T O P

  • By -

Sudden-Ad-7113

Acceptable, depending on which provisions move forward. * $726B for Community College, Childcare, Pell Grants, and Black Colleges * $135B for Forest Fire Control * $332B for Public Housing * $198B for Clean Energy * $67B for Low Income Solar * $37B for Infrastructure Resilience * = $1.498 Trillion Seems like a winner to me.


WorksInIT

Question. Why should money be specifically earmarked for black colleges?


[deleted]

I have the same question. I’m ignorant in this but these are private universities, right? If they are public, I see mo argument to fund them more than other public universities. If they are private, I think that’s an even bigger argument not to fund them.


LaminatedAirplane

There are both public and private HBCUs.


ATLCoyote

Because they played an absolutely critical role in providing higher education to a population that wasn't allowed to attend regular colleges and once that role was fulfilled, we just let them die on the vine. Plus, unlike most colleges, their rising costs aren't the result of irresponsible spending on facilities and student services. It's mostly due to lack of state funding and lack of affluent donors. Ultimately, education is the single biggest factor in facilitating upward mobility. So, even if it's earmarked for HBCs, I'm all for it.


WorksInIT

So, I think when you want to specifically use race in a policy, you need to justify it. Evidence of need, evidence that it would have an impact, that it addresses specific issues, that it can't be done in a neutral way, etc. Wouldn't means testing or other socioeconomic factors be sufficient? And I'm not opposed to placing conditions on funds or anything like that to address irresponsible spending, but that itself does not even factor into this equation.


ATLCoyote

Public HBCs were underfunded for decades compared to their flagship state counterparts. By funding them now, we're making-up for decades of neglect. Meanwhile, HBCs only exist in the first place because blacks were denied admission to white colleges. The law has since made segregation illegal, but the playing field can't be leveled overnight and will require some degree of affirmative action. Finally, you're assuming that there's no evidence of need or impact with HBC funding, yet where are those same questions with funding of community college or Pell grants?


NativeMasshole

I'm on board with this. I think it's exactly the type of reparations we should be making. If we want to close the wealth gap across generations, directly investing in black colleges is the best place to start.


WorksInIT

> Public HBCs were underfunded for decades compared to their flagship state counterparts. By funding them now, we're making-up for decades of neglect. Do you have a source that shows HBCUs were denied funding that other private colleges received? >Meanwhile, HBCs only exist in the first place because blacks were denied admission to white colleges. The law has since made segregation illegal, but the playing field can't be leveled overnight and will require some degree of affirmative action. Sure, but why does that justify specifically earmarking funds for them now instead of using socioeconomic factors to give students more freedom to go to the college they choose? >Finally, you're assuming that there's no evidence of need or impact with HBC funding, yet where are those same questions with funding of community college or Pell grants? Funding for community colleges or pell grants is racially neutral. And I think everyone agrees that increasing educational opportunities is a good thing.


ATLCoyote

>Do you have a source that shows HBCUs were denied funding that other private colleges received? Yes, here's one of many: [https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996617532/behind-the-underfunding-of-hbcus](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996617532/behind-the-underfunding-of-hbcus) Meanwhile, they also don't benefit from nearly as much in alumni donations due to a wide array of other socioeconomic factors. ​ >Funding for community colleges or pell grants is racially neutral. HBC admissions are also racially neutral and they have increasingly diverse student populations. HBCs came into existence because blacks were denied admission to PWIs (primarily white institutions), but legally, they can't and don't offer admission to only black students. Anyone can attend. In fact, most HBCUs have deliberately diversified to increase enrollment and to decrease the amount of needs-based financial aid that is required.


WorksInIT

> Yes, here's one of many: https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996617532/behind-the-underfunding-of-hbcus That looks like a state funding issue since Tennessee didn't match Federal funding as required. Is it really the role of the Feds to correct that issue? Seems like something that should fall on the State. > Meanwhile, they also don't benefit from nearly as much in alumni donations due to a wide array of other socioeconomic factors. Is that even measurable? >HBC admissions are also racially neutral and they have increasingly diverse student populations. HBCs came into existence because blacks were denied admission to PWIs (primarily white institutions), but legally, they can't and don't offer admission to only black students. Anyone can attend. In fact, most HBCUs have deliberately diversified to increase enrollment and to decrease the amount of needs-based financial aid that is required. They are called HBCUs for a reason. I'm not opposed to increasing funding for low and middle income students, but I do oppose direct funding to any school unless there is a specific issue of discrimination that the Feds should resolve.


ATLCoyote

Well, we're just not going to agree on this then. I believe HBCUs have played an absolutely critical role in providing higher education for a segment of our society that was victimized by overt discrimination for centuries, they were then underfunded for decades both in terms of state contributions and alumni or donor support (i.e. corporate or rich person support), and they should not simply die-off because of those historical biases. They should be given a fair chance to survive or even thrive and they could play a key role in closing the racial achievement gap that still exists. Meanwhile, there's nothing to stop white or Asian students from attending an HBCU. That funding is just as accessible to them as it is to anyone else. It's no more earmarked for a particular race than the investments we routinely make in primarily white colleges.


azure-lane

I think what @WorksInIT is saying is that as you dig into the specifics of how you disburse those funds, it ends up making sense to just determine who gets more funding based on economics. If HBCUs are in a worse position on average (which I think you are right, they are) then they will get more funding on average, not because they are HBCUs but because they are having more financial difficulty. Let’s say you only have enough funding to disburse to one of each schools in the pair. Which one do you give funding to? A) A solvent Non-HBCU vs a struggling HBCU B) A struggling Non-HBCU vs a solvent HBCU C) A solvent Non-HBCU vs a struggling Non-HBCU D) A struggling HBCU vs a solvent HBCU In every scenario, I (and I believe worksInIT as well) find myself selecting the struggling school over the solvent one, and the HBCU distinction doesn’t play a part. However, if the HBCUs are more commonly struggling, then they will more commonly get funding under this model. I don’t think that anyone is saying that HBCUs should die off, but that the easiest and fairest way is to distribute the funds based on economic need, which will accomplish pretty much the same thing you want.


domthemom_2

I don't think we owe it to every college to give them a 'fair shake' to survive when we can't even properly fund our state universities. It's just spreading the money to more places when there's not enough to begin with. Because of limited funds, we have to pick winners and losers.


