Biden Infrastructure plan

[grasping the after wind]

I di think that states who created their own catastrophes by underspending need to contribute to fix the problems they created.

Specifically Texas' electric grid. If they can get away with not providing basic adequate services to their citizens without any accountability, they'll do it over and over.

Wind Subsidies Help Freeze Texans - Master Resource

I just want to say that funding for new or updated school buildings makes a lot of sense to me because schools are used for a lot of things besides educating kids.

They are? Examples please. BTW it would be nice if they were actually used to educate kids.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I do not understand why conservatives would be against it. Eisenhower built the Interstates for instance. A man stepped on the moon during Nixon's administration. Also, this is an America First issue that will help America compete against the likes of China. The numbers are clear, this will make jobs, open up rural areas to new money, save lives and guard against catastrophes, fix the potholes, ensure the bridge does not fall down, guard the nation against hackers and keep the lights on. If they just focus the bill on these sorts of things this should be a bipartisan no-brainer.

They're against it because they've spent the last few decades buying into dogma about big government and taxes.

 

[Albion]

I just want to say that funding for new or updated school buildings makes a lot of sense to me because schools are used for a lot of things besides educating kids.

This is the same argument that someone else used, but it's irrelevant to the issue here. All sorts of expenditures might be worthwhile, but the point here is that the Biden "Infrastucture" bill is mainly about funding projects OTHER THAN roads, bridges, airports, etc., yet that is what the public is being told the bill is all about and that these are the things that it will fix with the money.

 

[grasping the after wind]

This is the same argument that someone else used, but it's irrelevant to the issue here. All sorts of expenditures might be worthwhile, but the point here is that the Biden "Infrastucture" bill is mainly about funding projects OTHER THAN roads, bridges, airports, etc., yet that is what the public is being told the bill is all about and that these are the things that it will fix with the money.

The typical bait and switch technique that we typically see from the typical politicians. Yet no media outlets seem to be ultra concerned with counting up Biden's growing list of lies. Typical pseudo journalists seem to be much more content with lies if they are put out by typical politicians.

 

[Arcangl86]

This is the same argument that someone else used, but it's irrelevant to the issue here. All sorts of expenditures might be worthwhile, but the point here is that the Biden "Infrastucture" bill is mainly about funding projects OTHER THAN roads, bridges, airports, etc., yet that is what the public is being told the bill is all about and that these are the things that it will fix with the money.

No, the public is being told that this bill is about infrastructure, which doesn't not have a commonly accepted meaning. Here's how oxford defines it. "the basic systems and services that are necessary for a country or an organization to run smoothly, for example buildings, transport and water and power supplies." I do agree there are things in the bill that don't belong, and that there are policy disagreements about what sort of infrastructure we should be building up, but the majority of the bill seems to me to fall within that sort of general definition.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Biden's $2T spending plan, billed as infrastructure bill, spends less than half on infrastructure

Only 6% Of Biden's Infrastructure Bills Goes To - Infrastructure

FNC's Peter Doocy Presses WH's Jen Psaki On Infrastructure Bill: Why Is Only 5% Going To Roads And Bridges?

This is the same argument that someone else used, but it's irrelevant to the issue here. All sorts of expenditures might be worthwhile, but the point here is that the Biden "Infrastucture" bill is mainly about funding projects OTHER THAN roads, bridges, airports, etc., yet that is what the public is being told the bill is all about and that these are the things that it will fix with the money.

The typical bait and switch technique that we typically see from the typical politicians. Yet no media outlets seem to be ultra concerned with counting up Biden's growing list of lies. Typical pseudo journalists seem to be much more content with lies if they are put out by typical politicians.

You guys do know that it's called the "American Jobs Plan" and not the "American Roads and Bridges Plan," right?

American Jobs Plan | The White House

FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan | The White House

A big part of it is infrastructure, but not all of it.

 

[Albion]

No, the public is being told that this bill is about infrastructure, which doesn't not have a commonly accepted meaning.

Certainly it does, but even if it did not, all the salesmen/promoters of this proposed legislation go on to describe it as road repair, bridges, airports, and etc. You could search at length through their public statements and never find any mention of most of the other provisions (costing billions of dollars and constituting the great majority of the designated expenditures. See the list of some of them that I gave earlier).

 

[grasping the after wind]

You guys do know that it's called the "American Jobs Plan" and not the "American Roads and Bridges Plan," right?

American Jobs Plan | The White House

FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Plan | The White House

A big part of it is infrastructure, but not all of it.

One misnomer is a good as the other. Congress rarely, if ever, labels their bills according to what they actually do . That this bill is labelled completely contrary to what it will actually do does not surprise me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

One misnomer is a good as the other. Congress rarely, if ever, labels their bills according to what they actually do . That this bill is labelled completely contrary to what it will actually do does not surprise me.

What misnomer? It's not Biden's fault that between you guys and Fox News, none of you bothered to so much as read the title. You guys are the ones inventing any perceived misnomer.

 

[grasping the after wind]

What misnomer? It's not Biden's fault that between you guys and Fox News, none of you bothered to so much as read the title. You guys are the ones inventing any perceived misnomer.

