Biden strikes out with King Manchin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary announced today that BBB is expected to reduce deficits in the long run. And Moody’s analysis says BBB will boost the economy and create new jobs: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-and-build-back-better-framework.pdf

What will be Manchin’s new excuse for opposing it?

That the treasury would tell us water isn't wet if it suited them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary announced today that BBB is expected to reduce deficits in the long run. And Moody’s analysis says BBB will boost the economy and create new jobs: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-and-build-back-better-framework.pdf

What will be Manchin’s new excuse for opposing it?

That the treasury would tell us water isn't wet if it suited them?

Treasury is exec branch. Of course they will spin bbb.

What does CBO say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary announced today that BBB is expected to reduce deficits in the long run. And Moody’s analysis says BBB will boost the economy and create new jobs: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-and-build-back-better-framework.pdf

What will be Manchin’s new excuse for opposing it?

That the treasury would tell us water isn't wet if it suited them?

Treasury is exec branch. Of course they will spin bbb.

What does CBO say?

Is Moody’s also part of the executive branch?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary announced today that BBB is expected to reduce deficits in the long run. And Moody’s analysis says BBB will boost the economy and create new jobs: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-and-build-back-better-framework.pdf

What will be Manchin’s new excuse for opposing it?

That the treasury would tell us water isn't wet if it suited them?

Treasury is exec branch. Of course they will spin bbb.

What does CBO say?

Is Moody’s also part of the executive branch?

No but mark zandi (monody’s analytics big boss) has a bias. He donates mostly to Dems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary announced today that BBB is expected to reduce deficits in the long run. And Moody’s analysis says BBB will boost the economy and create new jobs: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-and-build-back-better-framework.pdf

What will be Manchin’s new excuse for opposing it?

That the treasury would tell us water isn't wet if it suited them?

Treasury is exec branch. Of course they will spin bbb.

What does CBO say?

Is Moody’s also part of the executive branch?

Lol - democrats love to cite Mark Zandi. Let's see what the CBO says.

[Anonymous]

King Manchin strikes again. Suck it haters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:King Manchin strikes again. Suck it haters.

What this debate is really about is whether or not policymakers should use the banking system to implement climate change policies. That is, increasing capital requirements for banks on exposures to oil & gas companies, which in turn makes financing more expensive for these companies. Some jurisdictions are even going so far as to highly restricting the amount of exposure banks have to such companies.

One of the most controversial options in play is a macroprudential climate risk contribution capital surcharge. This would be an additive capital requirement solely focused on climate risk.

Frankly, the capital rules already cover some element of climate risk via operational risk rules. This is a highly punitive capital surcharge for tail-risk events - the London Whale loss, legal risks (eg, fraud settlements paid by the bank), large losses stemming from over-exposure to one counterparty, etc. There's also market risk surcharges for trading losses, which would certainly happen in instances where a climate-based disaster affected the markets and prices.

My guess is that Powell said he won't push a punitive climate surcharge, but assured policy makers that the current rules do account for climate-related risks and losses. And he's right on that.

The fundamental question at hand is whether we should use banking regs to punish certain industries or increase their borrowing costs. I'm quite progressive, but I think this is a pretty bad distortion of the market and could be a terrible precedent for banking rules. We'd be much better off with a cap & trade regime, but the Democrats don't have the votes for that to get it through Congress so they are trying this.

More discussion on this topic -

From an entity that supports climate risk surcharges:
https://americanprogress.org/article/addressing-climate-related-financial-risk-bank-capital-requirements/

From a bank industry group that opposes climate risk surcharges:
https://bpi.com/climate-risk-and-bank-capital-requirements/

[Anonymous]

What this debate is really about is whether or not policymakers should use the banking system to implement climate change policies. That is, increasing capital requirements for banks on exposures to oil & gas companies, which in turn makes financing more expensive for these companies. Some jurisdictions are even going so far as to highly restricting the amount of exposure banks have to such companies.

It is a debate, but it is disingenuous for members of Congress to attack the Fed for not conducting industrial policy through banking regulation. To do so is well outside the Fed's mandate and would risk its independence.

Congress can decide industrial policy and could legislate that it be implemented through banking regulations. Until that happens, congressional members should refrain from criticizing the Fed for not devising banking rules intended to pick losers and winners among private sector businesses.

[Anonymous]

Kick their asses Manchin. They deserve it.

[Anonymous]

Knew it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary announced today that BBB is expected to reduce deficits in the long run. And Moody’s analysis says BBB will boost the economy and create new jobs: https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2021/macroeconomic-consequences-of-the-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-and-build-back-better-framework.pdf

What will be Manchin’s new excuse for opposing it?

That the treasury would tell us water isn't wet if it suited them?

HAHAHA So good. Yellen is totally unsuited for this position. All of this admin's appointees are a joke. Send the IRS to check THEIR bank accounts (as well as Pelosi's). They are the most corrupt gang I have ever seen.

[Anonymous]

I owe Manchin a fruit basket

[Anonymous]

Long live King Manchin!

[Anonymous]

Thank god for Manchin for stopping that welfare insanity.

Biden et al are just insanely dumb to pump up everyones expectation with the slim congressional majorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank god for Manchin for stopping that welfare insanity.

Biden et al are just insanely dumb to pump up everyones expectation with the slim congressional majorities.

I really truly want to know what they were thinking implementing a policy (mainly the tax credits) with NO stipulations on citizenship, minimum job or income requirements, or limits on dependent qualification totals.

If anyone has an interview or video on when this was discussed back in April 2021, I'd love to see it.

I've also never seen it explained what exactly they planned to do when the costs for daycares and commercial child care centers rose 300% while the household payouts were limited to 7%. Leaving the government to pay the remaining 83% tab. Like that's just asking for massive inflation for one industry. Truly boggles the mind.