• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $493. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

lpetrich

Contributor
After Stimulus, Biden to Tackle Another Politically Tricky Issue: Infrastructure - The New York Times - "Strengthening the country’s highways, bridges and broadband networks has broad popular support, but Washington remains bitterly divided on the details."
President Biden’s two immediate predecessors had ambitious goals to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, but both left office having made little progress in fixing the nation’s bridges, roads, pipes and broadband. President Donald J. Trump announced so many meaningless infrastructure weeks that the term became a running joke of his administration.
Shows how un-diligent Trump was. He had no followup.
Unless the parties can agree on how to fund an infrastructure plan, Mr. Biden might have to try to push through another sprawling spending package with only Democratic votes. The task could prove exceptionally difficult given the competing pressures the president will face from centrists and progressives in his party — and the absence of a pandemic emergency to help fuse those factions in support of the bill.

...
Biden administration officials have not decided whether to push infrastructure as a stand-alone bill or as part of a broader package. But any hopes of bringing Democrats and Republicans together on a program are almost sure to be undermined by the same disagreements that have felled previous attempts.

...
The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the country’s overall infrastructure a grade of D+, estimating that a funding gap of more than $2 trillion exists between needs and expected spending by all levels of government over the next decade. And the pandemic has put a spotlight on the poor quality of digital infrastructure in many parts of the United States, as more people are forced to work and attend school remotely.

Mr. Biden campaigned on a sprawling infrastructure agenda, with trillions of dollars invested in transportation, water and sewer lines, and the scaffoldings of an energy sector that significantly reduces the United States’ carbon emissions, funded by tax increases on multinational companies and high earners.

The components of the plan poll well — which was not enough for Mr. Biden’s predecessors.
Obama failed because Republicans didn't want to give him a victory.

Trump failed because he is easily distracted.
 

Derec

Contributor
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.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Business groups and many Republicans have expressed a willingness to work with the administration to pass $1 trillion or more in infrastructure spending. Areas of agreement with progressives include spending on highways, bridges, rural broadband networks, water and sewer lines and even some cornerstones of fighting climate change, like electric-car charging stations.

...
“I fear going small,” said William E. Spriggs, the chief economist at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., who has pushed the administration to spend aggressively to promote racial equity across the economy. “If you only do bridges and highways, they don’t generate the same number of residual jobs, and they don’t reach a broader set of workers and address fundamental inequalities.”

Biden Team Prepares $3 Trillion in New Spending for the Economy - The New York Times
"A pair of proposals would invest in infrastructure, education, work force development and fighting climate change, with the aim of making the economy more productive."
President Biden’s economic advisers are pulling together a sweeping $3 trillion package to boost the economy, reduce carbon emissions and narrow economic inequality, beginning with a giant infrastructure plan that may be financed in part through tax increases on corporations and the rich.

...
The $1.9 trillion economic aid package that Mr. Biden signed into law this month includes money to help vulnerable people and businesses survive the pandemic downturn. But it does little to advance the longer-term economic agenda that Mr. Biden campaigned on, including transitioning to renewable energy and improving America’s ability to compete in emerging industries, like electric vehicles. Administration officials essentially see those goals — building out the nation’s infrastructure and shifting to a low-carbon future — as inseparable.

...
Mr. Biden’s advisers plan to recommend that the effort be broken into pieces, with Congress tackling infrastructure before turning to a second package that would include more people-focused proposals, like free community college, universal prekindergarten and a national paid leave program.

...
That plan would spend heavily on clean energy deployment and the development of other “high-growth industries of the future” like 5G telecommunications. It includes money for rural broadband, advanced training for millions of workers, and one million affordable and energy-efficient housing units. Documents suggest it will include nearly $1 trillion in spending on the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, ports, electric vehicle charging stations, and improvements to the electric grid and other parts of the power sector.

