What, no Joe Manchin thread?

[immortal13 4059]

16 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

When someone votes based on what corporate donors own him, it’s a failure of democracy. His excuses that it costs too much was based on a made up situation. The majority of the bill has been tailored to him. He has no excuse at this point other than he’s bought and paid for and that’s the failure.

Quit talking about the big guy that way. Show some respect

[hornmpa96 2541]

19 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

When someone votes based on what corporate donors own him, it’s a failure of democracy. His excuses that it costs too much was based on a made up situation. The majority of the bill has been tailored to him. He has no excuse at this point other than he’s bought and paid for and that’s the failure.

All of the “temporary” programs should be scored in two ways: 

1. based on the bills language which includes the expiration and

2. assuming the provision is made permanent.

It’s not a made up concern that the temporary provisions will be extended perpetually. In fact, that’s exactly what the bill’s proponents want.

 

[Macklemore 2856]

10 hours ago, Anastasis said:

It could be so many different things, which is why it is fascinating to unpack.  Is it just your own self loathing over the fact that you were relegated to a second (or is it third) tier law school? Are you compensating for academic inadequacies? Or are you just jealous of someone operating in a different social segment than you? Or are you just projecting your own shame onto others for all the times that you fail to live up to your own expectations of justice in the world?  So many avenues to explore.  

Odds are he went to a bottom of the barrel law school (aggy, TSU, St. Mary’s take your pick) and is a struggling solo practitioner not even making 6 figures. The class resentment and jealousy of Sack oozes out of him. Sounds like a guy very unhappy with where he is in his life. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Macklemore

[Bullneck 18747]

Let me parse your thought process here:

10 hours ago, workswithseed said:

You apparently do since you didn't like his opinion.

Think through what I wrote.  I said I had him on ignore.  I didn't say I had him on ignore because he doesn't like me (I expect as much).  I have him on ignore because he posts pseudo-intellectual, disingenuous garbage posing as "counterpoint" that I'm not interested in reading.  He's good at camouflaging his character shortcomings as "another way of looking at things."  

10 hours ago, workswithseed said:

As to your first paragraph, I don't give a shit. 

Like I said, you don't contribute anything.  And you say you don't care?  You must only be posting for personal enjoyment, rather than being part of a substantive conversation.  Since you don't give a shit about being negged, you get negged.

[Bullneck 18747]

PUTTING THIS JOE MANCHIN THREAD BACK ON TRACK.  HERE IS SOME JOE MANCHIN CONTENT.  

TAKE YOUR NON-JOE MANCHIN CONTENT TO DOUCHEBAG CENTRAL OR DERKAVILLE.  WE ARE RETURNING TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED BROADCAST.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/build-back-better-joe-manchin-joe-biden_n_61c4a435e4b04b42ab699214

Joe Manchin's 'Scaled-Back' Framework May Be Better Than It Sounds
Prioritizing certain initiatives over others is hard, but that could be what it takes to save Build Back Better.
Jonathan Cohn
By 
Jonathan Cohn
12/24/2021 06:00am EST

It looks like negotiations over President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better legislation are only mostly dead — which, as any fan of “The Princess Bride” knows, means they are also slightly alive.

This wasn’t so apparent last weekend, when Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) went on Fox News to say he was a “no” on the bill that House Democrats passed last month. Shortly afterward, Manchin issued a press release reaffirming his opposition. The statements were stronger than anything he’d said previously, and drew blistering rebukes from a variety of top Democratic officials ― including White House press secretary Jen Psaki and House Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), both of whom accused Manchin of negotiating in bad faith.

But Biden, who has since spoken directly with Manchin, vowed on Tuesday that “Sen. Manchin and I are going to get something done.” Jayapal also spoke to Manchin and asked him to be more specific about what in the House bill he could support and what he couldn’t. It was a clear attempt to lower the temperature, restart a dialogue and craft a consensus bill that can pass both houses.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Bullneck

[Bullneck 18747]

That won’t be easy, given the considerable distance between Manchin and his party’s leaders. Manchin has raised a series of objections to specific initiatives, including the direct subsidy to families with parents that Manchin says could create an “entitlement society” but that Democrats see as the centerpiece of their strategy to fight child poverty.

