If the Leftist "Infrastructure" Plan is so good, why do they have to lie about it?

[NightFox]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

Seems to me it’s all just marketing, as a society we no longer debate the contents of what’s inside the box, we only pay attention to the packaging and the label.

Obviously much what the Democrats originally proposed as “infrastructure” does not fit the economic definition, however that didn’t really matter to most people since it’s relatively easy for the partisan apparatchiks to redefine it since most have no idea what the actual definition is and more importantly the economic role that it is intended to play.

It was only after the GOP (rightly in this case) loudly objected to what was “inside the box” that the Democrats were forced to back down and restructure their proposals into what is a now a two track legislative proposal. Unfortunately many Democrats are now tying an actual INFRASTRUCTURE proposal (the bi-partisan Infrastructure bill) with a completely NON-INFRASTRUCTURE bill ( aka “The American Families Act”) in such a way as to make it far more difficult (and enormously more expensive) to achieve the goal of getting badly needed and economically productive INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

Unfortunately the duopoly has become very adapt at confusing the citizenry will grandiose sounding proposals that mask underlying political agendas and obfuscating all the potential negative consequences of legislation.

Let's not gloss over the GOP only objected after Biden publicly spilled the beans. People shouldn't be surprised when the GOP helps dems pass the bill based on a promise that won't be keep resulting in a big win for the dems in getting both bills passed.

I don’t operate under the assumption that the GOP’s motives or methods are honest on anything that they do. However in this case the end result was alerting the public to the fact that what the Democrats were attempting to do mask a whole bunch of spending that was completely unrelated to actual infrastructure investment under the guise of “Infrastructure”. The Democrats tried to pull a bait and switch because they knew the idea of physical Infrastructure investment was popular with the citizenry across party lines.

I’ll give the GOP credit where credit is due in this case, along with the Democrat Moderates in the Senate that refused to go along with the original proposal along strict party lines under reconciliation.

I can’t say how this will turn out and if in the end that we’ll actually get the infrastructure investment that the country BADLY needs, however at least now there is a slim chance that we may get *some*.

 

[Lesh]

Again

Infrastructure is anything that supports a society and its economy

 

[Lesh]

Personally I think the filibuster should still be what it was originally intended to be but none of them are willing to put out the effort.

What was it originally intended to be?

I'm willing to to bet you're wrong

The Senate rules permit senators to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, until "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[1] (currently 60 out of 100) vote to close debate by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia

Originally a majority could vote to end debate

Which is not describing the Filibuster which came into being in 1806 but rarely used.

The filibuster is all ABOUT debate genius

 

[Flash]

The Democrat filth is interested in infrastructure in this bill like they were interested in Covid relief in the Covid bill. Not much.

They use bills like that to fund covering for Democrat disasters.

 

[NightFox]

Again

Infrastructure is anything that supports a society and its economy

You’re attempting to redefine the meaning of INFRASTRUCTURE to the point where it is completely MEANINGLESS and can apply to almost anything from a fig tree to the rising and setting of the sun.

Why?

 

[Care4all]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

 

[NightFox]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

 

[Care4all]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!

 

[NightFox]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!

Except according to economics THEY’RE NOT, why do you feel the need to disguise your intentions by redefining the meaning of terms?

It’s akin to claiming asteroids are stars because you don’t care for the way astrophysics defines the two terms.

 

[Lesh]

Again

Infrastructure is anything that supports a society and its economy

You’re attempting to redefine the meaning of INFRASTRUCTURE to the point where it is completely MEANINGLESS and can apply to almost anything from a fig tree to the rising and setting of the sun.

Why?

Nope. But thanks for the disingenuous bullshit

 

[NightFox]

Again

Infrastructure is anything that supports a society and its economy

You’re attempting to redefine the meaning of INFRASTRUCTURE to the point where it is completely MEANINGLESS and can apply to almost anything from a fig tree to the rising and setting of the sun.

Why?

Nope. But thanks for the disingenuous bullshit

Thanks for providing a rebuttal that is completely devoid of reason or evidence, while at the same to providing yet further proof that my argument is absolutely correct.

MUCH appreciated!

 

[Lesh]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

We were a nation that would make foundation infrastructure in more comforts for us all. Then the new age hit and human infrastructure became primary. With all the corruption and stealing involved also. Now we see the slow decay of all the things we have built over time. Whether it is the states or the feds, the bridges and roads need to be built, rebuilt, renovated and expanded if needed. Infrastructure in parts of our nation like the Southern States need to improve utility infrastructure due to any severe weather issues. Housing/Building codes improved to be more survivable. We in the South need to think more Regional as the nation keeps slowly disintegrating. Even letting some parts of it form their own nations due to political views.

FYI: From an economic standpoint there is no such thing as “HUMAN Infrastructure”, Infrastructure represents large physical assets, long term operational life, not easily duplicated, capital intensive and contribute to essential services and economic development.

