discussion Bernie challenges the Inflation Reduction Act

[A Bomb]

5 minutes ago, Kassi said:

 

  

What happened to paying 6 dollars? That was going to turn people more right wing?  

[A Bomb]

Never seen a more braindead response than “the oil companies are just players in the sacred market of economics  we have to do more charity and keep the corporate welfare state alive”. 

[Jotham]

Bernie is so useless.

[Communion]

16 minutes ago, Kassi said:

 

 

 

Retail pricing for a gallon of gas nationally after uhhh *checks notes* 2 years of massive COVID spending (the alleged source of inflation) was roughly $3.30. Now that the global supply of oil is reverting to pre-Russian invasion quantities as other sources of oil flow into the US and globally, there still remains a $0.70/gallon difference between the price as-was and what the current price remains. 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Communion

[Redstreak]

9 minutes ago, Communion said:

Suggesting that "$6/gallon gas" is an inevitable outcome of Dems not doubling the amount of federal land they give oil companies the permission to drill on is, by definition, an act of bad faith. That's objectively not true. 

 

By all means, play the electoral game and frame Democrats as victims to Manchin, but one can't have their cake and eat it too. One can't argue that the Dems are proposing sufficient climate change funding *and* that increasing oil and gas usage *at rates faster than we are building renewable energy sources* is "the smartest path forward".

 

But that's the M.O of that user's trolling. They can't even recognize how corporatism has enabled an oligarchy that makes Congress at-odds with voters. They've go even farther and argue that, well actually, Manchin blocking renewing free school meals "was smart and amazing to limit inflation" (free school meals wouldn't impact inflation) and that "the only other option was to do something as unpopular at $6/gas" (again, untrue and completely dishonest).

??? idc. I would like for the dems to pass a popular bill and push the momentum forward. Idk if you just happen to like wasting our time undoing Republican destructionisn because you hate democrats doing well more than republicans succeeding but I would like to see our country move to the left when it can

[judaskills]

32 minutes ago, Communion said:

Why are you knowingly proposing a false binary? You've done this now three posts in a row.

There doesn't have to be a price increase on the consumer-side if Dems held energy companies accountable.

 

You, for some reason, do not want to acknowledge that. You're framing energy corporations as gods who will never lean away from profit and so we can only act within the confines of "our actions to slow down climate change are restricted to the limits of which corporations allow us to impact or not impact their profits". 

 

Why are you lying to everyone in this thread reading? 

Why does ExxonMobile love a bill that should, in theory, spell their end? 

 

 

Your argument is: "We either pass this $300b bill that would increase dependency on oil and gas to get some renewable subsidies OR we reach the goals that progressives [aka climate scientists] say we need that will make voters hate Democrats over $6 gas that will be an inevitable outcome of anything progressives do".

...but the entire bolded portion of this argument is a lie and a fallacy.

 

You're creating a false outcome and saying it's the only outcome possible and ignoring when people call you out. We can try and stop climate catastrophe *and* hold corporations accountable if Democrats have any kind of moral backbone; in fact, holding corporations accountable is the only actual way of achieving the former.

 

 

Completely agree. I don't see how people can't grasp this. 

[Communion]

9 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

??? idc.

It is easier to just say this than to falsely accuse someone of arguing in bad faith.

 

By all means, you can prioritize elections and score-boarding. You have every right to do that.

 

But attacking someone as "arguing in bad faith" for taking issue with the material way the bill will worsen our oil and gas dependency is unfair. I'm a citizen, not a politician. Getting mad *at me* for being angry at the way the bill will worsen climate conditions because Dems can't thread the needle of electoral strategy and holding corporations accountable is unreasonable. Democrats are not the victim here. Everyone who has to live on this planet as corporations squeeze it dry are. If you're resentful, redirect that energy to Biden and Kamala for endorsing Manchin while working to weaken the chances of progressive winning in other states at the time.

 

You have every right to look towards Dems for morale and boosters, but it's not fair to lash out at those of us who focus beyond elections over the fact that what Dems claim they do doesn't line up w/ reality.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Communion

[Redstreak]

9 minutes ago, Communion said:

It is easier to just say this than to falsely accuse someone of arguing in bad faith.

 

By all means, you can prioritize elections and score-boarding. You have every right to do that.

 

But attacking someone as "arguing in bad faith" for taking issue with the material way the bill will worsen our oil and gas dependency is unfair. I'm a citizen, not a politician. Getting mad *at me* for being angry at the way the bill will worsen climate conditions because Dems can't thread the needle of electoral strategy and holding corporations accountable is unreasonable. Democrats are not the victim here. Everyone who has to live on this planet as corporations squeeze it dry are. If you're resentful, redirect that energy to Biden and Kamala for endorsing Manchin while working to weaken the chances of progressive winning in other states at the time.