It's not clear whether Senator Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), seen here in November, is sincere about trying to find a compromise version of President Joe Biden's "Build Back Better" proposal. But the conceptual framework he's floated could yield significant legislation.

Manchin has also said he objects to the bill’s basic structure. By funding several of the programs for only a few years with the expectation that future lawmakers will renew them, Manchin says, Democratic leaders have disguised the bill’s true cost ― which, he says, is $3 trillion over 10 years, rather than the $1.85 trillion in the official Congressional Budget Office projection.

The best hope for moving forward may lie in an alternative framework that, according to The Washington Post, Manchin gave the White House last week. It would include the bill’s climate and pre-kindergarten initiatives, along with improvements to the Affordable Care Act, funding all of them for the full 10 years of the budget window. It would leave out most of the bill’s other components.

It’s difficult to know how serious this proposal is, given that it’s not public, or whether Manchin sincerely wants to get to “yes.” Even if he does, reconstructing legislation and assembling votes for it at this late stage in the process would be difficult. Progressives in particular are likely to resist endorsing a bill that is already being described in the media as a “scaled-back” version of the House bill.

But that description is not quite right. Whatever Manchin’s motives, whatever the consistency or merits of his views, a bill that includes fewer initiatives but is funded permanently might actually be better as both politics and policy ― as a number of liberal writers and thinkers have been arguing for weeks.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Bullneck

[Bullneck 18747]

In fact, it’s possible this is the type of bill that Biden and party leaders would have tried passing from the very beginning, if not for the unusual, ultimately fleeting political circumstances that prevailed in late 2020 and early 2021.

The Choices Biden And Leaders Avoided Before
The interval between the final stages of a campaign and the first weeks of a presidential term is typically when a new administration works with congressional leaders to figure out what legislation it will try to pass and when.

That is when former President Barack Obama and his allies decided to spend Obama’s first year seeking legislation on health care (which passed) and climate change (which didn’t). Likewise, it’s when former President Donald Trump and his allies decided to focus on Obamacare repeal (which failed) and tax cuts (which succeeded).

Setting priorities is never easy for a new administration, because it means postponing the push for some initiatives, neglecting the needs those initiatives address and disappointing their champions. That’s why, to this day, so many immigration reform advocates are furious with Obama and Democratic leaders over their failure to take up their cause right away. But an administration has only so much bandwidth, so much political capital and so much time at its disposal. The same goes for congressional leaders. And so in 2009, they decided to focus on a few initiatives, even though they wanted to promote them all.

“A bill that includes fewer initiatives but is funded permanently might actually be better as both politics and policy.”

That wasn’t the approach in late 2020 and early 2021, and the emergency mentality of the pandemic was a big reason why. Economic relief measures were expiring while large swaths of the population remained out of work, unable to pay for basics like food and housing. Key sectors like child care were on the verge of collapse because of closures and staff shortages, panicking families and further undermining the economy. Vaccines were finally available, but distribution was a mess and badly in need of funding.

Into this crisis stepped a new administration that hadn’t yet prioritized among its campaign promises because, until the surprise Democratic Senate victories in Georgia, it hadn’t expected its party would have control of Congress. At the same time, Biden and Democratic leaders in Congress were determined not to make the mistake of Obama’s first year, when Democrats frittered away so much time and political capital trying unsuccessfully to win Republican support for their initiatives.

Instead, before the administration was even two months old, Biden and Democratic leaders passed the American Rescue Plan through the budget reconciliation process, which requires just 50 votes in the Senate. No Senate Republicans voted for it, and Manchin was the last to sign on with what was, in the context of that legislation, a relatively modest concession: giving up on a proposed increase in the minimum wage.

[Bullneck 18747]

Many within and outside the party began counting on Manchin’s support for the rest of the Democratic agenda, assuming a similar negotiation process would get it done. That thinking shaped the construction of Build Back Better, which included most of the major initiatives Biden had embraced as a candidate, from once-in-a-generation action to slow climate change to a new entitlement for child care. The idea was to reprise not Obama’s or Bill Clinton’s first term, but something more like Franklin Roosevelt’s.

