230 Economists Warn the Manchin-Schumer 'Inflation Reduction Act' Will Actually... Increase Inflation

Quote:Newsflash—increasing government spending during already inflationary times will inevitably increase inflation. Therefore it was a shock when Democrat West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, who had been talking tough on economic matters in recent years, agreed with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on a tax-hiking, union-loving “Inflation Reduction Act” which will do nothing of the sort.

Living in California, I’m used to bills being named one thing while actually effectuating something else entirely. The Golden State’s ridiculously-titled “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act” of 2014 recategorized many felonies into misdemeanors and let thousands of criminals loose, making our neighborhoods much more dangerous. Misleading titles are not written by accident and are conjured to get voters to enact things they don’t actually want.

While Democrats celebrate and start to call this the savior of Biden’s presidency, cold-eyed economists have weighed in with a dose of reality: this “Inflation Reduction Act” bill will almost certainly increase inflation despite its name.

To wit, 230 economists have sent a letter to House and Senate leadership arguing that the Manchin-Schumer bill has a “misleading label,” and that the economy is at a “dangerous crossroads.” They write:

…the “inaptly named ‘Inflation Reduction Act of 2022’ would do nothing of the sort and instead would perpetuate the same fiscal policy errors that have helped precipitate the current troubling economic climate.”

Who would have thought?

My daughter is majoring in economics. When she shows me some of her textbooks with complicated charts and insane calculations, I admit I’m out of my league. But I don’t think I need to be an econ major to know that more government spending and increased taxes are not a great idea right now while we’re in a recession and inflation is at an all-time high. The economists continue:

The economic experts point to the $433 billion in proposed government spending, which they argue “would create immediate inflationary pressures by boosting demand, while the supply-side tax hikes would constrain supply by discouraging investment and draining the private sector of much-needed resources.”

The letter, dated August 3, was signed by Nobel laureate Vernon Smith, former Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Kevin Hassett, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget Jim Miller, Robert Heller, former president of the Federal Reserve Board, in addition to professors from the University of Chicago, Princeton University, Duke University, the University of Virginia, Columbia University and the University of Notre Dame. That’s some serious firepower.

But the reality isn’t enough to persuade Chuck Schumer, who tried to sell this on the Senate floor Thursday:

The Inflation Reduction Act will lower inflation, lower the costs of prescription drugs, close loopholes long exploited by big business who pay no or little taxes.

Ok, Chuck, we’re supposed to believe that you know better. (He has his own letter from 130 economists who claim that the act “meets the needs of working families now and what our economy needs now for stronger, sustained economic growth in the years ahead.”) Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was not so enthusiastic, saying in a statement:

Democrats are catastrophically out of touch with what American families actually care about. Their approval ratings show it. And their reckless taxing and spending spree proves it, as well.

Unfortunately, it looks like Arizona Democrat Senator Krysten Sinema is now on board, meaning that the vote will largely be decided along party lines and ultimately be decided by noted economist Vice President Kamala Harris and her tie-breaking vote in the Senate.

I admit to feeling foolish for hoping that Manchin and Sinema would be the bulwarks of our defense against Leftist lunacy, as they had both helped block the insane $3 trillion Build Back Better Act and staunchly opposed abolishing the filibuster.

It would appear they’ve finally caved though, presumably to get back in the good graces of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, and their ilk, and we will all be paying the price as your grocery and gas bills keep rising.

and.....


also predicted.

i told yall he was a leaky vessel to put much faith in.

(08-04-2022 09:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I'm aware of 538. That's Nate Plastic. Bought & paid for by the Democrats

Realclearpolitics is showing the same thing. Senate is just about doomed for Republicans. And the House, if the devil lights a fire under the a$$'s of shy pro-choice voters like it did in Kansas, Republicans have to worry there as well.

(08-06-2022 02:52 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(08-04-2022 09:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I'm aware of 538. That's Nate Plastic. Bought & paid for by the Democrats

Realclearpolitics is showing the same thing. Senate is just about doomed for Republicans. And the House, if the devil lights a fire under the a$$'s of shy pro-choice voters like it did in Kansas, Republicans have to worry there as well.

