Hanaguma

Ok, so now "the science" is actually "a target"? Now let's assume it comes to pass and the US reduces by 40% in 8 years. This will have next to no impact on the global climate unless the OTHER big emitters get on board. And they aren't. So it amounts to yet another futile gesture. One that costs $300 billion.

Gas is below four bucks in Arizona? Alert the media! Only a little ways to go before........ well, gas was actually $2.25 in January 2021 when Biden took the White House. Never mind.

Interesting. "THE science" has suddenly changed into "SOME science". So "some science" is worth $300 billion?

"The science!?" And what exactly is "the science"? Does it tell him to subsidize rich people so they can buy electric cars? Which use dangerous batteries, lots of rare earth elements, and run on electricity produced by coal/gas? How did "the science" come up with such exact figures like "eliminate 40% of greenhouse gasses by 2030"? Those numbers sound more political than scientific to me.

Actually, yeah I do pretty much. And I never said "no limits" so please quit strqw manning. Paying for community necessities? Great. $300 billion for so-called climate initiatives? No thank you.

I have a problem with "no knock" warrants in general, unless there are dire circumstances at play. For example, hostages whose lives are at risk, or criminal evidence that is being destroyed. Barring those situations, no need for the violence and chaos that they cause.

Down is a good direction for taxes to go. Nothing wrong with letting people keep and spend/invest their own money, is there? If you want to volunteer more of your money to the IRS, you can easily do so by adding it to your filing every year. Same as all the rich boobs who complain that their taxes are too low. They can set a good example by voluntarily paying what they consider to be "their fair share". That would give them some moral standing to lecture others to do the same. Otherwise it is all an exercise in virtue signalling.

Except those taxes will be passed on to the end users, so the revenue generated will be offset. Remember when France had the great idea to add a special tax to millionaires? It added a grand total of 2% to tax revenue, at the expense of 60,000 of the country's wealthiest people leaving the country. And cost the country 0.2% of GDP per year. Ain't no way to tax your way out of trouble.

It you think that hundreds of billions of dollars to fight climate change is important, then how about being honest and call the bill the "Money for Democratic Donors in 'Renewable Energy'" Bill? Government spending, if anything, adds to inflation. As for increased corporate taxes, guess who will wind up paying them? Consumers, in the form of higher prices, which also will add to inflation. And no amount of IRS involvement in the economy will change that.

Parliamentary system. Leaders chosen by parties. No direct vote, only for local representative.

Also countries like Canada, UK, Japan...

Yes. Obama tried the same thing, and it failed. The rich and the corporations are too clever to be caught, and the burden will inevitably fall on working people.

To my knowledge, the US has never had a popular vote election for president. Hence the federal system. The popular vote has always been interesting, but ultimately irrelevant.

Going after tax cheats has been constant, and never works. It is akin to "finding waste, fraud, and abuse" for more money. Good luck with that. The IRS will inevitably go after the low hanging fruit, which means people who dont have tax lawyers and accountants. As for the reduction of inflation being unimportant, why the heck is it called the "Inflation REDUCTION Act" then...

No, they dont. They are variations of a parliamentary system. There is no direct vote for leader. And when did the US ever elect the President by popular vote? My memory fails me on that point.

So, according to analysis, exactly how much is this bill supposed to reduce inflation? One thing is for sure, it does guarantee larger deficits in the future. It also ensures ever more grubby hands reaching into ever more pockets as the IRS will double in size. Subsidies to pet projects do not do so. All forms of so-called "clean energy" rely on back-up by fossil fuel. The big downside is the lack of storage capacity for wind, solar, etc. The technology will develop naturally without interference by ol' Joe and his merry band of do-gooders. How does $370 billion in subsidies reduce inflation? According to the Wharton School of Business; The Act would very slightly increase inflation until 2024 and decrease inflation thereafter. These point estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero, thereby indicating low confidence that the legislation will have any impact on inflation. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/7/29/inflation-reduction-act-preliminary-estimates

...and your definition of "far right" would be.... what exactly, my friend?

...so, how will this bill reduce inflation exactly? Nobody has seemed to be able to find out yet. Taking more money from taxpayers and giving it to politicians so that they can pass it on to their pet subsidies is not anti-inflationary. Shovelling more cash into climate change boondoggles is not anti-inflationary. Spending billions for the Post Office to buy electric trucks is going to reduce inflation? Give me a break. This should more accurately be called Build Back Broker 2.0.

But still no direct election of the country's leader, which apparently was fascist according to another poster. Australia also forces people to vote, which is not exactly an exercise in freedom.

Really? When Zelensky himself was found to have secret offshore bank corporations both before becoming President and during his tenure?

What can I say, it's a talent.

Nice dodge. But I see a leader of a less free country than Hungary getting daily tongue baths from the media and western politicians, as well as many people here.

So, fascist countries would include the UK, Australia, Japan, Sweden....

Something tells me you don't understand the basic principles of a federal republic.

Well, a fight for part democracy anyway... Would you say the same if Ukraine invaded Hungary? You would side with Orban since Hungary is by most standards a freer country than Ukraine?