Inflation Reduction Act

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
Only in Washington DC would they decide that more spending is the way to deal with inflation and only in today's politics would we call such a thing an inflation reduction act. Further, only in Washington would they decide that the way to deal with that is to raise taxes on businesses and expect they won't pass that cost on down to consumers in the form of higher prices. Unbelievable how stupid all these people are.
 

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
Yeah! That will really help the budget!

Anyone that looks at our outlays going forward understands it's going to take a lot more than tax revenue to fix things. We're going to need significant spending reform. At this point, we don't need to correct course. Instead, we need a totally new direction with a totally new philosophy. There should never have been corporate welfare, corporate taxes and influence peddling to go along with it. Very little has done more to add to the corruption of our government.
 

LaniKaiTiger

The Mariana Trench
Gold Member
May 22, 2021
1,889
4,143
113
Anyone that looks at our outlays going forward understands it's going to take a lot more than tax revenue to fix things. We're going to need significant spending reform. At this point, we don't need to correct course. Instead, we need a totally new direction with a totally new philosophy. There should never have been corporate welfare, corporate taxes and influence peddling to go along with it. Very little has done more to add to the corruption of our government.
Indeed, reigning in health care costs would be a start
 

leetp

The Mariana Trench
Gold Member
Dec 6, 2021
2,980
2,767
113
Charleston
There should be no corporate taxes. None whatsoever!
In reality, there isn't. Corporations, businesses, people who provide a good or service, both fill their pockets and pay their taxes with the money they get from consumers. Thinking they will use only consumer dollars flowing into their pockets to pay these higher taxes requires either genuine or deliberate naivety.
 

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
In reality, there isn't. Corporations, businesses, people who provide a good or service, both fill their pockets and pay their taxes with the money they get from consumers. Thinking they will use only consumer dollars flowing into their pockets to pay these higher taxes requires either genuine or deliberate naivety.

Which is exactly my point. And they use the idea of "taxes" to lobby and bribe public officials. It is insane.

Indeed, reigning in health care costs would be a start

In order to do that, the first step is getting rid of the insurance industry as we know it and getting government out of the business of providing care. Of course, my idea for this is extreme and it would level the playing field completely for all Americans and in the process, it would improve care. But since it's so extreme, it would never be something we could do.
 

LaniKaiTiger

The Mariana Trench
Gold Member
May 22, 2021
1,889
4,143
113
Which is exactly my point. And they use the idea of "taxes" to lobby and bribe public officials. It is insane.



In order to do that, the first step is getting rid of the insurance industry as we know it and getting government out of the business of providing care. Of course, my idea for this is extreme and it would level the playing field completely for all Americans and in the process, it would improve care. But since it's so extreme, it would never be something we could do.
And replace it with what exactly ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

jakefest

Lake Baikal
Gold Member
Aug 6, 2010
3,524
4,166
113
NJ
Basically on the brink of a recession, if not already in one and these idiots want to pump more money into the economy while raising taxes at least 15% on companies worth $1b or more. What they don't specify is if that $1b is recurring/annual revenue or market cap, HUGE difference between the two.

There has been consistent layoff announcements hitting the press each day for the last few weeks.......what do you think happens next? Remember, labor trails sub-optimal earnings by at least 2 or 3 quarters.......sh*t hits the fan just before the holidays.
 

leetp

The Mariana Trench
Gold Member
Dec 6, 2021
2,980
2,767
113
Charleston
And replace it with what exactly ?
Taxes are obviously necessary...so why not just have a flat tax? You earn a dollar, you pay a tax on that dollar. The tax is what ever is required to balance the budget year-over-year. This puts downward pressure on government programs as EVERYONE has to pay for it (whatever it is) in the form of higher taxes(*). As for businesses, seeing has how their taxes are paid with consumer dollars, taxing them in the same manner is just double taxation.... but some businesses do impose a disproportionate burden on some combination of its community, its infrastructure or the environment. In those cases they should be assessed a 'tax' necessary to offset this burden. A good analogy would be how gasoline is taxed in part to pay for the road and the infrastructure necessary to bring it to market.

