5099

Well, you are being very Myopic about it. You are refusing the whole picture. The full agreement in which the BBB and the Bipartisan Bill would both be passed. Not either/or. Not as a stop gap. As a full package deal.

If I agreed to half now, and half later for a service, and you decided not to pay the second half because you paid the first half, I would withhold whatever item or service you asked of me. That’s just common sense.

5100

Sure man, it’s cool. We aren’t going to see eye to eye on this, we don’t agree on fundamental aspects of the scenario description. At this point there’s no point in further discussion, and that’s ok.

5101

I don’t think it’s a problem with seeing eye to eye. For some reason, you see these as two distinct bills, which is incorrect. They were always described as a set. Like getting married, you get a spouse, but you also get the inlaws. But I understand your point of view. Just like I understand the point of view of Flat Earthers.

But understanding a point of view doesn’t make it correct.

I know that in your world, with what you want, it would be better for them to be separate, but that would be disingenuous to all the negotiations that have been going on.

Either way, Manchin only gets what he wants when he agrees to pay the second half, the BBB. If that doesn’t come through, then it’s goodbye Grand Bargain.

5102

Ah, you almost got me to keep going, but again, it’s pointless right? So whatever man, it’s cool.

5103

Not at all. I’m open to being swayed. You just haven’t provided me with much to go on that hasn’t be analyzed.

5104

I just wanted to say this gave me a chuckle.

5105

I’m no fan of accelerationism myself, but at some point you have to send a message. If not now, when?

Your answer will be never, just take the scraps you’ve been given the past 40 years, and let things keep breaking. I put a lot of the blame on our current situation on the never-Trumpers who were just fine with everything until it got a little too fashy for their comfort.

5106

This could all be avoided if Manchin would just fall in line.

5107

Ok, I honestly don’t think that there is any way for us to come together on this, but just for the sake of politeness I’ll point out where you’re saying stuff that does not compute in my brain, and why.

Here you say:

To which I would reply, no, it’s obviously not incorrect.
Describing them as two separate bills in in fact just an accurate description of reality. Because they are, in a very literal, concrete sense, two separate bills.

Indeed, if they weren’t, then why separate them at all?

You suggest that the reason was

This explanation is nonsensical.
How does it “appease” the GOP? The GOP majority didn’t vote for it. In the house, it will likely get ZERO votes from the GOP. Your description of it as “the GOP bill” simply does not make any sense to me. It’s a Democratic bill, that actually had some minor amount of GOP support that allowed it to pass in a bipartisan fashion in the senate.

Then, beyond the fact that it doesn’t “appease the GOP” in any way that could be understood rationally, we are left with the question of… why would “appeasing the GOP” even be a motivating factor? I mean, it’s not, right? Saying it was created to appease the GOP doubly fails to make sense… first, because it in no way achieves such a goal, but second because no one actually has that goal.

You then go on to say this:

Then why didn’t they? With your perspective that they are in fact both the same bill, and have to be passed together… then why separate them at all? I understand that some of you had this idea in your head, but it’s never made any actual sense.

I mean, I can actually provide a coherent explanation for why they were separated. They were separated because the BIP bill could be passed without using reconciliation, and it could be passed super fast. All the stuff in the larger bill would take much longer negotiations. So the idea was that they were going to pass the BIP fast, and then go forward with the negotiations and planning required to create the larger reconciliation bill.

That explanation actually makes sense… the idea that you would arbitrarily separate part of it off, to “appease” the GOP (who would then entirely refuse to support it anyway), but then inextricably link it to the bill you separated it from, doesn’t make any logical sense.

Then you say this:

But this isn’t actually what has happened. It’s not an accurate description of reality.
Pelosi actually planned on bringing it to the floor now, TWICE, on its own. The only reason she didn’t was because the progressive caucus threatened to not vote for it, which would have caused the vote to fail. Your description of events doesn’t match my actual observations.

You are then regarding this as, inexplicably to me, a bad bill now… despite the fact that you support 100% of what is in it. That’s correct, right? You actually support every single thing in that bill?

See, so there’s just stuff here that totally fails to make sense to me. The way you are perceiving the world doesn’t fit together in my brain, and I think that’s going to preclude us really ever understanding each other on this topic.

5108

They were created with the intention that both would be passed together.

It allowed some of the more moderate GOP to seem in favor of bypartisan effort, scoring them easy brownie points but not having to vote for something that people were in favor of.

They did it to appease Manchin’s whole Bypartisan act where he could be independent.

She can bring to the flow whenever she wants, but that would against the original agreement, that the two bills would be voted on together.
Because agreements are built on trust, and so far, Manchin has shown that he is untrustworthy.

5109

This doesn’t make sense, Lego.
Why would the Democrats even want this? How does it benefit them to allow the more moderate GOP members to seem in favor of a bipartisan effort?

It doesn’t. Your explanation of this is obviously wrong. It doesn’t make any sense.

The explanation for separating the bills is the one I gave… because that one actually makes sense.

This was never an agreement. That’s why she’s scheduled the vote twice now.

5110

Because they got to seem like they are bipartisan as well, knowing fully that they’ll get what they want in the BBB.

And dropped it both times, when the Senate failed to live up to their side of the bargain.

And that is where we stand. The House won’t vote on it until Manchin comes to the table. And then no one gets what they want.

