Bipartisan Senate infrastructure deal would cost about $1 trillion

[NightFox]

Source: CNBC.COM
Story: Bipartisan Senate infrastructure deal would cost about $1 trillion

“An infrastructure plan crafted by a group of Senate Democrats and Republicans would cost roughly $1 trillion, a price tag that leaves the senators with work to do to win over members of both parties.

The proposal, which aims to upgrade physical infrastructure such as transportation and water systems, would cost $974 billion over five years or $1.2 trillion over eight years, a source familiar with the plan told CNBC. It would include $579 billion in new spending above the baseline already set by Congress. Biden asked for about $600 billion in new money, according to Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La.

Senators have not announced how they plan to pay for the investments. The proposal “would be fully paid for and not include tax increases,” the 10 lawmakers who reached the deal said in a statement Thursday.

The group framed their proposal as a compromise to upgrade U.S. infrastructure with bipartisan support in Congress. The senators still need to win backing from President Joe Biden and congressional leaders for their plan to gain traction.”

This should be interesting to watch, of course the devil is in the details and the available details on the proposal are still lacking. There’s also not a lot of information on how well this proposal has been received by the White House. I also suspect that the far left Congress Critters will balk at the low price tag and the removal of “Human Infrastructure” and Social Welfare spending from the original Democrat sponsored proposal. Then we have the issue of how this would be paid for, obviously the Republicans aren’t going along with any increased in income taxes, so where is the money going to come from?

It’s clear that we have as a nation been under investing in critical infrastructure for quite a while, could this possibly turn out to be a first step toward reversing that trend? Time will tell I suppose.

 

[Lesh]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

 

[pknopp]

None of it paid for. As some of us have noted, there really is little difference in the two parties.

 

[NightFox]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

 

[pknopp]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

 

[NightFox]

None of it paid for. As some of us have noted, there really is little difference in the two parties.

Well in theory, critical infrastructure is an investment that actually pays for itself over time because it increases economic output and expands the production possibilities curve for a nation.

Of course you have to factor in all the graft, inefficiency and pork that comes with ANYTHING that government is involved in, however it’s still *possible* to derive a net economic benefit from such investment given that infrastructure is durable and thus can generate increased output over long periods of time.

 

[pknopp]

None of it paid for. As some of us have noted, there really is little difference in the two parties.

Well in theory, critical infrastructure is an investment that actually pays for itself over time because it increases economic output and expands the production possibilities curve for a nation.

Of course you have to factor in all the graft, inefficiency and pork that comes with ANYTHING that government is involved in, however it’s still *possible* to derive a net economic benefit from such investment given that infrastructure is durable and thus can generate increased output over long periods of time.

Seeing that people are healthy and can readily and affordably access health care can be argued to pay for itself.

 

[gipper]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

One would think after all the massive spending our criminal government has spent since the war criminal W blew up the national debt, we would have an updated infrastructure. Where did all those trillions go?

In this same time period China built a high speed rail system that cross crosses the country and built numerous new very modern airports.

 

[pknopp]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

One would think after all the massive spending our criminal government has spent since the war criminal W blew up the national debt, we would have an updated infrastructure. Where did all those trillions go?

In this same time period China built a high speed rail system that cross crosses the country and built numerous new very modern airports.

At the very least the economy would be absolutely booming.

 

[NightFox]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Xi ordered Biden and the dems to kill the US dollar

 

[NightFox]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

One would think after all the massive spending our criminal government has spent since the war criminal W blew up the national debt, we would have an updated infrastructure. Where did all those trillions go?

In this same time period China built a high speed rail system that cross crosses the country and built numerous new very modern airports.

“All those trillions” went to spending with very little actual investment, in other words consumption instead of production. We’ve backed ourselves into a corner and put our future economic competitiveness at risk because our Boys & Girls have been far to interested in buying votes for the next election instead of being interested in investing in the future health of the economy.

Sucks to be us, huh?

 

[pknopp]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

Pay for it?

 

[NightFox]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

Pay for it?

With what? More new currency created out of thin air, what other alternative do we have? Part of the reason we need to do that is because we’ve been ignoring the basic requirements for sustained economic growth (critical infrastructure), now the piper has shown up and wants to get paid.

At least borrowing for investment is a FAR better proposition than borrowing for consumption, right? It’s not like the duopoly is going to entertain any serious reduction in spending elsewhere to offset the costs, nor is either crime family going to increase taxes to the extent required to actually dent the current deficits, voters don’t like that and election cycles are short.

 

[gipper]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

Pay for it?

With what? More new currency created out of thin air, what other alternative do we have? Part of the reason we need to do that is because we’ve been ignoring the basic requirements for sustained economic growth (critical infrastructure), now the piper has shown up and wants to get paid.