(*) of course there are exigencies and wars and such that would exceed a nations ability to immediately pay for what is demanded... so in this case I propose that a budget may exceed revenue but for the duration of the exigency and only such that it can be fully repaid in a period not to exceed 10 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cocks are Number 1

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
And replace it with what exactly ?

Here is my idea for how we should alter our health insurance situation in the United States.

First the goals:

  • To provide EVERY American with equal access to care in terms of the area they live in since we know not all areas have equal access to care.
  • To put the patient and the doctor in control of the process and limit the impact of insurance on what treatments people can or cannot get.
  • To add a legacy component to family health that can impact future generations.
  • To create cost transparency for all routine/standard treatments provided by doctors.

Revenue:

Every American will pay into a lifetime HSA from birth. This money is theirs and any interest generated from the funds will be theirs. Parents will pay on behalf of their children through the end of college or age 25. Every American will also secure a health insurance plan at birth that will be a lifetime plan for them. This could be a higher deductible plan to serve the primary purpose intended for insurance which is catastrophic care and chronic illness. Again, parents will pay on behalf of their children through the end of college or age 25. This means the HSA and the insurance plan will generate revenue during the healthiest years of a person’s life. This will help compensate for later years when costs are dramatically higher. It also will cover EVERY American and thus even the healthier working class will be paying into this system as there will be no more employer provided benefits.

Before you ask, for the poor we would subsidize their HSA payments and their premium for insurance so they would also have coverage. This would constitute a welfare program but the removal of our present apparatus would allow us to do so much more at a fraction of the cost. We spend an average of $10,000 per year per recipient of Medicaid and this would cost a fraction of that amount.

Regulation

We would need to regulate this plan in terms of coverage quality in very limited ways. Most regulation would deal with insurance actually paying its benefits which is largely what was to be regulated to begin with. We would also have regulation in terms of hospitals and doctors providing cost transparency. We would require a Medical Good Faith Estimate before any services are rendered. This would apply to all levels of care. (Except for emergency/trauma care) This process would begin to expose the massive cost inflation we see in medical care that starts with pharma companies, medical equipment suppliers, etc. and filters on down. It’s time to force this industry to streamline and actually manage their costs. No more inflated, invisible costs due to government handouts and bureaucratic shell games.

The HSA accounts would be transferrable from parent to child. That would allow people to decide how they want to handle end of life issues. This is what I mean by patient based. It puts the people in charge of their health and for those who can’t afford it, we’ll help them and they can still be in charge. This would allow us to cover and care for all Americans. It accomplishes the goals of single payer without going into a bureaucracy and it puts people at the center of everything. It’s fair and compassionate while being a competitive and efficient model.

Any other type of system will create multiple layers where the wealthy buy out of the plan and the best doctors will work with people who have means instead of serving everyone. No more Medicaid and Medicare access issues. No more reimbursement bailouts. No more employer plans holding down wages. No more multiple systems and mass confusion. Simple, efficient, effective and it would increase our freedom!
 
  • Wow
Reactions: DW4_2016

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
I was going to make a trickle down economics joke but 99% of people wouldn’t get it..


;)

No such thing as trickle down economics. It's called supply side economics and it works. Don't be a pawn and use made up terms that don't even accurately describe what something is.
 

PAWrocka

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Nov 4, 2008
18,715
23,038
113
Peoples Republic of Maryland
Yeah! That will really help the budget!
we-dont-need-roads.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: DW4_2016

PalmettoTiger1

Lake Baikal
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2009
6,300
4,785
113
I LOVE IT

The solution to inflation is more inflation

GET YOUR WHEELBARROWS OUT TO HAUL MONEY FOR A LOAF OF BREAD
 

PalmettoTiger1

Lake Baikal
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2009
6,300
4,785
113
No such thing as trickle down economics. It's called supply side economics and it works. Don't be a pawn and use made up terms that don't even accurately describe what something is.

Some posters on here have no idea what supply side economics involves

Please have them Google Laffer and Reagan on their policies
 

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
So Ford has followed along with GM in announcing increases to the prices on their EVs of around $7k or so. This on the heels of the Inflation Reduction Act providing a $7500 credit for EV purchases. LOL. Isn't that swell?

