Newark727 wrote:

Saying the Constitution "got it right" is a little like saying the 1903 Wright Flyer "got it right" - yes, it was a historic invention that solved problems that had vexed prior tinkerers, but it could hardly considered the end state of democratic governance.

No, don’t you get it?! Government is a race. The US crossed the finish line in the late 18th century, ergo is the all time winner. I’ve always been of the strong belief that if it worked in 1790, it’s still perfect today. That’s why every day I go out to my turnip farm and an starting to get my affairs in order as I’m soon to exit my mid 30s, and I feel the cold breath of death approaching.

Anyway.

There is an undeniable historical precedent that shows the unstoppable march of progress and time. The US WILL be left behind by the rest of the civilized world. And the reason for that will be because too many Americans will be running around with confederate flags, while chanting 1776 and wearing “back to back world war champions” shirts.

The constitution is a phenomenal framework document. But even it’s own writers would be horrified beyond belief that it’s still in use, more or less as it was. There was debate over if it would be a good idea to revisit the entire thing every 20 years. But even the founding fathers were still politicians, and after disagreeing for too long and wanting to go home, most of them just said to hell with it, we’ll deal with that later, and signed off as is.

You know that guy or girl who clearly peaked in high school? That’s the US right now.

Newark727 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Yeah, we were a democracy in the 18th century while most of Europe was still run by royalty. Now, any royalty left are just figureheads and most of Europe is a democracy. I'd say that we got it right well before all you "civilized' people.

The U.S. was much more representative than most of the governments that came before it - but much less representative than many of the governments that have come since. Some of this lack of representation was in the name of protecting minority rights, which is laudable - but some of it was done to ensure the continued political power of slaveowners, which was considerably less so. Heck, there are constitutions that the U.S. has written that have advantages over what we've got now. Japan has publicly financed campaigns - that would be great! I'd love to get out of this fever swamp of semi-legal pay-for-play that we've got going on now. Other countries don't bother with gerrymandering, the filibuster, or the debt ceiling. Other countries have a high court that doesn't threaten to light off a civil war every time a vacancy opens up.

Saying the Constitution "got it right" is a little like saying the 1903 Wright Flyer "got it right" - yes, it was a historic invention that solved problems that had vexed prior tinkerers, but it could hardly considered the end state of democratic governance.

There’s an amendment process including a Constitutional Convention, so proceed to gather the requisite political consensus to act. Women devoted to ending drink (!) did it.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Not much good to say about being invaded, colonized or borders changed by forcibly by treaty, but getting a new government might be one of the good things. We produce 22% of the global GDP with 5% of the population, have immigrants clamoring to reach our shores or airports, and are still the superpower everybody looks to in a global emergency. A lot of ruin here, but somehow after screwing up, we press on regardless.

We are in a "global emergency" right now and other nations are just kinda going out on their own. They are not following our lead of "screw masks and vaccines and lockdowns because Biden bad!" They are not following our lead on lowering taxes on the wealthy, raising taxes on the poor, blaming the poor for not being rich, taking away basic services, funding military up the nose...

The "new government" will be a far right wing extremist dictatorship much like Russia or Hungary. Do what dear leader says or else. Such freedom. We have many Republican states working very, very hard to deny the democratic process to anyone not right wing extremist. We are no longer the shining city on the hill. It got much worse under the previous administration.

What “new government” are you speaking of, I’m not aware of any changes to the Constitution forming a new government. The present one seems quite content to extract more of the nation’s production and borrowing facility to direct it toward Democratic-favored groups; they’re all too happy to condemn their political enemies to death (see recent memo from the WH on the unvaccinated); promulgate ever more regulations infringing on citizens’ property.

Joe Manchin basically drew the line saying, “no more, the country’s taxpayers cannot afford this increased spending; we can’t finance the social spending in place now and inflation will create a tax on the poor and middle class”. He’s right.

I think that’s missing the point though.

I don’t think most folks are mad at Manchin for putting his foot down on spending.

They’re mad because Congress will pass any budget for the military almost unquestionably, or bail outs etc, but when it’s something to benefit “we the people” then suddenly it’s the time to be fiscally responsible.

It’s the epitome of not governing for/of the people.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

There’s an amendment process including a Constitutional Convention, so proceed to gather the requisite political consensus to act. Women devoted to ending drink (!) did it.

That's the thing though - nearly everything about our current political and media landscape, from first-past-the-post voting to cable news to Twitter, acts against the building of consensus. The pandemic has been amazing, because we've been able to see this process happen in real time. We went from the shared tribulation of the virus to tearing out each others' throats over it in an eyeblink.

LCDFlight wrote:

casinterest wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I have heard the story that removing the SALT exemption resulted in people paying “higher” federal taxes in states with high local taxes. For example, Massachusetts.

As far as I can tell, this story is incorrect. Well, yes, it may be higher than people in certain states USED to pay; but it is not higher than people in OTHER states pay. It makes federal tax rates equal across the states.

With no SALT exemption, a person making $250,000 pays the same federal income tax in Florida or Massachusetts (let’s say 30%, or $75,000). But with an exemption, the Massachusetts person will pay a significantly lower federal tax rate than the person in Florida. Suddenly the Massachusetts federal payment falls to say 25% or $62,500. I don’t think it is necessarily obvious why Massachusetts should have lower federal income tax rates than Florida.

Not sure where you get this comparison from. Everyone knew that SALT mostly benefited high income high tax states. It is a curve though that is marginalized by income level.

