Inflation Reduction Act
- Thread starter Seattle
- Start date
The question cannot be properly answered.
Since we have the moment, though, perhaps you might be able to help fill me in: Why do people try to start conversations this way, by saying something without any stable meaning in hope that other people do ... well, there's the second question, in hope that other people do what?
It's not so much that I don't get how the rhetorical form works, but, rather that I cannot recall ever encountering it in a context that did not turn out to be dubious.
Insofar as you mean something by your inquiry, what is it?
For instance, some responses:
• The raw numbers might be big, but compared to what is needed the bill seems pretty small; even as such, I don't think "cynical" is the right word.
• It's Arizona. Who's this "we"?
• Sure, Republicans have gotten this cynical. Nigh on a decade, in fact, and that's only if we overlook the dozen years leading up to that decade.
• It's Arizona. Who's this "we"?
― [related]: I don't believe "cynical" is the appropriate word for Sen. Sinema's behavior.
• Sure, Republicans have gotten this cynical. Nigh on a decade, in fact, and that's only if we overlook the dozen years leading up to that decade.
What? Do I really need to whip out another dozen?
All I'm getting at is that even compared to your usual attitude, the inquiry is far too vague.
What do you mean by "cynical"?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Well you've certainly triggered some vintage Tiassa-speak, if that was your intention.Have we really gotten this cynical?
I confess I assumed the strange title of this bill was aimed at exploiting the unfathomable stupidity of so many lawmakers, to get them to vote for Biden's infrastructure and green energy plans by calling them something different. If that's the cynicism you have in mind, then, er, yes it seems we have become that cynical.
Is there a double?I don't think I saw "to the one ....to the other" anywhere in that exegesis.Well you've certainly triggered some vintage Tiassa-speak, if that was your intention.
I confess I assumed the strange title of this bill was aimed at exploiting the unfathomable stupidity of so many lawmakers, to get them to vote for Biden's infrastructure and green energy plans by calling them something different. If that's the cynicism you have in mind, then, er, yes it seems we have become that cynical.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Why do people like to pepper the phrase "To the one, to the other" or sprinkle in "twas" or "twixt"?
Does it really have a bearing on the subject at hand? Probably not so let's move on to the topic at hand.
"Cynical-concerned only with one's own interests and typically disregarding accepted or appropriate standards in order to achieve them."
It's a pretty common word, unlike "sosobre" so I'm guessing you aren't actually puzzled by my usage here.
Moving on yet again, the bill could be called "2022 Climate Act" , "2022 Healthcare Act" or "2022 Corporate Minimum Tax Act" but calling it the "Inflation-Reduction Act" appears very cynical to me but how about you? Are any of the sponsors known to be particularly concerned with doing anything but creating inflation rather than reducing it? It used to be called "Build Back Better". Even the Guardian, while praising it, calls it "Biden's Landmark Climate and Spending Bill".
Shutting down production during Covid and then sending everyone multiple checks, regardless of need, is pretty much the definition of inflation (too many dollars chasing too few goods). So, cynical seems quite apropos in describing this bill's name to me. Where do you differ?
It's helpful that there is some talk of paying down the deficit but as a whole it's not going to do that either. I suppose it could be called the "Deficit and Inflation Enlargement Act" but that, while not cynical, is probably not good political marketing?
Perhaps my writing style is obtuse, abstruse, verbose? To the one, there is nothing inflation reducing about this bill. To the other, it's cynical to refer to it in that way. Ya know? No, really. If my style is inducing trichotillomania, so be it, it is what it is, as it were. I wish it 'twas otherwise but there you go, ya'know?
Regarding starting at thread out with a question rather than a blog post is helpful to get others involved. Maybe you should try it sometime?
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
YehHave we really gotten this cynical?
a long time ago.
Not especially. Why does it seem so cynical?
