What, no Joe Manchin thread?

[JimmyJames 12267]

17 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I haven’t been to church since since ‘89 but I don’t remember Jesus teaching fuck the poor, I’ve got mine. 

That’s because those cagey Jews, including a bunch of distant relatives of George Soros, edited that part out when they eliminated the Book of Sack during the Middle Ages purges. 

[TwiceHorn 30851]

57 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The nice thing about the Trump presidency is he stripped all the pretense away and revealed conservatives for what they truly are.

The horrible thing about the Trump presidency is realizing just how many people are absolutely gleeful about no longer having to maintain the pretense of decency.

I'm gonna take issue with your use of conservatives, unqualified.

Republicans, sure.  "Conservatives," you bet.

That's why many of us have abandoned the GOP.

But we're still conservative, just not illiberal.

[Don Johnson 4726]

9 hours ago, 6th Street said:

It would be easier to call for higher tax rates on billionaires if our govt wasn't so fucking wasteful. Blowing trillions on some bullshit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bridges to nowhere. The F35 JSF program. You could double Elon's tax rate and it wouldn't make any difference to the average American because the govt would just piss it away on some horseshit with zero oversight rather than spend it on building roads, hospitals, affordable health care, etc.

And when we raise taxes it isn't ever to cover the wasteful shit we already do.  Its to cover a new program.  And it usually won't even cover the new program because it is also so fucking wasteful.  And yeah, both sides responsible.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Don Johnson

[JimmyJames 12267]

9 hours ago, 6th Street said:

It would be easier to call for higher tax rates on billionaires if our govt wasn't so fucking wasteful. Blowing trillions on some bullshit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bridges to nowhere. The F35 JSF program. 

Who exactly do you think led us into and profited mightily from those ridiculous wars and stupid construction projects? The homeless? 

[JimmyJames 12267]

We probably should have thought twice before paying an army of bums a bunch of money to invade Iraq. Not money well spent as they probably just used it all on booze. 

[JimmyJames 12267]

Joe Manchin torpedoed BBB for one reason and one reason only. His corporate overlords told him to.
 

All this other bullshit like Biden’s staff made him mad is just bullshit.

The republicans don’t have a monopoly on corporate hacks, they just have most of them and it’s a requirement for entry in their party.

[WhatTheBuck 28616]

31 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

We probably should have thought twice before paying an army of bums a bunch of money to invade Iraq. Not money well spent as they probably just used it all on booze. 

I was promised that the oil would pay for it.

[WhatTheBuck 28616]

26 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Joe Manchin torpedoed BBB for one reason and one reason only. His corporate overlords told him to.

All this other bullshit like Biden’s staff made him mad is just bullshit.

The republicans don’t have a monopoly on corporate hacks, they just have most of them and it’s a requirement for entry in their party.

The guy from coal country is blocking a bill that includes action on climate change? Surely that’s just a coincidence. 

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

I like that Sack and the like tout about being Christians. I haven’t been to church since since ‘89 but I don’t remember Jesus teaching fuck the poor, I’ve got mine. Then again Joel Osteen didn’t exist back then.

If everyone waited until they could afford kids, our negative population growth rate would put Japan to shame and do wonders for the economy.

Wait, what? You think negative growth rate is good for the economy? Or did you misuse “do wonders for”?

[Goofyboy 3012]

And the coal union wants it passed because they see the writing on the wall.

[CooterBrown 17760]

14 minutes ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

Wait, what? You think negative growth rate is good for the economy? Or did you misuse “do wonders for”?

It was sarcasm.  Should've wrote it as "wonders".

 

[babysdaddy 2708]

22 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The guy from coal country is blocking a bill that includes action on climate change? Surely that’s just a coincidence. 

It was clear from the get go that the climate provisions were a non starter for Manchin.  If you strip those out, the progressives would never vote for it.  So, the only thing to do is to strip the bill and do smaller programs like extending the child tax credit.  Yes, there will only be a few legislative victories rather than giant sweeping change but that's what happens with a 50/50 senate and narrow house.  Take the W, pussies.

[Biff Tannen 45212]

Something I haven't seen mentioned is that the numbers Manchin are working off of for this bill are imaginary.  For example, the child tax credit is only set to be extended by like 2 years in the bill, yet Manchin had Lady G get a CBO score based on the premise that the child tax credit would be extended by 10 years.  This is not what the writing in the bill states, yet that is his rationale for it being too expensive.

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

 

Biden Won Big With a Bad Hand

Relative to its strength in Congress, the Biden administration has proved outstandingly successful.