A lot of people said removing the SALT exemption “punished high tax states.” What it did is it made them equal with low tax states, in terms of federal tax obligation. Not punished; equal. And yes, this… loophole… primarily applies to high income families.

If people don’t like paying state taxes, they should go ahead and lower their state taxes. Lay people off. Taking the IRS’s money to pay for that stuff is an understandable temptation but Should not be allowed.

It does punish high tax states more than low tax states when you look at what was present prior. In all states , high income, high property value owners are hurt by removing the SALT Exemption . Middle Income people are more caught up in the issue in high tax states, as property and income taxes in a state like NJ/NY can easily top 20-30K for middle class earners.

It doesn't make high tax states equal with low tax states. It just shifted the burden of taxation onto the middle class property owners in wealthier districts instead of based on income Remember the federal rates for income were dropped as part of the bill that dropped Salt. .

LCDFlight wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

The removal of the SALT deduction under Pres. Trump was supposed to be offset by the higher standard/base family deduction. Problem is if you live in a state with high local property and state income taxes like CA, MA, NY, NJ (I live in NJ), that offset was no where near enough especially for many middle and working class families who owned their own home in those and other states. That meant paying net higher Federal and possibly State income taxes. The SALT deduction should be reinstated but with a reverse progressive value as income levels go up to $200,000 for a single person and $300,000 for a family and no SALT deduction after that level of all income.

I have heard the story that removing the SALT exemption resulted in people paying “higher” federal taxes in states with high local taxes. For example, Massachusetts.

As far as I can tell, this story is incorrect. Well, yes, it may be higher than people in certain states USED to pay; but it is not higher than people in OTHER states pay. It makes federal tax rates equal across the states.

With no SALT exemption, a person making $250,000 pays the same federal income tax in Florida or Massachusetts (let’s say 30%, or $75,000). But with an exemption, the Massachusetts person will pay a significantly lower federal tax rate than the person in Florida. Suddenly the Massachusetts federal payment falls to say 25% or $62,500. I don’t think it is necessarily obvious why Massachusetts should have lower federal income tax rates than Florida.

Massachusetts should not have lower federal income tax rates than Florida.

ltbewr wrote:

Just too much in the bill, including dealing with immigration in ways many find unacceptable. Break up the elements of this bill bundle and vote on them in smaller groups that would likely pass like the subsidies and price regulations on diabetes drugs.

I agree as always true case taking a good bill and trying to sneak stuff in.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Not much good to say about being invaded, colonized or borders changed by forcibly by treaty, but getting a new government might be one of the good things. We produce 22% of the global GDP with 5% of the population, have immigrants clamoring to reach our shores or airports, and are still the superpower everybody looks to in a global emergency. A lot of ruin here, but somehow after screwing up, we press on regardless.

We are in a "global emergency" right now and other nations are just kinda going out on their own. They are not following our lead of "screw masks and vaccines and lockdowns because Biden bad!" They are not following our lead on lowering taxes on the wealthy, raising taxes on the poor, blaming the poor for not being rich, taking away basic services, funding military up the nose...

The "new government" will be a far right wing extremist dictatorship much like Russia or Hungary. Do what dear leader says or else. Such freedom. We have many Republican states working very, very hard to deny the democratic process to anyone not right wing extremist. We are no longer the shining city on the hill. It got much worse under the previous administration.

What “new government” are you speaking of, I’m not aware of any changes to the Constitution forming a new government. The present one seems quite content to extract more of the nation’s production and borrowing facility to direct it toward Democratic-favored groups; they’re all too happy to condemn their political enemies to death (see recent memo from the WH on the unvaccinated); promulgate ever more regulations infringing on citizens’ property.

Joe Manchin basically drew the line saying, “no more, the country’s taxpayers cannot afford this increased spending; we can’t finance the social spending in place now and inflation will create a tax on the poor and middle class”. He’s right.

If you look at the restrictions placed on voting in Republican states, that is the "new government" you started talking about and I was following up on.

As far as Democrats giving money to Democratic favored groups, so? Giving money to working families with children for child care, giving money to working families for health care, giving money to working families for food.... I don't see the problem. Manchin, however, insists that, because he heard one story from one person one time, we are all going to turn into drug addicts.

What I do see a problem with is this whole notion of "we love spending until the other side spends". It seems to be great to simply spend, spend, spend on fighter jets that will never fly, tanks that will never be used, and tax cuts for a very small number of Americans because they are "job creators" even when they use that money to buy yet another mega yacht and go into space. None of that was paid for but, hey, that's fine because the economy? or something? If you give an extra $100 a month to working families, they WILL spend it. That keeps the economy humming along. Give an extra $1,000,000,000 to the very wealthy, they will stash it away and tell everyone else to work harder because we are lazy.

NIKV69 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Just too much in the bill, including dealing with immigration in ways many find unacceptable. Break up the elements of this bill bundle and vote on them in smaller groups that would likely pass like the subsidies and price regulations on diabetes drugs.

I agree as always true case taking a good bill and trying to sneak stuff in.

Again, there was much, much more in this bill when it first was written but Manchin demanded things be taken out so he would vote for it. And he still decided to vote against working families. He and Republicans will whine about why those smaller bills can not pass anyway and, once again, Manchin will vote against wildly popular proposals because we can't have working families get things.

