Fake Inflation Reduction Act
14 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Aug. 18, 2022, 12:25 p.m.

Even Bernie Thinks the Inflation Reduction Act Is a Fraud


The title of this bill, like many passed by Congress, misleads more than informs. And that’s no accident.

Bernie Sanders voted for the Manchin-Schumer tax-and-spend-palooza bill that passed the Senate yesterday, but the Senate’s only self-described socialist was brave enough to note how badly misnamed it was by its sponsors.

Misleading the public by naming bills that won’t create the results they promise — or that sometimes even lead to effects opposite to the ones promised — is an old congressional trick. Members get to title their own bills, and the House Rules Committee says the only constraint is that they must conform to the “general rules of decorum.”

Some names are clearly designed to make bills seem more palatable to members of the other party. Democrats tried to sell Obamacare as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But it didn’t change any votes in the hyper-partisan environment of 2009 and 2010, and it didn’t win a single Republican vote after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared, “We have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

Sometimes a bill’s title is formulated out of sheer vanity or personal pandering. In 2004, Don Young, an infamous pork-barreling Alaska Republican and the late chairman of the House transportation committee, ordered staff to name a bill after his wife, Lu. They came up with The Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, so that its acronym was TEA-LU.

The professional staff of Congress have been known to privately complain about all the games that members play to torture the English language in their bill titles. “If they spent as much time reading the bill as trying to title it, we’d be much better off,” one staffer told me.

Ray Smock, a former House historian, once told the Los Angeles Times that the Congress that passed the Slave Trade Prohibition Act in 1807 could have exercised a lot more creativity in naming it. “Had partisan abolitionists, using today’s low standards of bill-naming, put a title to the bill,” he said, “it might have been called An Act to Prohibit the Dastardly and Evil Jobs-Killing Slave Trade Act.”

One thing almost all professional Congress watchers and experts agree on is that while the imagination used to name bills has expanded dramatically, the quality of the legislation that ultimately passes has become sloppier and sloppier, as bills are rammed through in a few days — in the same way that the deceptively named Inflation Reduction Act passed in the Senate today.


This is the quinessential example of blatant dishonesty by our politicians in abusing the American public....FLAUNTING THIS IN FULL DISPLAY as a proud accomplishment.

This bill, was originally called The Climate Bill. 

Ironically it's the ANTI environmental/climate bill. It will do exactly 0 for the climate, even if you believe every word in it. It will destroy the environment with bird/bat killing wind turbines that cover and make the landscape ugly, that tear up the ground/environment  to obtain the minerals(make us dependent on China to get them), then get dumped into landfills that are bad for the environment after their 25 year life spans. 

To replace reliable fossil fuel energy with unreliable, costly energy that causes inflation.

After the Climate Bill name was made up, the US was hit with hyperinflation because of the agenda in the Climate Bill causing much higher energy prices. 

With Americans now very concerned about INFLATION caused in part by their agenda more than anything in their lives, these very dishonest people decided to name a bill that will cause it to be MUCH WORSE, the opposite........give it a new name "The anti inflation bill"  and all the democrats totally make up how it will fight inflation and sell the manufactured reality to the American people.


By metmike - Aug. 18, 2022, 12:48 p.m.
Like Reply

There are a few good things in the bill but they are dwarfed by extremely  bad anti environmental, anti energy items that define it.

It would like a community being very concerned about dog poop accumulating on their lawns being told by the city that they have the anti dog poop solution.

Big bags of a product called "anti dog poop" that they can sprinkle on their lawn which will take away the dog poop.

So what's in the bags? Dog poop and lots of horse poop. 

Before they buy any of this anti dog poop  product, the residents are hit with tons of horse poop piling up on their lawns even greater than the  dog poop.

The city responds by renaming their bags of anti dog poop..........ANTI HORSE POOP and telling people if they sprinke this product(that was originally called anti dog poop)  on their lawns, it will take away the horse poop.

No change in the product, which is still MORE dog and horse poop.