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is taking heat for sinking, at least for the moment, the Biden administration’s Build Back Better Act. But before pointing fingers, Democrats should use those fingers to count votes.

The past may cast some light on the politics of narrow majorities. Republicans had a bad election in 2000. They lost two seats in the House, reducing their majority in that chamber to a precarious three votes. Republicans lost four seats in the Senate, resulting in a 50–50 tie. Vice President Dick Cheney was the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, just as Vice President Kamala Harris is now. And, of course, George W. Bush entered the presidency under the cloud of the Florida recount, having lost the national popular vote to Al Gore.

This outcome severely limited the new President Bush’s governing options, especially before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, reshaped U.S. politics. Bush shrank his legislative agenda to two broadly popular items: first, a tax cut that passed the House with 230 votes and the Senate with 58; then an education bill that passed early in 2002 with 381 votes in the House and 87 in the Senate.

Like Biden’s ambitions, the Bush administration’s first-year agenda was beholden to the least reliable members of the president’s party in the Senate. In 2001, those were Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and James Jeffords of Vermont. Jeffords would switch parties in 2001, tipping the partisan balance of the Senate. The whims and vagaries of those two officeholders transfixed and baffled the Bush White House just as the moods and caprices of Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema transfix and baffle the Biden White House now.

Bush took office at a more placid time than Biden did. He arrived with a less ambitious legislative agenda too. But if the times have changed, the grammar of power has not.

“When I cannot get a dinner to suit my taste, I endeavor to get a taste to suit my dinner.” That was Washington Irving’s advice to travelers. It’s good advice for politicians too.

Relative to its strength in Congress, the Biden administration has proved outstandingly successful. In 11 months, Biden has done more with 50 Democratic senators than Barack Obama did with 57. He signed a $1.9 trillion COVID-relief bill in March 2021: $1,400-per-person direct payments, $350 billion in aid to state and local governments, an extension of supplemental unemployment-insurance benefits and subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. He signed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill in November. He signed some 75 executive orders, many of them advancing liberal immigration goals. He’s also won confirmation for some 40 federal judges, more than any first-year president since Ronald Reagan, and twice as many as Donald Trump confirmed in his first year with a 54-vote Senate majority.

But sooner or later, Biden was bound to bump into congressional constraints.

Indeed, from a progressive point of view, it’s a miracle that he did not bump into those constraints even sooner than he did. Had Trump accepted defeat in November with any kind of grace or decency, Republicans would surely have held at least one of the two Georgia Senate seats, and President Biden would have had to negotiate his agenda past Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

It’s bad psychology and worse political science to use electoral outcomes to make grand pronouncements about public opinion. But if we should be very careful in our statements about what voters wanted, we can easily see what the electoral system delivered. That system delivered a decisive repudiation of the Trump presidency in the presidential election in November, then a repudiation of the Trump post-presidency in Georgia in January. Beyond that, however, the system did not deliver the opportunity for progressive change that it delivered in 2008, let alone in 1964 or 1932.

Instead of fulminating against Manchin for calling quits when he did, Democrats might want to reflect on how much of their agenda got enacted only thanks to the team spirit of a senator from a state that Trump won in 2020 by 39 points.

Anybody can win a poker game with a good hand. It takes a real maestro to play a bad one.

Biden won a bigger pool with worse cards than any Democratic president ever. He won that pool because Manchin gave Biden more loyalty under more adverse conditions than the moderate Democrats of 2009 gave to President Obama.

Perhaps it’s not the nature of Democrats to appreciate the glass half full. But half full it is.

The Democrats have a year remaining in the present Congress. That’s too little time to waste on recrimination, but time enough to secure voting rights, to accelerate the shift to carbon-zero fuels, and to complete and publish the investigation into the attack on Congress on January 6, 2021. A rebuff is not a retreat. It’s a sign to proceed in a different direction.

[bolverk 29098]

5 minutes ago, MonkeyCigarette said:

 

Fellow subscriber to The Atlantic, I see. Posted the same a little while ago in the Biden thread. I don't think it's necessarily a bad take and Frum makes some good points about the successes that the Biden administration has had. Those of us on the Left have been so eager to see a sharp divergence in direction the country is going that we sometimes forget that doing so is tantamount to turning around a steamship (or however that analogy goes). Of course, part of that is also being aware that there may only be a small window.

Let's see what can get accomplished by June when the next election cycle really heats up. 

[wildcat09 28562]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm gonna take issue with your use of conservatives, unqualified.

Republicans, sure.  "Conservatives," you bet.

That's why many of us have abandoned the GOP.

But we're still conservative, just not illiberal.