But FDR had larger majorities that, among other things, were willing to commit a lot more government spending to launching new programs. Biden’s opening bid, which he constructed together with Democratic leaders from both houses, envisioned $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Biden’s plan was actually a preemptive compromise, well short of the $6 trillion that Senate Budget Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thought it would take to fund the agenda fully ― and it was still way more than Democrats like Manchin were willing to spend.

[Bullneck 18747]

That led to a second round of downsizing ― and the decision to start limiting funding for several initiatives to only a few years, in the hopes that their popularity would compel a future Congress to extend the programs before they expire. It would be a huge gamble, all the more so because several programs depend on state officials agreeing to participate. The lack of permanent funding could convince more of them to stay out.

An example is Build Back Better’s two early childhood initiatives, one to revamp child care assistance and one to establish universal pre-kindergarten programs. Successfully implemented, the programs could save some families many thousands of dollars a year, ideally allowing kids to end up in better care and working parents to feel a lot less financial distress.

The bill envisions both initiatives as traditional federal-state partnerships, with Washington putting up most of the money in exchange for states covering the rest and arranging their programs to comply with new federal rules. In its estimate of the program’s cost, CBO assumed a third of states would turn down the child care money and 40% would turn down the pre-K funding, according to an internal document obtained by the People’s Policy Project.

CBO analysts were just guessing at this, and it’s possible more states would participate. It’s also possible fewer would. And the fewer states in the program, the easier it would be for lawmakers to let the program lapse, turning a transformational change into a temporary one.

The Choices Biden And Leaders Face Now
Unless Manchin is bluffing, the only way to get his vote and pass a bill is to pick a few plans to fund fully ― which, inevitably, would mean picking a few plans not to fund at all.

The contours of the reconfiguration would depend heavily on whether it includes an extension of those direct payments to families with kids, the child tax credit, that the American Rescue Plan increased temporarily. It’s arguably the simplest, easiest policy in Build Back Better to implement, since it’s already on the books, and it has already had dramatic effects on poverty. But with a 10-year cost of $1.65 trillion, it would soak up almost all of the money in a $1.85 trillion bill.

Democrats could opt for a smaller version of the credit that would still do a lot of good. Or, if Manchin were amenable, they could pass a one-year extension that would avoid cutting off the money next year, with the expectation that Congress would then work on a bipartisan bill to extend the cuts permanently, using a proposal from Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) as its basis. (Former Democratic Senate aide Adam Jentleson sketched out such a scenario in the Post this week.)

Either option would leave room for most if not all of the climate initiatives ― which most Democrats deem essential because the warming planet is such an existential threat ― and then some combination of the programs to help families with child care and health care.

“A year ago this time ... Democrats would have been giddy at the idea of funding even one of Build Back Better’s initiatives.”

In figuring out which policies to include, Democrats would have to ponder a number of variables ― like which policies provide the most help to the people most in need, which ones are most likely to be politically sustainable, which ones would be most likely to become law on their own at some later date, and which ones have viable alternatives through executive actions that Biden could take on his own.

And no matter what the decisions, they would be painful for leaders to make ― especially given all the news illustrating the need for these programs, whether it’s natural disasters drawing attention to climate change or a shortage of care workers demonstrating why that part of the labor force needs so much new support.

But the choices at this point may be inevitable in a world where the barest of Democratic majorities depends on support from a senator who has made clear he is wary of too much government spending, who worries openly about assistance recipients using money to buy drugs and who comes from a state that voted for Trump over Biden by nearly 40 points.

And while it’s important to focus on what a reconfigured bill wouldn’t accomplish, it’s also important to think about what it could. A year ago this time, when a governing majority seemed impossible, Democrats and their supporters would have been giddy at the idea of funding even one of Build Back Better’s initiatives. Now they are looking at the possibility of funding several ― an outcome that seems disappointing primarily because, during the early months of Biden’s presidency, there was so much talk of doing so much more.

