When you state things like this or ask these sorts of questions ("Trust the experts and MSM or not?") I ALWAYS wonder who/what in the name of all that is holy and rational are you going to go to if you have questions about something you're ignorant of?
The experts and the media are all imperfect humans, BUT, they are generally more informed than you are on the area of expertise in question (unless you happen to be an expert in that field).
It would be one thing to say, "Don't trust the experts or the media on issues of climate change (or healthcare or mental health care or abortion concerns or LGBTQ issues, etc, etc)... HERE is a source for better information..." But then, you'd be referencing someone else who is an expert (presumably) and you're back to the "Should we trust experts or not?" question.
IF you have a choice between a heart specialists and a car mechanic with no medical training and you're having heart problems, WHO are you going to listen to but the heart experts?
IF you are saying, "Don't listen to any experts or people who've interviewed experts, just trust your gut..." I'd call you a brainless fool.
Also, if you're going to say, "Listen to SOME experts, but only those who agree with your political ideology," likewise, I'd call you a fool.
So, if you're not going to listen to experts or those reporting on what experts are saying, who will you listen to for information on those topics?
Why raise these questions if not to undermine faith in expert opinion and those reporting on expert opinion?
If you want to merely say, "Don't listen to just ONE expert and ONE media source. Get your information from established, expert opinion in multiple places/sources..." then we can agree. But trusting your gut, or discounting experts en masse, or discounting the media en masse, that is a recipe for disaster.
I can only guess that you didn't read the links or that I didn't do a good enough job of making the point of the post.
Had you read the links you'd know that a significant number of experts, and at least one MS outlet (along with the CBO if I remember right) are convinced that the recent Inflation Reduction Act is not actually going to reduce inflation.
If I should have been more explicit in the post, the point is that we've got both the MSM and a significant group of experts who are calling BS on the recent Inflation Reduction Act. The question being, will folks like you believe that experts/media or will you believe the narrative?
I'm saying that too many folks will listen to, uncritically accept, and blindly repeat what the hear from experts who agree with them, the MSM and the like, while not looking at what other experts and alternative media are saying.
"I should have been more explicit in the post, the point is that we've got both the MSM and a significant group of experts who are calling BS on the recent Inflation Reduction Act."
It is precisely because I listen to the mainstream media that I recognize that the inflation reduction act may not reduce inflation that much. That it's more of a, or at least partially, a political spin name and not reality.
But, again because I listen to the media, I recognize that congressional acts often have names that are more spin than reality. I assume you recognize this as well?
But again, it's because I listen to media and journalists that I know this. Which is why I was calling bullshit on your title question. It's another in the endless stream of attacks on journalism and experts common to modern conservatism.
Interesting you acknowledge that the Inflation reduction act is not likely to significantly reduce inflation, it's stated goal, yet pass that off as merely "spin". Despite the claims to the contrary.
"And that's why even Democrats and Republicans, former Treasury secretaries, economists across the board have said that this bill will make a positive impact on inflation"
"The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will make a historic down payment on deficit reduction to fight inflation,"
I know this probably didn't occur to you, but I was referring to the media response, and the like prior to when I wrote this post. The spin has changed since them because the reality of the pork in the bill can't be denied.
Of course the title question goes way beyond this one example.
This IRA... 1. Invests in positive efforts to deal with the climate crisis 2. Supports access to healthcare 3. Allows for negotiating prescription drug prices to reduce cost to consumers 4. Goes after uncollected taxes owed by the ultra wealthy
Do I support those things? Hell yes. Who wouldn't?
So to answer more directly, yes I think it's good I think it's good legislation. It could've been better if the republicans would've bought in more and objected less. But it's a good legislation. It's a starting point.
From what I've read, this may ultimately reduce inflation and there's nothing to make us think that it will increase inflation. If it DOES cause inflation? These are still necessary things.
We have to start acting like responsible adults when it comes to our energy and climate policies. We can't afford to push that off any longer.
Are you opposed to legislation to help us reduce our crippling and literally toxic dependency upon fossil fuels?
