Within the framework of the Constitution itself, Congress is king. They can override a veto by the Executive and remove them from office if they so choose. For the context we were speaking, tax and spend, Congress has effective unlimited authority if they so choose to use it.
Names of bills don't mean shit, they never have. Trying to tie anything to what politicians *name* a bill is pointless and childish. (Hello "Patriot Act").
Inflation hasn't gone down because people are still spending, raised prices or not. Talk is cheap, actions are what matter. People bitch up a storm that fast food prices (for example) are thru the roof (they are), but they're doing it while buying enough fast food the companies are making record profits.
And it isn't just essentials that are absolutely required, but everything. Prices will go back down when people start taking more action and stop spending.
It doesn't work that way. Everything works because people follow the basic rules -- the Constitution itself. Amending the Constitution itself isn't a simple vote of Congress, much less something signed by a President into law. There's an explicit process.
Your question is akin in seriousness to "what if EVERYONE just stopped paying taxes".
They didn't. They went up variable amounts, often higher, depending on what they were. And those prices went up YEARS before this legislation was passed, so the link you're implying is imaginary.
Unless SCOTUS officially rules "Unconstitutional", essentially. That's the check and balance we have.
You seem to have a problem understand the word "over". It isn't a lump sum at the end of the decade, it is accumulated over the 10-year period -- like like the spend.
Congress and their powers to tax and spend in general. That doesn't vary by specific technologies like solar vs oil, etc.
Not free, paid for by large corporations. The Inflation Reduction Act raises $300 billion over a decade by requiring large corporations to pay a 15 percent minimum tax on their profits and by enacting a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks and redemptions.
Criminals? That might have something to do with the fact the SEC isn't a law enforcement agency and has no arrest powers, they're a regulatory agency. Anything the SEC discovers that looks criminal is passed to the FBI.
Burner phones? Why bother? Read the article again. This is a ban from "work" phones, which are the ones issued to a limited number of personnel who don't like using something like Good on their personal phone. At best, work partition on their managed personal phone.
They can't touch employee's personal phones beyond an agreed-upon managed work partition. Everyone has a personal phone.
Tabs vs Spaces is right up there in geek hills-to-die-on with Vi vs Emacs. It has been around for decades.
If your parser is that shit and can't HANDLE tabs, it needs to be broken explicitly so you fix it and it doesn't break accidentally, in some weird and obscure way. Even just blindly converting tabs to spaces is better than breaking.
In the fine article is a mention that the government will be extending loans to energy projects that banks will not because the banks believe these project are not likely to be able to pay back the loan with interest. If the government extends the loan then somehow these projects will prove profitable? Not likely.
No, it doesn't say that. It says simply that it is difficult to get banks to invest in low income areas. You make the assumption that it is because they can't make a profit, but that isn't how things work. It is simply because they can make MORE of a profit elsewhere. This is just leveling out opportunity cost.
That market you're talking about taxes the everloving fuck out of petrol in the Netherlands, with a price being about $2.16 per litre according to the Internets. Whereas in the US we're looking at around $3.00 per US gallon, or about $0.80 per litre.
If petrol was $0.80 or less per litre how eager would they be switching over to EVs?
EVERY market is distorted, you just have different places it happens and different amounts.
They look cool. I've see a couple of articles lately where the younger crowds buy vinyl to use as a decorative "retro" music library. Many don't even have record players so what they sound like is irrelevant.
According to the article, they're focused right now on ADUs, or "Accessory Dwelling Units". That's corporate-speak for smaller units as 2nd dwellings on existing lots. Think "in-law suite". So cost of land would be close to zero as it is already a sunk cost. In reality the tax assessment would rise as the value of the property goes up, but that'd depend on the details of State law on propery tax increase limits, etc.
And a housing bill making its way through the Massachusetts Legislature could create a new market overnight for the company by making it much easier to plant so-called accessory dwelling units (ADUs) of up to 900 square feet in the backyard of any single-family home in the state.
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.
