There is a lot of contention regarding this bill with the expected opposing political claims. We get to pick who to believe, even starting with the name.
For instance, the most money is allotted for climate change efforts. The worth of those monies is arguable, they are speculative projections and predictions. Possibly valid, possibly not.
The inflation reduction actions of the bill are not so validly arguable. Respected auditors are almost in agreement—the bill will have little to no effect on reducing inflation.
So, would the average person wonder why they didn't call it the Climate Change Reduction Act? Even though that question is a current Republican talking point, I think it is valid.
If the name is deceptive, the truth of its claims are tainted from the start.
I will say that the title of the bill smacks of pure politics.
Have you noticed the partisan line up for and against the bill is virtually to a man (woman)?
Where is the compromise? I think that the Republicans are determined to see that The Biden administration remains ineffectual right up through the midterms. Can't help but to notice that no one crosses the isle from either direction.
There couldn't be any compromise on this one. The Ds desperately needed a win for the midterms and the Rs didn't want them to get it.
As you noted, there have been blurbs from Senators from both sides saying there were parts of the bill that might cause them to cross the aisle for their vote—in other conditions.
The back room reason they named it that? When the next election rolls around the dems can claim "Did you know that the Republican senator in your state voted against a bill to control inflation?"
I can see the commercials now.
You're right. As previously mentioned, the 2024 campaigns are going to be rough and crazy. The, (hopefully hidden), snark in presenting the question was a jab at the intentional, and undisguised purpose of the bill's name: to do just what you are predicting.
It's like the car salesman that wink's at you when they offer a 'deal' below the manufacturer's suggested price.'
What’s in a name? American politics, which does nobody ‘any favours’ e.g. a “Them and Us” attitude, and “Never the Twain Shall Meet”?
In Europe all political parties, regardless to their politics, from all political spectrums recognise the importance of climate change and are working together to try and save the planet – Why can’t American politicians? Climate Change/Global Warming shouldn’t be a political issue; it affects us all.
From across the pond it comes across that the Bill (on climate change/global warming) is well overdue e.g. the EU & UK was making the changes 10 years that the Bill is proposing America makes now; so the USA is 10 years behind Europe and has a lot of catching up to do – and time is rapidly running out to save the planet!
• In 2010 the UK Government launched a $160 Billion package to build offshore windfarms around the UK (just under half the amount that the Inflation Reduction Bill intends to spend on climate change, for a country with a 5th of the population):- https://youtu.be/7ZbBxbEmvBI
• In 2012 a world record was set when off the coast of Britain 100 offshore wind turbines were installed in just 100 days: https://youtu.be/igN4jpRx1oI
In this case, "What's in a name?" is the character of the name-choosers.
The OP's point wasn't about the climate change aspects of the bill, it was about the dishonest and purposely misleading naming of the bill.
Yeah I get that - and a fair point; but that seems to be the current problem with American politics e.g. polarised to the point that “Never the Twain Shall Meet”, in other words no give or take from either side”, even when co-operation and compromise would be in the national interest.
As regards to the ‘none climate change’ part of the Bill, which is over half the budget; virtually every country in the world is facing the same problems, and different governments are trying different remedies to mitigate against the hyperinflation – but none have a magic solution: There is no instant solution, but which governments around the world will fare better over time in trying to mitigate against high inflation remains to be seen!
They could have named it "The We're Again Trying to Fix What the Republicans Screwed Up Act". The point is they are accomplishing something as opposed to getting nothing done. It's a step in the right direction.
GA, I'm surprised at you. "Wouldn't that 'accomplishment' be even better if such an overtly political act didn't taint it?" With this Congress, how do you expect them to get anything past the republicans? And "overtly political acts" is what Democrats have learned from republicans in the last administration. I know I'm preaching to the choir here.
I'm not sure what choir you're preaching to. I don't harmonize well, so none will have me.
Your rationalization reads like an echo of Credence2; two wrongs can make a right if it's the right you want, and your 'ends' always justify the 'means.'
So, who is using my name in vain?
"Two wrongs don't make a right" sounds like the moral of an Aesop fable.
That is not the nature of the world that we are living in, GA.
I saw nothing but stark partisan dividing lines on the latest bill that was recently passed passed in the Senate.
Playing it your way would guarantee defeat, people are ultimately interested in results not excuses. We have midterms and a 2024 contest coming up where my party and politics will be evaluated based upon results. I am not going to lose due to the fact that the proposals I support do not see the light of day because of recalcitrant Republicans.
I mentioned to you before that the votes had nothing to do with the merits of the bill but more about gaining or denying the other side a win.
And I want my political choices to win, instead of letting the adversarial party run right over them because we want to play the moderation game of failure that you seem to exclusively reserve for the Democrats.
Considering their behavior and agenda, I am not prepared to give Republicans so much as an inch.
"Ram it through" is the philosophy of both parties, and these days only a fool leaves money on the table.
The political conditions are as you describe. No quarter—no compromise. From either side. I wasn't criticizing the Dems for that, I was criticizing them for their intentional public deception in the naming of the bill.