"It is precisely because I listen to the mainstream media that I recognize that the inflation reduction act may not reduce inflation that much. That it's more of a, or at least partially, a political spin name and not reality."
It's what known to people of character as "lying", which this administration and its party do as a matter of party policy.
"But, again because I listen to the media, I recognize that congressional acts often have names that are more spin than reality. I assume you recognize this as well?"
I recognize...because it's true...this is more the reality where Dems are involved.
"But again, it's because I listen to media and journalists that I know this. Which is why I was calling bullshit on your title question. It's another in the endless stream of attacks on journalism and experts common to modern conservatism."
Attacks which are wholly justified when directed at the media and journalists you revere as noble and honest. But let's look at some of what you said in calling what you need to believe is "bullshit":
"The experts and the media are all imperfect humans, BUT, they are generally more informed than you are on the area of expertise in question (unless you happen to be an expert in that field)."
There are clearly "experts" you find compelling who are either lying or not all that bright even in their field of expertise. And your media gods are generally both.
"But then, you'd be referencing someone else who is an expert (presumably) and you're back to the "Should we trust experts or not?" question."
What you're presenting is the challenge of the average person of deciding between two opposing schools of thought from those regarded as experts of a given field. Trust in experts who have demonstrated a better perspective for any of a variety of reasons related to facts and data without political/ideological spin is a good thing. You should do that more often. You rarely, if ever, do.
"IF you have a choice between a heart specialists and a car mechanic with no medical training and you're having heart problems, WHO are you going to listen to but the heart experts?"
Another stupid analogy and not at all reflective of anything even rubes just slightly smarter than Dan would ever do.
"IF you are saying, "Don't listen to any experts or people who've interviewed experts, just trust your gut..." I'd call you a brainless fool."
No one is saying that and thus only a brainless fool would regard that as an intelligent argument in this context.
"Also, if you're going to say, "Listen to SOME experts, but only those who agree with your political ideology," likewise, I'd call you a fool."
...or Dan Trabue. We don't do that. The experts to whom we listen inform ideology, not begin with it. Can't say the same for any of those "experts" YOU cite.
"So, if you're not going to listen to experts or those reporting on what experts are saying, who will you listen to for information on those topics?"
Better, more honest and objective experts than those to whom you listen and better, more honest journalists than those before whom you bow.
"If you want to merely say, "Don't listen to just ONE expert and ONE media source. Get your information from established, expert opinion in multiple places/sources..." then we can agree."
We might agree on this practice, but we clearly can see you don't operate in that manner.
"But trusting your gut, or discounting experts en masse, or discounting the media en masse, that is a recipe for disaster."
My gut is quite reliable when it's you citing your "experts" or media sources, as you have a history of citing partisan hacks and those pushing a false agenda. Those are the only "experts" or media sources we reject and discount. Yet, knowing those like you and other lefties are likely citing morons and liars, we still withhold judgement until comparing with those we find more trustworthy and knowledgeable.
"Do I support those things? Hell yes. Who wouldn't?"
So, you're willing to support a bill that's very title is a lie, where inflation reduction isn't even in the 4 things you list as positives, because it claims to fix things you support. You do realize that these "uncollected taxes on the ultra wealthy" aren't going to actually affect the current overspending crisis we are going through, don't you?
"Are you opposed to legislation to help us reduce our crippling and literally toxic dependency upon fossil fuels?"
As long as it involves actual solutions that don't penalize the poor, work, won't result in loss of efficiencies, don't involve crony capitalism of government picking and choosing who gets pork based on connections, sure.
I was unaware that asking a question (especially one that you didn't answer) is "fearmongering".
"It could've been better if the republicans would've bought in more and objected less."
This bill is an excellent example of how the DFL controls congress and doesn't need the GOP to do anything they want. If this bill could have been better, it's the DFL's fault. But it's your go to trope, and I would have been disappointed if you hadn't trotted it out.
You kind of obliquely answered the question about you supporting the bill even if it didn't lower inflation or increased it. I'm assuming that your answer is "yes I would".
It's interesting that you're willing to support a bill so steeped in intentional falsehood, and sold to the public is one thing, when it's really just more pork in advance of an election.