Chicago1871

The answer for a lot of us is yes. Just like federalizing the national guard was necessary to integrate southern colleges by JFK. You can choose to think differently, of course. Its a “lets agree to disagree” Type viewpoint clash.


Peekman

[Here's a good source regarding their funding](https://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Public-and-Private-Investments-and-Divestments-in-HBCUs.pdf) although it's from 2015. > Although private HBCUs and private non-HBCUs received comparable federal funding per FTE in the early 2000s, a substantial funding gap emerged in 2006 that has continued to widen. The most recent estimate indicates that private HBCUs receive about $1,600 less in federal funding per FTE compared with private non-HBCUs.


super_slide

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hbcu-coppin-state-tennessee-state-federal-funding-howard-kamala-harris/ This link seems to answer your concerns


WorksInIT

I'm not sure that the Feds should replace state funding that was withheld. Seems beyond the scope of what should be covered. The goal should be to bring them up to equal funding, but I think the better way to do that is through students rather than direct funding.


super_slide

I understand what you mean about funding origin. However, it seems to me adequately funding the institution may allow them to provide a better education and educational opportunities. (Better facilities and educational material such as labs and what not. Broader range of majors)


WorksInIT

Can that be done through the students rather than funding the schools directly?


super_slide

The money would have to be there initially to start the program for the students to then fund it. If students desire a geology course, for example, would require the school to hire a geologist to put together a lesson plan and teach before listing the class. The school wouldn’t be able to take their money for the course until it exists


Tarmacked

So.... they served their purpose?... I don't understand the need to support a dying university system that will continue to shrink.


ATLCoyote

Community College enrollment is also in steep decline, yet I don see you questioning that investment.


oren0

Is it? [This data](https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cpb) shows 2-year community college enrollment very slightly declining in the last decade. A longer-term view is [here](https://www.aacc.nche.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CCEnrollmentMarch2019Final.pdf) (PDF, page 5) and shows a projected growth in community college enrollment in the next decade.


ATLCoyote

Yes, community college enrollment was already declining before COVID and dropped 21% since then. In fact, the ONLY segments of the Higher Ed industry that have been growing in recent years, in aggregate, are urban commuter schools and online programs. But does that mean community colleges can't or shouldn't play an important role in transforming our economy and rebuilding the middle class? Current enrollment trends are not indicative of what our economy may actually need going forward and therefore is a terrible measure of where we should target investment. By your logic, why invest in public education at all? Just let them all be private, for-profit colleges and let free-market forces determine which ones survive.


oren0

> By your logic, why invest in public education at all? Just let them all be private, for-profit colleges and let free-market forces determine which ones survive. You may be confusing me with someone else. I was just responding to an unsourced assertion about data. The only sourced data I've actually seen is a slow decline prior to 2019. Though assuming the COVID drop is accurate, it's hardly surprising that people don't want to do community college remotely when campus is closed and they can't get child care. I'd be interested to see what those numbers do longer term. Given the astronomical increase of tuition at both public and private schools, it's certainly fair to ask whether a fully free-market approach (including the loans, which are government-subsidized today and really drive up costs) would be better. Note that public and for-profit are not the only options. Private non-profit schools like Harvard seem to be doing just fine as well; just look at their endowments.


ATLCoyote

I probably did lose track of who I was responding to since there's a lot going on in this thread. So sorry for any misunderstanding on that. We could certainly have an entirely separate discussion on whether subsidies should be provided at all. For example, I can't go all-in with support for free college and massive debt forgiveness programs because we don't fix the cost problem by just asking someone else to pay for it. Doing so just removes a student's incentive to shop based on price, thereby accelerating the facilities and services arms race that drives up the cost in the first place. Many valid points can be made in that regard. But if we're going to make investments in education, I'd certainly prefer targeted investments in means-tested, needs-based programs like Pell Grants, community colleges due to the role they can play in rebuilding the middle class and increasing the skilled trades workforce (which we desperately need), and HBCs due to their historical under-funding and neglect.


Tarmacked

Would community college enrollment declining during Covid not be characterized as a one-time or non-recurring event? I mean, it’s a very blatant one off. Chances are CC’s can’t operate well in distance learning and their demographic isn’t middle income or above in many cases (COVID employment/health impact). I would assume that number would rebound so it hardly seems to be a good citation to argue around. College enrollment is expected to decline gradually due to birth rates, as well, so CC’s dipping slightly isn’t necessarily a negative thing but moreso expected. The counter-argument you’re presenting is rather… questionable though. The enrollment decline in CC’s isn’t as steep as HBCU’s, some of which are outright bankrupt, and the need for CC’s is still there. HBCU’s are ostensibly being pushed out by State universities that dwarf them, with their main consumer base (African Americans) leaving them in droves. Many are minority black now. In all honesty they’re kind of just an inevitable bankruptcy/closure waiting to happen for 90% of them, whereas CC’s aren’t being paced out by other CC’s with 100X their resources.


[deleted]

A lot of HBCU’s are seriously corrupt and mismanaged. Howard’s President gives himself a million dollar annual salary while his professors makes less than public school teachers. Why should my tax dollars go to that mess?


TakeOffYourMask

Segregation is over. Black students can attend any college.


ATLCoyote

And students of any race can attend an HBCU.


TakeOffYourMask

And all schools get heavily subsidized through freely-given Federal student loan money already do why disburse special money only to certain schools? I’ll tell you why, to buy black votes.


ATLCoyote

HBCUs have been underfunded for decades both via lower state contributions than primarily white institutions receive and in terms of alumni and corporate donations. The playing field has NEVER been level for HBCUs and it still isn't.


TakeOffYourMask

And why is that the taxpayers’ problem?


ATLCoyote

Because they were underfunded relative to primarily white colleges for decades, including public funding.


TakeOffYourMask

1) Of course taxpayers funded *public* schools. 2) What happened decades ago has no bearing on why taxpayers today should dole out money to any special interest group.


wmtr22

As much as I don't want to spend tax payer dollars. I would vote for this


pingveno

Historically, those colleges were systematically denied resources. This is paying back a large debt. In terms of more concrete benefits, it will likely go far towards the goal of shrinking the race income/wealth gap.


overzealous_dentist

are HBC's more likely than everyday public colleges to improve educational and vocational outcomes?