I thought about that, but I actually think I was right to use "conservative." I think what we're seeing from Republicans today is true conservatism, freed of all its ideological window dressing that used to work to seduce people who, for various reasons, weren't really comfortable calling themselves liberal. Conservatism is first and foremost reactionary and conservatives are first and foremost reactionist, and at times of social upheaval that reaction has always and will always manifest itself in truly ugly ways. People like you, Brisket, GoLL, etc. all used to consider yourselves conservatives and felt the appeal of much of the idealogical window dressing that it used to dress itself up with, but when faced with social upheaval none of y'all reacted the way the reactionists did. 

[jimmyjazz 45206]

10 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

You are about to hear a whole lot of excuses now.  
 

My only modification is if you are born with no significant physical disabilities and have an IQ north of 80, there isn’t an excuse to be poor in the United States.   

@Johnny Sack:  Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

36 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Fellow subscriber to The Atlantic, I see. Posted the same a little while ago in the Biden thread. I don't think it's necessarily a bad take and Frum makes some good points about the successes that the Biden administration has had. Those of us on the Left have been so eager to see a sharp divergence in direction the country is going that we sometimes forget that doing so is tantamount to turning around a steamship (or however that analogy goes). Of course, part of that is also being aware that there may only be a small window.

Let's see what can get accomplished by June when the next election cycle really heats up. 

As an aside, how great is The Atlantic? Probably my favorite read, does the best job of striking a chord of fair and balanced.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33723]

[JimmyJames 12267]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

@Johnny Sack:  Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

Then he steals second base and starts talking shit.

Edited December 22, 2021 by JimmyJames

['stache 21590]

He sucks, but the rhetoric against him misses the point, in my opinion. He was elected and will probably be reelected and his job is to represent the people who elected him. The problem is the enormous power these small state senators have over the entirety of the country. Manchin represents 1.7 million people. Alex Padilla of California represents 40 million people. They have equal votes in the Senate. That's the problem here.

[David Dennison 17800]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Fellow subscriber to The Atlantic, I see. Posted the same a little while ago in the Biden thread. I don't think it's necessarily a bad take and Frum makes some good points about the successes that the Biden administration has had. Those of us on the Left have been so eager to see a sharp divergence in direction the country is going that we sometimes forget that doing so is tantamount to turning around a steamship (or however that analogy goes). Of course, part of that is also being aware that there may only be a small window.

Let's see what can get accomplished by June when the next election cycle really heats up. 

The legislative process is slow and arduous. The BBB bill is going to pass. We just don't know what it's going to look like yet.

[elfenix 34123]

16 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

I agree about the segregation and lynching. Still amazes me the want to punish our best and brightest to support the ones who can’t even find a way to pay in themselves.  I’d wager Musk will probably pay more than the lifetime cumulative of everyone who’s ever been a welfare recipient. 1 man.  More than the cumulative contributions of millions of people. And we’ll just gloss over that he’s probably done more for the “climate crisis” than any other person. 

the whole point of civil government is to enable billionaires to be billionaires, so i don't know why you should expect the poors to pay for that. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23247]

The dude is bought by the same interests that buy Republicans.  I don’t know why we pretend this guy is a good faith negotiator.  

[mchookem 15568]

13 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

"The father of three shouldn't have kids unless he can afford them. It's immoral to expect others to pay for the care of offspring you chose to have."  Why do males always disappear from the equation?

Singles mothers who are the ones actually taking care of these kids < single dads who may or may not have anything to do with offspring. Your bias is obvious. And I bet you're "pro-life" too because the women (only the women) chose to open their legs so it's on them. What a sickeningly narrow world view. Cue Sack: "I don't like deadbeat dads hurr durr"

[mchookem 15568]

5 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Got up this morning and started reading and was thinking the exact same thing.  The most hateful and arrogant posters seem attracted to other's misery and opposing the opportunity to improve our country.  

also, they are raging assholes. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by mchookem

[fattyflattie 4633]

19 minutes ago, mchookem said:

He/we were replying to a specific example from @Dahobbs , fwiw.   Typically how that works when replying to someone’s example. 

[StassneyHorn 6446]

In 3 days some of you will be sitting in a church celebrating the birth of a foreign speaking middle eastern child, a refugee, to a woman impregnated before she was married to another man and so poor she delivered in a barn.

and some of you won’t bat a fucking eye as you go on living like shitheaps.

[jimmyjazz 45206]

1 hour ago, &#x27;stache said:

He sucks, but the rhetoric against him misses the point, in my opinion. He was elected and will probably be reelected and his job is to represent the people who elected him. 

