For anyone still keeping up with this bill (arguably the most important news story there is), what do we think will happen here? A watered down version or nothing whatsoever? The clock is ticking. — Xtrix

I think there'll be a compromise but what kind of compromise depends on the leverage that progressives have. There are currently no negotiations going on between progressives and moderates (King Manchin has refused to give an offer based on reports of what he will be willing to give so there's no compromise possible), and right now we're just seeing both sides flex and doing public posturing (which may explain why the progressives blocked the iron dome funding just recently). So much as there have been negotiations, it was through Joe Biden but it's funny how the democrats aren't talking with one another right now despite the big roadblock being their inability to come to a deal.

I think that things will (hopefully) change once the Sept 27th vote happens since moderates seem to be thinking that the bipartisan bill will pass in spite of the progressives promises to block it, either with republican support, or progressives caving. This is why I think Manchin and Sinema are not even coming to the table right now, to keep the reconciliation bill from making any progress so that it doesn't pass before the bipartisan one. The whole "strategic pause" comment made immediately after Pelosi agreed to the date for the bipartisan bill vote was no coincidence IMO. If it passes somehow anyways, then we could be looking at a $1.5 trillion reconciliation bill (the topline number Manchin said he'd be willing to support allegedly). If it fails, then we could see the bill be $2.5 trillion (a basic compromise between the $1.5 and $3.5 trillion). I don't think that the $3.5 trillion has any chance of passing. The bill will be watered down, but by how much is the question.

Is the issue how much the bill costs, or how much it will do?

America can afford elevating everyone to the middle-class, even if not willing to "work for a living". And it can't afford not to. Impoverishing America so some of us can have cheap servants and compliant labor will be our undoing. Maybe it's arguable there is an inalienable right to feather your own nest and invest in your children's future, but the public sector has at least as fundamental a responsibility to see to it that this does not aggregate into an insurmountable system of exclusion and suppression. Of course all Americans should realize the same outcome for the same investment of talent initiative and effort. How many times do we hear that the key to success in America is (aside from education) "networking". Just another word for corruption and nepotism. An excuse for rationing opportunities.

Maybe it's time to bite the bullet and tell Manchin he'll face a primary challenger. He might still win, but not the general. Democrats will lose the Senate anyway if they don't get that damn vote.

When they go low, we tie our hands behind our backs.

Is the issue how much the bill costs, or how much it will do? — Gary M Washburn

Publicly, the issue is the cost. Privately, the issue is what it will do, particularly with regard to taxes.

You can't fight a system of conscription with persuasion. If they think we're on the wrong side they won't listen to reason. But the history is long. Have we forgotten all the assaults on reasoned persuasion, from America First, not Trump, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh, through the red scare and the House Un-American Activities Committee. And on and on and on....



I fear you're right there.

Once established, a regime of intimidation can be sustained with very little effort.

Myself I'm usually skeptical of beautiful looking young politicians, because it raises the question of just who picked them up and was it indeed their looks that got them to the place where there are now. They are in the same group with celebrities and athletes, who can have after their actual career settle for a political career. With women there have been some embarrassing failures, notably in the US when John McCain's team accidentally picked Sarah Palin for the Veep position. They were in a hurry.

Actually plain looking women politicians seem far more competent as there has to be a reason why they have climb the political ladder. Same is for the minorities: have they done something or have they been picked as to get the quota. The target group for young female politicians isn't actually middle aged men ogling at their looks, but the older generation of voters who finally decide they ought to give their vote for a younger generation. And why not to give the vote for that nice looking energetic young woman!

(The Iron Lady at the start of her political career. A woman leader who usually is totally forgotten when the issue of women and power is debated. Because...some actually didn't like her politics. Which in a way is good that she is judged by her politics, not by being a woman.)


(Another successful politician that obviously didn't get the vote because of her looks.)

Golda Meir may have been attractive in her younger years...

Who knew that Thatcher was so cute back then.

I guess as I get older, the range of women deemed attractive expands greatly. Why is that?