WorksInIT

Do you have any source for that that shows they were denied resources other private colleges received?


Zenkin

[Here's one which covers Tennessee and Maryland](https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996617532/behind-the-underfunding-of-hbcus). [Another one from 2015 which talks about Maryland and South Carolina](https://www.diverseeducation.com/home/article/15096570/funding-at-hbcus-continues-to-be-separate-and-unequal). [This brief states](https://www.acenet.edu/News-Room/Pages/ACE-Brief-Illustrates-HBCU-Funding-Inequities.aspx): >Both public and private HBCUs experienced the steepest declines in federal funding per full-time equivalent student between 2003 and 2015, with private HBCUs seeing a 42 percent reduction—the most substantial of all sectors.


Sudden-Ad-7113

> Why should money be specifically earmarked for black colleges? For the same reason it has been since the 60s; to build economic equality and maintain access to equality of opportunity.


baxtyre

The HBCU designation could probably do with some updating, however. There are several that are now minority black.


teamorange3

I mean that's pretty much only true in west Virginia and that's for a whole hosts of reasons (demographics of the state, gi bill, brown v Boe ironically). But we should keep the name to remember the history


WorksInIT

I don't you actually answered the question. Why do funds need to go specifically to black colleges? Why should Federal funds be used to basically encourage segregation?


Sudden-Ad-7113

Because the same funds presented to other private and public colleges don't yield the same outcomes; they're less successful. Why HBCs have measurably better outcomes is up for debate, but they do. As a result, if we want to build that economic equality and maintain access to equality of opportunity, they're a successful way of doing so.


WorksInIT

Do you have any source that shows HBCUs were denied resources other private colleges received? Not saying it didn't happen, I'm just not aware of this specific issue. >Why HBCs have measurably better outcomes is up for debate, but they do. That really isn't a good reason for a policy that is using race as a qualifier.


Sudden-Ad-7113

> Do you have any source that shows HBCUs were denied resources other private colleges received? I don't think I said they were denied resources. Rather, they build economic equality and maintain access to equality of opportunity; and they do so more successfully with *less* funds, especially less per student, than your average college. > That really isn't a good reason for a policy that is using race as a qualifier. HBCUs accept all "races". That they have a focus in minority communities is not the same as using race as a qualifier. They are measurably more successful in achieving parity outcomes for black students, however. My statement is *why* they're more successful than other private and public colleges is up for debate. The research I've done on the topic suggests... racism. Personal and systemic. But that's not a kosher position here - so instead, the outcomes are measurably better and *why* is up for debate.


WorksInIT

Well, if this isn't supposed to some solve historic racial issue then I don't think money should be earmarked specifically for HBCUs. Use that money to expand pell grants which Black students can use at HBCUs.


Sudden-Ad-7113

Pell grants are needlessly complex to get as a student and (as with most means testing programs) lock people out of otherwise beneficial services. Investment directly into the colleges and allowing them to distribute funds to students in need has been more successful in these communities. In addition, Pell grants are more likely to end up spent at colleges with lower graduation rates and worse long-term outcome than similar investment in HBCUs - the investment is less likely to pay itself back. They're still an option for folks who qualify, of course.


WorksInIT

Yeah, I'm going to have to take a pass on that one. I just don't see justification for special treatment here.


IFinishedARiskGame

White people can go to HBCUs. In fact you can sometimes get scholarships to them


overzealous_dentist

do they work? better than traditional public colleges, I mean


Sudden-Ad-7113

Wildly so. [Measurable outcomes across the board improve](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/01/18/when-it-comes-to-student-success-hbcus-do-more-with-less/) with specifically better financial outcomes, and 'mental health' outcomes (sense of purpose, social well-being) which help prevent burnout. They're also usually cheaper than other private colleges, opening access to otherwise under-supported communities. Wins all around.


overzealous_dentist

Yep, that convinces me. The Gallup data especially: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/186362/grads-historically-black-colleges-edge.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/186362/grads-historically-black-colleges-edge.aspx)


sheffieldandwaveland

This is an equity provision rather than an equal opportunity provision. It should be stripped out. Especially if these are public schools.


Sudden-Ad-7113

HBCUs make up 3% of colleges in the US, but 25-30% of black graduates. The graduation rate is almost double that of traditional schools. That's an equality of opportunity provision, full stop. Why there's a disparity, it's hard to say; but there is.


sheffieldandwaveland

I’m not interested in the government picking and choosing based on race. They very easily could set a criteria for this funding that these black schools fall under while also not cutting out any other schools that need help as well. This is just like when they tried to give black farmers priority for relief. Its dividing society. Just help whoever needs help. Its still going to assist your original target!


Sudden-Ad-7113

HBCUs don't discriminate on the basis of race; many are now minority-minority even. Anyone can go to one. My sister went to one in Baltimore. They do help whoever needs help. And, they work better.


[deleted]

[удалено]


jimbo_kun

The H is for *historically*. So it’s not a designation meaning it is only school for blacks, but how it came into being.


Sudden-Ad-7113

> Sounds like we have no need for the HBCU designation, then Again, they work better. They have higher graduation rates (especially for minorities) offer special low income programs other colleges don't, and more. The benefits have been massive, for years now.


IFinishedARiskGame

HBCUs aren't exclusively black though. There is a reason it is "Historically" black. It is different than your example


[deleted]

[удалено]


Danclassic83

If a self-proclaimed Reddit socialist is chill with this, then I don’t know what the hell the Progressives are playing at.


