Inflation Reduction Act of 2022… What? (Page 3): Well that's what Big Oil tells you anyway. (sucker)...

straightUp Loc: California

JR-57 wrote:

C*****e c****e is nothing but another weapon in the left’s arsenal in their attempt to destroy this country.

Well that's what Big Oil tells you anyway. (sucker)

JR-57 Loc: South Carolina

straightUp wrote:

Well that's what Big Oil tells you anyway. (sucker)

Let me clarify; man made c*****e c****e is a h**x. Big oil has nothing to do with my opinion. GFY

AmericanEagle Loc: Indiana

Well the gasoline is on the fire and I know it can be used against Camel la since her v**e helped inflict this upon America.
It will help fun the c*****e c****e h**x and piss more money away than cylinder! It went out weapon eyes and expand the IRS to come against the American people or at least the hard-working taxpayers that will get screwed.
Once again Democrats are responsible for destroying America

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

straightUp wrote:

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022… What?

Democrats’ Drop-Dead America Sundae Sprinkled With Lies
AMAC Exclusive – By Tammy Bruce
Posted Friday, August 5, 2022 | By Tammy Bruce

Democrats
If you thought destroying our energy independence, causing the worst inflation in 40 years, destabilizing the economy in general, and destroying our supply chain would be enough to satisfy the Democrats, think again. Since crushing the security, optimism, and financial freedom of Americans wasn’t enough, they’ve now decided to turn the screw even more by raising taxes and lying to our faces about it. For the left, this is the cherry on top of the Democrats’ Drop-Dead America sundae, also known as the “Inflation Reduction Act” of 2022.

You will not be surprised to learn – just like how inflation wasn’t t***sitory, how the border is not closed, how the Taliban won’t take over Kabul for at least two years, and how al-Qaeda is gone from Afghanistan – that despite the laughable title, the bill will, in fact, increase inflation. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) reports, “The Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) released its preliminary estimates of the budgetary and macroeconomic effects of Democrats’ reckless tax-and-spending spree… The Model, an initiative of the University of Pennsylvania, found that Democrat’s misnamed ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ would actually increase inflation for the next two years.”

One of the most revealing aspects of this bill is that it expands and further weaponizes the IRS against middle-class Americans and those on the economic margins of society. The 80 billion dollar bill will allow the hiring of 87,000 new IRS investigative agents. As Grover Norquist, the president of ATR notes, this is more than all the servicemen and women who serve on our aircraft carriers around the world. That’s also 87,000 new members for the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), a union which, according to ATR, “dedicates 97 percent of its political spending to Democrats.”

The Wall Street Journal pulled no punches with their condemnation of the bill’s true impact:

“The $80 billion is more than six times the current annual IRS budget of $12.6 billion. The money will be ladled out over nine years and comes with few strings attached. The main Democratic command is for the tax agency to bring the hammer down on taxpayers. The bill earmarks $45.6 billion for ‘enforcement,’ including ‘litigation,’ ‘criminal investigations,’ ‘investigative technology,’ ‘digital asset monitoring’ and a new fleet of tax-collector cars. The result will be far more audits, civil suits, and criminal referrals.”

This monstrosity is a Hail Mary pass to continue the l*****t “painful t***sition” as Biden calls it, consisting of the disastrous Green New Deal (including new direct hits on natural gas production), extending ObamaCare subsidies, while massively increasing the IRS and implementing back-door taxes on Americans as we fall further into recession.

Fox Business reports, “The Inflation Reduction Act — unveiled Wednesday by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and endorsed by Biden — would increase tax revenue by $16.7 billion from Americans earning less than $200,000 a year, according to nonpartisan analysis from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)… Nearly every tax bracket would pay more in taxes with those making below $10,000 per year seeing the largest uptick, the analysis showed.”

Moreover, the US Government Accountability Office confirms, “From fiscal years 2010 to 2021, the majority of the additional taxes IRS recommended from audits came from taxpayers with incomes below $200,000,” and “Audits of the lowest-income taxpayers, particularly those claiming the EITC, resulted in higher amounts of recommended additional tax per audit hour compared to all income groups except for the highest-income taxpayers. IRS officials explained that EITC audits are primarily pre-refund audits and are conducted through correspondence, requiring less time.”

And why is that? Because a letter from the IRS demanding more money is rather intimidating and when you don’t have the money to hire a lawyer to defend yourself many feel they have no other option but to find a way to squeeze more blood out of that bank account rock, or your brother-in-law, or a credit card. Voila! A quick resolution.

