Infrastructure bill passed - why is this good and why is it bad.

VonMeister

Duke status
Apr 26, 2013
16,584
3,976
113
JOE BIDENS RAPE FINGER
actually, several things are for sure:
Transportation
Roads, bridges, major projects: $110 billion
Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion
Public transit: $39 billion
  • Airports: $25 billion
  • Port infrastructure: $17 billion
  • Transportation safety programs: $11 billion
  • Electric vehicles: $7.5 billion
  • Zero and low-emission buses and ferries: $7.5 billion
  • Revitalization of communities: $1 billion
Other infrastructure
  • Broadband internet: $65 billion
  • Power infrastructure: $73 billion
  • Clean drinking water: $55 billion
  • Resilience and Western water storage: $50 billion
  • Removal of pollution from water and soil: $21 billion
also, likely to make the stock market happy, which makes me richer

Let's Go, Braedon!:cheers:
The real problem with all government spending is the lack of accountability and the efficiency in how it's spent. Pennies on the dollar wind up benefiting the populace.
 

sussle

Miki Dora status
Oct 11, 2009
4,727
2,909
113
The real problem with all government spending is the lack of accountability and the efficiency in how it's spent. Pennies on the dollar wind up benefiting the populace.
Of course. But there aren't many options for this scale of infrastructure investment spending. The private sector isn't any smarter about spending money, contrary to popular belief, and there is a small measure of accountability here, by virtue of whom gets elected, where there would otherwise be none whatsoever.

This package stands in stark contrast to the previous admin's record of infrastructure improvement, which was so dismal that the term "Infrastructure Week" has actually become synonymous with any unsuccessful or clumsy attempts to get an actual policy off the ground. There are numerous infrastructure items that need to be fixed in this country - it's good to see any attempt to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Doof

Sharkbiscuit

Duke status
Aug 6, 2003
16,698
8,121
113
Jacksonville Beach
well, there's Hunter's laptop (this issue is NOT going away), there's Big Bird and the vax, something something socialism something, Ashley Biden's stolen diary, cancel culture, election fraud etc...and that's just for starters.

only some of the ample reasons the GOP must stand firmly on principle, and proudly oppose clean water, good roads, public transportation, environmental clean-up etc.
You left out how The Squad apparently tells the (D) what to do, but in reality nobody actually listened to the sh!t they said so they all voted against the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afoaf

npsp

Michael Peterson status
Dec 30, 2003
2,584
1,064
113
down the hill and to the right
Visit site
actually, several things are for sure:
Transportation
Roads, bridges, major projects: $110 billion
Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion
Public transit: $39 billion
  • Airports: $25 billion
  • Port infrastructure: $17 billion
  • Transportation safety programs: $11 billion
  • Electric vehicles: $7.5 billion
  • Zero and low-emission buses and ferries: $7.5 billion
  • Revitalization of communities: $1 billion
Other infrastructure
  • Broadband internet: $65 billion
  • Power infrastructure: $73 billion
  • Clean drinking water: $55 billion
  • Resilience and Western water storage: $50 billion
  • Removal of pollution from water and soil: $21 billion
also, likely to make the stock market happy, which makes me richer

Let's Go, Braedon!:cheers:
It's a start but in reality it's a feel good but do nothing of value bill. This bill does not provide adequate funding to come remotely close to accomplishing the laundry list of things they claim they will fix with this funding.
For example, it will take >$1.5T to fix our water/wastewater infrastructure alone. The bill only allocates $55B. Roads, bridges, etc... >2T to fix. Bill allocates $110B. The list goes on and on....
Virtue signaling at is best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ifallalot

mundus

Duke status
Feb 26, 2018
21,312
6,356
113
It's a start but in reality it's a feel good but do nothing of value bill. This bill does not provide adequate funding to come remotely close to accomplishing the laundry list of things they claim they will fix with this funding.
For example, it will take >$1.5T to fix our water/wastewater infrastructure alone. The bill only allocates $55B. Roads, bridges, etc... >2T to fix. Bill allocates $110B. The list goes on and on....
Virtue signaling at is best.
Well we cant make billionaires and corporations pay taxes for the infrastructure they use, that would be communism!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ifallalot

grapedrink

Duke status
May 21, 2011
16,981
6,955
113
A Beach
With such a broad sweeping bill there will surely be some failures and bad contracts and the GOP will spend the next twenty years ignoring any of the successes while making catch phrases out of the failures. Think “solyndra”, “California high speed rail”, “bidge to nowhere”, etc.

