The Biden Presidency is underway.

[SadleyBradley]

Yep. Manchin and Sinema could turn this around today if they wanted.

[Gordon_Cameron]

@Timex

getting things done

I laugh that I may not weep

And I guess the whole ‘plotted a coup in January’ thing is water under the bridge.

[lordkosc]

Oh noes.

Psaki tests positive for Covid, last saw Biden Tuesday

[Gordon_Cameron]

Aww man. Hope she catches a mild case.

[Houngan]

Pretty strong assumption she’s vaccinated, Biden is definitely vaccinated with a booster, and let’s face it, as folks in their 70s go, he’s pretty healthy. Plus obviously the best possible healthcare imaginable if it does take a bad turn. Dems should wait for her to get better and crow to the roof, “Of course she didn’t have a problem with it, she did the right things!”

[RichVR]

Good point. But lost on the crazies, of course.

[John_Reynolds]

For the country that mourned Nixon’s death? Yep.

[Aceris]

@Timex

But this isn’t actually what has happened. It’s not an accurate description of reality.

Yeah, I would love to see a link to an actual quote on this. Have the BBB and the BIF ever been explcitly linked except in the sense they are two separate legislative wrappers for parts of the Dem agenda, one of which can’t be passed through reconciliation but has some GOP senate support, and one of which has no GOP support and will be made reconcilation-compliant.

@legowarrior

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.

Nothing in what you linked says there was a “deal”. Biden wanted both bills, and at one point said he would only sign them if he got both. That’s all. That’s not a “deal”.

@Timex

The attempt to apply the prisoner’s dilema was flawed, as I already explained. You can’t just keep saying, “Game theory says this.”

I dont know what’s going on with Sinema, but Manchin cares about standing up to the “far left” almost as much as he cares about standing up to the bad elements of the GOP (which most of us, but not him, recognise as basically the entire party). So the game theory doesnt work out how they think it does.

@KevinC

I think I mostly became familiar with it when I was trying to understand Brexit and how it had support among the far left and right.

Interesting, because the far left and far right in the UK have consistently opposed the EU since forever - I don’t think accelerationism was involved outside of the fever dreams of projecting US commentators.

[legowarrior]

@Aceris

Nothing in what you linked says there was a “deal”. Biden wanted both bills, and at one point said he would only sign them if he got both. That’s all. That’s not a “deal”.

When two parties can’t trust each other, they must enact both sides at the same time. You don’t release the money until you see the hostages, and you don’t see the hostage until you release the money.

Or replace it with whatever other analogy you would like in negotiations that have no way of guaranteeing that the other side won’t reneg on the agreement, as conservatives almost always do.

You just can’t trust a conservative. It’s all about power and keeping the status quo so that they can remain in power.

So, of course both bill needs to be passed as close together.

As for game theory, considering that both sides can 100% sink the deal, it applicable.

[Aceris]

@legowarrior

@Aceris

Nothing in what you linked says there was a “deal”. Biden wanted both bills, and at one point said he would only sign them if he got both. That’s all. That’s not a “deal”.

When two parties can’t trust each other, they must enact both sides at the same time. You don’t release the money until you see the hostages, and you don’t see the hostage until you release the money.

Or replace it with whatever other analogy you would like in negotiations that have no way of guaranteeing that the other side won’t reneg on the agreement, as conservatives almost always do.

What agreement? There’s an implicit “Manchin and Sinema will help pass BBB through reconciliation once content is agreed” in what’s been said, I’m not aware of anything beyond that.

[legowarrior]

@Aceris

What agreement?

This has been asked and answered. It’s linked in the wiki page and I quoted it.

I am not going to answer it again if you didn’t read it the first time, after quoting me from that same time period.

[scottagibson]

@Aceris

Have the BBB and the BIF ever been explcitly linked except in the sense they are two separate legislative wrappers for parts of the Dem agenda, one of which can’t be passed through reconciliation but has some GOP senate support, and one of which has no GOP support and will be made reconcilation-compliant.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi similarly stated that the House would not vote on the physical infrastructure bill until the larger bill passes in the Senate,[24] despite the fact that reconciliation overrides much of the obstructive power of the filibuster.[24][25]

I think if progressives in the House were told the reconciliation bill would pass the Senate before they had to vote on the bipartisan bill, they can be forgiven for thinking that that’s the deal.

[Aceris]

In the context me asking “what agreement” afteryou saying “when two parties can’t trust each other”, where the second party is either the senate collectively, or Manchin + Sinema, you said:

@legowarrior

This has been asked and answered. It’s linked in the wiki page and I quoted it.