Never stop posting. You make mensa look like....well...a mensa

But i do agree. Women with you should have an abortion law exemption

Democrats think that by maxing out their credit cards will make it easier to pay them off.

(08-06-2022 04:15 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Democrats think that by maxing out their credit cards will make it easier to pay them off.

No.. the historical pattern since Reagan has been Republicans cut taxes without showing a legit way to pay for it except through the far-fetched theory that trickle down economics will boost the economy enough to offset it, but it never does. Reagan milked that for all it was worth. Taxes are way too low now for that theory to hold anymore water.

Then when Democrats come back in power, they of course increase spending to solve real problems while at the same time showing they can pay for it through taking back the tax-cuts Republicans enacted. But this wouldn't have been possible if Republicans just didn't lower them to begin with, which allows Democrats to justify increased spending by raising them again. It's a vicious cycle which results in more and more deficit spending.

If Republicans would just find a way to legitly pay for tax cuts like Democrats pay for increased spending, we wouldn't have this problem.

(08-06-2022 04:44 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:15 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Democrats think that by maxing out their credit cards will make it easier to pay them off.

No.. the historical pattern since Reagan has been Republicans cut taxes without showing a legit way to pay for it except through the far-fetched theory that trickle down economics will boost the economy enough to offset it, but it never does. Reagan milked that for all it was worth. Taxes are way too low now for that theory to hold anymore water.

Then when Democrats come back in power, they of course increase spending to solve real problems while at the same time showing they can pay for it through taking back the tax-cuts Republicans enacted. But this wouldn't have been possible if Republicans just didn't lower them to begin with, which allows Democrats to justify increased spending by raising them again. It's a vicious cycle which results in more and more deficit spending.

If Republicans would just find a way to legitly pay for tax cuts like Democrats pay for increased spending, we wouldn't have this problem.

You should be doing standup somewhere. I’d pay to see you.

The Congressional Budget Office Hasn't Finished Scoring the Manchin's Inflation Reduction Act

Quote:While the Senate’s “Vote-a-Rama” for Build Back Better v2.0, better known as the Inflation Reduction Act, is underway, it seems that the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t even finished scoring the bill we’ve been assured reduces inflation.

Dear Mr. Leader:

This letter provides information about the budgetary effects of H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as amended in the nature of a substitute (ERN22410) and posted on the website of the Senate Majority Leader on August 6, 2022: http://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/medi..._20221.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet completed point estimates for every title, but for those that we have completed, the estimated budgetary effects for 2022, the 2022-2026 period, and the 2022-2031 period are shown in the attached table.

We will provide updated estimates of the other titles as soon as they are available.

Here is the CBO’s estimate so far which… would have been enough to scare Manchin away back when he pretended to be moderate.

Title I, Committee on Finance, would reduce deficits by more than $1 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title II, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, would increase deficits by less than $135 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title III, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $332 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title IV, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, would increase deficits by less than $83.076 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title V, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, would increase deficits by less than $198 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VI, Committee on Environment and Public Works, would increase deficits by less than $67.264 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VII, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $37 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VIII, Committee on Indian Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $20.5 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title IX, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, would increase deficits by less than $726.38 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

I’m not a stellar math student, but that seems like a lot of deficit increasing. No wonder the Democrats want to pass the bill before the CBO finishes scoring it.

There is still a new 30-page section to score, which was amended in recently. This is going to be another big spending bill that the Democrats will use to fund pet projects and not actually reduce any inflation with. Full steam ahead.

Special thanks to Joe Manchin, who appears to be cashing in his winnings and is on his way out the door (whether voluntarily or by force). This spending bill is entirely on him.

(08-06-2022 04:44 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:15 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Democrats think that by maxing out their credit cards will make it easier to pay them off.

No.. the historical pattern since Reagan has been Republicans cut taxes without showing a legit way to pay for it except through the far-fetched theory that trickle down economics will boost the economy enough to offset it, but it never does. Reagan milked that for all it was worth. Taxes are way too low now for that theory to hold anymore water.