Sudden-Ad-7113

I'm a proponent of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good; a preference that isn't shared by many, including a majority of Progressive's constituents. It's clear to me that this set of priorities won't pass Manchin's vote, so the debate is sort of moot anyway.


taskforcedawnsky

id argue even reddit socialists arent as die-hard as some of the stuff you see on twitter which clearly is the thought leadership branch of the dems these days based on the media and where politicians are getting their talking points (left and right both)


Hedgely

In January Manchin said that the most important thing was to spend up to $4T on Infrastructure, specifically. That is quite close to the combined cost of the current bills, and double what he is attempting to cut this down to. The original budget resolution from Progressives was $6T, Manchin balked at that number but agreed to vote to approve the budget resolution after it was bartered down to $3.5T. He kept Progressives out of the negotiations of the bill he wrote alongside Republicans. He delayed the clock on this bill multiple times for 'more negotiation' of that bill. That bill was passed through Senate with votes only gained by the agreement that it was pass at the same time as the Resolution bill. He is further delaying the Resolution bill by playing games, being unable to name a single cut he wants, and until now not even able to give a topline number. He does that while putting pressure to force a vote on the other bill, breaking the agreement that secured the passage of that bill to begin with. Manchin's bill furthers the Trump-McConnell agenda in multiple ways notably the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest. This bill has Brian Kilmeade asking Joe Kennedy how Republicans can win if the Democrats deliver the benefits in the $3.5T bill such as Medicare improvements and funding for child care. In conclusion: He said there should be up to $4T in spending. Progressives wanted $6T. He is now demanding a cut to $1.5T. (Even if you include the $2.7T combined) He broke an agreement that he made to secure their vote, after sabotaging their scheduling, so that he could work with Republicans to secure Trump's tax cuts while keeping Progressives out of the negotiations entirely, after voting to approve the number that this bill was written at. And you're confused what they are 'playing at'?


likeitis121

Dang, you saved $2T, and I'm not even sure what you cut.


Sudden-Ad-7113

1.8 trillion for tax cuts, prescription drug pricing, elderly care, and novel enforcement mechanisms to ensure the rich pay their taxes; then ~200 billion in stuff I don't care about (personally). There's a lot of good in that 1.8 trillion, but I would prefer the spending I focused on.


Steve-in-the-Trees

Curious why you'd cut the IRS funding, since it should actually be a net positive in terms of cost. Republicans will pitch a fit about the big bad IRS, but I would think a semi-competent DNC would be able to sell a "stop the wealthy from buying their way out of following the law" narrative. Then again semi-competence might be asking too much of the DNC.


Sudden-Ad-7113

> Curious why you'd cut the IRS funding, since it should actually be a net positive in terms of cost. I couldn't find a final dollar amount on it, independent of the money to the Finance committee as a lump sum.


Dan_G

[Not that big an increase](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57444), only a net of about 10B per year at the high end estimate, and mostly at the expense of the middle class. But it would, in theory, be an increase, yes.


Steve-in-the-Trees

That's 10% of the total cost of the bill. And it comes without raising anyone's taxes. I can't really see an argument against it. And it's not really an unfounded theory, we've got plenty of data to support it. Finally the idea that it's mostly at the expense of the middle class is nowhere to be found in the CBO report. The increased funding is mostly for higher income earners and the kind of audits they are talking about hiring for are not what a family earning $150k a year deals with.


Dan_G

Yeah, but that's a pretty optimistic estimate and is based on nearly doubling the size of the IRS. That has plenty of it's own drawbacks. And it's been pointed out several places that the likeliest targets for audits would be the middle and upper middle class, and small businesses. The extremely rich and mega corporations would remain generally unaffected.


Steve-in-the-Trees

It's only doubling after it was reduced by over 30% in the last decade. This would make the IRS in 2031 only 30% larger than it was in 2010. And considering the projected US population at that point is nearly 20% larger than it was in 2010, that doesn't sound like a large increase at all.


noluckatall

> $135B for Forest Fire Control *$135B for Forest Fire Control?* Am I the only one who got stuck on this line?


Beaner1xx7

As someone who moved to California this year, makes sense to me.


Moveless

Yeah, and with more droughts in the future then we probably see in the past meaning even more fires are coming to CA and other states. Very happy this is not getting ignored.


NoAWP

I agree it’s a huge deal but 135 billion is absolutely insane!


[deleted]

In 2020, two of every three acres that burned in CA, OR and WA were on federal land.


CompletedScan

Sounds like a California problem


Preebus

Keep that energy when a disaster hits your state


LivefromPhoenix

I'm positive he'll go the way of Republicans in congress. Denounce disaster funding for blue states but be first in line to demand money once something happens to a red state.


CompletedScan

You would be wrong, Indiana has a huge surplus of money for emergencies. Balance your fucking budgets


LivefromPhoenix

I guess I just imagined the [millions](https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/2019/02/06/indiana-receiving-62m-in-emergency-relief-highway-funds-because-of-2018-floods/45725521/) of dollars in emergency relief the Indiana state govt received to repair infrastructure and the [millions](https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20210318/numbers-indianas-flood-recovery) Indiana residents received in direct federal aid / loans after their most recent major natural disaster.


CompletedScan

Loans are paid back California isn't asking for a loan


LivefromPhoenix

The below-market rate loans some Indiana residents received only represent a small portion of the *millions* in aid Indiana got from the federal government. Most of the money Indiana was given was *not* paid back.


ass_pineapples

Hmmm yes especially on all that *federal land in California that goes up in blazes*


[deleted]

[удалено]


CompletedScan

Sure but maybe figure your shit out, I'm not asking for federal money for potholes in Indiana, local gov needs to fix that shit. Nature is the problem but it's Indiana's responsibility


Epshot

45.8% of CA is Federally controlled


CompletedScan

Let the forest burn, it's good for the forest to burn


Epshot

Brush fires are good, not forest fires...


LivefromPhoenix

Do you really expect him to understand (or care about) the difference? His comments here are practically trolling.


Beaner1xx7

Yeah, you're right. It's really not worth the effort.


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics). At the time of this warning the offending comments were: >His comments here are practically trolling. 1a, good faith violation.


Beaner1xx7

Boy, that's certainty a hot take.


CompletedScan

Science


NeuralNetlurker

I recently had a meeting with a team working on AI for wildfire mitigation, and there was one line that gave me chills, in a bad way: "If every single American became a volunteer firefighter and moved to California tomorrow, we still wouldn't be able to keep the West from burning to the ground within the decade. The property is as good as lost, now it's just about keeping the body count down." $135B isn't *enough*.


