Biden Details $2 Trillion Plan To Rebuild Infrastructure and Reshape the Economy (nytimes.com) 282
President Biden will unveil an infrastructure plan on Wednesday whose $2 trillion price tag would translate into 20,000 miles of rebuilt roads, repairs to the 10 most economically important bridges in the country, the elimination of lead pipes and service lines from the nation's water supplies and a long list of other projects intended to create millions of jobs in the short run and strengthen American competitiveness in the long run. From a report: Biden administration officials said the proposal, which they detailed in a 25-page briefing paper and which Mr. Biden will discuss in an afternoon speech in Pittsburgh, would also accelerate the fight against climate change by hastening the shift to new, cleaner energy sources, and would help promote racial equity in the economy. The spending in the plan would take place over eight years, officials said. Unlike the economic stimulus passed under President Barack Obama in 2009, when Mr. Biden was vice president, officials will not in every case prioritize so-called shovel ready projects that could quickly bolster growth. Many of the items in the plan carry price tags that would have filled entire, ambitious bills in past administrations, The Times reports. Among them: A total of $180 billion for research and development, $115 billion for roads and bridges, $85 billion for public transit, and $80 billion for Amtrak and freight rail. There is $42 billion for ports and airports, $100 billion for broadband and $111 billion for water infrastructure -- including $45 billion to ensure no child ever is forced to drink water from a lead pipe, which can slow children's development and lead to behavioral and other problems.
Cool. More inflation. (Score:3, Funny)
Buy Bitcoin.
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Informative)
Being that the inflation rate has been really low with trending of the past 50 years really gown down, it isn't much of a problem unless you are just a fan of the other party who is proposing paying for something.
Inflation isn't a bad thing. While things may cost more, if the money is spend correctly and implemented well it also leads us to be making more too.
Eg. They fix the roads, you end up not needing to get new suspension for your car every 5 years. If the amount delta that you pay for taxes to help fix the road is less than the cost of suspension, then it is a net benefit to you.
Also if the cost of groceries went from $150 a week to $180 per week. But your paycheck went from $1000 a week to say $1300 a week, you are also getting a net benefit.
Don't fear inflation, stagflation is the real problem, that is where the money you make or save is lower than than the amount of things where price has risen.
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
...if the money is spend correctly and implemented well...
I believe, once you get past the "it's the other team's bill" nonsense, that this is the biggest issue. Justified or not, there are a lot of people that have little faith in the government spending the money well. How much of this bill is actual-for-real shovels in dirt projects that are actually of public need? And how many of these projects are just congress-critters "bringing home the pork"? Sure, that community center building in Small-Town Michigan needs a new roof and parking lot, but is that something that should be coming out of a major infrastructure bill? (I have no idea if something like that exists in this bill, but I'd bet my left eye you'd be able to find more than a few similar ones.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well with Obama the GOP and right leaning people were all up an arms about the budget deficit. When Trump came the Democrats cared more about the deficit while the GOP said it was not big deal. Now Biden and a Slim Democratic Majority So the GOP is getting worried about spending again.
It is really just tribalism, Inflation is nice panic button for those who were around in the late 1970's under Carter. But normal inflation often isn't a big problem.
If we can get past blanket tribalism, where Law Good or La
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well with Obama the GOP and right leaning people were all up an arms about the budget deficit. When Trump came the Democrats cared more about the deficit while the GOP said it was not big deal. Now Biden and a Slim Democratic Majority So the GOP is getting worried about spending again. It is really just tribalism, Inflation is nice panic button for those who were around in the late 1970's under Carter. But normal inflation often isn't a big problem.
If we can get past blanket tribalism, where Law Good or Law Bad, but having a Law where both side can bring up its strengths and weaknesses and work on the weaknesses we can actually get a better result of the laws. But lately there is more focus on Ideology vs Implementation.
The reason the Dems were worried about the deficit under the 45 is that the deficit was all in relation of failed policies (an unwinnable trade war not just against China, but Mexico, our largest agro consumer, and the EU.)
A deficit by itself is not bad when there's a plan to build something with it (and, part of the deficit means money going directly to companies or indirectly, as in using it for infrastructure.)
The GOP went up in arms about the deficit under the 44th even though it was the smart move at the time to get in debt to invest in the country. Then they came to power (inheriting a balanced budget and the strongest economic expansion in modern times) and increased the deficit with nothing to show for.
