politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think the inherent problem with the build back better deal is it's still framed within the neoliberal trickle down economics of post Regan America.
Would it have increased some workers protections and child care, sure. But it would ultimately be a gift to the shareholders and owners of corporations able to tap into the 3 trillion dollars of funding.
Americans are tired of progressive bills that vicariously improve their lives by further bribing the economic class that actually have their boots on our necks.
People are tired of seeing headlines that the American economy is doing fine while they struggle to put food on the table. Nobody cares if your bosses retirement portfolio is breaking records when they have to pull overtime to maintain the same quality of life they had 20 years ago.
Funny when it was the more neoliberal, pro-business dems that shot it down, shortly before leaving the democratic party. There's really not a whole lot of corporate profits to be found in here, though, despite the rampant misinformation floating around online. It actually raised corporate taxes, which is not a neoliberal policy position:
https://schakowsky.house.gov/build-back-better-act#:~:text=The%20Build%20Back%20Better%20Act%20invests%20in%20securing%20universal%20preschool,and%20the%20universal%20preschool%20initiative.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/
Yeah, they split it into two bills, one with all the stuff that was intended to pass, and the one with all the stuff they ran on that they never intended to pass.
Funny how it still almost passed, then. Unless you're proposing a grand conspiracy where they all actually secretly were lying about their intentions. Such a conspiracy theory would be a strong claim, and those require evidence. Perhaps in the thousands of individual staffers and advisors to each member of congress you could find a whistleblower indicating such a conspiracy? Otherwise it'd have to be as airtight as Jewish Space Lasers.
It was never in any danger of passing. Centrists had Manchin.
This sounds like conspiracy again, where this was all orchestrated. You can believe whatever you want, that's part of living in the free world. But to actually be something worth considering, there should be evidence of this orchestration that can be found among the thousands of people that would've had to have been involved. Has AOC or Bernie or any of their staffers spoken of any orchestration?
There doesn't need to be orchestration.
If that's true, then the bill failed by a slim margin. It almost passed, and had the support of the majority of the democratic party, including passing the House of Representatives. This is an important detail.
It didn't "almost" do anything. Manchin blocked it for you. If by some miracle a progressive had won Manchin's seat, some other centrist in another state would rotate in to vote no.
There are always enough Manchins.
Ah, that's orchestration, which you just said was not happening. You are insinuating that most of them are neoliberals who simply put forward a chosen sacrificial scapegoat in some sort of planned scheme to deceive the American public. Strong claims require evidence, otherwise they are simply convenient ideas we can adopt to oversimplify a messy world and make ourselves feel better.
Nope. All it takes is for some moneyed interest to buy just enough Manchins. They buy whoever's cheapest.
And you make excuses for them.
No, not excuses, simply doubt. Manchin has a long record in the Senate as a moderate, Clinton-style dem. He's even voted against abortion rights. Rather than corruption, I think he's just semi-conservative, he even voted with Trump around 50% of the time during his first term. That is not typical for a democrat, it's quite unusual actually.
Shot it down? The bill passed in 2022 after being modified to hell by special interest.
If it's not going to be implemented directly by the state it means that it's going to be implemented by private businesses. Those private business owners are going to walk away with the lion's share of any money they accept from the government.
It's almost like corporations aren't a monolith of mutual aid and support. You don't think Raytheon wouldn't support raising some taxes if it meant they could funnel a ton of government funding towards the privatized military industrial sector?
No, that is a false claim. It was not passed by the Senate and never became law. We can certainly criticize our neoliberal factions, but we should do it factually instead of weaving whatever narratives we find most convenient. Unless you're confusing it with the Infrastructure bill, which did pass. They were linked at one time, but were separated after both failing became likely.
https://ballotpedia.org/Build_Back_Better_Act
My dude..... The inflation reduction act is an amended version of the build back better deal. What are you talking about?
On July 27, Manchin and Schumer announced the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the final result of these negotiations, surprising other congressional Democrats.[192] The bill, which includes provisions on tax, health care, and climate and energy spending, was introduced in the Senate as an amendment to the Build Back Better Act. On August 7, the Senate passed the bill on a 50–50 vote with Vice President Harris breaking the tie.[193] On August 12, 2022, the House passed the bill on a 220–207 vote.[194] President Biden signed it into law on August 16.[195]
Fine, technically true I suppose. But when you gut something that comprehensively and change its thrust, I think it's a little disingenuous to call it the same thing. It had all the workers rights stuff stripped out of it.
edit: Disingenuous on the bill author's part, not yours. Though tbf, they did rename it.
Tbf I did say it was passed after being modified to hell by special interest.