You call his bluff. He can't afford to be the Democrat who stops anybody from getting stimulus. He'd definitely be voted out for that. Yes, it is trivial. About as trivial as getting a voted ID I'd guess... About as trivial as requiring in person voting in many states. But those things aren't considered very democratic either.
Again, it worked really well for Trump on some pretty unpopular legislation. If it had been popular legislation early in his term which people would benefit from by end of his term, and he weren't a disgusting piece of trash he'd still be our president. It's not ignoring reality if we've seen it done without repercussions. Trump pushed that unpopular legislation through which benefited nobody but the rich and both the house and senate Republicans did better than expected on election day.
You keep focusing on the risks to Biden. That's not what I'm talking about. My entire post was about how Manchin isn't affected by progressive pressure. "Just pressure him" isn't a magic spell--you need leverage over someone in order to pressure them. With a very small progressive presence in West Virginia (the Democrats in West Virginia are much more conservative than the Democrats in Oregon, or New York or California, etc), there is no leverage to use against Manchin. There isn't a big, angry liberal base in West Virginia to turn against Manchin. There are conservative Democrats, there are conservative independents and there are Republicans. That's what makes a (deeply) red state a deeply red state. That is the reality you're ignoring. Manchin doesn't have the same pressures and incentives as most other Democrats, because he comes from a state that doesn't have many liberals. There is no way to pressure Manchin from the left--his big worries come from being too liberal for West Virginia.
I understand that. Then force him to vote that way. A large portion of those conservative democrats, independents, and republicans wanted those checks. By not forcing him to vote NO they are letting him off the hook.
First off, he did vote FOR the stimulus package, which included most of what Biden asked for. Didn't get the $15/hr minimum wage, fewer people got checks, but in the end he did vote for the package. How do you propose to force him to vote for things he doesn't want to? barfo
I didn't. I specifically said force him to vote no. Come to the table with the $2k promised and force him to vote no on it if he's opposed. Call his bluff. Unless you don't really want to give the people $2k, as I believe Biden and most democrats do not. After all, that's money which could be going to their donors.
I'm not sure where people got the idea that Biden was promising a $2k check - it was always intended to be $600 + $1400 = $2000. So I guess I've been misunderstanding you (again). But ok, yes, Biden could have forced Manchin to vote no on a $2k check (or, more to the actual point, the $15/hr minimum). But that wouldn't have been calling his bluff, because he wasn't bluffing. He would have voted no, as promised. So then what would Biden have gained, exactly? Exposing Manchin as not-really-very-progressive? That's already known. barfo
The first few paragraphs of the article: President Biden’s stimulus package, which passed the Senate on Saturday, represents one of the most generous expansions of aid to the poor in recent history, while also showering thousands or, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars on Americans families navigating the coronavirus pandemic. The roughly $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which only Democrats supported, spends most of the money on low-income and middle-class Americans and state and local governments, with very little funding going toward companies. The plan is one of the largest federal responses to a downturn Congress has enacted and economists estimate it will boost growth this year to the highest level in decades and reduce the number of Americans living in poverty by a third. This round of aid enjoys wide support across the country, polls show, and it is likely to be felt quickly by low- and moderate-income Americans who stand to receive not just larger checks than before, but money from expanded tax credits, particularly geared toward parents;enhanced unemployment; rental assistance; food aid and health insurance subsidies. As Joe would say, it's a big fucking deal. barfo
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackbr...2000-checks-will-go-out-the-door-immediately/ After $600 had already been passed, Joe was promising $2k checks would go out immediately. ""If you send Jon and the Reverend to Washington, those $2,000 checks will go out the door, restoring hope and decency and honor for so many people who are struggling right now," Biden said, making his closing argument for the Democrats at a campaign event in Atlanta on Monday." Not anything about "another $1400" , or "a total of $2000 when you combine the last package Trump just signed with the first package I will sign". The dude doesn't support good policy that helps the poor or Middle class. He never really has... Everything Biden does turns into a bloated mess. That said, he's a HUGE improvement over Trump. Again, if you force him to vote no it only hurts him, while showing you aren't full of hot air. But we all knew Biden was full of it. Again, I'm not surprised. This is what I expected. Just like he won't support single payer. He won't support net neutrality. He won't support forgiving student loan debt, he won't fix the immigration system. Or make meaningful progress on fighting climate change. He won't support anything that's actually good for the people unless he's absolutely forced to do it
Biden's big relief package a bet gov't can help cure America (msn.com)Here is Joe talking among common citizens at the Washington veterans center. You can tell he is working for us. What a relief from "former guy".
Personally, I think his Trumplican detractors cause the grind and suffering simply because they want to. We have got to give Joe credit for at least doing something for the people. Trump was and will always be about himself. He had people march the vaccine through while he bloated himself on junk food, high golf scores and, of course, self admiration.
Sharply cutting poverty, eh? Id like to see the stats on that one in a month. Stimulus is great, not dogging on Biden for that. Good on him. That WP headline is reaching for for the edge of the universe though. The richest man in the world running a political propaganda outlet and telling people in poverty that $1400 is “showering” them with money while “sharply cutting poverty” is kind of just audacious and insulting.
Oh FOR SURE! Biden is 1000% better than Trump. And that's likely an understatement. But he's still part of the same problem that gave us Trump. Imagine if Trump were not just a useful idiot for the right wing or Russia, or whatever. Imagine if he had a high IQ. The thought terrifies me.
I don't know, the meaning seemed obvious to me. Given that the congress had proposed $600, then Trump at the last minute said they should be $2k, then the Democrats jumped on board with $2k, then congress went ahead and passed the $600, it seemed clear that references to $2k a week or two later were references to the existing debate, not some brand new promise that just happened to be the same amount. And hurting him gets you what, exactly? Would you rather have a republican in that seat? So do you believe that the covid relief plan is not good for the people, or do you think he was absolutely forced to do it? barfo
I don't think Joe Manchin is interested in hurting himself. I think Biden was absolutely forced to do the covid-19 releif plan. We're in a pandemic. Not doing enough on covid-19 was the lynch pin that cost Trump the election. Biden is doing the minimum that the population will accept.
I don't think forcing Manchin to vote no on the bill hurts him. Because Democrats would then have to do the bill again without the $15 minimum wage (because they wouldn't just drop the bill entirely, that would be insane) and Manchin would vote yes on that. And that's all that would ultimately matter the next time he's up for re-election. If an opponent noted he voted no the first time, he'd simply say he voted no on a version of the bill that was a job- and business-killer and voted yes on the version he knew would come next that only benefited people without hurting business and jobs. That's politics in a red state. Doing a show vote to make him vote no followed by a real vote that he could vote yes on really doesn't affect his re-election prospects at all. Meanwhile, Democrats were up against a deadline to pass the bill (which I believe comes up next week) to renew extended unemployment benefits before they expired. Doing a useless (for the reason I gave above) show vote that endangered people's unemployment benefits (or, rather, caused a disruption in them) doesn't seem like a good choice.
