House Democrats assume Manchin is as easily fooled as the MSM at their peril.
Underestimating Joe Manchin
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum
A place for civil discussion of the events of the day for Tidewater residents without the limitations imposed by media forums.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
No matter how you slice it or score it, the totality of the Build Back Better program is a fraction of the money that we spend on undeclared wars and the DOD – virtually without scrutiny. And unlike that much greater spending, this program offers a chance for our country to catch up with the rest of the developed world in improving the lives of our citizens. And also unlike that much greater spending for DOD, war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the programs included are to be paid for by increased tax revenue.
I understand that Manchin is on a tight rope as a Democrat representing one of the most backward, red states in the country and I also understand that he and his family are in the thrall of the fossil fuel and pharmaceutical industries. But one can hope that when the chips are down, he will stand up for ordinary people and for the poor and disadvantaged of this country who are greatly over-represented in the state that sent him to Washington.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Military spending, however excessive, is a non-sequitur.
The deception in trying to score permanent programs for 1 to 4 years instead of 10 while scoring the imaginary tax gains for 10 years is just plain outrageous.
And it reveals the corrupt heart of the Democratic party. The ends justify anything, including going to war with reality.
LikeLike
“Military spending, however excessive, is a non-sequitur.”
Uh, THAT is a non-sequitur.
When we talk about military spending it is ALWAYS just this year’s amount. When we talk about programs that will actually benefit people we ALWAYS talk about ten years. So, in the public mind this program is, say, $4 Trillion vs just $800 Billion for DOD. Uh no, it is either $400 billion vs $800 billion or $4T vs $8T. We would be safer and better off if we took half of that DOD spending and applied it to things we actually need.
Pretending that this sort of juggling of numbers on a bill is unique to Democratic legislation is either stupid or dishonest. The Trump tax cuts, for example, were a combination of permanent cuts for the wealthy and temporary cuts for everybody else for similar reasons.
Your constant whining of “corruption” by people you do not agree with is nonsense. Laughable even, given your support for the Republican Party and Donald Trump who have taken corruption to previously unimaginable levels.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Constitution requires the military to be funded on a 2 year basis.
From Article I section 8
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;”
LikeLike
Uh, completely irrelevant.
LikeLike
I know you don’t consider the Constitution relevant, but yet it is
LikeLike
“I know you don’t consider the Constitution relevant, but yet it is”
So, clearly you are not capable of a rational discussion. Insults is all you have. In this context of how various alternatives for spending are presented to the public it is completely irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If Democrats truly believe the “Build Back Better” package is a good thing, then why not just say so?
Why not admit its true $5Trillion per decade cost and convince the people it’s worth it?
Why the need to pass it in a Trojan Horse and hope it develops a constituency when the money runs out in a couple of years?
Do you even believe in it yourselves?
Why not actually publish the bill, let the CBO score it accurately and then honestly debate it on the merits including its adverse incentives to productivity and let it pass or fail.
LikeLike
Uh, you are totally and, in my humble opinion, dishonestly mischaracterizing the process. There is no attempt to disguise the spending levels proposed. There are attempts to cut the actual spending commitments in order to satisfy the DINOS who are standing in the way.
I see what your real problems is. These programs are going to be popular. For once people are going to get tangible benefits out of the money going down the drain in DC.
I love you new spin – “adverse incentives to productivity” – is what we get when people don’t have to work two or three jobs to make ends meet.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Absent that productivity, there is nothing to pay for existing programs, much less new ones.
LikeLike
Absent that productivity . . .
You don’t believe the markets can adjust to people being paid living wage? The evidence is that they can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The markets will adjust. That’s the problem, they will adjust by reducing production elsewhere. Overall, there will be less wealth created. YOu might like the altered distribution in the short term, but in the long term we are all poorer.
Any transaction forced by government, including wages above market value, reduces overall prosperity,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you saying that productivity is dependent upon a low wage classes of workers to do the work?
We are already very dependent upon undocumented workers to feed us because they are compliant, low wage workers. Is that market price for labor?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am saying that labor costs should reflect the value of the labor, and not the perceived needs of the worker.
Back when you used film, did you buy the best film for the money, or did you buy overpriced or inferior film because the manufacturer needed the money?
LikeLike
“I am saying that labor costs should reflect the value of the labor, and not the perceived needs of the worker.”
And what is the value of labor? During the early days of COVID we pushed hard to make sure our “essential” workers showed up, yet they were by and large, the lowest paid, legal or not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PS: interestingly, the cost of film was not an issue. For one, Kodak had a near monopoly. The preference for Ilford, Agfa or Fuji was more subjective than price. The smaller sources might cut prices a bit, but it made a negligible difference to us. Market saturation, advertising and actual outreach through sales rep visits were the tools Kodak used. They did make improvements when the others seemed to corner a segment.
The guide for successful commercial photography was often “film is cheap but time was not” so shoot plenty. Digital has taken that to a whole new level.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok, so film was a bad choice, but you get the principle.
