Robert Reich's words annoy you, and your words annoy me. The last 40% or so of your post is basically writing off Robert Reich's complaint as not "based on facts", but you don't actually present a single contradiction between Reich's complaint and the facts. Reich is unhappy about Democrats "negotiating with [them]selves" despite having a trifecta, and in your rebuttal you...admit that Joe Machin, Democrat, did in fact vote against beefing up the minimum wage, "negotiate" more-intense means-testing, and "insist" on smaller unemployment insurance than was proposed.
The bill passed without a single Republican vote, for crying out loud! That falsifies any premise that the bill was watered down to convince Republicans to vote for it, because no Republicans did end up voting for it! If the bill was watered down to appease anyone, it was watered down to appease Democrats (or at least legislators who caucus with the Democrats).
The person pushing a narrative here is you, not Reich. Reich looked at this legislative product of a Democratic Senate, Democratic House, and Democratic president, and pointed out, correctly, that it wasn't as good as it could've been. Lacking a factual rebuttal, you're kicking up dirt about "narratives" and "stories" that are "increasingly out of step with, the facts". If that were true, you'd simply point out where Reich is wrong about his facts. But he isn't, so you can't.
So much good stuff in this law. And - God Willing - transportation is next.
Like Patrick Stewart's Singer: Make It Sew!
Robert Reich's words annoy you, and your words annoy me. The last 40% or so of your post is basically writing off Robert Reich's complaint as not "based on facts", but you don't actually present a single contradiction between Reich's complaint and the facts. Reich is unhappy about Democrats "negotiating with [them]selves" despite having a trifecta, and in your rebuttal you...admit that Joe Machin, Democrat, did in fact vote against beefing up the minimum wage, "negotiate" more-intense means-testing, and "insist" on smaller unemployment insurance than was proposed.
The bill passed without a single Republican vote, for crying out loud! That falsifies any premise that the bill was watered down to convince Republicans to vote for it, because no Republicans did end up voting for it! If the bill was watered down to appease anyone, it was watered down to appease Democrats (or at least legislators who caucus with the Democrats).
The person pushing a narrative here is you, not Reich. Reich looked at this legislative product of a Democratic Senate, Democratic House, and Democratic president, and pointed out, correctly, that it wasn't as good as it could've been. Lacking a factual rebuttal, you're kicking up dirt about "narratives" and "stories" that are "increasingly out of step with, the facts". If that were true, you'd simply point out where Reich is wrong about his facts. But he isn't, so you can't.