Manchin said in January he'd be okay with $4 trillion in infrastructure, but now he wants a lot less

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Here's a full timeline of his price tags.

If you can't keep track of Democrats' massive spending push, you aren't alone. Even the party's most impactful senator has changed course multiple times in the past year.

-snip-


In January, Manchin said he'd back up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending, as then-president-elect Joe Biden laid out his plans for office.

"The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," Manchin told Inside West Virginia Politics in January.

He reaffirmed his support for a larger package in April, as Senate Republicans readied their own much smaller infrastructure package.

-more-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/joe-manchin-said-in-january-hed-be-okay-with-dollar4-trillion-in-infrastructure-but-now-he-wants-a-lot-less-heres-a-full-timeline-of-his-price-tags/ar-AAP3LaW

[Irish_Dem]

1. Shifting stories usually means a person is not being honest.

[dchill]

2. Wherein "usually" means 100% of the time.

[Irish_Dem]

5. The exception might be dementia.

Only so many ways to explain it. None of them good.

[dchill]

7. It's all un-good.

[Dustlawyer]

15. It means he hadn't had offers of campaign donations yet to be against it.

[Irish_Dem]

16. He was trolling for dollars with the early comments?

[Igel]

22. Ambiguity also means a person possibly

hasn't thought things through and doesn't want to be pinned down.

He said "2" as much as he said "4", and conditioned it on "whatever it takes."

The certainty and commitment that people are reading into the ambiguous statement are all their own.

[Irish_Dem]

23. Right, they are just making it up as they go.

Just flapping their gums. No thought about what they are saying.

[FBaggins]

3. Still untrue

Since that time they’ve already approved between 2.5 and 3 trillion. Leaving between 1-1.5 trillion

Exactly where he has been all along.

[forthemiddle]

4. Exactly

This has been reiterated over, and over again. If we can pass a 1.5 Trillion dollar reconciliation bill, that will actually be at the top end of what he promised.

[uponit7771]

8. Not ***JUST*** on infrastructure as he stated in that quote we spend "up to". The playing

... with words on the specific issue of infrastructure isn't helping.

[bluewater]

11. "the playing with words" thing, it borders on sophistry, no?

It seems that's all that's left to some apologists.



Manchin clearly said:

In January, Manchin said he'd back up to $4 trillion in infrastructure spending, as then-president-elect Joe Biden laid out his plans for office.

"The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," Manchin told Inside West Virginia Politics in January.

He reaffirmed his support for a larger package in April, as Senate Republicans readied their own much smaller infrastructure package.

"We're going to do whatever it takes. If it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion, but we have to pay for it," Manchin told reporters at the time, saying that he would go big if the situation warranted it.

The BIF, aka the "bipartisan infrastructure bill", and Build Back Better Act , aka the reconciliation bill, are the two bills that have consistently been referred to as "infrastructure" spending, attempts to broaden that now to other spending notwithstanding.

[FBaggins]

12. Oh please

Your post is the one playing with words. Especially after all the time we’ve spent defining everything as infrastructure? Now jobs bills don’t count?

[uponit7771]

17. Gas lighting is rude, "if it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion"

He's not going to do 4 trillion anything ... So why even make the statement?

[bluewater]

20. Because changing the definition of "infrastructure spending" is the last hair left to split?

Seems so.



Honestly, been there, done that, bought the t-shirt but I'm still not buying the "word games" either.

[uponit7771]

26. +1, Right !?!? I don't know why Manchin wants to play these games

[uponit7771]

6. Manchin is playing with words, looks like he's all over the place

[jimfields33]

10. They have 1.5 trillion infrastructure bill ready to go

Another 1.8 trillion will be pretty close to the up to four trillion he intended.

[UCmeNdc]

13. They have a 3.5 Trillion Dollar Bill ready to go right now too.

[uponit7771]

18. He said, "if it takes $4 trillion, I'd do $4 trillion"no he won't

[UCmeNdc]

9. Joe Manchin should let Joe Biden lead and he should follow.

If Joe Biden says 3.5 trillion . pass it
If joe Biden says 2,5 Trillion . pass it
If Joe Biden says 1.5 Trillion . pass it

Let Joe Biden lead. All others follow.

[Dawson Leery]

14. Without question.

Why is Manchin shifting so much?

[budkin]

19. His shareholders reminded him who he works for

Obviously.

[dalton99a]

21. +1

[jalan48]

24. Joe thought it would be the usual political two-step dance. Say what sounds good to appease the

citizens while you actually dance to the tune the fossil fuel industry plays. The Progressives have called bullshit on his play.

[UCmeNdc]

25. Well, it is time to listen to the tune of Joe Biden.

[crickets]

27. Indeed, and it has backfired on him. Good. nt

[jalan48]

28. The political corporatists have to serve their masters while making the public believe that they are

serving the interests of the common folks. It’s worked for a long time but the common folks are getting woke to the game. We will still hear the apologists saying it’s the best we can do or spouting nonsense like lower taxes means the job creators can help them but thankfully things are starting to change