Now, as we try to rebuild the country and get over the pandemic, we are inevitably in need to increase the deficit (on top of the useless deficit we inherited from the GOP.)
So the GOP complaining now about the deficit is fucking rich (and I say this as someone who was a registered Republican all his life until 2018.)
Tribalism exists on both sides of the political fence, but it is a fallacy to believe there is a symmetry of tribalism between the two major parties. Not at all.
In the 70's, it was the Democrats who dwelled on tribalism and extremism (on the left side of the fence.) Now and since 2008-2012, it's been the GOP's choice to play that sad, macabre role.
Any conversation about overcoming tribalism must first start with the recogntion of this asymmetry.
Re: (Score:2)
Being that the inflation rate has been really low with trending of the past 50 years really gown down, it isn't much of a problem unless you are just a fan of the other party who is proposing paying for something.
It's also no more than Trump was spending (indirectly) via. his tax cuts to artificially inflate the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
It creates a thing called "deficit" just the same and the country goes to hell even faster.
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Great. What would you like to cut?
National defense? ($705B)
Medicare? ($722B)
Medicaid? ($448B)
Social Security? ($1.151T)
Those 4 things are $3T out of the $4.8T budget for FY2021 submitted by Trump, which apparently no Republicans had a problem with. By the way, anticipated tax revenues for the same FY2021 are $3.86T so clearly they don't have a problem with deficit spend when they are the ones doing the spending.
This bullshit isn't about fiscal conservatism, it's about tribalism. And it's bullshit. If they really wanted to get the budget under control, we'd stop seeing massive spend on weapons programs that even the Pentagon doesn't want, and the elimination of "sacred cows" for either party. Saying "oh we need to reduce spending" without actually offering any meaningful cuts to spending is a useless exercise. And if you want to cut some of those top line items, tell me where - are we going to cut medical spending during a global pandemic? Maybe military while an increasingly hostile Russia continues to test just how far they can go? Or Social Security while the biggest generation of Americans is retiring?
Turns out it's a lot harder than coming up with a one-liner, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. If Republicans won't consider cutting military spending, they're not serious about cutting the deficit. And if Democrats won't consider cuts to other entitlement programs, they're not serious about cutting the deficit. I lean right, especially on fiscal issues, and there just isn't a party of fiscal restraint right now. Clinton as President with Gingrich controlling Congress made some seriously great moves, including really difficult ones that some partisans resigned over; we've had nothing comparable
Re: (Score:3)
Inflation over the last 50 years has amounted to prices going up by a factor of ~5.75. So, pretty much everything costs 5.75x what it cost half a century back. If we continue that trend, in 2070, prices will be 5.75x as much as now, or 33x what they were in 1970.
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I am getting paid 3x my current amount, no big deal. But why would you think these numbers are going to happen with inflation.
Inflation right now is so low, that we can deal with a good amount of inflation until such a scenario happens.
It is like people who are afraid of eating candy, because they think they will get fat, after eating a little bit of candy. You can have candy if you take it in moderation, and make sure you don't crazy about it. Inflation isn't bad, but don't go crazy and just ignore it all together.
It isn't Utopia or Apocalypse type of scenario. Inflation isn't bad, however rampant inflation is bad.
Re: Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize this pumps all of that money into the economy right? Government infrastructure projects utilize private contractors. This is how you build out of a recession, take the money that big corporations are sitting on (due to the low tax rate thereâ(TM)s less incentive to reinvest profits), spend the money on projects, give it to states to build projects. I remember all the signs in Texas saying âoethis freeway is being funded by federal dollarsâ during the Obama admin.
This is how we built out of the Great Depression. It works.
Re: Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Interesting)
To where? There's a very limited amount of places that have a combination of the expected quality of life that a super wealthy person wants, the stability they need to not have all their shit taken at gunpoint, not be subject to extreme disasters that end with them rebuilding all their shit periodically, access to decent health care, and also have the infrastructure needed for them to be able to still conduct the business that made them super wealthy to begin with. And it's no coincidence that the places that do have those things, also have higher tax rates than places that don't - those countries need to pay for that shit.
There is a reason they haven't already picked up and moved to those places, and it's not because "omg I owe another $400k in taxes on my $50M income this year".