Then when Democrats come back in power, they of course increase spending to solve real problems while at the same time showing they can pay for it through taking back the tax-cuts Republicans enacted. But this wouldn't have been possible if Republicans just didn't lower them to begin with, which allows Democrats to justify increased spending by raising them again. It's a vicious cycle which results in more and more deficit spending.

If Republicans would just find a way to legitly pay for tax cuts like Democrats pay for increased spending, we wouldn't have this problem.

Of course we would---because the Tax increases the Democrats enact never are really capable of paying for the wild Democrat spending programs. Why? Because the costs are ALWAYS vastly underestimated by Democrats and the revenue from Democrat tax increases is ALWAYS vastly overstated.

(08-06-2022 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:44 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(08-06-2022 04:15 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Democrats think that by maxing out their credit cards will make it easier to pay them off.

No.. the historical pattern since Reagan has been Republicans cut taxes without showing a legit way to pay for it except through the far-fetched theory that trickle down economics will boost the economy enough to offset it, but it never does. Reagan milked that for all it was worth. Taxes are way too low now for that theory to hold anymore water.

Then when Democrats come back in power, they of course increase spending to solve real problems while at the same time showing they can pay for it through taking back the tax-cuts Republicans enacted. But this wouldn't have been possible if Republicans just didn't lower them to begin with, which allows Democrats to justify increased spending by raising them again. It's a vicious cycle which results in more and more deficit spending.

If Republicans would just find a way to legitly pay for tax cuts like Democrats pay for increased spending, we wouldn't have this problem.

Of course we would---because the Tax increases the Democrats enact never are really capable of paying for the wild Democrat spending programs. Why? Because the costs are ALWAYS vastly underestimated by Democrats and the revenue from Democrat tax increases is ALWAYS vastly overstated.

Even if that is true to some extent, at least an attempt is there to show resposibility. Not just saying the economy will grow to pay for it. Also I forgot to add that under Republicans is where most of our emergency military spending comes from for totally unnecessary wars. And that's never paid for. And to think Republicans were against Biden ending the Aphganistan war. What was that? About $100 billion/year in unpaid deficit spending? Biden easily saved us at least a half trillion by ending it when he did.

Inflation Reduction Act Could Slash 30,000 Jobs If Passed

Quote:An analysis from the Tax Foundation determined that the so-called Inflation Reduction Act could result in 30,000 jobs disappearing.

The conservative organization discovered that the legislation, which is expected to be narrowly passed in the Senate this weekend, would result in significant “full-time equivalent” job losses, as well as a 0.1 percent decrease in GDP and 0.1 percent decrease in wages, The Washington Examiner reported on August 2.

On jobs specifically, the foundation said that the 15 percent minimum corporate tax would cost roughly 23,000 jobs and “carried interest” would gut another estimated 5,000.

Companies will be footing the bill for higher taxes, and they might be forced to lay employees off in order to pay less or afford their new higher amount, but Democrats are not interested in acknowledging the trickle-down effect.

When referencing the bill’s supposed intention, to reduce inflation, it’s unclear what it would actually do.

From the foundation:

Lastly, to the extent the durability of the bill’s provisions are in doubt—that is, due to the lack of bipartisan support—it may have little impact on expectations about the fiscal outlook and therefore inflation. On balance, the long-run impact on inflation is particularly uncertain but likely close to zero.

As RedState reported, it’s true that the July jobs report surpassed expectations by adding on 528,000 jobs and touts a 3.5 percent unemployment rate, but the hype around the report misses the point. What’s hurting Americans most is inflation, as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. With the annual inflation rate at 9.1 percent as of the June report, it’s clear that while Americans are working, prices are still doing damage.

According to Federal Reserve Economic data, the average American does not have as much disposable income as they used to. American Enterprise Institute fellow Jay Cost posted the chart to Twitter, which shows a significant spike when stimulus checks were given out, but that extra cash quickly fizzled out.