And here we have, like ghouls, the IRS crowing about how letter audits have the best dollar return for the least amount of time spent. If this bill passes, get ready for more of that. During a recession with massive inflation, even fewer Americans will be able to afford the time and legal services to defend themselves properly against the government.

Somehow, I think the Democrats know that. And yet Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) keeps insisting there are no taxes in this bill. He knows that’s just semantics. He knows you will be paying more money to the IRS, it just won’t be through an official tax. Instead, it’ll be an IRS agent demanding it from you in a letter or with a knock on your door.

Shame on him for helping to facilitate such a fraud.

If Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) has his way, it will also include a new expansion of Medicare as a vehicle with which to slow-walk all of us into Single Payer Healthcare, also known as Nationalized Healthcare.

So if you loved what happened during C***D, nationalized healthcare offers up that catastrophe on steroids. The only question left will be how many more of our seniors can politicians send to their deaths in nursing homes? Because after all, health insurance is not about access to healthcare, it’s about bureaucrats deciding who will not be granted access.

Whether this bill passes or not, it is a stark reminder of what the Democrats are capable of as we continue to suffer under their already disastrous policies. This Schumer-Manchin bill is a shill for a massive government expansion and the destruction of your financial independence. After all the damage politicians have inflicted on our lives during the past 18 months, they have stepped up to enforce the final indignity—they want to make us all wards of the state. This cannot continue and will not if we make sure our voices are heard.

straightUp Loc: California

tbutkovich wrote:

The Pro a******n v**ers will win out over those v**ers wanting a better economy. Sexual freedom trumps gas prices. The Democrats will come out on top again in the November e******n.

Schitt Happens!

You maybe right about the results... but it won't be over sexual freedom, it will be over the right to privacy, which is what Roe v Wade was about. In fact the word "a******n" never even appears in the 1973 decision. The reason why many people think overturning Roe v Wade is more significant than the economy is that it damages the Constitution (specifically by denying the due process clause in both the 5th and 14th amendments when assessing an American's right to privacy.

It's not like the economy which always bounces back anyway. A court precedent, by contrast, doesn't bounce back at all... they have to be overruled by another court decision.

Think about it - it took conservatives almost 50 years to reverse the Roe v Wade decision that the Constitution DOES protect a woman's right to privacy. Almost 50 years! In that time the economy has had numerous recessions and lots of inflation and a total crash in 2007.

I'm not saying we should dismiss the economy entirely - obviously the economy has a real impact on us as Americans. What I am saying is that it's not unreasonable to v**e on an issue that the government has direct control over, such as whether or not we have a right to our own privacy as opposed to issues like the economy which the government has so little control over anyway.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

straightUp wrote:

LOL - says who? You're wishful thinking?

Actually, the average citizens of some of those countries like Iceland and Denmark who are almost completely on g***n e****y now are enjoying a much better standard of living than the average American does.

Look up Sri Lanka and Chad dimwit.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

straightUp wrote:

I think Democrats need to be a little better at choosing names for their policies and campaigns… Defunding the Police for instance is a horrible name for a policy that doesn't actually defund the police. But how would anyone, without the time to research policy, know that? You push a campaign to the public, calling it "defund the police" and people are going to think you are trying to put an end to law enforcement by stopping all funding for it. Duh.

The latest one is the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022… What?

It's not like inflation has ever been a policy that Congress can just switch on and off. Inflation, in the simplest terms, is the result of too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. In other words, market dynamics not government policy. That doesn't mean government policy won't have an affect but wh**ever effect that might be will be indirect and secondary to market influences.

It's just as absurd for Democrats to act like they can drive the economy with policies as it is for Republicans to act like the Democrats already have. Business drives the economy people - not the government. As long as our economy is based on free-market capitalism, there can be no one else to blame for when the economy sucks - It's always business and if the government is involved at all - the impact is indetectable against the larger influences of the market.

I have seen numerous conflicting opinions by reputable economists… some say the bill will inadvertently spike inflation, some say it will decrease inflation. We have to understand that none of them actually know. They are all making educated guesses at what effect a government policy is going to have on an already volatile market.

Most of these economists agree that wh**ever fluctuation the policy imparts on inflation - it won't be all that significant. I'll certainly agree with that. I would also point out that what *IS* significant are the wide assortment of deals baked into this bill. So let's get real… This bill is NOT an inflation reduction act - It's a budget reconciliation act. So why can't the Democrats call it what it is?

