President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[lpetrich]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The Inflation Reduction Act just passed the House, and will soon by signed into law!
Here's what's in it (pix link)" / Twitter

CLIMATE WINS

The Inflation Reduction Act will:

• Create up to 9 million new jobs in clean energy, clean manufacturing, environmental protection and green transportation
• Reduce annual utility costs by an average of $1,025 by lowering fuel and electricity costs and improving energy efficiency
• Dedicate about $60 billion for environmental justice investments in communities disproportionately harmed by climate change and pollution
• Cut emissions by roughly 40%!

HEALTHCARE WINS

The Inflation Reduction Act will:

• Allow Medicare to directly negotiate prescription drug prices, starting with 10 drugs beginning in 2023
• Cap insulin to $35 for those with Medicare coverage
• Limit Medicare out-of-pocket costs to $2,000 per year
• Extend healthcare insurance subsidies to lower costs

TAX FAIRNESS WINS

The Inflation Reduction Act will:

• Provide funding for the IRS to go after wealthy tax evaders
• Institute a 15% minimum tax rate on the wealthiest corporations
• Impose a 1% tax on stock buybacks used to enrich wealthy shareholders

Despite Republican lies, there are no new taxes on any family making $400,000 or less, and no new taxes on small businesses.

She voted for this one.

 

[lpetrich]

• The Postal Service Reform Act, ending the ridiculous rule that required the Post Office to prepay the entire cost of its employees’ health and retirement benefits;

I didn't realize this was in the legislation.

Good.

That was passed separately, like the other members of that list.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

Biden widens war on junk fees, says US consumers tired of being treated as 'suckers'

The White House on Wednesday expanded its war on junk fees to the rental housing market, announced a crackdown on price-fixing in food and agricultural markets, and unveiled draft merger guidelines as part of an ongoing push to aid U.S. consumers.

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON, July 19 (Reuters) - The White House on Wednesday expanded its war on junk fees to the rental housing market, announced a crackdown on price-fixing in food and agricultural markets, and unveiled draft merger guidelines as part of an ongoing push to aid U.S. consumers.

President Joe Biden, who has made attacks on corporate greed and power a centerpiece of his presidency, explained the government's latest actions at the fifth meeting of his 18-agency Competition Council at the White House on Wednesday.


"It's about basic fairness," he told Cabinet members and other council members, underscoring the need to continue driving down inflation. "Folks are tired of being played for suckers."

The new measures came near the second anniversary of a Biden executive order creating the council and a government-wide attack on anti-competitive practices. It has already taken aim at meatpacking, ocean shipping and consumer junk fees.

 

[ZiprHead]

Morgan Stanley credits Bidenomics for 'much stronger' than expected GDP growth

Biden's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is "driving a boom in large-scale infrastructure," wrote Morgan Stanley's chief U.S. economist.

www.cnbc.com

WASHINGTON — Morgan Stanley is crediting President Joe Biden’s economic policies with driving an unexpected surge in the U.S. economy that is so significant that the bank was forced to make a “sizable upward revision” to its estimates for U.S. gross domestic product.

Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is “driving a boom in large-scale infrastructure,” wrote Ellen Zentner, chief U.S. economist for Morgan Stanley, in a research note released Thursday. In addition to infrastructure, “manufacturing construction has shown broad strength,” she wrote.

As a result of these unexpected swells, Morgan Stanley now projects 1.9% GDP growth for the first half of this year. That’s nearly four times higher than the bank’s previous forecast of 0.5%.

 

[ZiprHead]

Under Biden, US oil production is poised to break Trump-era records

Critics accuse President Joe Biden of waging a war on the oil industry that is hurting consumers at the gas pump. And yet, on his watch, US oil production is poised to shatter all-time records set during the Trump administration.

US oil output is now projected to rise to an average of 12.8 million barrels per day this year for the first time ever, according to federal estimates released Tuesday.