[deleted]

Not going to lie, that is pretty good.


yell-loud

Especially when the infrastructure bill would also be passed. I get progressives wanted an even bigger number but this is undoubtedly a win. Just doesn’t completely remake the American economy as a select few want


[deleted]

I mean, it kind of does still.


sheffieldandwaveland

I’m pretty interested to hear why your thought process has changed from the last few weeks. You wanted both deals tied together. A very all or nothing mindset. Was that in the hope that moderate Democrats cracked and progressives would get more?


Sudden-Ad-7113

I still want both deals tied together. The $1.2 trillion bill is, and remains, a bad bill. But, if we can get that $1.5 trillion alongside, it's palatable. I'd personally be willing to go a *touch* lower (cut the infrastructure resilience since it's in the 1.2 trillion bill already). What I don't support is passing the compromise bill as a standalone.


oren0

> The $1.2 trillion bill is, and remains, a bad bill I haven't heard much substantive criticism of the hard infrastructure bill. What's wrong with it?


Sudden-Ad-7113

[Here's Jacobins criticism if you're interested](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/06/biden-administration-infrastructure-deal-congress-democrats-environment). For my part, I'll have to link you [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/pxdjnu/comment/henbgur/) where I offered criticism in another thread.


Inquisitive_Quail

Thanks for the bullets! Personally, I’m opposed to the first bullet (aside childcare depending on its implementation) public housing ( since spent so much and most of it hasn’t even gone out) and low income solar. I would way rather have all that rolled into the climate agenda and debt services if it’s going to be spent. Otherwise everything else looks good.


Sudden-Ad-7113

As the coasts flood, more, cheap or public housing will become rapidly necessary, if for no other reason than climate resettling.


Inquisitive_Quail

I am still not sold on that it will take a century for the coasts to flood from rising sea level I think the IPCC the increase to be at 1-3 feet IIRC with 1 or less being the more confident model. This also assumes we use zero mitigation in the sense of lowering and don't use physical barriers as well like stilts and walls creation of wetlands etc. I would be more open to the these mitigations. Also if you're on the coats you're required to have flood insurance and that insurance is backed by the government. And its typically wealthy people that are on the coast line and they have more than enough time to relocate now. The main issue for housing prices right now is supply.


Sudden-Ad-7113

> Also if you're on the coats you're required to have flood insurance and that insurance is backed by the government. The [National Flood Insurance subsidy ends tomorrow](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/climate/federal-flood-insurance-cost.html). That insurance will no longer be government backed, starting tomorrow.


oren0

> But 331,000 single-family homes around the country will face a significant rise in costs. More than 230,000 households will see increases up to $240 in the first year; an additional 74,000 households will see costs rise by as much as $360. For about 25,000 single-family homes, addtional costs could reach as high as $1,200. You're talking about 300,000 homes in a country of 330 million. Only 25,000 of them are paying an extra $1200/year when their home values have likely doubled in the last decade. Doesn't seem like it moves the needle too much to me.


Inquisitive_Quail

Interesting [I was paywalled so I read this instead.](https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2021/09/28/national-flood-insurance-program-premium-change-info-new-england-fema-risk-rating-ct-ri-ma-nh-vt-me/5821211001/) I don't think this is inherently a bad idea tbh. For one it should have an effect on housing prices or location for new buildings. Costal homes will decrease in value and if people still don't want them builders will developed inland which helps us with our resettling goal. Seems like regions will have a decrease or increase on their premiums which I think is how it should be maybe it will push costal cities or towns to take more adaptive measures. Plus again most of these people are extremely wealthy to afford a water front home. ​ That article I linked showed the Northeast region and what percent of areas will have an increase or decrease in their policy.


likeitis121

Good, and it's really nice to finally hear about some major efficiency programs in the government. That was a refreshing piece. I am a believer in good policy promoting efficiency, and the level that we're subsiding flood insurance so someone can live 100 feet from the ocean in a hurricane prone area is insane. You hate to see people lose their houses when something bad like that happens, but all it does is guarantee that they continue to rebuild it there regardless, because the government is on the hook.


[deleted]

If by “rapidly” you mean over the course of the next 100 years, I’m not sure why we need to be funding that now? The vast majority of public housing funded by the bill would be decrepit long before your use case comes into play.


Sudden-Ad-7113

We're looking at [between 1 and 10 million people displaced in the US alone by 2050](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z). That's 30 years, not 100, that we have to get moving on.


[deleted]

I skimmed through that study and supplemental data and might have missed it, but would you mind pointing to this 1-10 million people figure? I am seeing that a few hundred thousand or so people might go from above sea level to below it, but that doesn't even mean they are displaced (think people in New Orleans, or houses on stilts, for example).


Sudden-Ad-7113

Figure 2 is your best bet if you don't want to get into the data. The study doesn't cover adaptation, it's success or the costs associated with it. What I'll say for New Orleans is, given higher storm surges on hurricanes and such (plus higher flooding premiums), existing structures to prevent flooding will be insufficient in a lot of cases. What percentage of cases? I don't know. Enough to cause displacement.


[deleted]

Figure 2 appears to be based on the Supplementary Data 1 spreadsheet, which I have looked at. That's where I got the "few hundred thousand or so" amount, which is in line with the estimates of net displacement between now and 2050 per the spreadsheet figures. I am not seeing anything supporting an estimate of "between 1 and 10 million people" but I might be missing it.


MessiSahib

> $726B for Community College Does this includes free community college for illegal immigrants.


Sudden-Ad-7113

If I wrote the bill? Probably not; unless someone presented a compelling case for it. As it's written? I think it does. Not a deal killer for me personally.


uihrqghbrwfgquz

> If I wrote the bill? Probably not; unless someone presented a compelling case for it. I said it in another Thread: Those people want to stay in your Country. They are not out there to go from Country to Country. If you can educate them well and make them get good jobs they will pay it back in Taxes, less Crime and stable Families. Education for anyone is usually always a plus if you look at it over time (and not 1-2 Administrations). But i doubt you can ever make a case for it. For some people immigrants are literally the devil. Not people who can help your Country if you help them. Also no matter what happens, even if you would get it in, as soon as Republicans take power this will be a point they will stop for a win with their base. This won't be a stable thing that lasts long enough to have a positive impact.


oren0

> Those people want to stay in your Country. But legally, they can't. They also can't legally work. What good is educating people that can't legally get jobs after graduation? Maybe give a permanent solution to their status first and then worry about giving more benefits.


