The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
and for those who missed it.
Joe Manchin Preaching Fiscal Responsibility From His Yacht Feels a Bit on the Nose
Sometimes, it just takes some activists in kayaks, I guess. They floated up to Manchin's sprawling yacht in Washington, D.C. on Thursday and asked some questions that need to be asked, creating a visual in the process that speaks just as loudly. Here's one of 100 senators, imbued with superpowers thanks to the quirks of our constitutional system, leaning over the ramparts to speak to the common folk below as they ask, with no little desperation, why we can't fund dental coverage as part of Medicare.
Concern Troll: "Biden has to conduct a public campaign about the need for and the benefits of the bill."
[Democrats reduce spending in bill to reduce total price tag, satisfying Manchin and Sinema]
Concern Troll: "Biden shot himself in the foot with that big campaign for the bill, and then having to tell voters that it was going to be smaller."
ml1 said:
and we can probably all agree to agree that educating voters is not a bad thing.
I just don't know that any level of public support for the entire BBB bill is going to bring Manchin around. Sinema might be more of a possibility because her constituents seem to be louder and they may eventually get her attention. But I'm pretty skeptical about her too.
Agreed on both counts.
Moving toward Manchin has the political benefit (to moderates and Independents) of not “caving” to the Progressives.
Maybe that was Biden’s tack all along. Put the wish list out there and then negotiate to the possible.
nohero said:
Concern Troll: "Biden has to conduct a public campaign about the need for and the benefits of the bill."
[Democrats reduce spending in bill to reduce total price tag, satisfying Manchin and Sinema]
Concern Troll: "Biden shot himself in the foot with that big campaign for the bill, and then having to tell voters that it was going to be smaller."
So better to not sell it and negotiate behind closed doors?
Also an approach. Vulnerable to the transparency argument.
Seems to be what is actually happening.
I'd like to point out that this discussion regarding public outreach for BBB started off as an explanation for why Biden's poll numbers sank, not whether having an educated electorate is a good thing.
So, in that regard, it still doesn't make any sense.
If I may be so bold to offer an opinion, here in the Rose Garden, as why Biden is not out beating the bushes, pressing the flesh, talking about his granddad, etc etc.:
He is not up to the wear and tear of such a taxing exercise. He is avoiding the scrutiny of the press and voters alike. When those on the dole are cut off, many, hopefully, will join the working ranks of America again. That is when people will start to ask what exactly will 3.5trillion dollars do for me? With migrants eager to get jobs in this country, the competition may be stiff for those who rested on their rights the past year or more.
I think the president is being handled and guided by staff to avoid a public meltdown in the spotlight. The voters didn’t vote for a committee, but it appears we got one.
Better to blindly support $3.5 Trillion dollars in spending when only being able to name 4 things in the bill “off the top of your head.”
Inconvenient fact, mtierney.
More people quit their jobs in September than in any other month in American history, *AFTER* “the dole” payments were shut off.
drummerboy said:
I'd like to point out that this discussion regarding public outreach for BBB started off as an explanation for why Biden's poll numbers sank, not whether having an educated electorate is a good thing.
So, in that regard, it still doesn't make any sense.
Well I think the lack of public outreach for BBB is a failure of leadership, and Biden's leadership is a thing voters are questioning. From last week's QU poll:
- has good leadership skills: 41 percent say yes, while 56 percent say no, compared to 52 - 44 percent yes in April.
So the lack of public outreach for BBB in itself may not be weighing on Biden's poll numbers, but it's symptomatic of a deeper issue that is, IMO.
mtierney said:
If I may be so bold to offer an opinion, here in the Rose Garden
Sure -- feel free to offer your opinions on democratic governance. We can follow that up by asking the Taliban education minister his views on women's higher education.
jimmurphy said:
Better to blindly support $3.5 Trillion dollars in spending when only being able to name 4 things in the bill “off the top of your head.”
I don't think I'm "blindly" supporting a bill if I know the general areas it's meant to address and not the specifics. There are going to probably be hundreds of specific programs included in it. I'm good with knowing it's going to expand access to health care, child care, and address issues affecting climate change.
jeebus, if it was $3.5 Tn just on clean energy and other efforts to address climate change I'd be in favor. Especially since the country will probably spend $10 Tn on the military over the same amount of time.
Smedley said:
Well I think the lack of public outreach for BBB is a failure of leadership, and Biden's leadership is a thing voters are questioning. From last week's QU poll:
- has good leadership skills: 41 percent say yes, while 56 percent say no, compared to 52 - 44 percent yes in April.