IMHO investing in infrastructure is one of the best investments the government can make and it’s sorely needed. When we build highways, bridges and rail system the money spent still goes to private contractors and the manpower it takes to build these things = jobs. What’s there not to like about it?
Solyndra is one thing. California's high speed rail is the most epic waste of overbudgeted money in the history of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ifallalot and npsp

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
51,377
7,412
113
Solyndra is one thing. California's high speed rail is the most epic waste of overbudgeted money in the history of government.
But you get my point, with such a sweeping bill there’s going to be countless projects and contracts for jobs across the country. All the critics need is one failed or mismanaged project to turn into a catch phrase and they’ll base the success or failure of the entire initiative on it.
 

npsp

Michael Peterson status
Dec 30, 2003
2,584
1,064
113
down the hill and to the right
Visit site
Well we cant make billionaires and corporations pay taxes for the infrastructure they use, that would be communism!
We need to.... Amazon is a perfect example of a business that should pay a special infrastructure/waste tax. Their business model centers on importing(via polluting ocean freight), selling and delivering cheap crap via polluting vans driven all over the place. Look at the way they package their items in oversized boxes with single use plastic pillows; extremely wasteful.
They should have to pay a % of every sale to any agency: local, state and/or fed that is impacted by their form of commerce.
Bezos is scum and should be forced to pay for the wear and tear his company causes to local, state and federal infrastructure.

It would be great if these ultra rich that fund their do gooder foundations as a tax dodge actually identified and funded specific projects to upgrade infrastructure that would benefit the citizenry.
For example, Berkshire Hathaway owns BNSF Rail. BNSF rail is a heavy user of the rail line from San Diego north to OC, LA, etc... There is a stretch of track that run along the bluffs in Del Mar that is close to falling into the ocean. The tracks have to be relocated in the near future to avoid a catastrophic accident. It will cost >2B to do so. If Warren Buffett was so committed to do gooding, why isn't he spearheading and funding this much needed project? He could write that check himself. He doesn't. Why?
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
51,377
7,412
113
We need to.... Amazon is a perfect example of a business that should pay a special infrastructure/waste tax. Their business model centers on importing(via polluting ocean freight), selling and delivering cheap crap via polluting vans driven all over the place. Look at the way they package their items in oversized boxes with single use plastic pillows; extremely wasteful.
They should have to pay a % of every sale to any agency: local, state and/or fed that is impacted by their form of commerce.
Bezos is scum and should be forced to pay for the wear and tear his company causes to local, state and federal infrastructure.

It would be great if these ultra rich that fund their do gooder foundations as a tax dodge actually identified and funded specific projects to upgrade infrastructure that would benefit the citizenry.
For example, Berkshire Hathaway owns BNSF Rail. BNSF rail is a heavy user of the rail line from San Diego north to OC, LA, etc... There is a stretch of track that run along the bluffs in Del Mar that is close to falling into the ocean. The tracks have to be relocated in the near future to avoid a catastrophic accident. It will cost >2B to do so. If Warren Buffett was so committed to do gooding, why isn't he spearheading and funding this much needed project? He could write that check himself. He doesn't. Why?
Yep. Same thing with FEDEX, UPS, DHL, OnTrac, etc. Without our ports, airports, rails, interstate and local roadways they don’t have a business. In the words of Obama “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal9000 and sussle

sussle

Miki Dora status
Oct 11, 2009
4,727
2,909
113
It's a start but in reality it's a feel good but do nothing of value bill. This bill does not provide adequate funding to come remotely close to accomplishing the laundry list of things they claim they will fix with this funding.
For example, it will take >$1.5T to fix our water/wastewater infrastructure alone. The bill only allocates $55B. Roads, bridges, etc... >2T to fix. Bill allocates $110B. The list goes on and on....
Virtue signaling at is best.
at the end of the day, some bridges get fixed, some pipes replaced, potholes patched, hazmat gets treated etc etc etc - never enough, but something. if that's as good as it gets, so be it. your alternative is what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: afoaf

hal9000

Duke status
Jan 30, 2016
39,219
7,435
113
Urbana, Illinois
Yep. Same thing with FEDEX, UPS, DHL, OnTrac, etc. Without our ports, airports, rails, interstate and local roadways they don’t have a business. In the words of Obama “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT”.
these are all costs that aren't factored into the business model.

socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Doof and $kully

npsp

Michael Peterson status
Dec 30, 2003
2,584
1,064
113
down the hill and to the right
Visit site
at the end of the day, some bridges get fixed, some pipes replaced, potholes patched, hazmat gets treated etc etc etc - never enough, but something. if that's as good as it gets, so be it. your alternative is what?
The issue with the way the bill is divvied up is that it funds just enough money to not really get anything done. Once those billions are diced up and spread around to all 50 states, the only thing that will get done is a bunch of studies and meetings to discuss those studies. This is all pork that will be distributed to the elite donor class as payback for campaign $$$$.
The Dems are just pandering to a different set of rubes. New boss, same as the old boss.

