Yes, the country doesn't care because the country knows the deficit is only falling because of emergency pandemic spending. The country is right. You lost that argument.
and the odds are that if the Rs had had unified gummint after the 2020 election they would have again cut taxes and instead of this amazing fiscal recovery, we'd have a far larger deficit.
Yes, the country doesn't care because the country knows the deficit is only falling because of emergency pandemic spending. The country is right. You lost that argument.
and the odds are that if the Rs had had unified gummint after the 2020 election they would have again cut taxes and instead of this amazing fiscal recovery, we'd have a far larger deficit.
but anyway, it seems 80% clear that the price of gasoline is the swing factor here that will decide the future of the nation, not a clear analysis of which party is a responsible steward of the nation's spending and income.
well geez if you want to start talking about how making companies pay taxes is actually a tax hike on individuals....well that just sends you off down into the rabbit hole . I'll reject that as impossible to calculate and not a valid criticism of the bill.
Yeah, that's sort of what Republican spin on the JCT analysis comes down to.
The JCT does not actually say that these individuals will get a tax rate hike. And it doesn't take into account any savings individuals get, like prescription drug savings.
well geez if you want to start talking about how making companies pay taxes is actually a tax hike on individuals....well that just sends you off down into the rabbit hole . I'll reject that as impossible to calculate and not a valid criticism of the bill.
Yeah, that's sort of what Republican spin on the JCT analysis comes down to.
The JCT does not actually say that these individuals will get a tax rate hike. And it doesn't take into account any savings individuals get, like prescription drug savings.
Where's the analysis that says this bill will save trillions on climate change disasters?
Yeah, that's sort of what Republican spin on the JCT analysis comes down to.
The JCT does not actually say that these individuals will get a tax rate hike. And it doesn't take into account any savings individuals get, like prescription drug savings.
Where's the analysis that says this bill will save trillions on climate change disasters?
Glad you asked. Just the losses in US tax revenue goes up to $2 trillion per year by the end of the century.
But that's just for starters.
We are still waiting on full analysis of the bill, but Jesse Jenkins from Princeton says his early estimate puts emissions reduction from the bill at 800m to 1b tons per year by 2030.
Without this bill, there is no realistic path to meet our climate goals.
And here is what OMB says will happen if we don't change our climate policies. This is limited to the US federal government and doesn't begin to count private losses in the US and around the world.:
The fiscal risk of climate change is immense. An analysis by the Network for Greening the Financial System estimated that, under current policy pathways, climate change could reduce U.S. GDP by 3 to 10 percent by the end of this century. The new Budget analyses found that, at the upper end of that range, climate change could lead to an annual Federal revenue loss at the end of the century of 7.1 percent, which in today’s dollars would equal $2 trillion per year. Furthermore, the analyses found that, the Federal Government could spend between an additional $25 billion to $128 billion annually on just six types of Federal expenditure: coastal disaster relief, flood insurance, crop insurance, healthcare insurance, wildland fire suppression, and flooding at Federal facilities. A few specific examples of these potential impacts include:
*Federal expenditures on crop insurance premium subsidies are projected to increase 3.5 to 22 percent each year due to climate change-induced crop losses by the late-century, the equivalent of between $330 million and $2.1 billion annually.
* Increased hurricane frequency could drive up spending on coastal disaster response between $22 billion and $94 billion annually by the end of the century.
* Rising wildland fire activity could increase Federal wildland fire suppression expenditures by between $1.55 billion and $9.60 billion annually, the equivalent of an increase between 78 percent and 480 percent, by the end of the century.
* Over 12,195 individual Federal buildings and structures could be inundated under ten feet of sea level rise, with total combined replacement cost of over $43.7 billion.
Manchin-Schumer bill would reinstate tax on imported oil and petroleum products Included in the Manchin-Schumer bill is a 16.4 cents-per-barrel tax on crude oil imports
A bill spearheaded by Sens. Schumer and Manchin and supported by Biden would reinstate an excise tax on oil imports, which critics say will be passed on to consumers.
Where's the analysis that says this bill will save trillions on climate change disasters?
Glad you asked. Just the losses in US tax revenue goes up to $2 trillion per year by the end of the century. Please provide the assumptions.
But that's just for starters.
We are still waiting on full analysis of the bill, but Jesse Jenkins from Princeton says his early estimate puts emissions reduction from the bill at 800m to 1b tons per year by 2030. That's nice, but who is to say that China and India will curb their emissions.
Without this bill, there is no realistic path to meet our climate goals. Whose goals?