So the lack of public outreach for BBB in itself may not be weighing on Biden's poll numbers, but it's symptomatic of a deeper issue that is, IMO.
Is it "lack of public outreach" or the inability to get all of the Democratic lawmakers to support his proposal?
Because those are two different things.
ml1 said:
I don't think I'm "blindly" supporting a bill if I know the general areas it's meant to address and not the specifics. There are going to probably be hundreds of specific programs included in it. I'm good with knowing it's going to expand access to health care, child care, and address issues affecting climate change.
jeebus, if it was $3.5 Tn just on clean energy and other efforts to address climate change I'd be in favor. Especially since the country will probably spend $10 Tn on the military over the same amount of time.
Perhaps “blindly” is too harsh, but this would be the largest spending bill ever passed if it went at the full 3.5T. You (and DB, to whom my comment was really addressed) are plugged in and you only generally know what’s in it. What do you think John Q. knows about it?
I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the government to efficiently spend that much money, and I sure as hell think the American people should be given more information.
For example, subsidies often just lead to higher prices, which kinda defeats the purpose.
I’ve worked as a consultant to state and local governments and was in the military so I know full-well how much is wasted.
And jeebus, overspending on the military does not justify overspending on other things. We should be making cuts to the military budget.
jimmurphy said:
ml1 said:
I don't think I'm "blindly" supporting a bill if I know the general areas it's meant to address and not the specifics. There are going to probably be hundreds of specific programs included in it. I'm good with knowing it's going to expand access to health care, child care, and address issues affecting climate change.
jeebus, if it was $3.5 Tn just on clean energy and other efforts to address climate change I'd be in favor. Especially since the country will probably spend $10 Tn on the military over the same amount of time.
Perhaps “blindly” is too harsh, but this would be the largest spending bill ever passed if it went at the full 3.5T. You (and DB, to whom my comment was really addressed) are plugged in and you only generally know what’s in it. What do you think John Q. knows about it?
I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the government to efficiently spend that much money, and I sure as hell think the American people should be given more information.
For example, subsidies often just lead to higher prices, which kinda defeats the purpose.
I’ve worked as a consultant to state and local governments and was in the military so I know full-well how much is wasted.
And jeebus, overspending on the military does not justify overspending on other things. We should be making cuts to the military budget.
I didn't say it justifies it. But does John or Jane Q. Public have the faintest idea what is specifically in our military spending? And how many care or question it? But if it's spending for real people, everyone needs to know the specifics? Sheesh.
I'll bet Manchin and Sinema don't even know the specifics of our military spending. But Joe will vote for military spending that's at least twice what BBB will cost. Frankly it's immoral according to almost anyone's spiritual or religious ethics to spend multiples more to kill people than to heal them.
ml1 said:
I didn't say it justifies it. But does John or Jane Q. Public have the faintest idea what is specifically in our military spending? And how many care or question it? But if it's spending for real people, everyone needs to know the specifics? Sheesh.
I'll bet Manchin and Sinema don't even know the specifics of our military spending. But Joe will vote for military spending that's at least twice what BBB will cost. Frankly it's immoral according to almost anyone's spiritual or religious ethics to spend multiples more to kill people than to heal them.
Nah, I'd argue that John and Jane should be educated on what's specifically in the military spending too.
Agreed on the immorality.
nohero said:
Smedley said:
Well I think the lack of public outreach for BBB is a failure of leadership, and Biden's leadership is a thing voters are questioning. From last week's QU poll:
- has good leadership skills: 41 percent say yes, while 56 percent say no, compared to 52 - 44 percent yes in April.
So the lack of public outreach for BBB in itself may not be weighing on Biden's poll numbers, but it's symptomatic of a deeper issue that is, IMO.
Is it "lack of public outreach" or the inability to get all of the Democratic lawmakers to support his proposal?
Because those are two different things.
and not for nothing, but a lot of these poll questions are very hard to interpret. I've got some reservations about Biden's leadership regarding how slow he's been to truly implement vaccine mandates. The FAA still isn't requiring vaccination to board a plane, something which would be easy and would probably spur millions to be. vaccinated.
so with regard to vaccine mandates you've probably got almost equal numbers dinging Biden because they perceive him to be to slow with the mandates, and others perceiving him to have been too quick to implement mandates. And so it goes with a whole host of issues.
If we don't really know what a survey response means to the respondent we should probably just ignore it.
jimmurphy said:
ml1 said:
I didn't say it justifies it. But does John or Jane Q. Public have the faintest idea what is specifically in our military spending? And how many care or question it? But if it's spending for real people, everyone needs to know the specifics? Sheesh.
I'll bet Manchin and Sinema don't even know the specifics of our military spending. But Joe will vote for military spending that's at least twice what BBB will cost. Frankly it's immoral according to almost anyone's spiritual or religious ethics to spend multiples more to kill people than to heal them.
Nah, I'd argue that John and Jane should be educated on what's specifically in the military spending too.
Agreed on the immorality.
we also probably need to acknowledge that most people don't WANT to be educated on the issues, and no amount of prodding or lecturing from a president is going to change that.
mtierney said:
If I may be so bold to offer an opinion, here in the Rose Garden, as why Biden is not out beating the bushes, pressing the flesh, talking about his granddad, etc etc.:
He is not up to the wear and tear of such a taxing exercise. He is avoiding the scrutiny of the press and voters alike. When those on the dole are cut off, many, hopefully, will join the working ranks of America again. That is when people will start to ask what exactly will 3.5trillion dollars do for me? With migrants eager to get jobs in this country, the competition may be stiff for those who rested on their rights the past year or more.
I think the president is being handled and guided by staff to avoid a public meltdown in the spotlight. The voters didn’t vote for a committee, but it appears we got one.
you're funny.
Did you ever look at the former guy's schedule? He worked roughly 4 hours a day. He spent more time watching cable news and tweeting than he did working.
And I don't recall a word from you about it.
ml1 said:
you're funny.
Did you ever look at the former guy's schedule? He worked roughly 4 hours a day. He spent more time watching cable news and tweeting than he did working.
And I don't recall a word from you about it.
And "avoids the scrutiny of the press?!" The former guy stopped press conferences altogether.
jimmurphy said:
Perhaps “blindly” is too harsh, but this would be the largest spending bill ever passed if it went at the full 3.5T. You (and DB, to whom my comment was really addressed) are plugged in and you only generally know what’s in it. What do you think John Q. knows about it?
I’m sorry, but I don’t trust the government to efficiently spend that much money, and I sure as hell think the American people should be given more information.
For example, subsidies often just lead to higher prices, which kinda defeats the purpose.
I’ve worked as a consultant to state and local governments and was in the military so I know full-well how much is wasted.
And jeebus, overspending on the military does not justify overspending on other things. We should be making cuts to the military budget.
so you're against the provisions of BBB because of potential waste? And because John Q. Public doesn't bother to educate themselves about it?
And to respond to your earlier comment (which I thought I did but apparently something ate my post) - I've read through the major provisions of BBB and I support all of it. I just haven't committed them to memory.
and 3.5T over ten years is practically a pittance. That it's the largest bill is more a testament to federal austerity thinking than anything else. BBB is merely catching up on spending that should have started many years ago.
As I understand jimmurphy's point (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I get this wrong), doing a more visible, sustained job of selling the BBB is less about making the bill overall more popular and more about making the bill more concrete in the mind of voters -- and especially for voters in WV and AZ. Sure, the BBB bill is generally popular, but we're in the cutting room here and Manchin and Synema have a big pair of scissors and just saying "the bill is popular with your consituents" is much less helpful than "I was talking to voters in Charleston a couple of days ago and they're real excited about this bill, especially about the child care provisions. I had one nurse tell me this would make it much easier to get back to work -- she used to work at an opioid treatment clinic before the pandemic closed her child's daycare".
Not everything is going to make the cut. And while senators have their own polls and aides out there constantly trying to take the measure of their constituents, it certainly adds something if the president is calling out specific provisions paired with his talking to your voters.
drummerboy said:
so you're against the provisions of BBB because of potential waste? And because John Q. Public doesn't bother to educate themselves about it?
And to respond to your earlier comment (which I thought I did but apparently something ate my post) - I've read through the major provisions of BBB and I support all of it. I just haven't committed them to memory.
and 3.5T over ten years is practically a pittance. That it's the largest bill is more a testament to federal austerity thinking than anything else. BBB is merely catching up on spending that should have started many years ago.
I’m not “against” the provisions of BBB. I question whether “free” college, with no strings attached is appropriate. I question whether subsidies are the right way to go on any program. I’m against the fact that the details of this enormous bill is so unknown to the general public, including the political junkies here. I do feel that there should be more education about it so that knee-jerk Republicans are less likely to write it off as mere socialism. I think they should sell it, show real human-interest stories of how it will help people, even those in red states. Make the stories about white people if that’s what you have to do to bridge their racism.