Do you really believe Biden and Harris that "inflation was 0%" in July? How do you respond to the analysis that this misnamed bill will result in tax increases on those who are not close to "ultra wealthy"?
"This IRA... 1. Invests in positive efforts to deal with the climate crisis 2. Supports access to healthcare 3. Allows for negotiating prescription drug prices to reduce cost to consumers 4. Goes after uncollected taxes owed by the ultra wealthy"
Well, this is certainly how it's been marketed to buffoons likely to believe.
1. As there is no climate crisis, there is no "positive effort" which should be funded with my money.
Supporting the four points is one thing. Expecting those points will be effectively addressed by this bill and through efforts of this administration is another thing altogether.
I also can't help but notice the ongoing "fair share" crap directed toward the wealthy. It's a number/percentage still not defined by the liars who repeat that nonsense. And of course, it ignores the real problem of government spending, the great reduction of which would mitigate the need to pretend the top of the food chain isn't already responsible for the vast majority of revenues to federal coffers.
And of course, this unnecessary monstrosity is yet another abomination this illegitimate administration holds up as a victory worth celebrating, ignoring how intelligent people aren't impressed. More than likely, it is but one more reason people will be voting against them come '22 and '24.
" I'm assuming that your answer is "yes I would"."
It means I don't trust your guess that it won't decrease inflation. AND that we need to take these actions anyway. Our nation is literally on fire. An economy with no inflation is meaningless if half the nation is on fire and half is flooded.
I was pretty clear. The question is: Are you okay with betting that climate change won't permanently damage our (and other nations') economy if we do nothing?
Given that your comment with the link to the opinion piece from The Hill doesn't seem to have any direct relationship to the post which is specifically about the IRA, I see no reason to waste time with it.
"It means I don't trust your guess that it won't decrease inflation."
No, it means that you don't trust the 300 odd experts that the link I posted mentions, the experts at the non partisan CBO, or the MSM who belatedly has reported on this. Well done, I appreciate you when you revert to type and illustrate exactly the points I'm trying to make. You conflating experts and the MSM with my "guess" is priceless.
"Our nation is literally on fire. An economy with no inflation is meaningless if half the nation is on fire and half is flooded."
What in the hell are you even talking about with this sort of fearmongering? Are you really suggesting that inflation is a good thing? That forcing poor people to pay more for goods and services is beneficial? Are you really suggesting that our entire nation is literally combusting? Or that one "half" of our nation is currently engulfed in literal flames? And that the other "half" is literally covered with water? If those things are literally True, then how does this bill stop the fires and floods? Why hire 90,000 more IRS employees, when it sounds like firefighters and flood control engineers would be more helpful? How much of the problem with naturally occurring forest fires is compounded by poor forest management?
"I was pretty clear. The question is: Are you okay with betting that climate change won't permanently damage our (and other nations') economy if we do nothing?"
1. Yes. 2. As long as we've got high profile DFL leaders, climate activists, and their ilk buying up ocean front property, and gallivanting across the globe in mega yachts and private jets, I'm not worried. If it doesn't bother the activists enough to change their lifestyles and lower their carbon footprint, I see no reason to take it seriously. 3. Virtually every climate change prediction of disaster over the past 50 years of so has been wrong. I think I'll wait until y'all get something right before I panic. 4. I'm more worried about the damage to our economy in 2022 that will continue to get worse of we either "do nothing" or do the wrong thing, than I am about the potential that something bad might happen 100 years from now. 5. What specific proposal in the IRA will make what specific improvements in the climate, by what specific date?
"California, struggling to balance its clean energy push with the need to boost tight power supplies and avoid rolling blackouts, will lean more on fossil fuels in coming weeks to keep the power on if scorching heatwaves stretch its grid.
The Golden State, which has among the world’s most aggressive environmental policies, faces a potential supply shortfall of up to 3,500 megawatts during peak demand hours in the coming weeks. That is about 2.6 million households worth of electricity supply.