Yeah, he's not doing that part.

['stache 21590]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, he's not doing that part.

I highly doubt a place like West Virginia is dying to support a democrat president. Manchin is a political animal, he would not do this if it was going to hurt his ability to win elections.

[DDD Dad 14076]

1 hour ago, &#x27;stache said:

He sucks, but the rhetoric against him misses the point, in my opinion. He was elected and will probably be reelected and his job is to represent the people who elected him. The problem is the enormous power these small state senators have over the entirety of the country. Manchin represents 1.7 million people. Alex Padilla of California represents 40 million people. They have equal votes in the Senate. That's the problem here.

I see an additional problem.  He seems to be voting against his own constituents' interests (and arguably solely in his own wrt coal). 

[MonkeyCigarette 143]

18 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

In 3 days some of you will be sitting in a church celebrating the birth of a foreign speaking middle eastern child, a refugee, to a woman impregnated before she was married to another man and so poor she delivered in a barn.

and some of you won’t bat a fucking eye as you go on living like shitheaps.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8lMOL7GaPWI

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by MonkeyCigarette

[DDD Dad 14076]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, he's not doing that part.

I can't keep up with you

['stache 21590]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

I see an additional problem.  He seems to be voting against his own constituents' interests (and arguably solely in his own wrt coal). 

We'll see, I guess. I just don't see him doing this if he voters wanted the bill to pass. I also see West Virginia as a place that has "Let's Go Brandon" signs on every block.

[DDD Dad 14076]

19 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

In 3 days some of you will be sitting in a church celebrating the birth of a foreign speaking middle eastern child, a refugee, to a woman impregnated before she was married to another man and so poor she delivered in a barn.

and some of you won’t bat a fucking eye as you go on living like shitheaps.

 

[fattyflattie 4633]

2 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

We'll see, I guess. I just don't see him doing this if he voters wanted the bill to pass. I also see West Virginia as a place that has "Let's Go Brandon" signs on every block.

I lived there most of ‘20.  It’s easily the actual “Trumpiest” place I’ve been.  I put that in quotation as that word gets used for all sorts of things now.  I’m talking actually flying a trump flag on your gate/porch/car.  I have no doubt, if it could be quantified, you’d find the flag sales are higher in WV than anywhere else.  

[DDD Dad 14076]

7 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

We'll see, I guess. I just don't see him doing this if he voters wanted the bill to pass. I also see West Virginia as a place that has "Let's Go Brandon" signs on every block.

 

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I lived there most of ‘20.  It’s easily the actual “Trumpiest” place I’ve been.  I put that in quotation as that word gets used for all sorts of things now.  I’m talking actually flying a trump flag on your gate/porch/car.  I have no doubt, if it could be quantified, you’d find the flag sales are higher in WV than anywhere else.  

There's a big difference between voting in a way that you think your voters want you to vote (Team Red!) and voting for what might actually benefit your constituents.  The BBB plan provisions have polled very positively in WV, even while on the culture wars front it remains very Trumpy.  I think JJ and I are talking about the substantive aspect of what's in the constituents' interests rather than what Manchin thinks will get him re-elected.

[fattyflattie 4633]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

 

There's a big difference between voting in a way that you think your voters want you to vote (Team Red!) and voting for what might actually benefit your constituents.  The BBB plan provisions have polled very positively in WV, even while on the culture wars front it remains very Trumpy.  I think JJ and I are talking about the substantive aspect of what's in the constituents' interests rather than what Manchin thinks will get him re-elected.

I get that, just verifying that “Let’s go Brandon” and flags with Trump riding a tank hung on your front porch is like 5:1 for anywhere else I’ve been for last couple of years. And lots of the places I travel for work are trumpy af.  But they win.  Not even close. 

[Dahobbs 17251]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

He/we were replying to a specific example from @Dahobbs , fwiw.   Typically how that works when replying to someone’s example. 

Y'all weren't replying to my example, you were co-opting it for a different purpose. The purpose of my example was to illustrate how wealth doesn't define a person's value.  You and Johnny ostensibly believe that those with more money are in fact better than those with less. And you both refuse to acknowledge that things outside a person's control often have a greater effect on their ability to aggregate wealth than any choices made by them. In essence, you believe you deserve everything you have and that the poor deserve their lack of resources. You and Johnny then co-opted my example into an argument about who should have children, again illustrating your belief that the rich deserve life more than the poor. 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Dahobbs

[mchookem 15568]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

In 3 days some of you will be sitting in a church celebrating the birth of a foreign speaking middle eastern child, a refugee, to a woman impregnated before she was married to another man and so poor she delivered in a barn.

and some of you won’t bat a fucking eye as you go on living like shitheaps.

here take all my pos rep! 

