Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bloomberg analysis says most projects from this new bill will take place in Red districts.  

Well sure, wind and solar investment…

Curious what’s happening in Illinois? Nuclear?

Don't forget the fossil fuels.

[Earthling]

And once those things start to happen Republicans will claim credit again, like they did with the Infrastructure Bill, because to don't have any shame.

[Benjamin Frank]

So it's official, every single Republican senator has now voted against reducing inflation.

This bill will do the opposite

There is no economic argument for this. You can certainly claim that it doesn't do much to reduce inflation and it's a politically motivated name, which I agree with (but still support the bill because it does some very basic important things like invest in clean energy independence and reduce the cost of medicine). But it doesn't have any real inflationary measures. It reduces demand and slightly increases supply.

It is a politically motivated name and the fact is inflation really could get worse unless we actually significantly increase aggregate supply or decrease aggregate demand by such a level that it would take a a pretty bad recession to do so .

Imo what needed to be done was :

- We should have created an onshoring tax credit or just pass an border adjustment tax . This would be to bring back supply chains domestically  

- We should have expanded the QBI deduction as that would help small businesses expand which would also mean an increase in aggregate supply

- We need to ramp up energy production including the use of traditional sources

- Pass more bills like CHIPS for other related critical industries (I backed BIF and CHIPS)

Never mind the other problems with this, at 3.9% unemployment, where are all these additional workers required going to come from? 

What would happen is these companies will poach employees from other companies, which is, all else being equal...inflationary.

From people who are underemployed and those who who stopped being part of the labor workforce participation rate.

At best this is economics from 30 years ago: let's just assume that workers can be easily shifted and don't require skills training.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Congratulations to President Biden and the Democrats! This is still a major success and the most that was possible under these circumstances. Although a lot remains to be done, Biden has actually achieved a lot of meaningful stuff.

I'm just not sure whether the effects will be felt soon enough to make a difference in November. But optics is also important and the notion that key still can get things done.

Optics are kind of all that matter in our country anymore. So as far as I'm concerned it's a straight-up win in that regard.

[GoTfan]

Organizations that take climate change seriously think the bill is good. But people who primarily see climate change as an excuse for grifting/self-promotion or as a Trojan horse to implement their deranged ideologies (communism, de-growth, etc.) think the bill is bad. Who can say which group is right?

I was unaware I was a communist, but anyway, that 40% reduction I don't think is actually going to be enforced.

How do you think this reduction works, mechanically speaking, and why do you think it won't be enforced--especially since "enforcement" has nothing to do with this?

Point to a country that actually achieves their climate goals, then I'll listen. No country in the West is on track to actually meet their climate targets, but hey, as long as we get the optics of something being done, right?

That 40% reduction you and Lief are cheering on in reality will more likely be between 10-20%. It's better than nothing, but in the grand scheme of things, is close to nothing. But again, as long you get the headlines and credit, that's all that matters, right?

[Pericles]

Organizations that take climate change seriously think the bill is good. But people who primarily see climate change as an excuse for grifting/self-promotion or as a Trojan horse to implement their deranged ideologies (communism, de-growth, etc.) think the bill is bad. Who can say which group is right?

I was unaware I was a communist, but anyway, that 40% reduction I don't think is actually going to be enforced.

How do you think this reduction works, mechanically speaking, and why do you think it won't be enforced--especially since "enforcement" has nothing to do with this?

Point to a country that actually achieves their climate goals, then I'll listen. No country in the West is on track to actually meet their climate targets, but hey, as long as we get the optics of something being done, right?

That 40% reduction you and Lief are cheering on in reality will more likely be between 10-20%. It's better than nothing, but in the grand scheme of things, is close to nothing. But again, as long you get the headlines and credit, that's all that matters, right?

The US was going to achieve more than 20% with the federal government doing nothing.

[The Ex-Factor]

Larry Summers calls out Sinema and Thune for the continuation of the carried interest loophole and private equity carve-out from the minimum corporate tax rate:

https://twitter.com/LHSummers/status/1556783335183106048

[Brittain33]

Don't forget the fossil fuels.