Governor Gavin Newsom plans to fill that gap in part by allowing industrial energy users to run on diesel generators and engines, according to a recent emergency proclamation."
https://archive.ph/h9mGo
"In 2005, Ontario’s provincial government started a process to phase-out its coal-fired plants, one of the province’s least expensive and most flexible sources of generating electricity. Ontario shuttered its last coal plant in 2014 and made it illegal to build any more. In addition, the province launched its Green Energy Act in 2009, which mandated expanded production of renewable energy and encouraged energy conservation.
The result? Ontario now has the fastest-growing electricity costs in Canada and among the highest rates in North America. Furthermore, subsequent research showed that the shutdown of coal plants raised electricity rates in the province but provided few environmental benefits. Indeed, one analysis found that, had the province simply continued with retrofitting coal plants, it could have achieved similar environmental benefits at one-tenth the cost of the green energy programs."
"One of Germany’s biggest challenges in the fight against climate change is to keep the lights on.
As Europe’s biggest economy shuts its last nuclear reactor next year and utility RWE AG warns that coal plants may close earlier than planned, critics say green energy isn’t being added quickly enough. Germany’s ability to meet peak demand is poised to shrink rapidly over the next two years, increasing the risk of blackouts.
[…][German Chancellor Angela] Merkel admits her government got it wrong. Power demand will probably increase more than official forecasts by the end of the decade, she said in June. A month earlier she recognized that increasing local opposition and too much bureaucracy have curbed investments in green power."
https://archive.ph/gsDA5
I guess I'm wondering what kind of magic the IRA contains that is going to avoid the failures of "green energy" in CA, GER, and CAN?
What's interesting is that when the left thinks it's got a crisis going on, they are quick to demand that others change their behavior, while (in many cases) not changing their own behavior.
For example.
During COVID how many times did we see left wing politicians or celebrities flouting the CDC guidelines and gathering in large numbers, maskless, without social distancing? How many times did we see the same types of folks travel to FL to go maskless, while bashing FL.
How many leftist politicians, and celebrities do we see fearmongering about climate change while taking private jets hither and yon, buying more and larger houses, buying or building mega mansions in the very areas they claim will be under water in the near future? Hell, how many of the ordinary APL really significantly adjust their lifestyle to match their rhetoric?
We constantly see large corporations, entertainment companies, sports teams and leagues, and SJW's who complain about slavery, injustice, and oppression, yet continue to do business as usual with countries like the PRC. Is your iPhone made with slave labor in China? Does that stop you from buying a new one every time they come out? Look at how badly the NBA is trying to establish itself in China, while at the same time covering their courts with pro BLM propaganda.
When I hear millionaires and billionaires railing against "The Rich" and how "The Rich" don't pay their fair share, while they utilize every possible tax loophole to avoid paying taxes themselves, I tune them out because they're hypocrites.
I could go on, but these examples seem sufficient. Much like I don't think that trying to persuade someone by telling them how stupid (or racist, or sexist, or oppressive" or whatever) is an effective way to persuade people, I also think that "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy is also ineffective at persuasion.
If y'all want people to massively alter their lifestyles, then set the example.
19 comments:
When you state things like this or ask these sorts of questions ("Trust the experts and MSM or not?") I ALWAYS wonder who/what in the name of all that is holy and rational are you going to go to if you have questions about something you're ignorant of?
The experts and the media are all imperfect humans, BUT, they are generally more informed than you are on the area of expertise in question (unless you happen to be an expert in that field).
It would be one thing to say, "Don't trust the experts or the media on issues of climate change (or healthcare or mental health care or abortion concerns or LGBTQ issues, etc, etc)... HERE is a source for better information..." But then, you'd be referencing someone else who is an expert (presumably) and you're back to the "Should we trust experts or not?" question.
IF you have a choice between a heart specialists and a car mechanic with no medical training and you're having heart problems, WHO are you going to listen to but the heart experts?
IF you are saying, "Don't listen to any experts or people who've interviewed experts, just trust your gut..." I'd call you a brainless fool.
Also, if you're going to say, "Listen to SOME experts, but only those who agree with your political ideology," likewise, I'd call you a fool.