If you give an extra $100 a month to working families, they WILL spend it. That keeps the economy humming along. Give an extra $1,000,000,000 to the very wealthy, they will stash it away

I doubt anyone with $1 billion dollars is stuffing in their king mattress. They’re investing it—venture capital on new inventions or businesses, in Muni bonds to pay for schools, roads, improvements (plus munis are tax exempt); Treasury bonds to support the US Government’s insatiable borrowing, all of which does a lot more for our futures than $100 of consumption. The $100 feeds us today, the $1 billion in investment feeds us for the next generation.

That $100 is given to the proverbial working family, but it’s taken from another working family—either in taxes, forgone productive investments that will make that family a better income.

mxaxai wrote:

Norway's wealth comes mostly from abundant natural resources, gas and oil in particular.

Not true.
Norway’s wealth comes from paying worker’s enough to keep them buying your goods. Then modernizing enough to keep producing them slightly cheaper than what you sell them to your workers for. This is your profit. For a while you had that going in the US as well.
You modernize by paying enough tax to keep the next generation getting better education than the last, and you keep crime down by keeping people safe and happy by including everyone in the above. You make it sensible to keep fortunes circulating and working and not stacked up in one giant wealth-corner.
The oil and gas-money is put in a fund in case the above breaks down due stupid choices down the line.(and to answer to some admittedly over-optimistic pension arrangements for the boomers)

Indeed!
The american declaration of independence and constitution were a beacon of hope for emerging liberal ideas, and inspired lots of emerging liberal democracies! My country’s included!

We amend it all the time, though.
It was far from perfect when written in 1814, although already then some ideas was more mature than the american one!

I’ll thread gently with this, but, here it goes:
When the Islam took off, 6-700 after christianity, it was to a large degree because the quoran took ideas from the testaments and related scriptures, simplified them, made them accesible to ordinary folks, a whole lot shorter.

It was great!

Truely modern, and undenieably the best litterary work on how to best soend your life for the best of you and others up until that point. A lot more humane and reasonable than the «awful», confusing, mystical, unpenetrable works collected over millenias that together was taken as God’s will up until that point in Abrahamic tradition.

They also unfortunately made sure it was seen as God’s own holy and unchangeable words. Which basically made the resulting religion very, very hard to reform and modernize. At least seen as one big whole.

For me personally, this is a meaningful parallell:
It came as a late outsider, it was superbly modern, it was better and more succesful than what came before, as time goes by, it has proven too resistant to necessary change. That leads to lots of pain and needless human suffering.

At some point the rest of the world just goes on and leaves it in the dust as a recipie for success. Then it is only a question of how fast you can get your act together and rewrite/reform/move on.

America is rightfully proud of it’s political rig. The strong institutions and pronciples has saved the country many times (January 6th would have broken mamy countries!) but it needs to modernize in this regard.
It is stiffling progress and leaving you in the dust!

johns624 wrote:

Yeah, we were a democracy in the 18th century while most of Europe was still run by royalty. Now, any royalty left are just figureheads and most of Europe is a democracy. I'd say that we got it right well before all you "civilized' people.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Just too much in the bill, including dealing with immigration in ways many find unacceptable. Break up the elements of this bill bundle and vote on them in smaller groups that would likely pass like the subsidies and price regulations on diabetes drugs.

I agree as always true case taking a good bill and trying to sneak stuff in.

Again, there was much, much more in this bill when it first was written but Manchin demanded things be taken out so he would vote for it. And he still decided to vote against working families. He and Republicans will whine about why those smaller bills can not pass anyway and, once again, Manchin will vote against wildly popular proposals because we can't have working families get things.

Manchin was not the only democrat who had provisions stripped out of the Bill I guarantee you. This is what you have always failed to realize Seb. Many of your policy positions are correct, but what you don't realize is the people who you support do not support these policy provisions. Manchin is very open about it because it makes him look "Moderate" to voters in a deep red state. But many others are not so open. The big policy I always come back to is Prescription Drug Prices. This should be a slam dunk issue for Democrats. However, because Nancy Pelosi has ultra-corrupt Richie Neal serving as Chair of the Ways and Means committee, Neal always kills these before they get to the house floor. Furthermore, there are a handful of house Democrats, not to mention Sinema in the Senate, who are bankrolled by big Pharma that kill these provisions. Furthermore, there are many other provisions that are whittled down by more people than Manchin. There is a reason why popular policies are never enacted at the federal level even with Dems in charge, and furthermore at the state level. Democrats say one thing and then do another.

Note that I give the GOP no pass here. I will say that the GOP is very honest about opposing these policies even though the reasons they give are total BS. The Democrats are not.

casinterest wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Not sure where you get this comparison from. Everyone knew that SALT mostly benefited high income high tax states. It is a curve though that is marginalized by income level.

A lot of people said removing the SALT exemption “punished high tax states.” What it did is it made them equal with low tax states, in terms of federal tax obligation. Not punished; equal. And yes, this… loophole… primarily applies to high income families.

If people don’t like paying state taxes, they should go ahead and lower their state taxes. Lay people off. Taking the IRS’s money to pay for that stuff is an understandable temptation but Should not be allowed.

It does punish high tax states more than low tax states when you look at what was present prior. In all states , high income, high property value owners are hurt by removing the SALT Exemption . Middle Income people are more caught up in the issue in high tax states, as property and income taxes in a state like NJ/NY can easily top 20-30K for middle class earners.