Would be so easy to resolve this problem... We are such a corrupt country.

 

scotchtiger

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 15, 2005
18,240
11,896
113
Mount Pleasant, SC
So Ford has followed along with GM in announcing increases to the prices on their EVs of around $7k or so. This on the heels of the Inflation Reduction Act providing a $7500 credit for EV purchases. LOL. Isn't that swell?

Would be so easy to resolve this problem... We are such a corrupt country.


connection.gif
 

97ClemsonMac

Gold Member
Nov 29, 2021
474
500
93
South Carolina
So Ford has followed along with GM in announcing increases to the prices on their EVs of around $7k or so. This on the heels of the Inflation Reduction Act providing a $7500 credit for EV purchases. LOL. Isn't that swell?

Would be so easy to resolve this problem... We are such a corrupt country.

Hell, aren’t they already like 70k?

I’m currently in the car market and it’s rough… can’t decide whether to lease now for a few years or go ahead and commit to a large sales prices over 5 years. Just so dang expensive! I have considered dedicating a thread to this.

but to your point, seems like this act and that announcement go hand in hand
 

jakefest

Lake Baikal
Gold Member
Aug 6, 2010
3,524
4,166
113
NJ
Hell, aren’t they already like 70k?

I’m currently in the car market and it’s rough… can’t decide whether to lease now for a few years or go ahead and commit to a large sales prices over 5 years. Just so dang expensive! I have considered dedicating a thread to this.

but to your point, seems like this act and that announcement go hand in hand
Lease prices are more expensive than buying them right now, depending on make/model you're looking at. They've started to come down a touch but still much higher than 2019/2020
 

97ClemsonMac

Gold Member
Nov 29, 2021
474
500
93
South Carolina
Lease prices are more expensive than buying them right now, depending on make/model you're looking at. They've started to come down a touch but still much higher than 2019/2020
Yeah I agree. I think it’s best I talk to a financial advisor honestly. Im trying to balance buying a car and a house at the same time LOL but mostly trying to find the right mix where I’m both happy and not burning money. I’ve always been big on equity so really would like to mortgage a townhome or house (preferably). It’s tough though, not a political post by any means but I know there’s others out there with the same issue
 

PawsFan_

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 18, 2019
7,200
19,168
113
Naming that bill the "Inflation Reduction Act" shows dems contempt for the intelligence of the electorate.

Bold face lie to the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

Jjh7

Valles Marineris
Gold Member
Jul 8, 2016
809
1,133
93
I havent seen anything about the inflation reduction act…seems like the dems new climate and health bill is generating all the noise. Anyone know what that is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

leetp

The Mariana Trench
Gold Member
Dec 6, 2021
2,980
2,767
113
Charleston
I havent seen anything about the inflation reduction act…seems like the dems new climate and health bill is generating all the noise. Anyone know what that is?
Health care piece is not so bad, IMO.... allows gov't use their better buying power to negotiate better medication prices (a good thing). Although, some those that apparently oppose it say that it will stifle innovation. Whether it will or not, I don't know; either way Medicare should not bear the burden of supporting innovation.

As to climate portion, it provides a $7,500 incentive to buy EV's. I think there is also some part of the bill that requires some aspect of the EV components be domestically produced to qualify for the incentive. My expectation is that if they are not already being domestically produced. Requiring them to do so will most definitely drive up cost of a supply chain that already cannot match demand in nearly any sector. Of course these details alone make labeling this bill as pro-climate/anti-inflation a real head scratcher.

There is also some further fossil fuel taxes an penalties buried in there are as well, but not sure what these are.

Nevertheless, to describe this bill as some kind of inflation-reducer requires a complete suspension of all disbelief.
 

leetp

The Mariana Trench
Gold Member
Dec 6, 2021
2,980
2,767
113
Charleston
Same as colleges

Give students bigger loans and colleges charge more

The perfect world
Helps to thinks of money in terms of 'supply' as well... the larger the supply of money, the more a good or service will cost. This bill adds .7 trillion dollars to the already flourishing supply (adding to a ~6 trillion in deficient spending glut in FY20-21 alone). Dunno what the total tally will be for FY22, but it just went up by another .7 tril.