One thing is clear: The Inflation Reduction Act does not live up to its name, and it seems more likely than not that it will do more harm than good. As high government spending is the main factor for this inflation mess, it should be known that throwing more cash at the issue will not resolve it.

(08-06-2022 06:23 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  The Congressional Budget Office Hasn't Finished Scoring the Manchin's Inflation Reduction Act

Quote:While the Senate’s “Vote-a-Rama” for Build Back Better v2.0, better known as the Inflation Reduction Act, is underway, it seems that the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t even finished scoring the bill we’ve been assured reduces inflation.

Dear Mr. Leader:

This letter provides information about the budgetary effects of H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as amended in the nature of a substitute (ERN22410) and posted on the website of the Senate Majority Leader on August 6, 2022: http://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/medi..._20221.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet completed point estimates for every title, but for those that we have completed, the estimated budgetary effects for 2022, the 2022-2026 period, and the 2022-2031 period are shown in the attached table.

We will provide updated estimates of the other titles as soon as they are available.

Here is the CBO’s estimate so far which… would have been enough to scare Manchin away back when he pretended to be moderate.

Title I, Committee on Finance, would reduce deficits by more than $1 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title II, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, would increase deficits by less than $135 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title III, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $332 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title IV, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, would increase deficits by less than $83.076 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title V, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, would increase deficits by less than $198 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VI, Committee on Environment and Public Works, would increase deficits by less than $67.264 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VII, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $37 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VIII, Committee on Indian Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $20.5 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title IX, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, would increase deficits by less than $726.38 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

I’m not a stellar math student, but that seems like a lot of deficit increasing. No wonder the Democrats want to pass the bill before the CBO finishes scoring it.

There is still a new 30-page section to score, which was amended in recently. This is going to be another big spending bill that the Democrats will use to fund pet projects and not actually reduce any inflation with. Full steam ahead.

Special thanks to Joe Manchin, who appears to be cashing in his winnings and is on his way out the door (whether voluntarily or by force). This spending bill is entirely on him.

CBO will release their figures the Wednesday after election day.

Water Weight in the Sausage: Inflation Act Drought Amendment Trickles Down Western Resident's Rights and Money

Quote:The Senate is working overtime this weekend to pass the $433 billion spending bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (D- W. VA), entertaining a marathon of amendments in the budget reconciliation process. Unlike most legislation passed in the Senate, the reconciliation process doesn’t require a super-majority of sixty votes, but a simple majority of fifty. With the chamber split 50/50 between the parties, Vice President Kamala Harris is anticipated to cast the tie-breaking vote, if the GOP holds strong on party lines.

Earlier this week, moderate Senator from Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, was the final Democrat hold-out who signaled her support after her revisions to the package were adopted. Aside from changes to the proposed provisions about taxation on certain investment incomes, known as carried interest, Sen. Sinema secured $4 billion in climate change funding for western states faced with droughts.

The reconciliation process is a now-commonplace albeit baffling maneuver to get Democrat centerpiece policies passed by using special parliamentary procedures to short-cut the legislative process… and consensus. In late July, President Joe Biden admitted much of the Act was rebranded Build Back Better agenda items saying,

“Some of you will see a lot of similarities between the beginning — (laughs) — of the Build Back Better initiative. It’s not all of it, but we’ve moved a long way.”

So, here’s the playbook: Take ideas that were tabled, tell Americans that major congressional spending bills combat inflation, and ram it through a backdoor, partisan process on a Saturday. Indeed, we see a lot of similarities, this ain’t our first reconciliation rodeo.

Water Weight in the Sausage


For Western states, if passed, billions of taxpayer dollars will be allocated from the federal government to the municipalities, earmarked to buy private water rights. Wait, has fascism ever been sold to the public on the premise of combatting inflation before?

