No more mister nice guy

[Hermit]

'Biden Names and Shames "Socialist Republicans" Who Voted Against His Infrastructure Bill but Are Begging Him for Funding'

President Joe Biden spoke about the September jobs report praised by leading economists Friday afternoon, and took a few moments to criticize the “socialist Republicans” who publicly voted against the critical infrastructure legislation that is an important part of his economic agenda, while privately begging him for funding for their districts.

“There’s a report, you guys can, as they say, as my grandkids say, ‘Google it,’ but a report that came out on CNN that says, ‘Republicans called Biden infrastructure program socialist.’ Then they asked for the money,” the President said mockingly.

“And it goes through all the Republicans, the most conservative Republicans, who called it ‘socialism,’ and now they’re asking for it. A guy named Paul Gosar,” President Biden said, referring to far-right wing white nationalist U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona.

“He’s written three separate letters to the administration, asking for projects in his district,” Biden said, appearing to read from the CNN report. “He says they enhance the quality of life and ease congestion, boost the economy.”

Biden. leaning into the microphone, told supporters, “Voted against it, says it’s all socialism.”

“Go down the list. Kentucky Representative Andy Barr.”

Mocking the GOP lawmaker he mimicked him saying, “The biggest socialist agenda.”

“Three different projects he wants, citing the importance of safety and growth in his district.”

“Rand Paul,” President Biden continued. “I go down the list. Look it up,” he said waving the pages of the report.

“Socialist,’ he said mockingly.

“I didn’t know there were that many socialist Republicans,” Biden deadpanned.

I hope Biden - and all other Democrats - keep trolling the "anti-socialist" Republican fuckers. Though rusted-on Trumpers will not change their deluded faith in the psychopath, ridicule may be an effective tool to wean others off their delusions.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

But on the off chance some socialist bridge replacement or the like does take place, make sure there is one of those large signs about the project and cost with a big picture of smiling Joe on it.

Personally I’d like to see Biden grab his junk and say, “I’ve got your infrastructure package right here bitch”. But I fear decorum may get the better of him.

 

[Bomb#20]

Personally I’d like to see Biden grab his junk and say, “I’ve got your infrastructure package right here bitch”. But I fear decorum may get the better of him.

So the basic moral principle being propounded here is that if a legislator feels governments should not play

Beggar thy neighbour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but hasn't the power to stop it, then she should volunteer her constituents to be the ones beggared by their neighbors? And when a legislator is offered

Vote buying - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but turns down the offer, it is just and proper for the winner of the election to withhold from her district the rewards handed out to those who voted for the vote buyer? And when faced with a

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

someone who thinks it's better if everyone cooperates than if everyone defects is honor-bound to cooperate even when the others defect? Do I have that right?

I suspect it's impossible for a nation to have a parliament of whores without first having an electorate of whores.

 

[Swammerdami]

Personally I’d like to see Biden grab his junk and say, “I’ve got your infrastructure package right here bitch”. But I fear decorum may get the better of him.

So the basic moral principle being propounded here is that if a legislator feels governments should not play

Beggar thy neighbour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but hasn't the power to stop it, then she should volunteer her constituents to be the ones beggared by their neighbors? And when a legislator is offered

Vote buying - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but turns down the offer, it is just and proper for the winner of the election to withhold from her district the rewards handed out to those who voted for the vote buyer? And when faced with a

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

someone who thinks it's better if everyone cooperates than if everyone defects is honor-bound to cooperate even when the others defect? Do I have that right?

I suspect it's impossible for a nation to have a parliament of whores without first having an electorate of whores.

I understand your point; and fortunately Biden and the other D's are charitable in contrast to the Rs.

But it's hugely tempting to speak of reciprocating tit-for-tat ...
Since such acts of malice are exactly what the R's do to "Blue" states when the R's are in charge.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

But on the off chance some socialist bridge replacement or the like does take place, make sure there is one of those large signs about the project and cost with a big picture of smiling Joe on it.