For context, that’s about half a million barrels per day more than the prior annual record set in 2019. It’s also more oil than any other country on the planet produces — the next-closest nation, Saudi Arabia, produces about 10 million barrels per day, according to OPEC.

US oil output has increased since Pence and former President Trump left office – a time when oil prices were low because of the Covid-19 emergency. The EIA expects US output to top 12.9 million barrels per day later this year. That would mark a 16% increase since January 2021 when Biden took office.

 

[Derec]

Under Biden, US oil production is poised to break Trump-era records

Correlation != causation

Critics accuse President Joe Biden of waging a war on the oil industry that is hurting consumers at the gas pump.

The oil industry is not what's "hurting consumers at the gas pump". In fact, if US oil companies weren't producing as much as they do, thanks to fracking, oil and gasoline prices would be much higher than today.

And yet, on his watch, US oil production is poised to shatter all-time records set during the Trump administration.

Certainly not due to anything the Biden administration has done to make domestic oil production easier.
From your own article:

The American Petroleum Institute, an oil trade group that has been critical of the Biden administration’s regulatory efforts, noted that approved federal permits and new federal acres leased have both fallen sharply under Biden.
“American oil and natural gas production is growing to meet rising demand, but that supply growth is largely from existing US projects approved in the 2010s,” an API spokesperson said in a statement to CNN. “American producers are poised to do more to strengthen US energy security and support jobs and local economies, but we need the right policies from this administration to do it.”

The real reason for production increase is oil prices, not Biden's policies. Here's an oil price chart.

As you can see, oil prices now are much higher than they were under the Trump years. After COVID the demand bounced back and there was also the tiny issue of the war in Ukraine that disrupted the oil markets.

It's supply and demand. When prices rise, more supply becomes cost-competitive and more wells get put into production.

US oil output is now projected to rise to an average of 12.8 million barrels per day this year for the first time ever, according to federal estimates released Tuesday.
For context, that’s about half a million barrels per day more than the prior annual record set in 2019. It’s also more oil than any other country on the planet produces — the next-closest nation, Saudi Arabia, produces about 10 million barrels per day, according to OPEC.

And the reason for it is fracking. Something that is anathema to the left wing of the Democratic Party.

I must admit, Biden is far better on this issue than many of his 2020 rivals. Many of them wanted to outright ban all fracking. That cohort includes Kamala Harris, Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders. They would also probably have shut down DAPL (as lefty activists demand) which is much needed to transport oil from the Bakken formation to refineries.

Banning fracking would have halved US oil production, costing jobs and government revenue, and increasing oil prices and our need for the now more expensive imported oil. It would also have dropped US gas production by 2/3, making it impossible to support Europe with our LNG to help them avoid Russian gas.
Is Your “Natural” Gas Actually Fracked?

Europe was the main destination for U.S. LNG exports in 2022

Funny how Matt Egan fails to mention fracking even once, despite it being such an important part of this story.

 

[thebeave]

Under Biden, US oil production is poised to break Trump-era records

Critics accuse President Joe Biden of waging a war on the oil industry that is hurting consumers at the gas pump. And yet, on his watch, US oil production is poised to shatter all-time records set during the Trump administration.

US oil output is now projected to rise to an average of 12.8 million barrels per day this year for the first time ever, according to federal estimates released Tuesday.

For context, that’s about half a million barrels per day more than the prior annual record set in 2019. It’s also more oil than any other country on the planet produces — the next-closest nation, Saudi Arabia, produces about 10 million barrels per day, according to OPEC.

US oil output has increased since Pence and former President Trump left office – a time when oil prices were low because of the Covid-19 emergency. The EIA expects US output to top 12.9 million barrels per day later this year. That would mark a 16% increase since January 2021 when Biden took office.

By posting this, it sorta sounds like you're bragging about Biden's support of fossil fuels. But I thought he was a "green energy" supporter and has pushed all these EV and renewable energy projects, so why would this be something to brag about?

