Octopus Overlords

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:13 pmThis is definitely part of it but having heard *way too much* out of mouth and reading his non-stop op eds it is also clear he believes his own bullshit. He is closer to Trump than we think.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:46 pm Joe Manchin is making noise that he's ready to leave the Democratic Party

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:33 am After all of the stigginit, he'd be a Republican hero for life if he took away the Democrats' trifecta and gave the Rs control of the Senate.

Why it matters: The disagreement, recounted to Axios by two senators in the room, underscores how far apart two key members remain as the Democratic Party tries to meet its deadline for reaching an agreement on a budget reconciliation framework by Friday.

It also shows that despite the "kumbaya meeting" between Manchin and Sanders on Monday — after which they posed together for photos — the two remain sharply divided.
Manchin's comfort level with zero as a final number — and his willingness to threaten Sanders with it publicly at Wednesday's lunch for Senate committee chairs — reveals a stark reality for Democratic negotiators: Manchin can control the final dollar amount.
Spokespersons for both Manchin and Sanders declined comment.
Driving the news: Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), chairman of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, described the incident as a "a difference in opinion."

"Joe said, 'I'm comfortable with nothing,' Bernie said, 'We need to do three-and-a-half [trillion dollars].' The truth is both of them are in different spots."
Manchin said, "I'm comfortable with zero," forming a "zero" with his thumb and index finger, Tester reiterated, saying he believes the West Virginia Democrat can live with himself if the Senate doesn't pass any of the president's $2-$3.5 trillion package.
Another witness, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said, "There was a vigorous, 10-minute discussion. Bernie said, '$6 trillion.'"

"[Manchin] said, 'We shouldn't do it at all,'" Coons recalled, himself making the goose-egg symbol as he recounted the conversation.
He said Manchin continued, "This will contribute to inflation. We've already passed the American Rescue Plan. We should just pass the infrastructure bill and, you know, pause for six months."

Sinema reportedly fights to protect unpopular tax breaks she opposed

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:20 pm 5 Theories on What Sinema Wants.

The one I find most compelling is that she's a vain idiot susceptible to flattery, and rich lobbyists have her ear at the moment.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 5:34 pm

The counterargument is awesome.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:50 pmI'm beginning to accept that this is not a system worth saving. Unfortunately it'll probably only get worse and more evil.

Little Raven wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 6:45 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Oct 22, 2021 4:50 pmI'm beginning to accept that this is not a system worth saving. Unfortunately it'll probably only get worse and more evil.

The eventual Malchior-Drazzil Tag Team Tour is going to be a sight to behold.

Senate Democrats left their weekly lunch on Tuesday proclaiming that every person in the room — from Vermont’s Bernie Sanders to West Virginia’s Joe Manchin III — was unified on the urgency of getting a deal on President Biden’s ambitious domestic policy package.

Conspicuously absent was Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the inscrutable Arizonan whose refusal to discuss publicly her views on Biden’s biggest domestic priority has angered many Democrats.

While her colleagues dined, Sinema was elsewhere in the Capitol, huddling with White House officials continuing to negotiate on the tax code, climate initiatives and the social safety net, according to two aides. She had met with Biden earlier that day at the White House, and, unbeknown to many House and Senate Democrats, had been engaging in talks with a small handful of colleagues.

...

But Sinema’s whereabouts on the day of the Senate lunch were emblematic of her actual approach, according to people directly familiar with it: Eschew all but a select few congressional colleagues, focus on negotiating directly with the president and his senior aides, burrow in on policy details — and ignore the frustration of those not privy to her thinking.

...

Sinema is drawing increasing ire from Democrats who say she is the lone holdout on provisions that are universally popular among Democratic lawmakers and with the public. Though she is not up for reelection until 2024, she is already facing threats of a primary challenge from her left. And a handful of members who served on an informal advisory council for her Senate office quit this week, although one has since walked back some of his criticisms.

The big source of dissension between Sinema and virtually every other Democrat on Capitol Hill is her opposition to raising the current 21 percent corporate tax rate and the individual rate for the highest earners — figures set into law in 2017 under President Donald Trump and the GOP-led Congress.

“The hypocrisy of voting against Trump’s tax cuts and then not being willing to restore rates in any way to what they were before the cuts is stunning,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of the most vocal intraparty critics of Sinema in Congress. “It makes you wonder, what are the special interests that are driving that decision? It’s obviously not conviction, because she voted against the tax cuts in the first place.”

Biden himself, in one of several moments of unusual candor during a CNN town hall on Thursday, said Sinema’s opposition to raising a “single penny” through increasing the corporate or individual rates was “where it sort of breaks down.” Sinema’s case to both other lawmakers and Biden is that simply raising the rates will not address the question of tax avoidance nor improve competitiveness, a spokesman said, and her office says both Biden and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) have been aware of her views on taxes since early August.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:09 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 2:35 pm
It's an odd piece. I don't know if WaPo left the inconsistencies in the piece intentionally but there are problems that undermine the narrative.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:49 am Total agreement. That was my analysis as well. As an aside, I don't know if this trend of just printing facts without binding context is in anyone's interest anymore. I get that trusting the reader here is the adult thing to do but we're not a country with a whole lot of adults left.

Unagi wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:04 am

Drazzil wrote: ↑Sat Oct 23, 2021 8:09 pm

FTFY

Octavious wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:11 pm It will be a sad collection of things once Manchin is done with his demands. What a sack of shit.

Default wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:23 pm We just have to live with Manchin. On the bright side, the tattooed man-mountain that is running for Toomey's seat gives me a bit of hope that PA will have two Democratic senators since I don't know when.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:58 pm

Default wrote: ↑Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:23 pm We just have to live with Manchin. On the bright side, the tattooed man-mountain that is running for Toomey's seat gives me a bit of hope that PA will have two Democratic senators since I don't know when.

You mean the Lt. Gov?

Globally, the average paid maternity leave is 29 weeks, and the average paid paternity leave is 16 weeks, the center’s data shows up to 2019.

There is one element of the paid leave proposal, however, that would put the United States at the forefront internationally: its very broad definition of family and caregiving. It would cover care for all types of loved ones, including in-laws, domestic partners and people who are the “equivalent” of family.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:21 pm At this point I wonder whether McConnell made an explicit deal with Manchin and/or Sinema whereby McConnell allows the BIF bill to pass (to give Manchin and Sinema a bipartisan deal to run on) in exchange for gutting / killing the reconciliation bill. Obviously that's been McConnell's game in allowing the bipartisan bill to pass, but I wonder whether there was a very explicit quid pro quo discussed between the three of them.