I hate to say this, but

[Dirty Socialist]

I think Biden should go for 80% of what he wants. Reagan did this at times. While I disagreed with Reagan’s policies, I do acknowledge he was a highly effective politician.
“It’s better to get 80% of what you want than go for all of it and get nothing”
- Reagan

So how can the difference be made up? I think tax incentives for companies to get on board the fight against climate change might help, as well as tax penalties for those that don’t get on board might help. Biden can also use the bully pulpit to persuade companies to get with the program might also help. He can also tell the climate change doubters to spend some time in the Pacific Northwest. Or New England. Or the Arctic. Or Australia. Or the Amazon…

[Celerity]

1. 80% is $2.8 trillion, I think all would go for that

[FalloutShelter]

11. They are currently at 2.1 and Manchin says he will not go for it.

Politics is like football; it is a game of incremental gain. Get the first down, and then throw the bomb when the pressure is off, and you have spread the field.

JMHO

[ratchiweenie]

2. Bringing in CEO's who are doing the right thing for business roundtables and making a big deal

of them wouldn't hurt either. It would be great advertising for companies who are going green.

[secondwind]

3. what a good idea...

[hatrack]

6. Except all these "green" companies are paying the "business roundtables" to block the climate bill

IOW, it's just more corporate bullshit, more green smoke and cracked mirrors.

Some of America’s most prominent companies, including Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and Disney, are backing business groups that are fighting landmark climate legislation, despite their own promises to combat the climate crisis, a new analysis has found. A clutch of corporate lobby groups and organizations have mobilized to oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats, which contains unprecedented measures to drive down planet-heating gases. The reconciliation bill has been called the “the most significant climate action in our country’s history” by Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the US Senate.

Most large US corporations have expressed concern over the climate crisis or announced their own goals to cut greenhouse gases. Jeff Bezos, one of the world’s richest people, has said that the climate crisis is the “biggest threat to our planet” and the company he founded, Amazon, has created a pledge for businesses to cut their emissions to net zero by 2040. Microsoft has promised to be “carbon negative” within a decade from now and Disney is aiming to use only renewable-sourced electricity within the same timeframe.

But these leading companies, and others, either support or actively steer the very lobby groups that are attempting to sink the bill that carries the weight of Joe Biden’s ambitions to tackle the climate crisis, threatening one of the last major legislative efforts that will help decide whether parts of the world plunge into a new, barely livable climatic state.

EDIT

Another group, the Business Roundtable, has said it is “deeply concerned” about the passage of the bill, largely because it raises taxes on the wealthy. The organization is made up of company chief executives, including Apple’s Tim Cook, who has called for stronger action on the climate emergency from governments and businesses. Other members include Andy Jassy, chief executive of Amazon, Sundar Pichai, who heads Google’s parent company Alphabet, and Darren Woods, chief executive of the oil giant Exxon.

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis
3

[JT45242]

10. blocking because of the tax part not the green part

Big companies are pushing against this for the same reaosn that they always do -- they spent a lot of money to avoid taxes and they expect their lapdogs (Synema, Manchin, and all the Rethugs) to deliver the goods that they paid for -- little or no corporate taxes.

They don't oppose going green -- they oppose paying green cash to pay for anything. They oppose the c-suite employees and others making over $400K paying their fair share of the tax burden.

Yes -- the green corporations are talking out of both sides of their mouths -- but listen to what is really being said "How are we going to pay for it?" "We can't raise corporate taxes to what they were 4 years ago" (Note that Manchin's vote wasn't needed 4 years ago so he could vote against lowering it -- now his vote is needed to prevent raising it to what it used to be -- and now he stands against just repealing the Trump tax cut that he voted against)

[hatrack]

13. They don't want to pay taxes; they'd prefer to torch Earth as long as they're making more money

If they're pushing against (God FORBID!) paying more taxes, they're pushing for an end to any kind of climate action that will change much of anything for the better.

We're out of time for fiddle-faddle and the occasional green hood ornament, with the corporate logo nicely placed for maximum visibility. We are way past the point where Amazon buying electric trucks by 2030 or proclamations of "Net-zero 2040" or Apple holding employee tree-planting events are going to make a damned bit of difference.

