How will Joe Biden GOVERN? General Biden Administration F**kery Thread

acri1

The Chosen 1
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
24,007
Reputation
3,755
Daps
105,019
Reppin
Detroit
of course the republicans dont want to give biden a win, we all know thats true. but dont tell me they wont spend anything on infrastructure. theyre just not meeting bidens plan which requires him to raise taxes :yeshrug:

or better yet, im just looking for someone to explain how biden does it without the republicans. im all for it :yeshrug:

What part of "They won't vote for it regardless" is so hard to understand? :mindblown:

It doesn't matter what anybody on FOX or CNN says, they're not voting for a Democratic bill.

So options for Dems are -

1. Wait until October and pass the bill through reconciliation (same as the stimulus)
2. End the filibuster and pass it (unlikely unless they can get Manchin onboard)
3. Fail to pass an infrastructure bill.


That's it :yeshrug: no great options but that's the reality of the situation

The amount of the bill literally makes no difference, that's just an excuse, it could be 500 million and Mitch still is going to tell Republicans not to vote for it.
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
72,322
Reputation
8,207
Daps
218,806
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
I have to admit, they are right. As is @AquaCityBoy. This is a pitiful amount for a country our size.

It's odd considering Manchin was floating $3T-$4T on infrastructure spending.

Dave Dayen had a good piece on it here..



The Chief
One theme of the early Biden administration is that the dragon of deficit hawkery has been slayed. No longer will Democrats combat on an unlevel playing field, constantly trimming their sails while Republicans have no problem with running up deficits. This is how we’ve led ourselves into an incredibly low tax burden and the lowest public investment in decades, based mostly on the priorities of the two parties and the willingness to execute them.

Now, the theory goes, the Democratic Party has learned and the leadership is implementing real and substantive policy and shrugging off the likes of Larry Summers and those who would hold back progress. It wasn’t lost on me that this was based entirely on one bill in an emergency. The American Rescue Plan is a significant achievement but it’s temporary, with most of its measures expiring within a year or two. There would be opportunities to extend them, but we’d have to see something more lasting to really judge if the neoliberal mindset had finally been shoved aside.

The promise of a large-scale infrastructure bill could settle the question. And the early chatter, about a bill with a broad conception of infrastructure, incorporating surface transportation like roads and bridges but also broadband, electrical grids, energy-efficient housing, and the care infrastructure that allows families to live and work, was incredibly energizing. The Biden administration was talking about $3 trillion in investment, and the party’s most right-leaning member, Joe Manchin, was talking about $4 trillion.

We now have the blueprint, it’s called the American Jobs Plan (AJP). And as welcome as it is to have any positive movement toward public investment, I have to be the stinker here and note that the Summers-led carping about inflation and higher interest rates and crowding out investment did have an impact in the final proposal, and that’s before Congress gets their hands on it.

This isn’t a supposition. “Some members of the economic team second-guessed themselves,” the Washington Post writes, “concerned that the plan could jeopardize the nation’s long-term financial stability. The officials worried that the large gap between spending and revenue would widen the deficit by such a large degree that it could risk triggering a spike in interest rates, which could in turn cause federal debt payments to skyrocket.” That shifted things from a $3 trillion bill with $1 trillion in revenue offsets to maybe a $4 trillion bill with up to $3 trillion in offsets.

Some of this is coming from Congress, and particularly moderates who might not mind the investment but want it paid for as much as possible. And the tax code has been so damaged over the past few decades that there’s no real shortage of revenue options that would not be distorting or disable growth but would begin to check the historic levels of inequality in the country. As Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) put it at a press call yesterday, infrastructure doesn’t need to be paid for, but if we want to make the tax code more fair in tandem, that’s fine.

So far, the tax fairness is solely on the corporate side. What being announced today is a rise in the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent and a global minimum tax for U.S. multinationals. (There’s some diplomacy here outside of the bill, being led by Janet Yellen, to get the world to agree on a global minimum.) Add to that the perennial “end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas (which we’ve been hearing since the Kerry campaign in 2004), the withdrawal of fossil fuel subsidies in the tax code, a minimum tax on the income corporations show to investors (limiting the tax giveaways that have wildly profitable companies pay no tax), and stronger IRS enforcement, and you have a bill that invests around $2.25 trillion over 8 years and yields that much revenue over 15, with deficit reduction thereafter.

We’re going to have much more on the investment elements in the coming weeks, and what’s being announced today involves just half of them. It hits the major challenges the administration wants to address: revitalizing manufacturing, rebuilding America, mitigating the climate crisis, and restoring the dignity of care work. But while it’s not being announced today, we now know that the child allowance that was part of the American Rescue Plan will probably not be made permanent in this package, and maybe only extended to 2025. A proposed $500 billion to green mass transit also went by the boards.