Of course, even a reconfigured bill might not be able to pass, given the work it would take to craft new legislation and then secure the necessary votes. Getting the current legislation through the House required a herculean effort by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and doing it again might be beyond even her legendary talents, especially with so many Democrats wary of getting burned by Manchin again.

But if the choice Democratic leaders face is between trying to pass a more narrowly focused bill and passing nothing at all, this shouldn’t be a hard call. They have nothing to lose by trying, and quite a lot to gain.

[Sawbonz 26871]

3 hours ago, Brew said:

There is no place for civil discourse, any disagreement just turns into a shit slinging fest

New Surly motto?

[jimmyjazz 45192]

I'm offended by the name "Joe Manchin".

I propose "Joe Womanchin".

 

Merry Christmas, you heathens.

[JimmyJames 12267]

42 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

Odds are he went to a bottom of the barrel law school (aggy, TSU, St. Mary’s take your pick) and is a struggling solo practitioner not even making 6 figures. The class resentment and jealousy of Sack oozes out of him. Sounds like a guy very unhappy with where he is in his life. 

Yeah that must be it. I wish I was a rich asshole who thinks the poor are poor and opposes anything the Dems do because they all made “bad choices.”
 

Seriously, some of you guys take this shit here way too seriously. 

[immortal13 4059]

19 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

Like I said, you don't contribute anything.  And you say you don't care?  You must only be posting for personal enjoyment, rather than being part of a substantive conversation.  Since you don't give a shit about being negged, you get negged.

Negged

[immortal13 4059]

Let's keep this on topic people: Joe Manchin

 

 

Joe Manchin is a damn fine American. Joe Manchin, unlike the other Joe, is the type of man who is more concerned with doing the right thing than giving in to political pressure, even if that means going against his own party. Joe Manchin is the type of Senator all other Senators should strive to be like. This Bud's for you, Joe!

Edited December 24, 2021 by immortal13

[Fudge Nuggets 18978]

2 hours ago, Goofyboy said:

The poors don’t get to suffer anymore for his amusement.

The poor will still suffer plenty.  I guess the right wingers don’t think they should have to pay for their entertainment. 

[DDD Dad 14065]

1 hour ago, Macklemore said:

Sounds like a guy very unhappy with where he is in his life. 

Ironic post is ironic.

[Macklemore 2856]

13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Ironic post is ironic.

I have never had a better year financially or professionally - Viva President Brandon!!

[Brew 2917]

I feel like we’re right on the verge of some paystub posting, it’s about to get real.

The funny thing about this whole debate is that there is likely very few people (NIIT applying to pass through active would be the catch) in this thread negatively impacted by the majority of what is in BBB, it is solely a debate about what the government should be doing in the best interest of it’s people. Put me in the camp of I’ll pay more in taxes if it is going towards green energy, affordable childcare and healthcare, etc. Most of my income is pass through, so I’m going up 3.8% and will be impacted, but I don’t have any significant qualms with the spending provisions in this one.

[Brew 2917]

I also still say to speed up the demise of the 20% deduction on past through income and we can get some other things covered as well. That was always a terrible idea.

[hobbes2702 12533]

42 minutes ago, Macklemore said:

I have never had a better year financially or professionally - Viva President Brandon!!

You can buy all the tailored jerseys you want!!!

[tchookem 3895]

You can buy all the tailored jerseys you want!!!

That subscription to the Financial Times must really be paying off.

[Brew 2917]

45 minutes ago, tchookem said:

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

You can buy all the tailored jerseys you want!!!

That subscription to the Financial Times must really be paying off.

Probably better than the Stonks thread has paid off the last 6+ months.

[jimmyjazz 45192]

13 minutes ago, Brew said:

Probably better than the Stonks thread has paid off the last 6+ months.

The broad market is up 11% in 6 months.  How bad does one have to be to miss that ride?

[Brew 2917]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The broad market is up 11% in 6 months.  How bad does one have to be to miss that ride?

One would just have to wander into the Stonks thread to miss that ride. There is this bitch named Amy there and another that goes by the name IBRX. Let’s not forget the good Dr that goes by RXMD. In my HUMBL opinion, it has not been the best thread to follow depending on where exactly you jumped on the roller coaster.