Remember that Biden and Schumer were playing to Manchin and Sinema. Calling it a Climate Act, in addition to being an incomplete label, is not going to work for Manchin. Sinema extracted some decent pork toward water resources, to be certain, but we shouldn't call it a Tax Act because taxes were the object of her objections, and Manchin doesn't want to carry that particular cross, either. We can't call it a Health Care Act, because the parliamentarian gutted one of the most important parts of that. Which, in turn, brings us back around to what the legislation actually is, a Reconcilation Bill.
Compared to the FY2022 Budget Reconciliation Act, it's true the temptation is to give it a fancy name. In that context, no, Inflation Reuction Act isn't really so cynical.
More of interest to me would be idle speculation about whether it will be Minnesota in the Eighth, or California in the Fifth, that tries to use the Medicare insulin cap to extend to Medicaid and thus force an equal protection question; it seems a tenuous pathway, and the remedy probably will be left to the states, such as Newsom's intention that California should manufacture insulin.
Moreover, did you catch the inflation expectation drop? Trust me, one antithetical caricature's standard of cynicism is another person's reflection on marketplace behavior. The idea that the name of the bill will boost confidence is its own question, but the timing worked out strangely well compared to the expecation drop. The true cynicism mixed into the bill has to do with the delicate complexity of the political needs. It's nearly ten years, now, since Republicans broke the budget process; the fact that this was a reconciliation bill defines its limitations.
Additionally, it's one thing if Schumer outdid McConnell on a tech bill, and then left Republicans to embarrass themselves on veterans' health relief, but the Senate Democratic leader, who is not known as the sharpest tactician in the box, seems to have also outdone Sinema and the Senate GOP on the reconcilation bill. The true cynicism is in conservative behavior requiring such maneuvers.
Compared to a political circumstance in which a gridlocking minority does not see itself bound to good faith, it's kind of funny you're hung up on the name of the legislation. If the name is any measure of cynicism, it reflects on its political circumstance.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I actually like the bill after Manchin and Sinema got though with it other than the expanding public debt aspect that no party seems to want to do anything about.
I'd like to see a couple of Republican Senators serve the same role the next time the Republicans have such a slim majority. It's not helpful to have government policies jump drastically back and forth every time the majorities switch.
It would be even better if the Democrats, as a party, ever got a clue regarding economic policies. Of course I could say the same if the Republicans ever got rid of their nuts jobs (almost all of them now) and actually had a moderate branch as well.
Yet, I still say it is cynical to call this the Inflation Reduction Act since that's just not sincere in the least. I don't have to be "hung up on it" to call it out for what it is.
I'm glad that Biden has had a few "wins" lately. The whole thing is a mess however. Most Democrats (especially the younger ones) don't want to see a second term for Biden. Yet I can't imagine that they want to see a Republican in charge and Bernie isn't going to be elected to anything other than to his current Senate seat.
Every time I watch Biden I'm surprised that he is still alive by the time his speech is over. Harris is unelectable. I wouldn't mind seeing Gretchen Witmer run for President if Biden stepped aside.
Cheney running as an independent (I think) will ensure that Trump doesn't get elected again. Other than Cheney and maybe a few others I see nothing hopeful or helpful coming from the Republican Party.
Trump pretty much single handedly broke the government and encouraged the crazies out there to band together for far more power than they should have. The Democrats don't seem to have any organizing power at all. It's almost criminal that Biden was the best that they come up with.
There appears to be no real economists in the entire government. Increasing taxes and thinking of more social programs has made the Democrats a one trick pony. The Republicans are currently just not relevant (to put it mildly). Democrats handed out "stimulus" checks and appear to be surprised when the economy was "stimulated" and now we have inflation.
Still, this is clearly not an inflation reduction bill and it is cynical to call it that and it doesn't reflect well on any serious politicians to do so, IMO.
I'd like to see a couple of Republican Senators serve the same role the next time the Republicans have such a slim majority. It's not helpful to have government policies jump drastically back and forth every time the majorities switch.
