Mitch McConnell on Krysten Sinema and Joe Manchin: "I pray for their good health and wise judgement every night. I recommend you do the same."

There's a great op ed in the Wall Street Journal today written by Joe Manchin. Some excerpts,

The nation faces an unprecedented array of challenges and will inevitably encounter additional crises in the future. Yet some in Congress have a strange belief there is an infinite supply of money to deal with any current or future crisis, and that spending trillions upon trillions will have no negative consequence for the future. I disagree.

An overheating economy has imposed a costly “inflation tax” on every middle- and working-class American. At $28.7 trillion and growing, the nation’s debt has reached record levels. Over the past 18 months, we’ve spent more than $5 trillion responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Now Democratic congressional leaders propose to pass the largest single spending bill in history with no regard to rising inflation, crippling debt or the inevitability of future crises. Ignoring the fiscal consequences of our policy choices will create a disastrous future for the next generation of Americans.

....Instead of rushing to spend trillions on new government programs and additional stimulus funding, Congress should hit a strategic pause on the budget-reconciliation legislation. A pause is warranted because it will provide more clarity on the trajectory of the pandemic, and it will allow us to determine whether inflation is transitory or not. While some have suggested this reconciliation legislation must be passed now, I believe that making budgetary decisions under artificial political deadlines never leads to good policy or sound decisions. I have always said if I can’t explain it, I can’t vote for it, and I can’t explain why my Democratic colleagues are rushing to spend $3.5 trillion.

I, for one, won’t support a $3.5 trillion bill, or anywhere near that level of additional spending, without greater clarity about why Congress chooses to ignore the serious effects inflation and debt have on existing government programs. This is even more important now as the Social Security and Medicare Trustees have sounded the alarm that these life-saving programs will be insolvent and benefits could start to be reduced as soon as 2026 for Medicare and 2033, a year earlier than previously projected, for Social Security.

Establishing an artificial $3.5 trillion spending number and then reverse-engineering the partisan social priorities that should be funded isn’t how you make good policy. Undoubtedly some will argue that bold social-policy action must be taken now. While I share the belief that we should help those who need it the most, we must also be honest about the present economic reality.

....the purpose of the proposed $3.5 trillion in new spending isn’t to solve urgent problems, but to re-envision America’s social policies. While my fellow Democrats will disagree, I believe that spending trillions more dollars not only ignores present economic reality, but makes it certain that America will be fiscally weakened when it faces a future recession or national emergency.

....Many in Washington have convinced themselves we can add trillions of dollars more to our nearly $29 trillion national debt with no repercussions.

....For those who will dismiss my unwillingness to support a $3.5 trillion bill as political posturing, I hope they heed the powerful words of Adm. Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who called debt the biggest threat to national security.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/manchin...nion_lead_pos5

Krysten Sinema is another formidable roadblock to the Progressive plan to bankrupt America. I think she's a better bet than Manchin to oppose an idiotic capital gains tax on higher income Americans that would lose money versus the status quo.

I'm going to start praying for them too.

I agree that you don’t pick a number then reverse engineer. I’m with him on that. But maybe they need to have a real discussion on what they want to spend money on and get to work finding out what it really costs to implement. Just saying “that’s too much” makes about as much sense as “let’s spend X”.

Funny how debt and deficit only matter when it’s Dem spending but is fine when it’s Rep spending and tax breaks.

I like Manchin but we disagree on many things.

Both parties Contributed mightily to America's national debt.

The DPST communist party is engaging in a seditious effort to bankrupt America with a couple of yearly budgets

In favor of their marxist Revolution and Communist tyranny takeover.



1b1 - you have Blood on Your hands for the fiden massacres by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

1b1 - you have Blood on Your hands for the fiden massacres by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Originally Posted by oeb11

Please explain how someone posting on an internet board has "blood on their hands" related to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This makes no sense, at all, to me.

We understand prayer is anathema to communist Atheist DPSTs
We will still pray for your soul

Thank U

I agree that you don’t pick a number then reverse engineer. I’m with him on that. But maybe they need to have a real discussion on what they want to spend money on and get to work finding out what it really costs to implement. Just saying “that’s too much” makes about as much sense as “let’s spend X”.

Funny how debt and deficit only matter when it’s Dem spending but is fine when it’s Rep spending and tax breaks.

I like Manchin but we disagree on many things. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

It's not fine for most Americans regardless of their political affiliation. This country is so severely divided and you just proved it with your statement. The future of this country is grim, very grim because very few are willing to do the right thing.

The word 'RIGHT" - now forbidden by 'woke cancel culture'.
DPST lemmings rejoice in their new bars added to their marxist tyranny prison.

It may not have been fine for most Americans but I sure never recall hearing republicans up in arms when subsidies for corporations are approved or spending is done or when taxes are cut (further increasing debt and deficits). In the 4 Trump years and the 8 Bush years the mantra was “it’ll pay for itself eventually when the economy explodes with 5% growth (which never came under either administration by the way)”. That’s the falacy (actually lie) that Republicans claim when they spend and cut taxes though isn’t it. That the economy will explode with some unreasonable and unattainable growth number which supposedly will pay for the cuts and spending. Except it never does.

But as soon as the Dems spend. Deficits and debt are sending us into the worst economy that’s ever existed. Same ole lies and same ole playbook.

Both parties Contributed mightily to America's national debt.

The DPST communist party is engaging in a seditious effort to bankrupt America with a couple of yearly budgets

In favor of their marxist Revolution and Communist tyranny takeover.