We can hope the effect on inflation will be to our advantage but I wouldn't expect much either way… I think the national conversation needs to be focused more on provisions themselves.

As for inflation, I think we need to learn how to be more discriminating about the market. If people want a revolution that will be where it happens.

As for the Democrats… stop trying to sell your policies to the TV audience, with misleading titles. I know it works but it's dishonest and at this point in time, the American people really need some straight talk.

I think Democrats need to be a little better at ch... (show quote)

You and I disagree a lot, but not on this. Both parties do a lot of exaggerating, but openly lying is the Democrats number one tactic. Their number on strategy is "the end justifies the means."

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

JFlorio wrote:

This is a horrible bill. Filled with pork. Any econ 101 student knows you cannot reduce inflation by spending more money. Also, be very skeptical of any Bill, from either side of the aisle that says in the short termdeficits will go up but ten years later, deficits will decrease. These lying assholes in D.C. can't predict next week let alone a decade later.
First Lie: calling this an inflation bill. The purpose of the bill is to address c*****e c****e, not inflation.
Second Lie: Helps the average American buy electric vehicles. It also provides $20 billion in cheap federal loans for automobile manufacturers to build “clean vehicle” factories and removes the cap on $7,500 tax credits for affluent Americans to buy electric vehicles.
Third Lie: I***t, compulsive liar and all around corrupt POS Biden has always said he would never raise taxes on those making less than $400,000/yr. While the bill would not reduce inflation, it would raise tax revenues by $470 billion, adding a new burden on American businesses that are already struggling under the weight of inflation, supply-chain issues and a historic labor shortage. And it breaks Biden’s promise never to raise taxes on any Americans making less than $400,000 a year. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill would raise taxes on Americans earning less than $200,000 to the tune of $16.7 billion in2023 and would generate $14.1 billion from those making between $200,000 and $500,000 a year. Indeed, Biden may be the first president to announce a major tax hike the same week that the economy entered its second straight quarter of negative growth — a traditional definition of recession.
Fourth lie: c*****e c****e is the number one threat to America. If that is true why do less than 1% of the
American people agree with them?
Lie five: This Bill is good for the majority of Americans: Once again, the Bill is geared towards the rich. The Biden administration is providing taxpayer subsidies to couples making $300,000 a year who can already afford a Tesla. So, calling this legislation what it really is, a climate tax will never be uttered by the liars in D.C..
Lie Six: (Not in the bill) We are not in a recession. Really? So, two quarters of negative GDP is no longer considered a recession. I guarantee it will be if a Republican president ever presides over two negative quarters of GDP. I'm in the business so I track the economy closely. We have had an inverted bond curve recently. The two year treasury is paying more than the ten year treasury. Just know; every single recession this country has ever gone through was proceeded by an inverted bond curve.

Biden is not only a failed President, he's a compulsive, dangerous liar. H**e Trump all you want. I don't much like him but the difference in the trajectory of the country since this t*****r Biden took over is astonishing. If you have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

This is a horrible bill. Filled with pork. Any eco... (show quote)

Excellent post. I do not have your credentials, but everything you say matches what I DO know, and my own observations. Thanks.

son of witless

straightUp wrote:

You really have no clue how any of this works do you?

"Oh, yeah - well, money gets dumped into the banks and... winds up on Wall Street."

Can you get anymore vague than that? Do you even have a point?

" Big Oil and Farms have been subsidized for over 100 years now and I don't think you have the data on hand to say that government affects markets more now than it ever did. "

Sri Lanka talked like you do. Their economy was pretty good until they went Green. Now there is nothing but famine and chaos. Be careful what you wish for.

straightUp Loc: California

JFlorio wrote:

Look up Sri Lanka and Chad dimwit.

Why? Is that the league we're in? What's wrong with using Iceland and Denmark as examples?

Is it because America doesn't really stack up very well among developed nations so you're always looking for comparisons in the third world? That does seems to be a common pattern on the right where low standards make great excuses for cutting corners, like pesky regulations.

The GOP hasn't made us a third world country yet... So, if you don't mind, I'd rather compare us to Iceland and Denmark.

Sri Lanka and Chad - LOL

son of witless

straightUp wrote:

There is nothing in that article that suggests a violent attack on law enforcement by Democrats, which is what you were suggesting, so I was correct in pointing out your error.