So, if you're not going to listen to experts or those reporting on what experts are saying, who will you listen to for information on those topics?
Why raise these questions if not to undermine faith in expert opinion and those reporting on expert opinion?
If you want to merely say, "Don't listen to just ONE expert and ONE media source. Get your information from established, expert opinion in multiple places/sources..." then we can agree. But trusting your gut, or discounting experts en masse, or discounting the media en masse, that is a recipe for disaster.
I can only guess that you didn't read the links or that I didn't do a good enough job of making the point of the post.
Had you read the links you'd know that a significant number of experts, and at least one MS outlet (along with the CBO if I remember right) are convinced that the recent Inflation Reduction Act is not actually going to reduce inflation.
If I should have been more explicit in the post, the point is that we've got both the MSM and a significant group of experts who are calling BS on the recent Inflation Reduction Act. The question being, will folks like you believe that experts/media or will you believe the narrative?
I'm saying that too many folks will listen to, uncritically accept, and blindly repeat what the hear from experts who agree with them, the MSM and the like, while not looking at what other experts and alternative media are saying.
"I should have been more explicit in the post, the point is that we've got both the MSM and a significant group of experts who are calling BS on the recent Inflation Reduction Act."
It is precisely because I listen to the mainstream media that I recognize that the inflation reduction act may not reduce inflation that much. That it's more of a, or at least partially, a political spin name and not reality.
But, again because I listen to the media, I recognize that congressional acts often have names that are more spin than reality. I assume you recognize this as well?
But again, it's because I listen to media and journalists that I know this. Which is why I was calling bullshit on your title question. It's another in the endless stream of attacks on journalism and experts common to modern conservatism.
Interesting you acknowledge that the Inflation reduction act is not likely to significantly reduce inflation, it's stated goal, yet pass that off as merely "spin". Despite the claims to the contrary.
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/11/1116229743/inflation-reduction-act-questions-answered
"And that's why even Democrats and Republicans, former Treasury secretaries, economists across the board have said that this bill will make a positive impact on inflation"
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/inflation_reduction_act_one_page_summary.pd
"The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 will make a historic down payment on deficit reduction to fight inflation,"
I know this probably didn't occur to you, but I was referring to the media response, and the like prior to when I wrote this post. The spin has changed since them because the reality of the pork in the bill can't be denied.
Of course the title question goes way beyond this one example.
If, as both Biden and Harris claimed, we had "Zero inflation" in July, then why do we need this idiotically named bill in the first place?
Do you support this bill and consider it a good piece of legislation?
Would you still do so if it actually increases inflation?
Are you supportive of increasing the number of IRS agents who are armed and trained in police/military type tactics?
This IRA...
1. Invests in positive efforts to deal with the climate crisis
2. Supports access to healthcare
3. Allows for negotiating prescription drug prices to reduce cost to consumers
4. Goes after uncollected taxes owed by the ultra wealthy
Do I support those things? Hell yes. Who wouldn't?
Do you NOT support those things?
So to answer more directly, yes I think it's good I think it's good legislation. It could've been better if the republicans would've bought in more and objected less. But it's a good legislation. It's a starting point.
From what I've read, this may ultimately reduce inflation and there's nothing to make us think that it will increase inflation. If it DOES cause inflation? These are still necessary things.
We have to start acting like responsible adults when it comes to our energy and climate policies. We can't afford to push that off any longer.
Are you opposed to legislation to help us reduce our crippling and literally toxic dependency upon fossil fuels?
As to your fear mongering about increasing IRS agents who are armed, don't be a gossip, slanderer or moron.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/12/matt-gaetz/no-biden-not-arming-irs-guns-and-ammunition/
"It is precisely because I listen to the mainstream media that I recognize that the inflation reduction act may not reduce inflation that much. That it's more of a, or at least partially, a political spin name and not reality."
It's what known to people of character as "lying", which this administration and its party do as a matter of party policy.
"But, again because I listen to the media, I recognize that congressional acts often have names that are more spin than reality. I assume you recognize this as well?"
I recognize...because it's true...this is more the reality where Dems are involved.