It doesn't make high tax states equal with low tax states. It just shifted the burden of taxation onto the middle class property owners in wealthier districts instead of based on income Remember the federal rates for income were dropped as part of the bill that dropped Salt. .

I disagree with you. My opinion is this. The federal government should not be subsidizing State and Local Taxes. If NY or CA wants to charge a higher tax rate than say FL or TX, they have every right to do so. However, that should not entitle their residents to lower federal taxes, which is what SALT does. If a state like NJ is so concerned about their residents paying too much in taxes, have Phil Murphy sign a tax cut at the state level; don't do it through SALT.

For What it's worth, I actually think Property taxes are one of the most progressive forms of Taxation. Since people who have more money tend to own more expensive property, they do pay more in taxes and because its property it is much harder to play shell games with income and stuff to hide it. And if you are a renter, you don't directly pay property taxes because you are paying rent to the landlord. Because of the way income taxes work, even with graduated rates, I don't think it's as progressive as property taxes. Just my thought though.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I doubt anyone with $1 billion dollars is stuffing in their king mattress. They’re investing it—venture capital on new inventions or businesses, in Muni bonds to pay for schools, roads, improvements (plus munis are tax exempt); Treasury bonds to support the US Government’s insatiable borrowing, all of which does a lot more for our futures than $100 of consumption. The $100 feeds us today, the $1 billion in investment feeds us for the next generation.

That $100 is given to the proverbial working family, but it’s taken from another working family—either in taxes, forgone productive investments that will make that family a better income.

They're not stuffing it in their mattress, but it's not being invested at nearly the rate that it's accrued. As wealth distribution has become less equal, money velocity has declined:

apodino wrote:

casinterest wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

A lot of people said removing the SALT exemption “punished high tax states.” What it did is it made them equal with low tax states, in terms of federal tax obligation. Not punished; equal. And yes, this… loophole… primarily applies to high income families.

If people don’t like paying state taxes, they should go ahead and lower their state taxes. Lay people off. Taking the IRS’s money to pay for that stuff is an understandable temptation but Should not be allowed.

It does punish high tax states more than low tax states when you look at what was present prior. In all states , high income, high property value owners are hurt by removing the SALT Exemption . Middle Income people are more caught up in the issue in high tax states, as property and income taxes in a state like NJ/NY can easily top 20-30K for middle class earners.

It doesn't make high tax states equal with low tax states. It just shifted the burden of taxation onto the middle class property owners in wealthier districts instead of based on income Remember the federal rates for income were dropped as part of the bill that dropped Salt. .

I disagree with you. My opinion is this. The federal government should not be subsidizing State and Local Taxes. If NY or CA wants to charge a higher tax rate than say FL or TX, they have every right to do so. However, that should not entitle their residents to lower federal taxes, which is what SALT does. If a state like NJ is so concerned about their residents paying too much in taxes, have Phil Murphy sign a tax cut at the state level; don't do it through SALT.

For What it's worth, I actually think Property taxes are one of the most progressive forms of Taxation. Since people who have more money tend to own more expensive property, they do pay more in taxes and because its property it is much harder to play shell games with income and stuff to hide it. And if you are a renter, you don't directly pay property taxes because you are paying rent to the landlord. Because of the way income taxes work, even with graduated rates, I don't think it's as progressive as property taxes. Just my thought though.

My point was about what was present in the code prior. I do agree with you that property taxes are highly progressive, and should be. I just think that too many upper income earners get around it by claiming less than realistic charitable or farming contributions.

The federal government is not subsidizing state and local taxes. It is merely, as you would say, acknowledging the presence of highly progressive taxes already at work for the benefit of all within the state, county, city level. It is an interesting philosophical question to be examined if we ever get taxes to a close to balanced point at the federal level.

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I doubt anyone with $1 billion dollars is stuffing in their king mattress. They’re investing it—venture capital on new inventions or businesses, in Muni bonds to pay for schools, roads, improvements (plus munis are tax exempt); Treasury bonds to support the US Government’s insatiable borrowing, all of which does a lot more for our futures than $100 of consumption. The $100 feeds us today, the $1 billion in investment feeds us for the next generation.

That $100 is given to the proverbial working family, but it’s taken from another working family—either in taxes, forgone productive investments that will make that family a better income.

They're not stuffing it in their mattress, but it's not being invested at nearly the rate that it's accrued. As wealth distribution has become less equal, money velocity has declined:

To put that in context, look at what’s happened to M1 over the last 2 years—up 4 times! Inflation has a starting point.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL#0

Actually, changing hands LESS frequently is a sign of less consumption, more investment. Consider consumption can only occur when investors have created supply. One must have produced before one can consume.

Not when you import on a massive scale.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I doubt anyone with $1 billion dollars is stuffing in their king mattress. They’re investing it—venture capital on new inventions or businesses, in Muni bonds to pay for schools, roads, improvements (plus munis are tax exempt); Treasury bonds to support the US Government’s insatiable borrowing, all of which does a lot more for our futures than $100 of consumption. The $100 feeds us today, the $1 billion in investment feeds us for the next generation.

That $100 is given to the proverbial working family, but it’s taken from another working family—either in taxes, forgone productive investments that will make that family a better income.

They're not stuffing it in their mattress, but it's not being invested at nearly the rate that it's accrued. As wealth distribution has become less equal, money velocity has declined:

To put that in context, look at what’s happened to M1 over the last 2 years—up 4 times! Inflation has a starting point.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL#0

Actually, changing hands LESS frequently is a sign of less consumption, more investment. Consider consumption can only occur when investors have created supply. One must have produced before one can consume.