I think that things will (hopefully) change once the Sept 27th vote happens since moderates seem to be thinking that the bipartisan bill will pass in spite of the progressives promises to block it, either with republican support, or progressives caving. If it passes somehow anyways, then we could be looking at a $1.5 trillion reconciliation bill (the topline number Manchin said he'd be willing to support allegedly). If it fails, then we could see the bill be $2.5 trillion (a basic compromise between the $1.5 and $3.5 trillion). I don't think that the $3.5 trillion has any chance of passing. The bill will be watered down, but by how much is the question. — Mr Bee

My prediction is it'll be pared back to 1.7 or so. The minority party (Republicans) wins again, even when they're not in power. Although there's a possibility I'm being too optimistic.

Settling for crumbs yet again, all because a couple "moderate" assholes don't want to nix the filibuster and pass some real legislation. It's infuriating.

You know, the president has the power of the veto, but even that can be overridden. For years now McConnell has exercised a veto power without the possibility of an override. Power never asserted in the Constitution. But I doubt even Manchin expects to exert that kind of power. He'll settle for less than all he's "demanding". If he ever says what the hell it is he does really want. Sounds like what he really wants is attention. So it's really a question of how much notoriety will satisfy him. Maybe someone can make him notorious. Once he asserts explicit demands he'll draw fire. I'm sure he knows this, but he's playing a game that has limits.

So it's really a question of how much notoriety will satisfy him. — Gary M Washburn

It may well be (I'm hopeful) that he's posturing, dragging this out as long as possible so the papers make it clear he's fighting the good fight, and then last minute he'll compromise and declare victory. But it seems he's much more in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry and cares much more about Republican voters than Democrat ones -- which is idiotic.

Which brings us back to the sure-fire remedy, threaten him with a primary challenge. Arm-twisting, too, is brinkmanship, and tends to go on in private, and only end at the last. So the result is a nail-biter either way, for the rest of us.

How about trying to change these statistics in the next elections? — ssu

What’s in the $3.5 trillion bill:

• Putting the U.S. on track to run on 80% clean electricity and to cut economy-wide carbon emissions in HALF by 2030
  
• A Civilian Climate Corps that will put hundreds of thousands of young people to work combatting climate change
  
• $400 billion for clean energy that will employ workers across the country
  
• Green, affordable public housing
  
• Native American infrastructure investments
  
• Billions for coastal resilience and wildfire prevention
  
• A pathway to citizenship for TPS holders, Dreamers, farmworkers, and other essential workers
  
• Expanding Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing
  
• Making community college tuition-free for 2 years
  
• Funding paid family and medical leave, and more.

I think that’s a good start.

Reading this list, all I can think is: Yeah!, Let's do it!

What it leaves out is that once and for all America is to make itself a nation, as opposed to a federation of local warlords (which is what the Roman Republic was, and which the founders of the Republic so shamefully used as its model). The idea of states rights was always meant to make the federal government shill to the subordination of local populations to the authority if its prominent men. But in a democracy there are, properly speaking, no state's rights. States don't have rights, they have responsibilities and authority pursuant to and limited by those responsibilities. Anything more is not only undemocratic, it constitutes an attack on the reality, as well as the idea, of democracy

The deadline for one vote is tomorrow— this week will be crucial. Between these bills and the debt ceiling, it’ll be interesting to see if the democrats can pull it off.

The deadline for one vote is tomorrow— this week will be crucial. Between these bills and the debt ceiling, it’ll be interesting to see if the democrats can pull it off. — Xtrix

I think that’s a good start. — Xtrix

Civilian Climate Corps? Hundreds of thousands in this Corps?

What does it do? Would it do something that is already done with something other?

Or is this a rehash of the work relief program Civilian Conservation Corps given a new name?

