DGS49
Diamond Member
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?
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?