9 ms·
The Build Back Better bill (or reconciliation bill) is the only real climate legislation that will plausibly be signed into law in the United States in the 2020
by aaronbrethorst 5y ago
The Build Back Better bill (or reconciliation bill) is the only real climate legislation that will plausibly be signed into law in the United States in the 2020s. It offers a meaningful path forward for the US to curb its carbon emissions.
Opposing it means you oppose doing anything about mitigating the climate crisis within the United States from a federal legislative perspective within a timeframe where we can reasonably imagine stopping temperatures from increasing past 1.5° or 2.0°C.
It is revenue neutral and paid for by increasing taxes on the richest Americans and corporations. That’s why Apple and Disney are opposed to it. Notably, their tax liabilities will still be lower than they were in 2017.
- refurb 5y agoNope. That’s just playing politics. “Yeah the bill has a lot of terrible parts to it, but if you don’t support it you just don’t care about the earth”. Nonsense.
- djbebs 5y agoSo its not revenue neutral.
- thomasahle 5y agoRevenue neutral doesn't mean you can't increase taxes. It just means the funding isn't based on borrowing.
- flurben 5y ago"Revenue neutral" just means a bill will not increase government revenues. edit : You can downvote me all you want, it isn't going to change the definition of the term. https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/
- thomasahle 5y agoI suppose you may be right that revenue-neutral is not the right word, or at least people are starting to use it in a new way focusing more on debt than tax. It is pretty clear that what Biden tweets about is the impact on debt, not taxes: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/29/can-joe-bidens-agenda-really-cost-zero-dollars-gui/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/sep/29/can-joe-biden...
- sschueller 5y agoNeither are all the giant tax cuts that have been passed since Bush Jr. or defense spending.
- cm2187 5y agoor another way to put it: https://babylonbee.com/news/thief-assures-victim-the-robbery-will-cost-0-since-victim-is-paying-for-it/ https://babylonbee.com/news/thief-assures-victim-the-robbery...
- barney54 5y agoWe don’t know if the bill is revenue neutral because we haven’t seen the final version yet.
- jjcon 5y ago> that will plausibly be signed into law in the United States in the 2020s Its 2021... not a chance you can claim that. One thing that is certain is that the US wont pass the 3.5 trillion dollar bill - there is zero path forward for it at this point.
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoRedistricting plus midterm effects means that Democrats will lose their trifecta in January 2023. They’ll be unlikely to regain it, if they’re lucky, until the end of the decade. The party of climate denialism (the ones that start with R) isn’t going to get on board with climate legislation. Also where do I state any certainty about the price tag?
- nverno 5y ago> Opposing it means you oppose ... If life were so simple. Of course, the reality is this bill covers everything from child tax credits, paid leaves, to god knows what else.
- aaronbrethorst 5y agoOh no, god forbid we try to drag ourselves into the 21st century, and get somewhere close to what every other modern democracy has offered for decades.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cscurmudgeon 5y agoNo other country (democracy or not) has such a huge influx of legal and illegal immigrants and a laughably porous border. The US admits more people than the populations of some these democracies that people compare the US with. You can have a huge welfare state or open borders but not both. Unless the US invents a perpetual motion machine. Edit: downvotes and running away, the mark of a rational mind
- m_eiman 5y agohttps://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigration/dp/1250316960 https://www.amazon.com/Open-Borders-Science-Ethics-Immigrati...
- hihihihi1234 5y agoCongratulations, you've proved that someone somewhere has written a book that argues for open borders. There's also a book called "Nobody Died at Sandy Hook", which argues that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax staged by the Obama administration as a pretext to take everybody's guns away. People can write and publish books about anything. Care to make an actual argument?
- 5y ago
- throwawaysea 5y agoThis bill isn’t a focused climate or infrastructure bill. That’s the marketing dressing for a widely scoped bill where only 23% of spending is for infrastructure. In actuality it includes many radically left-leaning policies, which moderates on neither side of the aisle can support. A prominent example is that it included changes to immigration that would grant citizenship for 8 million illegal immigrants, which luckily the Senate parliamentarian shot down. That’s not a climate bill - that’s a power grab that intends to reshape the electorate and dilute the voting interests of legal citizens, particularly Republicans, since this cohort would overwhelmingly vote Democrat. People have many complex reasons to support or oppose any bill, just as they do with any candidate. It isn’t as black and white as you’re painting. If supporters of the bill truly felt climate was a critical issue, they would create a much tighter bill that has as few reasons to garner opposition as possible.
- aerosmile 5y agoI have never heard this particular angle on this bill, and would hope that it's wrong. Can someone confirm/deny with some references?
- lelandfe 5y agoTo be fair, the only example of the “many radically left-leaning policies” that they provided was one that had already been removed. I’m not quite sure what we’re confirming or denying here. My understanding of how bill making works, anyway, is that there are usually riders or provisions like this that are known to be, shall we say, sacrificial. They make useful bargaining chips when seeking concessions.
- zimpenfish 5y agohttps://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-case-to-senate-parliamentarian-for-8-million-green-cards https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-ca... It doesn't "grant citizenship", just provides a pathway for "Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, agricultural and other essential workers" to "getting permanent legal status or a green card". Which may then lead to citizenship if they meet the requirements.
- KorematsuFredt 5y agoIt is a massive spending program that gives government too much power, probably will harm our infrastructure and any impact on climate is purely speculative. I am pretty sure a lot of digging holes and filling them back up kind of work just for the sake compliance. I hope the bill does not pass or even if it passes future admins roll it back.
- hihihihi1234 5y agoIf this is true then maybe the fault lies partially with the bad-faith legislators who have stuffed the bill with a Christmas wish-list of items that suit their agenda but have nothing to do with climate change, thus making it harder for the bill to pass?
- RayVR 5y agoWhile this sounds truthy, would be even better if you have refs on what's been stuffed in.
- cscurmudgeon 5y agoWhy not just have a clean climate bill? This is just political nonsense.
- secondaryacct 5y agoI dont if it s revenue neutral if it means being absolutely not neutral on the people and groups contributing most to society's finances. If that s the case then I agree they have a right to complain, if just on the fact nobody's made responsible but them for something that is everybody's fault.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- fdschoeneman 5y agoNo. One can oppose the bill for lots of reasons, including a lack of faith that any of the taxes, regulations and spending will have the effect you and the politicians who wrote it think it will. Or one might oppose it because one thinks it doesn't go far enough. Either way mind reading isn't helpful.