"But again, it's because I listen to media and journalists that I know this. Which is why I was calling bullshit on your title question. It's another in the endless stream of attacks on journalism and experts common to modern conservatism."
Attacks which are wholly justified when directed at the media and journalists you revere as noble and honest. But let's look at some of what you said in calling what you need to believe is "bullshit":
"The experts and the media are all imperfect humans, BUT, they are generally more informed than you are on the area of expertise in question (unless you happen to be an expert in that field)."
There are clearly "experts" you find compelling who are either lying or not all that bright even in their field of expertise. And your media gods are generally both.
"But then, you'd be referencing someone else who is an expert (presumably) and you're back to the "Should we trust experts or not?" question."
What you're presenting is the challenge of the average person of deciding between two opposing schools of thought from those regarded as experts of a given field. Trust in experts who have demonstrated a better perspective for any of a variety of reasons related to facts and data without political/ideological spin is a good thing. You should do that more often. You rarely, if ever, do.
"IF you have a choice between a heart specialists and a car mechanic with no medical training and you're having heart problems, WHO are you going to listen to but the heart experts?"
Another stupid analogy and not at all reflective of anything even rubes just slightly smarter than Dan would ever do.
"IF you are saying, "Don't listen to any experts or people who've interviewed experts, just trust your gut..." I'd call you a brainless fool."
No one is saying that and thus only a brainless fool would regard that as an intelligent argument in this context.
"Also, if you're going to say, "Listen to SOME experts, but only those who agree with your political ideology," likewise, I'd call you a fool."
...or Dan Trabue. We don't do that. The experts to whom we listen inform ideology, not begin with it. Can't say the same for any of those "experts" YOU cite.
"So, if you're not going to listen to experts or those reporting on what experts are saying, who will you listen to for information on those topics?"
Better, more honest and objective experts than those to whom you listen and better, more honest journalists than those before whom you bow.
"If you want to merely say, "Don't listen to just ONE expert and ONE media source. Get your information from established, expert opinion in multiple places/sources..." then we can agree."
We might agree on this practice, but we clearly can see you don't operate in that manner.
"But trusting your gut, or discounting experts en masse, or discounting the media en masse, that is a recipe for disaster."
My gut is quite reliable when it's you citing your "experts" or media sources, as you have a history of citing partisan hacks and those pushing a false agenda. Those are the only "experts" or media sources we reject and discount. Yet, knowing those like you and other lefties are likely citing morons and liars, we still withhold judgement until comparing with those we find more trustworthy and knowledgeable.
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/confusion-surrounds-irs-adding-87-000-jobs-ongoing-efforts-to-hire-special-agents-willing-to/article_cf056e36-197e-11ed-b4af-b7b4a673fc8e.html
"Do I support those things? Hell yes. Who wouldn't?"
So, you're willing to support a bill that's very title is a lie, where inflation reduction isn't even in the 4 things you list as positives, because it claims to fix things you support. You do realize that these "uncollected taxes on the ultra wealthy" aren't going to actually affect the current overspending crisis we are going through, don't you?
"Are you opposed to legislation to help us reduce our crippling and literally toxic dependency upon fossil fuels?"
As long as it involves actual solutions that don't penalize the poor, work, won't result in loss of efficiencies, don't involve crony capitalism of government picking and choosing who gets pork based on connections, sure.
I was unaware that asking a question (especially one that you didn't answer) is "fearmongering".
"It could've been better if the republicans would've bought in more and objected less."
This bill is an excellent example of how the DFL controls congress and doesn't need the GOP to do anything they want. If this bill could have been better, it's the DFL's fault. But it's your go to trope, and I would have been disappointed if you hadn't trotted it out.
Do you NOT support those things?"
You are aware that the IRS does have armed special agents, are you not?
Do you support the IRS having armed special agents, and potentially increasing the number of armed special agents?
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/confusion-surrounds-irs-adding-87-000-jobs-ongoing-efforts-to-hire-special-agents-willing-to/article_cf056e36-197e-11ed-b4af-b7b4a673fc8e.html
You kind of obliquely answered the question about you supporting the bill even if it didn't lower inflation or increased it. I'm assuming that your answer is "yes I would".
