House Passes Bill That Slashes Solar, Wind and EV Tax Credits (apnews.com) 197
The House passed a sweeping Republican tax-and-spending bill Thursday that rolls back major portions of Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, dealing a significant blow to clean-energy projects and the electric-vehicle industry. The 218-214 vote sends the legislation to President Trump's desk ahead of his July 4 deadline.
The Senate version of the bill gives wind and solar projects 12 months to start construction before losing tax incentives, extending the House's original 60-day window. House Freedom Caucus members had criticized the Senate for offering too generous a timeline for renewable energy tax credits they oppose. The legislation indefinitely extends Trump-era tax cuts while adding new deductions for tipped workers, overtime pay, and car-loan interest. Republicans paired these tax reductions with significant cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will increase budget deficits by $3.4 trillion through 2034 while leaving more than 11 million additional people without health insurance.
The Senate version of the bill gives wind and solar projects 12 months to start construction before losing tax incentives, extending the House's original 60-day window. House Freedom Caucus members had criticized the Senate for offering too generous a timeline for renewable energy tax credits they oppose. The legislation indefinitely extends Trump-era tax cuts while adding new deductions for tipped workers, overtime pay, and car-loan interest. Republicans paired these tax reductions with significant cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will increase budget deficits by $3.4 trillion through 2034 while leaving more than 11 million additional people without health insurance.
The "Screw Red States" bill (Score:5, Insightful)
It will massively suck, but the reactions will at least be entertaining for a little while once people start noticing what happened.
To any rural USians - I sincerely hope you stay healthy, you won't have a hospital soon enough.
Re:The "Screw Red States" bill (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans, very cynically, set most of these healthcare cuts to hit shortly after the midterm elections.
They are very aware that they've been lying through their teeth, and they know a good chunk of their base is going to get hurt by this.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My GOP representative was walking down the street, fully loaded. He sticks me up and goes, "How much money do you have?". I tell him I have more than enough, don't shoot.
He goes, "I only rob the poor!" He runs off like a looney tunes character. The guy down the street saw it all and goes, "I'd vote for him again. He robbed me blind twice last week, but he doesn't allow guys to wear dresses."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This time it's
Re: (Score:2)
What scares me is that there was absolutely no attempt to sell this bill to the voters.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is on video saying she didn't like the bill, but voted for it after getting carve-outs for Alaska exempting it from strict new food stamp rules for two years - the state with the highest SNAP error rate [azureedge.us] in 2024. Though, because of reconciliation rules, they had to write it a little more obscurely. From Republicans' Absurd Food Benefit Policy Could Reward States Who Waste Money [huffpost.com]
Because Senate Republicans passed the bill using a special “budget reconciliation” process that doesn’t allow “extraneous” provisions — such as policies directly targeting individual states with only incidental budgetary effects — they had to write the Alaska SNAP carveout so that it didn’t look so obvious.
So the bill would delay the crackdown for any state with an error rate above 13.3%. (To make it even less obvious, instead of setting the threshold at 13.3%, the text says the exemption applies for states whose error rates exceed 20% when multiplied by 1.5.)
According to the SNAP error rate numbers [azureedge.us] posted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture this week, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and the District of Columbia would win a delay of the cost-sharing burden if it were based on 2024 error rates. ... They are the ones with the MOST ERRORS in administering the program.
[States that worked to lower their error rate would be subject to the new stricter rules.]
Re: (Score:2)
What scares me is that there was absolutely no attempt to sell this bill to the voters.
There was quite a bit, but the sales was targeted at the extreme Republican holdouts. They REALLY don't care about California votes.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans, very cynically, set most of these healthcare cuts to hit shortly after the midterm elections.
And the temporary tax cuts -- no tax on: tips, overtime, auto loan interest; and the $1,000 initial Trump Account deposit -- expire in/after 2028, the $6k SSI bonus for low(er)-income senior expires in 2029 and the SALT deduction reverts from $40k to $10k in 2030. The tax cuts for the very wealthy and corporations are, of course, permanent.
