My point was that you're trying to make suggestions for literally anything other than the status quo sound ridiculous. "Asking them nicely" is interpreting the word "asking" literally, when obviously it's meant to mean a negotiation.
You do it again here. Rather than concede that any alternatives are worth considering, you say "I don't know that nationalization would make gas cheaper therefore it's wrong to consider doing anything else than what we're currently doing."Right, and I asked if nationalizing the fossil fuel industry would be the best policy for making gas cheaper for Americans.
You wanted to talk about developing new industries. What industries? Who should develop them?I don't understand this question.
How is that "grasping at straws?" In ten years housing is still going to be unaffordable for most people, either because the current trend has gotten worse or because a price crash has plunged the country into another depression. Going to the hospital is still going to cause bankruptcies. You'll just blame it all on the other neoliberal party though, so I don't know why you care about this bill since it won't matter anyway.The CBO is not congress. My point is that the blogger is grasping at straws here: "So, it papers over its dysfunction by measuring spending in decades rather than in years, by sticking that extra zero on the end of every number. Seven hundred billion sounds much better than seventy billion. It almost sounds like somebody’s doing something".