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

[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?

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.

We all know at this point no matter how much is added to public schools in deep blue areas there is not going to be improvement.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Infrastructure is anything that keeps a modern society running

Leftists are such simpletons. ANYTHING you say. Yeah, proof in the pudding, Xiden Admin. believes any and all spending is a positive, including genital replacements if it meets the left's always dubious, ill-planned and useless expenditures.

I worked with a bunch of useless leftists for a time. They're the "change is good type" and "all change is progress". They couldn't understand that taking weeks to accomplish the exact same thing that took an hour or minute beforehand is not progress, literally. And they're too cowardly to admit their ongoing fooolishness, even when it constantly slapped them in the face while they remained inside their safe-space of denial. That's the left exactly.

 

[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.

I can't see how schools are not infrastructure.

Do they meet all the key characteristics of the economic definition that I’ve already provided in this thread? I’d say NO, they meet 4 out the 5, where they fall short (as far as public schools) IMHO is “not easily duplicated”, as we know, schools are easily duplicated by private enterprise, virtually or in homes . The other problem you have is demonstrating a quantifiable ROI in the form of expanding the Production Possibilities Curve, I know that it is there but what’s murky is how much ROI do we get for every dollar spent on schools? Given that all public schools are not created equally (some public schools achieve far better results than others).

 

[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”

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.

In general, infrastructure has been defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions" and maintain the surrounding environment.[3]

 

[Lesh]

Soft Infrastructure includes all the institutions we need to maintain the economy, health and cultural and social standards of a nation, such as the education, finance and health systems, law enforcement, emergency services, and the system of government.

 

[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.

In general, infrastructure has been defined as "the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions" and maintain the surrounding environment.[3]

LOL, strike TWO, try again, the economic definition of the key characteristics of INFRASTRUCTURE.

Let’s see if you can finally grasp that straw in round three, doesn’t seem like a promising prospect given that I’ve already provided it for you and you STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND IT.