Bipartisan Senate infrastructure deal would cost about $1 trillion

[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.

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

Okay, eliminate all national defense spending, that’s what $720 billion a year? last year the Federal deficit was $3.1 TRILLION, you made dent, good work.

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

Face it we’re addicted to the military-industrial complex, breaking that addiction won’t be easy, especially given that there is absolutely ZERO political will to do it and almost ZERO voter interest in doing it.

Sorry gipper, what your proposing just isn’t practical on any time horizon that makes sense, I wish it were but it isn’t.

 

[rightwinger]

Infrastructure improvements pay for themselves

 

[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.

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.

A tax on trades...........

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Since it is a Biden initiative, Republicans will scream......Pork, Pork, Pork and vote against it

 

[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.

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.

Okay, eliminate all national defense spending, that’s what $720 billion a year? last year the Federal deficit was $3.1 TRILLION, you made dent, good work.

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

Face it we’re addicted to the military-industrial complex, breaking that addiction won’t be easy, especially given that there is absolutely ZERO political will to do it and almost ZERO voter interest in doing it.

Sorry gipper, what your proposing just isn’t practical on any time horizon that makes sense, I wish it were but it isn’t.

Defense contractors could switch to making televisions and computers and microwaves and.................

 

[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.

Okay, eliminate all national defense spending, that’s what $720 billion a year? last year the Federal deficit was $3.1 TRILLION, you made dent, good work.

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

Face it we’re addicted to the military-industrial complex, breaking that addiction won’t be easy, especially given that there is absolutely ZERO political will to do it and almost ZERO voter interest in doing it.

Sorry gipper, what your proposing just isn’t practical on any time horizon that makes sense, I wish it were but it isn’t.

Oh it’s practical, it’s just not possible with a criminal government run by sociopaths and psychopaths.

 

[22lcidw]

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

4 years ago Trump pushed 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.

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

Okay, eliminate all national defense spending, that’s what $720 billion a year? last year the Federal deficit was $3.1 TRILLION, you made dent, good work.

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

Face it we’re addicted to the military-industrial complex, breaking that addiction won’t be easy, especially given that there is absolutely ZERO political will to do it and almost ZERO voter interest in doing it.

Sorry gipper, what your proposing just isn’t practical on any time horizon that makes sense, I wish it were but it isn’t.

Defense contractors could switch to making televisions and computers and microwaves and.................

Calling manufacturers of killing machines used to impose the will of the empire around the world defense contractors, has to be the biggest propaganda effort EVER.

 

[gipper]

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

4 years ago Trump pushed it.

And before him Ears pushed it. Remember those shovel ready jobs that weren’t?

 

[pknopp]

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

4 years ago Trump pushed it.

And before him Ears pushed it. Remember those shovel ready jobs that weren’t?

The one good thing about Trump was that he was incapable of getting anything actually done.

 

[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.

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

You think taxing wealth is a system that’s less susceptible to corruption than taxing income? Have you not learned anything from our current thoroughly corrupted tax code behemoth? A system based on Consumption taxes would make for a system that’s less vulnerable to corruption but I suspect politicians and voters would never go for it, since it would take too much power out the hands of the duopoly.

You also have appeared to skipped over what I said about who CONTROLS THE TAX CODE, it’s not the voters or the politicians.

 

[DBA]

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

4 years ago Trump pushed it.

Exactly. I am ok with some infrastructure spending, but it must be on actual infrastrcure, not much of the non-infrastructure Biden and the Democrats want. Biden even tried to redefine the very definition of “infrastructure”. Like good little programmed lemmings, many democrats bought it.

 

[rightwinger]

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

During WWII, commercial sector manufacturers quickly switched to defense production. It can work the same the other way.

Defense contractors have top of the line engineers and scientists. They can transfer their efforts to energy, transportation, communications, healthcare.

The jobs will follow the money.

 

[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.

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

Okay, eliminate all national defense spending, that’s what $720 billion a year? last year the Federal deficit was $3.1 TRILLION, you made dent, good work.

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

Face it we’re addicted to the military-industrial complex, breaking that addiction won’t be easy, especially given that there is absolutely ZERO political will to do it and almost ZERO voter interest in doing it.

