President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[TomC]

This morning Biden made a public appearance asking Republicans to meet with him to discuss, criticize, and offer compromises in regards to his plans. How many think that more than a few Republicans will take him up on this? Biden isn't the one who doesn't want to work with the other side. It's the Republicans that will obstruct most anything he tries to do, even when the bill has wide spread support among the public.

McConnell put an end to any possibility of cooperation from the Republicans yesterday:
McConnell says Biden's infrastructure package won't get GOP support, will oppose it 'every step of the way'
So anyone who dares to reach across the aisle now will be branded as disloyal. The bill will have to be a compromise between Democrats. If it turns out to be handing money out to everyone who makes less than $400K guess who'll get the praise.

So it's back to GOP business as usual.
Obstruct anything that might improve things for the country as a whole, so as not to give the Democrats a "victory".
Tom

 

[TV and credit cards]

In the meantime, in trying to save Houston from itself in death by concrete: Pete Buttigieg’s First Big Project Is Taking Down a Racist Texas Highway

Buttigieg puts the kibosh on a major highway expansion in Houston. What would be taken had this expansion been allowed to go through you ask? It would have meant the destruction of lower income neighborhoods comprised most of Black and Latino communities.

Interesting comment about why highway expansions do not ease congestion:

You’re incentivized to live farther out. You’re incentivized to get out on the highway, because in the beginning you do have more room. But that is quickly taken away because not only do you believe that, but your neighbor believes that. It draws you in and fools you into thinking it’s going to work, and it doesn’t.

And from Yahoo! News

Year after year, state and local governments propose tens of billions of dollars worth of new and expanded highway projects, which impose social and environmental costs, while touted benefits, such as reduced congestion, often fail to materialize.

These projects also take away resources from the kinds of transportation projects that are most valuable to people in our communities: fixing local streets, improving public transit networks, and installing better safety infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists. And they take us in the wrong direction when it comes to cleaning up our air and fighting climate change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.

No. That ship sailed long ago. The Republicans won't do bipartisan, there's no point in the Democrats wasting their time on it. Until the Republicans show a true willingness to cooperate they should simply be ignored.

 

[ZiprHead]

Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.

No. That ship sailed long ago. The Republicans won't do bipartisan, there's no point in the Democrats wasting their time on it. Until the Republicans show a true willingness to cooperate they should simply be ignored.

McConnell has already stated no Republican will vote for any of it.

 

[Elixir]

Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.

No. That ship sailed long ago. The Republicans won't do bipartisan, there's no point in the Democrats wasting their time on it. Until the Republicans show a true willingness to cooperate they should simply be ignored.

McConnell has already stated no Republican will vote for any of it.

And Sleepy Joe says he would "welcome good ideas".
The Republicans only have one idea.
Good or bad, it can be summed up in two letters: "N.O."

Thanks for playing, Mitch.
That 49%/40% Dem/Rep ratio is likely to change again if this bill or something resembling it passes.
YOUR voters want it. Sucks to be you right now, right?

 

[Derec]

In the meantime, in trying to save Houston from itself in death by concrete: Pete Buttigieg’s First Big Project Is Taking Down a Racist Texas Highway

The word "racist" is grossly overused. As it is in this case. I guess all highways must go exclusively through majority white neighborhoods (as well as pipelines, and more built-up, the better) or else they are deemed "racist" by bike boy.

 

[Derec]

And Sleepy Joe says he would "welcome good ideas".

One good idea would be not to put non-infrastructure spending (aka tofu) into what is supposed to be an infrastructure bill.

The Republicans only have one idea.
Good or bad, it can be summed up in two letters: "N.O."

Mitch McConnell (admittedly an ass of the first order) is not "the Republicans".

 

[Derec]

No. That ship sailed long ago. The Republicans won't do bipartisan, there's no point in the Democrats wasting their time on it. Until the Republicans show a true willingness to cooperate they should simply be ignored.

As I said before McConnell is not "the Republicans". And what Biden proposed is hardly a bill designed in a spirit of genuine willingness to work across the aisle. Especially all the non-infrastructure spending like $400 billion for care workers.

 

[Derec]

It's not a long walk to consider eldercare as fundamental facilities that serve communities.

It's certainly not infrastructure. Even if it were sensible federal government spending, it has nothing to do with what this bill is supposedly about.

These are basic needs for many. Vulnerable elders now are reliant on unsupervised visits by a person earning at or near minimum wage.

Just blindly paying them more without requiring higher qualifications is not going to improve care.

Now, the devil is in the details. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a gravy train like the ACA's substance abuse mandates.

At a price tag of $400 billion, it surely looks like a gravy train.

Is this the only tofu (pork) you are referring to? Because other than that, I see little meat on this bone.

It is certainly the biggest clump of tofu in the stew that is this bill. Have not looked at it in much detail though, but $400 billion for a single non-infrastructure line item does catch attention.

And what "tax hikes" are you referring to? How long should a tax cut be in force for it's revocation to be considered a tax hike?

