Inflation Reduction Act of 2022

[Anonymous]

I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.

But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?

Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?

Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.

Actually, vote Democrat if you think gas should be expensive and lower and middle class people should be paying more taxes.
Because, those will be the consequences of this piece of $hit legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?

Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.

Actually, vote Democrat if you think gas should be expensive and lower and middle class people should be paying more taxes.
Because, those will be the consequences of this piece of $hit legislation.

The vote on insulin was *right there.* Your fear mongering about taxes on the poor & gas prices is just hand waving and lies. But I’ll give you a chance: how many more dollars per year does this bill force an individual making $35,000 per year to pay in taxes?

[Anonymous]

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep.

Who is “your”? It’s not all of us. You meant to send this to wealthy tax cheats because that’s where the money is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.

But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.

There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.

But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.

There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.

The jobs that produce these induction cooktops and electric cars and solar panels are coming to red states. So they are in fact benefiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.

But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.

There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.

"Furious about how the Presidency was stolen"

WTF

People in red states buy those things as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?

Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.

Actually, vote Democrat if you think gas should be expensive and lower and middle class people should be paying more taxes.
Because, those will be the consequences of this piece of $hit legislation.

Liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.

But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.

There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.

Dude, the Republicans voted to filibuster affordable insulin. If they can’t support that, they won’t support anything. Their only mission is to obstruct progress so they can blame Democrats for lack of progress. They’re psychotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.

But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.

There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.

Well, Florida apparently has the second highest number of EV registrations, after California. So there’s that. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/mobile/10962

And why wouldn’t people in Tennessee put in solar panels, if they were affordable? This bill would make them affordable. I would think rugged individualistic conservative types would ENJOY not being beholden to regulated electric companies for their home energy needs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone versed in government legislation explain why this can (or cannot) be repealed in two years? If the Republicans end up controlling both the Presidency and Senate in 2025, couldn't they roll back every climate-friendly provision in this law?

Sure. That’s democracy. Vote for Democrats if you think insulin should be affordable. Vote for Republicans if you think affordable insulin should be filibustered.

Actually, vote Democrat if you think gas should be expensive and lower and middle class people should be paying more taxes.
Because, those will be the consequences of this piece of $hit legislation.

1) gas is more expensive because of a booing economy and price gauging by the oil companies - just look at their record profits
2) If you make over $400,000 then you may pay more taxes. Boo hoo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad. The Democrats really need to do a much better job selling this landmark bill to the public. Democrats traditionally suck at messaging.

But I’m glad. It’s far from perfect but I’m old enough not to let perfect be the enemy of good.

I hope the Democrats can understand that the Senate was completely divided over this. It’s not like this thing was so obviously good that it could be supported unanimously. If we had a different administration there’d be a lot more trust this would be done right.

There’s so much division in America. It would be so crass for Democrats to take this thing and hammer Republicans who are already furious about how the Presidency was stolen from Donald Trump. Who in Arkansas is purchasing induction stovetops? Who I’m Mississippi is purchasing an electric car? Who in Tennessee is purchasing solar panels? See? All these climate things are directed to BLUE states. Because they can afford to front the money to get these things. So it’s not right to trumpet an “accomplishment” that only benefits their voters. Do better.

The GOP was never going to vote for ANYTHING that helps the American public.

It wants to repeal the ACA and continues to cut taxes for the wealthy and explode the debt.

The GOP platform is literally fealty to Trump.

[Anonymous]

Why can't people in red states afford to buy electric cars or solar panels?

Because of Republican policies, that's why. GOP policies have kept them down, in lower brackets, and have not provided the subsidies needed to help shift to a greener more sustainable economy.