And Manchin won’t come to the terrible unless he believes that the Progressives are willing to kill the hostage.

And as Game Theory teaches us… eventually, you need to kill the hostage.

Anyway, I think I’ve answered all your points, and then some.

So, I’m off to do some work.

5111

But you already blew that, dude.

That only works if you pass the bipartisan part.

If you say, “Oh, we’ll pass this bipartisan piece… but we are going to inextricably link it to this part that is explicitly not bipartisan,” then you no longer have any claim to bipartisanship.

Like I said man, your description of this stuff doesn’t make any sense. Or rather, it doesn’t make any sense to me.

No man, it failed to pass because the Progressives refused to vote for it. Full stop.

Your suggestion here is, obviously incorrect. When Pelosi scheduled these votes, there was ZERO chance that the Senate would have passed a version of the larger bill by the time they held the vote in the house. And I mean that in a very literal sense. When the votes were scheduled, there was no possible way that the Senate could have passed anything by the time of the scheduled house votes. That literally could not have happened. When she set the date for the votes, she knew at the time she set the schedule that there was no possible way for the Senate to have passed the BBB. So the idea that she was expecting it to happen, when she scheduled those votes, is obviously wrong.

She stated, explicitly, that they did not expect the Senate to have voted for anything. Hell, two days ago, when Jaiapal said that a framework for the BBB wasn’t good enough, Pelosi said that it WAS good enough, and she scheduled the vote.

Pelosi’s intent, very clearly, was to vote on the BIP on its own, and then vote on the BBB later.

I mean, that’s what actually happened. Your perspective doesn’t match reality.

5112

See, again, with the oddly limited point of view that ignores all the important information because it doesn’t agree with your position.

The two were tied together from the very start. Just throwing up a text of words doesn’t make it not true. Manchin agreed to a 2 tier agreement, and now he is backing out of it. The Progressives are making sure the full agreement goes through.

5113

On May 27, Republican senator Shelley Moore Capito presented a $928 billion plan,[14][c][d] and on June 4, increased it by about $50 billion; this was quickly rejected by the Biden administration.[15] On June 8, the administration shifted its focus to a bipartisan group of 20 senators, which had been working on a package tentatively priced around $900 billion.[16][e] On June 10, a bipartisan group of 10 senators reached a deal costing $974 billion over five years;[18][f] on June 16 it was endorsed by a bipartisan group of 21 senators.[19][g] On June 24, the bipartisan group met with the president and reached a compromise deal costing $1.2 trillion over eight years, which focuses on physical infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, railways, water, sewage, broadband, and electric vehicles).[h][i] Biden stipulated that a separate “human infrastructure” bill (e.g. child care, home care, and climate change) must also pass, whether through bipartisanship or reconciliation,[22][j] but later walked back this position.[27][k]

As you can see, the original idea was that the two bills must both be passed, but the Biden chickened out. But the Progressives are holding Manchin to the original deal.

Nine moderate Democrats have called for an immediate House vote, citing a desire to not lose the momentum from the Senate passage of the bill. They have committed to voting against taking up the reconciliation resolution until there is a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill.[44][45] While both Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have reversed earlier positions to support passing the bipartisan bill separately,[27][46] progressives including Congressional Progressive Caucus chairwoman Pramila Jayapal and democratic socialist senator Bernie Sanders maintained that it be utilized as leverage to pass the most expensive reconciliation bill possible.[47][48][49] The lack of a deal caused a late September House vote to be postponed.[49] On October 2, Pelosi set a new deadline of October 31.[50] By October 28, Jayapal and other progressive leaders indicated that they were willing to vote on the bill separately,[51] but Sanders and others opposed this.[[52]]
(Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act - Wikipedia)[53]

Again, Pelosi and Biden trying to walk back the original understanding, that both bills must pass together.

It’s like your boss offering to pay you extra, and then saying, “Naah, never mind”. Of course, you can disagree about the original agreement, but that doesn’t mean it never existed. It just means your boss is a shifty piece of shit.

5114

Again, this doesn’t make logical sense, for the reasons already described.

But it was never suggested that it had to pass simultaneously.

Again, if that were actually the case, then there would have been no reason to separate them. The entire point of running it as two bills is that you could pass them sequentially.

Your perspective on things doesn’t make sense to me, because the rationales you provide for actions that took place aren’t coherent. You’re suggesting things like, “They did this to allow the moderate GOP members to appear bipartisan,” but such statements are nonsensical on their face… you’re suggesting that they broke this part off, because they wanted to… help the moderate GOP members electorally? That’s crazy man. It makes zero sense.

5115
5116

How else can you make sure both pass? This isn’t Preschool play time, this is politics in the most powerful nation of the World, and like in game theory, you trust the other side, until they have shown that they can’t be trusted.

That’s just math.

5117

Because they already passed the one that needed GOP support, and the other one was going to be passed with only support from their own party… so they had control over it.

Please stop saying this, on the basis of a badly written article.
The attempt to apply the prisoner’s dilema was flawed, as I already explained. You can’t just keep saying, “Game theory says this.”

No man, it doesn’t.

5118

Except, past history has shown that the conservatives of the Democratic Party, can’t be trusted. They have shown it time and time again.

So, you are stuck with the current situation.