressives already came down from $6 trillion for it months ago, and are simply fighting to keep as much as Biden's agenda for the reconciliation final bill intact, as opposed to Manchin and Sinema (who Biden called out ('2 senators') in his presser today multiple times, feel free to watch the whole video).

The video:

Start at 13:43


https://www.c-span.org/video/?515154-1/president-biden-guarantee-congress-raise-debt-limit-avoid-default#


President Biden: (sorry for the caps, it is from the auto transcript)

I LAID OUT WHAT I THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE LESS. LOOK, THE LEGISLATION, BOTH THE BUILD BACK BETTER PIECE, AS WELL AS THE INFRASTRUCTURE PIECE, ARE THINGS I WROTE. THESE DIDN'T COME FROM, GOD LOVE THEM, BERNIE SANDERS, AOC, OR ANYBODY ELSE. I WROTE THEM.

Build Back Better Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build_Back_Better_Act





Here is an attempt on here to false frame the $3.5 trillion as not Biden's and to claim it is the progressives' 'bottom line number' (made even more false (the claim it is a bottom-line prog number) as Sanders already has said that he admits the final number will come down from Biden's $3.5 trillion figure, which Biden himself also just said in the video above).

There are also attempts by some on here to pettifog and bog down debate by trying to play sematic games over the terms 'bill', 'framework', 'proposal', 'plan', etc etc, when the truth is that al those terms are used (rightly or wrongly) interchangeably by hundreds (thousands?) of posts, articles, telly shows, hell, even the White House itself, when talking about or referring to the Build Back Better Act aka the reconciliation bill.

I have remove the poster's name as I am not going to personally call them out.

The claims they make are demonstrably false, as I have shown.

Also, that poster made a false claim that there is not a framework. Sorry, wrong again, here is the initial broad spending framework for the $3.5 trillion Biden proposal:

Here is the broad spending framework

https://www.investopedia.com/here-s-what-s-in-the-usd1-trillion-infrastructure-bill-passed-by-the-senate-5196817

$135 billion for the Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry. Funding to be used to address forest fires, reduce carbon emissions, and address drought concerns.

$332 billion for the Banking Committee. Including investments in public housing, the Housing Trust Fund, housing affordability, and equity and community land trusts.

$198 billion for the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. This would develop clean energy. (and remember, almost all environmental spend and tax credits were already gutted from the bi-partisan bill, as I have already shown)

$67 billion for the Environment and Public Works Committee. These monies would fund low-income solar and other climate-friendly technologies.

$1.8 trillion for the Finance Committee. This part of the bill is for investments in working families, the elderly, and the environment. It includes a tax cut for Americans making less than $400,000 a year, lowering the price of prescription drugs, and ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes. (this is prime funding here, and Manchinema want mass cuts here, which blows it up)

$726 billion for the Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee. This addresses universal pre-K for 3- and 4-year-olds, childcare for working families, tuition-free community college, funding for historically black colleges and universities, and an expansion of the Pell Grant for higher education.

$37 billion for the HSGAC Committee. This would electrify the federal vehicle fleet, electrify and rehab federal buildings, improve cybersecurity infrastructure, reinforce border management, invest in green-materials procurement, and invest in resilience. (agin most all was guttend from the other bill already)

$107 billion for the Judiciary Committee. These funds address establishing "lawful permanent status for qualified immigrants."

$20.5 billion for the Indian Affairs Committee. This addresses Native American health programs and facilities, education programs and facilities, housing programs, energy programs, resilience and climate programs, BIA programs and facilities, Native language programs, and the Native Civilian Climate Corps.

$25 billion for the Small Business Committee. This provides for small business access to credit, investment, and markets.

$18 billion for the Veterans Affairs Committee. This funds upgrades to veteran facilities.

$83 billion for the Commerce Committee. This goes to investments in technology, transportation, research, manufacturing, and economic development. It provides funding for coastal resiliency, healthy oceans investments, including the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund and the National Science Foundation research and technology directorate.

