Hey, forget being "annoyed" at Democrats. How about being furious at Republicans for being against anything other than lower taxes for the ultra wealthy in the first place?
I'm not sure I agree with the framing of this post. Why are Manchin and Sinema wanting to stand against party leadership (the POTUS)?
Because they are owned by Oligarchs who don't want to pay for it. Hmm? Why are we calling a win for the Oligarchy, a win for Democrats?
Progressives are funded directly by the people. The people want the government to upgrade our infrastructure, and they want the tax avoiders (wealthiest Americans and corporations) to pay their fair share in taxes). Most of all the major polls confirm that is what the people want. So, progressives are on the side of the people.
Once again, you have to let go of the so-called political spectrum with its two options of right and left because that assumes we are a bottom-up, democracy, where the power lies with the people. It does not!
We are an oligarchy where the power disseminates from the top-down. Everything else is propaganda or smoke and mirrors. A win for "moderate Democrats" is a win for the oligarchy because they get infrastructure but don't have to pay for it.
By the way, how many Republican Governors and Mayors rejected city and state funding from the CARES Act when not a single Republican voted for it?
They voted against it, yet still accepted it. Was that a Loss or Win?
For my fellow progressives this is the best we’re going to get in this Congress. The dynamics of the system and the choices of the voters limit our ability to get everything we want and we just have to take the W when we can get it. Remember as much as you hate it the moderates are indispensable and we have to work with them, there simply aren’t enough progressive voters spread out throughout the country.
Noah I am afraid the fillerbuster and the rules of reconciliation (limited uses per year) make what you want to do impossible. It requires senators to be angels to get stuff done in a progressive way, and the senators are not angels, and some of the senators do not want popular progressive legislation.
The incredible irony is that if Bernie had proposed this same bill, with the same price tag, progressives would salivate over it as proof he's the Messiah, Republicans would torch it in ads and town halls, and Pelosi would say $300B is more reasonable. You know, like when Obama proposed anything.
It's weird framing to posit the progressives are the ones "blocking" Biden's agenda. They're the only ones trying to get both bills passed! (Which is Biden's agenda.)
Lefties like myself get very frustrated with this "it's always progressives' fault" rhetoric, as in this case it is clearly the moderates stopping both bills from passing. Progressives are the ones fighting to get BOTH bills passed!
To say The Squad is voting to keep black kids drinking from lead pipes is pretty preposterous and kinda gross IMO.
I submit that the supremely inaptly named "progressives" (i.e. leftists) do not in fact care all that much about the things in the infrastructure bill. What they really care about is sticking it to high-income taxpayers and redistributing the spoils. Infrastructure is a consolation prize at best.
That aside, I think you're overestimating the importance of the lead issue. For one, there was a recent paper finding evidence of extensive publication bias in the lead-crime literature, finding that the effect size shrinks by 90% when adjusting for this. Maybe there was a problem in that paper, but even putting that aside, blood lead levels have fallen by more than an order of magnitude since the 70s. While it may be true that there's no truly "safe" level of lead, there are levels at which there are no clinically significant effects, and as far as I can tell we're pretty much there now. Yes, eliminating that last little bit would be good, but I don't think that it will yield the benefits you seem to be expecting.
I think this post operates poorly in trying to communicate the progressive position in opposition to it, and is defending the infrastructure bill in isolation. Of course it spends money on a lot of things, because it's a relatively large bill and it's building on a lot of programs and the federal government already does a lot. But the same logic could essentially defend any spending bill, and argue that the alternative would be something worse--like a government shutdown (since that's also the season we're in). For these numbers, a good question is "Is this the best Democrats could have expected under a trifecta?" The transportation side is awful for the climate, doing almost nothing to address the emissions from the transportation sector. Status quo policies will probably make emissions worse as we continue the highway sprawl machine. And transit gets increased funding, but it's less relative to the increase in highways. The bill resembles something you'd expect from the mid-2000s when Republicans didn't care about the deficit and just wanted to throw money at their priorities. That may be the best our political system can produce right now, but I don't think "Any money is good for progressives" is the best argument.
