Infrastructure plan
- Thread starter Marvin the Martian
- Start date
Also, the money. Party fundraising is heavily centralized, which makes it hard for folks to buck the trend and still have campaign support.
I haven’t read the details of this bill yet, but I think $2 trillion is not half of what is needed.
It’s been pointed out by others in this thread that infrastructure can mean different things to different people. The physical infrastructure has been neglected for decades. We also need a major upgrade to cyber security. Broadband. Election security, with voting machines that produce a paper trail, nationwide. I can go on and on.
We need to go big and serious on an efficient infrastructure bill. Stop wasting time on petty politics, and don’t waste money on unnecessary pork projects. This should money well spent, but don’t just throw money at it like the covid stimulus bill that was not properly targeted.
It’s been pointed out by others in this thread that infrastructure can mean different things to different people. The physical infrastructure has been neglected for decades. We also need a major upgrade to cyber security. Broadband. Election security, with voting machines that produce a paper trail, nationwide. I can go on and on.
We need to go big and serious on an efficient infrastructure bill. Stop wasting time on petty politics, and don’t waste money on unnecessary pork projects. This should money well spent, but don’t just throw money at it like the covid stimulus bill that was not properly targeted.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Those 6-10 would be the most powerful people in congress - especially the senate. I would think it would be appetizing.
I chose 20 -- 10/10 -- since that would allow them to break a filibuster against any proposal they got behind.
I agree with both of you. The reason it won’t happen is because of the primary process. This seems like an area ripe for reform. It’s leading to really bad election results.
Agree. That would almost have to be a suicide pact. As I said often, we have too much voting and too many people doing it. Repeal the 17th Amendment! Cut the EC away from being bound by popular vote or stop statewide winner take all.
Money wouldn’t mean anything in the senate if we repeal the 17th Amendment.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Blue dog incumbent democrats and moderate republicans in moderate states (eg Ohio) should have no problem.
Yes the AOCs of the world or the Tom Cottons couldn’t do it but we don’t want them anyways.
I don’t trust state legislatures enough. Statewide US Senate elections are not the problem IMO. Hell a lot of the really bad primary results are at the state level.
State legislatures are often the farm team for congress. I agree state legislative quality could be better. I think one way to improve quality would be to give them more responsibility.
You don't think mass donations would not grease the state legislature skids?
Probably. But indirectly spreading money out among scores of legislators is better than directly buying one or two senate votes.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Given we are one year into millions of people complaining they cannot work because schools (caregivers) are closed, infrastructure might well fit a modern definition. I was curious if caregiving would come up more, surprised it has not.
We know childcare and eldercare are often blocks to production. Both improve production. Isn't that infrastructure?
The proposed bill is an "infrastrcture" bill in name only. As currently constructed, it's an economic stimulus bill comparable to much of the New Deal. People can argue about what constitutes "infrastructure", or we can discuss the merits of the bill's various components. Me personally, I'd rather see more of the money going to hard capital improvements than to the "softer" aspects. The capital improvements will be a long lasting boost, while the softer aspects will be temporary -- or will require continued funding and support.
Spot on. A million likes. And the Dems are going it alone. It’s going to lead to tax hikes and as you say necessitate ongoing funding. It’s stuff that needs bipartisan support yet the Dems will do it without same. And believe me so too would the republicans. Winners take all.... Just as we saw with the Supreme Court apptmt rushed through and the repubs. Sad governing.
Last edited:
I would agree priority should be hard infrastructure. But I think limiting ourselves to what the Romans would have built is too limiting.
I just heard Boehner on CBS Sunday Morning say that he was negotiating with Obama naked, his people did not want anything. He said he knew what they opposed but never had an idea of what they wanted.
That is still in place today. People might point out that care problems hurts American competitiveness, but that doesn't matter, there are many that will never support anything.
I am going to guess not a person here will say childcare and eldercare are irrelevant. So why can't we attempt to deal with it?
That’s fine but separate the bills etc. Don’t call something infrastructure that’s social welfare and entitlement programs. And I’m all for daycare money. It’s critically impt. But be honest. What the taxpayer associates with infrastructure (roads bridges sewers etc) is a very small portion of what’s being proposed
Do you think there is 1 GOP senator that would vote for such care in a standalone bill?
