General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDemocrats begin to narrow their differences on Biden's agenda bill
Democrats in a flurry of private talks are beginning to narrow their differences over the size of President Bidens sweeping safety-net bill, as liberals signal sizable concessions on the size of what could be the most far-reaching social legislation in years.
In a virtual meeting with about a dozen liberal Democrats on Monday, Biden suggested a range of $1.9 trillion to $2.2 trillion, according to people with knowledge of the private discussion significantly lower than his initial $3.5 trillion plan.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), leader of the influential Congressional Progressive Caucus, pushed back, according to three of the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. She countered with a minimum spending amount of $2.5 trillion, saying a range from that figure to $2.9 trillion could cover key programs.
Still, the gap between the $2.2 trillion maximum offered by Biden and the $2.5 trillion minimum suggested by Jayapal represents a striking narrowing of differences from just last week.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/democrats-begin-to-narrow-their-differences-on-bidens-agenda-bill/ar-AAPa8yM
Midnight Writer
(21,540 posts)The 3.5 trillion is over ten years, and in my opinion will easily pay for itself in increased productivity and millions of jobs.
I would argue, also, that because of the neglect in spending in the past, you could consider that spending to be a twenty year figure rather than ten.
essaynnc
(792 posts)I'll bet that his initial figure of 3.5, plus the infrastructure, is way over what his final number initially was. "Go ahead, talk me down some. I'll let you save some face in the process". I can see the Republicans gloating to their base.
Anyone want to take that bet???
Mme. Defarge
(7,981 posts)qazplm135
(7,447 posts)seems fair to me.