This is consistent with my own experience and it is also consistent with some of the data I have read. Part of it is that minorities are not monolithic. For example we see that Hispanics are more likely to cross over and vote Republican than minority women, especially black women or even black men. As far as the data for black voters, the vast majority are still democrat regardless or age or education but we are seeing enough change to swing an election. College educated black people, especially younger black people are solidly democratic. The larger numbers seem to indicate that we are seeing the trend go from income or ethnicity providing voter tendencies, and it is changing towards the level of education someone has, and that is more pronounced for those under 40.
LOL! Now we are judging Senators based on the economy and standards of living for their State. You want to tell us how they could change any of that?
https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/3571129-whatever-happened-to-objecting-in-good-faith/ Whatever happened to objecting in good faith? by Ryan Clancy, opinion contributor 07/22/22 6:30 PM ET In our never-ending rush to judgment — in our insatiable desire to sort the world into “good” and “bad” — we’ve ceased to ask a simple but important question: Why? There’s nothing in the Constitution that mandates that people be curious about the sources of other peoples’ opinions. And perhaps there’s no turning back from American public discourse devolving into shallow Twitter debates. But on issues of major public policy, it might be worth understanding both sides before reflexively vilifying someone. Never has that been more clear than in the case of Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), the far left’s new public enemy No. 1. Manchin, of course, is the one senator publicly standing in the way of the Democrats-only climate change and social spending bill viewed as the top item on President Biden’s agenda. Perhaps, rather than resorting immediately to ad hominem attacks, it would be worth asking why he has taken that position. Are you sure his position has been taken in bad faith? On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blithely asserted that “Manchin represents the very wealthiest people in this country, not working families in West Virginia or America.” But could there possibly be any other reason Manchin decided not to back the bill? In politics today, voters are perpetually saying they want their elected representatives to think for themselves — to look at the facts, consider the options, and then make informed, independent judgments. Perhaps, before casting the nastiest aspersions on Manchin, critics should look at what he’s done and simply ask: Why? Is it possible that elements of the reconciliation bill, well-intentioned as they are, hold the potential to cut against efforts to tame inflation? Perhaps having the government pour hundreds of billions into an over-heated economy might work at cross-purposes with efforts to prevent prices from going up? Could you maybe conjecture that raising taxes on business at the same time that they’re dealing with rising costs — both for the goods they purchase and for the labor they hire — could undermine efforts to ensure an economic “soft landing” rather than a descent into deep recession? To be frank, you don’t even have to answer yes to any of those questions to see my point. Perhaps, in the end, you conclude, as many other Democrats have done, that the risk of continued or worsened inflation is worth what the nation would get out of the investments Democrats want to make through their bill. Fair enough. As they say, “your miles may vary.” But is it also possible that someone else would come to a different conclusion in good faith? Is it possible that, no matter any individual’s politics, the real issue when crafting policy isn’t always “good” vs. “bad”? Perhaps sometimes the challenge is balancing priority A against priority B — and you can be supportive of addressing priorities but weigh them differently than someone who also has every intention of doing what is right for the country. That is, at root, what’s wrong with Washington today. It’s not, as ideologues tend to argue, that the other side has designs on destroying the country, or is hell-bent on fascism, or socialism, or whatever else. It’s that people with different views on big issues are so eager to castigate the other side as crazy or unAmerican, or worse, that they can’t even broach a discussion about how to move the country forward together. The shame is that Manchin is taking flak for refusing to be a rubber stamp. Agree or disagree with him, he shouldn’t be compelled to take votes he thinks point his state or the nation in the wrong direction. The American system demands that people work through their differences. If one party can’t succeed by steamrolling the other, perhaps the original sin isn’t one senator voicing an objection, but the intention to steamroll opposition voices in the first place. Ryan Clancy is chief strategist at No Labels, a national organization working to revive bipartisanship.