Re: (Score:2)
thing is, rural hospitals budget out far enough in advance that they're gonna start closing *now* over the cuts to medicaid, not after the midterms. similar is true for health care centers looking to break ground now, those guys are gonna walk
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The elimination of alternate energy programs highlights the continuing influence of the Koch Network PACs, and trumps grifting instincts to take every crumb for himself
It does not take much imagination to expect the Koch sponsored junkets to be quietly documented and discretely used to keep their congress-critters, judges and with fellow fossil fuel fan Putin's help, even the president towing their line
IMO, trump is just there for the grift, and the net results will be a rush to profit for the fossil fuels
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, trump is just there for the grift...
Trump doesn't collect his salary. I recall he said that he'd donate the money to the federal treasury but a quick search of the web tells me he's been donating his salary to the National Park Service, Department of Agriculture, and some other federal programs. If Trump was in this for the money then the easiest "grift" would be to keep his salary as POTUS. Who would fault any man for keeping the money paid for doing his job? Is there some grander profit motive for donating his salary? Especially when t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just confused on how people believe Trump ran for POTUS to make more money for himself.
He's making money for his family. Did you miss the stories about his memecoins and MVNO phone service?
None of this should be normal, but the GOP won't hold him accountable so here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
The salary for he US President is $400,000 a year, trump makes more than that on inflated room prices he charges the Secret Service
The amounts of dark money being given to his campaign [opensecrets.org], and the methods he uses to put that money into his pockets are both large and untraceable
The Presidential salary is simply chump change that he makes a public display of "donating" while lining his pockets with grease
Re: (Score:2)
There are none so blind as those who won't see, there are none so foolish as those who are paid not to see, and there are none so evil as those who try and convince others they don't see what is plainly in front of them
Take a pick
Re: (Score:2)
IMO, trump is just there for the grift...
Trump doesn't collect his salary. ... If Trump was in this for the money then the easiest "grift" would be to keep his salary as POTUS.
Trump's family's grift is literally to the tune of billions of dollars. The presidential salary of $400,000 seems like a lot to you and me, but divide that by a billion and tell me what percentage that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, Trump's tariffs will cause a lot of direct pain for farmers, who were his biggest fans.
Re: (Score:2)
This bill seems tailor-made to fuck red states. It will massively suck, but the reactions will at least be entertaining for a little while once people start noticing what happened.
Yup. Also, apparently, many people are unfamiliar with what's in the bill, and will probably be very surprised.
To any rural USians - I sincerely hope you stay healthy, you won't have a hospital soon enough.
And this will affect everyone in those areas, not just people on Medicaid / Medicare.
And yet, somehow... (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll find a way to pretend Democrats are the only ones responsible for the rapidly-growing budget deficit.
This sort of thing may be the real reason Republicans are so anti-science and anti-education... they want people to believe their Magic Math.
Re: (Score:2)
GOP has been responsible since Reagan. Democrats usually inherent GOP's econ crashes when they get both chambers, which are not a good time to raise taxes.
But the rich do bribe Dems also to have lower taxes. We are part plutocracy, I'm just the messenger.
(Dems perhaps could have put in delayed restoration of taxes into bills, such as kicking in when unemployment drops below 5%. Biden did increase IRS
Re: (Score:3)
They'll find a way to pretend Democrats are the only ones responsible for the rapidly-growing budget deficit.
This sort of thing may be the real reason Republicans are so anti-science and anti-education... they want people to believe their Magic Math.
The sad part is, the general public has believed the lie that the Democrats are the ones screwing the budget repeatedly, while it's typically the Republican administrations that do the most financial damage. It's maddening how predictable it is. If the midterms give the Democrats any power at all, I expect the public to once again believe the damage caused by the Republicans with this legislation was entirely the fault of the Democrats and sweep them right back out of power in the next big election cycle.