 

[Goofyboy 3012]

In 3 days some of you will be sitting in a church celebrating the birth of a foreign speaking middle eastern child, a refugee, to a woman impregnated before she was married to another man and so poor she delivered in a barn.
and some of you won’t bat a fucking eye as you go on living like shitheaps.

Brilliantly put.

[Smax 3799]

Agree. Someone hits $1 billion, that’s it, they win. Everything above $1 billion is invested back into the economy through infrastructure, health care and food for those that need it.

The billionaire keeps his / her billion. They will be fine. Maybe give them two votes in every election as an extra prize.

Uh no

Im all for raising taxes on the ultra wealthy but limiting wealth accumulation is a hard fuck you

[hpslugga 3984]

11 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

I like that Sack and the like tout about being Christians. I haven’t been to church since since ‘89 but I don’t remember Jesus teaching fuck the poor, I’ve got mine. Then again Joel Osteen didn’t exist back then.

If everyone waited until they could afford kids, our negative population growth rate would put Japan to shame and do wonders for the economy.

No, but Robertson (fuck you, no relation) and Falwell certainly were.

[Goofyboy 3012]

Uh no

Im all for raising taxes on the ultra wealthy but limiting wealth accumulation is a hard fuck you

Why?

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’d really like to know.

[Smax 3799]

3 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Why?

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I’d really like to know.

Because its unamerican for the government to limit a persons personal and professional growth. The idea that some think its ok for the government to put in restraints on how much a person can earn, is terrifying to me. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, bust your ass, reap the rewards. Now if we start placing limitations on what those rewards are?

 

Someone mentioned above, you reach a billion you won no need for more, does that person not understand that houses in high value areas can be several hundred million dollars, now add in vacation homes, planes, yatchs.upkeep well there a billion right there. 

Raise taxes but limiting the ability to gain worth, fuck you Im grabbing my AR

[Biff Tannen 45212]

6 minutes ago, Smax said:

Because its unamerican for the government to limit a persons personal and professional growth. The idea that some think its ok for the government to put in restraints on how much a person can earn, is terrifying to me. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, bust your ass, reap the rewards. Now if we start placing limitations on what those rewards are?

 

Someone mentioned above, you reach a billion you won no need for more, does that person not understand that houses in high value areas can be several hundred million dollars, now add in vacation homes, planes, yatchs.upkeep well there a billion right there. 

Raise taxes but limiting the ability to gain worth, fuck you Im grabbing my AR

This is the problem.  There are probably a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of overall houses that cost this much.  The disconnect when it comes to what a billion dollars actually means is astonishing.  Not an attack on you.  Humans suck at this in general, but it's really really important.  A billion dollars is an astronomical amount.  It's a joke.  I have ZERO problem advocating the idea that billionaires should not exist. 

[Goofyboy 3012]

Because its unamerican for the government to limit a persons personal and professional growth. The idea that some think its ok for the government to put in restraints on how much a person can earn, is terrifying to me. This is supposed to be the land of opportunity, bust your ass, reap the rewards. Now if we start placing limitations on what those rewards are?
 
Someone mentioned above, you reach a billion you won no need for more, does that person not understand that houses in high value areas can be several hundred million dollars, now add in vacation homes, planes, yatchs.upkeep well there a billion right there. 
Raise taxes but limiting the ability to gain worth, fuck you Im grabbing my AR

I do understand there are hundred million dollar homes and yatchs. None of those things are needed. You’re defending a very small handful of people vs thousands that have no home.

Ok, so we raise taxes to 99% on anything over $1 billion.

[Smax 3799]

14 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

I do understand there are hundred million dollar homes and yatchs. None of those things are needed. You’re defending a very small handful of people vs thousands that have no home.

Ok, so we raise taxes to 99% on anything over $1 billion.

 

 

As a lifelong GOP who has been moving left to the dem party, you 2 just lost my vote with this, no ifs ands or butts this policy will make me cringe and accept the shitshow of the GOP and pour money and support into the GOP to fight this measure in every way I can.

[jimmyjazz 45206]

It's entirely possible to shift the burden away from the poor without capping total accumulated wealth.

[Biff Tannen 45212]

3 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

 

As a lifelong GOP who has been moving left to the dem party, you 2 just lost my vote with this, no ifs ands or butts this policy will make me cringe and accept the shitshow of the GOP and pour money and support into the GOP to fight this measure in every way I can.

Why?  How does it effect you?