[Anastasis 23214]

Just now, Brew said:

One would just have to wander into the Stonks thread to miss that ride. There is this bitch named Amy there and another that goes by the name IBRX. Let’s not forget the good Dr that goes by RXMD. In my HUMBL opinion, it has not been the best thread to follow depending on where exactly you jumped on the roller coaster.

Don't you speak like that about my amy. 

[UpperWestside 6026]

On 12/23/2021 at 5:22 PM, Johnny Sack said:

I actually like to help the poor with my own money, not by keeping my money and trying to enact policies to give other people's money away. Or tweeting about how other people should be taxed more.

I believe modern leftist policies wanting big and inefficient government programs, while either well intentioned or using other's money to buy votes, do nothing to help the poor.  So you guys, in my view, are either evil or ignorant.

I do have disdain for people who make terrible choices.  And even more disdain for their enablers.  

I would encourage everyone to do things to actually help the poor.  Put your own money and time where your mouth is.  I strongly suspect most of the leftists on here have alligator arms when it comes to reaching into their own pockets to help the less fortunate.  That is typically the case in my experience and backed up by empirical evidence when you look at the data on charitable giving.

There is no excuse for being poor in the USA today.  Fast food restaurants are paying $15-20 per hour and offering $500 signing bonuses.  Graduate high school.  Work full time.  Don't abuse drugs or alcohol.  Don't commit felonies.  Don't have kids unless you can afford them.  

I won’t cherry pick this post, but reading it in its entirety is vexing to be honest. You encourage people to help the poor, but have disdain for helping people who make poor choices in life and then you have even more ire for people that you say enable them. 
 

I do see that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about how the human mind works and how people wind up in the situations that they do. Sometimes, and I said this just the other day on here, that if you think you know everything about everything come to this board to realize you do not. 
 

And yes there are VALID reasons for why people are poor in America. Not everyone had access to a quality education or even a passable one. When you get the short end of the stick educationally from the beginning of your journey with education there are consequences for it out of the control of the young boy or girl receiving said education. That can apply equally to children The Bronx or poor kids growing up in Appalachia. An unsatisfactory education in West Virginia is why they have people who are dirt poor with no lifeline to get out of life destroying poverty. 
 

Again I have a hard time reconciling helping the poor, but then wanting how they are helped to be completely on your terms. Somehow I think that does not mesh real well with the teachings of Jesus. 

[safe sex 11608]

2 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

I won’t cherry pick this post, but reading it in its entirety is vexing to be honest. You encourage people to help the poor, but have disdain for helping people who make poor choices in life and then you have even more ire for people that you say enable them. 
 

I do see that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about how the human mind works and how people wind up in the situations that they do. Sometimes, and I said this just the other day on here, that if you think you know everything about everything come to this board to realize you do not. 
 

And yes there are VALID reasons for why people are poor in America. Not everyone had access to a quality education or even a passable one. When you get the short end of the stick educationally from the beginning of your journey with education there are consequences for it out of the control of the young boy or girl receiving said education. That can apply equally to children The Bronx or poor kids growing up in Appalachia. An unsatisfactory education in West Virginia is why they have people who are dirt poor with no lifeline to get out of life destroying poverty. 
 

Again I have a hard time reconciling helping the poor, but then wanting how they are helped to be completely on your terms. Somehow I think that does not mesh real well with the teachings of Jesus. 

This is a nice effort but ultimately futile.

[jimmyjazz 45192]

1 minute ago, UpperWestside said:

And yes there are VALID reasons for why people are poor in America. Not everyone had access to a quality education or even a passable one. When you get the short end of the stick educationally from the beginning of your journey with education there are consequences for it out of the control of the young boy or girl receiving said education.

This whole mindset of "women should live with the consequences of their poor choices when they get pregnant" AND "nobody in America needs to be poor" blows my mind.

Did the kid born to that woman have any say in the matter?  Must that kid somehow  be expected to overcome hurdles that no @Johnny Sack ever dreamed of encountering, much less overcoming?