Re: (Score:3)
So many times I have read that it's the Democrats' fault that the poster voted for the GOP.
We all know the real reason, but that's likely to get me down-modded.
Re: (Score:3)
They'll find a way to pretend Democrats are the only ones responsible for the rapidly-growing budget deficit.
And Democrats will have to be good about pointing out that the House "Freedom Caucus", who claim to be vigorous fiscal conservatives against raising the debt, voted for this.
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats gave us Trump Rev. 2.
The first time, it was "anyone but Hillary".
This time, it was "anyone but Biden or Harris".
The Old Guard of the Democrats still isn't cultivating an electable candidate. All we get are reruns of the old farts and Willie Brown's concubine.
Re: (Score:2)
... and in 2020 it was "anyone but Trump", as it will be again in 2028, assuming we still have elections then.
Step back a bit, and you realize the real voting pattern is "anyone but the incumbent", because the system has deteriorated to the point where problems don't get solved anymore, so voters are just blindly switching back and forth from one party to the other in the hopes that doing that will somehow lead to improvement. American Democracy has devolved into the world's most elaborate ring oscillator.
Re: (Score:2)
The budget deficit and the debt aren't a problem by themselves.
Well, Musk has been using his personal bullhorn lately to draw attention to the debt situation. There's no shortage of folks who figure if the world's richest man is on about an issue, maybe there's something to it. At any rate, that's been his entire beef with the bill, at least from what he's willing to admit publicly (I'm sure behind closed doors, he's at least a little miffed about the EV tax credits going *poof*, but since that doesn't fit his public persona as a libertarian...).
So that just means more program cuts (Score:4, Insightful)
Under no circumstances do your interests align with Elon Musk or will they ever align with him. So you cannot count on anything he says or does doing anything positive in your life.
The right wing only talks about the debt when they want to take something away from you. The cost and the burden is always on you and never on them. Do not pay them any mind or any heed. They are evil people who are trying to hurt you. Hell not trying, succeeding.
Re:So that just means more program cuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't run a government on borrowed money forever. Either we'd have to do like the Nordic countries and start implementing a tax scheme that actually pays for everything we spend (which Musk and his ilk obviously aren't fans of), or get the spending under control (and as we've seen with this Big Ugly Bill, even with inhumane levels of spending cuts it still adds to the debt).
This was always the thing that tripped up Bernie, too. You can promise the moon and the stars, but at the end of the day, someone still has to pay for it. Musk is a greedy, selfish asshole, but he's not wrong to be pointing that out.
What do you think failing empires do? (Score:2)
We will start expanding our borders through military conquest just like Russia is doing. Eventually we will invade countries like Russia and take them over too.
Maybe those nukes don't work and our species Will survive or maybe they will and we're all dead meat. I suspect enough of the nukes will work that it will end our species not quickly in a firestorm but slowly in a degrading environment.
I wonder if in another 25 m
Re: (Score:2)
The right wing only talks about the debt when they want to take something away from you.
To the contrary. The right wing only talks about the debt when the Democrats are in power. When they are in power, they increase the debt.
To quote former vice president Dick Cheney, when Republicans are in power, "deficits don't matter".
(yeah, he literally said that.)
Decades from now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Decades from now when the symptoms of global warming are diminishing our quality of life people will hopefully remember who is responsible for this travesty.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At the rate we are going we're going to have about 30 to 40% unemployment in 10 years. And then like all collapsing empires we will start invading other countries to loot them and shore up our Treasury.
Eventually som
Re:Decades from now... (Score:4, Informative)
Which group gets scapegoated depends on the issue:
Jobs/the economy - Illegals
Crime - Illegals and brown people
School shootings, environmental disasters - God (I'm totally not joking, how else do you explain the thoughts and prayers?)
Kids "turning" gay/trans/etc., erosion of "family values" - LGBTQ+ community
The GOP really is just the "blame anybody but the oligarchs" party.
Re:Decades from now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of these people have likely never even interacted with a trans person.
Knowingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, that was my exact thought right after I posted. Good correction.
Re: (Score:2)
Some know, they just pay to keep it quiet.
In decades ... tax rebates will not have mattered (Score:5, Interesting)
Decades from now when the symptoms of global warming are diminishing our quality of life people will hopefully remember who is responsible for this travesty.
Not really. Decades from now, Renewable Energy and EVs will be fine. They are popular, they don't need the rebates. People want these technologies and they will adopt them, rebates or not. Rebates are for unpopular or unproven things, Renewable Energy and EVs are past these points. Want to accelerate EV adoption, build out a public charging infrastructure. An infrastructure that is actually maintained. That will do far far more than any rebate.
Rebates for EVs don't significantly affect the willingness to purchase an EV. People who don't own a home where they can have their own charger are still dissuaded from getting an EV. A rebate doesn't overcome this problem. EV rebates just benefit the wealthier who already live in such a home, who don't really need the rebate. Sure they like it. Sure they want it. Sure they complain at its loss. But when it comes to buying an EV or not, its their person believe in doing their part for the future, lowering their long term cost of having a car, that will largely decide the issue.
EVs will win because they are better technology. Because they are lower cost. Want to accelerate EV adoption, build out a public charging infrastructure. An infrastructure that is actually maintained. That will do far far more than any rebate.
Re:In decades ... tax rebates will not have matter (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Decades from now, Renewable Energy and EVs will be fine. They are popular, they don't need the rebates. People want these technologies and they will adopt them, rebates or not
Our adoption rate for everything you mention was already too slow even with the rebates and subsidies, without them adoption is bound to slow down. It's basic economics.
It's already clear we'll never make the 1.5C degree limit that had been hoped for, at this rate I doubt we'll be able to stay below 3C.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Decades from now, Renewable Energy and EVs will be fine. They are popular, they don't need the rebates. People want these technologies and they will adopt them, rebates or not
Our adoption rate for everything you mention was already too slow even with the rebates and subsidies, ...
Because car rebates aren't important. EV charging infrastructure investments are what is important. Car rebates and infrastructure investments are two different things. Infrastructure is what will have the bigger effect. Not subsidizing the upper middle class' EV and home charger. This does not help the lower middle class, a well maintained public charging infrastructure would.
Re: (Score:2)
No rebates or subsidies means higher costs which will lead to slower adoption. If the price goes up more people will decide now's not the right time to buy in. While more infrastructure will likely help sales the higher price point will still be a drag on them. It's a negative to adoption either way.
You were correct before that inevitably this stuff will come out on top and if global warming wasnt the rather pressing and immediate issue that it is I would agree we could do without the subsidies but here we
Re: (Score:2)
No rebates or subsidies means higher costs which will lead to slower adoption.
Technically, but not significantly. The public charging infrastructure is far more important. Its absence prevents the lower middle class from purchasing lower cost EVs. The lack of reliable and convenient public charging makes the EV rebate moot.
Depends on EV Use (Score:2)
Because car rebates aren't important. EV charging infrastructure investments are what is important.
That depends very much on the planned use for an EV. Where I live in Canada we get no rebate at all and when we were looking at a new car a few years ago for run-about-town use we thought about getting an EV...at least until we saw the price after which we went ICE. Had there been a rebate to bring the EV price down to the point where the reduced fuel costs would have made it a worthwhile investment we'd have probably got an EV. Charging infrastructure was irrelevant to that decision because we only plann
Re:In decades ... tax rebates will not have matter (Score:5, Informative)
EVs will win because they are better technology. Because they are lower cost. Want to accelerate EV adoption, build out a public charging infrastructure. An infrastructure that is actually maintained. That will do far far more than any rebate.
This bill eliminates subsidies for charging infrastructure at the end of 2025.
You were saying?
Re: (Score:2)
EVs will win because they are better technology. Because they are lower cost. Want to accelerate EV adoption, build out a public charging infrastructure. An infrastructure that is actually maintained. That will do far far more than any rebate.