Tangentially, its no wonder that with near limitless access to 'free' money for tuition that tuition has skyrocketed....which was obviously just the point you were making.
 

TigerGrowls

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,983
4,962
113
The Inflation Reduction Bait and Switch? The Inflation Reduction Boondoggle?


Inflation Reduction Act will cost middle class $20B in new taxes: CBO​

By
Lydia Moynihan
August 15, 2022 1:50pm
CBO report: IRS audits will affect American taxpayers making below $400k

The Inflation Reduction Act sent to President Biden’s desk will end up forcing working-class Americans to pay billions of dollars in new taxes, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
An analysis by the CBO estimates those earning less than $400,000 — the group on which Biden promised not to raise taxes — will pay an estimated $20 billion more in taxes over the next decade as a result of the Democrat-pushed $740 billion package, which also sets aside $80 billion to hire 87,000 IRS agents.
The bill has yet to be scored in its entirety by the CBO — which typically gives each piece of legislation a price tag before it is voted on — but the agency scored the impact of the IRS expansion on middle-class taxpayers on Aug. 12 after a provision from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) sought to exempt those making under $400,000 from increased IRS scrutiny.
Crapo’s proposed amendment would have kept those taxpayers from being targeted by the new IRS hires, but his provision was shot down 51-50 in the bill passed by the Senate last week.
On Friday, the House approved the bill. Biden is expected to sign it in the coming days.
mike crapo Sen. Crapo’s amendment would’ve kept middle-class taxpayers from being put in the IRS’s crosshairs.Michael Brochstein/SOPA Images/S
The CBO analysis confirms an earlier report from the Joint Committee on Taxation that found that throwing an extra $80 billion at the IRS to improve the agency’s collection of under-reported income will end up targeting small business owners to pay for the legislation.
The IRS is expected to bring in more than $180 billion from other, wealthier taxpayers.

MORE ON:IRS

Small business owners will find themselves in the crosshairs of the new wave of IRS auditors, tax experts said.
“Most small businesses are organized as pass-through entities — LLCs and S Corps,” James Lucier, managing director of Washington-based policy research firm Capital Alpha, told The Post. “Proponents of increased auditing specifically say they want to target pass-through entities, which inherently means targeting small business and small business owners.”
“The IRS will have to target small and medium businesses because they won’t fight back,” adds Joe Hinchman, executive vice president at National Taxpayers Union Foundation. “We’ve seen this play out before … the IRS says ‘We’re going after the rich’ but when you’re trying to raise that much money, the rich can only get you so far.”
The White House has dismissed claims the bill will hurt lower- and middle-income Americans, instead noting estimates don’t take into account how much the bill will offset costs for average Americans like prescription drugs.
But Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has acknowledged the new and improved IRS could ramp up collections from middle-class taxpayers. In a letter to the IRS commissioner last week, Yellen directed “any additional resources … shall not be used to increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold that are audited relative to historical levels.”
IRS The IRS will collect billions more from middle-class Americans.Getty Images
115
What do you think? Post a comment.
In other words, Yellen conceded that middle-class taxpayers will face more audits and pay more taxes — but that they won’t be unfairly targeted.
“Anytime you get an IRS letter, it could take months or years to get it settled — we’re talking many thousands of dollars to address,” Daniel Bunn, executive vice president at the Tax Foundation, told The Post. “Large companies have constant reviews and lawyers going through everything … small business doesn’t have the resources to fight back in the same way.”
 

Jjh7

Valles Marineris
Gold Member
Jul 8, 2016
809
1,133
93
Health care piece is not so bad, IMO.... allows gov't use their better buying power to negotiate better medication prices (a good thing). Although, some those that apparently oppose it say that it will stifle innovation. Whether it will or not, I don't know; either way Medicare should not bear the burden of supporting innovation.

As to climate portion, it provides a $7,500 incentive to buy EV's. I think there is also some part of the bill that requires some aspect of the EV components be domestically produced to qualify for the incentive. My expectation is that if they are not already being domestically produced. Requiring them to do so will most definitely drive up cost of a supply chain that already cannot match demand in nearly any sector. Of course these details alone make labeling this bill as pro-climate/anti-inflation a real head scratcher.