Manchin, Schumer announce slimmed-down deal on climate, taxes, health Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Wednesday said they had struck a climate, health and tax package deal — weeks after Manchin seemingly had scuttled any chance of an agreement because of his worries over inflation. The new package is a fraction of the more than $3 trillion deal once envisioned by liberal Democrats, but it still could give the party a big win ahead of midterm elections where House and Senate majorities are on the line. The deal will be part of the budget reconciliation package that Senate Democrats plan to bring to the floor next week and pass on a party-line vote, circumventing a Republican filibuster under special Senate rules. It would invest $369 billion in energy climate programs over the next 10 years and $300 billion to reduce the deficit. It would be added to legislation to lower prescription drug prices and extend expiring health care subsidies. “After many months of negotiations, we have finalized legislative text that will invest approximately $300 billion in deficit reduction and $369.75 billion in energy security and climate change programs over the next ten years,” Schumer and Manchin announced in a joint statement. “The investments will be fully paid for by closing tax loopholes on wealthy individuals and corporations.” Manchin had come under a storm of criticism from Democrats after saying he could not agree to climate provisions because of his concerns over inflation. Democrats despaired that the party was missing an opportunity to take action at a time when the party held the White House and majorities in both chambers. In their joint statement, Schumer and Manchin said the agreement will reduce emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030. It would raise $739 billion in new revenue through a variety of proposals, according to a one-page summary provided by the negotiators: $313 billion through a 15-percent corporate minimum tax, $288 billion from empowering Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, $124 billion from strong IRS enforcement of tax law and $14 billion from closing the carried interest loophole for money managers. It would spend $369 billion on energy security and climate change and $64 billion to extend health care subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. And in a nod to Manchin, who represents a deep-red state easily won by former President Trump in the 2020 election, it would allocate $300 billion to reduce the deficit. The announcement came as a surprise Wednesday after talks between Schumer and Manchin over tax reform and the energy and climate provisions of the package collapsed on July 14, shortly after the Bureau of Labor Statics reported that inflation hit 9.1 percent in June. Manchin at the time said he wanted to wait to see the inflation data for July and hear more guidance from the Federal Reserve about future interest rate hikes before agreeing to any deal that might fuel inflation. The timing of Manchin and Schumer’s announcement raised eyebrows for a few reasons. A few hours earlier, the Federal Reserve voted to increase the central bank’s baseline interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point in an effort to slow inflation. And it came just after 17 Republicans joined Democrats in voting to pass a bill to spend $280 billion to help the domestic semiconductor industry and fund the National Science Foundation — a key priority that had been jeopardized by talk of a reconciliation bill earlier this month. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who voted for the chips and science bill, had vowed to block the legislation if Democrats stuck to their plans to pass a reconciliation bill that raised taxes and spent hundreds of billions of dollars on climate-related programs. Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), a member of the GOP leadership team who also voted for the chips bill, blasted Manchin’s deal with Schumer and his office accused the West Virginia senator of having “flip-flopped.” “Senate Democrats can change the name of Build Back Broke as many times as they want, it won’t be any less devastating to American families and small businesses,” Cornyn said. “Raising taxes on job creators, crushing energy producers with new regulations, and stifling innovators looking for new cures will only make this recession worse, not better.” Senate Republicans appeared to retaliate Wednesday by defeating a motion to proceed to a $278 billion bill to help veterans suffering from toxic chemical exposure, which was expected to get enough votes to advance. The procedural motion failed 55-42, falling five votes short of the 60 needed. A Senate GOP aide said Republican senators were upset they couldn’t get a deal on considering more of their amendments to that bill. The newly crafted budget reconciliation deal is a faction of the size of $1.75 trillion framework that the White House unveiled in October with the belief that Manchin would support it. Its price tag also falls far below the $3.5 trillion spending blueprint Senate Democrats passed as part of their budget resolution a year ago. Link to the rest: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3576965-manchin-schumer-announce-slimmed-down-670-billion-deal/
Tax hikes and more fiscal fuel for the inflationary fire. And right before the election too. In any case, it is not altogether clear that this is going to have the votes to pass, especially in the House, where the Democrats only have four votes to spare. Is AOC and the squad going to want to vote for this? Stay tuned....
The bill collects more tax revenue than new spending so by definition it lowers the money supply. We forget but taxes are actually a fiscal tool to regulate the money supply, we just haven't treated it that way in several decades.
I know everyone bags on Manchin but he completely outplayed McConnell on this one. First, McConnell threatens to tank the CHIPS act if the Dems pass a reconciliation bill. Then Manchin says don't worry as he doesn't support a reconciliation bill and McConnell then allows the final vote on the CHIPS Act. Then literally hours later, Manchin and Schumer announce that they have a deal on reconciliation. I'm pretty sure Manchin was playing McConnell the entire time.
If that means it's less spending (not necessary true)... less spending tends to be deflationary but that's just the gov side of spending since the 80s or so, private sector spending (private loans driven) plays a bigger role than public sector
You know what also is inflationary? All the unnecessary Republican tax cuts for the rich the past 20 years.
Man, that ~50 billion dollar CHIPS Act somehow ballooned to 280 billion. What a great time for AI to be alive. Focusing on the positives...its great there's some effort on deficit reduction.
Laffer claimed the opposite...lower tax rates meant more productivity and more incentives for corporations to deliver. I think the reason why Laffer and his Curve looks like **** since Bush Jr is because our economy is more financialized than through traditional means of growing real businesses...Why take a loan on a biz when you can make money off bitcoin or options trading...for banks, why not just securitize assets and print them out instead of traditional lending with pathetic rates...for companies, why not just roll over low interest loans, do a semi annual round of stock buybacks rather than boosting quality employee retention/promotion through raises or workplace QoL improvements? The underlying incentives has changed. Also why low interest rates doesn't necessarily boost spending/discourage saving but rather create asset bubbles from high earners using their existing assets as collateral for more assets(rich get richer...poorer get 0.1% APYs in their savings accounts)
It didn't balloon, they just passed a bill that was largely similar to the original USICA that the Senate had previously passed. The $50 billion number was specific to funding that will be provided to assist in scaling up manufacturing of chips in the US. But the total size of the CHIPS Act is more or less the same as the USICA.
I watched the interview with Manchin in Meet the Press. One pet they I thought was very odd was they he refused to answer the question whether he wants a Democratic majority in Congress. Chuck Todd asked him a few times directly and as a Democrat that seems like an easy answer but Manchin kept on deflecting.
