Jump to content

Biden signs Inflation Reduction Act into law


Scott

Recommended Posts

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)
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by ozimoron
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by ozimoron
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ????

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...