 

[ZiprHead]

By posting this, it sorta sounds like you're bragging about Biden's support of fossil fuels. But I thought he was a "green energy" supporter and has pushed all these EV and renewable energy projects, so why would this be something to brag about?

Both things can't be true at the same time?

 

[Derec]

By posting this, it sorta sounds like you're bragging about Biden's support of fossil fuels. But I thought he was a "green energy" supporter and has pushed all these EV and renewable energy projects, so why would this be something to brag about?

Biden is in an unenviable position. He wants to do something about climate, and the left fringe wants him to do a lot more (ban fracking, shut down pipelines and CCGT power plants, ban ICE-powered cars on California schedule etc.)
But at the same time, voters are sensitive to energy prices, esp. gas prices. So he can't do what would really help - a carbon tax that would increase gasoline price by at least $1/gal. The added revenues could be used to invest in clean energy (such as a charging network) and part of it could fund a tax credit for lower and middle class (hopefully one that does not penalize the child-free!) to offset the extra cost of energy. This plan would reduce demand without disadvantaging domestic suppliers relative to foreign ones.
But that plan would be unpopular because of the price board shock.
So many Dems militate against domestic energy companies instead, as if they were the enemy. Banning fracking and pipelines would reduce demand somewhat, due to less supply and increased prices, but the surplus would be siphoned abroad to Russia and Saudi Arabia etc.

Dem run Washington State even wants to get rid of gasoline tax and replace it with a mileage tax where every vehicle - heavy or light, polluting or not, would pay the same. And the governor is the 2020 "climate candidate" Jay Inslee.
Washington State considers shift from gas tax to pay-per-mile system
You can't make that shit up!

 

[Derec]

Both things can't be true at the same time?

If not an outright contradiction, the two goals are certainly in tension.

 

[laughing dog]

By posting this, it sorta sounds like you're bragging about Biden's support of fossil fuels. But I thought he was a "green energy" supporter and has pushed all these EV and renewable energy projects, so why would this be something to brag about?

Biden is in an unenviable position. He wants to do something about climate, and the left fringe wants him to do a lot more (ban fracking, shut down pipelines and CCGT power plants, ban ICE-powered cars on California schedule etc.)
But at the same time, voters are sensitive to energy prices, esp. gas prices. So he can't do what would really help - a carbon tax that would increase gasoline price by at least $1/gal. The added revenues could be used to invest in clean energy (such as a charging network) and part of it could fund a tax credit for lower and middle class (hopefully one that does not penalize the child-free!) to offset the extra cost of energy. This plan would reduce demand without disadvantaging domestic suppliers relative to foreign ones.
But that plan would be unpopular because of the price board shock.
So many Dems militate against domestic energy companies instead, as if they were the enemy. Banning fracking and pipelines would reduce demand somewhat, due to less supply and increased prices, but the surplus would be siphoned abroad to Russia and Saudi Arabia etc.

Dem run Washington State even wants to get rid of gasoline tax and replace it with a mileage tax where every vehicle - heavy or light, polluting or not, would pay the same. And the governor is the 2020 "climate candidate" Jay Inslee.
Washington State considers shift from gas tax to pay-per-mile system
You can't make that shit up!

If feasible, a pay per mile makes more economic sense for road use and carbon emission reductions than a gas tax. Plus it prevents electronic vehicle owners from avoiding road use charges via a gas tax.

Ideally, a road use payment would depend on weight, but the gas tax doesn’t ideally adjust for weight. While mpg does tend to vary with weight, it is not an exact correlation.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

 

[bilby]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

The only reason not to is that Jane Fonda and her neo-luddite friends back in the 1970s decided to scare the pants off everyone with a bunch of ludicrous and unfounded scaremongering.



FFS.

This is the reason we can't have nice things.

It certainly was about people who lie. It was the 1970s version of today's vaccine denial. Science and technology are bad, m'kay?

