Biden Infrastructure plan

[mindlight]

Well, what the defenders of this inflationary and mislabeled legislation are saying over and over is that the provisions which ought not to be in the bill are useful or needed or something else like that...which of course isn't the point at all.

The point being what then, that your definition of infrastructure does not extend beyond roads and bridges?

 

[mindlight]

Sen Blunt is still under the (naive) impression that his party has any interest in signing on to any part Biden's infrastructure plan. [Noting that Blunt is not seeking re-election]

Sunday
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., a member of Senate GOP leadership, said Sunday a smaller package of about $615 billion, or 30% of what Biden is proposing, could find bipartisan backing from Republicans if the White House found a way to pay for it without raising the corporate tax rate. He pointed to potential user fees on drivers and others.

Friday
Peppered in Kentucky with questions about money that could be potentially flowing for home-state road, bridge and housing projects after the president unveiled his plan, McConnell batted them back one by one.

Biden’s package “is not going to get support from our side,” McConnell said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9b0fdc-95c4-11eb-8f0a-3384cf4fb399_story.html

Isn't this just a case of making sure you get all your people out on the day to vote? The democrats do after all have a majority in both houses. Corporation tax is very low by international standards and the benefits of the tax reduction have not been equally shared. This is the difference between a road that everyone can use and a billion dollars in the trust funds of various already rich people. Statistically, they appear the same value but the road is worth more to more people and its benefits are shared and indeed almost impossible to completely quantify. This senator seems to want to make sure that the trust fund remains just as large by charging ordinary people for their use of the road.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well, what the defenders of this inflationary and mislabeled legislation are saying over and over is that the provisions which ought not to be in the bill are useful or needed or something else like that...which of course isn't the point at all.

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me what's mislabeled about it. Care to take a stab at it?

 

[Albion]

The point being what then, that your definition of infrastructure does not extend beyond roads and bridges?

That the bill is grossly misleading, disguising a host of unrelated projects as roadbuilding. And it does no good to point to the fine print. The objection--as with the similarly mislabeled Covid relief bill--is that the fine print is accurate but that's not what the public is being told by the politicians the money is intended for.

The great majority of the spending in both instances is for pork and pet projects of one political party with less than 10% being for the projects that are the ones the public has been sold on.

 

[Pommer]

That the bill is grossly misleading, disguising a host of unrelated projects as roadbuilding. And it does no good to point to the fine print. The objection--as with the similarly mislabeled Covid relief bill--is that the fine print is accurate but that's not what the public is being told by the politicians the money is intended for.

The great majority of the spending in both instances is for pork and pet projects of one political party with less than 10% being for the projects that are the ones the public has been sold on.

You’re complaining that the Infrastructure Bill helps too many people?

 

[DaisyDay]

Well, what the defenders of this inflationary and mislabeled legislation are saying over and over is that the provisions which ought not to be in the bill are useful or needed or something else like that...which of course isn't the point at all.

Right, the point is that the Civilian Climate Corps IS about infrastructure as well as economic recovery.

 

[Albion]

Right, the point is that the Civilian Climate Corps IS about infrastructure as well as economic recovery.

And you didn't get the point either. That's too bad, but I'm done covering the same ground over and over.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That the bill is grossly misleading, disguising a host of unrelated projects as roadbuilding. And it does no good to point to the fine print. The objection--as with the similarly mislabeled Covid relief bill--is that the fine print is accurate but that's not what the public is being told by the politicians the money is intended for.

The great majority of the spending in both instances is for pork and pet projects of one political party with less than 10% being for the projects that are the ones the public has been sold on.

Care to provide any examples? Given that 90% of this is supposedly fluff, it shouldn't be too hard.

 

[wing2000]

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me what's mislabeled about it. Care to take a stab at it?

...me too.