...
The second plan is focused on what many progressives call the nation’s human infrastructure — students, workers and people left on the sidelines of the job market — according to documents and people familiar with the discussions. It would spend heavily on education and programs meant to increase the participation of women in the labor force by helping them balance work and caregiving.
Republicans might be interested in the infrastructure part, but they don't like the idea of new taxes, especially taxes on their biggest donors.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Manchin calls for 'enormous' infrastructure package paid for with new taxes
Sen. Joe Manchin said Wednesday that he favors a large infrastructure package that would be paid for in part by raising tax revenues — a point of contention between the two parties.

"I'm sure of one thing: It’s going to be enormous," the West Virginia Democrat, who is seen as a swing vote in a chamber divided 50-50, told reporters at the Capitol.

...
The tax benefits in the Republican law were "weighted in one direction to the upper end," Manchin said. He also suggested an "infrastructure bank" paid for with revenues, potentially a value-added tax, that would be used for "rebuilding America."


,,,
Even Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the most moderate Republicans, sounded skeptical about raising taxes after Biden said they would go up for people making above $400,000.

“I would not anticipate that it would be well received," Collins told reporters, adding that it was an understatement.
Sen. Mitch McConnell says that there is no "enthusiasm" for tax increases among Republicans.
"The Trojan horse will be called infrastructure. Inside the Trojan horse will be all the tax increases," McConnell said. "The only way I think they could pull that off would be through a reconciliation process."
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
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.

For bipartisanship to work, both sides need to negotiate in good faith.

main-qimg-4d43519ca2f536b20fd76893b352b17c.webp
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
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.

They need to get this done now while Pete Buttigieg is heading up DOT. Pete will make sure projects have an eye toward the future judging them on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging a reduction in miles driven for POVs, benefit underserved communities, are in federally designated community development zones, or apply innovative technology. That’s what Pete Buttigieg will be looking for.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Obama was screwed in '09 by the economic crash, and instead of pushing new plans, he was stuck trying to get the nation out of the ditch, though there was ACA. Biden, even with the pandemic, is going all out. The Stimulus bill shouldn't have been a "big accomplishment", but the Republicans are effectively bad guys, so it ended up being an accomplishment to provide aid to most average Americans and small businesses.

Now he is tackling Infrastructure, something Trump mentioned several times, but never had even a inkling of a plan for it. Biden is OLD school, so he knows the clock is ticking on his first 12 months before re-election fever kicks up for the House and some in the Senate. So he is pushing and pushing hard. The Republicans must be absolutely frightened of this. If he gets an infrastructure bill passed, that'll be another boost to the economy. And assuming hyper-partisan and sociopaths don't fuck the pandemic all up, the economy should be pushing forward well by 2022, meaning it could be a very rare seat pickup for the Dems in the House, and the Senate could also be interesting.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
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.
I’d be happily surprised if the Republicans could contribute to sound policy.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
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.

Seeking anything from the GQP is an exercise in futility.
Their party line is to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, then play along asking for compromises until the clock runs out.
Fuck McConnell and all the self interested trumpsucking opportunists on the right side of the Senate aisle.
Schumer/Biden should get rid of the filibuster, give Americans what they want and let Republicans try to take it away from them in '22 and '24.
Of course you don't want that to happen because you're basically a conservative yourself, and letting Democrats succeed on behalf of Americans is a bad thing for conservatives.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
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.
I’d be happily surprised if the Republicans could contribute to sound policy.
The GOP had the House/Senate/White House for 2 years and did nothing on infrastructure.

I'd love for this to be a bipartisan bill, but to be fairly honest, it is obvious the GOP doesn't give a fuck about the state of our nation, so I'm pretty much done with their existence. If they want a legit seat at the table, I have absolutely no doubt Biden would provide it. He served as senator along side most of their great grandfathers. Until then, fuck 'em. It is time to get things done! Trump passed a tax cut and that was it for him. Biden has 9 months left until the first year is over and the election clock resets, and he knows how all of this works.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Biden has 9 months left until the first year is over and the election clock resets, and he knows how all of this works.