AFAIK, to understand inflationary pressures, you need to know both the quantity of money and the velocity of that money. Then you know how many USD are flowing thru the economy. Knowing only the velocity would not be enough information. AFAIK, the money circulating has been growing (I think this is what you pointed out), which would lead to inflation, all else being equal.

It would be odd to expect zero inflation when the economy remains roughly the same size, but an increased number of USD is flowing around. And yet, lot of "experts" expected exactly that...

apodino wrote:

casinterest wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

A lot of people said removing the SALT exemption “punished high tax states.” What it did is it made them equal with low tax states, in terms of federal tax obligation. Not punished; equal. And yes, this… loophole… primarily applies to high income families.

If people don’t like paying state taxes, they should go ahead and lower their state taxes. Lay people off. Taking the IRS’s money to pay for that stuff is an understandable temptation but Should not be allowed.

It does punish high tax states more than low tax states when you look at what was present prior. In all states , high income, high property value owners are hurt by removing the SALT Exemption . Middle Income people are more caught up in the issue in high tax states, as property and income taxes in a state like NJ/NY can easily top 20-30K for middle class earners.

It doesn't make high tax states equal with low tax states. It just shifted the burden of taxation onto the middle class property owners in wealthier districts instead of based on income Remember the federal rates for income were dropped as part of the bill that dropped Salt. .

I disagree with you. My opinion is this. The federal government should not be subsidizing State and Local Taxes. If NY or CA wants to charge a higher tax rate than say FL or TX, they have every right to do so. However, that should not entitle their residents to lower federal taxes, which is what SALT does. If a state like NJ is so concerned about their residents paying too much in taxes, have Phil Murphy sign a tax cut at the state level; don't do it through SALT.

For What it's worth, I actually think Property taxes are one of the most progressive forms of Taxation. Since people who have more money tend to own more expensive property, they do pay more in taxes and because its property it is much harder to play shell games with income and stuff to hide it. And if you are a renter, you don't directly pay property taxes because you are paying rent to the landlord. Because of the way income taxes work, even with graduated rates, I don't think it's as progressive as property taxes. Just my thought though.

I agree with what you wrote. In allowing people in higher taxed states to deduct these taxes in their federal taxes does mean the states with lower taxes are subsidizing the higher taxed states at the federal level.

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I agree as always true case taking a good bill and trying to sneak stuff in.

Again, there was much, much more in this bill when it first was written but Manchin demanded things be taken out so he would vote for it. And he still decided to vote against working families. He and Republicans will whine about why those smaller bills can not pass anyway and, once again, Manchin will vote against wildly popular proposals because we can't have working families get things.

Manchin was not the only democrat who had provisions stripped out of the Bill I guarantee you. This is what you have always failed to realize Seb. Many of your policy positions are correct, but what you don't realize is the people who you support do not support these policy provisions. Manchin is very open about it because it makes him look "Moderate" to voters in a deep red state. But many others are not so open. The big policy I always come back to is Prescription Drug Prices. This should be a slam dunk issue for Democrats. However, because Nancy Pelosi has ultra-corrupt Richie Neal serving as Chair of the Ways and Means committee, Neal always kills these before they get to the house floor. Furthermore, there are a handful of house Democrats, not to mention Sinema in the Senate, who are bankrolled by big Pharma that kill these provisions. Furthermore, there are many other provisions that are whittled down by more people than Manchin. There is a reason why popular policies are never enacted at the federal level even with Dems in charge, and furthermore at the state level. Democrats say one thing and then do another.

Note that I give the GOP no pass here. I will say that the GOP is very honest about opposing these policies even though the reasons they give are total BS. The Democrats are not.

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Again, there was much, much more in this bill when it first was written but Manchin demanded things be taken out so he would vote for it. And he still decided to vote against working families. He and Republicans will whine about why those smaller bills can not pass anyway and, once again, Manchin will vote against wildly popular proposals because we can't have working families get things.

Manchin was not the only democrat who had provisions stripped out of the Bill I guarantee you. This is what you have always failed to realize Seb. Many of your policy positions are correct, but what you don't realize is the people who you support do not support these policy provisions. Manchin is very open about it because it makes him look "Moderate" to voters in a deep red state. But many others are not so open. The big policy I always come back to is Prescription Drug Prices. This should be a slam dunk issue for Democrats. However, because Nancy Pelosi has ultra-corrupt Richie Neal serving as Chair of the Ways and Means committee, Neal always kills these before they get to the house floor. Furthermore, there are a handful of house Democrats, not to mention Sinema in the Senate, who are bankrolled by big Pharma that kill these provisions. Furthermore, there are many other provisions that are whittled down by more people than Manchin. There is a reason why popular policies are never enacted at the federal level even with Dems in charge, and furthermore at the state level. Democrats say one thing and then do another.

Note that I give the GOP no pass here. I will say that the GOP is very honest about opposing these policies even though the reasons they give are total BS. The Democrats are not.

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

You seem to have a very warped view of politics and government.

I personally hate all politicians, but try to respect different political views. I always thought Trump was an ass.

As far as I have seen, Biden is not hated by the GOP politicians (unlike how Trump was viewed by the far left). He has been seen as ineffectual by some but personally likable from what I have seen.

