They like to dish it out, but go ballistic when something cuts against their agenda of accepting an ever-diminishing portion of Biden's agenda with a 'what can you do, better to pass a wee something than go for more' cavalierness, even when the 'more' is still in and of itself a far cry from the full original totals.
IF we end up at a $2 trillion new spend total for the 2 bills, that is an almost 70% overall slashing of Biden's original proposals. Not only is that a massive gutting, but I have even seen some say just do the BIF and if we lose out on the whole BBB Act, oh well, we still have enough to run on in 2022 and 2024. I call bullshit on that, as that means there is only around $55 billion (less than 1% of the total budget for 2020) total in new spend per annum, BUT also, much of the BIF is long term, big project spending that will have very little impact on the average person before the 2022 midterms.
Part of the reason I think is that they themselves, at bedrock, do not truly want a lot of what is/was in either bill, but cannot be that vocal about it, as then the cat is out of the bag, plus they would instantly face up as being anti-Biden, as the original $6.1 trillion total for both bills (new spending + tax credits) WAS Biden's proposal, not the prog's (their original total was $10 trillion between the 2 bills. $6 trillion for BBB, $4 trillion for hard infrastructure), as some tried (perhaps still do) to falsely frame.
I have seen some, in the past, long before the 2 bills came out, long before the 2020 elections, argue against many of the provisions that were in both original proposals. Examples of that past opposition being: tuition free 2 year community college, certain types of tax raises (there is one who even now opposes large elements of that), many elements of climate change legislation, universal pre-K education, etc etc. I also suspect they have little to no issues with a far more stringent means-testing for many programmes. That means-testing reduction turns things into a type of programme(s) that not only takes away a lot of benefits from a huge swathe of the middle class, but also allows those programmes to be framed as 'socialist giveaways to the lazy, grifting poor' by the noxious RW. It is political madness if we succumb to that reductionist line of thought.
4 strategic members of the CPC in safe seats
I think it would be far more than just 4
= new reply since forum marked as read