And, by the way, I say this as someone who pays quite a bit of tax myself, without the income that these people have. I sure as shit didn't get any covid checks, and in fact paid for several of them myself out of additional tax due after paying plenty of tax through withholding throughout the year. And you know what? I don't care, because people that can afford to buy food don't start going to nice neighborhoods and kicking doors in to steal shit to pay for food.
Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. I like having functional schools, police, fire departments, health services, roads, running water, and garbage services. I like having a functional power grid (for various values of functional if you are in Texas), clean water, clean air, and regulations to make sure products that are being sold to me won't set my house on fire or poison me with lead. I enjoy having a network of roads that make a trip from Washington DC to San Francisco take 5 days rather than the 62 days it took Eisenhower to do in 1919; and I like all the economic expansion that network of roads has fueled for the last 70 years, but it needs maintenance and expansion now. I like having the security to know that my parents, and their friends are going to get to enjoy the years they have remaining in retirement after working for 40+ years, rather than working for another 10+ more just to survive before keeling over, probably at work.
Seems like a reasonable bargain to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans have been crying wolf about inflation for years. It just isn't happening. If it ever does start, the Fed can stomp it out quickly by raising interest rates.
(BTW, "Say that again when you're paying $8 for a gallon of milk, $7 for a gallon of gas, and a pound of hamburger costs you $15" All of these things are bad for your health and bad for the environment.)
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't seem to understand that inflation is low now so the cost of living is not increasing.
You also don't seem to understand that the reason business are barely hanging on is not because of inflation, it's because people aren't spending money. The infrastructure plan will put people to work so they will have money to spend at businesses.
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No value is being created or destroyed through that action. Eventually the money winds up in the hands of someone who can think of a better way of investing it in the creation of something new. If a company isn't particularly sur
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, we've been blowing trillions on tax cuts used for stock buybacks, might as well have the peons get some scraps.
Despite being unemployed all year, my uncle got no stimulus checks because he “made too much money”. See, the deciders decided to use tax data from before the pandemic started. Makes sense, right?
No such requirements of poverty exist for the big companies. They can be filthy stinking rich and they still get their checks.
Come on, sing it with me if you know the words!
And
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that stock buybacks are cheating.
Especially when the tax cuts were there to promote job creation.
(ostensibly)
Re: (Score:2)
If a company is in a declining industry with few opportunities for growth, stock buybacks allow that company to transfer capital to companies with better opportunities, thus creating more jobs.
Nope, it just reduces share dividend payouts.
(Which will be small, given that the company is in a declining industry with few opportunities for growth).
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, it just reduces share dividend payouts.
Dividends and buybacks are functionally equivalent if taxes are ignored. Buybacks tend to be more tax efficient.
(Which will be small, given that the company is in a declining industry with few opportunities for growth).
On the contrary, companies with few opportunities for growth tend to pay the highest dividends. If they had growth opportunities, they would invest capital rather than giving it away.
Companies in growth industries, such as tech companies, rarely pay dividends or do buybacks.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially when the tax cuts were there to promote job creation.
If a company is in a declining industry with few opportunities for growth, stock buybacks allow that company to transfer capital to companies with better opportunities, thus creating more jobs.
Cool story in the theoretical department bro. Pretty much all companies that benefitted from the tax breaks to do the buybacks do not fit such a profile.
At the end of the day, we are really stupid. Tax breaks should only be done conditionally (use the breaks to raise salary, bonuses, expand, hire more people or forestall layoffs or use furloughs instead of layoffs, or to invest in R&D.) Any breaks from these conditions should bring a penalty tax the next calendar year.
We worry so much about people o
Re: (Score:2)
They artificially raise the value of the stock
If a company uses $1M in capital to buy back $1M in outstanding shares, the value will go up only if the remaining investors believe the shares purchased were actually worth more than the money spent to acquire them. There is nothing "artificial" about it.
Stock buybacks move capital out of companies with few opportunities for profitable growth and into companies with better prospects.
They are a good thing, and they don't "use up" any tax dollars since nothing is being consumed, only transferred.
Re: (Score:2)
we've been blowing trillions on tax cuts used for stock buybacks
A stock buyback transfers capital from one entity to another. It doesn't actually consume anything.
And what's your opinion of the "tax cuts" part of that process...? ie. The important part.
Re: (Score:2)
And what's your opinion of the "tax cuts" part of that process...? ie. The important part.