The agenda that Biden has been pursuing has been widely criticized by republicans and a majority of the electorate, primarily due his administration’s knee jerk reaction to overturn Trump’s helpful executive orders as well as Trump’s poor Exec Orders.

The other major criticism of Biden has been his embracement of the far left fiscally irresponsible agenda of a few in Congress. There seems to be no grasp of cause and effect and the resulting unintended consequences that these policies would result in.

This is why his approval ratings are so poor, as he has lost touch with the average American who see through the smoke and mirrors and vitriol.

The continued demonization of all those who oppose the far left agenda only leads to the circular firing squad that will alienate them from the American center.

DLPMMM wrote:

seb146 wrote:

apodino wrote:

Manchin was not the only democrat who had provisions stripped out of the Bill I guarantee you. This is what you have always failed to realize Seb. Many of your policy positions are correct, but what you don't realize is the people who you support do not support these policy provisions. Manchin is very open about it because it makes him look "Moderate" to voters in a deep red state. But many others are not so open. The big policy I always come back to is Prescription Drug Prices. This should be a slam dunk issue for Democrats. However, because Nancy Pelosi has ultra-corrupt Richie Neal serving as Chair of the Ways and Means committee, Neal always kills these before they get to the house floor. Furthermore, there are a handful of house Democrats, not to mention Sinema in the Senate, who are bankrolled by big Pharma that kill these provisions. Furthermore, there are many other provisions that are whittled down by more people than Manchin. There is a reason why popular policies are never enacted at the federal level even with Dems in charge, and furthermore at the state level. Democrats say one thing and then do another.

Note that I give the GOP no pass here. I will say that the GOP is very honest about opposing these policies even though the reasons they give are total BS. The Democrats are not.

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

You seem to have a very warped view of politics and government.

I personally hate all politicians, but try to respect different political views. I always thought Trump was an ass.

As far as I have seen, Biden is not hated by the GOP politicians (unlike how Trump was viewed by the far left). He has been seen as ineffectual by some but personally likable from what I have seen.

The agenda that Biden has been pursuing has been widely criticized by republicans and a majority of the electorate, primarily due his administration’s knee jerk reaction to overturn Trump’s helpful executive orders as well as Trump’s poor Exec Orders.

The other major criticism of Biden has been his embracement of the far left fiscally irresponsible agenda of a few in Congress. There seems to be no grasp of cause and effect and the resulting unintended consequences that these policies would result in.

This is why his approval ratings are so poor, as he has lost touch with the average American who see through the smoke and mirrors and vitriol.

The continued demonization of all those who oppose the far left agenda only leads to the circular firing squad that will alienate them from the American center.

I agree. I liked Biden a lot better before he veered to the left to pick up the Bernie voters. I was hoping that he'd come back more to the center, but he hasn't.
On another note related to this thread, I think Manchin may be thinking of a presidential run, too bad that he's not a decade younger. People running for president in their mid/upper 70s scare me. We can do better. Maybe Kasich will come out of retirement. He's not quite as old.

It’s fun the way that any democrat President always has to be more center and cater to “the average American”

Meanwhile the last Republican President peddled lies about election fraud, the party attempted to roll back voters rights, and the list goes on. But you know…elections have consequences, should have put up a better candidate, etc. The party literally votes in step unanimous on almost every major issue…but it’s the other party that needs to learn flexibility, yea ok.

Following that logic, the average West Virginia resident supports this bill. But Manchin decided that they don’t.

seb146 wrote:

The "new government" will be a far right wing extremist dictatorship much like Russia or Hungary. Do what dear leader says or else. Such freedom. We have many Republican states working very, very hard to deny the democratic process to anyone not right wing extremist. We are no longer the shining city on the hill. It got much worse under the previous administration.

The election is three years away, and yet we have the Left hyperventilating about America's Descent into Fascism.

Under Trump, America was such a right wing hellhole that the Media was able to attack the President non-stop and the bureaucracy slow roll the Executive at every turn.

FGITD wrote:

You know that guy or girl who clearly peaked in high school? That’s the US right now.

Maybe, or maybe not.

You wouldn't be the first person in the last 100 years to write off America as a declining state. I suppose someone will be right, someday.

seb146 wrote:

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

Remember when one political side demand that everyone resist?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Says someone who thinks the election was rigged...

Could you please quote where I said that?

FlapOperator wrote:

FGITD wrote:

You know that guy or girl who clearly peaked in high school? That’s the US right now.

Maybe, or maybe not.

You wouldn't be the first person in the last 100 years to write off America as a declining state. I suppose someone will be right, someday.

I don’t think it’s declining by any means. But I do believe that in terms of social well-being and structure of American society, we’re stagnating and reaching a tipping point.

It’s traditionally said that each generation wants to make life better for the next. But right now the country is led by a bunch of geriatrics who don’t have to live with the outcomes of their decisions. And their own families and children will be fine, as a result of their political careers being very fortuitous to their bank accounts.

Quality of life in the US is declining. Too many people think that just because things were good means they always will be. Going back to the original conversation, it’s worrying that other countries changing and adapting their government is viewed as a negative thing (outside of overthrowing it, etc) because times and life change. You shouldn’t just spend a few months every couple hundred years deciding what everyone will abide by. You don’t need wholesale changes either. And I know, amendments etc…but that requires politicians to act and vote in good faith, which is a far cry from modern politics


https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/t ... 2020-09-10

FGITD wrote:

It’s fun the way that any democrat President always has to be more center and cater to “the average American”

If you were referring to me, then you're wrong. I voted for Biden. I just didn't like the way he changed during the campaign. It was hard to know what he really thought. I also mentioned Kasich and Manchin, who I also believe to be moderates.

johns624 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

It’s fun the way that any democrat President always has to be more center and cater to “the average American”

If you were referring to me, then you're wrong. I voted for Biden. I just didn't like the way he changed during the campaign. It was hard to know what he really thought. I also mentioned Kasich and Manchin, who I also believe to be moderates.