1b1 - you have Blood on Your hands for the fiden massacres by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

It may not have been fine for most Americans but I sure never recall hearing republicans up in arms when subsidies for corporations are approved or spending is done or when taxes are cut (further increasing debt and deficits). In the 4 Trump years and the 8 Bush years the mantra was “it’ll pay for itself eventually when the economy explodes with 5% growth (which never came under either administration by the way)”. That’s the falacy (actually lie) that Republicans claim when they spend and cut taxes though isn’t it. That the economy will explode with some unreasonable and unattainable growth number which supposedly will pay for the cuts and spending. Except it never does.

But as soon as the Dems spend. Deficits and debt are sending us into the worst economy that’s ever existed. Same ole lies and same ole playbook. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Tax hikes or Tax cuts there will always be winners and losers under both. Some will squawk some balk it's just the way it is. Politicians for the most part live their lives in quiet desperation. Most of what swirls around in their heads and what ends up on paper might look good in theory, but in reality it sucks.

1b1 - you have Blood on Your hands for the fiden massacres by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Originally Posted by oeb11

Please explain how someone posting on an internet board has "blood on their hands" related to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This makes no sense, at all, to me.

It may not have been fine for most Americans but I sure never recall hearing republicans up in arms when subsidies for corporations are approved or spending is done or when taxes are cut (further increasing debt and deficits). In the 4 Trump years and the 8 Bush years the mantra was “it’ll pay for itself eventually when the economy explodes with 5% growth (which never came under either administration by the way)”. That’s the falacy (actually lie) that Republicans claim when they spend and cut taxes though isn’t it. That the economy will explode with some unreasonable and unattainable growth number which supposedly will pay for the cuts and spending. Except it never does.

But as soon as the Dems spend. Deficits and debt are sending us into the worst economy that’s ever existed. Same ole lies and same ole playbook. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

The thing is the few politicians who don't want to spend like there's no tomorrow are mostly Republicans. There's Rand Paul, Mike Lee and about ten or fifteen members of the House who are mostly Republicans. And that's about it. Most of the politicians from both parties are bought off by special interests, and they're big fans of pork for their constituents. Democrats are no angels when it comes to passing out favors. The Democrats are in the pockets of the plaintiff's lawyers (no offense intended if you are one), the teacher's unions and Wall Street.

I would argue that the Republicans' corporate tax rate cut in 2017 helped set the stage for decades-low unemployment rates and a decades-high increase in median household income in 2019. The Republicans problem was that they should have brought spending growth down. My preference would have been to do that through more efficient government, lower defense spending, and cutting out the subsidies and pork. We do need a social safety net - IMHO with more support for poor children and less for the middle class and higher wage earners.

WTF, who's left leaning and used to post here, is a big fan of split government, in large part because there's less deficit spending. And he's got a good point. During my lifetime the golden years were Clinton's second term and Reagan's second term. Clinton and House Republicans actually ran a budget surplus. And while Reagan and Tip O'Neill et al didn't control spending as well as they could have, much was accomplished that helped the economy.

Please explain how someone posting on an internet board has "blood on their hands" related to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This makes no sense, at all, to me. Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

It makes no sense, but it cracks me up. Just speculating but this may be Oeb having some fun knowing that Blackman's filtering out his posts. Although by quoting him you're kind of destroying the effect, haha.

It makes no sense, but it cracks me up. Just speculating but this may be Oeb having some fun knowing that Blackman's filtering out his posts. Although by quoting him you're kind of destroying the effect, haha. Originally Posted by Tiny

IMHO - voters for fiden aided and abetted this Afghanistan disaster.

and bear responsibility for every single person murdered by Taliban terrorists


Next - the fiden corrupt , criminial cabal - pays Taliban millions for 'cooperation".



such Idiots , these DPSTs!

The thing is the few politicians who don't want to spend like there's no tomorrow are mostly Republicans. There's Rand Paul, Mike Lee and about ten or fifteen members of the House who are mostly Republicans. And that's about it. Most of the politicians from both parties are bought off by special interests, and they're big fans of pork for their constituents. Democrats are no angels when it comes to passing out favors. The Democrats are in the pockets of the plaintiff's lawyers (no offense intended if you are one), the teacher's unions and Wall Street.

I would argue that the Republicans' corporate tax rate cut in 2017 helped set the stage for decades-low unemployment rates and a decades-high increase in median household income in 2019. The Republicans problem was that they should have brought spending growth down. My preference would have been to do that through more efficient government, lower defense spending, and cutting out the subsidies and pork. We do need a social safety net - IMHO with more support for poor children and less for the middle class and higher wage earners.

WTF, who's left leaning and used to post here, is a big fan of split government, in large part because there's less deficit spending. And he's got a good point. During my lifetime the golden years were Clinton's second term and Reagan's second term. Clinton and House Republicans actually ran a budget surplus. And while Reagan and Tip O'Neill et al didn't control spending as well as they could have, much was accomplished that helped the economy. Originally Posted by Tiny

Founding fathers - in writing the constitution - failed to recognize irresponsible, catastrophic deficit spending by criminal fiden cabal .

We need a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Politicians on both sides are craven and refuse to give America a dose of corrective medicine.

And the ultimate price will likely be a total loss of our freedoms and representative democracy.

America forced Greece to adopt harsh economic corrective actions - and their spending was far less egregious than Ours.

There will be a large price to pay.



Meanwhile - DPST Communists watch, wait, and indoctrinate, destabilize, and bankrupt our country.