Sell it to more than just Democrats, who don’t need to be sold.
You keep on mentioning subsidies. What subsidies are you referring to?
And the rest of the civilized world manages to get by with free college. (which for us would only be two years of community college). What's the big deal with that? k-12 is already free. what's another two years?
jimmurphy said:
I’m not “against” the provisions of BBB. I question whether “free” college, with no strings attached is appropriate.
I understand that the free college is two years of community college.
So, what is wrong with changing free public education from K-12 to K-14? Wouldn't it be appropriate for societies which are more technologically advanced in this day? We're no longer the 1930's.
If you feel that getting more advanced education should be paid for, that free education should only meet the demands of low skilled jobs then why bother with free K-12? Reduce it to K-10.
I'm sure when free K-8 was standard and educational reformers arguing for K-10 or K-12 there was opposition. Why would Joe in the stock room, the farm or the factory need more? A waste of public funds. Those needing education beyond grade 8 were the deserving offspring of the well-to-do who were able to afford the expense. And then those socialists snuck in K-12. Oh, the horror.
Public education is uplifts all of society. Its not just for the supply of menial jobs. Free K-14 would certainly be appropriate. K-16 more so.
RTrent said:
jimmurphy said:
I’m not “against” the provisions of BBB. I question whether “free” college, with no strings attached is appropriate.
I understand that the free college is two years of community college.
So, what is wrong with changing free public education from K-12 to K-14? Wouldn't it be appropriate for societies which are more technologically advanced in this day? We're no longer the 1930's.
If you feel that getting more advanced education should be paid for, that free education should only meet the demands of low skilled jobs then why bother with free K-12? Reduce it to K-10.
I'm sure when free K-8 was standard and educational reformers arguing for K-10 or K-12 there was opposition. Why would Joe in the stock room, the farm or the factory need more? A waste of public funds. Those needing education beyond grade 8 were the deserving offspring of the well-to-do who were able to afford the expense. And then those socialists snuck in K-12. Oh, the horror.
Public education is uplifts all of society. Its not just for the supply of menial jobs. Free K-14 would certainly be appropriate. K-16 more so.
I'm kind of interested in what kinds of strings jimmurphy wants to attach to it.
RTrent said:
I understand that the free college is two years of community college.
So, what is wrong with changing free public education from K-12 to K-14? Wouldn't it be appropriate for societies which are more technologically advanced in this day? We're no longer the 1930's.
If you feel that getting more advanced education should be paid for, that free education should only meet the demands of low skilled jobs then why bother with free K-12? Reduce it to K-10.
I'm sure when free K-8 was standard and educational reformers arguing for K-10 or K-12 there was opposition. Why would Joe in the stock room, the farm or the factory need more? A waste of public funds. Those needing education beyond grade 8 were the deserving offspring of the well-to-do who were able to afford the expense. And then those socialists snuck in K-12. Oh, the horror.
Public education is uplifts all of society. Its not just for the supply of menial jobs. Free K-14 would certainly be appropriate. K-16 more so.
I thought about this idea earlier, from a different perspective. K-14, I mean.
Maybe the devil is in the details, but just saying the first two years are “free,” given our current system of public and private, in-state and out-of-state, is not enough detail to satisfy me, or many other centrists or conservatives.
In the K-12 scenario, people feel the pain through property or income taxes. Hard choices are made. There is real thought is given to spending.
Have you been to a college campus lately and compared the facilities to what we had as kids? They’re like country clubs. There’s an arms race to attract students and their families’ dollars, which would then become government dollars.
Maybe the solution is to truly make public education K-14, with a diploma generated after both 12 and 14.
drummerboy said:
I'm kind of interested in what kinds of strings jimmurphy wants to attach to it.
Public service.
It’s already laid out how the government plans on financing the BBB project. By making the tax code fairer and making the wealthiest and large corporations pay their fair share of taxes. It’s funny how the southern states will be better off with this ambitious undertaking, but somehow have a problem with the person who wants to actually help them. Ignorance is a sin.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
and we can probably all agree to agree that educating voters is not a bad thing.
I just don't know that any level of public support for the entire BBB bill is going to bring Manchin around. Sinema might be more of a possibility because her constituents seem to be louder and they may eventually get her attention. But I'm pretty skeptical about her too.