I've been listening to Biden and the Ds tell us this month how using this bill to dump even more dog and horse poop on our lawns is somehow going to eliminate the dog and horse poop there now and not really be what it is........making the problems that we are most concerned about EVEN WORSE. 

By metmike - Aug. 18, 2022, 1:06 p.m.
Like Reply

The solution to problems requires CHANGING the things causing the problems NOT doubling and tripling down on the exact things causing the problems............and CALLING THEM solutions.

Not completely ignoring the failed policies causing the problems because your agenda caused them and deciding that your agenda must take top priority, even if you have to lie to people and tell them that the agenda causing  problems now is actually what will save them. 

Then, do pathetic victory dances and celebrations when your fraud wins  and condemn all others that opposed you as being anti American and divisive as you gloat over fraud winning. 

By metmike - Aug. 18, 2022, 2:06 p.m.
Like Reply

Time Magazine Climate Anarchy


metmike: Just science FICTION that is being sold as a reality. Junk science, DISinformation repeated over and over until people actually believe it.............even though they've been completely wrong about every extreme prediction for over 3 decades.

We're having a climate OPTIMUM for life on this planet NOT a climate crisis.

There's tons of pollution and over consumption of natural resources(that will be MUCH WORSE using anti environmental wind and batteries) but the weather and climate have been the most favorable for life in at least the last 1,000 years........the last time that it was this warm.

Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!                                                  



By metmike - Aug. 18, 2022, 2:08 p.m.
Like Reply

Previous discussion on this bill:


By joj - Aug. 18, 2022, 5:06 p.m.
Like Reply

Will prescription drug prices come down as claimed in the bill?

I didn't see any mention of that in your thread.

By metmike - Aug. 18, 2022, 6:07 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks much  joj!


I mentioned on the 2nd page that there a few good things in the bill and that would be one of them….if it ever happened.

im sure there are others and many items in the huge bill that I don’t know about but I completely understand all the details  in the climate part and that part is almost all a huge anti environmental, energy counterproductive, inflation causing deal sold as the 100% opposite.

"There are a few good things in the bill but they are dwarfed by extremely  bad anti environmental, anti energy items that define it."


By metmike - Aug. 19, 2022, 12:13 a.m.
Like Reply

Twenty-Five Industrial Wind Energy Deceptions


19 – The claim that wind energy is “green” or “environmentally friendly” is laugh-out-loud hilarious – except for the fact that the reality is not funny at all. Consider just one part of a turbine, the generator, which uses considerable rare earth elements (2000± pounds per MW).

The mining and processing of these metals has horrific environmental consequences that are unacknowledged and ignored by the wind industry and its environmental surrogates. For instance, just the rare earths of a typical 100 MW wind project would generate approximately:

  1. 20,000 square meters of destroyed vegetation,
  2. 2 million pounds of CO2,
  3. 6 million cubic meters of toxic air pollution,
  4. 29 million gallons of poisoned water,
  5. 600 million pounds of highly contaminated tailing sands, and
  6. 280,000 pounds of radioactive waste. (See this, and this, and this.


Again, our modern society is based on abundant, reliable, affordable electric power. All these specious claims for wind energy are simply part of a long line of snake oil sales spiels – intended to fool the public, and to enable politicians to justify favoring special interests by enriching various rent-seekers (which will then return the favor via campaign contributions and other reelection support).

They get away with this scam primarily for three basic reasons.

1 – Wind proponents are not asked to independently PROVE the merits of their claims before (or after) their product is forced on the public.

2 – There is no penalty for making bogus assertions or dishonest claims about their product’s “benefits,” so each successive contention is more grandiose than the last.

3 – Promoting wind is a political agenda that is divorced from real science. A true scientific assessment is a comprehensive, objective evaluation with transparent real world data – not on carefully massaged computer models and slick advertising campaigns, which are the mainstay of anti-science evangelists promoting political agendas.

By metmike - Aug. 19, 2022, 1:07 a.m.
Like Reply

Here's another way to see right thru these  fake environmentalists pretending to be saving the planet..........while their anti environmental, junk science agenda WRECKS the planet. 