The appropriate level of corporate taxation is beyond the scope of this discussion. But regardless of that level, the fact that corporations often use some of their post-tax income for stock buybacks is a good thing. Buybacks lead to a stronger economy as capital shifts out of declining industries and into growing industries.
Re:Cool. More inflation. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it can do that, ie. the possibility exists.
OTOH a company buying back stocks mostly makes the company bosses richer.
The people they buy the stocks from will probably just buy stocks in something else instead, happy that the taxpayer has funded the profit they just made.
ie. Overall effect is mostly just to make already-rich people richer and the poor people poorer.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH a company buying back stocks mostly makes the company bosses richer.
That will only happen if the stock is undervalued. In that case, it makes all the shareholders richer, not just the bosses.
The people they buy the stocks from will probably just buy stocks in something else instead.
That is the point. They invest in something better. The net effect of the buybacks is the more efficient employment of capital.
Re: (Score:3)
Buybacks lead to a stronger economy as capital shifts out of declining industries and into growing industries
Being a non-financial nerd, I'd love an explanation on this. I've seen you post it a couple times in various threads here, but it seems to be counter-intuitive to me. Company spends capital to remove shares from the open market, how is that shifting money out of declining industries? It seems to me that the only intent would be to add "artificial" scarcity to the market, at the same time allowing the company to keep more of its profits. (I'm 100% not trying to be asshole-ish. Honestly looking for an exp
Re: (Score:2)
Company spends capital to remove shares from the open market, how is that shifting money out of declining industries?
Because a company will only buyback shares if their opportunities for investment are lower than their cost of capital (the interest rate on their bonds).
A company with no good opportunities to grow is obviously going to decline.
It seems to me that the only intent would be to add "artificial" scarcity to the market
A blonde orders a pizza. The server asks her if she wants it cut into six slices or eight. "Six slices," she replies, "I don't think I can eat eight."
The reason the joke is funny, is that the amount of pizza is the same no matter how it is sliced. Similarly, whether a company has
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
(It's the overall argument between policy that directly helps those who need it, and policy that supports "trickle down economics")
Sure. But the balance between supply-side and demand-side stimulus is beyond the scope of this discussion.
But once the decision has been made to cut corporate taxes (a supply-side stimulus), it is silly to complain that some of that money is going toward buybacks. Buybacks increase the efficiency of capital, create more jobs, and are a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when you are talking targeted spending, stock buybacks completely defeat it.
If tax cuts are giving money to companies that have no better use for the money than returning to their investors, then the cuts were mistargeted. The buybacks fix that problem.
the fitness function for 'effient' does not necessarily align with what is good for an economy or country.
Better efficiency may not always be for the best, but it is a good way to bet.
Re: (Score:3)
we've been blowing trillions on tax cuts used for stock buybacks
A stock buyback transfers capital from one entity to another. It doesn't actually consume anything.
It consumes our taxes because these companies are using the tax breaks we gave them to do such purchases. These purchases wouldn't have happened if we hadn't given them the money to do them.
And tax breaks were supposed for investing in the company, for raising salaries, or hiring more people, or R&D. Stock buybacks weren't part of the deal. That's just shareholders double-dipping at our collective taxpaying asses' expense.
No inflation (Score:2)
This is paid for by removing Trumps $2T tax cuts. The economic boost will be incredibly high compared to those tax cuts; which did very little, as trickle down always does (this time it wasn't even done competently.) Why is it only trickle down that gets the "It'll pay for itself" propaganda?
Trump's unpaid $6T hasn't seemed to triggered a crisis... and that is just a low estimate off the top of my head of his spending. Not even touching the free $ pumped into the market like we did post great recession (an
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get the advantage of compound interest with Gold and Silver. While it adjust with inflation, you don't increase your wealth with it, you just keep it constant.
Re: (Score:3)
> While it adjust with inflation, you don't increase your wealth with it, you just keep it constant.
That's the point. Compound interest doesn't compete with unchecked inflation, which is why you hedge with a commodity.
You want something to trade for liquidity of some medium in the future, so you fall back to things that have held steady and don't depreciate from holding it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
unelected communist
"You keep using [those words], I do not think it means what you think it means" ....
Re: (Score:3)
Well, considering that the Federal gasoline tax which pays for highway repairs hasn't been raised in almost 30 years, vehicle fleet fuel efficiency has been mandated higher (in 1993 it was 27.5 MPG for cars, now it's 40.4 MPG for cars in 2021), and construction costs go up with inflation, labor, and materials costs... well we may have found where the issue is without a single nickel going to corruption.