The term “human infrastructure” is just a made up marketing term to mask expenditures for things that are unrelated to ACTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

In other words it’s just another attempt by the left to redefine words to fit their political agenda.

Bullshit. Look it up. The definition includes the words “organization” and “societal”

 

[Care4all]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!

Except according to economics THEY’RE NOT, why do you feel the need to disguise your intentions by redefining the meaning of terms?

It’s akin to claiming asteroids are stars because you don’t care for the way astrophysics defines the two terms.

I think investing in childcare centers is infrastructure investment....and an investment that could be utilized for a few generations.

I also think you are stuck in the past. Infrastructure investment is for now and the next 50 to 100 years. The economy needs near all women to work, added to the male workers there....

While still bearing 2 to 3 children.

Though I suppose women could be enticed to work, if their pay would be worth it and could still come out ahead while paying for high cost child care...and perhaps building child care centers is just a gift to businesses, because they won't have to pay more, in labor costs than they are now for the jobs mostly women hold....?

 

[bendog]

Infrastructure is anything that keeps a modern society running

I'm not saying its all wrong. In fact the GI bill after WWII resulted in "men" learning skills that defined the middle class from the 50's through the 80s. But the dems are expanding the use of the word. And despite the patisan bs aspect of the OP, there's no devious plot against ... whatever .... lol, they know they have one shot at reconciliation in fiscal year 21. And contrary to the "doom" of the OP, voters will have their say .... just as they did in Nov of 20

 

[NightFox]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

We were a nation that would make foundation infrastructure in more comforts for us all. Then the new age hit and human infrastructure became primary. With all the corruption and stealing involved also. Now we see the slow decay of all the things we have built over time. Whether it is the states or the feds, the bridges and roads need to be built, rebuilt, renovated and expanded if needed. Infrastructure in parts of our nation like the Southern States need to improve utility infrastructure due to any severe weather issues. Housing/Building codes improved to be more survivable. We in the South need to think more Regional as the nation keeps slowly disintegrating. Even letting some parts of it form their own nations due to political views.

FYI: From an economic standpoint there is no such thing as “HUMAN Infrastructure”, Infrastructure represents large physical assets, long term operational life, not easily duplicated, capital intensive and contribute to essential services and economic development.

The term “human infrastructure” is just a made up marketing term to mask expenditures for things that are unrelated to ACTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT.

In other words it’s just another attempt by the left to redefine words to fit their political agenda.

Bullshit. Look it up. The definition includes the words “organization” and “societal”

Try again, nowhere in the economic definition of the key characteristics INFRASTRUCTURE do the words “organization” or “societal” appear.

“large physical assets, long operational life, high capital intensity, essential need or service, not easily duplicated and contribution to economic development.”

Keep trying though, maybe some day you’ll get it, then again, maybe not.

 

[NightFox]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!

Except according to economics THEY’RE NOT, why do you feel the need to disguise your intentions by redefining the meaning of terms?

It’s akin to claiming asteroids are stars because you don’t care for the way astrophysics defines the two terms.

I think investing in childcare centers is infrastructure investment....and an investment that could be utilized for a few generations.

It’s great that you think that Care4all , however the science of economics disagrees with you on it and thus any student of that science is going to tend to disregard your argument as an attempt to redefine the term to suit your own narrative.

Personally I don’t have any qualms with your reasoning other than the fact that you’re attempting to apply misleading labeling to it.

 

[Care4all]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!

Except according to economics THEY’RE NOT, why do you feel the need to disguise your intentions by redefining the meaning of terms?

It’s akin to claiming asteroids are stars because you don’t care for the way astrophysics defines the two terms.

I think investing in childcare centers is infrastructure investment....and an investment that could be utilized for a few generations.

It’s great that you think that Care4all , however the science of economics disagrees with you on it and thus any student of that science is going to tend to disregard your argument as an attempt to redefine the term to suit your own narrative.

Personally I don’t have any qualms with your reasoning other than the fact that you’re attempting to apply misleading labeling to it.

I'm not certain what the Dems plan is on childcare....it could be, they just want to help fund it, so it is affordable...and in that case, I would say you are correct, that is not an investment in infrastructure.

But I simply disagree with you, that building lots of daycare centers, so that the demands are easily met and supply meets the demand which would reduce daycare costs for families, is not an infrastructure investment.

And it could be simply grants to the private sector, on their building of the daycare centers, or adding an addition to ones house, to accommodate more daycare children.

But I am not DEAD SET on it being in the infrastructure bill.... I'd be content, no matter how it passes.

 

[bendog]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!

Except according to economics THEY’RE NOT, why do you feel the need to disguise your intentions by redefining the meaning of terms?

It’s akin to claiming asteroids are stars because you don’t care for the way astrophysics defines the two terms.

I think investing in childcare centers is infrastructure investment....and an investment that could be utilized for a few generations.

It’s great that you think that Care4all , however the science of economics disagrees with you on it and thus any student of that science is going to tend to disregard your argument as an attempt to redefine the term to suit your own narrative.