Increase in corporate tax rate is widely talked about as a way the bill is supposed to be funded. Note that 28% would make US coprorate tax rate higher than many other countries, including supposedly "socialist" Sweden and Denmark.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.

No. That ship sailed long ago. The Republicans won't do bipartisan, there's no point in the Democrats wasting their time on it. Until the Republicans show a true willingness to cooperate they should simply be ignored.

Right now the GOP stand-ins are Sen. Machin and Sen. Sinema. Biden gets them to sign off, that is about as bipartisan as it gets.

 

[Swammerdami]

They need to do more than just repealing the 2017 Trump tax cuts. That’s just shoveling a little dirt back in a big hole. That’s not a source of funding. I’d like to see a tax on stock trades.

My understanding is that Biden's initial proposal was to repeal just HALF the Trump cuts, at least on corporations. And he's already backed away from that, trying to keep Manchin on board.

The filibuster is almost irrelevant, since only 49 Senators are pro-American.

Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.

Comedy gold!

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Trausti]

View attachment 32781

 

[TV and credit cards]

View attachment 32781

Or you could just look up infrastructure and determine if this is something that keeps a country working effectively. Care of family members in need of care is every bit as necessary as heat and water. Could you leave children and seniors to fend for themselves? Sure. You can also burn wood for heat and fetch water from the well.

 

[Trausti]

View attachment 32781

Or you could just look up infrastructure and determine if this is something that keeps a country working effectively. Care of family members in need of care is every bit as necessary as heat and water. Could you leave children and seniors to fend for themselves? Sure. You can also burn wood for heat and fetch water from the well.

Cite one previous infrastructure bill/law - just one of the thousands - that included child and elder care as infrastructure. I mean, if this isn't all bullshit you'd be able to do that easily, right?

 

[Derec]

My understanding is that Biden's initial proposal was to repeal just HALF the Trump cuts, at least on corporations. And he's already backed away from that, trying to keep Manchin on board.

I think the proposal was to increase the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would make it higher than many other countries.

The filibuster is almost irrelevant, since only 49 Senators are pro-American.

So what you are saying is that if a Senator does not support the Biden agenda 100%, they are anti-American?

 

[Derec]

[stupid tweet by Craig Frizzell]

Calling everything infrastructure makes the very term meaningless!

Sure, he may need child care to do his job. He may also need a car. Or a laptop. Does that mean federal government should provide him those things as "infrastructure"?
He may also need a suit. Does that mean federal government should provide him a few suits as part of "sartorial infrastructure"?

 

[fromderinside]

No so at all Derec. Biden is calling everything humans need to do as a community to sustain it as a working community infrastructure. So doing is a perfectly rational way of describing such. Just because you know-nothings want to remain in a horse and buggy world gives you no right to constrain Biden from legitimately doing so. This is reinforced by the popularity among us with Biden's call to action. Time for Horse-and-Buggy Luddites to discover bullet rail not just bullets.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Or you could just look up infrastructure and determine if this is something that keeps a country working effectively. Care of family members in need of care is every bit as necessary as heat and water. Could you leave children and seniors to fend for themselves? Sure. You can also burn wood for heat and fetch water from the well.

Cite one previous infrastructure bill/law - just one of the thousands - that included child and elder care as infrastructure. I mean, if this isn't all bullshit you'd be able to do that easily, right?

I need to cite precedent of the nation caring for it's children and elderly as part of infrastructure in the past to justify it doing so in the future? I don't think I do. I don't think every future act requires past guidance for justification. This is why I suggested considering the definition of infrastructure.
Infrastructure is the set of fundamental facilities and systems that support the sustainable functionality of households and firms. Serving a country, city, or other area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.

Will government providing for these costs benefit the economic activity of the nation? Yes. Further, child and elder care do not equate to a suit, laptop, or POV as Derec suggests. Child and elder care are costs that sap the productivity of the nation by leaving jobs unfilled. If you want a nation to sustain two income households, you need to free up that second person to earn. Momma's not going to go take a $11 an hour retail job when $8 has to go to child care. And elder care? Forget about it. If grandma and grandpa didn't enter their golden years with a pot of gold, they are relying on their children to care for them until such time as physically lifting them out of bed becomes a necessity.

 

[thebeave]

[stupid tweet by Craig Frizzell]

Calling everything infrastructure makes the very term meaningless!

Sure, he may need child care to do his job. He may also need a car. Or a laptop. Does that mean federal government should provide him those things as "infrastructure"?
He may also need a suit. Does that mean federal government should provide him a few suits as part of "sartorial infrastructure"?

There needs to be a special online Democrat dictionary, where regular folk who are "not in the know" can look up the intended meaning of their words and phrases. For example, "infrastructure" or "defund the police". Of course, all such words should be known and established in the lexicon ahead of time, otherwise its gives the impression that the word meaning was disingenuosly modified to fit a particular narrative. Just a suggestion.