In paragraph two, we have my attempted use of humor suggesting Biden should do something tacky and plaster his face on infrastructure project billboards. (Personally, I'd be satisfied with the Buttigieg family, but that's just me.) It was meant to conjure up images of Trump and his doing things like his sending out stimulus check mailers with his face on them. You know, tacky stuff.

I’d like to see Biden grab his junk and say, “I’ve got your infrastructure package right here bitch”. But I fear decorum may get the better of him.

And then finally in paragraph three, we have me taking the humor to absurd proportions in suggesting the President of the United States actually grasp and shake his (fully clothed) genitalia in public at those hypocritical politicians now requesting stimulation.

Of course I do not want him to really do this. Nor do I want him to ignore the needs of areas of the country based on their political leanings.
Does that address your concerns?
Beyond that, I'm not quite sure what to do with this:

So the basic moral principle being propounded here is that if a legislator feels governments should not play

Beggar thy neighbour - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but hasn't the power to stop it, then she should volunteer her constituents to be the ones beggared by their neighbors? And when a legislator is offered

Vote buying - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

but turns down the offer, it is just and proper for the winner of the election to withhold from her district the rewards handed out to those who voted for the vote buyer? And when faced with a

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

someone who thinks it's better if everyone cooperates than if everyone defects is honor-bound to cooperate even when the others defect? Do I have that right?

I suspect it's impossible for a nation to have a parliament of whores without first having an electorate of whores.

 

[Elixir]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

But on the off chance some socialist bridge replacement or the like does take place, make sure there is one of those large signs about the project and cost with a big picture of smiling Joe on it.

In paragraph two, we have my attempted use of humor suggesting Biden should do something tacky and plaster his face on infrastructure project billboards. (Personally, I'd be satisfied with the Buttigieg family, but that's just me.) It was meant to conjure up images of Trump and his doing things like his sending out stimulus check mailers with his face on them. You know, tacky stuff.

I’d like to see Biden grab his junk and say, “I’ve got your infrastructure package right here bitch”. But I fear decorum may get the better of him.

And then finally in paragraph three, we have me taking the humor to absurd proportions in suggesting the President of the United States actually grasp and shake his (fully clothed) genitalia in public at those hypocritical politicians now requesting stimulation.

Of course I do not want him to really do this. Nor do I want him to ignore the needs of areas of the country based on their political leanings.
Does that address your concerns?
Beyond that, I'm not quite sure what to do with this:

One mixes the metaphorical with the material at one's own peril on the internet.
It gives a hostile audience the chance to - intentionally or otherwise - misconstrue one's point by taking the (obviously, facetiously) hyperbolic as literal, and construing the literal as hyperbole.

 

[Rhea]

So the basic moral principle being propounded here is that if a legislator feels governments should not play
…
but hasn't the power to stop it, then she should volunteer her constituents to be the ones beggared by their neighbors?

There’s a faction in my town that lobbies for the board to TURN DOWN and REFUSE grant money of any kind from “the feds” (never mind that it was state or county money, but whatever,) because it just “feeds the machine” and “gives them a mandate to make the pork fatter in next year’s budget.”

So to answer your question: If they are genuinely principled, I would say yes.


Now, I immediately engage in a counter conversation with myself that I argue that Democrats must gerrymander to offset the damage done by GOP gerrymandering so that the GOP are not able to steal the reins of government.

So what’s the difference? I think it is that I would say out loud and up front, “I HATE gerrymandering, and I only do it because failing to play by the same rules as the other party creates an oppressive situation.”

And I think that’s what these legislators should say, instead of, ”[my request is to] enhance the quality of life and ease congestion, boost the economy.”

That’s the hypocrisy.
If they said, “I hate having to ask, but you’ve taken money and created a system where I have to ask, in order to get my money back,” then they’d be honest.

