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

[DGS49]

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?

 

[EMH]

Democrats lie about everything.

Why should infrastructure be any different?

 

[irosie91]

it's pork-barreling ------tacking on absurd advantages for special groups for
political reasons----like VOTES

 

[pknopp]

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

 

[wamose]

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.

 

[Lesh]

Infrastructure is anything that keeps a modern society running

 

[Lesh]

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

 

[pknopp]

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.

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.

 

[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

 

[pknopp]

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

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Here’s the usual play

1. Democrat introduces 100 billion dollar proposal
2. In the bill, $100,000 of it are spent on roads, while 50 billion of it on green new deal things or transgender education theory
3. Declare to the activist media that it’s an infrastructure bill, don’t mention the other stuff
4. The media reports it as an infrastructure bill, and doesn’t even look to see if there’s other stuff
5. Denounce anyone who rejects it because of its entire contents as anti-infrastructure and evil
6. The media leads with headline news that anyone who opposes it is evil
7. Democrats and liberals who watch CNN think anyone who opposes it is evil and anti-infrastructure

rinse, wash, repeat. Lying by omission

 

[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

 

[pknopp]

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.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats lie about everything.

Why should infrastructure be any different?

^^^ winner! Dems lie then lie about their lies when the lies backfire. Ditto for the liberal news media. These are a people without conscious or remorse, you cannot trust them you can only defeat them.

 

[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.

 

[22lcidw]

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.

 

[WTF19]

There is rarely any negotiation with scum demonRATS

Only obstruction...of everything, and LYING DAILY

 

[WTF19]

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

i'm willing to bet that you are an uneducated idiot that wants someone else to do the leg work 4 you

 

[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.

 

[Hellokitty]

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.