In a Friday letter that raises more concern than relief, Family Farm Bureau Executive director Dan Kappen who pushed for the drought provisions wrote,

“Well, the sausage making is wrapped up, and an agreement has been reached on Western Drought provisions that will be proposed for inclusion in the Democrats’ ‘Inflation Reduction Act.’ “

U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Michael Bennet (D-CO) announced the sausage-making agreement to include $4 billion in funding for the Bureau of Reclamation on Friday. All three Senators are up for re-election in states where water politics are being touted as climate change action to voters. California was not included as a potential recipient of the allocations in the announcement, with their Senators having no statements on the drought provisions.

The Bureau of Reclamation is the entity that announced in May, that they would be withholding water releases from Lake Powell in Utah and Arizona to Lake Mead in Nevada. The man-made reservoir of Lake Mead is the largest in the nation, supplying water to 25 million people and feeding the Hoover Dam, which generates enough electricity for 8 million people annually. Lake Mead was denied 480,000 acre-feet of water, which equates to 156 billion gallons, due to concern that the low water level would cause power-generating turbines to stop working at Lake Powell.

Now, Lake Mead is at its lowest level ever. Las Vegas area residents are hyper-aware of the situation as the third set of human remains was found in the shrinking lake. The Southern Nevada Water Authority sent full-page mailers to residential customers this week urging them to follow watering restrictions, report water waste to generate fines, and apply for rebates to remove turf grass. While voters are continuously bombarded with water-crisis information they aren’t being specifically told that the man-made lake is low because well… we didn’t put water in it.

Trickle-down Effects


While the federal spending will trickle down to municipalities, local Democrats’ water policies already impact Las Vegas families. The fully Democrat Clark County Commission voted unanimously in July to limit the pool size of new single-family homes to 600 square feet. The water rules do not stop at new construction but impact families who have already purchased their homes as well. Assembly Bill 356, passed by a Democrat legislative majority and signed by Democrat Governor Steve Sisolak last year states:

“the waters of the Colorado River that are distributed by the Southern Nevada Water Authority… may not be used to irrigate nonfunctional turf on any property that is not zoned exclusively for a single-family residence.”

Compliance with the new law is required by 2027, but that hasn’t slowed the fiscal impact on homeowners. Residents of the Sun City Anthem community were blindsided with $12,000 estimated costs from their HOA for removing trees, grass, and other landscaping from the common areas of the subdivision. While the local water authority will pay $3 per sq foot to tear out your lawn, there isn’t compensation for the government taking imposed by this Nevada law.

The attitude toward private property in the Dem-led state becomes clear when you examine their policies regarding how property owners are allowed to use their own homes. On Thursday, Clark County, its Commissioners, and the State of Nevada were sued by short-term rental hosts. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs, part of the Greater Las Vegas Short-Term Rental Association argue the new regulations are unconstitutional saying,

“Where they’re giving themselves power to come to your property, your private property at any time that they want. They want you to shut everything down by 9 pm and you can’t even use your pool at a certain time.”

When Louis Koorndyk, a founder of GLVSTRA and plaintiff in suit, rented out properties for less than 31 days in unincorporated Clark County, he accrued $62,000 in fines and liens.

There was an outright ban on short-term rentals in unincorporated parts of Clark County prior to the passage of AB363. Representatives from Airbnb opposed the original draft of the bill saying it “would essentially ban any meaningful short-term rental activity.”

Clark County responded to the new law by creating a lottery system that will provide less than one percent of more than 12,000 illegally operating rental hosts the opportunity to buy a license… as in paying the county to use their private property.

Lawsuit plaintiffs have found support from local organizations devoted to free market policies. Robert Fellner, Vice President of Nevada Policy Research Institute supports the plaintiff’s lawsuit, telling RedState,

AB363 and the rules preventing people from renting their own homes is a great example of why so many people distrust government.

In a free society, people have the right to do what they want with their own property. There are plenty of laws already on the books that can deal with public nuisances. But rather than enforce those laws, the Clark County Commission has instead chosen to treat property owners as criminals if they dare to rent their homes to someone for less than 31 days. It is unquestionable that such a brazen violation of property rights would have been regarded as unconstitutional by the Framers of the Nevada Constitution, and I hope the lawsuit challenging these laws prevail. Voters should also seek to replace every elected official who voted for these laws at their earliest opportunity.