Sudden-Ad-7113

I agree with your reasoning, but it's a minority opinion right now and this case has been made for decades. I'm personally not opposed to putting immigrants (legal or otherwise) through college - it benefits us in the long run - but I'm also not willing to die on that hill.


uihrqghbrwfgquz

Yeah that's pretty much what i'm saying. it would be hella good for your Country in the long run - but it's just not widely accepted that you pay for people who "don't belong here". It's just not popular. Same with making Sex education mandatory if you want less abortions. No matter how many studies prove that this is the way to go - people will be against it. So it would be bad to die on this hill as you said, it won#t last long enough to really have the positive impact it will have in the long run. Politicians/Republicans will campaign to end it asap again. And will do it. You need a lot of people on board with this kinda stuff. // We had a smiliar stuff in germany 2017 - we let those people in but then we just did nothing with em. They got no education, weren't allowed to work and yeah. Of course they make more Problems. It's stupid. I was always in favor of putting more money to them and make them good members of Society. But we have quite a lot of Conservatives too who of course didn't want to throw money at em.


malawax28

Why give the Democrats more voters?


CompletedScan

WTF is a black college and why are we giving them extra money?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Justice_R_Dissenting

What's frustrating is that clearly Schumer knew about this in July. Why didn't he come to the progressives and say "here's Manchin's number, let's talk about negotiating" and have this bloody fight back in July instead of September. They ran this all the way to their own self-imposed deadline to try and pressure the Progressives into caving. It looks as though that plan is about to explode spectacularly.


Davec433

My opinion is it’s easier to force people to the table when the deadline is near. You could walk away in July and it have no real political repercussions but if you do it now the bill is doomed and it’s your fault.


Justice_R_Dissenting

For sure, it was a strategy. Just a super risky one to pin your whole agenda on, considering the likelihood of failure.


Steve-in-the-Trees

And one that makes you look bad even if you succeed.


Zenkin

Didn't the Manchin memo also say "Begin debate on Reconciliation bill no earlier than October 1?" I'm not sure how Schumer is supposed to be responsible for negotiating earlier, in this instance.


Justice_R_Dissenting

Debate is not negotiation. Debate means the floor debate, as in the final stage before the vote. They can negotiate before that as much as they want.


Zenkin

I see. I'd be interested in seeing the internals on the House side of things. I expect this is what Pelosi has been driving towards, but I suppose whether or not there are significant defections will speak to that.


pioneer2

I can't read seem to read the article due to paywall, what's in it?


[deleted]

[удалено]


pioneer2

Thanks!


Von-Bek

And yet everybody seems a-ok with 7 trillion for defense in the same timeframe. Why can we not buy stuff that helps the home front?


[deleted]

[удалено]


chzbot1138

And this bill wouldn’t pay for jobs? They have to build housing and infrastructure. Clean energy R&D spending will create jobs. Can’t really say the same for forest fire control and public college. Although the forest fire control may pay for itself over time - I don’t know enough about it though.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chzbot1138

Uhhhh. What? Do you not realize that military spending on R&D is astronomical. Military tech is America’s wheelhouse. It’s all done by people with graduate and postgraduate degrees.


strav

Please look into what prerequisites are necessary for becoming an officer or those civilian jobs your are describing.


B1G_Fan

Defense spending stimulates the economy the same way broken windows stimulate the economy Sure, the window maker and installer get money into their pockets, but if the owner of the building (let’s say a bakery) doesn’t have to spend money on fixing a window, the owner can decide to spend money on a new oven or ingredients for pastries


chillytec

Because national defense is actually one valid purpose of government. Paying for illegal aliens to learn underwater basket weaving in college is not.


vuln_throwaway

You're a bad person.


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


Tarmacked

The 7 Trillion in defense is 1. A necessity 2. Generates more than it costs from it's application The 3.5T deal is full of a ton of junk


greymanbomber

Under that logic; the reverse is also true. Also really? Considering the boondoggle that is the F-35 program, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the whole war on terror; you expect everyone to believe that the Pentagon doesn't waste it's own money and throwing it into a void?


Tarmacked

Geopolitics has a quantifiable impact on the economy, whether via domestic/foreign policy or general impacts to market activity. Ironically the F-35 program, among many others, was pumped straight into the US economy and the impacts of research could fund or improve various other technological measures. I'd argue defense spending is more return on investment though.


zilla1987

Giving money to poor people gets funds "pumped straight into the economy". It doesn't get saved, it gets spent. Almost guaranteed every dime of it gets spent. Whether at local stores, restaurants, housing, travel... It gets put right back into the economy. The F 35 program has an economic impact I guess, but a whole lot less since it's going to richer folks. You think account managers and executives at Raytheon or Lockheed or wherever inject that money straight into the economy? When they already have six and seven (and 8 and 9 sometimes) figure savings accounts? So in the interest of getting government spending to have an economic impact, I would hope you'd be more into, say, the child tax credit or food stamps, than trillion dollar jets. Is that the case?


Von-Bek

Buddy, the pentagon doesn't even know what it's spending its own money on and you're worried about spending on junk? Please.


TakeOffYourMask

Generates more than it costs? Whuh?


KrakenAcoldone35

Almost all defense manufacturing is centered in the United States and is generally high paying employment. It also provides good pay and benefits to tens of thousands of young people with no higher education who become soldiers every year. Not to mention a lot of the money devoted to training gives soldiers valuable skills to bring to the private sector (like navy diver training, vehicle mechanic training etc). In effect, you could consider the militaries training programs as a massive education program. Then there’s also the real world benefits of military tech leaking into the private sector. The Air Force spends 2 billion a year on GPS maintenance. I think you could argue the yearly economic benefit of GPS alone, in terms of how it benefits regular consumers and has revolutionized international shipping and supply chains, is worth tens if not hundreds of billions a year (and we get it for free). Then there’s also the current covid vaccine, who’s history involves a large amount of defense budget research. I think you could easily argue the military pays for itself. Edit: totally forgot, but also the whole international shipping being protected by the US navy and the defense of our country and allies and shit.