OK but can we get some guarantees this time? (Score:5, Insightful)
We've thrown many billions of dollars down the broadband rabbit hole already and gotten very little for it.
I'm not against spending more, but only if it comes with guarantees that telco CEOs that preside over inappropriate spending of the money will be held personally accountable. Otherwise it's going to wind up being just another handout to telco execs and shareholders at The People's expense.
Re:OK but can we get some guarantees this time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:OK but can we get some guarantees this time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it is a "federal issue." The federal government has concluded, by way of the Telecommunications Act and federal courts, that a municipality is not an "entity" for the purposes of telecom regs and is therefore subject to state law and limits that a state imposes on the ability of a municipality to deploy networks. Congress could fix this with legislation but they, like state legislators, are bought and paid for by big telecoms that don't care to suffer competition.
Re: (Score:2)
State restrictions on municipal broadband are stupid, but that is the way democracy works.
If the voters of a state don't like it, they should vote for change rather than expecting the solution to come from the Feds.
The states with the most severe restrictions are Alabama, Virginia, and Wisconsin. If you live in one of those states, you should see how your state legislator voted.
Legislators from both parties have voted for municipal broadband restrictions, but Republican legislators tend to be more opposed
Re: (Score:2)
The Sarbanes Oxley Act also held executives personally responsible if SEC filings were found to be fraudulent. Since its rarely the CxO that is in the weeds of all the financial statements where tom-foolery happens, they have to trust their team to be 100% honest in the eyes of the law, and basically not send them to prison. That comes at a big risk premium - aka even higher salaries & compensation.
Though "personally accountable" as you say it could just mean they "owe" that money. In which case they
Re: (Score:2)
Being that I am on a standard plan with my broad band and I am getting 200mbs speed as well I live in a rural area. That is actually a big deal.
That and my speed has been doubling every 2-3 years as well my internet costs hasn't risen too much. Shows that it might be working.
The problem with infrastructure spending, is while it is very effective and people greatly benefit from it, a lot of it is invisible and we take it for granted very quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
PA is a northern state but operates about as well as Alabama. Think of the good 'ol boy network and politics where everyone knows each other and family members get great contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, we should stop that. The USF and all the other funds were supposed to do this, and all fail. Let it go, just ensure communities can construct their own, competitive if necessary, networks.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are agreeing with the person you replied to (he was mainly asking to get rid of corruption). There are so many examples of government-run internet programs doing well, that it's hard to rationally oppose it at this point.
So... (Score:2)
$5 million in actual repairs then?
Pork, pork and more pork (Score:5, Insightful)
Build/retrofit two million homes and commercial buildings. WTF?
Create new and better jobs for care workers. Again, WTF? Does this imply he's creating a new federal department to employ people to...do what exactly? Work as nurses? But then they already have employers?
And it goes on... Almost none of this seems to actually be in the description of what the federal government is supposed to be doing. It includes lots of subsidies for various industries, ranging from auto makers to ISPs. Lots of pork to go around, and all for the low, low price of $2 Trillion.
What seems to escape the US government: printing money leads to inflation. According to ShadowStats, inflation is running at around 5% per year. This erodes earning power and the value of retirement plans. Money doesn't grow on trees - printing money on this scale is a hidden tax on the entire population.
Re:Pork, pork and more pork (Score:5, Insightful)
"Printing money" only leads to inflation if you don't create new goods and services at the same time.
I'd much rather have this spending plan which (ostensibly) creates actual wealth instead of just printing stimulus money...
Re:Pork, pork and more pork (Score:5, Insightful)
What seems to escape the US government: printing money leads to inflation. According to ShadowStats, inflation is running at around 5% per year. This erodes earning power and the value of retirement plans. Money doesn't grow on trees - printing money on this scale is a hidden tax on the entire population.
And what seems to escape folks like you is that this is not optional. We literally can't afford not to fix our infrastructure problems [infrastruc...rtcard.org], and we can't afford not to fix our horrific unemployment problem.
We have ridiculous problems with unemployment right now. And no, not the "you're not unemployed anymore if you haven't worked for a few months because that means you've left the workforce" "unemployment". (That's 5m people just this past January alone!) I mean the tens of millions who do not have a job and who are likely relying on government support.