Well, but look at Louisiana. I bet that’s wind in West Texas and Wyoming.

[Sir Mohamed]

Good stuff to read:

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1556988281744949248

[jojoju1998]

Good stuff to read:

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1556988281744949248

Question about the Drugs stuff.

Don't most Americans use generic prescriptions which are drastically cheaper than brand name drugs anyway ?

[7,052,770]

Good stuff to read:

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1556988281744949248

Question about the Drugs stuff.

Don't most Americans use generic prescriptions which are drastically cheaper than brand name drugs anyway ?

When they can, sure, but lots of expensive drugs don't have generic alternatives yet.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Good stuff to read:

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1556988281744949248

Can anyone explain to me why the Medicare drug price negotiation only starts in 2026? Democratic bills always have these ridiculously late phase-ins, which I guess makes sense when it's a whole new agency that needs to be set up or something, but in this case, is there any reason it couldn't start as soon as 2023?

[Utah Neolib]

Don't forget the fossil fuels.

Well, but look at Louisiana. I bet that’s wind in West Texas and Wyoming.

Wyoming has a surprising amount of Wind Power given it’s fossil fuel industry.

[jojoju1998]

Good stuff to read:

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1556988281744949248

Question about the Drugs stuff.

Don't most Americans use generic prescriptions which are drastically cheaper than brand name drugs anyway ?

When they can, sure, but lots of expensive drugs don't have generic alternatives yet.

In addition to the negotiation of prices; which I do support, perhaps we should consider somehow speeding up the genericization of these drugs; so that we can get them to the competitive generic market faster.

[Frodo]

The USPS got $3 billion from this package, so they have no excuse now for not getting their entire fleet electrified -along with the requisite infrastructure to support it.  We know that virtually all their routes can be served by electric vehicles.  They have already proven they can get at least 40% of the fleet electrified without the extra funding.  

[politicallefty]

Can anyone explain to me why the Medicare drug price negotiation only starts in 2026? Democratic bills always have these ridiculously late phase-ins, which I guess makes sense when it's a whole new agency that needs to be set up or something, but in this case, is there any reason it couldn't start as soon as 2023?

I'm not sure what their excuse is. It would've raised quite a bit more revenue if it took effect starting next year. Medicare itself took less than a year. It was signed into law on July 30, 1965. Enrollment began on September 1, barely over a month later. Full benefits took effect on July 1, 1966.

[SInNYC]

Can anyone explain to me why the Medicare drug price negotiation only starts in 2026? Democratic bills always have these ridiculously late phase-ins, which I guess makes sense when it's a whole new agency that needs to be set up or something, but in this case, is there any reason it couldn't start as soon as 2023?

I'm not sure what their excuse is. It would've raised quite a bit more revenue if it took effect starting next year. Medicare itself took less than a year. It was signed into law on July 30, 1965. Enrollment began on September 1, barely over a month later. Full benefits took effect on July 1, 1966.

One excuse I heard was that it gives the poor starving pharma execs time to adapt and figure out agreements with generic manufacturers, etc. They also negotiated it down so that it starts with only 10 drugs in 2026 so they have time to adapt for remaining drugs. Well OK, I didnt hear  the "poor starving" modifier.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So the House will vote on it tomorrow, right?

[Frodo]

https://twitter.com/rollcall/status/1557789738639179781

[emailking]

So the House will vote on it tomorrow, right?

Yes the vote is planned for tomorrow and it's expected to pass.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

SEN-ELECT TIM RYAN is going on MSNBC TODAY AT 9A TO TALK INFLATION REDUCTION ACT

He will be future Senator he is leading like by John Fetterman 6.5 if Vance can catch up then so can Oz, but they won't because there is Blk and Brown voters and poor females that are voting for D's not just middle class white men for Rs

[MR DARK BRANDON]

What time is the vote?

[GeorgiaModerate]

What time is the vote?

Based on the following, I'd guess maybe 3:00-3:30 EDT?

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1558119313038626818

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, where are we at?

[politicallefty]

So, where are we at?

McCarthy's speaking now. If it follows most major legislation, Pelosi will be the next (and final) speaker and the vote will follow.