 

You have every right to look towards Dems for morale and boosters, but it's not fair to lash out at those of us who focus beyond elections over the fact that what Dems claim they do doesn't line up w/ reality.

It’s fine if you’re willing to sacrifice what little time we have in combatting climate change but you can just say that instead of writing essays

 

”the bill has to be perfect or I will smash the self destruct button, I am smart”

[G.U.Y. Gaga]

He’s not wrong but this just shows he would not get a single thing done as president 

[Communion]

10 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

It’s fine if you’re willing to sacrifice what little time we have in combatting climate change

Passing this bill with such poison pills will literally make new renewable energy projects via federal dollars counter-intuitive and push us further away from whatever goal we have until an imagined timeline of 2032, thus actually sacrificing the time we have left.

 

Again, you have every right to be more invested in things like elections.

But your desire to win elections and emotional identification with Democrats doesn't change that such a provision within the IRA would literally produce more dirty energy at rates faster than clean energy projects can be built.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Communion

[phreshprince]

1 hour ago, getBusy said:

I’m sure Bernie wants to add more to the bill and make it better but can we please sign this **** and get something done before the end of Biden’s term thanks

!!! 

[Kassi]

48 minutes ago, Communion said:

Why are you knowingly proposing a false binary? You've done this now three posts in a row.

There doesn't have to be a price increase on the consumer-side if Dems held energy companies accountable.

 

You, for some reason, do not want to acknowledge that. You're framing energy corporations as gods who will never lean away from profit and so we can only act within the confines of "our actions to slow down climate change are restricted to the limits of which corporations allow us to impact or not impact their profits". 

 

Why are you lying to everyone in this thread reading? 

Why does ExxonMobile love a bill that should, in theory, spell their end? 

 

 

Your argument is: "We either pass this $300b bill that would increase dependency on oil and gas to get some renewable subsidies OR we reach the goals that progressives [aka climate scientists] say we need that will make voters hate Democrats over $6 gas that will be an inevitable outcome of anything progressives do".

...but the entire bolded portion of this argument is a lie and a fallacy.

 

You're creating a false outcome and saying it's the only outcome possible and ignoring when people call you out. We can try and stop climate catastrophe *and* hold corporations accountable if Democrats have any kind of moral backbone; in fact, holding corporations accountable is the only actual way of achieving the former.

 

 

All you're pointing out is that it's not a perfect climate bill. Which we know...  So it circles back to my question: Are we willing to make political tradeoffs for long term gains or not?

 

The stated objective of the bill, termed the Inflation Reduction Act, is to...reduce inflation. It primarily does so by pulling money out of the high demand economy using 1) tax increases and 2) lowering the cost of prescription drugs -- both key mechanisms aimed at sucking money from the rich.

 

Then, it tackles the supply side by increasing the amount and availability of energy, both in the short term (fossil fuels) and in the long term (renewables). The intent being to actually put immediate downward pressure on inflation while weaning us off of fossil fuels in the long run. This matters because it's voters #1 issue, pick any poll!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ideal approach would obviously be to dump trillions in climate spending like yesterday, but Bernie doesn't have the votes for that in the Senate (though I'm sure Pelosi could easily pass it in the House). So everyone's annoyed at his grandstanding when he can never get anything across the finish line. This bill is $300 billion more than we had to go toward climate. 

[Communion]

2 minutes ago, Kassi said:

All you're pointing out is that it's not a perfect climate bill.

No, I have to keep pointing out that you're lying when claiming a better bill that holds corporations accountable is simply not possible, citing a farfetched claim of "$6/gas". Our limitations on climate policy are not natural or innate - they're literally the product of corruption amongst Democrats. Why do you not want to recognize this, Kassi?

 

[Kassi]

11 minutes ago, Communion said:

Passing this bill with such poison pills will literally make new renewable energy projects via federal dollars counter-intuitive and push us further away from whatever goal we have until an imagined timeline of 2032, thus actually sacrificing the time we have left.

 

Again, you have every right to be more invested in things like elections.

But your desire to win elections and emotional identification with Democrats doesn't change that such a provision within the IRA would literally produce more dirty energy at rates faster than clean energy projects can be built.

His next sentence is literally...

 

"It's all part of a balanced approach. We need more energy today [fossil fuels] and we also need to invest in the energy for the future [renewables]."

 

Why you guys insist on handing Republicans power with high gas prices is beyond me. 

 

I guess this is the future progressives want:

 

[Communion]

5 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Why you guys insist on handing Republicans power with high gas prices is beyond me. 

 

53 minutes ago, Communion said:

 

Retail pricing for a gallon of gas nationally after uhhh *checks notes* 2 years of massive COVID spending (the alleged source of inflation) was roughly $3.30. Now that the global supply of oil is reverting to pre-Russian invasion quantities as other sources of oil flow into the US and globally, there still remains a $0.70/gallon difference between the price as-was and what the current price remains. 