Awhile back, I identified most of the REAL environmental crisis's on our planet. That thread is copied below.

Anybody reading that will agree that those are all very serious problems that we need to aggressively address and change because they really are damaging our planet. 

This bill, supposedly will save the planet by moving strongly towards elimination of the , CO2(which is greening up the planet) and replacing it with much more environmentally damaging forms of energy because of a manufactured/fake climate crisis.

Legit environmentalists would be focusing on the REAL environmental crisis's on the planet below and not making up a climate crisis to justify their agenda with actions that make the REAL crisis's even worse in many cases.

We constantly  hear about the fake climate crisis being falsely blamed for every weather extreme all year round and for every negative impact on every creature and every living thing regardless of what the real cause is?......but never any mention of the real environmental crisis's below.

The real environmental crisis's/insects dying-dead zones-aquifers drying up-plastics in the ocean-landfills/trash-over consumption of natural resources-REAL pollution in the air/soil/water (metmike is a PRACTICING environmentalist): April 2019


By metmike - Aug. 19, 2022, 12:19 p.m.
Like Reply

The complete fraud of this act as part of the fake climate crisis can be seen in many dozens of realms with extreme scientific, biological and natural world clarity.

 Here's just one of them.

Manufactured reality: Polar bears are dying and being threatened by melting Arctic sea ice.

Reality: The polar bear population has been THRIVING  and  INCREASING the past 2 decades, in spite of the loss of sea ice


Manufactured reality: Wind turbines are environmentally better than fossil fuels. 

Reality: F the environment, especially the massive slaughter of  birds and bats. 

Wind turbines are the environmental energy source straight from hell! Just regarding wildlife, millions of birds and bats killed already will soon become tens of millions. Endangered species, like California Condors and Marbled Murrelets are included. Others like Whooping Cranes are losing habitat as a result of wind energy development.




By metmike - Aug. 19, 2022, 2:48 p.m.
Like Reply

This is no brainer science, environmental and energy stuff, people.

The reason that it appears to be so insightful and unique is because everybody's brain has been taken over by repetitive bullshit by the powerful gatekeepers of messages.

People have become completely  dependent on "Google Science"  and their favorite sources that tell them what to think based on trusting those sources. 

The problem is that most people cannot tell the difference between something that is political and something that is true.

Independent thinking and  critical thinking/research have been programmed out of the brains of people during this age of human history by technology that gives us the easy answer by looking it up on our favorite sources that tell it the way that we like to read/hear it.

Most people are totally convinced that the ones who disagree with THEIR BRAINWASH are the ones that are brainwashed.


There are 2 opposing sides on most political issues and the objective of the gatekeepers is absolutely NOT to inform with objective truths or science(like in the old days) but instead  to manufacture fake realities that will convince as many people as possible to join their righteous  side to do things like "save the planet" and fight the other "evil" side that is trying to sabotage their side because the other side is made out to be doing, exactly what they are doing..........lying their arses off for self serving political agenda.

Your true friends tell you the truth and expect nothing in return.


Neither political party has a franchise on the truth.

If you believe one party all the time......................you will believe in lies some of the time.


By metmike - Aug. 19, 2022, 11:30 p.m.
Like Reply

Is WSJ Quietly Practicing More Balanced Reporting on Climate Change?


By Stuart Gottlieb
July 31, 2022 4:48 pm ET

Ironically, the greatest threat to this progress—particularly in the critical realm of climate—comes not from such emerging mega-emitters as China and India, although they certainly play a role. It comes from the energy and climate initiatives promoted by the Biden White House, which are themselves unsustainable—so aggressive and unduly optimistic that they risk a backlash that would set back the cause of environmental sustainability for generations. To avert this, the administration must shift to a more pragmatic set of policies. Encouraging more natural-gas production and a moon-shot approach to fusion energy would embolden America to lead the world toward a green future.