By now, fossil fuels could be a footnote in history. Cars could run on synthetic gasoline made at nuclear power plants; Or on electricity, generated by ... well, you know the answer.

Climate change would be like the Y2K bug - a disaster that was predicted, prepared for, and as a result, averted.

Fossil fuels would be left in the ground, or used solely for lubricants, chemical feedstocks, and plastics, in which roles they don't contribute significantly to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

But Jane Fonda said it was too scary. It probably doesn't matter whether she was hopelessly wrong, or just lying.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

in principle I agree. In practice it’s a bit late to get started, not that we shouldn’t. Since we’ve known for forty years what’s been coming we could have slowly invested in an energy paradigm changeover. But We will still suffer even if we got started switching to nuclear now, which we won’t. And if we don’t have the political Capitol to fix the problem it’s unlikely we’ll have lots to mitigate or adapt either.

 

[bilby]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

in principle I agree. In practice it’s a bit late to get started, not that we shouldn’t. Since we’ve known for forty years what’s been coming we could have slowly invested in an energy paradigm changeover. But We will still suffer even if we got started switching to nuclear now, which we won’t. And if we don’t have the political Capitol to fix the problem it’s unlikely we’ll have lots to mitigate or adapt either.

Sure, the best time to invest in nuclear power was fifty years ago.

But that doesn't change the fact that the second best time is now.

For any value of "now".

 

[Shadowy Man]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

in principle I agree. In practice it’s a bit late to get started, not that we shouldn’t. Since we’ve known for forty years what’s been coming we could have slowly invested in an energy paradigm changeover. But We will still suffer even if we got started switching to nuclear now, which we won’t. And if we don’t have the political Capitol to fix the problem it’s unlikely we’ll have lots to mitigate or adapt either.

Sure, the best time to invest in nuclear power was fifty years ago.

But that doesn't change the fact that the second best time is now.

For any value of "now".

Yes, but if we couldn’t do it when we knew it would help best I don’t think we will do it now. The impacts are coming and at this point if we spend any money at all, which we likely won’t, we may be better off spending it on adaptation.

 

[bilby]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

in principle I agree. In practice it’s a bit late to get started, not that we shouldn’t. Since we’ve known for forty years what’s been coming we could have slowly invested in an energy paradigm changeover. But We will still suffer even if we got started switching to nuclear now, which we won’t. And if we don’t have the political Capitol to fix the problem it’s unlikely we’ll have lots to mitigate or adapt either.

Sure, the best time to invest in nuclear power was fifty years ago.

But that doesn't change the fact that the second best time is now.

For any value of "now".

Yes, but if we couldn’t do it when we knew it would help best I don’t think we will do it now. The impacts are coming and at this point if we spend any money at all, which we likely won’t, we may be better off spending it on adaptation.

When did we know better than now that it would help best?

 

[Shadowy Man]

We will pay for climate change one way or the other. Either in prevention, disaster relief or adaptation. The years of guzzling cheap energy are over.

Not if we embrace nuclear fission.

in principle I agree. In practice it’s a bit late to get started, not that we shouldn’t. Since we’ve known for forty years what’s been coming we could have slowly invested in an energy paradigm changeover. But We will still suffer even if we got started switching to nuclear now, which we won’t. And if we don’t have the political Capitol to fix the problem it’s unlikely we’ll have lots to mitigate or adapt either.

Sure, the best time to invest in nuclear power was fifty years ago.

But that doesn't change the fact that the second best time is now.

For any value of "now".

Yes, but if we couldn’t do it when we knew it would help best I don’t think we will do it now. The impacts are coming and at this point if we spend any money at all, which we likely won’t, we may be better off spending it on adaptation.

When did we know better than now that it would help best?

Forty years ago, before we started seeing the impacts. Changing energy policy before the problem got bad would have been better than waiting until it got bad then deciding we should do something about it. Perhaps had we done so we wouldn’t be seeing some of the effects we are seeing now.

Perhaps I just worded the sentence poorly.