I think that's an overly generous time allowance. Republicans have already vacated any pretense to governance in favor of manipulating the 2022 midterm elects in their favor. In six months, the countdown will be well underway and Dems will have no choice but to focus on un-doing Republican efforts to destroy democracy.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
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.

Seeking anything from the GQP is an exercise in futility.
Their party line is to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, then play along asking for compromises until the clock runs out.
Fuck McConnell and all the self interested trumpsucking opportunists on the right side of the Senate aisle.
Schumer/Biden should get rid of the filibuster, give Americans what they want and let Republicans try to take it away from them in '22 and '24.
Of course you don't want that to happen because you're basically a conservative yourself, and letting Democrats succeed on behalf of Americans is a bad thing for conservatives.

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.
I’d be happily surprised if the Republicans could contribute to sound policy.
The GOP had the House/Senate/White House for 2 years and did nothing on infrastructure.

I'd love for this to be a bipartisan bill, but to be fairly honest, it is obvious the GOP doesn't give a fuck about the state of our nation, so I'm pretty much done with their existence. If they want a legit seat at the table, I have absolutely no doubt Biden would provide it. He served as senator along side most of their great grandfathers. Until then, fuck 'em. It is time to get things done! Trump passed a tax cut and that was it for him. Biden has 9 months left until the first year is over and the election clock resets, and he knows how all of this works.

Part of me is thinking the Dems should go all in. Mitch has pretty much proven himself to be a reprobate over the years while Joe clings to decorum. Mitch is warning that payback will be a bitch. Well, lets not let them have the chance. Pointing out that the Republicans had ample opportunity to push through an infrastructure plan is an easy one to hammer home with the American public. It dovetails so nicely with their nonexistant healthcare plan. If Uncle Joe can get infrastructure and voting rights, we'll be sitting pretty for 2022.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Economists bullish on Biden's $3 trillion infrastructure plan

What we're hearing: "Stimulus helps build the bridge for the recovery to reach the other side, but an investment in infrastructure is the fuel to jump start the economic engine," Beth Ann Bovino, U.S. chief economist at S&P Global, says in an email.

S&P predicts Biden's infrastructure plan will create 2.3 million jobs by 2024, inject $5.7 trillion into the economy — which would be 10 times what was lost during the recession — and raise per-capita income by $2,400.

The big picture: "We have to have a big public works program," Lawrence Baxter, director of the Global Financial Markets Center at Duke, tells Axios.

Baxter compares Biden's proposed new programs to New Deal initiatives like the Blue Ridge Parkway that were created to battle unemployment following the Great Depression.

"They’re not daring to call it that because that would be a lightning rod," he adds.
 

Derec

Contributor
For bipartisanship to work, both sides need to negotiate in good faith.
Of course. But I am sure at least some Republicans would be interested in working on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. I.e. one that is not designed to appeal to the Socialist Squad.

Unfortunately, the proposal is already off the rails and not about infrastructure any more.

Biden’s ‘Transformative’ Plan Redefines Infrastructure to Include Caregiving

In other words, it's a bill with some infrastructure but also a lot of lefty wish-list spending that has nothing to do with infrastructure. You can't expect a bipartisan buy-in with a dishonest bill like this one.
 

Derec

Contributor
Fuck McConnell and all the self interested trumpsucking opportunists on the right side of the Senate aisle.
McConnell now has far less power to obstruct.
I am sure that if Biden were interested in a bipartisan bill there would be a number of GOP Reps and Senators willing to work with Biden on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. However, the proposal Biden is pushing is not only a very partisan one, it is also only partly about infrastructure.

Schumer/Biden should get rid of the filibuster, give Americans what they want and let Republicans try to take it away from them in '22 and '24.
Party in power usually overreaches and Biden administration is already going that way with this not-really-infrastructure plan.