 

[Bomb#20]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

Some guy: Let's all go play rugby!
Some other guy: Nah, rugby's lame. Let's play Australian Rules!
Some guys: Australian Rules sucks! Rugby is awesome!
Some other guys: No way! Australian Rules is way better!
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Somebody counts: That's 17 for Rugby and 13 for Australian Rules. Rugby it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said rugby is lame! They're playing rugby! What a bunch of hypocrites!

 

[bilby]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

Some guy: Let's all go play rugby!
Some other guy: Nah, rugby's lame. Let's play Australian Rules!
Some guys: Australian Rules sucks! Rugby is awesome!
Some other guys: No way! Australian Rules is way better!
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Somebody counts: That's 17 for Rugby and 13 for Australian Rules. Rugby it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said rugby is lame! They're playing rugby! What a bunch of hypocrites!

They were always going to end up
playing Rugby; 30 people is enough for a Rugby match, but it's six short of enough to make up two Australian Rules teams.

 

[Tigers!]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

Some guy: Let's all go play rugby!
Some other guy: Nah, rugby's lame. Let's play Australian Rules!
Some guys: Australian Rules sucks! Rugby is awesome!
Some other guys: No way! Australian Rules is way better!
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Somebody counts: That's 17 for Rugby and 13 for Australian Rules. Rugby it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said rugby is lame! They're playing rugby! What a bunch of hypocrites!

They were always going to end up
playing Rugby; 30 people is enough for a Rugby match, but it's six short of enough to make up two Australian Rules teams.

Take off the wings, have no rovers and voila 24 players per side.
The VFA had 16 men per side for decades.

 

[Bomb#20]

So the basic moral principle being propounded here is that if a legislator feels governments should not play
…
but hasn't the power to stop it, then she should volunteer her constituents to be the ones beggared by their neighbors?

There’s a faction in my town that lobbies for the board to TURN DOWN and REFUSE grant money of any kind from “the feds” (never mind that it was state or county money, but whatever,) because it just “feeds the machine” and “gives them a mandate to make the pork fatter in next year’s budget.”

So to answer your question: If they are genuinely principled, I would say yes.

Suppose the shoe were on the other foot. If the legislator had voted for a tax hike but the legislature voted it down, would you say she should volunteer the people of her district to go ahead and pay the higher tax she'd advocated, even though the rest of the country wouldn't be paying, if she were genuinely principled?

Now, I immediately engage in a counter conversation with myself that I argue that Democrats must gerrymander to offset the damage done by GOP gerrymandering so that the GOP are not able to steal the reins of government.

Good for you for doing that. It's refreshing to see somebody apply critical thought to arguments coming from her own allies.

So what’s the difference? I think it is that I would say out loud and up front, “I HATE gerrymandering, and I only do it because failing to play by the same rules as the other party creates an oppressive situation.”

And I think that’s what these legislators should say, instead of, ”[my request is to] enhance the quality of life and ease congestion, boost the economy.”

They could do that. Do you think telling the folks empowered to hand out goodies that you're in a position of moral superiority over them, and you're only asking for a favor because they created an oppressive situation, at a time when you need to convince people who have the discretionary authority to oppress citizens -- citizens in your district who are depending on your negotiating skills to protect them from oppression -- is an effective way to get those oppressors to look favorably on your request?

When a society plays beggar-thy-neighbor with itself, it turns itself into a society of beggars. Beggars learn to ask nicely. Calling gerrymandering out for what it is costs a legislator nothing.

That’s the hypocrisy.
If they said, “I hate having to ask, but you’ve taken money and created a system where I have to ask, in order to get my money back,” then they’d be honest.

Suppose a mob showed up at your door saying the King had ordered all good Catholic French people to kill the Protestants, and asked if you knew where any were hiding. If you said, "I hate that he did that and created a system where I have to hide my neighbors in my attic, in order to keep evil men like you and the King from murdering them", then you'd be honest. Please tell me you'd have enough presence of mind and strength of character to lie through your teeth.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Nor do I want him to ignore the needs of areas of the country based on their political leanings.
Does that address your concerns?
Beyond that, I'm not quite sure what to do with this:

One mixes the metaphorical with the material at one's own peril on the internet.
It gives a hostile audience the chance to - intentionally or otherwise - misconstrue one's point by taking the (obviously, facetiously) hyperbolic as literal, and construing the literal as hyperbole.