Not at all in reference to you, I’ve read a number of your posts on various subjects, and you are like myself…an average American who seemingly just wants to live their best life, though be there differences in opinion on some subjects.

I take issue with Manchin because I don’t find him to be a moderate or for that matter much of a politician. He sails in whatever direction the corporate winds blow. Most of them do, but his are particularly prominent

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

FlapOperator wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

Remember when one political side demand that everyone resist?

That was over bills making health care priced out of the range for average Americans and to repeal equality for LGBTQ people and take away voting rights for many legal Americans. This bill will create jobs, which we can't have because it would make Biden look good. It would give child care to working families and we can't have that because it would make Biden look good. See the difference?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

So his state does not want jobs or child care?

Of course, they do, West Virginians just believe the private sector can do a better job of producing those jobs and services. Do you think it’s the Feds that drive the economy?

seb146 wrote:

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

This statement is pure hyperbole, partisan and doesn't have much basis in reality. I guess most Democrats hate Manchin but for the most part he has saved the country from falling deeper into the Jimmy Carter Abyss Biden seems to not care his handlers are steering him towards. As Manchin was quoted as saying this was staff driven. It is concerning but at this point the Dems need to retool this bill or they will never get it passed. They will only have the next 2 or 3 months to ride the covid fear thing and then a mid term election. As I have said time to tell the AOC crew to sit this one out and actually to be quiet because they are just making it worse and alienating the middle of the electorate. Maybe a brave member of the party will step up and stand with Machin because Schumer, Pelosi, AOC are not the answer.

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

So his state does not want jobs or child care?

To the contrary, it would appear that WV wants both of these things, but is not willing to accept the huge amount of baggage that would accompany it in the BBB bill that works to the detriment of their state and the national economy.

Pass the individual elements through Congress one at a time with funding that is not done with smoke and mirrors, then these important things can be done in a bi partisan fashion without the pork barrel special interest garbage.

DLPMMM wrote:

seb146 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

So his state does not want jobs or child care?

To the contrary, it would appear that WV wants both of these things, but is not willing to accept the huge amount of baggage that would accompany it in the BBB bill that works to the detriment of their state and the national economy.

Pass the individual elements through Congress one at a time with funding that is not done with smoke and mirrors, then these important things can be done in a bi partisan fashion without the pork barrel special interest garbage.

Doesn’t show in who they’ve voted for in last 3 or 4 state-wide elections, Manchin has been a consistent state-wide winner for 20 years.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Doesn’t show in who they’ve voted for in last 3 or 4 state-wide elections, Manchin has been a consistent state-wide winner for 20 years.

And now lots of Democrat Representatives are going to have to explain why they voted for BBB.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

This statement is pure hyperbole, partisan and doesn't have much basis in reality. I guess most Democrats hate Manchin but for the most part he has saved the country from falling deeper into the Jimmy Carter Abyss Biden seems to not care his handlers are steering him towards. As Manchin was quoted as saying this was staff driven. It is concerning but at this point the Dems need to retool this bill or they will never get it passed. They will only have the next 2 or 3 months to ride the covid fear thing and then a mid term election. As I have said time to tell the AOC crew to sit this one out and actually to be quiet because they are just making it worse and alienating the middle of the electorate. Maybe a brave member of the party will step up and stand with Machin because Schumer, Pelosi, AOC are not the answer.

Agreed, Joe Manchin should be remembered for standing up when it was unpopular. Whether he did it to protect our country, to preserve the coal industry or to praise Lucifer himself, he still a good thing.

I used to be against AOC, but now I think she makes my points better than I ever could. People are recognizing she is a bully and a child who knows nothing of the adult world, the world of professionals and creators who supply society with services and goods. Joe Manchin at least has knowledge of the obsolete coal industry, of working with people to solve complex problems with measurable outputs.

LCDFlight wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Republicans voted it down because they hate Biden. Manchin voted it down because he is drunk with power. And, yes, I understand there have been other Democrats who demanded things be taken out. Manchin has been the most vocal about it. Manchin has been saying from day one that he would vote for it if this and that were taken out. BBB was never going to be a "slam dunk" because of the 50/50 split in the Senate. Republicans refuse to vote on anything because of pure and simple hatred of Biden and anything supported by Democrats. And, yet, they DEMAND everything they want be passed or else.

This statement is pure hyperbole, partisan and doesn't have much basis in reality. I guess most Democrats hate Manchin but for the most part he has saved the country from falling deeper into the Jimmy Carter Abyss Biden seems to not care his handlers are steering him towards. As Manchin was quoted as saying this was staff driven. It is concerning but at this point the Dems need to retool this bill or they will never get it passed. They will only have the next 2 or 3 months to ride the covid fear thing and then a mid term election. As I have said time to tell the AOC crew to sit this one out and actually to be quiet because they are just making it worse and alienating the middle of the electorate. Maybe a brave member of the party will step up and stand with Machin because Schumer, Pelosi, AOC are not the answer.