Of course you don't want that to happen because you're basically a conservative yourself, and letting Democrats succeed on behalf of Americans is a bad thing for conservatives.
I am an independent. I voted for Biden. I voted for Obama twice. I could not stomach neither Hillary nor Trump in 2016.
I detest both extremes. Which is why I as hoping Biden would govern as a moderate and seek bipartisan buy-in. Instead, he seems much more interested in appeasing the Squad. :(
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
For bipartisanship to work, both sides need to negotiate in good faith.
Of course. But I am sure at least some Republicans would be interested in working on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. I.e. one that is not designed to appeal to the Socialist Squad.

Unfortunately, the proposal is already off the rails and not about infrastructure any more.

Biden’s ‘Transformative’ Plan Redefines Infrastructure to Include Caregiving

In other words, it's a bill with some infrastructure but also a lot of lefty wish-list spending that has nothing to do with infrastructure. You can't expect a bipartisan buy-in with a dishonest bill like this one.

I guess they have not read all the tofu* that's in the bill. Or read about all the tax hikes to fund it with.






* - vegan, "Squad"-friendly version of pork

It's not a long walk to consider eldercare as fundamental facilities that serve communities. These are basic needs for many. Vulnerable elders now are reliant on unsupervised visits by a person earning at or near minimum wage. Now, the devil is in the details. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a gravy train like the ACA's substance abuse mandates.
Is this the only tofu (pork) you are referring to? Because other than that, I see little meat on this bone.

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?
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
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.
 

Treedbear

Veteran Member
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.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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

Super Moderator
Staff member
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

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
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

Content Thief
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

Contributor
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

Contributor
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

Contributor
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

Contributor
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

Squadron Leader
Staff member
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!
 

Trausti

Contributor

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

Contributor
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.
3.18.2.fig1_.png

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

Contributor
[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

Mazzie Daius
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

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
[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.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
[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.

Child and elder care fits quite nicely into the definition TV&CC provided directly above your post.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
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?

Would you consider hospitals to be part of infrastructure?
 

lpetrich

Contributor
American Jobs Plan | The White House

Its stated goals:

  • Fix highways; rebuild bridges; and upgrade ports, airports, and transit centers.
    - President Biden’s plan will modernize 20,000 miles of highways, roads, and main-streets. It will rebuild bridges in disrepair, providing critical linkages to our communities. And it will replace thousands of buses and rail cars, repair hundreds of stations and facilities, and expand transit and rail service into new communities that need them most.
  • Rebuild clean drinking water infrastructure, a renewed electric grid, and high-speed broadband to all Americans.
    - President Biden’s plan will eliminate all lead pipes and service lines in United States drinking water systems. It will put hundreds of thousands of people to work renewing our electric grid and capping orphan oil and gas wells and abandoned mines. And it will bring affordable, reliable high-speed broadband to every American, including the more than 35% of rural Americans who lack access to broadband at minimally acceptable speeds.
  • Modernize homes, commercial buildings, schools, and federal buildings.
    - President Biden’s plan will create jobs building and modernizing affordable, accessible, energy efficient, and resilient buildings all over the country, while also improving our nation’s federal facilities, especially those that serve veterans.
  • Create caregiving jobs and raise wages and benefits for essential home care workers.
    - President Biden’s plan will ensure that essential home workers—the majority of whom are women of color—will provide home and community-based care for individuals who otherwise would need to wait years to get the services they badly need.
  • Revitalize manufacturing, ensure products are made in America, and invest in innovation.
    - President Biden’s plan will ensure that the best, diverse minds in America are put to work creating the innovations of the future while creating hundreds of thousands of quality jobs today. It will require that goods and materials are made in America and shipped on U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels.
  • Create good-paying union jobs and train Americans for jobs of the future.
    - President Biden’s plan will ensure our workers are trained for well-paying, middle-class jobs of the future. It will ensure that American taxpayers’ dollars benefit working families and their communities, and not multinational corporations or foreign governments.
Very ambitious, I must say. $2 trillion may not be enough for all of it. Sen. Manchin and AOC are likely right that it should be bigger.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
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.

