Biden signs Inflation Reduction Act into law

[Scott]

 

US President Joe Biden speaks during a signing ceremony for H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on August 16, 2022. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

 

(CNN)President Joe Biden signed a sweeping $750 billion health care, tax and climate bill into law at the White House on Tuesday -- marking a major victory for his administration and the Democratic Party ahead of the midterm elections.

Biden said during a signing ceremony in the State Dining Room that the legislation, called the Inflation Reduction Act, is "one of the most significant laws in our history."

 

"With this law, the American people won and the special interests lost," Biden told an audience of Democratic members of Congress and administration officials.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/16/politics/biden-inflation-reduction-act-signing/index.html

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Done by Democrats, done by Biden.

 

Opposed tooth and nail by Republicans.

[SunnyinBangrak]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Done by Democrats, done by Biden.

 

Opposed tooth and nail by Republicans.

Republicans are concerned about the policy of spending/printing huge amounts of money we don't have to reduce inflation, which was caused by too much money chasing too few goods. I think their concern is valid.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Republicans are concerned about the policy of spending/printing huge amounts of money we don't have to reduce inflation, which was caused by too much money chasing too few goods. I think their concern is valid.

Nah they aren’t.

 

They're concerned that money id not being given by the truck load to their already fabulously wealthy donors and controllers.

 

Worse still, they can’t stomach the idea of Democrats doing anything for ordinary Americans.

 

 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Republicans are concerned about the policy of spending/printing huge amounts of money we don't have to reduce inflation, which was caused by too much money chasing too few goods. I think their concern is valid.

Strange, they weren't concerned about that at all during the Trump presidency. But now it's a real investment in stead of a giveaway they're concerned?

[SunnyinBangrak]

29 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Strange, they weren't concerned about that at all during the Trump presidency. But now it's a real investment in stead of a giveaway they're concerned?

This is not yet another Trump rant thread so no comment about your first unsubstantiated assertion. But IMO this looks more like a boondoggle than a "real investment". Spending any $ trying to change the weather is not something I approve of, and as for spending bigly to reduce inflation, well it's a nonsense. Even the Guardian agrees.

 

"It took more than a year of negotiations to reach an agreement on the Inflation Reduction Act, which garnered no Republican votes in either chamber. Its name is a nod to the ongoing wave of high inflation in the United States, though the legislation itself may not make much difference. According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, it will lower the US’ budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, but “the impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/aug/16/biden-climate-healthcare-bill-inflation-reduction-act-democrats-us-politics-latest

 

In short calling this an inflation bill is misleading in the extreme. We could fairly call it misinformation, and the democrat voters that expect this spending spree to reduce inflation will be very disappointed. 

[candide]

6 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

This is not yet another Trump rant thread so no comment about your first unsubstantiated assertion. But IMO this looks more like a boondoggle than a "real investment". Spending any $ trying to change the weather is not something I approve of, and as for spending bigly to reduce inflation, well it's a nonsense. Even the Guardian agrees.

 

"It took more than a year of negotiations to reach an agreement on the Inflation Reduction Act, which garnered no Republican votes in either chamber. Its name is a nod to the ongoing wave of high inflation in the United States, though the legislation itself may not make much difference. According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, it will lower the US’ budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, but “the impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/aug/16/biden-climate-healthcare-bill-inflation-reduction-act-democrats-us-politics-latest

 

In short calling this an inflation bill is misleading in the extreme. We could fairly call it misinformation, and the democrat voters that expect this spending spree to reduce inflation will be very disappointed. 

It's actually a smart marketing tactic. As inflation will go down for different reasons (it has already started),  they will be able to claim It's because of the bill.

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

This is not yet another Trump rant thread so no comment about your first unsubstantiated assertion. But IMO this looks more like a boondoggle than a "real investment". Spending any $ trying to change the weather is not something I approve of, and as for spending bigly to reduce inflation, well it's a nonsense. Even the Guardian agrees.