 

7 minutes ago, Communion said:

No, I have to keep pointing out that you're lying when claiming a better bill that holds corporations accountable is simply not possible, citing a farfetched claim of "$6/gas". Our limitations on climate policy are not natural or innate - they're literally the product of corruption amongst Democrats. Why do you not want to recognize this, Kassi?

Why do you keep lying to everyone reading, Kassi?

[Kassi]

I have my own (more detailed) graphs. But thanks!

 

 

Gas prices were on the rise before Russia and went up even further once demand rebounded (read: the weather got nice and people started to travel again).  

Best way to meet this increase in demand? Increase supply. It's not rocket science, mama. Same logic can be applied to housing, semiconductors, and whatever other commodities are contributing to inflation. Basic econ 101.

 

That's the beauty of capitalism vs communism, the market adjusts to fill demand where there is value for consumers. 

[Kassi]

Also, let the record show that $6/gallon gas is least of all "far-fetched".

 

 

 

We didn't just Hallucinate.mp3 it. Millions of Americans lived it. 

[Phuccery, Inc.]

2 hours ago, Cruel Summer said:

What a weird and disingenuous misrepresentation.

and predictably so. I knew this would be in bad faith before even coming in here. 

[Breathe On Moi]

1 hour ago, Jotham said:

Bernie is so useless.

 

1 hour ago, G.U.Y. Gaga said:

just shows he would not get a single thing done as president 

[Communion]

8 minutes ago, Kassi said:

I have my own (more detailed) graphs

An even better graph from the literal same source:

 

At no point in the past 7 years have gas prices ever normalized at the heights they have now. You're quite literally celebrating gas nationally going down to $4 when, even from the rush of everything re-opening, they only reached heights of $3.30, which is in line with the most peak price of gas nationally over 3 (!) presidencies at this point. 

 

To suggest these insane peaks are all natural and that somehow the retail price of a gallon of gas can go from costing $2/gallon to $4/gallon through "natural supply-and-demand market economics" is deeply unserious.

 

Something's not adding up, sis.

 

16 minutes ago, Kassi said:

Also, let the record show that $6/gallon gas is least of all "far-fetched".

The discussion was about the national retail price of gas. Please don't try to divert away from you lying to everyone. To claim that the retail price of gas nationally would boom from $4.50 to $6.00 if progressives held corporations accountable for price-gouging is, objectively, insane.

 

Why keep trying to make this insane argument?

 

[slik]

If Corporations benefit the people do not.

 

Bail out the people.

[Kassi]

29 minutes ago, Codex said:

I mean, that’s what’s happening in Hungary right now. The government is forcing oil companies to sell for 480 HUF instead of the market rate, which would be around 750 HUF. It hasn’t really caused a gas shortage yet, in fact, oil companies here STILL have record profits despite the price cap law. The US could do the same if Dem’s had balls ??‍♀️

It’s definitely a valid short term approach. But, at the end of the day, it’s still just a band-aid. Price capping doesn’t exactly get to the root of the problem, which is lack of supply. 

 

Even the case in Hungary confirms the basics of supply and demand. 

 

 

 

[rihannabiggestfan]

BERNIE

[DAP]

On 8/7/2022 at 11:15 AM, Kassi said:

No offense but, making people pay $6/gallon at the gas pump by restricting supply doesn’t make anyone more green. It just makes them vote Republican, who don’t even believe in climate change. 
 

It’s called an energy “transition” for a reason. 

And it’s not much of a transition if it further entrenches our dependence on these fossil fuel corporations is it?

 

A real transition is one that re-examines oil subsidies and inefficient land use practices that are most conducive to car ownership (Euclidean zoning, which this doesn’t), retrofits largely suburban cities with multi purpose zoning so daily functions won’t be segregated in districts that is again most conducive to car ownership, expand investments in public transport by hundreds of billions so civilians can have other options than driving (walking/reduce the capacity of roads for sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians, cycling and cycle lanes, buses and bus lanes to service the needs of suburban communities, trains for the needs of rural and dense urban communities) and incentivize participation (with buyback programs and tax breaks/rebates, not unlike what’s being proposed for electric cars), and this is a proposal that merely scratches the surface. Now why won’t the US government embark on that solution? Guess that helps too many people rather than subsidies that bolster corporate profits for donors 

Edited August 9, 2022 by DAP

[manwhore]

Little known secret is that Inflation Reduction Act actually will contribute to inflation and make it worse because it will print more money. All by design kiddos. All fake money and debt is needed to keep fiat and the fed afloat. Times running out.  Best Believe  it kiddos. Nothing can save the  inevitable depression