The answer to a government too incompetent to enforce existing public nuisance laws is better government, not criminalizing law-abiding citizens who wish to use their own property in a peaceful manner.

Authorities in Nevada have shown disregard for private property rights as demonstrated by a series of policies that continue to burden residents with excessive costs and red tape. The extreme Democrat policies already exert a tight fist on locals and the inclusion of drought funding in the Inflation Spending Act signals private water rights are up for government-grabs as the next frontier of liquid gold in the desert.

Update: A fourth set of remains has now been discovered at Lake Mead.

GOP Holds Massive 'Vote-a-rama' on Manchin-Schumer Deal to Expose the Dem Lies

Quote:On Saturday, the Democrats continued trying to get the votes through in the Senate on the Manchin-Schumer deal that the two politicians falsely named the Inflation Reduction Act.

But Republicans have been introducing all kinds of amendments — a vote-a-rama — to hold up the deal and expose how false some of the Democratic claims about the bill are. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was offering amendments as well, to add things he wanted to the bill. They’ve been going for more than 24 hours now.

But as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) explained, perhaps few things in the bill are as bad as the lie the Democrats are trying to sell about the hiring of 87,000 more IRS agents, acting as though it’s only going to go after “billionaires” to make them pay their fair share. We should be scaling back the IRS–not building it up. If we were spending money on anything, it should be border agents.

Cruz explained this would equal more than a million new audits, with most of them landing on those making $75,000 or less. He said he wanted to abolish the IRS, “but, at a minimum, we shouldn’t make the IRS larger than the Pentagon, the State Department, the FBI, and the Border Patrol — all combined.” He proposed an amendment to curtail that part of the bill.

This chart, posted by Fox’s Jacqui Heinrich, shows how the audits would likely be distributed using the $80 billion to the Internal Revenue Service — nearly six times the agency’s current annual budget. It’s concentrating far more on the lower and middle class, if this is true.

So Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) put them to the test. He offered an amendment saying that they weren’t going to use this bill to go after people making below $400,000 — Joe Biden’s tax promise. What did they do? The Democrats voted it down, as well as Cruz’s amendment, showing exactly what liars they are.

We know how the Obama team used the IRS and see how the FBI has been politicized. Can we have any doubt that the IRS will be further weaponized as well?

In the middle of a recession, they’re going to increase taxes, including on oil.

They’re stomping on domestic production and taxing imports, which will then be passed on to the rest of us. So, if the gas prices were going down, watch them go back up, if this passes.

Cruz also introduced an amendment to prevent Biden from selling oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the CCP. The Democrats voted against that, as well.

This Manchin-Schumer deal is likely to pass, now that they have all the Democrats in the Senate likely “yes” votes, although there’s a slight possibility that vulnerable Democrats in the House might nix it still. But along the way, the Republicans are going to point out every lie–and just how much this all will hurt the American people in the process.

(08-04-2022 09:33 PM)scorpius Wrote:  People talk as if the Democrats are doing poorly right now in polling. That's not not the case. In fact, Dems are favored 58% to keep control of the Senate and granted still only 18% for the House, both these numbers have been trending wildly towards the Dems the past few weeks. If the trend continues for the next couple months, they could easily keep control of both chambers. Generic polling right now for the first time in about a year has it tied on which party the public wants in control of Congress. Again this is trending wildly towards the Dems in recent weeks. The devil is certainly doing it's duty and it's just getting started. I'm starting to smell a blue wave.. Tiger blue in fact!

Ah yes. The polls. I remember when such numbers worked out well for Hillary.

Only reason the house plant is in office right now is COVID.

Keep relying on those janky polls though fella, should work out well for ya.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(08-06-2022 06:23 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  The Congressional Budget Office Hasn't Finished Scoring the Manchin's Inflation Reduction Act

Quote:While the Senate’s “Vote-a-Rama” for Build Back Better v2.0, better known as the Inflation Reduction Act, is underway, it seems that the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t even finished scoring the bill we’ve been assured reduces inflation.

