Joe Manchin’s ugly new demands expose the absurdity of arbitrary centrism

BidenPresident said:
Manchin’s new moves reveal the folly of arbitrary centrism. This posture is essentially that any effort to restrain liberal governance is an inherent good, with no serious acknowledgement required of the real-world trade offs it entails.

This is necessary because Manchin, who fears deficits and inflation, has drawn a line at $1.5 trillion. But that appears arbitrary: Manchin has even suggested to colleagues that he doesn’t particularly care which progressive priorities get jettisoned; he just wants to see some of them gone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/18/manchin-climate-reconciliation-child-allowance/
Click to expand...

Do you agree that banks be required to provide data to the Internal Revenue Service on accounts with gross annual inflows and outflows at $10,000 or more?
 
Old Trapper said:
Manchin has the integrity, and the moral values, of a Republic**nt, and needs to change parties. Hell, he has taken enough from Big Oil, and his coal stocks, to live life comfortably.
Click to expand...

This is while West Virginia constituents that voted for Manchin can drop dead as far as he is concerned. Afterall, what factors has Manchin created as a so-called lawmaker that made West Virginia economically prosperous on a national level, and at improving its economic standing and image in the world?
 
Last edited:
BidenPresident said:
Manchin’s new moves reveal the folly of arbitrary centrism. This posture is essentially that any effort to restrain liberal governance is an inherent good, with no serious acknowledgement required of the real-world trade offs it entails.

This is necessary because Manchin, who fears deficits and inflation, has drawn a line at $1.5 trillion. But that appears arbitrary: Manchin has even suggested to colleagues that he doesn’t particularly care which progressive priorities get jettisoned; he just wants to see some of them gone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/18/manchin-climate-reconciliation-child-allowance/
Click to expand...

Yeah, because he's not an idiot.
 
Old Trapper said:
Not surprised you have no answer. Your gawd id all of that by Executive Order, and look at the mess it created.

Now, once again fool, what laws would YOU change?
Click to expand...

????........for the third time......if you want more immigration, increase legal immigration limits.....just how dense are you.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????........for the third time......if you want more immigration, increase legal immigration limits.....just how dense are you.......
Click to expand...

Evidently you are just dense, stupid, arrogant, or all three. Changing the limitations is NOT CHANGING THE LAW since immigrants are still allowed in. Your gawd trump changed the limits from 90,000 to 18,000 and we had record arrests at the border. Now I know you are too f**king stupid to get off your f**ked up ass (sitting on your brain is never good for you) and actually answer the question instead of dwelling on the stupid like you do. WHAT LAW(S) WOULD YOU CHANGE TO MAKE MATTERS "BETTER " IN YOUR WORLD OF LIMITED INTELLECT?
 
Old Trapper said:
Evidently you are just dense, stupid, arrogant, or all three. Changing the limitations is NOT CHANGING THE LAW since immigrants are still allowed in. Your gawd trump changed the limits from 90,000 to 18,000 and we had record arrests at the border. Now I know you are too f**king stupid to get off your f**ked up ass (sitting on your brain is never good for you) and actually answer the question instead of dwelling on the stupid like you do. WHAT LAW(S) WOULD YOU CHANGE TO MAKE MATTERS "BETTER " IN YOUR WORLD OF LIMITED INTELLECT?
Click to expand...

you are obviously retarded......I'm not sure why you don't want legal immigration, but you have shown us four times that you don't.......now since you don't want a solution, fuck off.....
 
Word is that the so-called Billionaires Tax is dead because Manchin is not having it. I found it interesting that at most it would have brought in only $20 billion a year, a tiny fraction of the costs of the Socialism Advancement Bill. It just goes to show what not stupid people have been saying for a long time, it is impossible to tax the rich out of these massive deficits we run.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Word is that the so-called Billionaires Tax is dead because Manchin is not having it. I found it interesting that at most it would have brought in only $20 billion a year, a tiny fraction of the costs of the Socialism Advancement Bill. It just goes to show what not stupid people have been saying for a long time, it is impossible to tax the rich out of these massive deficits we run.
Click to expand...

Only because sorry ass c**ts like you will not support a "tax the wealth" plan. You would rather give them more welfare that actually hold them accountable for the evil they have created.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavi...rsonal-taxes-bb51ab8b987c32e00c743a05d428079c
 
$.2 Trillion is 1/14th of the expected 2021 federal deficit, and the Revolution is looking to increase spending still further to the scored tune of $4.5 trillion over ten years which is probably actually more like $7 trillion.
 
Old Trapper said:
Prove it bitch. As if you could, :laugh:
Click to expand...

I have never once been opposed to raising taxes on the rich, what I have said is that during the 80's and 90's we lost the ability to tax the rich through the then new globalization schemes which changed laws to allow for the free flow of capital across national borders. Degrading the ability of nations to tax was a huge part of the motivation of globalization to begin with, the wealthy instituted this new plan by corrupting governments first, and then everybody lied to the people about what was going on.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I have never once been opposed to raising taxes on the rich, what I have said is that during the 80's and 90's we lost the ability to tax the rich through the then new globalization schemes which changed laws to allow for the free flow of capital across national borders. Degrading the ability of nations to tax was a huge part of the motivation of globalization to begin with, the wealthy instituted this new plan by corrupting governments first, and then everybody lied to the people about what was going on.
Click to expand...

I see. So, when you make comments like "it is impossible to tax the rich out of these massive deficits we run." it isn't that you oppose doing so, it is because you don't think it will work so why try.

Isn't that the same as opposing the tax?
 
Old Trapper said:
I see. So, when you make comments like "it is impossible to tax the rich out of these massive deficits we run." it isn't that you oppose doing so, it is because you don't think it will work so why try.

Isn't that the same as opposing the tax?
Click to expand...

I know it wont work, they wont pay any taxes that they dont volunteer to pay, that was a huge part of the point of globalization.

Also, there is not enough wealth there to even cover current deficits, much less the socialism of the WOKE Revolution.

Also, this global economic system is dead, but people have not admitted it yet.

The Chinese decide what comes next, after the Depression.

I am not opposed to taxing the rich, but we cant.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I know it wont work, they wont pay any taxes that they dont volunteer to pay, that was a huge part of the point of globalization.

Also, there is not enough wealth there to even cover current deficits, much less the socialism of the WOKE Revolution.

Also, this global economic system is dead, but people have not admitted it yet.

The Chinese decide what comes next, after the Depression.

I am not opposed to taxing the rich, but we cant.
Click to expand...

Strange how you seem to equate "can't", and "don't try", and then say you don't oppose the attempt. However, your math is somewhat screwy to say the least. In the past year the wealthy have seen a 1 Trillion dollar increase in their wealth. That is just in one year. Hell, Bezos, Waltons, and Musk, account for over 100 billion of that. If you were to take 15% of that increase, as the international community has agreed to do, that would account for some 150 Billion alone.

It is not a question of can it be done. It is a question of having the will to do it. It is the same with everything when it comes to corporate America. It is a question of enforcing the laws already on the books in regard to corporations, and the passing rules to make equality a reality.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will."

https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top