We also have a ridiculous problem with our infrastructure failing. Failing bridges, roads, water systems, etc.
For some reason everyone seems to forget that Trump ran on a "platform" which included a trillion dollar infrastructure bill. Almost half the country voted for him. And he never delivered on that! Biden runs on a "I see your billion and I raise you a billion" and more than half the country voted for him. At this point the entire country just about has voted for someone promising an infrastructure bill in the trillion dollar range! Two parties, same recognition that we have a serious problem with infrastructure, but only one actually cares to do something about it.
This should be a pretty non-partisan issue. If our infrastructure continues to fail, we won't have to worry about inflation. If we pump this money into fixing what we need to fix, that's going to trickle out into the communities where this work is being done. People will need to be hired to do the work. They're going to need to spend money on housing, food, transportation, entertainment, etc. All of those business they engage with will see more money coming in, and possibly will need to hire more staff due to the demand.
And sure, the wealthy corporation owners will skim a good bit off the top, as they always do, but you can't do infrastructure work without paying a lot of people to do the work. I'd much rather my taxes go towards a guy standing in a construction zone with a stop sign while my roads get fixed than to the same guy sitting at home doing nothing while my roads get worse. I'd rather my taxes pay for the construction, the guys head to the local bar and that bar hires another bartender for the summer than my taxes go to paying food stamps or unemployment for that bartender.
This economic activity gets taxed. That's going to help recoup some of the cost. But more importantly, it should give a lot of economic support to a lot of portions of the country. Odds are that this actually does a decent job stimulating the economy. And importantly, not the stock market "economy", the real, actually matters to the working class economy.
We need a lot of jobs and a lot of stuff fixed in this country. I'm 100% for this plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? If the states are unwilling to fix their own roads and bridges, doesn't that prove that they have better things to do with their money?
Maybe the states should stop accepting federal money to build infrastructure when the state can't afford to maintain it. It's like someone gifting you a puppy that you didn't want.
Re: (Score:2)
At least Biden doesn't do the don't tax, spend anyway routine.
Re:Pork, pork and more pork (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of the necessity of lack of necessity (I'm looking at you, Amtrak) of any of the individual projects, paying for this with even more deficit spending is not an acceptable solution.
Why not? What do you suggest? Here is an analogy: You home is damaged and needs a new roof. You can only fix it by getting a loan. Otherwise, the house will become an uninhabitable hazard waiting to be condemned (thus making matters all the more expensive.)
We are at a point where we have no good choices, but since we are adults, we need to choose. I'm all ears for options (real options.)
We just absolutely exploded our debt during the COVID crisis and are adding to the already massive deficit.
No. We exploded our debt pre-COVID, thanks to the stupid and unwinnable multi-front trade war we had. The GOP came to power with a balanced budget, and we would have been in a better place during COVID if we hadn't had this deficit.
Moreover, it was cheaper to write several checks every month and order a temporary freeze on all commercial and residential mortgages and rent payments (banks can simply roll those into the original loans without losing a dime.) Many countries did this.
Instead we played penny-pinching while the country collapsed, taking half a million Americans with it.
I am not a fan of spending or getting in debt, but sometimes you just have to. To pretend otherwise, that's just dumb and ... expensive... and sometimes it can get people killed (as we have seen in the last 12 months.)
Re: (Score:2)
Build/retrofit two million homes and commercial buildings. WTF?
The first salvo of the Green New Deal; the original version of the GND FAQ distributed by Alexanda Ocasio-Ortez included a goal to "Upgrade or replace every building in U.S. for state-of-art energy efficiency" over a 10-year-period. This has since been replaced in the final version by a goal for "upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency", supposedly with the federal government to provide incentives for homeowners to make those improvements. Research sponsored by the New York State E
Re: (Score:2)
damn good comment, asking the hard questions...
once I wrapped my head around why inflation is a secret tax to subsidize crooked money policies, many of the things done by the gov't/fed reserve/etc. now make sense.... I don't agree with them, but at least I get a better idea of how regular folks get screwed by a gov't with far too much power
Child care (Score:2)
Child care: a key infrastructure item.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to underpay their moms, yeah, it is.
GOP may sabotage it (Score:5, Insightful)
GOP has no political interest in backing it. They want to make Biden look ineffective so that they get their own President next time.