There is also some further fossil fuel taxes an penalties buried in there are as well, but not sure what these are.

Nevertheless, to describe this bill as some kind of inflation-reducer requires a complete suspension of all disbelief.
Hah i was just being sarcastic as theyve abandoned calling the bill by its name because apparently that wasnt polling well.

im all for all reasonable steps to take care of the planet but govt and global cooperative actions are beyond stupid. Incentivize electric cars as if that electricity just happened. Windmills and solar panels as if they made any difference. nothing the govt implements makes any positive difference

Same for healthcare. The industry itself is a massive shtshow. We really should just hit the reset button, you cant fix this. Drug costs are tough because you do have a ton of r&d that cos need to pay for to stay afloat - theres better ways to go about it. But fixing prices just shifts that cost elsewhere. What we should do to start is tell the rest of the world its time to start chipping in…r&d costs are only paid by us consumers. Then we charge the rest of the world marg cost and they act like their sht single pay systems fund themselves.
Health care piece is not so bad, IMO.... allows gov't use their better buying power to negotiate better medication prices (a good thing). Although, some those that apparently oppose it say that it will stifle innovation. Whether it will or not, I don't know; either way Medicare should not bear the burden of supporting innovation.

As to climate portion, it provides a $7,500 incentive to buy EV's. I think there is also some part of the bill that requires some aspect of the EV components be domestically produced to qualify for the incentive. My expectation is that if they are not already being domestically produced. Requiring them to do so will most definitely drive up cost of a supply chain that already cannot match demand in nearly any sector. Of course these details alone make labeling this bill as pro-climate/anti-inflation a real head scratcher.

There is also some further fossil fuel taxes an penalties buried in there are as well, but not sure what these are.

Nevertheless, to describe this bill as some kind of inflation-reducer requires a complete suspension of all disbelief.
Im curious where we think all the energy to charge those ev batteries will come from

govt negotiating anything is a disaster for everyone

this is just pork to be laundered back to politicians. Funny how they all see their net worth go up by tens of millions while in office on a sub 200k salary. Must be a coincidence
 

leetp

The Mariana Trench
Gold Member
Dec 6, 2021
2,980
2,767
113
Charleston
Hah i was just being sarcastic as theyve abandoned calling the bill by its name because apparently that wasnt polling well.

im all for all reasonable steps to take care of the planet but govt and global cooperative actions are beyond stupid. Incentivize electric cars as if that electricity just happened. Windmills and solar panels as if they made any difference. nothing the govt implements makes any positive difference

Same for healthcare. The industry itself is a massive shtshow. We really should just hit the reset button, you cant fix this. Drug costs are tough because you do have a ton of r&d that cos need to pay for to stay afloat - theres better ways to go about it. But fixing prices just shifts that cost elsewhere. What we should do to start is tell the rest of the world its time to start chipping in…r&d costs are only paid by us consumers. Then we charge the rest of the world marg cost and they act like their sht single pay systems fund themselves.

Im curious where we think all the energy to charge those ev batteries will come from

govt negotiating anything is a disaster for everyone

this is just pork to be laundered back to politicians. Funny how they all see their net worth go up by tens of millions while in office on a sub 200k salary. Must be a coincidence
Something like 27% of the total greenhouse gas produced in the US comes from transportation... but when breaking it down to private transportation, this number gets into the single digits. When factoring it into global CO2 production, it may no longer be whole number. Yet we are somehow to believe that American EV's will save the planet? As I said above, accepting any of the current Global Warming Dogma requires a suspension of disbelief or an abdication of the responsibility to think altogether. Never mind, of course, the real environmental impact of manufacturing the EV's and the destructive and energy intensive mining of the scarce and finite recourses required to manufacture their components.

If the politician really cared about the environment, we'd be building nuclear reactors all over the US. This above all we could possible do would reduce global CO2 emissions the most.

And we have not even talked about any of the potential and observed benefits of increased global CO2. I suspect in our next great ideological evolution we will be clamoring for ways to increase CO2.
 