No you weren't correct. I did not make an error. I believe my words were " The Democrats viciously attacked Law Enforcement, and your rewriting of history fools only one person, yourself. "

The word " viciously " in the context I used it did not mean " violent ". Although Democrats certainly excused a lot of " violent " attacks on the Police. My meaning, which you have I hope accidentally misinterpreted, was that Democrats verbally bad mouthed the Police constantly, never gave them the benefit of the doubt, and used them as a whipping boy, just for political gain. I am calling them viciously evil scum bags who deserve to rot in prison.

straightUp Loc: California

son of witless wrote:

" Big Oil and Farms have been subsidized for over 100 years now and I don't think you have the data on hand to say that government affects markets more now than it ever did. "

Sri Lanka talked like you do.

No they didn't... I was pointing out that we subsidized Big Oil for over 100 years. Sri Lanka didn't subsidize their oil industry ever.

son of witless wrote:

Their economy was pretty good until they went Green. Now there is nothing but famine and chaos. Be careful what you wish for.

LOL - If you had the slightest clue about Sri Lanka you would know they are in utter political and economic turmoil and they have been for a while. There's probably a 100 different reasons for their famine and chaos.

Obviously, there's a story circulating through right-wing media about some perspective in Sri Lanka where everything that county is going through is all blamed on some investment in g***n e****y. JFlorio mentioned it too, so it's kinda suspicious.

OK - So, when I search, I get references to a WSJ story that talks about Sri Lanka's failed experiment in organic agriculture. That's gotta be it 'cause there's links to that story all over the place. Well, I guess you can call organic agriculture green if you want, the article does but... it's NOT g***n e****y. LOL

It's just funny how you folks are always in such a rush to fling poo that you don't even check these things. Then I laugh then 4-5 right-wingers come at me all insulted.

son of witless

straightUp wrote:

LOL - If you had the slightest clue about Sri Lanka you would know they are in utter political turmoil and they have been for a while. Obviously, there's a story circulating through right-wing media about some perspective in Sri Lanka where everything that county is going through is all blamed on some investment in g***n e****y. JFlorio mentioned it too, so it's kinda suspicious.

Send me the link if you can.

I believe I asked you if you lived under a rock or in a cave when you seemed blissfully unaware of the Democrats overwhelming and " Vicious " attacks on Police. Now I have to ask where were you that you seem also blissfully unaware of the reports of Sri Lanka, it's green policies and it's current mess. I have found numerous links and articles and my dilemma is which one to send to you, because based on the recent past, you are not likely to accept what I give you.

Well since I must give you something, or risk being as indecisive as Joe Biden, here you go.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2022/07/11/the-tragedy-of-sri-lanka-a-cautionary-tale-on-going-green-stems-from-a-fertilizer-reduction-policy/

son of witless

straightUp wrote:

LOL - If you had the slightest clue about Sri Lank... (show quote)

Green is green. The same numbskulls pushing organic agriculture are the same ones pushing renewable energy. Green is green and brain dead is brain dead, and stupid is stupid.

straightUp Loc: California

son of witless wrote:

No you weren't correct. I did not make an error. I believe my words were " The Democrats viciously attacked Law Enforcement, and your rewriting of history fools only one person, yourself. "

The word " viciously " in the context I used it did not mean " violent ".

OK... I mean Webster's definition... vicious: adj: deliberately cruel or violent, so... 'can't blame me for misunderstanding that one. But I see now - you were being dramatic about verbal communication. I'm still not buying it though... because I haven't seen any examples of a Democrat leader bad mouthing a police officer either. Are you sure you aren't talking about regular people who probably v**e Democrat but don't actually represent anyone aside from themselves?

son of witless wrote:

Although Democrats certainly excused a lot of " violent " attacks on the Police.

I haven't actually seen Democrats make any excuses for violent attacks on the police either.

son of witless wrote:

My meaning, which you have I hope accidentally misinterpreted, was that Democrats verbally bad mouthed the Police constantly, never gave them the benefit of the doubt, and used them as a whipping boy, just for political gain. I am calling them viciously evil scum bags who deserve to rot in prison.

I haven't seen any of that either. I suspect you got this mental brew into which you're adding the reactions from people on the streets, the legal arguments from prosecutors and the policy concerns of the Democrats and you're just mixing it all together into one F U.

Emotions will do that.