It's far from as good as it gets. Remember, the Congress and Senate are still going to move forward with the "partisan" 2X larger "social infrastructure" bill now that the "Bi-partisan" real infrastructure bill has been passed.

The alternative is to fund strictly real infrastructure that benefits all of us. Pick water/wastewater(including dams, levees and reservoirs) and/or roads/highways(including bridges) and/or railways and ports and fix them first. Put the onus on the mega wealthy and corporations that use these public assets for their profit to put up or shut up. When people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet claim they want to give away their wealth, here's their chance to stand by their word.
 

$kully

Duke status
Feb 27, 2009
51,377
7,412
113
these are all costs that aren't factored into the business model.

socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
And lets not forget all the other businesses that rely on these shipping companies to do commerce. Our entire capitalist economy is riding on the back of government/taxpayer funded infrastructure and we want government to leave them alone and stop regulating them In fear that additional costs from regulations will be passed on to us, the consumers who foot the bill for our crumbling and overused infrastructure. How twisted is that?
 
Last edited:

npsp

Michael Peterson status
Dec 30, 2003
2,584
1,064
113
down the hill and to the right
Visit site
these are all costs that aren't factored into the business model.

socialize the risk, privatize the profits.
That needs to change. Maybe it's time that we apply a VAT to all imported crap goods to cover these non-factored costs. Maybe this is how we ween ourselves from being consumers of cheap imported disposable junk from China.
 

sussle

Miki Dora status
Oct 11, 2009
4,727
2,909
113
The issue with the way the bill is divvied up is that it funds just enough money to not really get anything done. Once those billions are diced up and spread around to all 50 states, the only thing that will get done is a bunch of studies and meetings to discuss those studies. This is all pork that will be distributed to the elite donor class as payback for campaign $$$$.
The Dems are just pandering to a different set of rubes. New boss, same as the old boss.

It's far from as good as it gets. Remember, the Congress and Senate are still going to move forward with the "partisan" 2X larger "social infrastructure" bill now that the "Bi-partisan" real infrastructure bill has been passed.

The alternative is to fund strictly real infrastructure that benefits all of us. Pick water/wastewater(including dams, levees and reservoirs) and/or roads/highways(including bridges) and/or railways and ports and fix them first. Put the onus on the mega wealthy and corporations that use these public assets for their profit to put up or shut up. When people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet claim they want to give away their wealth, here's their chance to stand by their word.
another non-solution - i should have said "realistic alternatives". there aren't any, except do the best you can under the current framework of government and spending. i am as cynical as anyone, but i know that there are local pols in my county who are already counting on this money and i know some of it will actually end up where it needs to be (for example, we have a port that needs to be dredged and i have no doubt it will get done because it matters to everyone here and everyone is watching).

so yes, this is as good as it gets because there is currently no other alternative to funding infrastructure improvement. deal with it - dismissing it is less than counter-productive.

edit: i can remember a time when particular projects - road/highway/bridge/waterway/whatever - often had big signs that told you "this project is directly funded by whatever bill/act/program/package of 19-whatever, as steered by whomever prez/gov/Senator/congressperson was in office, in whatever state blah blah blah". a victory lap, for sure, but effective - tangible legit tax dollar expenditure needs to be seen.

virtually signaling or whatever, like it or not, things do occasionally get accomplished and this is how.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: npsp

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
73,345
7,439
113
Yep. Same thing with FEDEX, UPS, DHL, OnTrac, etc. Without our ports, airports, rails, interstate and local roadways they don’t have a business. In the words of Obama “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT”.
They’re also our supply chain

Without it, society stops

JUST NATIONALIZE IT. SEIZE THE MEANS
 

afoaf

Duke status
Jun 25, 2008
38,074
11,065
113
They’re also our supply chain

Without it, society stops

JUST NATIONALIZE IT. SEIZE THE MEANS
do you think carriers and last mile retailers like amazon are paying their fair share for the wear/tear, at the least?

in the end, it just gets passed on to us...I know...but some sort of additional tax for certain business categories to contribute to the maintenance of existing roads and development of new ones seems logical

I wish we had better systems for this in the US and public projects weren't such a USSR-cash-scam for cronies
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: npsp and Ifallalot

Ifallalot

Duke status
Dec 17, 2008
73,345
7,439
113
do you think carriers and last mile retailers like amazon are paying their fair share for the wear/tear, at the least?

in the end, it just gets passed on to us...I know...but some sort of additional tax for certain business categories to contribute to the maintenance of existing roads and development of new ones seems logical

I wish we had better systems for this in the US and public projects weren't such a USSR-cash-scam for cronies
Last mile transports use lots of fuel

Fuel tax ostensibly pays for the roads

You’re 1000% correct. Cronyism is the problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: npsp and afoaf