Child and elder care fits quite nicely into the definition TV&CC provided directly above your post.

It belongs in a bill that deals with health and family care. Either create a separate bill for that, or stop referring to it as an "infrastructure" bill and call it something else. Politicians of all stripes pull this shit and it just goes to show the depths of their dishonesty.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan | The White House
  • BUILD WORLD-CLASS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE: FIX HIGHWAYS, REBUILD BRIDGES, AND UPGRADE PORTS, AIRPORTS AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS
    • Transform our crumbling transportation infrastructure:
      • Repair American roads and bridges.
      • Modernize public transit.
      • Invest in reliable passenger and freight rail service.
      • Create good jobs electrifying vehicles.
      • Redress historic inequities and build the future of transportation infrastructure.
      • Invest resources wisely to deliver infrastructure projects that produce real results.
    • Make our infrastructure more resilient:
      • Safeguard critical infrastructure and services, and defend vulnerable communities.
      • Maximize the resilience of land and water resources to protect communities and the environment.
  • REBUILD CLEAN DRINKING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, A RENEWED ELECTRIC GRID, AND HIGH-SPEED BROADBAND TO ALL AMERICANS
    • Ensure clean, safe drinking water is a right in all communities:
      • Replace 100 percent of the nation’s lead pipes and service lines.
      • Upgrade and modernize America’s drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, tackle new contaminants, and support clean water infrastructure across rural America.
    • Revitalize America’s digital infrastructure:
      • Build high-speed broadband infrastructure to reach 100 percent coverage.
      • Promote transparency and competition.
      • Reduce the cost of broadband internet service and promote more widespread adoption. President Biden believes that building out broadband infrastructure isn’t enough.
    • Reenergize America’s power infrastructure:
      • Build a more resilient electric transmission system.
      • Spur jobs modernizing power generation and delivering clean electricity.
      • Put the energy industry to work plugging orphan oil and gas wells and cleaning up abandoned mines.
      • Remediate and redevelop idle real property, and spur the buildout of critical physical, social, and civic infrastructure in distressed and disadvantaged communities.
      • Build next generation industries in distressed communities.
  • BUILD, PRESERVE, AND RETROFIT MORE THAN TWO MILLION HOMES AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS; MODERNIZE OUR NATION’S SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND EARLY LEARNING FACILITIES; AND UPGRADE VETERANS’ HOSPITALS AND FEDERAL BUILDINGS
    • Build, preserve, and retrofit more than two million homes and commercial buildings to address the affordable housing crisis:
      • Produce, preserve, and retrofit more than a million affordable, resilient, accessible, energy efficient, and electrified housing units.
      • Build and rehabilitate more than 500,000 homes for low- and middle-income homebuyers.
      • Eliminate exclusionary zoning and harmful land use policies.
      • Address longstanding public housing capital needs.
      • Put union building trade workers to work upgrading homes and businesses to save families money.
    • Modernize our nation’s schools and early learning facilities:
      • Modernize our public schools.
      • Investing in community college infrastructure.
      • Upgrade child care facilities and build new supply in high need areas.
    • Upgrade VA hospitals and federal buildings:
  • SOLIDIFY THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF OUR CARE ECONOMY BY CREATING JOBS AND RAISING WAGES AND BENEFITS FOR ESSENTIAL HOME CARE WORKERS
    • Expand access to long-term care services under Medicaid.
    • Put in place an infrastructure to create good middle-class jobs with a free and fair choice to join a union.
  • INVEST IN R&D, REVITALIZE MANUFACTURING AND SMALL BUSINESSES, AND TRAIN AMERICANS FOR THE JOBS OF THE FUTURE
    • Invest in R&D and the technologies of the future:
      • Advance U.S. leadership in critical technologies and upgrade America’s research infrastructure.
      • Establish the United States as a leader in climate science, innovation, and R&D.
      • Eliminate racial and gender inequities in research and development and science, technology, engineering, and math.
    • Retool and revitalize American manufacturers and small businesses:
      • Strengthen manufacturing supply chains for critical goods.
      • Protect Americans from future pandemics.
      • Jumpstart clean energy manufacturing through federal procurement.
      • Make it in ALL of America.
      • Increase access to capital for domestic manufacturers.
      • Create a national network of small business incubators and innovation hubs.
      • Partner with rural and Tribal communities to create jobs and economic growth in rural America.
    • Invest in Workforce Development:
      • Pair job creation efforts with next generation training programs.
      • Target workforce development opportunities in underserved communities.
      • Build the capacity of the existing workforce development and worker protection systems. The United States has underinvested in the workforce development system for decades.
  • CREATE GOOD-QUALITY JOBS THAT PAY PREVAILING WAGES IN SAFE AND HEALTHY WORKPLACES WHILE ENSURING WORKERS HAVE A FREE AND FAIR CHOICE TO ORGANIZE, JOIN A UNION, AND BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY WITH THEIR EMPLOYERS
    • Empower Workers.
    • Create good jobs.
    • Protect workers.
  • THE MADE IN AMERICA TAX PLAN
    • Set the Corporate Tax Rate at 28 percent.
    • Discourage Offshoring by Strengthening the Global Minimum Tax for U.S. Multinational Corporations.
    • End the Race to the Bottom Around the World.
    • Prevent U.S. Corporations from inverting or claiming tax havens as their residence.
    • Deny Companies Expense Deductions for Offshoring Jobs and Credit Expenses for Onshoring.
    • Eliminate a Loophole for Intellectual Property that Encourages Offshoring Jobs and Invest in Effective R&D Incentives.
    • Enact A Minimum Tax on Large Corporations’ Book Income.
    • Eliminate Tax Preferences for Fossil Fuels and Make Sure Polluting Industries Pay for Environmental Clean Up.
    • Ramping Up Enforcement Against Corporations.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Here's AOC's Green New Deal resolution:

H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
This resolution calls for the creation of a Green New Deal with the goals of
  • achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions;
  • establishing millions of high-wage jobs and ensuring economic security for all;
  • investing in infrastructure and industry;
  • securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all; and
  • promoting justice and equality.
The resolution calls for accomplishment of these goals through a 10-year national mobilization effort. The resolution also enumerates the goals and projects of the mobilization effort, including
  • building smart power grids (i.e., power grids that enable customers to reduce their power use during peak demand periods);
  • upgrading all existing buildings and constructing new buildings to achieve maximum energy and water efficiency;
  • removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation and agricultural sectors;
  • cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites;
  • ensuring businesspersons are free from unfair competition; and
  • providing higher education, high-quality health care, and affordable, safe, and adequate housing to all.

Much of it seems to be contained in Biden's American Jobs Plan.

One part of it seems to endorse investment in renewable energy:
Spur jobs modernizing power generation and delivering clean electricity. President Biden is proposing a ten-year extension and phase down of an expanded direct-pay investment tax credit and production tax credit for clean energy generation and storage. These credits will be paired with strong labor standards to ensure the jobs created are good-quality jobs with a free and fair choice to join a union and bargain collectively. President Biden’s plan will mobilize private investment to modernize our power sector. It also will support state, local, and tribal governments choosing to accelerate this modernization through complementary policies – like clean energy block grants that can be used to support clean energy, worker empowerment, and environmental justice. And, it will use the federal government’s incredible purchasing power to drive clean energy deployment across the market by purchasing 24/7 clean power for federal buildings. To ensure that we fully take advantage of the opportunity that modernizing our power sector presents, President Biden will establish an Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard (EECES) aimed at cutting electricity bills and electricity pollution, increasing competition in the market, incentivizing more efficient use of existing infrastructure, and continuing to leverage the carbon pollution-free energy provided by existing sources like nuclear and hydropower. All of this will be done while ensuring those facilities meet robust and rigorous standards for worker, public, and environmental safety as well as environmental justice – and all while moving toward 100 percent carbon-pollution free power by 2035.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
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.

Child and elder care fits quite nicely into the definition TV&CC provided directly above your post.

It belongs in a bill that deals with health and family care. Either create a separate bill for that, or stop referring to it as an "infrastructure" bill and call it something else. Politicians of all stripes pull this shit and it just goes to show the depths of their dishonesty.

So you disagree with the definition TV&CC provided?
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Stephanie Kelton is an economist who advocates Modern Monetary Theory. She has written a book about it, "The Deficit Myth".

Opinion | Biden Can Go Bigger and Not ‘Pay for It’ the Old Way - The New York Times

"By focusing on how much revenue they hope to raise from tax increases on the well-off, Democrats risk limiting the scope of their ambitions."
n an interview on MSNBC last week, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York explained her mixed feelings about the president’s proposal, saying she has “serious concerns that it’s not enough to realize the very inspiring vision that Mr. Biden has advanced.” Rather than spending roughly $2 trillion over eight years, Ms. Ocasio Cortez and many of her Progressive Caucus colleagues would prefer “to go way higher” and on a shorter timeline.

She’s right that it is possible for Congress and the Biden administration to go bigger, faster — but only by shifting to a completely different budgeting framework: Instead of passing legislation that leans on taxing corporations and the rich to keep spending from increasing the deficit, they would have to develop a robust plan with a focus on containing inflationary pressures as that heightened government spending hits the real economy.
Ocasio-Cortez hails Biden infrastructure bill as good start; pitches bigger investment
and
Transcript: The Rachel Maddow Show, 3/31/21
AOC majored in economics and international relations when in college, so she's at least a little bit familiar with economics.
Depending on how big Congress ultimately decides to go on infrastructure, and how quickly, it may need to unleash a whole suite of inflation-dampening policies along the way — all of it unrelated to deficit neutrality.

These mostly nontax inflation offsets could include industrial policies, like much more aggressively increasing our domestic manufacturing capacity by steering investment back to U.S. shores, using even more “carrot” incentives like direct federal procurement, grants and loans, as well as more “sticks” like levying new taxes to discourage the offshoring of plants. Reforming trade policies is another option: Repealing tariffs would make it easier and cheaper for American businesses to buy supplies manufactured abroad and easier for consumers to spend more of their income on products made outside of our borders, draining off some domestic demand pressures.

...
A Biden-led plan that is overly protectionist is a much greater inflation threat than a plan that isn’t paid for in the traditional deficit-neutral budgetary sense. This framework — based on the principles of Modern Monetary Theory — redefines fiscal responsibility by flipping the age-old question “How will you pay for it?” The real challenge is “How will you resource it?”

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont recently hinted at this approach when he told Politico: “You don’t start off by coming up with a sum and working down. You start out by looking at the needs that need to be addressed and adding them up.” The next step is to figure out how to budget your available real resources to deliver on those priorities.
Then SK gets into Modern Monetary Theory.
Modern Monetary Theory is not alone here. For a historical outlook, we can revisit what John Maynard Keynes proposed in “How to Pay for the War: A Radical Plan for the Chancellor of the Exchequer,” a lesser-known work of his. To the contemporary ear, the title suggests that Keynes was trying to figure out how to come up with the money to finance World War II spending. He wasn’t.

Keynes understood that the British government, which controlled its national currency, could create all the money needed. The purpose of the book was to show the government how to scale up and sustain higher levels of spending while containing inflationary pressures along the way. It noted the soldiers, bombers, tanks, combat gear and more that would be needed to prosecute the war and how the entire economy would need to be reoriented, quickly, to supply those things.

...
More recently, economists like L. Randall Wray and Yeva Nersisyan have begun to think about how to pay for a Green New Deal using Keynes’s earlier “radical” framework. And even if one were to accept the terms of the old deficit-oriented budgeting currently favored in Washington, going even bigger on infrastructure, if executed carefully, is still doable: Larry Summers, the former Obama White House senior economist, admitted in 2014 that “public infrastructure investments can pay for themselves” and that “by increasing the economy’s capacity, infrastructure investment increases the ability to handle any given level of debt.”
That may be a sizable leap for some people, but I think that SK is ultimately correct. When the US entered WWII, FDR didn't say that an adequate military response must await the development of some payment plan for it.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Stephanie Kelton on Twitter: "Yesterday, @jasonfurman tweeted out my NYT piece on the Biden infrastructure proposal. ..." / Twitter
Yesterday, @jasonfurman tweeted out my NYT piece on the Biden infrastructure proposal. He claimed I had ignored the most obvious way to deal with any inflationary pressures that might arise—i.e. Fed rate hikes. I don’t share Jason’s view that fiscal policy can safely ignore inflation risk since the Fed can always handle any resulting inflation. Congress should not ignore inflation risk when contemplating a multi trillion-dollar spending package. That’s just irresponsible. I also don’t share the the view that the Fed can easily keep inflation in check via rate hates. I think it’s complicated and not settled science that rate hikes will temper inflationary pressures by dampening aggregate expenditures.

There are other channels through which interest rates matter. And to the extent rate hikes can, in the extreme, cause deflation by engineering a domestic and/or international recession, we should be at least be weary of turning to them as a primary stabilizing tool. To be provocative, I asked Jason whether he had considered the possibility that Fed tightening might have perverse effects, raising rather than dampening inflationary pressures. It’s something I wrote about back in 2005, and I was curious to hear how he’d respond. He said, “No.” I suggested that it was worth considering and supplied a link. Unfortunately, the article I linked to didn’t include some of the relevant passages from an earlier version of the paper. What I wanted to share was my own (co-authored) work, but I couldn’t find a link to the book chapter. I have it now.

I did not argue in that chapter (nor do I now) that rate hikes *will* lead to higher inflation. It’s an empirical question. We uncovered some interesting correlations, but that’s it. It deserves more rigorous study. Others have thought about this too. Tillmann, P. (2007) “Do interest rates drive inflation dynamics? An analysis of the cost channel of monetary transmission,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. And here’s a series where Fullwiler (@stf18) draws on my 2005 paper to lay out the conditions under which monetary tightening *can* have perverse macro effects (i.e. stimulus vs cooling)

So here are my views…I consider interest-inflation dynamics an open and interesting question rather than settled (always negative sign) science. I think it's irresponsible to imply that Congress can safely ignore inflation risk when drafting a multi trillion-dollar spending package. I think it's naive to assume that the Fed can readily temper any inflation that might be fueled by substantial infrastructure spending. I think it makes sense to think hard about the offsets we are choosing, rather than grabbing any old “pay for” off the shelf for the purpose of satisfying the gatekeepers at the CBO. I think Congress should do its level best to mitigate inflation risk *preemptively* when drafting legislation, rather than ignoring inflation altogether and leaving it to the Fed to clean up any potential mess. Finally, saying that we should take inflation into account (ex ante) when *drafting* legislation (as MMT recommends) is not tantamount to saying that we have to use fiscal policy to fight (ex post) inflation. This is vital.

MMT does not tell us that we must use tax increases or spending cuts to fight inflation. We keep explaining this. https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2018/01/answers-from-the-mmters.html and here https://ft.com/content/539618f8-b88c-3125-8031-cf46ca197c64 . And the NYT column was all about using non-fiscal offsets to mange bottlenecks, etc. Although Jason and I appear to disagree about the purpose of a spending offset, as well as the best way to fight ex post inflation, we are having a more useful debate. I can remember when Jason was pushing $4T in deficit reduction when there was no inflation to speak of. I'm glad we're beyond that now.
 
Top Bottom