This bill eliminates subsidies for charging infrastructure at the end of 2025. You were saying?
Nothing I said contradicts this. I addressed the EV car buyer's rebate. All I said about the EV charger infrastructure is that it is necessary, unlike EV car rebates. If you want to change the complaint from EV car rebates to EV charger infrastructure investments I won't disagree. But they remain two different things.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are delusional if you think rebates don't affect installation of infrastructure.
Rebates obsolete, middle class aspires to own EV (Score:2)
I think you are delusional if you think rebates don't affect installation of infrastructure.
The lack of maintained and convenient public charging makes the EV rebate moot. And the creation of such an infrastructure is called an "investment" for a reason. We can spend money on an "investment" that opens the lower middle class to EV usage. Or we can spend money on a "rebate" for the upper middle class that would likely buy an EV with or without a rebate. The rebate used to make sense, it got early adopters on board, it helped demonstrate that EVs work and save owners money. We're past that point. EV
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually own and drive an EV?
The Tesla Supercharger network is quite reliable, although coverage could be better.
However, I think that this isn't the main issue. The main issue is enabling charging for apartment dwellers and others who may find it difficult to charge at home. Rebates to install L2 chargers in apartment parking spaces will help. Rebates to install L2 chargers at offices and other work locations will help.
Re: (Score:2)
Rebates for EVs don't significantly affect the willingness to purchase an EV.
That may've been true in the days when your choices were a crazy expensive Model S or a Nissan Leaf that could barely make a trip for groceries. EVs with decent range are available within a price range of people who do watch their budgets, and the tax credit absolutely does factor in to their decision to make a purchase.
EV rebates just benefit the wealthier who already live in such a home
You're gonna be really surprised to find this out, but home EV charging can be installed on manufactured/mobile homes, too. No need to own a McMansion.
Not having home charging is also not
Re: (Score:2)
Rebates for EVs don't significantly affect the willingness to purchase an EV.
That may've been true in the days when your choices were a crazy expensive Model S or a Nissan Leaf that could barely make a trip for groceries. EVs with decent range are available within a price range of people who do watch their budgets, and the tax credit absolutely does factor in to their decision to make a purchase.
It's not really about price. It's mostly about charging. Too many people would simply be dependent upon a public charging infrastructure.
EV rebates just benefit the wealthier who already live in such a home
You're gonna be really surprised to find this out, but home EV charging can be installed on manufactured/mobile homes, too. No need to own a McMansion.
Of course, but a McMansion is not required, although current EV adoption is largely among the upper middle class. Far more modest homes are out of reach for the lower middle class. Home renters have to convince an owner. Those in apartments also dependent upon owners. Unattended charging in a shared space is an issue to some, so you kind of need an owner doing private infr
Re:In decades ... tax rebates will not have matter (Score:4, Insightful)
Anecdotally, I'm convinced what has caused sluggish EV sales in the USA is peoples' general ignorance about how they work. My partner and I both have Chevy Bolts and between the two of us we've been asked:
"Does it use gas?"
No, it's entirely electric.
"Do you always need to find a parking space with a charger?"
No, we just park it in a regular parking spot like a gas car. It gets charged at night at home.
"Is it slow, like a golf cart?"
It has 200hp. It's not slow.
"Why does it make that weird noise?"
That's the pedestrian alert tone. It's legally required.
"How much range does it have?"
About 200 miles at highway speeds, if you don't drive like a maniac.
"Is your power bill really high with two EVs?"
Not really.
"What do you do if there's a power outage?"
If the car needs to be recharged, we go to a nearby Supercharger station.
"Is charging it at a charging station expensive?"
Compared to gas, yeah, but since we primarily charge at home it's not a big deal.
"Aren't you worried about it catching fire?"
No.
Re: (Score:2)
Decades from now when the symptoms of global warming are diminishing our quality of life people will hopefully remember who is responsible for this travesty.
