Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Summary: PWBM estimates that the Inflation Reduction Act would reduce non-interest cumulative deficits by $248 billion over the budget window with no impact on GDP in 2031. The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero...
So, no discernable impact on inflation, but $248B in reduced deficits is inarguably a good thing.
yeah, I'm wondering how they consider that part of the $700B cost. Maybe all the pundits aren't able to articulate it. Maybe we're spending another $1T but somehow will reduce expected deficits $300B.
And every dollar of deficit reduction is needed, but that's not more than 5% of projected deficits.
yeah, I'm wondering how they consider that part of the $700B cost. Maybe all the pundits aren't able to articulate it. Maybe we're spending another $1T but somehow will reduce expected deficits $300B.
And every dollar of deficit reduction is needed, but that's not more than 5% of projected deficits.
A small step in the right direction, is still a step in the right direction. Si?
Summary: PWBM estimates that the Inflation Reduction Act would reduce non-interest cumulative deficits by $248 billion over the budget window with no impact on GDP in 2031. The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero...
So, no discernable impact on inflation, but $248B in reduced deficits is inarguably a good thing.
In 2031 though? That's 9 years and will be forgotten by then. They need to reduce for 2023 not 2031
Summary: PWBM estimates that the Inflation Reduction Act would reduce non-interest cumulative deficits by $248 billion over the budget window with no impact on GDP in 2031. The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero...
So, no discernable impact on inflation, but $248B in reduced deficits is inarguably a good thing.
700b OFF BUDGET, THIS YEAR(2022) (just like the 1.?T infrastructure bill was OFF BUDGET) will not reduce the budget deficit one penny, but it will increase the debt by 700b immediately.... and as the Fed is increasing interest rates... that means the REQUIRED interest PAYMENT on our debt (part of the budget) is going to increase...
the whole bill is a sham
1. it will increase inflation
2. more spending NOW, increases the debt (talking debt, not budget deficit), which increase the interest payment (this is ontop of the fed increasing the rate)
3. this is OFF BUDGET ADDITIONAL spending, ontop of the already trillion dollar budget deficit
4. it does NOTHING for the environment
5. raising the corporate tax to 15% when it is already at 20+%...funny how they are going to call it a "minimum" .....as opposed to what we currently have (are they going to rename it a max tax?)
it is a sham... and the poor/middleclass taxpayers are the ones who will feel the pain, they always do when liberals write spending/tax bills
Senate Dems Feeling 'Angst and Fear' Awaiting Sinema's Decision on Social Spending Bill
Quote:
Schumer seems to have forgotten to include Arizona Democrat Senator Kyrsten Sinema who was reportedly "blindsided" by some of the provisions in the final Schumer-Manchin deal after she wasn't even a part of the negotiations — despite her reservations about ramping up spending amid the country's economic woes.
As Axios noted, Sinema "had a message for her Democratic colleagues before she flew home to Arizona for the weekend: She's preserving her options." And options she has, including dealing another blow to the bill’s passage — which is something frequently bumbling Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer apparently didn't bother to take into account. As a result, Sinema left town saying “no comment†to questions about the bill leaving Democrats feeling "something between angst and fear" as they await her decision.
That's because any sort of Sinema-appeasing "modification to the Democrat's climate and deficit reduction package — like knocking out the $14 billion provision on carried interest — could cause the fragile deal to collapse." And that would be another failure of the Democrat-controlled Senate to get a Democrat-led bill through the upper chamber with roughly four months before the midterms in which the Dems desperately need some success to sway voters.
and that would have been easy in 09... Obama spent 1.7 trillion on, not so shovel ready jobs
but to the supposedly environmentally friendly liberals...it didn't even cross their minds
Solar panels were even more expensive back then than they are now. So the program you're thinking of would also be more expensive. $1 trillion is a lot of money, particularly when you want to spend money on other things, too.
Solar panels were even more expensive back then than they are now. So the program you're thinking of would also be more expensive. $1 trillion is a lot of money, particularly when you want to spend money on other things, too.
I agree that 1t+ is a lot of dough.... but actually spending it on real shovel ready jobs, is a lot better than wasting it on an unstimulating faux stimulus package like the liberals who controlled all 3 housed did in 09
700b OFF BUDGET, THIS YEAR(2022) (just like the 1.?T infrastructure bill was OFF BUDGET) will not reduce the budget deficit one penny, but it will increase the debt by 700b immediately.... and as the Fed is increasing interest rates... that means the REQUIRED interest PAYMENT on our debt (part of the budget) is going to increase...
the whole bill is a sham
1. it will increase inflation
2. more spending NOW, increases the debt (talking debt, not budget deficit), which increase the interest payment (this is ontop of the fed increasing the rate)
3. this is OFF BUDGET ADDITIONAL spending, ontop of the already trillion dollar budget deficit
4. it does NOTHING for the environment
5. raising the corporate tax to 15% when it is already at 20+%...funny how they are going to call it a "minimum" .....as opposed to what we currently have (are they going to rename it a max tax?)
it is a sham... and the poor/middleclass taxpayers are the ones who will feel the pain, they always do when liberals write spending/tax bills
Well, go make your arguments to the fine folks at The Wharton School. I'm sure they'd love your input.
I wonder what the Democrats did to Manchin to make him sell out his country?
One guess. Biden will step down after the midterms. Manchin will get first shot at being VEEP. To do this sort of major flip flop the gave him something big.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 07-31-2022 at 06:34 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