A misnomer is when you label something to be something that it is not. Calling this profligate spending spree The American Jobs plan is a complete misnomer. The proper label would be the Exporting American Jobs Plan.

 

[iluvatar5150]

A misnomer is when you label something to be something that it is not. Calling this profligate spending spree The American Jobs plan is a complete misnomer. The proper label would be the Exporting American Jobs Plan.

Oh? How do you figure?

 

[Tom 1]

I do not understand why conservatives would be against it.

I'm not sure how many of the arguments are intended as actual arguments, a lot of it seems to be just filler to try and justify a predetermination to resist anything and everything. The phony stats and one sided misrepresentations fly like locusts onto every thread of this type.

 

[Tom 1]

We, as a nation, are already the most debt-ridden country on Earth. Massive amounts of tax money goes to pay just the interest on our debt. Is it not the case that this casual expenditure of TRILLIONS of dollars which will , in addition, damage our economy deserves to be limited to what IS essential?

The Democrats screamed long and loud when 1 Trillion or so was added to the national debt under Trump, although ten times that amount had just previously been added under Obama, with serious harm to the economy from which we still have not entirely recovered. And now the new administration wants to explode the debt as it begins implementing the "Green New Deal."

Is that really an accurate representation? Averaged out it doesn't appear so:

National Debt To Surpass $78 Trillion By 2028: What It Means For Americans

Chart Book: Tracking the Post-Great Recession Economy | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And a longer break down of specifics: US 2020 election: The economy under Trump in six charts

 

[SimplyMe]

Wind Subsidies Help Freeze Texans - Master Resource



They are? Examples please. BTW it would be nice if they were actually used to educate kids.

That's quite a straw man your article creates and then knocks down. Yes, wind power had issues in Texas; just as gas, coal and even a nuclear power plant failed during the winter freeze. Additionally, it ignores the fact that the reason the wind turbines froze -- just as most other types of power generation also had failures -- is for the same reason the other types of power generation failed -- they weren't "winterized." It is odd that wind turbines work perfectly fine in Northern states -- as do the gas, coal, and nuclear plants that failed in Texas -- when they are installed with equipment that prevent them from freezing.

 

[Pommer]

Is that really an accurate representation? Averaged out it doesn't appear so:

View attachment 297203

National Debt To Surpass $78 Trillion By 2028: What It Means For Americans

View attachment 297204
Chart Book: Tracking the Post-Great Recession Economy | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

And a longer break down of specifics: US 2020 election: The economy under Trump in six charts

On the Twitter machine, this would get an #ETTD.

 

[Tom 1]

On the Twitter machine, this would get an #ETTD.

Problem is there’s a whole media machine in the US churning out alternative facts. Apparently all that’s needed is the ability to look sincere and a tendency to say ‘the Chinese Communist Party’ at least once every 5 minutes.

 

[Tom 1]

This is the same argument that someone else used, but it's irrelevant to the issue here. All sorts of expenditures might be worthwhile, but the point here is that the Biden "Infrastucture" bill is mainly about funding projects OTHER THAN roads, bridges, airports, etc., yet that is what the public is being told the bill is all about and that these are the things that it will fix with the money.

The infrastructure of any country includes education and health services.

 

[mindlight]

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

According to BP, China has been the world's leading spender on renewables investment for the last 11 years.

One dollar in four invested globally in renewables since 2007 has been Chinese.

China has spent nearly twice what the US has on renewables in the past six years.

Chinese renewables energy production has grown at an average of 41% per annum since 2007. Fossil fuels energy has grown at 2.9%.

Renewables and nuclear investment in China has been triple fossil fuel investment for the past three years.

The Three Gorges Dam would be a classic example. Not sure such an investment would be possible in the USA. It would be tied up in a century of legal cases. But this dam now produces 100TWH electricity a year of clean energy.

That said China is the biggest polluter on the planet and that needs to reverse the upward trends in that before it can be taken as an icon of green development.

 

[mindlight]

That's quite a straw man your article creates and then knocks down. Yes, wind power had issues in Texas; just as gas, coal and even a nuclear power plant failed during the winter freeze. Additionally, it ignores the fact that the reason the wind turbines froze -- just as most other types of power generation also had failures -- is for the same reason the other types of power generation failed -- they weren't "winterized." It is odd that wind turbines work perfectly fine in Northern states -- as do the gas, coal, and nuclear plants that failed in Texas -- when they are installed with equipment that prevent them from freezing.

That is such a cool point but it raises some difficult questions for me. Why should Republican Texas which has self-sabotaged its own electrical grid with local incompetence benefit from a Federal handout. If the issue is poor local regulation that helped maximize profits of the Republican party supporting donors in the oil and electric industry then should not Texas pay for their own mistakes in energy investment planning?

To what extent is the key factor the local state governments when it comes to the state of local infrastructure?

 

[hedrick]

Yes we need it. But it’s all in the execution. The most important infrastructure isn’t “shovel ready,” so it would have to done carefully over several years. I’d also like to see specific things defined, so the money doesn’t get used for other things. If it’s going to be funded over many years, the projects need to be things with a long lifetime. The things listed seem to be that.