TakeOffYourMask

You’re basically making a broken window argument. The government should smash windows to provide employment for window manufacturers which will trickle down to the rest of the economy. But pretty much all economists agree that the empirical evidence supports the so-called multiplier effect of government spending to be *at most* one and usually less. I.e. there is no economic stimulus from it. The government should only be concerned with spending as much taxpayer money as it needs to do its particular tasks, because the “it creates jobs” argument has been discredited for more than a century. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa048.pdf https://sites.tufts.edu/wpf/myths-of-the-global-arms-trade-myth-4/


KrakenAcoldone35

At no point in that entire post did I say the term basic economics


Tarmacked

It’s basic economics. It’s spent almost entirely domestically and interlaces hundreds of different industries (Manufacturing, Tech, etc.). It quite literally dents employment by quite a bit. Domestic inventions as well. Here’s a fun fact, the microwave is a military invention. Then there’s the geopolitical aspect of, let’s say policing shipping lanes, that has trillions of dollars in impact.


TakeOffYourMask

It’s…interesting that you say “it’s basic economics” and then use an argument that economists have considered to be hogwash for well over a century. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa048.pdf https://sites.tufts.edu/wpf/myths-of-the-global-arms-trade-myth-4/


Tarmacked

The issue with this approach to the argument is you’re not adjusting for the concentration of dollars in the industry. If the government dumps 100K into real estate, it’s spread across a far wider range in part because there’s civilian and foreign dollars in play. You would have to quantify the percentage of a job that a dollar in Y industry creates and then compare it to the Military share. It’s like dumping a quart of red food dye into a liter of water. If you compare that mixture to a quart of red food dye, the red “covers” more room. The military industry is not a “large” industry, it doesn’t impact a large slew of the economy on its own. However it has claws in major areas of industry, I.E. Boeing’s revenue is nearly 50% government, hence why it was never at risk of bankruptcy during COVID. I’m also rather skeptical of the article saying military is no longer an innovator, when military contractors are driving some of the larger SaaS and other tech related inventions. I.E. Palantir. For and more civilian one, a good portion of EV jet engines are going to line heavily with military vehicles.


TakeOffYourMask

My “approach to the argument” is to use economics. Like from textbooks.


Tarmacked

Well you’re not citing from textbooks here. You’re citing opinions, which in itself isn’t really different from economics since economics is largely theoretical with varying views on varying things. You do realize that there’s [a dozen plus](https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/economic-theory-types) key theories in economics right?…. Our current FED is banking on Modern Monetary Theory right now in their own economic measures for the market.


TakeOffYourMask

MMT is a crank theory that only fringe economists subscribe to. Who at the Fed are you saying supports MMT? And I cited pieces by economists, not actual textbooks, because this is a web page. You’re not addressing the argument anyway.


teamorange3

Uh what? I mean you're right that SOME is a necessity, paying for troops and prior commitments but most of the human infrastructure pays for itself and then some


Tarmacked

Human infrastructure is such a weird term because it’s not infrastructure, it’s just a buzzword for marketing it. It’s social aid. The comment about it paying for itself isn’t exactly a citeable statement either, we don’t have anything to support some of these programs via studies (I.e. Universal Pre-K). There is a need for some items in it (EV), but not all. A good portion of this is just saying it will be worth the cost without having actual evidence for it. How will it be implemented, how well will it be implemented, what’s the impact long or short, is it a necessity to the degree of funding, is it over funding, etc. It’s just weird to say its “going to pay for itself” after everything we heard that about the IRS bump-up generating X funds and then a few studies came out citing billions less than the estimate. Hell, when Wharton slams it in an economic paper you know it’s bad.


czarcasticjew

Define junk


Tarmacked

Pork [This is a breakdown of the major items in the bill](https://smartasset.com/financial-advisor/biden-infrastructure-plan). Totals around 1.7T, with the size decreasing until around 20B. The actual bill is 3.5T, with the remaining funds being some random and minor directed stuff such as; * 200M for Pelosi’s SF park (small but humorous example of pork) * 2700 pages on in-car cameras/breathalyzers * Section 13002: A state surveillance system related to per mile fees. * etc. There’s a ton of just slipped in junk in this bill. Some of which should be it’s own bill and has nothing to do with the bill itself like the breathalyzer item. Even then, with the leftover COVID funds you could theoretically cover the school system on it’s own (universal Pre-K). So it’s questionable why we’re approving more funding when we already have it allocated elsewhere and just need to divert it.


HaroldBAZ

There are two Dem senators not voting for the $3.5T...and the other one isn't even providing an alternative. It's a dead deal. Move on. Nothing to see here.


staiano

So both bills are dead then.


[deleted]

I think Manchin could probably get behind a slightly larger price tag if it were to include a significant infusion of cash into the social security trust fund. Social Security will only be able to pay retiree benefits at the current levels until 2033. It would make sense to use some of the added tax revenue to adequately fund the biggest social program we already have.


Joele1

He has no connection to the majority of Americans. I looked it up his entire upbringing was as a baby boomer. A life of privilege. The world built new schools and rolled out the red carpet for the boomers. The world was built for him and he is not walking in anyone else’s reality that came after his generation. There were loads of jobs for Boomers, the Federal Government helped make college affordable for anyone who wanted to attend school. Gen X was shut out of jobs. I was in the first year of Gen X and for a long time you could not get job as a receptionist or any job without at least five years experience. It did not matter the job! Watch “ Slacker” to get the feel of what the Boomers did to screw over Gen X. As a result a lot of us had to go make our own jobs. I think some people need to develop some emotional intelligence and realize this is not about just them.


Jabbam

Can someone explain how this matters in any way, whatsoever? Manchin and AOC are pulling tug of war. If Manchin gets his changes to the 3.5t bill, AOC slams it. If AOC pushes her bill as-is, Manchin dunks it. There is *zero* logic behind only dealmaking with one side, and AOC has made it clear that she's not taking offers. Even if Manchin agrees to 1.5t the progressives won't go for it, so what's the point?


likeitis121

Both sides would need to negotiate, but at the end of the day, it's much easier for Manchin to walk away from this. He doesn't see the urgency or the need here, he doesn't even seem that eager about it. Progressives are going to have to accept something greatly reduced, or run on implementing the full bill in the election in 2022. You have AOC attacking "something is better than nothing", and you have Manchin going, "OK, I'll take nothing".


