Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Say it ain't so, Joe Manchin
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Steele
Sep 10, 2022, 1:05:03 AM9/10/22
to
In article <t14pl1$2q9pm$4...@news.freedyn.de>
David Hartung <kicking....@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joe bent over and took it up the ass.
>
He used to be a man of his word, a moderating force in his party
In the fall of 1920, a grand jury indicted eight Chicago White
Sox players for their role in throwing the 1919 World Series,
among them the baseball legend “Shoeless” Joe Jackson. In the
aftermath, a disappointed reporter for the Chicago Daily News,
Charley Owens, wrote a bittersweet tribute to Jackson headlined
“Say it ain’t so, Joe.” The rest, as they say, is history.
The Joe Jackson story was a tale of disillusionment and denial
as Jackson spent the rest of his life denying his role in the
fixing scandal. But the damage was done, and he is remembered
today not for what was a remarkable sports career but for what
was at the time the biggest scandal in baseball.
Joe Manchin isn’t Joe Jackson. I’ve always seen him as a man of
his word, a moderating force in his party and in an increasingly
divided Congress. But his unexpected decision to totally reverse
course and enthusiastically support Chuck Schumer’s Orwellian
"Inflation Reduction Act," sadly, does bring back to mind that
old headline, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.”
Hard as it is to understand, Manchin does seem to have had an
unexpected change of heart when it comes to Democrats’ penchant
for massive spending proposals that he once rejected as
inflationary. Watching the West Virginia senator on the Sunday
news shows trying to rationalize his support for the new
legislation, which for all practical purposes is nothing but
"Build Back Better" lite, made for a head-scratching morning of
political theater.
Manchin tried to paint the bill as a nonpartisan attempt to
reduce inflation through “investments,” not tax increases, with
a focus on increasing domestic energy production. But before the
ink was dry, Penn Wharton released its Budget Model analysis,
which concluded “the impact on inflation is statistically
indistinguishable from zero.”
When it comes to the touchy subject of increasing taxes in a
recession, Manchin on ABC’s “This Week” claimed, “We made sure
that we did not raise taxes. We closed loopholes.”
But an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a
nonpartisan congressional committee that assists “members of the
majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress on tax
legislation,” doesn’t agree.
According to the JCT, the Inflation Reduction Act would actually
raise taxes on more than just corporations — $16.7 billion on
taxpayers earning less than $200,000 in 2023 and another $14.1
billion from taxpayers making between $200,000 and $500,000, to
be exact. In fact, the committee’s data shows all but one of the
income brackets of people earning less than $200,000 would see
increased taxes as well.
When asked by Fox News Digital about the committee’s findings,
Manchin said, “We have to agree to disagree, a difference of
opinion.” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was
even more dismissive. When asked about the findings, she
responded flatly, “That is incorrect,” and argued that the JCT
analysis is “incomplete” because it doesn’t consider future
prescription drug savings or potential energy cost savings,
ignoring the fact that food and energy costs are devastating
family budgets today.
Running the risk of dating myself, this sounds vaguely like
Popeye’s cartoon sidekick Wimpy, whose signature line has become
a perfect commentary on government today: “I’ll gladly pay you
Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
Maybe Manchin truly believes that the bill’s 15 percent minimum
business tax won’t curb investment and innovation, as the
National Association of Manufacturers has said in opposing the
legislation. The JCT also points out that manufacturers would
pay 49.7 percent of this new tax.
But Manchin told “Meet the Press” that the problem for business
isn’t a lack of money, it’s a lack of confidence in government’s
ability to “unleash” manufacturing through permitting reform.
Manchin appears to have traded his moderate views on the impact
of federal overspending on inflation for vague promises from
Schumer, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi to reduce regulation and
permitting snafus that have slowed infrastructure projects and
other business initiatives, particularly fossil fuel energy
development.
He told “Face the Nation” that people are struggling with
inflation in large part because of energy costs, and then he
went on to claim, “This [legislation] is going to take care of
that.” Manchin seems to be operating under the naive assumption
that the verbal assurances he’s gotten from his leadership to
reinvigorate fossil fuel production through regulatory reforms
are based in reality. Democratic progressives may have something
to say about that down the road.
Manchin got asked a lot of the same questions over the weekend,
but before Schumer rushes this risky bill forward, maybe they
ought to answer a few more. “With 9.1 percent inflation hitting
every American household, exactly how is spending $369 billion
for green energy and climate initiatives over the next 10 years
going to help people pay for a gallon of milk or a full gas tank
tomorrow?”
Or, “In six months, how much will this ‘Inflation Reduction Act’
actually reduce inflation in real terms with real numbers?”
Or how about, “Who do you think will end up paying the 15
percent minimum tax on corporations — businesses or consumers
hit with even higher prices?”
And yet Schumer and Manchin seem hell-bent on raising taxes in a
recession, directly contradicting their earlier views. In 2008,
Schumer said, “If we’re in a recession and we’re in a difficult
economic time, I don’t think Sen. Obama or anyone else is going
to raise any taxes. You don’t want to take money out of the
economy when the economy is shrinking.”
Manchin himself said in 2010, “I don’t think during a time of
recession you mess with any of the taxes or increase any taxes.”
Over the past two years, according to Congressional Budget
Office projections, federal revenues in 2022 will increase by
41.4 percent from 2020, and yet Manchin and Schumer’s
prescription for what ails the economy is more taxes and more
spending. If anyone needed evidence that the Inflation Reduction
Act is a bad idea, look no further than the impact of last
year’s American Rescue Plan on inflation.
https://rollcall.com/2022/08/03/say-it-aint-so-joe-manchin/
David Hartung <kicking....@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Joe bent over and took it up the ass.