[TwiceHorn 30850]

On 12/23/2021 at 8:12 PM, Smax said:

 

insurance LOL and its slightly more then $15 a month, access is an issues and as I mentioned earlier, birth control is not 100% effective, accidents happen. Raises hand we had one earlier this year.

But even if BC is free, why do you care if people you do not know, nor do you REALLY give a fuck about have an abortion? Lets be honest here, the odds of this unwanted child growing up and being not only a detriment to society but also one who will be relying on welfare for much of life, something you guys all bitch and moan about. This mindset that that one group thinks they can make health decisions for others against their will is mind boggling to me, I simply can not understand how some can through life thinking that way. So lets not do the smart thing here and let the individual decide what course is best for them and save alot of heart ache and money in the long run. Why ignore common sense

 

You could get free or very low cost birth control at  . . . Planned Parenthood.

Oh, wait  . . . .

[Willfully Horn 7874]

Its the most moral path forward.

I hear.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 18489]

I propose that they dismantle BBB. MAKE ALL senators go on record for each program that was crammed into the larger bill. Start with the low hanging fruit that EVERYONE should support. Those that don't, use that in the ads against them. Fuck it. Be ruthless.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 18489]

And Nancy needs to get the progressives in line on that strategy.

[Willfully Horn 7874]

[elfenix 34116]

On 12/26/2021 at 4:25 PM, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I propose that they dismantle BBB. MAKE ALL senators go on record for each program that was crammed into the larger bill. Start with the low hanging fruit that EVERYONE should support. Those that don't, use that in the ads against them. Fuck it. Be ruthless.

the only way that could even happen is if they killed the filibuster, which the progressives would be overjoyed by. 

[BearSchlong 8004]

I won’t cherry pick this post, but reading it in its entirety is vexing to be honest. You encourage people to help the poor, but have disdain for helping people who make poor choices in life and then you have even more ire for people that you say enable them. 
 
I do see that you have some fundamental misunderstandings about how the human mind works and how people wind up in the situations that they do. Sometimes, and I said this just the other day on here, that if you think you know everything about everything come to this board to realize you do not. 
 
And yes there are VALID reasons for why people are poor in America. Not everyone had access to a quality education or even a passable one. When you get the short end of the stick educationally from the beginning of your journey with education there are consequences for it out of the control of the young boy or girl receiving said education. That can apply equally to children The Bronx or poor kids growing up in Appalachia. An unsatisfactory education in West Virginia is why they have people who are dirt poor with no lifeline to get out of life destroying poverty. 
 
Again I have a hard time reconciling helping the poor, but then wanting how they are helped to be completely on your terms. Somehow I think that does not mesh real well with the teachings of Jesus. 

Thats a lot of words to say "You're a sociopath, Johnny."

[fattyflattie 4633]

8 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

The guy paying 11B in taxes for ‘21? 
 

Bezos has one helluva pr program. 

[Captainant 26916]

9 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

The guy paying 11B in taxes for ‘21? 
 

Bezos has one helluva pr program. 

It's $11B in taxes on a stock option sale that was announced months in advance. He's getting taxed on his compensation from his privately owned corporation.

Or am I misunderstanding your post? It seems like you're positioning the idea that there should be a cap on individual taxes

[fattyflattie 4633]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's $11B in taxes on a stock option sale that was announced months in advance. He's getting taxed on his compensation from his privately owned corporation.

Or am I misunderstanding your post? It seems like you're positioning the idea that there should be a cap on individual taxes

No, I’m happy with him being taxed. I just find it funny he’s the poster boy for the hate while Bezos draws a 70k salary and still itemizes like his life depends on it. It wasn’t too long ago that he was the richest guy and EM was just crazy wealthy.  

[Captainant 26916]

17 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No, I’m happy with him being taxed. I just find it funny he’s the poster boy for the hate while Bezos draws a 70k salary and still itemizes like his life depends on it. It wasn’t too long ago that he was the richest guy and EM was just crazy wealthy.  