They will complain about debt* and the "green" parts of the bill, saying climate change is fake science or "not man's doing". I wouldn't be surprised if they start claiming that lead (in pipes) is good for you. They've made whacky health claims before. [politifact.com]
If Joe gets lucky, he may be able to strip out most of the controversial parts to get enough congressional votes, giving us a watered down bill. But that will risk angering the left who want the green parts, calling Joe a "sellout".
* GOP didn't seem to care about debt when they were handing out tax breaks to the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
If Schumer gets rid of the filibuster then he won't need any Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
If Schumer gets rid of the filibuster then he won't need any Republicans.
Sadly, there need to be at least 51 senators present for the senate to vote (according to the constitution), so with the current composition the R team can block votes by simply not showing up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GOP may sabotage it (Score:5, Insightful)
yes, welcome to politics. can we please give up this "winners" mentality with politics? news flash: WE ARE *all* LOSING
Re:GOP may sabotage it (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, welcome to politics. can we please give up this "winners" mentality with politics? news flash: WE ARE *all* LOSING
Uh, no. That's not true. There are plenty of "winners" here.
They're all those citizens who get elected to public office with a decent salary, and end up multi-millionaires faster than any other elected position.
We The People, ignorantly refer to them as "Representatives".
The Donor Class, refers to them as "My Bitch".
Re:GOP WILL sabotage it (Score:3)
FTFY
Remember, the "GOP" is supposed to automatically oppose anything that the "Democrats" propose, and vice-versa.
It's how they maintain their duopoly.
Doing things to help the citizens? That's too far down their list for them to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden-Harris Administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Biden administration officials said ...
The official phrasing is now Biden-Harris administration - https://nypost.com/2021/03/29/... [nypost.com].
Left out of the summary (Score:5, Informative)
Big spending bills like this are always a scam (Score:3)
Big spending bills like this are always a scam.
The only reason to create these massive bills is so you can pack it with a million pet projects and gifts to special interest groups that would never pass on their own.
They bundle them all into a bill with a name like "food for starving children act" so people who vote against it can get slammed in political ads.
Wait, haven't I seen this movie before (Score:2)
BDS. (Score:3)
I'll bet you can't clearly define what that means. Even if you could, I'll bet that the politicians have a different definition. Even if you appear to agree, I'll bet the implementation turns out to be nothing like what you thought it was supposed to be. One thing for sure is that the word "infrastructure" is a euphemism.
That helps a lot. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
That helps a lot. Thanks.
It is both less informative and less useful than your post #32700246.
Re: (Score:3)
But her emails...
But Benghazi...
and now
But his laptop...
Re: What's Hunter Biden's Cut (Score:2)
You spelled insurrection incorrectly.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say maybe more than a golf trip but far less than a sham tax break for a housing development (son-in-law).
Biden could simply avoid spending 1/4 of his time golfing and hand some of the money saved to his kid and I'd be fine with that. We still don't know how much over $1 billion Trump cost with those trips... he refused to follow disclosure laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In many places, that replacement cycle has come and gone several times with no actual replacement. Just a couple band-aids and yet another IOU.
That's why people find themselves with water use restrictions over a dry summer while the municipal pipes leak a few million gallons of water.
Same thing for bridges that barely meet minimum requirements (if you threaten the inspector hard enough).
Re:Think of the Children (Score:5, Insightful)
"...including $45 billion to ensure no child ever is forced to drink water from a lead pipe, which can slow children's development and lead to behavioral and other problems."
And yet, we've all grown up without knowing anyone who's ever had such problems in spite of the fact that we had lead solder on all of our copper pipes for the last ~100 years. I'm honestly fine with getting rid of the lead, but this is just preying on people's emotions in order to push the bill forward.
The effects look pretty serious [epa.gov]:
Even low levels of lead in the blood of children can result in:
Behavior and learning problems
Lower IQ and hyperactivity
Slowed growth
Hearing problems
Anemia
And given the nature of the maladies I'm not sure who you can say you've never known anyone who suffered any of these effects. I don't know my (or your) lead exposure growing up, but if we were exposed it's quite plausible we'd both be a bit more clever and well-adjusted if we'd grown up without lead.
It takes epidemiologists and a lot of study to really figure out the cost/benefit of this kind of stuff, but reducing lead exposure is the kind of thing that can massively pay off in a few decades.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It takes epidemiologists and a lot of study to really figure out the cost/benefit of this kind of stuff, but reducing lead exposure is the kind of thing that can massively pay off in a few decades.
