Thoughts on the “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022”?

[FreelancePoliceman]

Was referring to China's zero-covid policies wrt supply shocks, and "asking them nicely" is what he suggests here: "Or it might involve asking our trade partners in East Asia to relax their zero-COVID policies to reduce interruptions in production. The federal government won’t do these things, because it is loathe to admit to Venezuela, Iran, China, and other countries that it needs their help."

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.

Right, and I asked if nationalizing the fossil fuel industry would be the best policy for making gas cheaper for Americans.

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."

I don't understand this question.

You wanted to talk about developing new industries. What industries? Who should develop them?

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".

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.

[Poptart]

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.

"Or it might involve asking our trade partners in East Asia to relax their zero-COVID policies to reduce interruptions in production. The federal government won’t do these things, because it is loathe to admit to Venezuela, Iran, China, and other countries that it needs their help."

Sorry but you’re being unreasonable. If anything I was being too generous with my interpretation.

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."

I ask if there are better alternatives to nationalizing the fossil fuel industry and you tell me that I can’t concede to any alternatives. I can’t even ツ

[Poptart]

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."

Btw that’s not what I said at all. Like not even close.

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.

Are we reading the same blog post? Idk how else to explain this for you. The last paragraph in the blog post is a clear reference to the dollar amount in revenue that the bill would raise over 10 years. That amount is $700b. The author takes issue with politicians saying “$700b over 10 years”. I guess he would prefer them to say “$70b a year, over the course of 10 years”. (One funny thing about this which I haven’t mentioned is that his preferred wording is probably less accurate since it assumes that the revenue raised in year 1 will be the same as in year 10).

[timber]

It seems fair, compassionate and reasonable - so naturally I'm cynical it will get passed and instead the Republicunts will have their way and create more problems and then blame everything on blacks, women and gays like they always do.

Despite my Te Polr I got an A+ in law and I shoulda utilized that and made more of a real difference for others instead of being a useless weeb that plays too many video games but I guess I was too afraid I'd fuck things up that I didn't try to fight people that I should have been fighting.

its never to late to try.

[timber]

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."

Yeah, but that's communism! What kind of socialist are you? /s

[Disturbed]

I don't think it's very impressive, and it doesn't propose ending the patent system. It also would've been nice if Joe Biden didn't start intervening in Ukraine and if he didn't try to create a central digital currency, because doing that creates inflation and makes it more difficult for people to find a way out of problems caused by inflation.

It's really a shame, because it seems like there is no way any politician could be elected to do sensible policy that allows for decentralization of political power and more individual liberty and satisfaction.