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
Im curious where we think all the energy to charge those ev batteries will come from

govt negotiating anything is a disaster for everyone

This is the truth. It's amazing to me that so few ask these questions or have this understanding in terms of our energy production. Even the owner of the largest EV company says we aren't prepared for what people are trying to do. And that says nothing about the massive issue we're going to face with the toxicity that comes from all these batteries. We've truly chosen the wrong path and no one seems willing to sit down and reexamine what we're trying to accomplish.
 

Willence

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Dec 26, 2003
9,245
16,375
113
Something like 27% of the total greenhouse gas produced in the US comes from transportation... but when breaking it down to private transportation, this number gets into the single digits. When factoring it into global CO2 production, it may no longer be whole number. Yet we are somehow to believe that American EV's will save the planet? As I said above, accepting any of the current Global Warming Dogma requires a suspension of disbelief or an abdication of the responsibility to think altogether. Never mind, of course, the real environmental impact of manufacturing the EV's and the destructive and energy intensive mining of the scarce and finite recourses required to manufacture their components.

If the politician really cared about the environment, we'd be building nuclear reactors all over the US. This above all we could possible do would reduce global CO2 emissions the most.

And we have not even talked about any of the potential and observed benefits of increased global CO2. I suspect in our next great ideological evolution we will be clamoring for ways to increase CO2.

Such a great post.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PalmettoTiger1

97ClemsonMac

Gold Member
Nov 29, 2021
474
500
93
South Carolina
Something like 27% of the total greenhouse gas produced in the US comes from transportation... but when breaking it down to private transportation, this number gets into the single digits. When factoring it into global CO2 production, it may no longer be whole number. Yet we are somehow to believe that American EV's will save the planet? As I said above, accepting any of the current Global Warming Dogma requires a suspension of disbelief or an abdication of the responsibility to think altogether. Never mind, of course, the real environmental impact of manufacturing the EV's and the destructive and energy intensive mining of the scarce and finite recourses required to manufacture their components.

If the politician really cared about the environment, we'd be building nuclear reactors all over the US. This above all we could possible do would reduce global CO2 emissions the most.

And we have not even talked about any of the potential and observed benefits of increased global CO2. I suspect in our next great ideological evolution we will be clamoring for ways to increase CO2.
Several good points here.

One of my biggest issues I have with EVs right now is the battery/"charge" life. Reason I mention this is, think hypothetically, if tomorrow everyone had an EV and say in Miami there was a hurricane approaching and people needed to evacuate. People would get stuck in traffic and their batteries would run out of juice, and there is certainly not the infrastructure we need (i.e. charging stations) to accommodate that. In this hypothetical, it would be a colossal failure. All for a very gradual transition to EVs in the long run
 
  • Like
Reactions: leetp

Jjh7

Valles Marineris
Gold Member
Jul 8, 2016
809
1,133
93
Something like 27% of the total greenhouse gas produced in the US comes from transportation... but when breaking it down to private transportation, this number gets into the single digits. When factoring it into global CO2 production, it may no longer be whole number. Yet we are somehow to believe that American EV's will save the planet? As I said above, accepting any of the current Global Warming Dogma requires a suspension of disbelief or an abdication of the responsibility to think altogether. Never mind, of course, the real environmental impact of manufacturing the EV's and the destructive and energy intensive mining of the scarce and finite recourses required to manufacture their components.

If the politician really cared about the environment, we'd be building nuclear reactors all over the US. This above all we could possible do would reduce global CO2 emissions the most.

And we have not even talked about any of the potential and observed benefits of increased global CO2. I suspect in our next great ideological evolution we will be clamoring for ways to increase CO2.
You said it…dogma. Believe global warming is settled science in every sense. Believe every bill we sign in the name of it is the right solution. Do not attempt to point out any flaws in the plan.

theres so much more to the conversation and it absolutely needs to be open to question and debate. Nothing about it is “settled”.

its especially hard to take this seriously when every politician and celebrity stumping for the extreme danger were in flies around constantly on private jets and owns a mansion on beaches that are supposedly going to disappear in the near future. Ill start to worry when they actually lead with actions
 
  • Like
Reactions: leetp

Latest posts