Agreed, Joe Manchin should be remembered for standing up when it was unpopular. Whether he did it to protect our country, to preserve the coal industry or to praise Lucifer himself, he still a good thing.

I used to be against AOC, but now I think she makes my points better than I ever could. People are recognizing she is a bully and a child who knows nothing of the adult world, the world of professionals and creators who supply society with services and goods. Joe Manchin at least has knowledge of the obsolete coal industry, of working with people to solve complex problems with measurable outputs.

Interesting. When Democrats stood up for what they believed in, before now, they were called all sorts of nasty names and told how hated we are and how unpatrioitc we are for standing in the way of MAGA and Republican bills. Funny how things change....

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

This statement is pure hyperbole, partisan and doesn't have much basis in reality. I guess most Democrats hate Manchin but for the most part he has saved the country from falling deeper into the Jimmy Carter Abyss Biden seems to not care his handlers are steering him towards. As Manchin was quoted as saying this was staff driven. It is concerning but at this point the Dems need to retool this bill or they will never get it passed. They will only have the next 2 or 3 months to ride the covid fear thing and then a mid term election. As I have said time to tell the AOC crew to sit this one out and actually to be quiet because they are just making it worse and alienating the middle of the electorate. Maybe a brave member of the party will step up and stand with Machin because Schumer, Pelosi, AOC are not the answer.

Agreed, Joe Manchin should be remembered for standing up when it was unpopular. Whether he did it to protect our country, to preserve the coal industry or to praise Lucifer himself, he still a good thing.

I used to be against AOC, but now I think she makes my points better than I ever could. People are recognizing she is a bully and a child who knows nothing of the adult world, the world of professionals and creators who supply society with services and goods. Joe Manchin at least has knowledge of the obsolete coal industry, of working with people to solve complex problems with measurable outputs.

Interesting. When Democrats stood up for what they believed in, before now, they were called all sorts of nasty names and told how hated we are and how unpatrioitc we are for standing in the way of MAGA and Republican bills. Funny how things change....

I don’t think the mainstream people had any problem with standing against MAGA. Standing against Trump was easy, kind of compulsory in universities. Kind of like chastity was compulsory at universities in the 1950s. Different, but sharing a vein of cultural conformity.

LCDFlight wrote:

I don’t think the mainstream people had any problem with standing against MAGA. Standing against Trump was easy, kind of compulsory in universities. Kind of like chastity was compulsory at universities in the 1950s. Different, but sharing a vein of cultural conformity.

So, have Romney and McCain been forgiven by team MAGA for having a backbone?

petertenthije wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

I don’t think the mainstream people had any problem with standing against MAGA. Standing against Trump was easy, kind of compulsory in universities. Kind of like chastity was compulsory at universities in the 1950s. Different, but sharing a vein of cultural conformity.

So, have Romney and McCain been forgiven by team MAGA for having a backbone?

Who is “Team MAGA”? Do they play football or basketball? Do you think that the political and economic future of the country is just a game to win at all costs?

As I said before, I always thought Trump was a rude ass and was never a Trump backer…I voted for Obama once.

The demonization by people like you of all who don’t ascribe to your personal radical predilections is the real turn off for middle America….Big city and college ______s just don’t get it

Well I'm sure calling them "weenies" will bring them rushing to the light...

Newark727 wrote:

Well I'm sure calling them "weenies" will bring them rushing to the light...

You are right, I should not use such a derogatory term.

I’ll let people fill in the blanks themselves.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

Indeed, Senator Manchin is representing his state. If he were to cave I guarantee he would not get reelected, and rightfully so.

ItnStln wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I’d say Manchin is pretty good politician, he’s representing his state as the state would want him to vote. He’s popular there, he’s the only state-wide elected Democrat, has been re-elected after being the governor, in a state Trump won 2-1. WV didn’t send him to the Senate to back Chuck Schumer or the “Squad” or Joe Biden. He’s actually a moderate who voted to convict Trump, he’s voted with his party about 62%. Joe’s his own man compared to the sheep on the Hill.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-chec ... b42e28e084

https://projects.propublica.org/represe ... -party/115

Indeed, Senator Manchin is representing his state. If he were to cave I guarantee he would not get reelected, and rightfully so.

This bill would help citizens of his state by providing child care and better paying jobs. So, he and his constituents are against that? Oh, that's right... it would give Biden and Democrats a win and, really, that is more important than improving people's lives...

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Agreed, Joe Manchin should be remembered for standing up when it was unpopular. Whether he did it to protect our country, to preserve the coal industry or to praise Lucifer himself, he still a good thing.

I used to be against AOC, but now I think she makes my points better than I ever could. People are recognizing she is a bully and a child who knows nothing of the adult world, the world of professionals and creators who supply society with services and goods. Joe Manchin at least has knowledge of the obsolete coal industry, of working with people to solve complex problems with measurable outputs.

Interesting. When Democrats stood up for what they believed in, before now, they were called all sorts of nasty names and told how hated we are and how unpatrioitc we are for standing in the way of MAGA and Republican bills. Funny how things change....

I don’t think the mainstream people had any problem with standing against MAGA. Standing against Trump was easy, kind of compulsory in universities. Kind of like chastity was compulsory at universities in the 1950s. Different, but sharing a vein of cultural conformity.

But, here's the thing:

People listened to both sides and did their own research and found MAGA and their dear leader were bad for freedom and bad for the Constitution. Why is that not possible?