CNN's White House-beat reporter explained it on air. She said the Dems know that inflation will be the top issue on most voters' minds in the coming election, so they named the bill as they did so it can be touted as a solution.
In fact, and as noted, most of the respected economics-type voices, (CBO, Wharton, et al), say there is very little inflation reducing stuff in the bill
But, the bill is going to be touted to the public as The Inflation Reduction Act so that we will think it's a good thing as we head to the polls. Hurrah for the Democrats. I say baloney, boos for the Democrats. Their actions are purposely deceptive. Politically, there is nothing new about this, all pols do it. What is new is the obvious transparency.
I see your point but
One can read the bill and its provisions to determine if it would actually affect the causes of inflation. Very little is something and if the Republicans had their way, we would not even get that.
When speaking deception, while neither party is innocent, the Republican complaint about this is akin to the criticizing the sty in my eye while ignoring the rafter in theirs. Lies and deception is the MO of the Republican Party. Compared with them the Democrats are amateurs.
These days, everybody does what it takes to win. It is unfortunate in many ways, but that is where we are.
I understand your point, but honestly, how many people look at the name of the bills and check if they do what they claim? Have you done it before this one?
I'd say not many would consider "oh, they passed The Inflation Reduction Act!". In fact, I dont think most voters will consider any partciular signed bill at all. If anything, some may say, they got things done at Congress at last (like infrastructure, PACT act, Climate, etc.)
About Inflation, if people dont feel things get better, they would give a f about the bill, let alone its name.
I agree with what you say but I don't think that changes the intended impact of 'repeating the lie.' The claims of inflation action are, essentially, false, but they will be made. Over and over. The public will hear 'the bill fights inflation' not 'the bill fights climate change, but barely impacts inflation.'
I'm just 'spittin' in the wind' Islandmom. I know both parties do this all the time, but it's grating when they are so ballsy about it. Hell, they've probably boarded up the 'back rooms' they used to use. It's all in our face now.
If the claims about inflation are false then it is because the President can't really do anything much about an inflation that was brought on by a worldwide pandemic (into its third year) and Russia's invasion of Ukraine. "I know both sides do this all the time" is hilarious considering the GOP has elevated lying to an art form in recent years.
If you leftists already know that it was going to do nothing for inflation why did you name it that? You all are elevating the art of lying to new highs.
If the claims are false, what is the justification for making them? As for an administration's ability to control inflation, I bet this one will claim credit for any reductions in the inflation that you say he "can't really do anything about."
Don't you think that if any progress took place during Trumps watch, he would not take credit whether he and administration's policies were involved or not?
Oh, There it is again, "two wrongs don't make a right"
I don't need that 'two wrongs' thing this time. Trump had nothing to do with the exchange, and the 'take credit' thing was secondary to the message, which was really about the offered rationalizations of war and pandemic.
What you offered was, as MyEsoteric might say, 'whataboutism', or maybe a cohort might call it deflection. That any administration would take credit is a given, so my point couldn't have been a jab at Pres. Biden. You should have looked twice. ;-)
We're not those "rationalizations" valid to a point? I mean these inflationary pressures have not just been exclusive for the American economy.
Yes, they were valid "to a point," but that "point" doesn't support the rationalizations as they are used.
The 'Putin's war" thing is after the fact. Both inflation and gas prices were on the way up before the war started. They were contributors, not initiators. The same for the effects of the pandemic on the supply chain.
"two wrongs can make a right if it's the right you want, and your 'ends' always justify the 'means.'" Like stealing two supreme court seats so you can overturn a law that stood for 50 years? Hearing republicans shriek over "the ends do not justify the means" is beyond hypocritical.
"You all are elevating the art of lying to new highs." No republican can say something like that with a straight face. Four thousand lies in four years? Or is the number for Trump even higher than that?
by Scott Belford 3 days ago
A brand new report just came out that shows Thomas was investigated in 2011 for exactly the same type of unethical behavior we see today.. Then, of course, you have the Brett Kavanaugh-type inquiry into claims of Thomas' sexual abuse.Should this man of questionable integrity be sitting on the...
by Susan Reid 11 years ago
During the 2010 mid-terms the GOP campaigned fiercely on the platform of job creation and, as a result of such promises, the GOP gained the majority in the House of Representatives. As the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner made the welcome claim that the primary goal of the Republican Party...
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Congressional Republicans just promised to deny Hillary Clinton any honeymoon period and will continue their stated "Party over Country" policy of total obstruction of our Democratic President. To make their blockade more effective, they also promise to investigate Clinton for...
by Sharlee 6 days ago
I'd love to hear your perspective on this current political matter. It's worth noting that the topic doesn't revolve around Trump, but it's intriguing because President Biden is seeking re-election for another four years in office."Fox News Digital has confirmed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy,...
by ga anderson 16 months ago
I don't really have his opinion, but I do have a clerk's description of what it was.I caught an interview segment of Fox's Neil Cavuto with Justice Scalia's son, Chris.A clerk of Scalia's, Jan Samuals, paraphrased something that Scalia said, or intimated to his clerks. It was said that several...
by Sharlee 16 months ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|