The Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act

1. 83

   GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

   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.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         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.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   2. 100

      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         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.'
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 91

   Nathanvilleposted 2 years ago

   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

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         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!

         replyreport
3. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Wouldn't that 'accomplishment' be even better if such an overtly political act didn't taint it? I think it would.
      
      As to whether it is an "accomplishment," supported by its claims, it will be years before either side will know that
      
      GA

      replyreport
4. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.'
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         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.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
            2. 91

               IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               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.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
5. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 100

      DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      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."
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         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"

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            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. ;-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               We're not those "rationalizations" valid to a point? I mean these inflationary pressures have not just been exclusive for the American economy.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  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.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
6. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   "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.

   replyreport
7. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

   "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?

   replyreport