And here is what OMB says will happen if we don't change our climate policies. This is limited to the US federal government and doesn't begin to count private losses in the US and around the world.:
The fiscal risk of climate change is immense. An analysis by the Network for Greening the Financial System estimated that, under current policy pathways, climate change could reduce U.S. GDP by 3 to 10 percent by the end of this century. The new Budget analyses found that, at the upper end of that range, climate change could lead to an annual Federal revenue loss at the end of the century of 7.1 percent, which in today’s dollars would equal $2 trillion per year. Furthermore, the analyses found that, the Federal Government could spend between an additional $25 billion to $128 billion annually on just six types of Federal expenditure: coastal disaster relief, flood insurance, crop insurance, healthcare insurance, wildland fire suppression, and flooding at Federal facilities. A few specific examples of these potential impacts include:
*Federal expenditures on crop insurance premium subsidies are projected to increase 3.5 to 22 percent each year due to climate change-induced crop losses by the late-century, the equivalent of between $330 million and $2.1 billion annually. The US spends about $1.1 trillion on food annually. An extra 0.19% pales (using the worst case $2.1 billion figure) in comparison to the 12.2% that groceries went up last year in response to higher gas and diesel prices under Biden's environmental policies. The cost of climate change policies exceed the benefits they provide in this scenario.
* Increased hurricane frequency could drive up spending on coastal disaster response between $22 billion and $94 billion annually by the end of the century. This is an issue for insurers. If insurance premiums escalate in coastal communities it will discourage people from building / living on the coasts (rather than putting a premium on coastal real estate as we have today). Ironically a lot of coastal communities have economies supported by tourism. In this scenario, the damage is being done by those whose economic activity created the issue.
* Rising wildland fire activity could increase Federal wildland fire suppression expenditures by between $1.55 billion and $9.60 billion annually, the equivalent of an increase between 78 percent and 480 percent, by the end of the century. The US spends about $1.1 trillion on food annually. An extra 0.87% pales (using the worst case $9.6 billion figure) in comparison to the 12.2% that groceries went up last year in response to higher gas and diesel prices under Biden's environmental policies. The cost of climate change policies exceed the benefits they provide in this scenario.
* Over 12,195 individual Federal buildings and structures could be inundated under ten feet of sea level rise, with total combined replacement cost of over $43.7 billion. This is an issue for insurers. If insurance premiums escalate in coastal communities it will discourage people from building / living on the coasts (rather than putting a premium on coastal real estate as we have today). Ironically a lot of coastal communities have economies supported by tourism. In this scenario, the damage is being done by those whose economic activity created the issue.
Countries are not going to stop utilizing fossil fuels. If we stop, it will only decrease the wholesale cost for other countries. Do you think China and India are going to stop using them? Did they stop using coal when we stopped using it (US coal consumption declined from 2008-2020 (and actually bumped up in 2021, Biden's first year in office)? Do you think Russia will stop using and producing them? How about Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, the Emirates, etc.? If the costs of combatting climate change exceed the benefits, it is difficult to justify undertaking them.
Glad you asked. Just the losses in US tax revenue goes up to $2 trillion per year by the end of the century.
But that's just for starters.
We are still waiting on full analysis of the bill, but Jesse Jenkins from Princeton says his early estimate puts emissions reduction from the bill at 800m to 1b tons per year by 2030.
Without this bill, there is no realistic path to meet our climate goals.
And here is what OMB says will happen if we don't change our climate policies. This is limited to the US federal government and doesn't begin to count private losses in the US and around the world.:
I already know climate change costs a lot in theory. But how much of that does *this bill* prevent? and how does it compare to what we would save by not spending money or investing elsewhere?
The Defense Department wiped the phones of top departing DOD and Army officials at the end of the Trump administration, deleting any texts from key witnesses to events surrounding the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, according to court filings.
Example 1 of a million why Dems run the country better.
One of the highest goals of the Dem Party is to get people health insurance. Whereas the Repubs spent a decade trying to take it away.
Now a record percent of Americans have insurance.92%. Thanks Obama.
WASHINGTON – A record low 8% of Americans lacked health insurance at the start of the year, according to an analysis by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Servicesprovided first to USA TODAY. More than 5 million people have gained coverage since 2020, according to the department’s review of household survey data. The drop comes after Democrats temporarily boosted insurance premium subsidies and ramped up outreach to help people enroll in Obamacare plans created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
from Vindman. Note that in one form or the other Trump took the opposite side of each of these.
Too many talk about US decline. Way too many want an isolationist disengaged America. But look at the last ~24 hours. The US provided Ukraine $500 million in critical military aid, killed the #1 terrorist off in Afghanistan & girded democracy in Taiwan. No one else could do that.
Two Arizona Republicans recruited by allies of former President Donald J. Trump to join an effort to keep him in office after he lost the 2020 election grew so concerned about the plan that they told lawyers working on it that they feared their actions could be seen as treason, according to emails reviewed by The New York Times.
Kelli Ward, the chairwoman of the Arizona Republican Party, and Kelly Townsend, a state senator, were both said to have expressed concerns to Mr. Trump’s lawyers in December 2020 about participating in a plan to sign on to a slate of electors claiming that Mr. Trump had won Arizona, even though Joseph R. Biden Jr. had won the state.
Glad you asked. Just the losses in US tax revenue goes up to $2 trillion per year by the end of the century.
But that's just for starters.