They'll never blame themselves or their parents for voting these people in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Decades from now when the symptoms of global warming are diminishing our quality of life people will hopefully remember who is responsible for this travesty.
By "who is responsible" I hope you mean chemtrails, secret government weather modification programs, earth's magnetic field moving, and sunspots or some shit because that is who most of them will actually blame when it gets to the point they can't deny what's happening. Hell they are already being primed for it today. We have multiple states passing laws against "chemtrails" FFS.
Screwing the rural communities (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill cuts Medicaid to the bone. Large hospitals in cities can take it, because many of their patients have good jobs and good insurance. But the majority of hospitals in small towns and rural areas depend on medicaid.
Those hospitals will go out of business. So even if you have employer provided health care or Medicare, you will have to travel 3-6 hours to go to a hospital.
People will die in the ambulance.
Re:Screwing the rural communities (Score:5, Informative)
,,,So even if you have employer provided health care or Medicare, you will have to travel 3-6 hours to go to a hospital.
People will die in the ambulance.
They can't afford the ambulance.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Donkey cart? The ironic ending of a poor Republican.
Poor Republicans seem to be sadomasochists. [reddit.com]
I guess they want to be martyrs against LGBTQ+, which Fox et. al. hyped to be the Worst Thing On Earth, despite the fact Jesus himself never mentions LGBTQ+ in the Bible (although he did belt the shit out of greedy people).
Re: (Score:2)
Now they take the ride and their family has the debt because it's a 2-hour drive to a hospital.
the ambulance can bill but can't cut you off if yo (Score:2)
the ambulance can bill but can't cut you off if you can't pay
Re: (Score:2)
Those hospitals will go out of business. So even if you have employer provided health care or Medicare, you will have to travel 3-6 hours to go to a hospital. People will die in the ambulance.
They voted for trump, good riddance!
Suburban communities too (Score:3)
The suburbs are getting no such benefits. And they need those Medicaid dollars just as much.
One of the dirty little secrets nobody in America talks about is that the suburbs are not self-sustaining. You simply cannot have a large enough tax base to maintain the services people want with a populati
Re:Screwing the rural communities (Score:4, Insightful)
Their kids didn't. Treating everyone like an island is ultimately the purest form of the cancer that infects the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Rural areas voted for Trump so fuck 'em.
I have family members you're soaking up in that generalization, and I'd wager LOTs of people reading this do, too.
Haha fuck Elon (Score:2, Insightful)
He paid for this election and the leopard still ate his face. https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Re: Haha fuck Elon (Score:2)
This
Re:Haha fuck Elon (Score:5, Interesting)
Musk overestimated his ability to influence Trump, which is kind of on-brand for Elon. And really, if you were the richest man on Earth and libertarianism was the hill you wanted to die on, which of our two parties is closer to that alignment on the political spectrum? Yeah, neither, is probably the correct answer, but if you were a wishful thinker with a bank account the size of Musk's, it's not entirely unreasonable to imagine that the GOP might be the slightly more malleable party.
It's less a case of leopards ate his face (because Musk's wealth insulates him from the the worst consequences of the GOP's policies) and more that Musk just didn't get his money's worth - like that person who took their Cybertruck off-roading and parts fell off.
Did they pass rural hospital subsidies? (Score:3)
Then those rural hospitals can stay open while not serving the rural poor.
What's old is new again (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no it'll be like 2021 all over again, minus the covid shutdowns. Whatever shall we do?
If green energy is as cheap and good as everyone s (Score:2)
the it (particularly solar) shouldn't need further subsidy.
Re: (Score:2)
Woops looks like the title got cut short, should be "says".
"the" in the body should be "then".
Re: (Score:2)
Then why aren't they cutting all the other corporate subsidies at the same time?
Save us some money and get rid of all the corporate welfare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now talk about nuclear.