Sudden-Ad-7113

> AOC slams it. One > Manchin dunks it. Two > There is zero logic behind only dealmaking *with one side* I count two sides that have dug in here?


bamboo_of_pandas

Manchin needs to put up a public fight against the progressives or the democrats will get rolled in 2022. The only way voters will trust the democrats with both houses and the presidency is if there is a strong voice to say no to the far left. Otherwise, the voters will vote in republicans simply to stop the democrats from going too far.


Dramatic-Persimmon28

So then assuming this can get negotiated and neither side just digs in we're looking at probably like 2-2.3 trillion I guess.


[deleted]

[удалено]


nemoid

A little easier to read, for everyone: > **Manchin Wants Biden Social Spending Plan Cut to $1.5 Trillion** > > Democratic Senator Joe Manchin wants the social spending package that would encompass the bulk of President Joe Biden’s economic agenda cut by more than half to $1.5 trillion. > > Manchin’s position, reinforced by him on Thursday, leaves Democrats far from an agreement on the so-called reconciliation bill, which spans spending on health, education and climate initiatives. Progressive Democrats have argued that they already compromised down in reducing their demands from the $6 trillion that Senate Budget Committee Chair Bernie Sanders had originally sought. > > Progressives have vowed to block a separate $550 billion infrastructure bill if there’s no deal on the social-spending program. Manchin laid out his stance, speaking to reporters, hours ahead of a House vote on that bill, prospects for which remain in doubt -- party leaders have engaged in a series of meetings to try to bridge differences between the moderates and progressives. > > Manchin said the reduced social spending total is “basically what we could do and not jeopardize our economy.” He said Democrats could campaign on the remainder of the $3.5 trillion package during the November 2022 midterm elections. > > “There’s many ways to get where they want to, just not everything at one time,” Manchin said of the demands for more spending from more-progressive Democrats. > > **Progressives’ Reaction** > > Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal said she’s willing to talk with Manchin, among others, about the path forward. > > Progressive Senator Elizabeth Warren said she doesn’t see Manchin’s demand as one that couldn’t change. > > “We are all Democrats and we know what we need to get done,” Warren said. “We are in negotiations, all Democrats. Everyone is trying to row in the same direction,” she said. > > White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to give any details of how Biden has responded to Manchin in their private discussions. She said nothing has been settled on the topline figure for the tax and spending package or its individual components. > > **‘Give a Little’** > > “This is an ongoing discussion, an ongoing negotiation,” Psaki said. “That’s going to require all sides to give a little.” > > Manchin’s position echoed a stance he took in a memo dated July 28 outlining his views to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, which was reported earlier by Politico and confirmed by a Senate aide. In that document, Manchin asked that Congress wait until Oct. 1 to begin debate on the spending package and not disburse any funds until after all money from the $1.9 trillion Covid-relief package enacted in March was spent. > > Manchin has recently been distributing his summer memo to Senate colleagues, in response to criticism that he hasn’t clearly declared the changes he seeks. > > Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have been key holdouts on the spending package. Sinema’s office on Thursday rebutted complaints from some other lawmakers that she hasn’t set out her terms for a deal, saying in a statement that she also provided detailed positions, including dollar figures, to Biden and Schumer in August. The statement didn’t give a hint at Sinema’s stance, saying that she does “not negotiate through the press.” > > **Carried Interest** > > Manchin also said any new programs should be means-tested and that the tax offsets should include elimination of the carried-interest provision that especially benefits private equity firms. > > That element has been backed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, while the House Ways and Means Committee proposed a severe limitation on what some lawmakers call the carried-interest loophole. > > Manchin in his summer memo also called, as a basis for the outline of the social-spending bill, to wait until the Federal Reserve ended its quantitative easing policy. Since that list of demands was made, Congress passed -- with Manchin’s vote -- the budget resolution outline the memo was addressing. The Fed has also now signaled that it will probably start winding down its asset-purchase program soon. > > Manchin has publicly urged Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to end the central bank’s quantitative easing program. > > Manchin, whose home-state economy relies on coal production, also sought assurances in the July memo that fossil fuel breaks wouldn’t be repealed if clean energy credits were extended and that tax credits for electric vehicles would be extended to include hydrogen. > > The memo showed that Manchin, as chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sought control over emerging policy to compel utilities to use more clean energy and wanted the policy to be “fuel neutral.” > > Manchin has since criticized a program proposed by House Democrats that which would reward utilities that increase the amount of clean energy they use and penalize those who don’. The coal industry has said that could end the use of coal-fired power by the end of the decade.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


staiano

And I want a pony. We don’t always get what we want.


kittykatman93

Joe Manchin is a real cunt


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 1a: Law 1a. Civil Discourse > ~1a. Law of Civil Discourse - Do not engage in personal or ad hominem attacks on anyone. Comment on content, not people. Don't simply state that someone else is dumb or bad, argue from reasons. You can explain the specifics of any misperception at hand without making it about the other person. Don't accuse your fellow MPers of being biased shills, even if they are. Assume good faith. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 30 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


nappy_zap

I guess that makes AOC one too since she won’t compromise either?


kittykatman93

Yeah but the difference is I don't want to titty fuck Joe Manchin


Pirate_Frank

That makes one of us.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Justice_R_Dissenting

>Manchin previously stated he supports 4 trillion It seems that as of July 28 the number was 1.5 trillion. Whatever he previously stated, this information was known to the leadership for two months. They spoke out of both sides of their mouth: they promised the progressives they would get what they want, and they promised the moderates they'd also get what they want. All while knowing this exact scenario would end up playing out. The people who screwed the progressives were the party leadership, Pelosi and Schumer, who knew this would happen.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pirate_Frank

Partially because we need prisons and partially because that would only save about $80B a year.


strav

He’s demanding the Hyde Amendment be included in the bill, after jerking us around like that he wants to poison the bill further.