This argument is unpersuasive. No, the bipartisan infrastructure bill is not progressive. If it were, it couldn't be bipartisan. You seem to be arguing that only progressives are responsible for caring about "poisoning the brains of poor kids" etc. It is just basic good governance, with a lot of room for improvement. If you think Democrats should use their brief trifecta to pass legislation that you like, but not legislation Democratic constituencies like, then yes, progressives should take the "win". Judging the legislative process as "wins", by the way, seems to be a strange habit that began in the Trump years. Somewhere in your discussion you might want to point out that both bills, as a package, constitute Biden's agenda, and Biden is a moderate Democrat. The reconciliation bill is not a progressive wish list but is already a compromise and has 48-2 support among Democrats/Independants in the Senate. Although a lot of people here seem to despise progressive Democrats, tying the bills together is the party's consensus plan to get this part of the Democratic agenda passed as a whole. May not work, but it is the only chance they have.
Why does the media characterize the Progressives as far left radicals and moderates as somehow mainstream? The so called moderates, centrist, whatever you want to call them blocked Progressive ideas and forced what little did pass to be watered down in mid 90s and under Obama with ACA. What happened? Both following midterms were blood baths for Dems. In 2010 Blue Dogs went from over 30 members to less than 10. The Progressive agenda polls well depending on the issue from 50-80%. Hope the Progressives stay strong as my perception is they are more supportive of Bidens and average citizens wishes than the corporate whores like Manchin and Sinema and New Dem caucus.
Something I’ve taken to saying a lot to my fellow progressive friends is, “I just want to win.” This post resonates with me.
"Not only does that make Democrats look like an incompetent, divided party that is incapable of governing"
Look like?
Hey, forget being "annoyed" at Democrats. How about being furious at Republicans for being against anything other than lower taxes for the ultra wealthy in the first place?
I've been thinking this for f'ing months
If they can't pass infrastructure, I don't know what to do anymore.
I'm not sure I agree with the framing of this post. Why are Manchin and Sinema wanting to stand against party leadership (the POTUS)?
Because they are owned by Oligarchs who don't want to pay for it. Hmm? Why are we calling a win for the Oligarchy, a win for Democrats?
Progressives are funded directly by the people. The people want the government to upgrade our infrastructure, and they want the tax avoiders (wealthiest Americans and corporations) to pay their fair share in taxes). Most of all the major polls confirm that is what the people want. So, progressives are on the side of the people.
Once again, you have to let go of the so-called political spectrum with its two options of right and left because that assumes we are a bottom-up, democracy, where the power lies with the people. It does not!
We are an oligarchy where the power disseminates from the top-down. Everything else is propaganda or smoke and mirrors. A win for "moderate Democrats" is a win for the oligarchy because they get infrastructure but don't have to pay for it.
By the way, how many Republican Governors and Mayors rejected city and state funding from the CARES Act when not a single Republican voted for it?
They voted against it, yet still accepted it. Was that a Loss or Win?
For my fellow progressives this is the best we’re going to get in this Congress. The dynamics of the system and the choices of the voters limit our ability to get everything we want and we just have to take the W when we can get it. Remember as much as you hate it the moderates are indispensable and we have to work with them, there simply aren’t enough progressive voters spread out throughout the country.
"And where will House progressives be then? Out of power, scrabbling for influence within a minority party. Who does that help?"
For some people it's better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.
It's always hilarious when Democrats gradually start to realize that progressives are crazy (i.e. illogical) - an Ex-Democrat
Noah I am afraid the fillerbuster and the rules of reconciliation (limited uses per year) make what you want to do impossible. It requires senators to be angels to get stuff done in a progressive way, and the senators are not angels, and some of the senators do not want popular progressive legislation.
Thus the impass.