 

"It took more than a year of negotiations to reach an agreement on the Inflation Reduction Act, which garnered no Republican votes in either chamber. Its name is a nod to the ongoing wave of high inflation in the United States, though the legislation itself may not make much difference. According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, it will lower the US’ budget deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, but “the impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/aug/16/biden-climate-healthcare-bill-inflation-reduction-act-democrats-us-politics-latest

 

In short calling this an inflation bill is misleading in the extreme. We could fairly call it misinformation, and the democrat voters that expect this spending spree to reduce inflation will be very disappointed. 

Well, first off, I'm dismayed to hear that you don't approve of spending money trying to change the weather. And, of course, it's utterly insignificant that the climatological community overwhelmingly disagrees with you. Although, they call it "climate".

 

Yes, right now it's most likely a wash. That's because of the intervention of 1 Democrat who decided it was crucial to defend hedge-fund managers. In that, she agrees with Republicans.  But the bill already had a name.  And even thought it's not projected to decrease inflation, it's not projected to increase it either. And it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the US a lot. Without increasing inflation.

[Hanaguma]

Then why not call it the "Well, At Least Inflation SHOULDN'T Get Worse Act"? 

 

Seems that a lot of the media have taken to not even using the correct name of the bill, calling it something like the "climate and health bill".

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Then why not call it the "Well, At Least Inflation SHOULDN'T Get Worse Act"? 

 

Seems that a lot of the media have taken to not even using the correct name of the bill, calling it something like the "climate and health bill".

Well, if you're going to take that tack, why not it call it "Well, At Best Inflation Might Go Lower Act"

 

That's the name it was born with, and if defenders of the privileged hadn't gotten their way at the end, then the name would have been justified. 

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, if you're going to take that tack, why not it call it "Well, At Best Inflation Might Go Lower Act"

 

That's the name it was born with, and if defenders of the privileged hadn't gotten their way at the end, then the name would have been justified. 

Sure, if you could explain how $366 billion in subsidies to so-called "clean energy" would have any downward impact on inflation, or any positive effect on working people.   People whose real income has been zapped by hundreds of dollars a month (thanks to inflation) don't need subsidies on their next $50,000 electric vehicle. 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Sure, if you could explain how $366 billion in subsidies to so-called "clean energy" would have any downward impact on inflation, or any positive effect on working people.   People whose real income has been zapped by hundreds of dollars a month (thanks to inflation) don't need subsidies on their next $50,000 electric vehicle. 

Do you understand that taxes were raised in order to pay for expenditures? Do you have any idea of where the expenditures are directed? For one thing, the subsidies for EV's come to a total of 36 billion dollars. What's more, only EV's with a majority of domestically produced components are eligible for subsidies. And new lithium-free battery technologies are already beginning to be used that will slash the cost of batteries. So EV prices will be coming down.

[Hanaguma]

27 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you understand that taxes were raised in order to pay for expenditures? Do you have any idea of where the expenditures are directed? For one thing, the subsidies for EV's come to a total of 36 billion dollars. What's more, only EV's with a majority of domestically produced components are eligible for subsidies. And new lithium-free battery technologies are already beginning to be used that will slash the cost of batteries. So EV prices will be coming down.

Point is that nobody can afford a new car anyway due to...inflation. Which this bill does nothing to control.  Raising taxes on corporations (which will either avoid them or pass them on to consumers) does not help inflation. Neither does extra government spending. 

 

 How does buying the post office new electric cars help inflation? "Equity grants" for under-treed communities?  Please. 

 

Basically, IF all these so-called clean energy proposals have merit, they will take off without the shadowed hand of government directing them.  EVs included.  In the meantime, the govt needs to take their thumb off the scales. Let the energy industry do its thing. Free the US from dependence on foreign oil.  

 

How does this bill propose to return the $700 a month the average family is losing due to Bidenflation?

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Point is that nobody can afford a new car anyway due to...inflation. Which this bill does nothing to control.  Raising taxes on corporations (which will either avoid them or pass them on to consumers) does not help inflation. Neither does extra government spending. 

 

 How does buying the post office new electric cars help inflation? "Equity grants" for under-treed communities?  Please. 