And yet reducing children's exposure to social media, is the kind of thing that can massively pay off right fucking now. Anyone talking about that? No, of course not. Greed, would get pissed if you did.
I'm gonna be honest here. From a physical standpoint we've done a lot for the children. Beyond that? We don't give a flying fuck about them. And it's obvious when you look at policy.
Re:Think of the Children (Score:5, Insightful)
I am positive you do know several people who have been effected by lead exposure - lead pipes is only one of the sources, but is an important one. If you look at state-level lead testing data, blood levels of lead of >5ug/DL is pretty common, around 1-2%, and blood levels of even higher levels, of >10 is also somewhat common (.2%-1%). https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/... [cdc.gov] Note that these rates are found with fairly low levels of testing by states.
There's really no excuse in the U.S. for the exposure of children to lead in 2021. It remains a serious problem that causes intellectual disability and delay. We've known about it for a long time, but have been slow to take action because...*reasons*. It's not just a political talking point - it's a chance to do something about this problem and address it with a way that sets up the U.S. to not have to worry about water-based lead exposure for generations to come.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of it being morally the right thing to do, we haven't allowed new lead pipes in more than three decades. I don't think replacing pipes once every 30+ years is a bad idea. We're spending billions dealing with old, leaking pipes in this country every year. My city is digging up broken cast iron pipes every year. There is this thing called maintenance, and even if the pipes weren't dangerous, 30 year old pipes at least need a thorough inspection and some maintenance, if not to be completely replaced.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not bring back leaded gasoline while you're at it? Lead is a proven neurotoxin and children are especially susceptible. Getting rid of lead contamination benefits everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"...including $45 billion to ensure no child ever is forced to drink water from a lead pipe, which can slow children's development and lead to behavioral and other problems."
And yet, we've all grown up without knowing anyone who's ever had such problems
Did you miss that bit where nearly half of voters voted for Donald Trump? How much brain damage do you want?
After Flint, we still don't care enough to fix it (Score:3)
Flint is still a disgrace. After Sandyhook, with 90+% support everywhere you still can't do anything. The democracy is functionally broken.
You claim preying on people's emotions is a dirty tactic; I'd say it doesn't even WORK when it's the sole purpose! The only things that get anywhere are lumping many things onto other stuff that buys the votes needed to pass. Not only does some of this must happen in a functional democracy but the more broken the more it is needed; if you are complaining about bills b
Re: (Score:2)
Dirty tactic? For what purpose? Yes, Flint is a disgrace, I grew up nearby. That shit should have been cleaned up years ago. But none of what you said counters my point.
Re: (Score:2)
After Sandyhook, with 90+% support everywhere you still can't do anything.
Those polls that showed 90% support were propaganda, with carefully chosen questions. See how it's done [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, we've all grown up without knowing anyone who's ever had such problems in spite of the fact that we had lead solder on all of our copper pipes for the last ~100 years.
Have you been asleep or dead the last decade? You are aware lead poisoning is the exact source of the Flint water crisis which has not been fully solved 7 years later.
I'm honestly fine with getting rid of the lead, but this is just preying on people's emotions in order to push the bill forward.
And what is your timeline for removal of miles of existing lead pipes in the nation's water supply? Next decade?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it nice when the garlic section in your link sources exclusively from a single other paywalled article?
Meanwhile, a real source like this one [sciencedirect.com] implies you'd need to eat 30 lbs of garlic for it to remove 20% of the lead in your blood (and you need to be a rat).
Re: (Score:3)
Our findings have also revealed that garlic juice had the ability to reduce residues of Pb in soft tissues (liver, kidneys, brain) as well as in the bone sink in the body. Hanafy et al. (1994) have also reported on the efficacy of garlic in reducing Pb content in chicken tissue. Therefore, it is concluded that garlic can be used for amelioration of chronic Pb toxicity in man and animal.
This was with a maximum dosage of 400 mg/kg of body weight. It appears to me that this factoid is reasonable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a bill though, it's an investment. If done right more than $2tn should come back in the form of tax revenue and direct investments.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I don't believe that governments can perform investments. The realities of it don't fit the definition. It's too easy for a government to alter a deal after the fact when they can create new money with a few pen strokes.
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes have nothing to do with spending. There is no relationship there at all. It will be financed with even more debt, as is typical for Washington.