We are still waiting on full analysis of the bill, but Jesse Jenkins from Princeton says his early estimate puts emissions reduction from the bill at 800m to 1b tons per year by 2030.
Without this bill, there is no realistic path to meet our climate goals.
And here is what OMB says will happen if we don't change our climate policies. This is limited to the US federal government and doesn't begin to count private losses in the US and around the world.:
I already know climate change costs a lot in theory. But how much of that does *this bill* prevent? and how does it compare to what we would save by not spending money or investing elsewhere?
This bill takes a very substantial amount of GHGs out of the atmosphere and at least gives us a chance to meet our climate goals.
Like I said, the cost of doing nothing on climate is trillions and trillions of dollars. The greater cost is a miserable life for your grandchildren.
amusing that the IRA bill won passage by giving the energy industry goodies. Ah politics. As many have said, you never want to know how sausages are made or how bills get through legislatures.
NYT:
To secure the deal, Democrats had to make some concessions that are likely to displease environmental activists, The Times’s Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman report.
The bill would require the Interior Department to hold lease sales for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and the Cook Inlet in Alaska. It expands tax credits for carbon capture technology that could allow coal or gas-burning power plants to keep operating with lower emissions. Manchin also secured a promise from Democratic leaders to vote on a separate measure to speed up the permit process for energy infrastructure, potentially smoothing the way for projects like a gas pipeline in West Virginia.
The failure of the KS constitutional referendum has changed the midterms. It seems clear that voters are very motivated by the end of Roe and will show up to vote out those who wish to restrict reproductive rights.
538 has had the Ds as favorites to keep the senate for a while
After yesterday's vote predictit flipped also, now making the Ds slight favorites to keep the Senate.
Quite a month Biden has had. Adding this to his long list of legislative triumphs.
amusing that the IRA bill won passage by giving the energy industry goodies. Ah politics. As many have said, you never want to know how sausages are made or how bills get through legislatures.
NYT:
To secure the deal, Democrats had to make some concessions that are likely to displease environmental activists, The Times’s Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman report.
The bill would require the Interior Department to hold lease sales for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and the Cook Inlet in Alaska. It expands tax credits for carbon capture technology that could allow coal or gas-burning power plants to keep operating with lower emissions. Manchin also secured a promise from Democratic leaders to vote on a separate measure to speed up the permit process for energy infrastructure, potentially smoothing the way for projects like a gas pipeline in West Virginia.
Yeah, and there are other goodies for Manchin as well.
Under current law, Toyota will soon hit the 200,000 cap on tax credits for their plugin hybrid cards like the Prius Prime and Rav4 Prime. Thus Toyota will lose the tax credits it currently enjoys on its plugin hybrid vehicles.
Plus the bill has a special carve-out for hydrogen powered vehicles that only Toyota makes.
And, the bill keeps the credit in place for plug-in hybrids, eliminating the 200,000 vehicle cap, even though most experts say we should only incentivize full EVs instead of the hybrids.
What state is home to a 2,000 person US Toyota plant and is the only one that makes hybrid transaxles in North America?
The failure of the KS constitutional referendum has changed the midterms. It seems clear that voters are very motivated by the end of Roe and will show up to vote out those who wish to restrict reproductive rights.
538 has had the Ds as favorites to keep the senate for a while
After yesterday's vote predictit flipped also, now making the Ds slight favorites to keep the Senate.
Quite a month Biden has had. Adding this to his long list of legislative triumphs.
The democrats discovered strategy. It’s a surprise to us all
The failure of the KS constitutional referendum has changed the midterms. It seems clear that voters are very motivated by the end of Roe and will show up to vote out those who wish to restrict reproductive rights.
538 has had the Ds as favorites to keep the senate for a while
After yesterday's vote predictit flipped also, now making the Ds slight favorites to keep the Senate.
Quite a month Biden has had. Adding this to his long list of legislative triumphs.
The democrats discovered strategy. It’s a surprise to us all
nah Dems didn't discover strategy.
the nation is broadly supportive of reproductive rights, and it is a big motivator to get Ds to the polls. That will keep happening, and have a strong effect on midterms and beyond.
I've said for years turning over Roe would help Ds in some ways. We're seeing that now.
The failure of the KS constitutional referendum has changed the midterms. It seems clear that voters are very motivated by the end of Roe and will show up to vote out those who wish to restrict reproductive rights.
538 has had the Ds as favorites to keep the senate for a while
After yesterday's vote predictit flipped also, now making the Ds slight favorites to keep the Senate.
Quite a month Biden has had. Adding this to his long list of legislative triumphs.
You take what you can get, obviously, but when roughly half the country wants - and will apparently get - a Trumper-controlled House....hard for this American to be real thrilled.
Just imagine that. America 2022. One party CLEARLY shows that it's mostly OK with stealing a presidential election. And roughly half of the voters are STILL OK with that party controlling the House of Representatives (you know, cuz of transgenders and illegal farm workers and AOC and stuff.....).
And the Senate, too, of course, if they had their way.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.