 

Basically, IF all these so-called clean energy proposals have merit, they will take off without the shadowed hand of government directing them.  EVs included.  In the meantime, the govt needs to take their thumb off the scales. Let the energy industry do its thing. Free the US from dependence on foreign oil.  

 

How does this bill propose to return the $700 a month the average family is losing due to Bidenflation?

No link, just an inflammatory jibe and you expect serious discussion? Is it called Johnsonflation in the UK and Alboflation in Australia?

 

More people than not like this bill because it provides the largest ever US investment in global warming mitigation.

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

No link, just an inflammatory jibe and you expect serious discussion? Is it called Johnsonflation in the UK and Alboflation in Australia?

 

More people than not like this bill because it provides the largest ever US investment in global warming mitigation.

It isn't an "investment".  "Investment" implies that returns are generated. I "invest" in my retirement funds. I don't "invest" in a new tv or a new car (in spite of what I tell my wife). How about we let smart entrepeneurs do the actual investing in climate technology?  

 

The bill is a random wishlist of pork barrel spending. Again, how will it reduce inflation?  Biden has already added more than $2 trillion to the national debt. This bill might, perhaps, maybe, will see a miniscule reduction in the deficit 5 years from now, assuming best circumstances and numerous provisions are allowed to expire. 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It isn't an "investment".  "Investment" implies that returns are generated. I "invest" in my retirement funds. I don't "invest" in a new tv or a new car (in spite of what I tell my wife). How about we let smart entrepeneurs do the actual investing in climate technology?  

 

The bill is a random wishlist of pork barrel spending. Again, how will it reduce inflation?  Biden has already added more than $2 trillion to the national debt. This bill might, perhaps, maybe, will see a miniscule reduction in the deficit 5 years from now, assuming best circumstances and numerous provisions are allowed to expire. 

If the government subsidizes a factory, are returns generated?

 

Most people aren't interested in whether this bill is inflationary or not. It';s already been established that it's likely neutral. It's just semantics as the original bill was gutted by the party of no and other fossil fuel pawns.

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Point is that nobody can afford a new car anyway due to...inflation. Which this bill does nothing to control.  Raising taxes on corporations (which will either avoid them or pass them on to consumers) does not help inflation. Neither does extra government spending. 

 

 How does buying the post office new electric cars help inflation? "Equity grants" for under-treed communities?  Please. 

 

Basically, IF all these so-called clean energy proposals have merit, they will take off without the shadowed hand of government directing them.  EVs included.  In the meantime, the govt needs to take their thumb off the scales. Let the energy industry do its thing. Free the US from dependence on foreign oil.  

 

How does this bill propose to return the $700 a month the average family is losing due to Bidenflation?

Nobody can afford a new car? Then why did U.S. auto production zoom in July? Why are the prices of used cars still so high?

Corporations can't avoid a minimum tax. And U.S. corporations don't have a monopoly on most markets. So they can't raise prices at will.

 

What don't you understand about the fact that there is more to this bill than expenditures. Health care vosts will be cut thanks to the Medicare finally having the ability to negotiate some prices with Big Pharma. They could have gotten more but Republicans as usual sided with Big Pharma. And increasing taxes will counterbalance that.

If there was plenty of time to lower greenhouse gas emissions, you might have something of a point. And another point is how economically unhealthy it is for an economy to depend on fossil fuels. There is no reason to expect that given the nature of the beast, fossil fuel costs won't continue to wildly fluctuate. And there's also a defense aspect to this. The world will be far more stable when despots don't have access to the stream of cash generated by fossil fuels.

 

Another point you may not have considered is pollution. Right now, fossil fuel companies and automobile companies don't pay for the harm that pollution causes to health. That falls on the health care system. The IMF said that fossil fuel harms cost about 6 percent of world GDP. Mostly in health costs shouldered by others.

 

It's Bidenflation is it? Is that what the world is suffering from? More right wing Pavlovian thinking. And that figure of $700 in increases doesnt take into account that household income has risen by 6.8 percent. 

 

[Hanaguma]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

If the government subsidizes a factory, are returns generated?