It would be even better if the Democrats, as a party, ever got a clue regarding economic policies. Of course I could say the same if the Republicans ever got rid of their nuts jobs (almost all of them now) and actually had a moderate branch as well.
Yet, I still say it is cynical to call this the Inflation Reduction Act since that's just not sincere in the least. I don't have to be "hung up on it" to call it out for what it is.
I'm glad that Biden has had a few "wins" lately. The whole thing is a mess however. Most Democrats (especially the younger ones) don't want to see a second term for Biden. Yet I can't imagine that they want to see a Republican in charge and Bernie isn't going to be elected to anything other than to his current Senate seat.
Every time I watch Biden I'm surprised that he is still alive by the time his speech is over. Harris is unelectable. I wouldn't mind seeing Gretchen Witmer run for President if Biden stepped aside.
Cheney running as an independent (I think) will ensure that Trump doesn't get elected again. Other than Cheney and maybe a few others I see nothing hopeful or helpful coming from the Republican Party.
Trump pretty much single handedly broke the government and encouraged the crazies out there to band together for far more power than they should have. The Democrats don't seem to have any organizing power at all. It's almost criminal that Biden was the best that they come up with.
There appears to be no real economists in the entire government. Increasing taxes and thinking of more social programs has made the Democrats a one trick pony. The Republicans are currently just not relevant (to put it mildly). Democrats handed out "stimulus" checks and appear to be surprised when the economy was "stimulated" and now we have inflation.
Still, this is clearly not an inflation reduction bill and it is cynical to call it that and it doesn't reflect well on any serious politicians to do so, IMO.
But you did lead with it.
I mean, it's the whole reason for your thread—title, first post, reiteration.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
What are you arguing about? Now it's "I lead with it"? Yes, that doesn't mean I'm "hung up on it". Why the need to characterize my motivation for posting?
I've consistently said that it was cynical, it is cynical and I'm sure you know that as well. Why the semantics?
If the Republicans passed "The American Families Act" when it was really about cutting social programs, would you be all hung up on the name? Get real. You've posted pages on less, much less, along with footnotes and sarcasm, ya'know...
It's this sort of juxtaposition that tells people you are not to be taken seriously.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Take a look at your avatar and tell me who we should take seriously. Why are you even here? This isn't a blog you know.
Such incisive analysis.
Think back, please, to earlier this year when you were complaining↗ about the site, including the point that, "It's hard to have a discussion forum … with this limited traffic."
There is a line in a song that reminds the obvious: "It's hard to be optimistic when I share the world with you."
One of the reasons site traffic is so low as you complain is that our decision to pander to people like you tells others to stay away. Seriously, who wants to waste their time having a pointless argument with predictable dishonesty? To the other, it's not just you. Your thread is a particular form of inquiry intended to let other people carry the discussion to you; it's a matter of not doing any heavy lifting, and around here is favored by people who don't have much more to offer their own discussion than the hook.
It's one thing to lead with complaint, or even vagary, but per your own lamentation about limited traffic, who do you really think, looking in the door and seeing this manner of shifting, perpetual complainnt, is going to be anxious to seek adventure here? Think it through. Like I said, it's not just you; it's kind of a recurring theme around here. But we abandoned expectations of rational discourse because they are considered too disruptive to free speech; staff are generally constrained from assessing bad faith conduct; we absolutely should not pretend surprise at the result.
Notice how making even a basic argument, like #5↑, makes it easier to address your context. But observe your complaint, "I suppose it could be called the 'Deficit and Inflation Enlargement Act'", is based on your own exaggerations. No wonder you wanted start with a vague question. And the juxtaposition in #10↑ is dysfunctional equivocation; there is only so much time I would spend on a name like "The American Families Act", but it would be important to at least observe the name of a bill in dissecting what the bill actually means. When Republicans get around to a no-exception anti-abortion bill that also banishes paternal child support, and call it the Fatherhood Empowerment Act, you are welcome to ask my opinion if I don't get around to it quickly enough for your satisfaction. Such a bill, made real, would be even worse than I describe. I do however think there is a difference between having less of an effect than the name might imply, and being antithetical unto itself. So do you, it would seem, at least according to your exaggeration.