Boehner just admitted that no Republicans were going to vote for Obamacare no matter what, has that changed at all?
Whether or not things count as infrastructure is a really silly argument. It's called the "American Jobs Plan", and caregiving directly and indirectly creates and supports jobs regardless of whether a word that's used in a lot of different and nebulous ways applies.
I don’t disagree but words matter, particularly when you’re selling things. Look at the title of this thread. It’s not jobs plan
Fine, then it needs to be commonly called a jobs bill rather than an infrastructure bill. Otherwise, you give the detractors the ammunition they need to claim it's a pig in a poke.
I don't really have any objections to them going whole hog. Of course I would take issue with some of the provisions and the varying magnitudes among them, but that's the way it is when you're not King. Where I'll be really disappointed is if they don't make the hard choices on the revenue side they need to make to show me they're serious about reality based fiscal considerations. Ironically, the Democrats have been far better in that area that the Republicans have, ever since Reagan and Voo Doo economics.
It's the damndest thing.
The national debt is a pretty simple concept at the macro level.
We have a tax base, we need to budget to that tax base. When we don't we create a deficit which in turns creates debt.
Dems are typically labeled as tax and spend freaks but what people don't get is that the pubs with Reagan going forward have been tax cut and spend.
Which is horrifically bad and what got my man Perot all pissed off.
Worse yet the tax cuts aren't investments. They're just cuts, mainly to the wealthy.
Trump did the same. Passed a big tax cut that mainly impacted the wealthy which created a big deficit that was never filled in and therefore the national debt exploded under him in just four years.
So yeah, we really do need to look at raising taxes but we can't because it's political suicide.
At least spend on things that will be an actual investment and will pay back which is what this bill is trying to do.
At least inflation has been held in check over the past 40 years and interest rates are near their lows so if we're going to do it....nows a pretty good time.
inflation and interests rates once were tied.
now the interest rate is just whatever the Fed and Wall St wants it to be, and the inflation rate is a made up number totally disconnected to actual inflation.
Tax cuts aren’t only to wealthy. They impact businesses. It’s a huge deal. Tax to spend to cover new initiatives or are we adding debt because I thought debt didn’t matter.
If we have to raise taxes on businesses to cover expenditures presumably debt matters. And at what point will there be accountability for these social programs to see if they have positive outcomes. To me so far it’s dems in let’s tax (free money) and start more entitlements. A surprise to no one .... like some divine right to swoop down and take a big portion of the money people work their asses off to make. And for what? Feds have no clue? Do you think in the short term biden has been in he’s vetted these programs. No. It’s let’s tax the shit out of people and business and give it to the states for more entitlement programs that the feds will never audit to track outcomes etc. In truth I think they do it to create jobs. Gov jobs.
We should all feel good about taxes that we see a demonstrative result. A fixed road. Social programs with no clue as to outcomes. They’re putting the cart before the horse - per usual. And I know Republicans spend the same - just on different stuff. I just want way less gov. The older I get the more libertarian I become
Last edited:
It is easier to evaluate successful investments in traditional hard capital.
Everybody can tell quickly whether a new road or bridge is high quality. But it will be difficult to tell in the future whether the nebulous provisions in this plan to provide caregiving, to promote American manufacturing, to advance American leadership in "critical technologies" proved successful. It'll be just as debatable as the war on poverty or war on drugs.
Some time ago, I read a study showing that white people received more "welfare benefits" (which can be a variety of things) than black people.
I wonder what the current numbers show and what benefits each group receives more of.
And, yes I know the US population has more whites than black.
I also know that a lot of rural/smalltown white people are dirt poor.
Who gives a shit. Race or trump. That’s all you know. Dumb as hell. Blacks are 13 percent of the population. What do you think
Yes I’m quite certain if we just start calling it something else republicans will stop attacking it. Not only will they stop attacking it, but they’ll actually put forth ideas, negotiate and eventually vote in favor of it.
Yeah, sure, and monkeys might fly out of your ass and steal your S10.
The New Deal didn't stimulate anything. World War II brought us out of 10+ years of economic depression.
I pray that Mayor Pete isn't as stupid as Amtrak thinks he is. Because we know Congress is.
