Hanaguma

I think Americans are also leery of possibly re-electing a man who shakes hands with ghosts and lets the Easter Bunny dictate who he talks to. Not to mention that he is the least accessable president in recent memory. Compared to his predecessors, he is virtually invisible. This from Slate, hardly a right wing mouthpiece: The 46th president (Biden) carried out only 22 media interviews through the end of last year, which is fewer than his six most recent predecessors. And during the time, he has held a mere nine formal news conferences, three of which were held alongside visiting foreign leaders. In contrast, Donald Trump held 22 news conferences and 92 interviews in his first year. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/biden-fewer-news-conferences-interviews-first-year.html

...and people wonder why inflation is spiking...

I thought the Lancet was a medical journal, yet the article you quoted is not about Covid. It is a general political hit piece based on leftist tropes and shibboleths. To quote from the article; His appeals to racism, nativism, and religious bigotry have emboldened white nationalists and vigilantes, and encouraged police violence and, at the end of his term in office, insurrection. He chose judges for US courts who are dismissive of affirmative action and reproductive, labour, civil, and voting rights; ordered the mass detention of immigrants in hazardous conditions; and promulgated regulations that reduce access to abortion and contraception in the USA and globally. Does this sound like a scientific article to you?

Gotta say I am puzzled by this too. The economy was cooking along, unemployment down (especially for minorities), low inflation, peace deals in the Middle East, criminal justice reform, booming energy sector.... I get that you didn't like the Bad Orange Man's personality or behavior. I am with you on that. But they were 4 pretty good years for America as a whole.

No misinformation. You are comparing apples and oranges. Politicians would conduct their campaigns differently if the popular vote actually mattered in places like the US and Canada. Voter behavior would also be very different. So using it as any kind of actual important evidence of anything is useless. You could also try to make points by saying that Trump won 2,500 counties in the US election, but Biden won less than 500. It would matter exactly the same because how counties vote is irrelevant and the election is not fought on that basis. It is a cheap and irrelevant way to try and score political points. Oh, and here is the election result from Canada in 2019. Trudeau won while losing the popular vote. Same in 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Canadian_federal_election

I rather think the onus is on those who want to spend the public's hard earned money to prove that it will have a demonstrable impact, not the other way around. All I read is that this would put the US "on the road" to meeting the artificially set political goal of 40% reduction by 2030. How much "road" does $300 billion buy? Pray tell, how will the US potentially crippling its economy get the big emitters (China, India, Brazil) get on board? More likely they will laugh and keep on building themselves.

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.