Which in turn brings us 'round, not at all strangely, to Sculptor↑, "a long time ago." He and I might disagree about the details, but the question of what you mean by "gotten" does stand out in an historical context that goes, approximately, ¿What, are you new?
There was actually some political chess going on in this one that is fascinating in itself, but as I said, the true cynicism is in the behavior requiring such maneuvers. That the name of the bill should be some extraordinary manner of cynicism is naïve at least. Have we really gotten this cynical, you ask. Our political culture has been at least this cynical for a while. Did you somehow miss it?
Good example.
Another good one is the "Defense of Marriage Act" - a law that actually prohibited many marriages.
However, the "Inflation Reduction Act" does get credit for actually taking steps to reduce inflation. Will it work? Perhaps, perhaps not - and the bulk of the bill concerns issues other than inflation reduction. Still, it's good to see that it at least partially describes what the bill attempts, as opposed to your example or the DOMA.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
If I give $10 orphans and $1,000 to hookers I suppose I could say that I'm a charitable organization. At least I gave a little to orphans. Good point.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
You (and all the other moderators) do nothing but complain and yet you characterize my presence here (and my post) as complaining. Interesting.
You say that you are "staff". What exactly are you "staffing" and why is there a need for a staff here?
Groucho Marx said something along the lines of "I wouldn't want to be a member of a club that would have me". That seems to be the "staff" position here. They don't want anyone as a member that would be a member here.
Humorous but quirky. Change your avatar and quit posting footnoted diatribe blog entries and maybe I'll take you seriously (or not).
Just kidding...I still won't be able to take you seriously.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The entire inflation reduction part of this bill seems to be the corporate 15 percent minimal tax. Like most things, it makes little sense. People seems to be upset because they don't think it's "fair" that corporations "don't pay their fair share".
That is based more on ignorance than anything else. Corporate income that flows through to their employees is already taxed, income that goes to shareholders is taxed, and the rest goes to retained earning to be used by the business.
I saw an article where someone was upset that Amazon earned 35 billion dollars last year in profit before taxes and only paid 6 percent tax. It did that legally, largely due to a R&D tax credit. That's largely a good thing, IMO.
U.S. companies are generally more innovative that many other countries and that's part of the reason.
That R&D tax credit still largely applies to the new minimum tax as well so it's not going to make a lot of difference.
Most people also think they pay a higher tax rate than they actually do since there are 7 brackets, topping out at 37 percent and you only pay a higher rate on those dollars that are beyond the next highest bracket so your overall rate is a lot lower than your top rate.
There is also the standard deduction and your personal exemption so when it gets down to it most people aren't paying any more (percent) than the rate that doesn't seem "fair" for corporations. A large percentage of the population doesn't even pay any Federal taxes in fact.
That is based more on ignorance than anything else. Corporate income that flows through to their employees is already taxed, income that goes to shareholders is taxed, and the rest goes to retained earning to be used by the business.
I saw an article where someone was upset that Amazon earned 35 billion dollars last year in profit before taxes and only paid 6 percent tax. It did that legally, largely due to a R&D tax credit. That's largely a good thing, IMO.
U.S. companies are generally more innovative that many other countries and that's part of the reason.
That R&D tax credit still largely applies to the new minimum tax as well so it's not going to make a lot of difference.
Most people also think they pay a higher tax rate than they actually do since there are 7 brackets, topping out at 37 percent and you only pay a higher rate on those dollars that are beyond the next highest bracket so your overall rate is a lot lower than your top rate.
There is also the standard deduction and your personal exemption so when it gets down to it most people aren't paying any more (percent) than the rate that doesn't seem "fair" for corporations. A large percentage of the population doesn't even pay any Federal taxes in fact.
Last edited:
And the deficit reduction. And the reduction in ACA premiums. All three will tend to lower inflation.