Sorry gipper, what your proposing just isn’t practical on any time horizon that makes sense, I wish it were but it isn’t.

Oh it’s practical, it’s just not possible with a criminal government run by sociopaths and psychopaths.

If it’s not possible, then it’s not practical.

 

[rightwinger]

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

4 years ago Trump pushed it.

And before him Ears pushed it. Remember those shovel ready jobs that weren’t?

The one good thing about Trump was that he was incapable of getting anything actually done.

Trump sold himself as a great businessman able to cut through red tape and end Government business as usual. He was Donnie Dealmaker.

He proved quite capable of tearing up existing deals but inept at replacing them with something better
Obamacare anyone?

 

[NightFox]

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

During WWII, commercial sector manufacturers quickly switched to defense production. It can work the same the other way.

Defense contractors have top of the line engineers and scientists. They can transfer their efforts to energy, transportation, communications, healthcare.

The jobs will follow the money.

Guess what , WW II happened 80 years ago, since then the economy has grown more complex, more interconnected and more specialized.

There are no magic wands, the national defense industry can’t suddenly change sectors nor will the massive, long term disruptions in the labor force from attempting to do that suddenly vanish because we wish them away by beating the cumbaya drums , singing out slogans about our noble intentions and start hugging trees.

Then you have to deal with the millions of employees that work for the DoD, not to mention all the state and federal agency employees that are indirectly involved with it. What do we tell them? Sorry you just lost your career, good news though, you can go build windmills now.

 

[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.

Okay, eliminate all national defense spending, that’s what $720 billion a year? last year the Federal deficit was $3.1 TRILLION, you made dent, good work.

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

Face it we’re addicted to the military-industrial complex, breaking that addiction won’t be easy, especially given that there is absolutely ZERO political will to do it and almost ZERO voter interest in doing it.

Sorry gipper, what your proposing just isn’t practical on any time horizon that makes sense, I wish it were but it isn’t.

Oh it’s practical, it’s just not possible with a criminal government run by sociopaths and psychopaths.

If it’s not possible, than it’s not practical.

I suppose you could conclude that, if you accept the status quo as impossible to change.

 

[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.

Since it is a Biden initiative, Republicans will scream......Pork, Pork, Pork and vote against it

Exactly. I am ok with some infrastructure spending, but it must be on actual infrastrcure, not much of the non-infrastructure Biden and the Democrats want. Biden even tried to redefine the very definition of “infrastructure”. Like good little programmed lemmings, many democrats bought it.

Thanks for the example

 

[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.

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.

You think taxing wealth is a system that’s less susceptible to corruption than taxing income? Have you not learned anything from our current thoroughly corrupted tax code behemoth? A system based on Consumption taxes would make for a system that’s less vulnerable to corruption but I suspect politicians and voters would never go for it, since it would take too much power out the hands of the duopoly.

You also have appeared to skipped over what I said about who CONTROLS THE TAX CODE, it’s not the voters or the politicians.

The reason it's corrupt is because we allow the corrupt to run things.

 

[rightwinger]

Now what about all those newly unemployed people that worked for or were supported by the DoD? What about all the companies involved in defense that you just put out of business, what about their employees?

During WWII, commercial sector manufacturers quickly switched to defense production. It can work the same the other way.

Defense contractors have top of the line engineers and scientists. They can transfer their efforts to energy, transportation, communications, healthcare.

The jobs will follow the money.

Guess what , WW II happened 80 years ago, since then the economy has grown more complex, more interconnected and more specialized.

There are no magic wands, the national defense industry can’t suddenly change sectors nor will the massive, long term disruptions in the labor force from attempting to do that suddenly vanish because we wish them away by beating the cumbaya drums , singing out slogans about our noble intentions and start hugging trees.

Then you have to deal with the millions of employees that work for the DoD, not to mention all the state and federal agency employees that are indirectly involved with it. What do we tell them? Sorry you just lost your career, good news though, you can go build windmills now.

Unlike WWII, we are not expecting Defense Contractors to switch overnight. It will happen on a contract by contract basis. As one defense contract expires, new contracts will appear in the private sector.
Defense Contractors will follow the money.