I am not going to answer it again if you didn’t read it the first time, after quoting me from that same time period.

I stuggled writing this post, and deleted most of what I put. The tldr is - you are a bad faith piece of shit and I should know better than to engage with your bullshit. Here’s the article you referenced:

'We have a deal': Biden reaches $1.2 trillion infrastructure compromise with...

Here’s what it says about Manchin:

He wouldn’t commit to supporting the reconciliation package but said he’s committed to “working on it.”

There was no agreement.

[Aceris]

@scottagibson

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi similarly stated that the House would not vote on the physical infrastructure bill until the larger bill passes in the Senate,[24] despite the fact that reconciliation overrides much of the obstructive power of the filibuster.[24] [25]

I think if progressives in the House were told the reconciliation bill would pass the Senate before they had to vote on the bipartisan bill, they can be forgiven for thinking that that’s the deal.

Now this I think is fair - it explicitly calls out that Pelosi was reassuring progressives, and it seems she’s decided to go back on that (as has Biden with his similar statement). But I don’t think there’s any agreement with the senate or senators that things will happen in this order.

Therefore it is not fair to attack progressives too much for refusing to pass BIF. They were told it would only be passed if BBB could also be agreed. They can legitimately argue that as far as they’re concerned this is all one bill and should pass or not as one, and point at Biden and Pelosi’s statements. Even if opposing BIF in the reality makes little political sense (which seems to be the Biden/Pelosi view) I think it’s very defensible for progressives to object that Biden/Pelosi aren’t “fighting” for BBB. (Personally I think it’s dumb, but I see where they’re coming from especially given Biden/Pelosi tried the same strategy at first).

I don’t think it’s fair to claim the senate (and Manchin/Sinema specifically) are “pulling the ball away” on BBB. There’s an implicit promise from Manchin/Sinema that they’d support the use of reconciliation for BBB, but it’s very clear there was no agreement on the content of that bill when Biden and Pelosi made those statements (Indeed it’s very clear from the article @legowarrior linked to the link for that there was not).

I mean, the fact Manchin/Sinema won’t pass basic social democratic measures should be enough without getting into all the bullshit. (Although the senator for West Virginia is kind of a special case ofc)

[legowarrior]

@Aceris

I stuggled writing this post, and deleted most of what I put. The tldr is - you are a bad faith piece of shit and I should know better than to engage with your bullshit. Here’s the article you referenced

@legowarrior

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act - Wikipedia

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.

This entire post was about the very thing you talked about. The entire thing laid out for you.

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]

They walked back their entire agreement or tried to.

[scottagibson]

@Aceris

Now this I think is fair - it explicitly calls out that Pelosi was reassuring progressives, and it seems she’s decided to go back on that (as has Biden with his similar statement). But I don’t think there’s any agreement with the senate or senators that things will happen in this order.

I’d go further. It’s likely that progressives believed there was some reason for those assurances from Biden and Pelosi, like a tacit agreement from Manchin and Sinema that there would be some acceptable minimal BBB package they would support; and that progressives believed Biden and Pelosi would hold those two to it.

[legowarrior]

@scottagibson

I’d go further. It’s likely that progressives believed there was some reason for those assurances from Biden and Pelosi, like a tacit agreement from Manchin and Sinema that there would be some acceptable minimal BBB package they would support; and that progressives believed Biden and Pelosi would hold those two to it.

It’s like people forget that it’s a Bicameral system, and the House also gets to have a vote (or not vote),

[scottagibson]

@legowarrior

It’s like people forget that it’s a Bicameral system, and the House also gets to have a vote.

I mean, it’s fair to say that neither Biden nor Pelosi can commit Manchin or Sinema, and that neither of the latter made public statements committing to simultaneous or conditional passage of both bills.

[legowarrior]

@scottagibson

I mean, it’s fair to say that neither Biden nor Pelosi can commit Manchin or Sinema, and that neither of the latter made public statements committing to simultaneous or conditional passage of both bills.

It is also fair to say that the Progressives in the House wouldn’t support the compromise without having the reconciliation bill passed in the Senate either, and having both Bills sent to the House before voting on either.

[scottagibson]

@legowarrior

It is also fair to say that the Progressives in the House wouldn’t support the compromise without having the reconciliation bill passed in the Senate either, and having both Bills sent to the House before voting on either.

Sure, but they can’t reasonably complain that they had Manchin’s agreement on that deal. They didn’t.

This is a narrow point that doesn’t change much, and you should grant it and move on.