More detail of the $3.5 trillion framework:

Update on The Build Back Better Act

https://www.ifpte.org/bbb-act

This September, Congressional Representatives and Senators working to advance a fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation package that invests up to $3.5 trillion over 10 years in physical, social, and innovation infrastructure. This legislation, called the Build Back Better Act, is being crafted to include significant parts of President Biden’s American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan and supports domestic manufacturing and R&D, resilient supply chains, affordable housing, advanced energy infrastructure and policies, education, healthcare, childcare, paid leave, labor law enforcement, and more. Through the budget reconciliation process, both the House and Senate can advance the legislation through a simple majority.

Typically, legislation in the Senate requires a procedural vote that needs a 60-vote supermajority to close debate before a bill can advance to a floor vote. If passed by the House, the legislation is expected to move through the Senate committees and finally to the Senate floor. After 20-hour Senate floor debate that cannot be obstructed by the 60-vote filibuster rule, the bill would move to a “vote-a-rama” amendment process where proposed amendments that are germane to the bill will be voted on without debate.

The budget reconciliation process moved forward on August 11 when the Senate passed a budget resolution — titled “S.Con.Res. 14, A Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2022.” The House of Representatives passed Senate Continuing Resolution 14 on August 24. Twelve committees in the House of Representatives have worked with corresponding committees in the Senate as well as the White House to craft legislative text for the Build Back Better Act. Currently, House and Senate leadership, committee chairs, and the White House are conferring and continuing to work on a Build Back Better bill that will have a majority of votes to pass the House and at least 50 votes (plus the vote of the Senate President/Vice President Kamala Harris) to pass in the Senate.

(you can right click and open image in new tab to see the text enlarged)











More from the White House talking about the $3.5 trillion including Biden calling it his plan, and also his mentioning the initial $6 trillion.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/24/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-covid-19-response-and-the-vaccination-program-8/





https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/10/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-senate-passage-of-the-bipartisan-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/




https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/30/press-briefing-by-principal-deputy-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-july-30-2021/



END


Finally, just for emphasis:

We already said bye bye to almost 80% of the bi-partisan bill's new spend/tax incentives that made up Biden's proposal/framework, and yet the progressives are still on board

The Infrastructure Plan: What’s In and What’s Out (it's brutal)


Biden's original proposal:





What was left after Manchin, Sinema, and the so-called 'moderate' Rethugs (the very ones that Manchin and Sinema constantly hype as needing to be catered to) took a 2.05 trillion USD hatchet to it:

[lapucelle]

42. President Biden gave Democrats his number on October 1. It was $1.9 - $2.3 trillion.

No amount of pettifogging changes that fact.

Biden Tells Democrats Spending Package Will Be Slashed to Roughly $2 Trillion

President Joe Biden went to Capitol Hill on Friday [October 1] to try to press pause on days of fighting among Democrats as he tried to save two key bills. Biden made clear the promised vote on the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill would not happen after all, even as he warned progressives they would have to get used to the idea that the spending package on climate change and social policies would have to be slashed by around half. There doesn’t seem to be an obvious path to passage but Biden also urged patience, telling they lawmakers could take their time if needed. “We’re going to get this done,” Biden told reporters. “It doesn’t matter when. It doesn’t, whether it’s in six minutes, six days or six weeks—we’re going to get it done.” For now though it’s “just reality” that the two bills are tied to each other and one can’t pass without the other, he said.

While speaking to lawmakers in what was his first-ever meeting with the full House Democratic caucus since becoming president, Biden said the price tag of the social spending bill would have to come down from $2.5 trillion to somewhere between $1.9 trillion and $2.3 trillion. Biden tried to quell anger of progressives by insisting that even at that price tag it would still involve “historic investments” on key issues.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/biden-democrats-social-spending-package-slash-congress.html

Biden Agenda’s Vote Timeline in Question as Sanders Weighs In
“That fight continues,” he said. “That bill is still being worked on literally today. It’ll be worked on tomorrow. I believe we’re making some progress in making it even stronger than it is.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-31/sanders-favors-senate-accord-on-biden-agenda-before-house-vote

[Celerity]

43. That was NOT Biden's original number, as I have shown over and over and over, for months.

Done here, you are not posting in good faith.

You make false claims after false claims, even when shown definitively to be wrong over and over and over.

[lapucelle]

49. It was President Biden's number on October 1.

Someone at the Democratic caucus meeting on October 23 kept insisting on a different number.