I just want to say fuck every single Trump voter (Score:5, Insightful)
So if you live in a rural or suburban community you can expect to lose your hospital. You dumb mother fuckers didn't understand anything because you never do. Your hospitals rely on the reliable payments from Medicaid to stay open and we just shut Medicaid down.
Never mind the fact that a good chunk of you or either on Medicaid or have family that are on Medicaid and just don't know it because the program you're on is funded by Medicaid.
Now let's talk about what's going to happen when that Medicaid funding goes away. We are talking 1.2 trillion dollars.
What the name of fuck do you idiots think is going to happen when 1.2 trillion dollars exits the US economy and get stuffed into the pockets of the richest people on the planet?
You're going to lose your jobs people. We all are. We can fully expect 20 to 30% unemployment. That's on top of them chaos that AI is about to bring...
You will mortgage your houses, the ones you bought while they were heavily subsidized by the government, and before long the bank will come calling and a sheriff will kick you out of the house you bought.
There won't be any jobs for any of you either. You're too old and nobody wants you. They'll do the classic thing where they claim to be firing middle management but they're really getting rid of old people like you. And if you're over 30 congrats you're one of the old people.
I want you to know you're not going to escape this unscathed like you have in the past. The scale and the level of your fuck up is far beyond what you did when you elected Bush Junior or if you're old enough Bush senior or even Reagan.
And I know you don't believe this and I know that when the shit hits the fan you're going to blame Hillary Clinton's emails on Hunter biden's laptop.
So I'm really just raging at this point. Because you'll turn against Trump briefly but then the propaganda will hit right before the election and you'll be right back on the Trump train. Even while you're watching the propaganda on your phone over borrowed Wi-Fi from the McDonald's that you took the closest thing to a shower you could at when you scrubbed up in their bathroom after you lost your house.
I mean come on folks why would Hunter biden's laptop do this to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
And burning your house down because the plumbing needs work isn't just stupid it's crazy. Delete your account.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't vote for Trump the first time around but I actually held my nose and voted for him this time. Why? Because the entire thing is such a shit-show regardless of which idiot is in office, it was essentially just a vote against the idea of a half-dead guy with senility getting re-elected.
Did you seriously just admit that you weren't aware that Biden had dropped out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably just another fucking Russian they run into here every now and then to try and start some trouble.
They don't need to bother anymore our country is finished. We will of course kill absolutely everyone else in the world on our way out the door because the Fermi paradox is real and we are about to kick it off.
But for a short period of time Vladimir Putin will be able to claim he owns Ukraine. Right up until we star
Re:I just want to say fuck every single Trump vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the entire thing is such a shit-show regardless of which idiot is in office
So instead of voting for the person who accomplishes little, you voted for the person who is actively causing destruction for a laugh. I'm sure that will encourage the other parties to raise the bar.
Medicaid funding? Look .... the whole system is irrevocably broken at this point, regardless of how they dole out the funding.
I agree, but the problem is that every time the Republicans are in change, they are totally focused on tearing all the existing programs apart and never have proposals for replacements. If they do have a proposal, it is to privatize everything, which is exactly what makes everything so damn expensive. By nature, critical health care CANNOT be privatized, as it preys on people in duress. Desperate people aren't in a position to shop around or negotiate.
If you're whining that the current system is broken, well... we all know what political partly is responsible for that in the first place. They are busy bees at the moment, doubling down to make things as expensive as possible and blaming things on the "moochers", like immigrants and sick people.
The inflated cost for care is the core issue -- and that really has zero to do with anything Trump enacted.
It has everything to do with people who have exactly the same personalities and ethics as people like Trump. If Trump hadn't run for office, you would have voted for someone just like him, and we'd still have the same problems. People like you are exactly why we live in a shit show.
The carrying capacity of humans (Score:2)
Such a tiny sliver of the bill to focus on (Score:2)
Yeah, it eliminated EV tax credits. But it also eliminates all pretense of balancing the budget.
This bill primarily does one thing: reduce the tax and regulatory burden on Donald Trump and his friends.