Putting the U.S. on track to run on 80% clean electricity and to cut economy-wide carbon emissions in HALF by 2030 — Xtrix

Sounds interesting, what is the actual plan?

is this worth the philosopher (or student of philosophy, or teacher of philosophy) "getting involved" for? Meaning becoming politically engaged? If not this, what -- if anything? Or do some still believe activism, politics, and topical issues are below the man of thinking, the intellectual? — Xtrix

These things are not below the philosopher at all, but neither are they philosophical questions...at least questions fit for "hard philosophy", maybe appropriate for "social philosophy", though. The philosopher is a man or woman with ideas and values outside the realm of pure philosophy, pure metaphysics, and he or she should be able to participate in such political debate and other areas of life without having to feel debased.

That having been said, the instant bill is garbage, as it includes provisions for the growth of deficits by over the next decade. This is not what is needed by the American government. Rather what is needed is the exercise of fiscal self-control, and keeping spending within the budget dictated by tax revenues. Deficit spending has caused the U.S. to experience the greatest national debt ever imagined, and still growing... A lack of self control, in governments as in individuals, can but lead to disaster, in my view.

That having been said, the instant bill is garbage, as it includes provisions for the growth of deficits by over the next decade. This is not what is needed by the American government. Rather what is needed is the exercise of fiscal self-control, and keeping spending within the budget dictated by tax revenues. Deficit spending has caused the U.S. to experience the greatest national debt ever imagined, and still growing... — Michael Zwingli

Too late. I say throw caution to the wind. Debt shmedt. Or, as we used to say, fuck around fuck around soon you won't be around. Republicans can go suck a dick. Besides, tax revenue has never funded the U.S. The U.S. rides on the world's use of the dollar and we have the printer.

That reminds me, as a "troubled youth" I went to Job Corps CCC, got a trade as a welder and a GED. I learned how to fight and how to work with others.

It also reminds me that some of the best, long-standing, still-extant, and beautiful structures I've ever seen out west were built by FDR's CCC.

and instead try to keep my eye on substance. — James Riley

And yet there was time when that was the substance!

And from my tower of wisdom I submit the suggestion that it still is, with added considerations of mental health beyond apparent physical heath.

That is, while Loren and Marjorie might pass someone's eye-candy test, I imagine they would make horrific mothers, life-partners, wives. Toxicity will out, and does.

And we're not at war. That ought to save some money. (Maniacal laughter.)

I think Little Mitchy and his owners saw the Trump Administration (plus Republican legislature and courts) as their last big opportunity to loot America. They saw the writing on the wall, as the people were waking up to their failed policies since the Reagan Administration. Mitchy is only now playing a rear-guard delaying action, pretending they still might eek out one more spree. But behind the scenes, they are all hiding their ill-gotten gains and making plans for New Zealand, or gated communities guarded by Tier One operators trained up on our nickel.

Hopefully we have the ability to claw-back and rebuild America and make her great again, like she once was when the marginal tax rate was 90% and people had a sense of civic duty; back when self-interest was enlightened, per Adam Smith. But yeah, if we melt down in the alternative, we can only hope they have to pay the piper too.

I say throw caution to the wind. Debt shmedt. Or, as we used to say, fuck around fuck around soon you won't be around. Republicans can go suck a dick. — James Riley

I don't like deficit spending by Republicans any more than by Democrats. In my view, both parties are utterly corrupted, and all but worthless to us. These two identifiers have become no more than ways to choose your poison, in my view.

Besides, tax revenue has never funded the U.S. The U.S. rides on the world's use of the dollar and we have the printer. — James Riley

This only works so long as the dollar is used and trusted by the world. One big fuck-up, one default, and that could easily go out the window. Don't forget, the "American century" is well in the rear view mirror, now; now there is fiscal competition for us.

I don't like deficit spending by Republicans any more than by Democrats. In my view, both parties are utterly corrupted, and all but worthless to us. These two identifiers have become no more than ways to choose your poison, in my view. — Michael Zwingli

Hence my desire to throw caution to the wind. They did.