At least borrowing for investment is a FAR better proposition than borrowing for consumption, right? It’s not like the duopoly is going to entertain any serious reduction in spending elsewhere to offset the costs, nor is either crime family going to increase taxes to the extent required to actually dent the current deficits, voters don’t like that and election cycles are short.

Taxes must be raised, particularly on the ultra wealthy.

 

[gipper]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

Pay for it?

With what? More new currency created out of thin air, what other alternative do we have? Part of the reason we need to do that is because we’ve been ignoring the basic requirements for sustained economic growth (critical infrastructure), now the piper has shown up and wants to get paid.

At least borrowing for investment is a FAR better proposition than borrowing for consumption, right? It’s not like the duopoly is going to entertain any serious reduction in spending elsewhere to offset the costs, nor is either crime family going to increase taxes to the extent required to actually dent the current deficits, voters don’t like that and election cycles are short.

Taxes must be raised, particularly on the ultra wealthy.

Eliminate all spending on the war machine and turn the Pentagon and Langley into affordable housing.

 

[NightFox]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

Pay for it?

With what? More new currency created out of thin air, what other alternative do we have? Part of the reason we need to do that is because we’ve been ignoring the basic requirements for sustained economic growth (critical infrastructure), now the piper has shown up and wants to get paid.

At least borrowing for investment is a FAR better proposition than borrowing for consumption, right? It’s not like the duopoly is going to entertain any serious reduction in spending elsewhere to offset the costs, nor is either crime family going to increase taxes to the extent required to actually dent the current deficits, voters don’t like that and election cycles are short.

Taxes must be raised, particularly on the ultra wealthy.

Won’t help unless of course you want to start taxing wealth, the ultra wealthy will never pay more in income taxes than they do right now, because they’re not reliant on INCOME. Not to mention the fact that they’re the ones that actually CONTROL THE TAX CODE.

You can raise the top tax bracket to 100% and it won’t make any appreciable difference in what you end up collecting from the “ultra wealthy”, they have legions of accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to make sure of it, welcome to the AMERICAN PLUTOCRACY my friend.

 

[Lesh]

Republicans will claim they're not "actually" against it. They just have "concerns" about this or that...

Of course those concerns are cover for being against it.

 

[gipper]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

Pay for it?

With what? More new currency created out of thin air, what other alternative do we have? Part of the reason we need to do that is because we’ve been ignoring the basic requirements for sustained economic growth (critical infrastructure), now the piper has shown up and wants to get paid.

At least borrowing for investment is a FAR better proposition than borrowing for consumption, right? It’s not like the duopoly is going to entertain any serious reduction in spending elsewhere to offset the costs, nor is either crime family going to increase taxes to the extent required to actually dent the current deficits, voters don’t like that and election cycles are short.

Taxes must be raised, particularly on the ultra wealthy.

Won’t help unless of course you want to start taxing wealth, the ultra wealthy will never pay more in income taxes than they do right now, because they’re not reliant on INCOME. Not to mention the fact that they’re the ones that actually CONTROL THE TAX CODE.

You can raise the top tax bracket to 100% and it won’t make any appreciable difference in what you end up collecting from the “ultra wealthy”, they have legions of accountants, lawyers and lobbyists to make sure of it, welcome to the AMERICAN PLUTOCRACY my friend.

Of course you tax wealth, otherwise you get the corrupt system we have today.

 

[pknopp]

This country sorely needs that infrastructure upgrade and the jobs it will provide...so of course Republicans are against it

It appears that Republicans are not “against it”, they’re just against certain aspects of what the Democrats originally proposed such as certain definitions of what “infrastructure” entails and of course increasing income taxes to fund it.

Now it appears there might be a bi-partisan proposal on the table to actually carry out some investment in critical infrastructure, the question is, will the Democrats accept less than what they originally wanted? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nor will the Republicans balk at not paying for it and adding massive new amounts to our debt.

True, but what’s the alternative? Continue to allow our economic efficiency to deteriorate due to the degradation of the basic infrastructure that it relies on? If there were a good private enterprise solution to the problem, I’d be all for it, however I’m not seeing anything on the horizon that addresses the problem at the scale required to correct it, do you?

Pay for it?

With what? More new currency created out of thin air, what other alternative do we have? Part of the reason we need to do that is because we’ve been ignoring the basic requirements for sustained economic growth (critical infrastructure), now the piper has shown up and wants to get paid.

At least borrowing for investment is a FAR better proposition than borrowing for consumption, right? It’s not like the duopoly is going to entertain any serious reduction in spending elsewhere to offset the costs, nor is either crime family going to increase taxes to the extent required to actually dent the current deficits, voters don’t like that and election cycles are short.

If we don't need to pay for this we don't need to pay for anything.