It's interesting that you're willing to support a bill so steeped in intentional falsehood, and sold to the public is one thing, when it's really just more pork in advance of an election.
Do you really believe Biden and Harris that "inflation was 0%" in July?
How do you respond to the analysis that this misnamed bill will result in tax increases on those who are not close to "ultra wealthy"?
Inflation and climate change...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3481622-to-fight-inflation-we-must-fight-climate-change/amp/
Because, of course.
"This IRA...
1. Invests in positive efforts to deal with the climate crisis
2. Supports access to healthcare
3. Allows for negotiating prescription drug prices to reduce cost to consumers
4. Goes after uncollected taxes owed by the ultra wealthy"
Well, this is certainly how it's been marketed to buffoons likely to believe.
1. As there is no climate crisis, there is no "positive effort" which should be funded with my money.
2 & 3. https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/16/inflation-reduction-act-healthcare-medicare-drug-prices-obamacare/
https://nypost.com/2022/08/10/inflation-reduction-act-health-care-handout-would-worsen-inflation/
https://www.city-journal.org/inflation-reduction-act-needless-health-care-provisions
4. https://nypost.com/2022/08/05/the-inflation-reduction-act-would-double-irs-agents-and-audits-but-superrich-arent-real-targets/
Supporting the four points is one thing. Expecting those points will be effectively addressed by this bill and through efforts of this administration is another thing altogether.
I also can't help but notice the ongoing "fair share" crap directed toward the wealthy. It's a number/percentage still not defined by the liars who repeat that nonsense. And of course, it ignores the real problem of government spending, the great reduction of which would mitigate the need to pretend the top of the food chain isn't already responsible for the vast majority of revenues to federal coffers.
And of course, this unnecessary monstrosity is yet another abomination this illegitimate administration holds up as a victory worth celebrating, ignoring how intelligent people aren't impressed. More than likely, it is but one more reason people will be voting against them come '22 and '24.
https://nypost.com/2022/08/15/inflation-reduction-act-will-cost-middle-class-20b-cbo/
https://taxfoundation.org/inflation-reduction-act-irs-funding/
Craig...
" I'm assuming that your answer is "yes I would"."
It means I don't trust your guess that it won't decrease inflation. AND that we need to take these actions anyway. Our nation is literally on fire. An economy with no inflation is meaningless if half the nation is on fire and half is flooded.
I was pretty clear. The question is: Are you okay with betting that climate change won't permanently damage our (and other nations') economy if we do nothing?
Given that your comment with the link to the opinion piece from The Hill doesn't seem to have any direct relationship to the post which is specifically about the IRA, I see no reason to waste time with it.
"It means I don't trust your guess that it won't decrease inflation."
No, it means that you don't trust the 300 odd experts that the link I posted mentions, the experts at the non partisan CBO, or the MSM who belatedly has reported on this. Well done, I appreciate you when you revert to type and illustrate exactly the points I'm trying to make. You conflating experts and the MSM with my "guess" is priceless.
"Our nation is literally on fire. An economy with no inflation is meaningless if half the nation is on fire and half is flooded."
What in the hell are you even talking about with this sort of fearmongering? Are you really suggesting that inflation is a good thing? That forcing poor people to pay more for goods and services is beneficial? Are you really suggesting that our entire nation is literally combusting? Or that one "half" of our nation is currently engulfed in literal flames? And that the other "half" is literally covered with water? If those things are literally True, then how does this bill stop the fires and floods? Why hire 90,000 more IRS employees, when it sounds like firefighters and flood control engineers would be more helpful? How much of the problem with naturally occurring forest fires is compounded by poor forest management?
"I was pretty clear. The question is: Are you okay with betting that climate change won't permanently damage our (and other nations') economy if we do nothing?"
1. Yes.
2. As long as we've got high profile DFL leaders, climate activists, and their ilk buying up ocean front property, and gallivanting across the globe in mega yachts and private jets, I'm not worried. If it doesn't bother the activists enough to change their lifestyles and lower their carbon footprint, I see no reason to take it seriously.