 

Most people aren't interested in whether this bill is inflationary or not. It';s already been established that it's likely neutral. It's just semantics as the original bill was gutted by the party of no and other fossil fuel pawns.

The bill was gutted? How so? Considering the Democrats have majorities in both Houses, what could the "party of no" do about it...

 

[placeholder]

18 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It isn't an "investment".  "Investment" implies that returns are generated. I "invest" in my retirement funds. I don't "invest" in a new tv or a new car (in spite of what I tell my wife). How about we let smart entrepeneurs do the actual investing in climate technology?  

 

The bill is a random wishlist of pork barrel spending. Again, how will it reduce inflation?  Biden has already added more than $2 trillion to the national debt. This bill might, perhaps, maybe, will see a miniscule reduction in the deficit 5 years from now, assuming best circumstances and numerous provisions are allowed to expire. 

Well, actually a big part of the bill is an investment in clean energy. Which is already cheaper than coal and is currently much cheaper than gas. And this is in addition to plenty of smart enterpreneurs who are doing just that.

And it's clear that you continue to be unacquainted with the bill. Otherwise, I don't see how it could be characterized as "random". 

[Bkk Brian]

17 hours ago, Scott said:

"one of the most significant laws in our history."

Well done, saw the signing on TV. A remarkable achievement for the future of not only the US but the world in climate impact reduction. Other countries need to follow the lead.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The bill was gutted? How so? Considering the Democrats have majorities in both Houses, what could the "party of no" do about it...

 

read what I said.

[LarrySR]

On 8/17/2022 at 5:48 AM, SunnyinBangrak said:

Republicans are concerned about the policy of spending/printing huge amounts of money we don't have to reduce inflation, which was caused by too much money chasing too few goods. I think their concern is valid.

You do know the Republicans own around 80% of the debt. 

[LarrySR]

Oil prices falling 63 days in a row. 
inflation numbers vastly improved. 

Unemployment 50 year low. 

Jobs double the estimates. 
Deficit cut $359 billion. 

Stocks +15% since June. 
 

Look for new highs in the SP500 by December. 

 

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

The bill was gutted? How so? Considering the Democrats have majorities in both Houses, what could the "party of no" do about it...

 

Because for some issues a 60 votes in the Senate were required. For example, capping the insulin price for private insurers. But on 7 Republicans voted in favor of that. So it died. Look up "reconciliation'.

[JonnyF]

I'm no fan of Biden but I was genuinely impressed by this.

 

Not by the bill itself (which won't work of course), but by the fact that he can still sign his own name ????. 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

I'm no fan of Biden but I was genuinely impressed by this.

 

Not by the bill itself (which won't work of course), but by the fact that he can still sign his own name ????. 

Oh look, Mr Neutral again ????

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh look, Mr Neutral again ????

Just calling it how I see it, on BOTH sides ????.

 

I also call out Trump for his faults, but I don't see you complaining about that because you are so partisan.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Just calling it how I see it, on BOTH sides ????.

 

I also call out Trump for his faults, but I don't see you complaining about that because you are so partisan.

Yes because you can predict the future and know the bill wont work..............

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Just calling it how I see it, on BOTH sides ????.

 

I also call out Trump for his faults, but I don't see you complaining about that because you are so partisan.

I see you calling out Trump for his manners and behavior, but not for his dishonesty. And certainly not for his stance on issues. I see you calling people who criticize Trump "radical leftists" and "antifa types" without citing any evidence. apart from their opposition to Trump, to justify such characterizations. The only person you may possibly be fooling here is yourself and hardline Trump supporters.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Bkk Brian said:

Yes because you can predict the future and know the bill wont work..............

One only has to read the contents of the bill and have a fundamental knowledge of economics to realize the bill won't reduce inflation.

 

It is certainly not "one of the most significant laws in our history" as Biden is claiming. Surely he knows that is a ridiculous statement, so why say it? He couldn't be telling porkies again could he? (see claims of being arrested while visiting Mandela, claims of being a tractor trailer driver for other examples...)