This isn't the 1870s.
This isn't the 1870s.
To what extent do you think that COVID-19 rather than a systemic cause is responsible for the closures, etc. ?
COVID closed the schools, but it showed the problems that many others face with issues not-Covid related.
You don't think a cheap fare, easy access, 250 mph high speed rail would be something to consider?
Mpls to Chicago in less than three hours for say $30 wouldn't get used, wouldn't help businesses in both cities and along the rail line and/or would allow for workers to live further out.
Take more cars off the roads and be an efficient people mover, built upon a base infrastructure that already exists.
Europe and Japan seem to do well with their high speed rail.
The key is will it be faster than a car (like 150 to 250 mph) and will it be safe and clean.
At the current speeds (and prices) the ol Chattanooga Choo Choo is not a competitive option...but if we can get high speed rail that's cheap (like they do overseas) then it could make a impact.
1. I could fly to Chicago in around two hours or so when you factor boarding, etc. Probably more like three hours.
2. I could drive to Chicago in a little over six hours.
3. Could I take a high speed rail and get there in 2.5 hours cheaper than it would cost me in gas?
I would be remiss if I didn't put in a word for intermodal rail in memory of my departed friend Dick who spent a lifetime career in the trucking industry while trying to convince both business and government of the advantages of intermodal rail.
This article provides a nice summary of the case foe intermodal rail and in part states the following....
What mode of transportation is the best choice for the movement of your freight? OTR transportation or intermodal? Each mode offers its own set of pros and cons and is best suited for different situations.
One of the most common debates is over-the-road (OTR) vs. intermodal (rail). Many shippers stick to using trucks/vans to move their product because it’s what they are familiar with, and it works. But there is potential to switch traditional over-the-road (OTR) shipments to rail, with possible savings of a few hundred dollars per load.
This article provides a nice summary of the case foe intermodal rail and in part states the following....
What mode of transportation is the best choice for the movement of your freight? OTR transportation or intermodal? Each mode offers its own set of pros and cons and is best suited for different situations.
One of the most common debates is over-the-road (OTR) vs. intermodal (rail). Many shippers stick to using trucks/vans to move their product because it’s what they are familiar with, and it works. But there is potential to switch traditional over-the-road (OTR) shipments to rail, with possible savings of a few hundred dollars per load.
your $30 price is fantasy land imo, but i suppose how much the ticket is subsidized will determine ticket price.
and for time comparison, you need to figure point to point, vs terminal to terminal, be it rail or air.
also factor in drive time to terminal area, park car, shuttle to terminal, board..
then add another 45 mins buffer time to make sure you arrive with plenty of time to not miss train, 1 hr plus to not miss plane.
that's assuming no checked luggage. no security check.
and how long are the stops in Madison, one near La Crosse, Eau Claire, St Paul, and points in between, for exiting/boarding there? (every politician will fight to the death for a stop in their town).
how many stops just in metro Chicago area?
then get a taxi or uber to your actual point of destination.
at which point you still don't have a car, so have extra travel time and expense hassel everywhere else you go.
and you have to deal with any luggage or whatever, since you can't just leave things in your trunk unless you rent a car, which is a whole nother time and expense dynamic.
i think hi speed rail has a place in the US, but not sure where and where not.
the east coast of US seems logical, but you're talking constant stops and regular rail already exists there.
to add hi speed rail, you'd have to acquire a lot of absurdly pricey land, with legal hurdles to the death for every inch.
how big the land cost hurdles, depends on how close to downtown you want it to go.
if we're talking upgrading the exiting rail, think I 69 from Btown to Indy, and how do you accomodate the current rail users on the east coast for the yrs of construction time?
i love the concept of rail, but there is a reason passenger rail fails in most of the US.
i suppose there are selected places it would work, which are defined by finding the sweet spot distance and demand wise.
you need the runs to be far enough that car isn't the better option, and close enough that air isn't the better option.
then you need demand great enough in that distance sweet spot.
seems like regular rail between Indy and Minny should work, yet it doesn't.
i think what will change that, is when enough people quit buying cars.
to me a big question is, while hi speed rail does well other places, where is it succeeding that regular rail wasn't succeeding, pre hi speed rail?
Last edited:
Similar threads