Re: (Score:2)
And he'll make the chickens stop laying too! (Score:2)
Remember cash for clunkers? (Score:2)
That program was just a bailout for the auto industry then. Why should they get anything now?
wow (Score:3)
What a terrible spin-laden uninformative title. That bill includes a ton more provisions than just that. That title makes it seem like it's exclusively a climate bill
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Its 1k pages, aint no one on slashdot cares to read anything beyond dumb green energy headlines.
Are you honestly trying to say I need to read a 1000 pg bill to know what is going on?
It's easy to see, they are robbing the poor to give the people who bribe them tax breaks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Slashdot is VERY Left Wing. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think opposition to this bill is restricted to only the "very left wing" then it kind a reveals how far on the right you are looking at it from.
I do appreciate that Republicans have come to embrace the whole police state thing, very cool and very American of them. The $45B for detention centers and the $150B or so for the Temu Schutzstaffel department will be used with the utmost discretion and respect for law.
I look forward to finding out how hot the stove actually is.
Re:Slashdot is VERY Left Wing. (Score:4, Informative)
Why, because you don't want to believe it? Everything stated is literally in the bill. This is from yesterday [apnews.com]:
The bill now in the House takes an ax to clean energy incentives, including killing a 30% tax credit for rooftop residential solar by the end of the year that the Biden administrationâ(TM)s Inflation Reduction Act had extended into the next decade. Trump has called the clean energy tax credits in the climate law part of a âoegreen new scamâ that improperly shifts taxpayer subsidies to help the âoeglobalist climate agendaâ and energy sources like wind and solar.
Of course the hypocrisy from those who applaud this cutting isn't lost on people with at least one brain cell:
âoeIf you require a money-spigot from Washington to make your business viable, it probably shouldnâ(TM)t have been in business in the first place,â said Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Funny how they never mention the money-spigot from Washington the oil and gas companies have received since day one, or the huge subisidies companies like Haliburton receive every year.
Oh look, here is the actual wording [congress.gov] from the House bill posted on the congressional web site. But they're lying about this as well, right?
Re:Slashdot is VERY Left Wing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm conservative to the bone. I voted Republican in every election since Reagan, until Trump.
Trump is not conservative. Trump is about only one thing: Donald Trump. You are either for him or against him, policy details don't matter, and his stance on any given issue changes with the flip of a coin.
So slashdot may be "left wing" as you say, but that is not what makes anti-Trump comments so common around here. That comes from slashdot readers being *educated*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will you be here apologizing when some or all of these projections don't bear out?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not some fucking genius idiot I'm just listening to what the economists are saying. This isn't fucking rocket surgery.
The economists are telling us that when this bill passes the bond markets are going to freak out it's going to collapse the economy.
They're also telling us that rural and suburban hospitals are going to close l
Re:Now deport Elon (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what sucks? I don't like Elon, either. The idea of him getting hit with just-desserts is quite enticing. But I don't want to live in a world where he'd be deported by the US Gov't for standing up to the President.
I'd rather have the first amendment even if it means Elon's still here.
Re: Now deport Elon (Score:4, Interesting)
He entered the US on a student visa, didn't enroll or undertake studies (the purpose behind being on a student visa) and focused on his start up instead.
Elon got a BA in Physics a BS in economics (both from U Penn) and started a PhD in materials science (from Stanford), perhaps that satisfies the "enroll or undertake" requirement of his Student Visa?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Musk's idea for the poors was for them to take one of his cars-as-a-service robotaxis. Kinda makes our society seem more dystopian than China's, when you look at it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "subsidy" is actually a tax credit. You're getting some of your own money back as an incentive to not just go out and purchase another gas guzzler. I used to think that yes, it was unfair that it was something only wealthier folks could take advantage of, but then the used EV credit was introduced. That finally closed the circle on incentivizing wealthier folks to buy new EVs, so there'd be more used ones eventually reaching the second-hand market.
I bought a used Bolt utilizing the credit myself. I'