>
He used to be a man of his word, a moderating force in his party
In the fall of 1920, a grand jury indicted eight Chicago White
Sox players for their role in throwing the 1919 World Series,
among them the baseball legend “Shoeless” Joe Jackson. In the
aftermath, a disappointed reporter for the Chicago Daily News,
Charley Owens, wrote a bittersweet tribute to Jackson headlined
“Say it ain’t so, Joe.” The rest, as they say, is history.
The Joe Jackson story was a tale of disillusionment and denial
as Jackson spent the rest of his life denying his role in the
fixing scandal. But the damage was done, and he is remembered
today not for what was a remarkable sports career but for what
was at the time the biggest scandal in baseball.
Joe Manchin isn’t Joe Jackson. I’ve always seen him as a man of
his word, a moderating force in his party and in an increasingly
divided Congress. But his unexpected decision to totally reverse
course and enthusiastically support Chuck Schumer’s Orwellian
"Inflation Reduction Act," sadly, does bring back to mind that
old headline, “Say it ain’t so, Joe.”
Hard as it is to understand, Manchin does seem to have had an
unexpected change of heart when it comes to Democrats’ penchant
for massive spending proposals that he once rejected as
inflationary. Watching the West Virginia senator on the Sunday
news shows trying to rationalize his support for the new
legislation, which for all practical purposes is nothing but
"Build Back Better" lite, made for a head-scratching morning of
political theater.
Manchin tried to paint the bill as a nonpartisan attempt to
reduce inflation through “investments,” not tax increases, with
a focus on increasing domestic energy production. But before the
ink was dry, Penn Wharton released its Budget Model analysis,
which concluded “the impact on inflation is statistically
indistinguishable from zero.”
When it comes to the touchy subject of increasing taxes in a
recession, Manchin on ABC’s “This Week” claimed, “We made sure
that we did not raise taxes. We closed loopholes.”
But an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a
nonpartisan congressional committee that assists “members of the
majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress on tax
legislation,” doesn’t agree.
According to the JCT, the Inflation Reduction Act would actually
raise taxes on more than just corporations — $16.7 billion on
taxpayers earning less than $200,000 in 2023 and another $14.1
billion from taxpayers making between $200,000 and $500,000, to
be exact. In fact, the committee’s data shows all but one of the
income brackets of people earning less than $200,000 would see
increased taxes as well.
When asked by Fox News Digital about the committee’s findings,
Manchin said, “We have to agree to disagree, a difference of
opinion.” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was
even more dismissive. When asked about the findings, she
responded flatly, “That is incorrect,” and argued that the JCT
analysis is “incomplete” because it doesn’t consider future
prescription drug savings or potential energy cost savings,
ignoring the fact that food and energy costs are devastating
family budgets today.
Running the risk of dating myself, this sounds vaguely like
Popeye’s cartoon sidekick Wimpy, whose signature line has become
a perfect commentary on government today: “I’ll gladly pay you
Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
Maybe Manchin truly believes that the bill’s 15 percent minimum
business tax won’t curb investment and innovation, as the
National Association of Manufacturers has said in opposing the
legislation. The JCT also points out that manufacturers would
pay 49.7 percent of this new tax.
But Manchin told “Meet the Press” that the problem for business
isn’t a lack of money, it’s a lack of confidence in government’s
ability to “unleash” manufacturing through permitting reform.
Manchin appears to have traded his moderate views on the impact
of federal overspending on inflation for vague promises from
Schumer, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi to reduce regulation and
permitting snafus that have slowed infrastructure projects and
other business initiatives, particularly fossil fuel energy
development.
He told “Face the Nation” that people are struggling with
inflation in large part because of energy costs, and then he
went on to claim, “This [legislation] is going to take care of
that.” Manchin seems to be operating under the naive assumption
that the verbal assurances he’s gotten from his leadership to
reinvigorate fossil fuel production through regulatory reforms
are based in reality. Democratic progressives may have something
to say about that down the road.
Manchin got asked a lot of the same questions over the weekend,
but before Schumer rushes this risky bill forward, maybe they
ought to answer a few more. “With 9.1 percent inflation hitting
every American household, exactly how is spending $369 billion
for green energy and climate initiatives over the next 10 years
going to help people pay for a gallon of milk or a full gas tank
tomorrow?”
Or, “In six months, how much will this ‘Inflation Reduction Act’
actually reduce inflation in real terms with real numbers?”
Or how about, “Who do you think will end up paying the 15
percent minimum tax on corporations — businesses or consumers
hit with even higher prices?”
And yet Schumer and Manchin seem hell-bent on raising taxes in a
recession, directly contradicting their earlier views. In 2008,
Schumer said, “If we’re in a recession and we’re in a difficult
economic time, I don’t think Sen. Obama or anyone else is going
to raise any taxes. You don’t want to take money out of the
economy when the economy is shrinking.”
Manchin himself said in 2010, “I don’t think during a time of
recession you mess with any of the taxes or increase any taxes.”
Over the past two years, according to Congressional Budget
Office projections, federal revenues in 2022 will increase by
41.4 percent from 2020, and yet Manchin and Schumer’s
prescription for what ails the economy is more taxes and more
spending. If anyone needed evidence that the Inflation Reduction
Act is a bad idea, look no further than the impact of last
year’s American Rescue Plan on inflation.
https://rollcall.com/2022/08/03/say-it-aint-so-joe-manchin/
0 new messages