But the administration first needs to reckon with the peril of the moment. America’s announced climate goals seek a transition to 100% clean electricity by 2035 and net-zero emissions by 2050. This aggressive timeline is increasingly at odds with three hard realities: economic, geostrategic and political. Each sets a major hurdle for climate action, and together they expose the unsustainability of the Democratic Party’s climate agenda.

James Meigs writes for City Journal:

Because of their low energy density, wind and solar developments require enormous tracts of land, compared with other energy sources. New York’s now-shuttered Indian Point nuclear power plant sits on just 240 acres. Replacing its power entirely with wind power would require more than 500 square miles of turbines. That’s a massive amount of land and habitat lost to energy production.

People upset about carbon footprints may not realize just how large the allegedly non-carbon footprints can be. And when inefficient alternative energy sources fail, people have to come back to the efficient sources that environmentalists have shunned. Mr. Meigs adds:

By metmike - Aug. 19, 2022, 11:31 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Aug. 23, 2022, 5:38 p.m.
Like Reply

New post explaining this new environmental crisis:


By metmike - Aug. 24, 2022, 7:37 p.m.
Like Reply

WSJ and Lomborg show just how useless the “Inflation Reduction Act” is at tackling climate


So, as seen in the figure below provided by Lomborg, we get somewhere between 0.028 and 0.0009°F reduction in temperature by 2100 for about 400 billion dollars in climate spending contained in the bill.

At that rate, simple math (see Excel sheet below) suggests the amount of money required to achieve the much desired 1.5°C (2.7°F) reduction in temperature using the best case reduction of 0.028°F would be $38,571,428,571,428 or approximately 39 Trillion dollars. The worst-case temperature reduction of 0.0009°F would cost a staggering 1,200,000,000,000,000 dollars or ONE QUADRILLION TWO HUNDRED TRILLION DOLLARS. 


To put that number in perspective, according to the World Bank, the 2020 world economy in U.S. dollars was approximately $84.7 trillion. Assuming it would actually work, to have a meaningful effect on climate, the world would have to spend about half the global annual economy for the best-case scenario. If you think inflation is bad now, just wait for those sorts of numbers.

The worst-case scenario is out of reach of world wealth. 

President Biden had this to say:


Now, let me be clear: This bill would be the most significant legislation in history to tackle the climate crisis and improve our energy security right away.  And it’ll give us a tool to meet the climate goals that are set — that we’ve agreed to — by cutting emissions and accelerating clean energy. 

Meanwhile, New York Times economist Paul Krugman suggested Democrats “saved civilization” with climate provisions in the spending bill.

There are just no words to describe this sort of disconnect between believing you’re a climate superhero and climate reality, especially when you’re a Nobel winning economist. Kudos to WSJ and Lomborg for pointing out the climate folly of the “Inflation Reduction Act.”


  Mike Maguire


                August 11, 2022 9:17 pm



“For several years now, advocates of “decarbonizing” our energy system, along with promoters of wind and solar energy, have claimed that the cost of electricity from the wind and sun was dropping rapidly and either already was, or soon would be, less than the cost of generating the same electricity from fossil fuels. These claims are generally based on a metric called the “Levelized Cost of Energy,” which is designed to seem sophisticated to the uninitiated, but in the real world is completely misleading because it omits the largest costs of a system where most generation comes from intermittent sources. The large omitted costs are those for storage (batteries) and transmission. But as we now careen recklessly down the road to zero emissions, how much will these omitted costs really amount to?
A guy named Ken Gregory has recently (December 20, 2021, updated January 10, 2022) come out with a Report at a Canadian website called Friends of Science with the title “The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.” A somewhat abbreviated version of Gregory’s Report has also appeared at Watts Up With That here. Gregory provides a tentative number for the additional storage costs that could be necessary for full electrification of the United States system, with all current fossil fuel generation replaced by wind and solar. That number is $433 trillion. Since the current U.S. annual GDP is about $21 trillion, you will recognize that the $433 trillion represents more than 20 times full U.S. annual GDP. In the post I will give some reasons why Gregory may even be underestimating what the cost would ultimately prove to be.”