Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 109
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    La Puente, CA
    Posts
    14,714

    Did Joe Manchin (D-WV) just screw over congressional Democrats for the 2022 midterms?

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021...lief-bill.html


    Joe Manchin is a perfect example of a DINO (Democrat-In-Name-Only). 12 million fewer citizens will not be given stimulus checks thanks to this GOP-wannabe. The edited relief bill now scales down between $75000 and $80000, instead of the scaling down more gradually to $100000. Manchin seems to care more about "fiscal responsibility" instead of helping struggling Americans. He should do himself and the rest of the country a favor and switch over to the GOP, instead of masquerading as a Democrat.

    I think Republicans will use this in ads to attack Senate and House Democrats nominees for the midterm elections. This may possibly cause Democrats to lose both branches of Congress. That 12 million fewer citizens got stimulus checks under a Democratic-controlled House and Senate just won't go well over people. And all because of a single conservative Democrat who is in the wrong party.
    Last edited by dodgerdave; 03-05-2021 at 08:06 AM.

    Future Hall of Shamers:
    (1) B.A.L.C.O. Barroids (2) Mark McJuicer (3) Jose Chem-seco (4) Rafael Palmeiroids (5) Ken Chem-initi (6) Jason Gi-andro (7) Ryan Fraud (8) Muscle Melk (9) Woman-Ram (10) Shammy Sosa (11) Roger Clear-mens (12) A-Roid (13) Ryan HGHoward

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by dodgerdave View Post
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021...lief-bill.html


    Joe Manchin is a perfect example of a DINO (Democrat-In-Name-Only). 12 million fewer citizens will not be given stimulus checks thanks to GOP-wannabe. The edited relief bill now scales down between $75000 and $80000, instead of the scaling down more gradually to $100000. Manchin seems to care more about "fiscal responsibility" instead of helping struggling Americans. He should do himself and the rest of the country a favor and switch over to the GOP, instead of masquerading as a Democrat.

    I think Republicans will use this in ads to attack Senate and House Democrats for the midterm election. This may possibly cause Democrats to lose both branches of Congress. That 12 million fewer citizens got stimulus checks under a Democratic-controlled House and Senate just won't go well over people. And all because of a single conservative Democrat who is in the wrong party.
    The question is, if I'm making 80k+ a year, do I need $1400?

    It has always been the case that stim checks should have been LARGER, but scaled down in tiers...so maybe <30k gets 2k and 80-100k gets 1k with tiers inbetween
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    55,561
    Settle down Dave


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    74,548
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    The question is, if I'm making 80k+ a year, do I need $1400?

    It has always been the case that stim checks should have been LARGER, but scaled down in tiers...so maybe <30k gets 2k and 80-100k gets 1k with tiers inbetween
    Couldn't hurt. I definitely think the checks should be larger, but I don't care if those fat cats making $80K a year are getting checks too.

    Where's this means testing when Republicans fight every single time they can for tax cuts for the rich?

    But yeah, Joe Manchin is a useless loser. I just hope that if things hit the fan in 2022 we remember who was standing in the way of progress and hope the centrist Libs lash out at the right people for once...and not the left.
    HELLO

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,222
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    The question is, if I'm making 80k+ a year, do I need $1400?

    It has always been the case that stim checks should have been LARGER, but scaled down in tiers...so maybe <30k gets 2k and 80-100k gets 1k with tiers inbetween
    The problem is that people who made (not make) that $80-100K but are now jobless won't get any help. So if someone had made that but lost your job, then you're ****ed.

    That being said, I don't think he has done what the headline posits. He is doing what he believes will get him re-elected in West Virginia. That is incredibly hard to do for a Democrat in West Virginia.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,478
    Well, there has to be a cutoff somewhere, yes?
    And thess checks aren't just going to the unemployed.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    36,783
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The problem is that people who made (not make) that $80-100K but are now jobless won't get any help. So if someone had made that but lost your job, then you're ****ed.

    That being said, I don't think he has done what the headline posits. He is doing what he believes will get him re-elected in West Virginia. That is incredibly hard to do for a Democrat in West Virginia.
    If you are unemployed then your income is $0. Are you SURE it's based on income last year?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,222
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Well, there has to be a cutoff somewhere, yes?
    And thess checks aren't just going to the unemployed.
    Yes there has to be a cutoff. But lowering the cutoff rather than cutting spending elsewhere (which as far as I know hasn't reduced the cost of the bill by any substantial mark, it's still a $1.9T bill) would have seemed to have been better policy. I suspect what we all know is the case. This is about Manchin making a big show of pushing around Chuck Schumer. It's not about policy, it's about power.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Yes there has to be a cutoff. But lowering the cutoff rather than cutting spending elsewhere (which as far as I know hasn't reduced the cost of the bill by any substantial mark, it's still a $1.9T bill) would have seemed to have been better policy. I suspect what we all know is the case. This is about Manchin making a big show of pushing around Chuck Schumer. It's not about policy, it's about power.
    If it had always had this cutoff, nobody would be saying a thing.
    From what I read, it cut about $16billion

    OK, what are you reducing in that bill that's substantial and would still get passed?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    13,595
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Well, there has to be a cutoff somewhere, yes?
    And thess checks aren't just going to the unemployed.
    It just looks bad.

    First, there was confusion about Biden pushing a $2,000 stimulus check and said second, all Americans with a certain income will get it. Something that was pushed heavy during the Georgia senate run-off.

    Now, $2,000 became $1,400 and not everybody is going to get it. The constant delays aren't helping. It just looks bad to keep changing a campaign promise that may have made a difference in Georgia's Senate run-off.. I am sure the Republicans will attack them for it comes 2022.
    A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

    Martin Luther King.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    If you are unemployed then your income is $0. Are you SURE it's based on income last year?
    It's based on your most recent tax return....which for a lot of people is still 2019, so pre-pandemic
    So someone losing their job last year likely wanted to be getting their taxes done.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,297
    Itís such a relatively small portion of the bill financially I donít know why Democrats didnít just do $2,000 instead of the $1,400 + $600 = $2,000 PR fiasco.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    97,222
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    It's based on your most recent tax return....which for a lot of people is still 2019, so pre-pandemic
    So someone losing their job last year likely wanted to be getting their taxes done.
    Thank you! This isn't hard to get. I'm not saying I have a better way to capture it for people who were affected by the pandemic to show their income but the idea that what someone earned prior to the pandemic is in any way useful to what they have access to spend now is ridiculous.
    Let's get embedded tweets working again!

    https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33780085

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Modesto
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    If you are unemployed then your income is $0. Are you SURE it's based on income last year?
    Your income isn't $0, you tax liability on unemployment is most likely $0
    "He's getting the best job in baseball."

    Bruce Bochy sent a clear message to whoever will be the Giants' next manager
    🙌
    https://bit.ly/2ndI9eG

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    16,478
    Quote Originally Posted by SfgiantsJD3 View Post
    Your income isn't $0, you tax liability on unemployment is most likely $0
    unemployment is taxable income....so there are people in for an unpleasant surprise when they file
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •