Infrastructure plan

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't believe we have discussed what is in the plan. First, where is the money going? USAToday has a good breakdown https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...re-bill-charts-detail-bidens-plan/4820227001/

I know people are going to be critical of the price tag, $2 trillion is a lot. But it is over 10 years, our needs are many. The question shouldn't be "is it too much", the question should be "will it solve problems and grow the economy". No one complains if a corporation takes on debt to build a new plant if it is going to boost profits in the long run.

I suspect the money for electric cars are going to be a question. We can debate the help to purchase them, that may be a good question. But the EV stations? I think that is a good and necessary idea. The world IS changing, we need to get with it.

I suspect the biggest complaint will be the tax increases. The corporate tax is going to go back up half of what was cut. So we still have a significant reduction in taxes from 2016. A 7% cut from 35% is still a 20% cut from 2016. Of course it is a 33% increase from today.

There is money in there to replace lead pipes in drinking water, needed. Rural broadband, needed. Modernized mass transit, needed.

For whatever reason, the GOP never advanced an infrastructure bill under Trump, and I recall him going to Cincy discussing how much the Brent Spence Bridge needed repaired or replaced. In the 4 years since, the cost of that has not at all gone down.

We must have infrastructure. $2 trillion over 10 years isn't outlandish.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't believe we have discussed what is in the plan. First, where is the money going? USAToday has a good breakdown https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...re-bill-charts-detail-bidens-plan/4820227001/

I know people are going to be critical of the price tag, $2 trillion is a lot. But it is over 10 years, our needs are many. The question shouldn't be "is it too much", the question should be "will it solve problems and grow the economy". No one complains if a corporation takes on debt to build a new plant if it is going to boost profits in the long run.

I suspect the money for electric cars are going to be a question. We can debate the help to purchase them, that may be a good question. But the EV stations? I think that is a good and necessary idea. The world IS changing, we need to get with it.

I suspect the biggest complaint will be the tax increases. The corporate tax is going to go back up half of what was cut. So we still have a significant reduction in taxes from 2016. A 7% cut from 35% is still a 20% cut from 2016. Of course it is a 33% increase from today.

There is money in there to replace lead pipes in drinking water, needed. Rural broadband, needed. Modernized mass transit, needed.

For whatever reason, the GOP never advanced an infrastructure bill under Trump, and I recall him going to Cincy discussing how much the Brent Spence Bridge needed repaired or replaced. In the 4 years since, the cost of that has not at all gone down.

We must have infrastructure. $2 trillion over 10 years isn't outlandish.

No one cares if a Corp does bc they have a profit incentive and shareholders and accountability. Trillions in taxes from a captive audience going to an inept gov and who knows what hidden special interests is different. Everyone should be for an infrastructure bill. With our gov who knows how it’ll get wasted, overpriced and bungled. But who cares when there are tax payers with no choice but to foot the bill. And think how illogical it sounds for the mayor of a tiny town to now oversee trillions of dollars for boondoggle projects.

And should we really fund so much with general taxes? Why not user taxes where the projects occur.

Electric cars do nothing for the poor.

Finally biden and the Dems may end up going it alone on this. That has to stop for both parties at some point. The divide is worse and worse. And believe me repubs would do the same.

Last last where I am everything is full steam ahead again. Not sure more stimulus is needed or that much stimulus. Seems premature.

I want a third party

 

[Spartans9312]

I don't believe we have discussed what is in the plan. First, where is the money going? USAToday has a good breakdown https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...re-bill-charts-detail-bidens-plan/4820227001/

I know people are going to be critical of the price tag, $2 trillion is a lot. But it is over 10 years, our needs are many. The question shouldn't be "is it too much", the question should be "will it solve problems and grow the economy". No one complains if a corporation takes on debt to build a new plant if it is going to boost profits in the long run.

I suspect the money for electric cars are going to be a question. We can debate the help to purchase them, that may be a good question. But the EV stations? I think that is a good and necessary idea. The world IS changing, we need to get with it.

I suspect the biggest complaint will be the tax increases. The corporate tax is going to go back up half of what was cut. So we still have a significant reduction in taxes from 2016. A 7% cut from 35% is still a 20% cut from 2016. Of course it is a 33% increase from today.

There is money in there to replace lead pipes in drinking water, needed. Rural broadband, needed. Modernized mass transit, needed.

For whatever reason, the GOP never advanced an infrastructure bill under Trump, and I recall him going to Cincy discussing how much the Brent Spence Bridge needed repaired or replaced. In the 4 years since, the cost of that has not at all gone down.

We must have infrastructure. $2 trillion over 10 years isn't outlandish.

How much is for roads and bridges?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't believe we have discussed what is in the plan. First, where is the money going? USAToday has a good breakdown https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/n...re-bill-charts-detail-bidens-plan/4820227001/

I know people are going to be critical of the price tag, $2 trillion is a lot. But it is over 10 years, our needs are many. The question shouldn't be "is it too much", the question should be "will it solve problems and grow the economy". No one complains if a corporation takes on debt to build a new plant if it is going to boost profits in the long run.

I suspect the money for electric cars are going to be a question. We can debate the help to purchase them, that may be a good question. But the EV stations? I think that is a good and necessary idea. The world IS changing, we need to get with it.

I suspect the biggest complaint will be the tax increases. The corporate tax is going to go back up half of what was cut. So we still have a significant reduction in taxes from 2016. A 7% cut from 35% is still a 20% cut from 2016. Of course it is a 33% increase from today.

There is money in there to replace lead pipes in drinking water, needed. Rural broadband, needed. Modernized mass transit, needed.

For whatever reason, the GOP never advanced an infrastructure bill under Trump, and I recall him going to Cincy discussing how much the Brent Spence Bridge needed repaired or replaced. In the 4 years since, the cost of that has not at all gone down.

We must have infrastructure. $2 trillion over 10 years isn't outlandish.

This plan is 40% boondoggle, 40% payoff to political supporters, and 20% needed substance.

Some random examples.

Using public money to pay for vehicle charging stations is a political payoff. Those should be paid for by users. more and more electric vehicles are about to be introduced so there will be a demand to be satisfied. Instead of subsidies for charging stations, we should levy an excise tax on the juice supplied.

Doubling payment to public transit is a boondoggle. Even before the pandemic, the public transit system in Denver metro was struggling with declining ridership and it will only get worse. More people will be working from home and drugs, the riots, and homeless camps are destroying city center as a go-to place. Uber and Lyft has taken its toll too. Denver is not unique. But then Biden wants to destroy the gig economy that Uber and Lyft thrive on, so there is that. i think public mass transit as we have it is a white elephant.

Did you notice the human services and Medicaid expansion in the bill? That’s not infrastructure. Might be a good idea, but to include that in a take it or leave it infrastructure plan is one of many things wrong with what has become of government.

Assessed valuation of taxable real estate is the backbone of school finance, including capital spending. The best way to get money to schools throughout rural America is to continue with our energy independence effort. The real estate taxes paid by this industry is the largest single source of revenue in many areas. Low priced energy is also a factor in other private investment which will increase tax base.

Communications infrastructure has always been in the hands of private industry. With technological advancements, satisfying rural demand is getting easier and cheaper. No need for government support there. That’s a political payoff.

The best way to accelerate infrastructure spending is to drastically cut red tape and jurisdiction of the courts to entertain litigation. I posted before about a Denver city street program a few blocks from me that was delayed for an additional 12 months for a useless federal noise study just cuz some absent unaccountable bureaucrat found some obscure reg attached to federal funds on the project. Every water supply project in Colorado is met with years of litigation. I know of two in northern Colorado that will go on for years. This is nuts. So I don’t know what Biden has in mind for water project spending, but it ain’t to improve the quantity safe water in a reasonable time. Probably most of the funds will be spent on lawyers.

 

[mcmurtry66]

How much is for roads and bridges?

This plan is 40% boondoggle, 40% payoff to political supporters, and 20% needed substance.

Some random examples.

Using public money to pay for vehicle charging stations is a political payoff. Those should be paid for by users. more and more electric vehicles are about to be introduced so there will be a demand to be satisfied. Instead of subsidies for charging stations, we should levy an excise tax on the juice supplied.

Doubling payment to public transit is a boondoggle. Even before the pandemic, the public transit system in Denver metro was struggling with declining ridership and it will only get worse. More people will be working from home and drugs, the riots, and homeless camps are destroying city center as a go-to place. Uber and Lyft has taken its toll too. Denver is not unique. But then Biden wants to destroy the gig economy that Uber and Lyft thrive on, so there is that. i think public mass transit as we have it is a white elephant.

Did you notice the human services and Medicaid expansion in the bill? That’s not infrastructure. Might be a good idea, but to include that in a take it or leave it infrastructure plan is one of many things wrong with what has become of government.

Assessed valuation of taxible real estate is the backbone of school finance, including capital spending. The best way to get money to schools throughout rural America is to continue with our energy independence effort. The real estate taxes paid by this industry is the largest single source of revenue in many areas. Low priced energy is also a factor in other private investment which will increase tax base.

Communications infrastructure has always been in the hands of private industry. With technological advancements, satisfying rural demand is getting easier and cheaper. No need for government support there. That’s a political payoff.

The best way to accelerate infrastructure spending is to drastically cut red tape and jurisdiction of the courts to entertain litigation. I posted before about a Denver city street program a few blocks from me that was delayed for an additional 12 months for a useless federal noise study just cuz some absent unaccountable bureaucrat found some obscure reg attached to federal funds on the project. Every water supply project in Colorado is met with years of litigation. I know of two in northern Colorado that will go on for years. This is nuts. So I don’t know what Biden has in mind for water project spending, but it ain’t to improve the quantity safe water in a reasonable time. Probably most of the funds will be spent on lawyers.

115 bil to fix roads and bridges. 2 tril will come from raising taxes. Not user fees. To the surprise of no one. All for the mayor of Mayberry to oversee.

 

[Spartans9312]

115 bil to fix roads and bridges. 2 tril will come from raising taxes. Not user fees. To the surprise of no one. All for the mayor of Mayberry to oversee.

Not surprised

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This plan is 40% boondoggle, 40% payoff to political supporters, and 20% needed substance.

Some random examples.

Using public money to pay for vehicle charging stations is a political payoff. Those should be paid for by users. more and more electric vehicles are about to be introduced so there will be a demand to be satisfied. Instead of subsidies for charging stations, we should levy an excise tax on the juice supplied.

Doubling payment to public transit is a boondoggle. Even before the pandemic, the public transit system in Denver metro was struggling with declining ridership and it will only get worse. More people will be working from home and drugs, the riots, and homeless camps are destroying city center as a go-to place. Uber and Lyft has taken its toll too. Denver is not unique. But then Biden wants to destroy the gig economy that Uber and Lyft thrive on, so there is that. i think public mass transit as we have it is a white elephant.

Did you notice the human services and Medicaid expansion in the bill? That’s not infrastructure. Might be a good idea, but to include that in a take it or leave it infrastructure plan is one of many things wrong with what has become of government.

Assessed valuation of taxible real estate is the backbone of school finance, including capital spending. The best way to get money to schools throughout rural America is to continue with our energy independence effort. The real estate taxes paid by this industry is the largest single source of revenue in many areas. Low priced energy is also a factor in other private investment which will increase tax base.

Communications infrastructure has always been in the hands of private industry. With technological advancements, satisfying rural demand is getting easier and cheaper. No need for government support there. That’s a political payoff.

The best way to accelerate infrastructure spending is to drastically cut red tape and jurisdiction of the courts to entertain litigation. I posted before about a Denver city street program a few blocks from me that was delayed for an additional 12 months for a useless federal noise study just cuz some absent unaccountable bureaucrat found some obscure reg attached to federal funds on the project. Every water supply project in Colorado is met with years of litigation. I know of two in northern Colorado that will go on for years. This is nuts. So I don’t know what Biden has in mind for water project spending, but it ain’t to improve the quantity safe water in a reasonable time. Probably most of the funds will be spent on lawyers.

Uber and Lyft do not solve the problems in big cities of moving masses. Pull every New Yorker out of subways and see what happens. They replace taxis, not mass transit.

As to Denver's mass transit, is it possible you are seeing the impacts of a system poorly designed and cash-starved? In many smaller towns, like Bloomington, many buses run once per hour. That makes it less user friendly if they are scheduled to arrive exactly at clock in or depart minutes before clock out. But cutting routes is the response to financial pressures leading to a vicious circle.

 

[Spartans9312]

Uber and Lyft do not solve the problems in big cities of moving masses. Pull every New Yorker out of subways and see what happens. They replace taxis, not mass transit.

As to Denver's mass transit, is it possible you are seeing the impacts of a system poorly designed and cash-starved? In many smaller towns, like Bloomington, many buses run once per hour. That makes it less user friendly if they are scheduled to arrive exactly at clock in or depart minutes before clock out. But cutting routes is the response to financial pressures leading to a vicious circle.

It appears anything can be defined as "infrastructure"

 

[Noodle]

$2.5 billion for the Brent Spent Bridge between Cincinnati and Kentucky. It's the second busiest bridge in the U.S. (behind only the George Washington Bridge in NYC). It is an absolute priority, as the bridge currently carries twice the amount of traffic it was designed for. Carries 165,000 vehicles a day, including long haul trucks on I75 and I71. 3% of our GDP travels across this bridge every year, and it was declared functionally obsolete over 20 years ago.

Brent Spence Bridge project could get funding boost from Biden’s infrastructure bill

The bridge carries three percent of the country’s annual GNP, but it’s a congestion nightmare.

www.fox19.com

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

$2.5 billion for the Brent Spent Bridge between Cincinnati and Kentucky. It's the second busiest bridge in the U.S. (behind only the George Washington Bridge in NYC). It is an absolute priority, as the bridge currently carries twice the amount of traffic it was designed for. Carries 165,000 vehicles a day, including long haul trucks on I75 and I71. 3% of our GDP travels across this bridge every year, and it was declared functionally obsolete over 20 years ago.

Brent Spence Bridge project could get funding boost from Biden’s infrastructure bill

The bridge carries three percent of the country’s annual GNP, but it’s a congestion nightmare.

www.fox19.com

Maybe if the locals would eat less skyline chili?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Maybe if the locals would eat less skyline chili?

Blasphemer

 

[Cortez88]

I do think energy grid and broadband can fairly be called infrastructure. Hell if Comcast ever tells me that they are no longer going to extend me services, I’m SOL on internet, phone, and tv.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Uber and Lyft do not solve the problems in big cities of moving masses. Pull every New Yorker out of subways and see what happens. They replace taxis, not mass transit.

As to Denver's mass transit, is it possible you are seeing the impacts of a system poorly designed and cash-starved? In many smaller towns, like Bloomington, many buses run once per hour. That makes it less user friendly if they are scheduled to arrive exactly at clock in or depart minutes before clock out. But cutting routes is the response to financial pressures leading to a vicious circle.

i agree some mass transit is good, particularly in large densely populated areas. NYC is an example. The Denver busses that circulate only on the downtown area are well used, at least before Covid, mostly peaceful demonstrations, open drug use, and homeless camps. I think the Boulder-Denver busses are used as are Busses From Denver to Colorado Sorings and Fort Collins. But light rail and many of the longer urban Denver bus routes are seeing drop-offs in users for a myriad of reasons. . These routes are where Uber and Lyft come in. I can’t comment on route design. I do know that computer algorithms are used as is bureaucratic interpretations underserved communitie.s. Notwithstanding some routes being profitable, the whole system is a huge loser and is heavily subsidized with ongoing taxes.

 

[mcmurtry66]

i agree some mass transit is good, particularly in large densely populated areas. NYC is an example. The Denver busses that circulate only on the downtown area are well used, at least before Covid, mostly peaceful demonstrations, open drug use, and homeless camps. I think the Boulder-Denver busses are used as are Busses From Denver to Colorado Sorings and Fort Collins. But light rail and many of the longer urban Denver bus routes are seeing drop-offs in users for a myriad of reasons. . These routes are where Uber and Lyft come in. I can’t comment on route design. I do know that computer algorithms are used as is bureaucratic interpretations underserved communitie.s. Notwithstanding some routes being profitable, the whole system is a huge loser and is heavily subsidized with ongoing taxes.

Yep. Crime in Stl is so bad on the metro link and at stations few from the burbs take it. Not to mention the smell of piss and weed is overwhelming. They still drive. The trains are empty most of the day. With the amount the thing costs and to run they could have bought everyone an electric car. But of course they are looking for money to expand it more. Because that’s what gov does. Public admin 101

New mayor yesterday. Hardcore progressive. If it isn’t already she’ll lead Stl to be the worst city in America. What’s left of the people with any money in the city will run for the burbs. And they sure as hell won’t take the expanding train to get to work.

How about taking a little from the infrastructure bill and doing a crime bill. More cops and security people might use public transit

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Yep. Crime in Stl is so bad on the metro link and at stations few from the burbs take it. Not to mention the smell of piss and weed is overwhelming. They still drive. The trains are empty most of the day. With the amount the thing costs and to run they could have bought everyone an electric car. But of course they are looking for money to expand it more. Because that’s what gov does. Public admin 101

New mayor yesterday. Hardcore progressive. If it isn’t already she’ll lead Stl to be the worst city in America. What’s left of the people with any money in the city will run for the burbs. And they sure as hell won’t take the expanding train to get to work.

How about taking a little from the infrastructure bill and doing a crime bill. More cops and security people might use public transit

The Crime thing in Denver wasn't a major factor--yet. But what did the dumbasses do during the whole Defund movement? Took armed security away from platforms, stations, trains, and busses and replaced them with unarmed "customer service" reps. I haven't ridden the rail since the pandemic started, don't know if I will.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Hell if Comcast ever tells me that they are no longer going to extend me services, I’m SOL on internet, phone, and tv.

What's your service address? Asking for a friend.

 

[hoot1]

Don't like the way things get done on The Potomac these days.

The Congress and Senate no longer have committee members with special expertise on various topics from both parties continually working together behind the scenes to forge consensus on problems such as infrastructure.

infrastructure, just as health care reform was, is a problem which should have been dealt with incrementally over many years. Instead after much delay along comes a omnibus bill with hundreds of pages which undoubtedly faces partisan opposition.

Like a family with members who don't get along, our legislative family on The Potomac is dysfunctional.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Don't like the way things get done on The Potomac these days.

The Congress and Senate no longer have committee members with special expertise on various topics from both parties continually working together behind the scenes to forge consensus on problems such as infrastructure.

infrastructure, just as health care reform was, is a problem which should have been dealt with incrementally over many years. Instead after much delay along comes a omnibus bill with hundreds of pages which undoubtedly faces partisan opposition.

Like a family with members who don't get along, our legislative family on The Potomac is dysfunctional.

There is dysfunction, we can all agree wo that.

At the same point it shows our personal differences. Much of what I view as investment in America's future is waste to others. Somehow we have worked around that in the past, I am sure there were a lot of people sure that the horse and buggy would never be replaced so paved roads were a waste.

CO makes what might be a valid point, it might be people will work from home now and we don't need some infrastructure. That might be valid, I don't know how corporate America is going to react coming out of COVID. I know people who have been told to go back in, others have not. Some have voluntarily gone back in, some people believe being seen working in the office looks better. I am not sure society has decided one way or the other. So yes, it might be in 10 years Atlanta can get by on their 16 lanes of interstate, but we don't KNOW that.

But $2 trillion over 10 years isn't some outlandish amount. Yes, if I thought for a moment that paring it down to 1.5 would get 10 republicans to sign on I'd be all in favor. But it won't. And getting it down to $500 billion over 10 years isn't going to do much.

I will note in his letter to shareholder, Jamie Dimon used the infrastructure bill as part of why there is a boom coming.

In this story (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/06/corporate-america-biden-infrastructure-plan-479490) it is mentioned many corporate leaders have backed a 25% business tax rate. So what if we shrink the plan down to what that would support? Would that attract anyone on the right? I doubt it.

No one is going to pass this without funding it. So the tax increase is going to be a problem for much of the GOP, even a small one.

Meanwhile progressives are already upset this bill isn't big enough and want up to $10 trillion (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...tially-larger-infrastructure-bill/ar-BB1fcLY7).

I don't know why we can't find a bill between $0 and $10 trillion that people can agree on, but I think we all know we can't.

Here is what The American Society for Civil Engineers said .:

If the country doesn't pay its overdue infrastructure bill, ASCE estimated that the U.S. will lose $10 trillion in economic growth and will lose more than 3 million jobs by 2039.​

​

​

Crumbling infrastructure costs every American household $3,300 in hidden costs a year, according to ASCE, from lost time and increased fuel consumption while sitting in traffic jams, to extra car repairs due to poor road conditions.​

​

"As this study shows, we risk significant economic losses, higher costs to consumers, businesses and manufacturers – and our quality of life – if we don't act urgently," Smith said. "When we fail to invest in infrastructure, we pay the price."​

​

85% of dams in Indiana have structural deficiencies https://www.wishtv.com/news/aging-i... Indiana’s,– or replacement – the bigger the risk.

When we ended WWII, we had a tremendous infrastructure advantage over the world and that paid off. But as those countries rebuilt, we lost some of that edge as ours aged. Right now, China is throwing money at infrastructure https://www.chinabankingnews.com/20...mount is scheduled for implementation in 2020. We don't have that money, but we still need to view what we spend as an investment and not an expense.

So in my mind, the debate isn't "what is the minimum amount possible we can spend" to "what is needed to keep us competitive in the decade coming". And we might debate if electric stations are that (they are as US companies are going to be selling electric cars). But if someone has a better idea for that same money, bring it forward. Just slapping a coat of paint on the Brent Spence bridge just because it is cheaper than replacing it isn't the answer. The answer is to invest, and the debate should be how.

 

[mcmurtry66]

There is dysfunction, we can all agree wo that.

At the same point it shows our personal differences. Much of what I view as investment in America's future is waste to others. Somehow we have worked around that in the past, I am sure there were a lot of people sure that the horse and buggy would never be replaced so paved roads were a waste.

CO makes what might be a valid point, it might be people will work from home now and we don't need some infrastructure. That might be valid, I don't know how corporate America is going to react coming out of COVID. I know people who have been told to go back in, others have not. Some have voluntarily gone back in, some people believe being seen working in the office looks better. I am not sure society has decided one way or the other. So yes, it might be in 10 years Atlanta can get by on their 16 lanes of interstate, but we don't KNOW that.

But $2 trillion over 10 years isn't some outlandish amount. Yes, if I thought for a moment that paring it down to 1.5 would get 10 republicans to sign on I'd be all in favor. But it won't. And getting it down to $500 billion over 10 years isn't going to do much.

I will note in his letter to shareholder, Jamie Dimon used the infrastructure bill as part of why there is a boom coming.

In this story (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/06/corporate-america-biden-infrastructure-plan-479490) it is mentioned many corporate leaders have backed a 25% business tax rate. So what if we shrink the plan down to what that would support? Would that attract anyone on the right? I doubt it.

No one is going to pass this without funding it. So the tax increase is going to be a problem for much of the GOP, even a small one.

Meanwhile progressives are already upset this bill isn't big enough and want up to $10 trillion (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...tially-larger-infrastructure-bill/ar-BB1fcLY7).

I don't know why we can't find a bill between $0 and $10 trillion that people can agree on, but I think we all know we can't.

Here is what The American Society for Civil Engineers said

View embedded media

.:

If the country doesn't pay its overdue infrastructure bill, ASCE estimated that the U.S. will lose $10 trillion in economic growth and will lose more than 3 million jobs by 2039.​

​

​

Crumbling infrastructure costs every American household $3,300 in hidden costs a year, according to ASCE, from lost time and increased fuel consumption while sitting in traffic jams, to extra car repairs due to poor road conditions.​

​

"As this study shows, we risk significant economic losses, higher costs to consumers, businesses and manufacturers – and our quality of life – if we don't act urgently," Smith said. "When we fail to invest in infrastructure, we pay the price."​

​

85% of dams in Indiana have structural deficiencies https://www.wishtv.com/news/aging-indiana-dams-prompt-concerns-of-catastrophic-collapse/#:~:text=That doesn’t mean all 90 percent of Indiana’s,– or replacement – the bigger the risk.

When we ended WWII, we had a tremendous infrastructure advantage over the world and that paid off. But as those countries rebuilt, we lost some of that edge as ours aged. Right now, China is throwing money at infrastructure https://www.chinabankingnews.com/2020/03/17/china-touts-50-trillion-yuan-in-infrastructure-spending-yet-just-7-5-trillion-scheduled-for-2020/#:~:text=While domestic media reports have highlighted plans for,this amount is scheduled for implementation in 2020. We don't have that money, but we still need to view what we spend as an investment and not an expense.

So in my mind, the debate isn't "what is the minimum amount possible we can spend" to "what is needed to keep us competitive in the decade coming". And we might debate if electric stations are that (they are as US companies are going to be selling electric cars). But if someone has a better idea for that same money, bring it forward. Just slapping a coat of paint on the Brent Spence bridge just because it is cheaper than replacing it isn't the answer. The answer is to invest, and the debate should be how.

no one should disagree that infrastructure is needed. the issue isn't that. it's who's doing it. how much ineptitude and waste will lead to inflated costs and additional taxes. projects that are just more bridges to nowhere. back to spending earmarks. let's soak the taxpayers and spend 20% on much needed improvements and piss away the rest. because again who is accountable when it's the feds and our money? the guy heading all of this was a mayor of a town with 100,000 people. and i echo hoot's post on parties with expertise coming together.

 

[FarvaIDontWannaLarge]

Yep. Crime in Stl is so bad on the metro link and at stations few from the burbs take it. Not to mention the smell of piss and weed is overwhelming. They still drive. The trains are empty most of the day. With the amount the thing costs and to run they could have bought everyone an electric car. But of course they are looking for money to expand it more. Because that’s what gov does. Public admin 101

New mayor yesterday. Hardcore progressive. If it isn’t already she’ll lead Stl to be the worst city in America. What’s left of the people with any money in the city will run for the burbs. And they sure as hell won’t take the expanding train to get to work.

How about taking a little from the infrastructure bill and doing a crime bill. More cops and security people might use public transit

There are only two people I know who can save STL.

 

[mcmurtry66]

There are only two people I know who can save STL.

lmao armed and definitely dangerous

 

[CO. Hoosier]

no one should disagree that infrastructure is needed. the issue isn't that. it's who's doing it. how much ineptitude and waste will lead to inflated costs and additional taxes. projects that are just more bridges to nowhere. back to spending earmarks. let's soak the taxpayers and spend 20% on much needed improvements and piss away the rest. because again who is accountable when it's the feds and our money? the guy heading all of this was a mayor of a town with 100,000 people. and i echo hoot's post on parties with expertise coming together.

You hafta remember that infrastructure is not just about the hard targets of public works projects, or even the softer targets of R&D into new technologies. Many Democrats are and have been concerned about creating too many manly jobs, so infrastructure also means spending on quality of life and caregivers and people with disabilities. Half the spending goes to these two items as noted in your link. How we feel about spending is as important as spending on needed upgrades to infrastructure. This a lesson learned from the 2008:stimulus much of which went to feel good agencies.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

There are only two people I know who can save STL.

What about these guys?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

no one should disagree that infrastructure is needed. the issue isn't that. it's who's doing it. how much ineptitude and waste will lead to inflated costs and additional taxes. projects that are just more bridges to nowhere. back to spending earmarks. let's soak the taxpayers and spend 20% on much needed improvements and piss away the rest. because again who is accountable when it's the feds and our money? the guy heading all of this was a mayor of a town with 100,000 people. and i echo hoot's post on parties with expertise coming together.

There are many times the government is inefficient. I have no problems to 1) buy American provisions in the bill 2) special laws with harsher penalties for fraud related to spending in this bill. But the ship has a hole in it, the port we are in may have issues but the choices are to let them repair the ship of state or sail with a hole because we don't like their work.

And it would be great if the GOP came up with their own plan and we could compare, contrast, and maybe compromise between the two.

 

[mcmurtry66]

There are many times the government is inefficient. I have no problems to 1) buy American provisions in the bill 2) special laws with harsher penalties for fraud related to spending in this bill. But the ship has a hole in it, the port we are in may have issues but the choices are to let them repair the ship of state or sail with a hole because we don't like their work.

And it would be great if the GOP came up with their own plan and we could compare, contrast, and maybe compromise between the two.

Nope. We flipped the switch. Dems are in charge. Their job is free money, tax the hell out of successful people, and require zero governmental accountability. In the meantime it’s the republicans job to do nothing, in-fight, figure out ways to limit voters, and poke holes in what the Dems propose. What’s more if the repubs don’t join in on anything they can hold out hope for their HaHa toldyaso moment.

What a cluster. Anyway enough politics for today. The bar’s open and it’s bayern psg in the snow!!!

 

[TommyCracker]

Nope. We flipped the switch. Dems are in charge. Their job is free money, tax the hell out of successful people, and require zero governmental accountability. In the meantime it’s the republicans job to do nothing, in-fight, figure out ways to limit voters, and poke holes in what the Dems propose. What’s more if the repubs don’t join in on anything they can hold out hope for their HaHa toldyaso moment.

What a cluster. Anyway enough politics for today. The bar’s open and it’s bayern psg in the snow!!!

I agree in spirit with this.

At least with this bill we are investing and we're upfront with what we are investing in.

Interest rates are luckily around all time lows and we are waaaay behind in upgrading our past infrastructure (our interstates are around 70 years old) while also preparing for the public infrastructure needs going forward (charging stations as electric vehicles continue to transform into the desired car as its faster, as powerful, cheaper, cleaner and can fully charge in under ten minutes), a stronger and wider internet grid as we become more relied on GPS, self driving cars, etc) and money for strengthening the bones of our public utilities.

Ya know so people can avoid having to melt snow in their bathtubs so they can flush their toilets.

Or we can do nothing, lower taxes on the rich, creating a larger deficit with no solution to pay for it which in turns expands the debt to the outrageous levels that saw over the past four years.

Debt isn't a big issue if that borrowing is invested.

With this bill we at least are investing and if it pays off will more than pay for itself.

Business theory 101

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Nope. We flipped the switch. Dems are in charge. Their job is free money, tax the hell out of successful people, and require zero governmental accountability. In the meantime it’s the republicans job to do nothing, in-fight, figure out ways to limit voters, and poke holes in what the Dems propose. What’s more if the repubs don’t join in on anything they can hold out hope for their HaHa toldyaso moment.

What a cluster. Anyway enough politics for today. The bar’s open and it’s bayern psg in the snow!!!

The problem is that your dichotomy - which accurately reflects at least the perceived excesses of each party - doesn't capture the one key difference between the two, at least on the federal level: the Democrats are trying to govern, and the Republicans are trying to prevent any sort of governance from happening.

This can't be because of some deep philosophical ideas held by the parties. Whether it's voting in Georgia, or transgender medicine in Arkansas, the GOP has no problem actually governing in states where it is in charge, and the Democrats there have no problem complaining about the GOP governing.

I think this is the fundamental wrench in the gears of government right now that Marvin astutely recognizes with his comments about compromise. The GOP isn't even going through the motions of pretending to be interested. If they were, they'd put together a counterproposal, and make good-faith efforts to work with the Dems to come to an agreement that can get large majorities on board in both houses. But that's not going to happen, because the GOP isn't interested in the Dems doing anything. Whether that anything is good or bad is irrelevant. Not even you are immune to this mindset. You started in this thread not trusting the government, but in the post quoted here, you ended up landing with it being the Dems' "job" to "require zero governmental accountability." It seems that you don't distrust government as much as you distrust Dem government.

I think that seems to be nearing a universal in our politics today. The two parties simply have very little interest in working together on anything because they distrust the other too much.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The problem is that your dichotomy - which accurately reflects at least the perceived excesses of each party - doesn't capture the one key difference between the two, at least on the federal level: the Democrats are trying to govern, and the Republicans are trying to prevent any sort of governance from happening.

This can't be because of some deep philosophical ideas held by the parties. Whether it's voting in Georgia, or transgender medicine in Arkansas, the GOP has no problem actually governing in states where it is in charge, and the Democrats there have no problem complaining about the GOP governing.

I think this is the fundamental wrench in the gears of government right now that Marvin astutely recognizes with his comments about compromise. The GOP isn't even going through the motions of pretending to be interested. If they were, they'd put together a counterproposal, and make good-faith efforts to work with the Dems to come to an agreement that can get large majorities on board in both houses. But that's not going to happen, because the GOP isn't interested in the Dems doing anything. Whether that anything is good or bad is irrelevant. Not even you are immune to this mindset. You started in this thread not trusting the government, but in the post quoted here, you ended up landing with it being the Dems' "job" to "require zero governmental accountability." It seems that you don't distrust government as much as you distrust Dem government.

I think that seems to be nearing a universal in our politics today. The two parties simply have very little interest in working together on anything because they distrust the other too much.

I agree with your points. I think it all ties into the cooments from Boehner and Dent I posted elsewhere. Many in the GOP view their role as not doing anything.

The Democrats are not immune from refusing to play with the other side, it is just noticeably less a badge of honor.

This problem used to exist in our military usage as well, this use or that use was our war or their war. That was a precursor to where we are today.

The GOP easily could have passed a $600 bn infrastructure bill, and that would have made it harder for Democrats now. So the skinny option is dead. The question is do they want a say in a larger option. A counter between 1.2 and 1.5 might work, there are a couple Ds that might go for that (if some is targeting WV or AZ). But there is literally no counter.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The problem is that your dichotomy - which accurately reflects at least the perceived excesses of each party - doesn't capture the one key difference between the two, at least on the federal level: the Democrats are trying to govern, and the Republicans are trying to prevent any sort of governance from happening.

This can't be because of some deep philosophical ideas held by the parties. Whether it's voting in Georgia, or transgender medicine in Arkansas, the GOP has no problem actually governing in states where it is in charge, and the Democrats there have no problem complaining about the GOP governing.

I think this is the fundamental wrench in the gears of government right now that Marvin astutely recognizes with his comments about compromise. The GOP isn't even going through the motions of pretending to be interested. If they were, they'd put together a counterproposal, and make good-faith efforts to work with the Dems to come to an agreement that can get large majorities on board in both houses. But that's not going to happen, because the GOP isn't interested in the Dems doing anything. Whether that anything is good or bad is irrelevant. Not even you are immune to this mindset. You started in this thread not trusting the government, but in the post quoted here, you ended up landing with it being the Dems' "job" to "require zero governmental accountability." It seems that you don't distrust government as much as you distrust Dem government.

I think that seems to be nearing a universal in our politics today. The two parties simply have very little interest in working together on anything because they distrust the other too much.

i completely agree that the two parties have no interest in working together. instead they actively work and root against each other. this was made worse by trump's divisiveness. and yes i distrust dem gov and bureaucracies more than i distrust repub gov. it's inherent. a perfect example, while not a fed agency, was/is the WHO. trump suspended money to same until an audit/vetting took place. biden immediately rejoined same. apparently no questions asked. now i understand WHO provides countless other services that are vital all over the world but it's the principle of it. just tax the shit out of us. why be accountable to anyone or frugal or careful with tax dollars when we're always there to bill.

i do not trust gov to provide nor do i want gov to provide the lion's share of services. they are slow, inept, and entitled. if you know anything about public administration the first rule of agency budgeting is to NEVER ask for less money. it sends the message that your work isn't vital. think how fundamentally flawed this logic is. it's a disincentive to solutions. dems i associate with more gov and more involvement in our lives. i prefer the opposite.

and i'll share that i don't think dems' views are malicious. i think their hearts are in the right place. it's just rinse and repeat failures. we just elected a new mayor in saint louis that will continue the downward spiral of democratic policies. her heart is in the right place. she cares. but....

so do i think the repubs will do better. only if they tax us less and shrink gov.

 

[UncleMark]

The GOP isn't even going through the motions of pretending to be interested. If they were, they'd put together a counterproposal, and make good-faith efforts to work with the Dems to come to an agreement that can get large majorities on board in both houses.

A counter between 1.2 and 1.5 might work, there are a couple Ds that might go for that (if some is targeting WV or AZ). But there is literally no counter.

Manchin and Sinema are playing the role that the GOP should be playing by bringing a counter to the discussion, and will need to be compromised with.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Manchin and Sinema are playing the role that the GOP should be playing by bringing a counter to the discussion, and will need to be compromised with.

Manchin and Sinema could start a trend by declaring as independents or another party. They don’t resemble the heart of the Democratic Party whatsoever.

 

[UncleMark]

Manchin and Sinema could start a trend by declaring as independents or another party. They don’t resemble the heart of the Democratic Party whatsoever.

Give me a centrist bloc of twenty from both parties who are willing to tell both Chuck and Mitch to fvck off. Then let's see if they can get anything accomplished.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Give me a centrist bloc of twenty from both parties who are willing to tell both Chuck and Mitch to fvck off. Then let's see if they can get anything accomplished.

why don't we have this. don't you believe that's what 80 percent of the country wants

 

[Marvin the Martian]

why don't we have this. don't you believe that's what 80 percent of the country wants

The party voters are different. Both parties can/will primary people not pure of faith.

An example was Indiana, in an open election back in the day Lugar would have won easily but in the primary, nope. The same happens on the Democratic side that was just the easiest possible example.

 

[UncleMark]

why don't we have this. don't you believe that's what 80 percent of the country wants

It would take guts, something that's in short supply. And it would take some hefty leadership to bring them together and keep them unified. But think what Manchin and Romney could do if they set out to make it happen. It could change how the government operated for a generation.

The so called "problem solvers" have the right idea, but don't have the stones to kick Chuck and Mitch to the curb and take charge.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It would take guts, something that's in short supply. And it would take some hefty leadership to bring them together and keep them unified. But think what Manchin and Romney could do if they set out to make it happen. It could change how the government operated for a generation.

The so called "problem solvers" have the right idea, but don't have the stones to kick Chuck and Mitch to the curb and take charge.

Agreed

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It would take guts, something that's in short supply. And it would take some hefty leadership to bring them together and keep them unified. But think what Manchin and Romney could do if they set out to make it happen. It could change how the government operated for a generation.

The so called "problem solvers" have the right idea, but don't have the stones to kick Chuck and Mitch to the curb and take charge.

Because their voters are idiots.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Vote lyin’
Money flyin’
Vote buyin’
Few sighin’
Liberty dyin’

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Give me a centrist bloc of twenty from both parties who are willing to tell both Chuck and Mitch to fvck off. Then let's see if they can get anything accomplished.

we discussed this idea a month or so ago. I think it’s a great idea but 40 is way too big. I’m thinking of a group of 6-10 evenly split.

 

[UncleMark]

we discussed this idea a month or so ago. I think it’s a great idea but 40 is way too big. I’m thinking of a group of 6-10 evenly split.

I meant twenty total.