Dear Mr. Leader:

This letter provides information about the budgetary effects of H.R. 5376, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, as amended in the nature of a substitute (ERN22410) and posted on the website of the Senate Majority Leader on August 6, 2022: http://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/medi..._20221.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office has not yet completed point estimates for every title, but for those that we have completed, the estimated budgetary effects for 2022, the 2022-2026 period, and the 2022-2031 period are shown in the attached table.

We will provide updated estimates of the other titles as soon as they are available.

Here is the CBO’s estimate so far which… would have been enough to scare Manchin away back when he pretended to be moderate.

Title I, Committee on Finance, would reduce deficits by more than $1 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title II, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, would increase deficits by less than $135 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title III, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $332 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title IV, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, would increase deficits by less than $83.076 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title V, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, would increase deficits by less than $198 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VI, Committee on Environment and Public Works, would increase deficits by less than $67.264 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VII, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $37 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title VIII, Committee on Indian Affairs, would increase deficits by less than $20.5 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

Title IX, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, would increase deficits by less than $726.38 billion over the 2022-2031 period.

I’m not a stellar math student, but that seems like a lot of deficit increasing. No wonder the Democrats want to pass the bill before the CBO finishes scoring it.

There is still a new 30-page section to score, which was amended in recently. This is going to be another big spending bill that the Democrats will use to fund pet projects and not actually reduce any inflation with. Full steam ahead.

Special thanks to Joe Manchin, who appears to be cashing in his winnings and is on his way out the door (whether voluntarily or by force). This spending bill is entirely on him.

LOL, those deficits cited above amount to over $1,500,000,000,000.

What was it Cruz pointed out? The IRS will have more employees than the Pentagon, the State Department, the FBI, and the Border Patrol......COMBINED. Start preparing for your IRS audits, LOL.

THIS IS WHAT BIDEN* IS FORCING U.S. CITIZENS TO ENDURE. THOSE OF YOU WHO VOTED FOR THIS COLOSSAL SH1THEAD IN 2020 ABSOLUTELY OWN THIS. IT WILL HURT LIKE HELL IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. ZERO SLACK FROM ME AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS THAT VOTED FOR TRUMP.

EMBRACE IT, POSSESS IT, LIVE IT, LOVE IT.

TOLERATE IT, AMERICA.

LET'S GO, BRANDON!

Absolutely amazing to hear the pitiful way the right is trying to spin the additional IRS funding. There is absolutely nothing bad about it. CBO projects it will raise $204 billion over 10 years for a net savings of $124 billion in deficit reduction. This is a non-partisan assessment. Weren't Republicans for enforcement of existing taxes before raising new taxes?! I guess that is now out the window with the terrorists in charge of the party.

The IRA would narrow the tax gap, or the amount of taxes that are owed but not collected, by increasing funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by $80 billion over the next ten years. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the proposal would result in an additional $204 billion in revenue over ten years, for a net savings of $124 billion.

The Inflation Reduction Act Would Reduce the Tax Gap

(08-08-2022 02:50 PM)scorpius Wrote:  Absolutely amazing to hear the pitiful way the right is trying to spin the additional IRS funding. There is absolutely nothing bad about it. CBO projects it will raise $204 billion over 10 years for a net savings of $124 billion in deficit reduction. This is a non-partisan assessment. Weren't Republicans for enforcement of existing taxes before raising new taxes?! I guess that is now out the window with the terrorists in charge of the party.

The IRA would narrow the tax gap, or the amount of taxes that are owed but not collected, by increasing funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by $80 billion over the next ten years. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the proposal would result in an additional $204 billion in revenue over ten years, for a net savings of $124 billion.

The Inflation Reduction Act Would Reduce the Tax Gap

About those projections, even the CBO admits it's sometimes way off on revenue projections, especially during recessionary times, as we are currently in. NEVER hang the basis for your argument on CBO projections as they are historically frequently incorrect.