The incredible irony is that if Bernie had proposed this same bill, with the same price tag, progressives would salivate over it as proof he's the Messiah, Republicans would torch it in ads and town halls, and Pelosi would say $300B is more reasonable. You know, like when Obama proposed anything.
Optics is everything.
It's weird framing to posit the progressives are the ones "blocking" Biden's agenda. They're the only ones trying to get both bills passed! (Which is Biden's agenda.)
Lefties like myself get very frustrated with this "it's always progressives' fault" rhetoric, as in this case it is clearly the moderates stopping both bills from passing. Progressives are the ones fighting to get BOTH bills passed!
To say The Squad is voting to keep black kids drinking from lead pipes is pretty preposterous and kinda gross IMO.
I submit that the supremely inaptly named "progressives" (i.e. leftists) do not in fact care all that much about the things in the infrastructure bill. What they really care about is sticking it to high-income taxpayers and redistributing the spoils. Infrastructure is a consolation prize at best.
That aside, I think you're overestimating the importance of the lead issue. For one, there was a recent paper finding evidence of extensive publication bias in the lead-crime literature, finding that the effect size shrinks by 90% when adjusting for this. Maybe there was a problem in that paper, but even putting that aside, blood lead levels have fallen by more than an order of magnitude since the 70s. While it may be true that there's no truly "safe" level of lead, there are levels at which there are no clinically significant effects, and as far as I can tell we're pretty much there now. Yes, eliminating that last little bit would be good, but I don't think that it will yield the benefits you seem to be expecting.
I think this post operates poorly in trying to communicate the progressive position in opposition to it, and is defending the infrastructure bill in isolation. Of course it spends money on a lot of things, because it's a relatively large bill and it's building on a lot of programs and the federal government already does a lot. But the same logic could essentially defend any spending bill, and argue that the alternative would be something worse--like a government shutdown (since that's also the season we're in). For these numbers, a good question is "Is this the best Democrats could have expected under a trifecta?" The transportation side is awful for the climate, doing almost nothing to address the emissions from the transportation sector. Status quo policies will probably make emissions worse as we continue the highway sprawl machine. And transit gets increased funding, but it's less relative to the increase in highways. The bill resembles something you'd expect from the mid-2000s when Republicans didn't care about the deficit and just wanted to throw money at their priorities. That may be the best our political system can produce right now, but I don't think "Any money is good for progressives" is the best argument.
If manchin and sinema get the infrastructure bill they won’t vote for anything else and they’ll take that as a win.
They want to be seen as holding up Biden’s agenda.
This argument is unpersuasive. No, the bipartisan infrastructure bill is not progressive. If it were, it couldn't be bipartisan. You seem to be arguing that only progressives are responsible for caring about "poisoning the brains of poor kids" etc. It is just basic good governance, with a lot of room for improvement. If you think Democrats should use their brief trifecta to pass legislation that you like, but not legislation Democratic constituencies like, then yes, progressives should take the "win". Judging the legislative process as "wins", by the way, seems to be a strange habit that began in the Trump years. Somewhere in your discussion you might want to point out that both bills, as a package, constitute Biden's agenda, and Biden is a moderate Democrat. The reconciliation bill is not a progressive wish list but is already a compromise and has 48-2 support among Democrats/Independants in the Senate. Although a lot of people here seem to despise progressive Democrats, tying the bills together is the party's consensus plan to get this part of the Democratic agenda passed as a whole. May not work, but it is the only chance they have.
Why does the media characterize the Progressives as far left radicals and moderates as somehow mainstream? The so called moderates, centrist, whatever you want to call them blocked Progressive ideas and forced what little did pass to be watered down in mid 90s and under Obama with ACA. What happened? Both following midterms were blood baths for Dems. In 2010 Blue Dogs went from over 30 members to less than 10. The Progressive agenda polls well depending on the issue from 50-80%. Hope the Progressives stay strong as my perception is they are more supportive of Bidens and average citizens wishes than the corporate whores like Manchin and Sinema and New Dem caucus.