Senate OKs sweeping bill lowering drug prices and promoting clean energy, setting up major Biden win

[placeholder]

42 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

"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. 

The science tells about the harm created by excess greenhouse gases.

 

 New technology is always expensive at first. But already sodium batteries and solid state batteries are on the way. Goodbye lithium.  A company called Nio in China will soon be offering an electric car for US 15,000 with improved battery range thanks to a new semi-solid state battery  Storage technologies that use cheap iron and zinc are now being incorporated into the power grid.

 

Why do you think 40% is such a difficult figure to calculate? How difficult is it to calculate how much greenhouse gas will be eliminated by replacing fossil fuel plants with solar, wind, geothermal etc? We have things called computers nowadays that can process amazing amounts of data.

[candide]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

How is zero a reduction?  

I personnaly never claimed it would reduce inflation.  It's you who claimed it would increase inflation.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

and yet .. he's the president of the United States.. this is a big win  .. 

[ozimoron]

47 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

Last time I checked, Biden and most of the senators were not scientists. Did they listen to scientists? I won't insult your intelligence by answering that.

 

When were the big emitters meant to get on board? That's the whole purpose of this target. To make then get on board.

 

Have you got an approved link that demonstrates that 300 large will do nothing? I'm getting kind of tired of asking you for links for your disinformation.

[ozimoron]

Chuck Grassley says he voted for insulin reduction — but videos show him voting 'no'

In the United States, insulin costs over $98 per unit, whereas the rest of the world it costs less than $10. The medication keeps many people alive.

But when Grassley took to Twitter he said that he voted to support insulin and that it was Democrats who eliminated it from the bill.

https://www.rawstory.com/chuck-grassley-insulin-vote/

Edited August 8, 2022 by Scott

[nauseus]

59 minutes ago, candide said:

I personnaly never claimed it would reduce inflation.  It's you who claimed it would increase inflation.

No you didn't. But this Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 title seems to be a gross misnomer and just another set of blinkers that Americans are expected to don. Perhaps they should call it the Absolutely No Change in Inflation Act of 2022 then? 

Edited August 8, 2022 by nauseus

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

No you didn't. But this Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 title seems to be a gross misnomer and just another set of blinkers that Americans are expected to don. Perhaps they should call it the Absolutely No Change in Inflation Act of 2022 then? 

Well, until Kyrsten Sinema, the Republican-lite Senator from Arizona intervened to protect hedge fund managers amongst others, there was more in taxes being taken out. So too late to change the name. That said, there are plenty of economic analysts who think it will be anti-inflationary. 

[nauseus]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, until Kyrsten Sinema, the Republican-lite Senator from Arizona intervened to protect hedge fund managers amongst others, there was more in taxes being taken out. So too late to change the name. That said, there are plenty of economic analysts who think it will be anti-inflationary. 

Anti-inflationary? Who? 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Anti-inflationary? Who? 

“We’re talking about small impacts one way or the other, not likely to have any significant change in what consumers are feeling overnight,” Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Vox.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/8/4/23292338/congress-inflation-reduction-act-reduce-biden

[nauseus]

6 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

“We’re talking about small impacts one way or the other, not likely to have any significant change in what consumers are feeling overnight,” Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told Vox.

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/8/4/23292338/congress-inflation-reduction-act-reduce-biden

Well I read that. They all seem rather hopeful and only quote the drug pricing as an argument. So I think that applying the term anti-inflationary to this bill is completely misleading, just like the name of the bill itself. 

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

Last time I checked, Biden and most of the senators were not scientists. Did they listen to scientists? I won't insult your intelligence by answering that.

 

When were the big emitters meant to get on board? That's the whole purpose of this target. To make then get on board.

 

Have you got an approved link that demonstrates that 300 large will do nothing? I'm getting kind of tired of asking you for links for your disinformation.

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.

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

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.

They've already done that. That's why both houses passed the bill. They don't just throw that kind of money to the wind despite what the deniers want to say.

 

Self evidently, the target is 100% reduction. The science is in that that will work. This is just a step along the way.

Edited August 8, 2022 by ozimoron

[ozimoron]

Democrats are seeing new glimmers of hope for the 2022 midterm elections amid a series of high-profile legislative and political victories that they say could reverse the longtime expectation of a so-called red wave in November.

Senate Democrats struck a deal on a sweeping tax and climate package that had long been a point of bitter contention within their own ranks. Recent polling shows Democrats making gains on the generic ballot, a key measure of voter preference in the midterms.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3589855-democrats-see-new-signs-of-hope-ahead-of-midterms/

[candide]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

No you didn't. But this Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 title seems to be a gross misnomer and just another set of blinkers that Americans are expected to don. Perhaps they should call it the Absolutely No Change in Inflation Act of 2022 then? 

So what? Republicans are lying all the time. Dems can lie a bit too! ????

The truth is that no government (not only in the U.S.) can significantly reduce inflation on short-term under current global economic conditions. Increasing interest rate may have an impact but it's out of the scope of government's responsibilities.

On this subject  the GOP is also lying, when it claims it would be able to reduce Inflation.

 

Anyway, no budget deficit increase as Hanaguma claimed, and no Inflation increase as you claimed. To the extent the Wharton's model can be trusted, of course.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Anti-inflationary? Who? 

I actually already posted a link to a discussion with 3 economists.

Here's another

https://www.americanprogressaction.org/press/the-reviews-are-in-for-the-inflation-reduction-act/

[Scott]

A post and subsequent replies making unsubstantiated claims have been removed.  

 

[placeholder]

McConnell Accuses Biden of Violating Traditions of Congress by Accomplishing Things

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - In a no-holds-barred attack on the President, Senator Mitch McConnell blasted Joe Biden for “violating Congress’s most cherished traditions by accomplishing things.”

Excoriating the Senate’s passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, McConnell declared, “The hallowed customs of this Capitol have been shredded forever.”

“Every Republican in this building went to work last week secure in the knowledge that nothing would be achieved,” he said. 

https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/mcconnell-accuses-biden-of-violating-traditions-of-congress-by-accomplishing-things