The care economy elements coming in the second round, presumably offset with individual tax changes, could be jettisoned, I fear. That’s made more acute by the incorporation of a couple of those elements in this package ($400 billion to modernize child care facilities and invest in care work for the elderly). Then if the second half goes up in smoke the administration can say that at least they got something they wanted for care infrastructure. But that trade-off would mean no paid and family medical leave, no expansion of childcare, and no extension of the two key social welfare elements of the ARP, the additional Affordable Care Act subsidies and the advance monthly child tax credit. (And no lowering of the Medicare eligibility age, which has emerged as a possibility of late.) Centrists have already called this aspect of the package a “liberal wish list.”

Those care investments, meanwhile, are job-enabling jobs, which could have more of a multiplier effect. There’s a big debate on the left about whether to emphasize restoring manufacturing and onshoring supply chains or prioritizing the care economy as the jobs of the future for an aging population. I’m worried about the idea that we have to choose. We need to better move people around the country, justifying doubling the federal investment in mass transit and modernizing roads and bridges and ports whose inefficiency costs us in pollution. As a public safety matter we need to remove all lead pipes from water systems, an amazing investment in this bill. We need everyone to have access to high-speed broadband to keep up in a 21st century economy. We need an electric grid better equipped for renewables, and capped orphan oil and gas wells, and an electrified federal vehicle fleet, and energy efficient buildings to preserve the planet. We need manufacturing jobs and secure supply chains because without it we risk resiliency and national security. And we need every family to get the care it needs, and for the workers supplying it to have some basic dignity.

We can’t afford to choose. And I’m concerned we’re being told that we must.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,466
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
618,057
Reppin
The Deep State
washingtonpost.com
Republicans have boxed themselves in on infrastructure. And Democrats know it.
Jennifer Rubin
4 minutes
White House press secretary Jen Psaki, at Thursday’s briefing, gave a preview of how the Biden administration will confront the predictable objections to its large infrastructure plan funded by corporate tax increases. Told that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had declared Republicans will fight the plan “every step of the way,” she cheerily responded that there was plenty Republicans and Democrats agree on. Everyone likes infrastructure!

“Where there is agreement with across the political spectrum from investment and infrastructure, doing more to be competitive with China, and what we’re really talking about here is how to pay for it,” Psaki said. “And so what we’re looking for is proposals of alternatives.” She then issued an implicit challenge: If Republicans don’t want to raise the corporate tax rate, what alternative would they offer? “We’re happy to hear those proposals,” she said.

In other words, the White House is fully aware that Republicans are in a box. Having declared themselves in favor of infrastructure for years, they either have to come up with a tax scheme that will fall far more heavily on ordinary taxpayers or give up their phony deficit mania (which does not apply to tax cuts, apparently). This puts Democrats in both the roles of being fiscal conservatives (pay as you go!) and defenders of working-class Americans. Republicans have the choice between embracing fiscal irresponsibility or giving up their laughable claim to be the party of working people.

Democrats are managing to avoid bashing businesses outright. Psaki pointed out that for 70 years or so, the corporate tax rate had been 35 percent until the last administration dropped it all the way to 21 percent (and loosened other rules allowing many big companies to avoid paying taxes altogether). President Biden’s proposal to push the rate up to only 28 percent is “incredibly reasonable,” she said. Later she reiterated that corporations that did not pay any taxes could “afford” to shoulder the burden of infrastructure investment.

Psaki was echoing the president’s comments on Wednesday, when he said, “In 2019, an independent analysis found that there are 91 … Fortune 500 companies, the biggest companies in the world, including Amazon that use various loopholes so they pay not a single, solitary penny in federal income tax. I don’t want to punish them, but that’s just wrong. That’s just wrong.” He added, “A fireman and a teacher paying 22%? Amazon and 90 other major corporations paying zero in federal taxes? I’m going to put an end to that.” (Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

This casts Republicans in the position of defending a mammoth tax “giveaway,” as Psaki dubbed the 2017 plan, at the expense of improving roads, delivering broadband, building new housing stock and other popular endeavors.

I do not expect Republicans will be shamed out of protecting corporate America’s huge windfall (even as they declare themselves the party of the little guy), nor do I expect them to support anything near the magnitude of Biden’s once-in-a-generation investment. But it seems that if it comes to it, the administration will be perfectly content to take the case to the voters and proceed without any Republican buy-in, just as it did on its covid-19 rescue plan. The question really is in the Republicans’ court: Do they want to run in 2022 on a platform of defending corporate greed and opposing infrastructure?

Read more:
 

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
45,706
Reputation
6,870
Daps
145,773
Reppin
CookoutGang
which is why i asked you to explain how biden passes 3 trillion without working with republicans

and just like i thought, you failed miserably :ehh:
No, you didn't ask that. You said dems need to settle at 1 trillion because that's what Republicans will support.

The reality is they can run another bill through reconciliation in October without Republican support and continue to push the correct narrative that Republicans have no interest in passing legislation that helps the American people.

Or they can tell Manchin to support abolishing the filibuster if he's interested in passing the infrastructure package he's been talking up to his constituents after Republicans fail to fall in line.

I enjoy that you attempted to move the goalposts so quickly or that a limp dikk falc00ns fan dapped it, but this is just another cac mambism that I won't be wasting my time going back and forth over since that's the only reason you actually post.

:umad:
 
Top