Personally I don’t have any qualms with your reasoning other than the fact that you’re attempting to apply misleading labeling to it.

I'm not certain what the Dems plan is on childcare....it could be, they just want to help fund it, so it is affordable...and in that case, I would say you are correct, that is not an investment in infrastructure.

But I simply disagree with you, that building lots of daycare centers, so that the demands are easily met and supply meets the demand which would reduce daycare costs for families, is not an infrastructure investment.

And it could be simply grants to the private sector, on their building of the daycare centers, or adding an addition to ones house, to accommodate more daycare children.

But I am not DEAD SET on it being in the infrastructure bill.... I'd be content, no matter how it passes.

I can't see how schools are not infrastructure. IF the dems expand the child tax credit permanently and call that infrastructure ... imo it's a stretch. But I'm no saying its a bad idea ... so long as they raise taxes on the investor class to pay for it, and THERE'S NO SUBTRAFUGE no matter how many pearls are clutched by the Trump/McConnell brigade.

 

[NightFox]

The word, "infrastructure" has had a common, generally understood meaning for generations. New technology has made it reasonable to include "Wideband internet" in the definition of "infrastructure," and nobody is seriously refuting that addition. All the politicians in Washington agree, regardless of party, that massive INFRASTRUCTURE spending can be justified at this time (which is arguable, but agreed).

Today's Leftists in Washington have stated, falsely, that things such as education, childcare, healthcare, and family leave, are "infrastructure." And yet we know that this is false.

So rather than put those initiatives into discrete legislative/spending proposals and debating them on their merits, the Democrats demand that they be called, "infrastructure," and continue to debate meaningless semantics, rather than the merits of their programs. Then, presumably, they go back to their low-information constituents back home and tell them that Republicans oppose "infrastructure" spending - again, a LIE.

If these programs are so good and beneficial, why do they have to lie about what they are? Why do they refuse to debate them on their merits?

If you have a gazillion baby boomers retiring and expiring, the economy needs both younger sexes to be a part of the workforce, full force, to fill the void, and to keep our economy growing.

You also need more children born, for our future workforce and continued economic growth.

In order for this to happen, we need to invest in childcare, so it is not such a burden on families with children. Children who truly are, our future as a Nation.

Unaffordable childcare, compared to the salaries these mothers receive, is preventing women from working to the degree that the economy needs them to work to replace the boomers, also while still continuing to have more children. Investing in good childcare centers, so they are a dime a dozen, bringing the costs way down and giving working mothers a choice of good care for their kids would reduce their worries, and would be a way, to do that....

Human beings are NOT INFRASTRUCTURE Care4all , which is why childcare isn’t INFRASTRUCTURE, which is the point of the OP. Economics is very specific in its definition of INFRASTRUCTURE for a good reason.

If you want to spend public money on childcare, that’s fine let’s debate it on it’s own merits but don’t try to disguise it as something else in the hopes that the public will fall for a marketing gimmick.

Childcare centers would be infrastructure! I like my idea!

Except according to economics THEY’RE NOT, why do you feel the need to disguise your intentions by redefining the meaning of terms?

It’s akin to claiming asteroids are stars because you don’t care for the way astrophysics defines the two terms.

I think investing in childcare centers is infrastructure investment....and an investment that could be utilized for a few generations.

It’s great that you think that Care4all , however the science of economics disagrees with you on it and thus any student of that science is going to tend to disregard your argument as an attempt to redefine the term to suit your own narrative.

Personally I don’t have any qualms with your reasoning other than the fact that you’re attempting to apply misleading labeling to it.

I'm not certain what the Dems plan is on childcare....it could be, they just want to help fund it, so it is affordable...and in that case, I would say you are correct, that is not an investment in infrastructure.

But I simply disagree with you, that building lots of daycare centers, so that the demands are easily met and supply meets the demand which would reduce daycare costs for families, is not an infrastructure investment.

And it could be simply grants to the private sector, on their building of the daycare centers, or adding an addition to ones house, to accommodate more daycare children.

But I am not DEAD SET on it being in the infrastructure bill.... I'd be content, no matter how it passes.

Thanks for the well reasoned and thought provoking response, I appreciate it.

I would say that your argument for daycare centers would more align with an investment in human capital, IF and only IF you can justify the term “investment” with an quantifiable ROI, if you can’t do that then it would fall under the heading of “social spending” (aka recurring cost).

 

[LeftofLeft]

They all do this. Why? Because we let them and only complain about the "other" side doing it.

If that is true, it's a strong reason for keeping the filibuster. Negotiation should always be preferable to railroading.

There is rarely any negotiation with Republicans.

Only obstruction...of everything

With Democrats, they act like they want to negotiate, be bipartisan, then, at the table, the Democrats dump a whole lot of pork and additional demands at the last minute. Of course, the Republicans will say no to at least look at it further. That’s what you people call “obstruction”.