This is the last real chance we have for any large-scale, effective climate policy to get through Congress. When the GQP regains control of Congress, do you really think they're going to do anything, anything at all except issue press releases about "technology" and "ingenuity"? Of course, they might pony up some more sweet, sweet tax breaks for the Job Creators in exchange for a few sustainability Potemkin villages they can be photographed in front of at election time. After all, it's all about the tax breaks on one side and getting reelected on the other, when you get down to it.

Any large-scale, effective climate policy is going to require higher taxes on the people and corporations currently enjoying essentially a free ride, and it needs to happen now.

[ratchiweenie]

14. There have got to be companies out there that are truly going green and support the president's

efforts. He needs to bring them in. Make a big deal of them. Make them advisors. Make the public aware of them. Great advertising for their brands.

[Scrivener7]

4. Babylonsister posted this a few days ago, and it's a good idea: reduce the timeline you are

funding. Instead of going out 10 years, fund ALL the projects and only go out 3 or 4. By then, everyone will be used to having them and will fund the remaining years.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15901769

[NJCher]

18. that's good!

I like that.

I remember years ago a friend received an offer for a job. It came in about 30% short of what she wanted. She told them she would take the job and the amount they were paying her would carry them until 3 p.m. each day.

They went for it! She loved getting off at 3 each day.

[czarjak]

5. Verify but Trust, Reagan was an asshole.

[katmondoo]

7. My feelings exactly.

[jimfields33]

9. Weirdly he had a democratic house his whole time

I wished they blocked every single thing he wanted.

[Drunken Irishman]

17. Reagan benefited from boll weevil Democrats.

The party still largely dominated the South at the congressional level but those Dems were very conservative and what would be considered boll weevil Democrats.

They almost always voted for Reagan's policies and were a big reason why they passed despite Democrats holding the House.

[SKKY]

8. I really hope the Progressives realize they're letting perfection...

...or their idea of perfection, be the enemy of good. The electoral advantage they have isn't shared by most, and they need to think of the bigger picture because if we lose the house in the mid terms, their agenda will be DoA. The BBB bill was never going to be 3.5 Trillion. Take Manchin's 1.5 now, get another 1.2 or 1.5 in the spring, campaign on it, hopefully hold the house and Senate, and then start making the case for a 2nd Biden term. Seriously. Why does this have to be so difficult? It's times like this I wish we were as laser-focused on our agenda as the other side is.

[NJCher]

19. calling them laser focused is generous

it's really that they are authoritarian and take marching orders from the top. Without thinking.

[SKKY]

20. Yes, I concur. They are authoritarian. However, they are...

...laser focused in that and I wish our side was as focused. That's all.

[Joinfortmill]

12. I believe he will.

[MoonlitKnight]

15. Sinema is probably the holdup

Nobody knows what she wants. Probably not even her.

Also, the actual number doesn’t matter. It’s the content that matters.

Manchin’s tax changes are actually better than the framework.

But do we extend the child credit?
Is there real money and policy to address climate change?
Reduce prescription drug costs?
Expanded Medicare?
Expanded EV tax breaks?

That’s what matters.

If his proposal scores out to spend only $1.5 trillion but the tax changes bring in much more, which is how it reads, then I can see his point and it’s worth considering. I would counter that the climate change stuff is non negotiable and we also need to raise the cap on social security tax and I would take that deal.

[DickKessler]

22. Hasn't Sinema been meeting with people from the Chamber of Commerce a lot?

Seems suspicious to me especially since she refuses to meet with progressive groups or answer questions from reporters.

[LakeArenal]

16. No more tax incentives to companies.

[DickKessler]

21. Go for 100% as your opening bid, and get as much as you can in the end even if it's not everything

In my humble opinion of course!

[Amishman]

23. With our margins in congress as tight as they are, passing anything is a big success

[DickKessler]

24. Yup, Vice President Harris is our 51st Senator. I see little chance of getting even one GOP vote.

We have NO votes to spare.