Biden is a seasoned negotiator. Anyone who does not fully understand the tactics and strategies of negotiation should listen and learn.

Joe Biden is president. Anyone not on board with the deal he has hammered out is an obstacle. Anyone.

And anyone spinning $1.75 trillion in social and environmental spending as a loss may be advancing some agenda, but it's not President Biden's.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are the facts:
- Joe Manchin has a 100% rate of voting with the President.
- Progressive legislators do not have a 100% rate of voting with the President.
- Joe Biden told the Democratic caucus on October 1 that the number would be in the neighborhood of $1.9 trillion to $2.3 trillion.
- The junior senator from VT was still talking about a $3 - $6 trillion dollar package at a caucus meeting on October 23, despite what President Joe Biden had said.
- The junior senator from VT aid on State of the Union (CNN) on October 31 that he still wasn't satisfied with the package.

[Celerity]

57. Most of that is either outright false or misrepresented revisionist spin based off misstated

timelines and/or more false claims.

You are yet again falsely claiming Biden's compromise reduced topline number for the BBB to be his original number.

That is simply untrue, the $3.5 trillion proposal that I have laid out in great detail so many times was his original framework topline number (3.5 trillion for BB, and 2.6 trillion in new spend and tax incentives for the BIF) I have provided fully detailed evidence and documentation that definitively proves you to be in error. I have already exposed and debunked everything you have been claiming about this, and have done so for weeks with full documentation.

You have nothing left but to keep on repeating fundamentally false claims and and also attempt to remake/misrepresent timelines that betray the falsity of your claims.

also:

Joe Manchin has a 100% rate of voting with the President.

Progressive legislators do not have a 100% rate of voting with the President.

This is classic sophistry, equating meaningless protest votes (that blocked nothing in terms of passage) with actual deleterious blocking and gutting by Manchin (and Sinema).

Manchin blocked Neera Tanden and forced Biden to withdraw her nomination as head of OMB when he publicly, on the record, came out as a No against her. Sanders' 2 protest No votes (which I have already detailed and documented on numerous occasions) had ZERO effect on either the Endless Frontier Act passing or Vilsacks Agriculture Secretary nomination passing.

Manchin and Sinema have already gutted a combined $3.8 trillion from Biden's two major infrastructure proposals, including ripping out entire massive key programmes, such as Family and Medical Paid Leave (to give but one example), programmes that were the centrepieces to Biden's campaign and his legislative agenda.

The progressives have blocked nothing, have gutted nothing, and are working tirelessly to help Biden's core agenda get passed as much as possible.

Like it our not, that is just the way it is. I get that it frustrates you, but sometimes you simply cannot win a debate, especially when you use fundamentally false positings and false equivalencies, ones that have now been thoroughly exposed as false for weeks.

[lapucelle]

59. Facts are facts. This is not an "alternative fact" zone.

Denying facts does not make them untrue.

[BlueTsunami2018]

20. He's still voting for our judges.

As much as I hate him, we’re in no position to shove his dumb ass out of the party. He’s just reveling in his power and smelling himself while he can.

Better to get what we can and make him irrelevant next year. As monumental a task as that seems.

[brooklynite]

23. RANT (verb): "speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way."

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. So you will be happy with Joe Biden not getting any more judges confirmed?

Link to tweet

[Hekate]

28. Oh ffs

[New Breed Leader]

41. WRONG. It's time to INCREASE our Dem Senate majority

So that both Manchin AND Sinema will no longer matter.

[Kahuna]

61. This, until someone can explain how a non conservative wins in WV. nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

63. Absolutely

[dsp3000]

46. i feel your pain but guess what we have a 50-50 senate. democrats need to win more seats in 22.

for now we need him so we dont have a majorit leader mcturtle

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

47. I dream of a day when he becomes irrelevant as an obstructionist

due to a larger Democratic majority in the Senate.

[MineralMan]

54. So, you broke your silence to advocate that Mitch McConnell should

become the Senate majority leader again? Please think about the ramifications of things a little longer, OK?

[totodeinhere]

62. Absolutely not. If we push Manchin out of the party then we lose control of the Senate and the

president's agenda is out the window.