3. Virtually every climate change prediction of disaster over the past 50 years of so has been wrong. I think I'll wait until y'all get something right before I panic.
4. I'm more worried about the damage to our economy in 2022 that will continue to get worse of we either "do nothing" or do the wrong thing, than I am about the potential that something bad might happen 100 years from now.
5. What specific proposal in the IRA will make what specific improvements in the climate, by what specific date?
"California, struggling to balance its clean energy push with the need to boost tight power supplies and avoid rolling blackouts, will lean more on fossil fuels in coming weeks to keep the power on if scorching heatwaves stretch its grid.
The Golden State, which has among the world’s most aggressive environmental policies, faces a potential supply shortfall of up to 3,500 megawatts during peak demand hours in the coming weeks. That is about 2.6 million households worth of electricity supply.
Governor Gavin Newsom plans to fill that gap in part by allowing industrial energy users to run on diesel generators and engines, according to a recent emergency proclamation."
https://archive.ph/h9mGo
"In 2005, Ontario’s provincial government started a process to phase-out its coal-fired plants, one of the province’s least expensive and most flexible sources of generating electricity. Ontario shuttered its last coal plant in 2014 and made it illegal to build any more. In addition, the province launched its Green Energy Act in 2009, which mandated expanded production of renewable energy and encouraged energy conservation.
The result? Ontario now has the fastest-growing electricity costs in Canada and among the highest rates in North America. Furthermore, subsequent research showed that the shutdown of coal plants raised electricity rates in the province but provided few environmental benefits. Indeed, one analysis found that, had the province simply continued with retrofitting coal plants, it could have achieved similar environmental benefits at one-tenth the cost of the green energy programs."
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/ontarios-energy-woes-should-be-a-warning
"One of Germany’s biggest challenges in the fight against climate change is to keep the lights on.
As Europe’s biggest economy shuts its last nuclear reactor next year and utility RWE AG warns that coal plants may close earlier than planned, critics say green energy isn’t being added quickly enough. Germany’s ability to meet peak demand is poised to shrink rapidly over the next two years, increasing the risk of blackouts.
[…][German Chancellor Angela] Merkel admits her government got it wrong. Power demand will probably increase more than official forecasts by the end of the decade, she said in June. A month earlier she recognized that increasing local opposition and too much bureaucracy have curbed investments in green power."
https://archive.ph/gsDA5
I guess I'm wondering what kind of magic the IRA contains that is going to avoid the failures of "green energy" in CA, GER, and CAN?
What's interesting is that when the left thinks it's got a crisis going on, they are quick to demand that others change their behavior, while (in many cases) not changing their own behavior.
For example.
During COVID how many times did we see left wing politicians or celebrities flouting the CDC guidelines and gathering in large numbers, maskless, without social distancing? How many times did we see the same types of folks travel to FL to go maskless, while bashing FL.
How many leftist politicians, and celebrities do we see fearmongering about climate change while taking private jets hither and yon, buying more and larger houses, buying or building mega mansions in the very areas they claim will be under water in the near future? Hell, how many of the ordinary APL really significantly adjust their lifestyle to match their rhetoric?
We constantly see large corporations, entertainment companies, sports teams and leagues, and SJW's who complain about slavery, injustice, and oppression, yet continue to do business as usual with countries like the PRC. Is your iPhone made with slave labor in China? Does that stop you from buying a new one every time they come out? Look at how badly the NBA is trying to establish itself in China, while at the same time covering their courts with pro BLM propaganda.
When I hear millionaires and billionaires railing against "The Rich" and how "The Rich" don't pay their fair share, while they utilize every possible tax loophole to avoid paying taxes themselves, I tune them out because they're hypocrites.
I could go on, but these examples seem sufficient. Much like I don't think that trying to persuade someone by telling them how stupid (or racist, or sexist, or oppressive" or whatever) is an effective way to persuade people, I also think that "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrisy is also ineffective at persuasion.
If y'all want people to massively alter their lifestyles, then set the example.
Post a Comment