But I didn't misconstrue a goddamn thing. That Tacc's proposals were facetious and hyperbolic is neither here nor there -- that he (and you, and the others who "like"d his post) were drooling over them in the first place shows you've all embraced the corrupted moral standards Biden was exhibiting.

Rhea was spot on: "failing to play by the same rules as the other party creates an oppressive situation." It is not reasonable to force people into the position of needing to play by your rules in order to protect their constituents from you screwing them over, and then pretend that their knuckling under and playing ball reflects badly not on your rules but on their character.

As to "what to do with this", that should be obvious: think critically about your diseased moral senses, and then grow healthier ones.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There are big government Republicans?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. Well, not that shocked.

 

[bilby]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

Some guy: Let's all go play rugby!
Some other guy: Nah, rugby's lame. Let's play Australian Rules!
Some guys: Australian Rules sucks! Rugby is awesome!
Some other guys: No way! Australian Rules is way better!
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Somebody counts: That's 17 for Rugby and 13 for Australian Rules. Rugby it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said rugby is lame! They're playing rugby! What a bunch of hypocrites!

They were always going to end up
playing Rugby; 30 people is enough for a Rugby match, but it's six short of enough to make up two Australian Rules teams.

Take off the wings, have no rovers and voila 24 players per side.
The VFA had 16 men per side for decades.

30 still isn't enough players, even for 16-a-side.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

Some guy: Let's all go play rugby!
Some other guy: Nah, rugby's lame. Let's play Australian Rules!
Some guys: Australian Rules sucks! Rugby is awesome!
Some other guys: No way! Australian Rules is way better!
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Somebody counts: That's 17 for Rugby and 13 for Australian Rules. Rugby it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said rugby is lame! They're playing rugby! What a bunch of hypocrites!

Today on abusing analogies... Let's fix the above into something more appropriate.

Some guy: Let's pass a bill to pay for improve the structural and utility infrastructure in America.
Some other guy: Nah, infrastructure spending is lame. Let's offer the American economy more austerity and give the rich back more tax money.
Some guys: Austerity and tax cuts don't work at driving the economy. We need to get Americans to work and deal with our old infrastructure!
Some other guys: No way! Austerity is awesome... especially when a Democrat is in the White House.
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Some other guys: *filibuster*
*filibuster fails*
Somebody counts: That's 69 for Public Infrastructure and 30 for Austerity. Public Infrastructure it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Some other guys: Just look at this awesome project putting Texans to work.
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said infrastructure spending is lame and attempted to filibuster the majority from being able to pass the spending bill to allow it happen and now they are parading about how great the projects are locally! What a bunch of assholes!

 

[Bomb#20]

Some guy: Let's pass a bill to pay for improve the structural and utility infrastructure in America.
Some other guy: Nah, infrastructure spending is lame. Let's offer the American economy more austerity and give the rich back more tax money.

Just to clarify, whether the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was good policy is not the thread topic.

Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said infrastructure spending is lame and attempted to filibuster the majority from being able to pass the spending bill to allow it happen and now they are parading about how great the projects are locally! What a bunch of assholes!

The country has taken a national decision to allow local districts to raid one another's taxpayers for their local infrastructure projects. (Not just the IIJA of course -- we've been doing this for a hundred-odd years.) Results are uneven -- some states suck lots of money from others; some states' taxpayers get milked. West Virginia has long been infamous for receiving a disproportionate share, but I think South Dakota is the big winner.