Gotcha gotcha. Yeah, TSLA's boom certainly generated a ton of wealth for musky. Im pretty sure bezos is still significantly more wealthy than musk, he just doesn't go crazy on Twitter so he has less visibility

[Johnny Sack 8397]

49 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Gotcha gotcha. Yeah, TSLA's boom certainly generated a ton of wealth for musky. Im pretty sure bezos is still significantly more wealthy than musk, he just doesn't go crazy on Twitter so he has less visibility

I think Bezos took a little haircut in the divorce.

[Dahobbs 17232]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Gotcha gotcha. Yeah, TSLA's boom certainly generated a ton of wealth for musky. Im pretty sure bezos is still significantly more wealthy than musk, he just doesn't go crazy on Twitter so he has less visibility

You'd be wrong on that. Elon's between $50 billion and $100 billion wealthier at the moment.  But its all paper wealth and oscillates day-to-day with the rise and fall of Tesla and Amazon stock. 

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012715/5-richest-people-world.asp

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-300-billion-net-worth/

https://time.com/6127754/elon-musk-net-worth-person-of-the-year/

[Willfully Horn 7874]

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

The guy paying 11B in taxes for ‘21? 
 

Bezos has one helluva pr program. 

Tens of thousands have given more. They’ve given their all.

He message i posted said tax billionaires more.

[Gil Bang 25651]

On 12/23/2021 at 7:34 PM, MonkeyCigarette said:

The Catholic leaders. The pope. The bishops, etc. 

Says a guy who probably goes to church in a concrete tilt-up, but at least they have marshall stacks behind the pulpit.

On 12/23/2021 at 9:12 PM, JimmyJames said:

Saw her in Vegas last October for the first time. Was a good show. Forgot how many hits she had in the 90s. 

There's a documentary streaming, and it's WILD. 

Taylor Hawkins was the drummer on her first tour, and he said that the band was swimming in pussy every night. 

[Bama Chick 28595]

[Goofyboy 3010]

Does he really not know the history? Does he care?

[Neonmoon 38126]

He doesn’t give a shit

[Laxtonto 11879]

All I am going to say on this is that the last time the democrats decided to something extreme to fight through gridlock in the Senate, ie the nuclear option or Reid Rule, it ended up costing Obama a Supreme Court nomination.

I am not a fan of doing these extreme changes because it is extremely short sighted and US politics is a long game. The idea that this will be limited in scope or not abused by the other side as the political pendulum swings back the other way is asinine and it seems to be just history repeating itself.

[wildcat09 28540]

6 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

All I am going to say on this is that the last time the democrats decided to something extreme to fight through gridlock in the Senate, ie the nuclear option or Reid Rule, it ended up costing Obama a Supreme Court nomination.

I am not a fan of doing these extreme changes because it is extremely short sighted and US politics is a long game. The idea that this will be limited in scope or not abused by the other side as the political pendulum swings back the other way is asinine and it seems to be just history repeating itself.

This is dumb as shit. All of it.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33718]

6 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

All I am going to say on this is that the last time the democrats decided to something extreme to fight through gridlock in the Senate, ie the nuclear option or Reid Rule, it ended up costing Obama a Supreme Court nomination.

I am not a fan of doing these extreme changes because it is extremely short sighted and US politics is a long game. The idea that this will be limited in scope or not abused by the other side as the political pendulum swings back the other way is asinine and it seems to be just history repeating itself.

except that if the pubs ever get a majority again they will nuke the filibuster and use it to their extreme advantage. it's not a sacred rule. one could even argue it's anti-democratic. dems need to grow several pair and just fucking pass the legislation they want to. let the voters decide if they're happy with the results

[gmr548 16312]

All I am going to say on this is that the last time the democrats decided to something extreme to fight through gridlock in the Senate, ie the nuclear option or Reid Rule, it ended up costing Obama a Supreme Court nomination.
I am not a fan of doing these extreme changes because it is extremely short sighted and US politics is a long game. The idea that this will be limited in scope or not abused by the other side as the political pendulum swings back the other way is asinine and it seems to be just history repeating itself.

And the idea that Republicans won’t simply make the same changes anyway whenever they deem it necessary is asinine. I don’t know how you typed the above without making that connection.

Regardless, there doesn’t appear to be support, even within the Democratic caucus, to make changes.