LikeLike
” . . . reduces overall prosperity,”
Your constipated doctrinaire economic thinking is myopic. Categorical statements like the ones you indulge in are almost never true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK, show me how raising the costs of production, which raises the prices of what is produced, results in more production.
LikeLike
You leave out of your “analysis” all kinds of relevant dimensions. You and I, for example, subsidize the billionaires who own Walmart and Amazon by making it possible for people to work for them at pay levels they would not otherwise accept. You leave out the effect on demand for other goods when people have more money to spend. You leave out the social and economic costs of children not getting decent parenting. And on and on.
Many other countries have the kinds of legislation ensuring equitable treatment of everyone who works. They live better, healthier, happier lives than we do. Contrary to your theories they work hard. They work productively. They work creatively. And the rich in those countries do just fine. They always do. So stop worrying about them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Senator Manchin is correct to be worried about inflation. Most of the Build Back Better framework would subsidize various forms of social welfare, which is inherently non-productive. However you price the package, its effect would be to increase the money in circulation without a corresponding increase in goods.
LikeLike
“Senator Manchin is correct to be worried about inflation. ”
Funny how NO ONE in the GOP was concerned about inflation when Trump was in office. They spend as much as possible when they have the power and then obstruct spending when they are not.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y. The Battle Hymn of the GOP.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m opposed to Keysean stimulus in any case but if you are a fan, stimulus borrowing while the economy is plunging into recession due to a black swan event is entirely different from stimulating an economy that is already rebounding strongly. Even Keynes would say it is a mistake now.
LikeLike
Uh, there was no “black swan event” when you people forced through a massive increase in deficit spending with your Trump tax giveaway to the wealthy. The economy was growing then too. You were also far less understanding of stimulus borrowing while President Obama was trying to save the economy from the Bush disaster. Finally, spending offset by increased taxation is not “deficit spending”. Duh.
LikeLike
The economy was stalled the last 2 years of Obama’s term as higher taxes, regulation and Obamacare took full effect.
LikeLike
“The economy was stalled the last 2 years of Obama’s term as higher taxes . . .”
That is simply and demonstrably FALSE. I have provided the following HARD EVIDENCE for you many times.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
Why do you persist in repeating falsehoods? What is wrong with you? Are we going to try to have adult conversations on this forum or not?
LikeLike
Took a while to find this but this is the rate of GDP growth
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/gdp-growth-rate
The chart you supplied is CUMULATIVE which hides short tern trends. The rate of growth of GDP in the last 2 years of Obama was <2%
LikeLike
Bullshit.
The numbers YOU provide show steady growth at historical rates. That is NOT “stalled.” The numbers YOU provide show no substantive change under Trump. No magic inflection point. In fact, the Trump economy never reached the levels of growth that were achieved under Obama.
In your eagerness to slime everything Obama you are peddling falsehoods. Again. We are quite used to it and it is getting pretty old.
LikeLike
GDP growth of 1.7% in 2015 is stalled.
The earlier higher growth rates in his term were the end of the 2007-2009 Great Recession. Obama simply got on the boat at low tide, that’s not the same as raising the boat.
LikeLike
Typical.
The GDP growth in 2015 per the data YOU provided was 3.08%
With ups and downs there was no serious change from the steady growth of the Obama recovery as we transitioned to the Trump economy. You call Obama’s economy “stalled” and Trump’s a miracle or some such.
Nonsense.
Cherry-pick years all you want. The GDP growth from 2011 (after the tide had come back in) until 2020 when the Trump economy fell apart is absolutely linear.
Here it is in constant 2012 dollars . . .
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
And, by the way your claims that the “tide” would have come back anyway is also baseless partisan nonsense. Obama’s leadership and resolve – even before taking office – and the stimulus measures implemented by the Democrats played a major role is preventing further collapse. Imagine what would have happened to confidence if a jackass like Trump had been in place in January 2009.
LikeLike
Again you provide a meaningless graph of CUMULATIVE GDP growth. Rate of growth is the issue.
go back to the rate of growth chart I provided, It is hard to see if you leave the range 1961 to 2022, but if you change the range to 2009 to 2016 the collapse of the Obama recovery is clear.
Especially note the bar graph at the bottom showing the GDP change adjusted for inflation and you will see that after it peaked at 3.08% at the end of 2014, it fell to 1,71% by the end of the year which was well under the rate of inflation, yielding a negative net growth.
LikeLike
LOL!
So now it is NOT the economy that stalled. It is the recovery that stalled.
Why would you say that? Because GROWTH rate fell for ONE year 2016 vs 2015. See what I mean about cherry-picking? Desperate cherry-picking to prove a phony premise. The bullshit flag was fully deserved.
The big picture is clear from the charts. Trump inherited a sound economy with declining federal deficits. Even with Trump’s foolish and MASSIVE deficit spending and across the board de-regulation he was not successful in achieving levels of growth that Obama had reached in 2015 – long after the “tide” had come back in.
LikeLike