Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Biden Details $2 Trillion Plan To Rebuild Infrastructure and Reshape the Economy

Comments Filter:
  • by AnonCowardSince1997 ( 6258904 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @10:22AM (#61220706)

    Buy Bitcoin.

    • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @10:51AM (#61220844)

      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.

      • by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @11:06AM (#61220940)

        ...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)

          by jellomizer ( 103300 )

          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

          • by luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @04:22PM (#61222224)

            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.

      • 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.

      • 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 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.

    • by Inglix the Mad ( 576601 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @10:52AM (#61220846)
      To be fair, we've been blowing trillions on tax cuts used for stock buybacks, might as well have the peons get some scraps.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 )
        If companies find it better to purchase outstanding shares rather than finding ways to invest that may be indicative of a problem, but it doesn't matter. In order to buyback stock it has to be sold by someone else (who will be taxed on that sale) that then has the money to spend.

        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
        • by jythie ( 914043 )
          Which is why it is little more than welfare for the wealthy.. the government taking a big chunk of cash and telling companies 'sure, go spend this wherever makes your stockholders happy', regardless of if it even impacts the domestic economy. A lot of that money will just flow out of the country or into industries that are already healthy.
      • 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

    • 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

  • 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.

    • by Lynchenstein ( 559620 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @10:32AM (#61220754)
      Yeah, and forbid states from preventing rural towns and other underserved areas from setting up their own broadband network providers. If the big guys are dragging their feet, then let the people roll their own.
      • Indeed. Look at AT&T's recent statement. -Expletive- them with a rusty fiber drill. They don't want to commit to a schedule? They can deal with municipal broadband.
    • 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

    • 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.

       

  • $5 million in actual repairs then?

  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @10:47AM (#61220814) Homepage
    Road building: Federal highways make sense, but are already covered. Why does this include "main streets" and 10,000 "smaller bridges", and other things that are the responsibility of local governments? Clean drinking water: Water supplies are also the responsibility of local governments.

    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.

    • by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @11:02AM (#61220910) Journal

      "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...

    • by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @11:19AM (#61221012) Journal

      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.

      • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

        We literally can't afford not to fix our infrastructure problems

        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.

    • 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

    • by jm007 ( 746228 )

      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: a key infrastructure item.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @10:56AM (#61220886) Journal

    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.

    • by wiredog ( 43288 )

      If Schumer gets rid of the filibuster then he won't need any Republicans.

      • 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, Insightful)

      by will_die ( 586523 )
      So your complaint is that the Republicans will act a little like the democrats did?
      • by laxguy ( 1179231 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @11:15AM (#61220986)

        yes, welcome to politics. can we please give up this "winners" mentality with politics? news flash: WE ARE *all* LOSING

        • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @02:23PM (#61221780)

          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".

    • 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.

  • by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @11:00AM (#61220902)

    Biden administration officials said ...

    The official phrasing is now Biden-Harris administration - https://nypost.com/2021/03/29/... [nypost.com].

  • by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @11:15AM (#61220982)
    "It will invest in Americans and deliver the jobs and opportunities they deserve. But unlike past major investments, the plan prioritizes addressing long-standing and persistent racial injustice," the White House claims.
  • by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @12:19PM (#61221294)

    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.

  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Seems like we invested billions of dollars in our infrastructure not that long ago.

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...