This only works so long as the dollar is used and trusted by the world. One big fuck-up, one default, and that could easily go out the window. Don't forget, the "American century" is well in the rear view mirror, now; now there is fiscal competition for us. — Michael Zwingli

Let 'er rip! You know, like Covid. For someone who doesn't give a fuck you sure seem worried about the economy. But as one wag recently said, this exercise has taught us that we are not an economy, we are a community. He may be wrong, but if so, it's only because it's too late, thanks to those who focus on the economy.

For someone who doesn't give a fuck you sure seem worried about the economy. — James Riley

Haha, that's only because I'm stuck here for the time being. The thought of joblessness, bread lines, and all that shit kind of sucks, so I don't particularly want to see our fearless leaders completely fuck things up.

But as one wag recently said, this exercise has taught us that we are not an economy, we are a community. — James Riley

Sure, but we have an economy upon which our welfare is dependent. Venezuela is a community as well, (if you can really call a large, modern, diverse nation-state "a community", anyways), but the economy is all fucked up. I don't think either of us would want to live there right now.

ure, but we have an economy upon which our welfare is dependent. Venezuela is a community as well, (if you can really call a large, modern, diverse nation-state "a community", anyways), but the economy is all fucked up. I don't think either of us would want to live there right now. — Michael Zwingli

That brings up a question I've had for some time. Maybe you can answer it. For a while there, the overwhelming majority of people knocking on the U.S. southern border were from "allied" countries. Not so many from socialist countries. That made me go hmmmm? Why would that be? It's not like the socialist countries were locking their people in and the "allies" were letting their people go.

Then I wondered if U.S. alphabet agencies were down there stirring the pot and fucking with the socialist economies. Riling up and funding agent provocateurs and calling them "freedom fighters." Were these countries failing on their own, due to inherent problems with socialism, or did it have something to do with sanctions, embargoes and/or pot-stirring? And then, with our allies, how much do we prop them up and try to take pressure off their juntas by doing the whole Peace Corps-type operations in their countries?

Oh, and are these stupid questions? If not, why isn't the U.S. 4th estate asking them?

I wonder how well Venuzuala would be doing if it got the same treatment as our junta allies?

Civilian Climate Corps? Hundreds of thousands in this Corps?

What does it do? Would it do something that is already done with something other? — ssu

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/993976948/reaching-back-to-the-new-deal-biden-proposes-a-civilian-climate-corps

https://www.sunrisemovement.org/theory-of-change/the-ccc-explained/

It is a kind of homage to the New Deal, yes.

That having been said, the instant bill is garbage, as it includes provisions for the growth of deficits by over the next decade. This is not what is needed by the American government. Rather what is needed is the exercise of fiscal self-control, and keeping spending within the budget dictated by tax revenues. Deficit spending has caused the U.S. to experience the greatest national debt ever imagined, and still growing... A lack of self control, in governments as in individuals, can but lead to disaster, in my view. — Michael Zwingli

So I assume you were against the 2017 tax cuts? I assume you're against the $7 trillion defense budget over the same period of time?

Funny how talk of deficits and the national debt only get pushed by media, and then echoed by people on the internet, when anything that's good for the country is proposed. Never any money for that. Plenty of money for tax cuts for the rich, fossil fuel subsidies, and trillions for wars and defense budgets. Just a reflection of priorities, I guess.

The debt is not a problem at all. The bill proposes pays for itself, but there are also tax proposals for the corporate sector and super-wealthy that also cover the cost. So there's really no excuse.

This is what's in the bill -- which has majority support from the people, incidentally:

• Putting the U.S. on track to run on 80% clean electricity and to cut economy-wide carbon emissions in HALF by 2030
  
• A Civilian Climate Corps that will put hundreds of thousands of young people to work combatting climate change
  
• $400 billion for clean energy that will employ workers across the country
  
• Green, affordable public housing
  
• Native American infrastructure investments
  
• Billions for coastal resilience and wildfire prevention
  
• A pathway to citizenship for TPS holders, Dreamers, farmworkers, and other essential workers
  
• Expanding Medicare to include dental, vision, and hearing
  
• Making community college tuition-free for 2 years
  
• Funding paid family and medical leave, and more.