So what exactly do you and Biden feel some Congressman is supposed to tell the folks back home in Kentucky about this national decision, in order not to be a hypocrite or "asshole"? Is he supposed to say "Biden's plan to make you Lexington taxpayers buy more freeways for South Dakota is the right thing for America. Sucks to be you."? Or do you perhaps think he ought to say "Biden's plan to make you Lexington taxpayers buy more freeways for South Dakota is a terrible thing for America. Sucks to be you. You sent me to Congress to prevent that sort of thing, and I failed you. To earn your trust back, I've taken the high road against all this highway robbery by making sure it's a one-way street. As an act of protest, I've volunteered the people of Lexington to get none of our money back. Biden evidently thinks we're his milking cow so we're going to take him up on that. We're all going to play 'chicken' against Biden. He wouldn't dare drive into a cow in the road like we were a squirrel."?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It’s a good start. Now he needs to speak directly to their constituents confirming they do not want these socialist projects in their districts. That they want to stay true to their ideology.
Hold fast you rugged individualists. Hold fast.

In paragraph one, I thought it was a good idea to call out some of these hypocrites by name. Further that it might be good to address the politician's constituents directly in hope against all hope that they will come to see the hypocrisy of their elected official's actions and perhaps their own if applicable.

Some guy: Let's all go play rugby!
Some other guy: Nah, rugby's lame. Let's play Australian Rules!
Some guys: Australian Rules sucks! Rugby is awesome!
Some other guys: No way! Australian Rules is way better!
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Somebody counts: That's 17 for Rugby and 13 for Australian Rules. Rugby it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said rugby is lame! They're playing rugby! What a bunch of hypocrites!

Today on abusing analogies... Let's fix the above into something more appropriate.

Some guy: Let's pass a bill to pay for improve the structural and utility infrastructure in America.
Some other guy: Nah, infrastructure spending is lame. Let's offer the American economy more austerity and give the rich back more tax money.
Some guys: Austerity and tax cuts don't work at driving the economy. We need to get Americans to work and deal with our old infrastructure!
Some other guys: No way! Austerity is awesome... especially when a Democrat is in the White House.
Some other other guy: Would you guys all quit bickering and just put it to a vote?
Some other guys: *filibuster*
*filibuster fails*
Somebody counts: That's 69 for Public Infrastructure and 30 for Austerity. Public Infrastructure it is!
[Everybody goes off and plays rugby.]
Some other guys: Just look at this awesome project putting Texans to work.
Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said infrastructure spending is lame and attempted to filibuster the majority from being able to pass the spending bill to allow it happen and now they are parading about how great the projects are locally! What a bunch of assholes!

More like "Abortion is murder!". "CRT!". "Covid 19 is a hoax!". "Inflation!". "Transexuals!"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some guy: Let's pass a bill to pay for improve the structural and utility infrastructure in America.
Some other guy: Nah, infrastructure spending is lame. Let's offer the American economy more austerity and give the rich back more tax money.

Just to clarify, whether the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was good policy is not the thread topic.

Correct... it was about how people that were for Democrat leadership seizing on austerity instead of spending to deal with infrastructure shortfalls in our country due to a couple decades of neglect all of a sudden touting how great this government spending is for the state.

Tacc: Oh my god, look at all those dumbasses who said infrastructure spending is lame and attempted to filibuster the majority from being able to pass the spending bill to allow it happen and now they are parading about how great the projects are locally! What a bunch of assholes!

The country has taken a national decision to allow local districts to raid one another's taxpayers for their local infrastructure projects. (Not just the IIJA of course -- we've been doing this for a hundred-odd years.) Results are uneven -- some states suck lots of money from others; some states' taxpayers get milked. West Virginia has long been infamous for receiving a disproportionate share, but I think South Dakota is the big winner.

This was the point with your mistaken analogy? That didn't come across at all.

So what exactly do you and Biden feel some Congressman is supposed to tell the folks back home in Kentucky about this national decision, in order not to be a hypocrite or "asshole"? Is he supposed to say "Biden's plan to make you Lexington taxpayers buy more freeways for South Dakota is the right thing for America. Sucks to be you."? Or do you perhaps think he ought to say "Biden's plan to make you Lexington taxpayers buy more freeways for South Dakota is a terrible thing for America. Sucks to be you. You sent me to Congress to prevent that sort of thing, and I failed you. To earn your trust back, I've taken the high road against all this highway robbery by making sure it's a one-way street. As an act of protest, I've volunteered the people of Lexington to get none of our money back. Biden evidently thinks we're his milking cow so we're going to take him up on that. We're all going to play 'chicken' against Biden. He wouldn't dare drive into a cow in the road like we were a squirrel."?

Maybe they could act like an adult, and not take the "per capita" quite as seriously and take "per acre" into thought, because this spending allows for transportation and commerce that benefits the nation. Just because South Dakota has a smaller population doesn't mean the roads don't go through the entire state.

Of course, we are ignoring the shortfalls of GOP engrained austerity at the state / county level of Governance which has helped make many states desperately reliant on federal funds to pay to replace culverts and bridges.

 

[Gospel]

Isn't access to the internet a part of infrastructure? Last I heard these small pop states have shitty internet and can probably use some underground fiber lines run along the roads.

 

[Bomb#20]

Some guy: Let's pass a bill to pay for improve the structural and utility infrastructure in America.
Some other guy: Nah, infrastructure spending is lame. Let's offer the American economy more austerity and give the rich back more tax money.

Just to clarify, whether the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act was good policy is not the thread topic.

Correct...

The country has taken a national decision to allow local districts to raid one another's taxpayers for their local infrastructure projects. (Not just the IIJA of course -- we've been doing this for a hundred-odd years.) Results are uneven -- some states suck lots of money from others; some states' taxpayers get milked. West Virginia has long been infamous for receiving a disproportionate share, but I think South Dakota is the big winner.

This was the point with your mistaken analogy? That didn't come across at all.

Nothing mistaken about the analogy. And no, that wasn't the point of it; that was just background information -- if Biden had called out the Congressman from Sioux Falls instead of the one from Lexington the moral issue would be the same. But then Biden would have looked like a schmuck for whining about the Australia Rules guys he made play rugby being too good at rugby.

So what exactly do you and Biden feel some Congressman is supposed to tell the folks back home in Kentucky about this national decision, in order not to be a hypocrite or "asshole"? Is he supposed to say "Biden's plan to make you Lexington taxpayers buy more freeways for South Dakota is the right thing for America. Sucks to be you."? Or do you perhaps think he ought to say "Biden's plan to make you Lexington taxpayers buy more freeways for South Dakota is a terrible thing for America. Sucks to be you. You sent me to Congress to prevent that sort of thing, and I failed you. To earn your trust back, I've taken the high road against all this highway robbery by making sure it's a one-way street. As an act of protest, I've volunteered the people of Lexington to get none of our money back. Biden evidently thinks we're his milking cow so we're going to take him up on that. We're all going to play 'chicken' against Biden. He wouldn't dare drive into a cow in the road like we were a squirrel."?

Maybe they could act like an adult, and not take the "per capita" quite as seriously and take "per acre" into thought, because this spending allows for transportation and commerce that benefits the nation. Just because South Dakota has a smaller population doesn't mean the roads don't go through the entire state.

Of course, we are ignoring the shortfalls of GOP engrained austerity at the state / county level of Governance which has helped make many states desperately reliant on federal funds to pay to replace culverts and bridges.

I.e., they're assholes for disagreeing with the Democrats. It took you two seconds to forget that whether the IIJA was good policy is not the thread topic.

Given that one thinks spending $1.2 trillion on this stuff is not good for the country or for Lexington, and given that one is unable to prevent the $1.2 trillion from being spent, it simply does not follow that to remain consistent one must also think spending that money in Sioux Falls is better for Lexington than spending it in Lexington. "Failing to play by the same rules as the other party creates an oppressive situation." It is neither hypocritical nor assholish for the person hired to represent the people of a district to try his best to keep those people from being put in an oppressive situation.