Biden Rebuild America Plan now focus on infrastructure

[davebucknut]

Some of that stuff is actually needed!

You're joking, right?

 Obama talked and did nothing,

Nope. Obama took 700 billion dollars and distributed it to his buddies including phony green energy companies like Solyndra and several others.  Maybe 10-15% went where he claimed when he was selling it.  As for Trump, there is no way he could ever get a reasonable stimulus through once the Democrats controlled the House.

Obama did nothing positive.  good grief.  That obviously was the reference.

Trump had 2 years to push forward his plan.  And it never went anywhere close to getting to the republican controlled Congress.

You watch. Cali NY and other bastions of blue will receive truckloads of cash for billion dollar bus stops and unneeded digital upgrades to appear futuristic, but mostly it will get laundered to their buddies.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Hightop77]

So with the potential new 3 trillion dollars in taxes incorporated in this plan combined with the inflation that is building, it's going to be quite a sh*t show down the road with the cost of everything going through the roof.  But Democrats will keep on winning elections regardless.

[Alabuckeye]

You're joking, right?

 Obama talked and did nothing,

Nope. Obama took 700 billion dollars and distributed it to his buddies including phony green energy companies like Solyndra and several others.  Maybe 10-15% went where he claimed when he was selling it.  As for Trump, there is no way he could ever get a reasonable stimulus through once the Democrats controlled the House.

Obama did nothing positive.  good grief.  That obviously was the reference.

Trump had 2 years to push forward his plan.  And it never went anywhere close to getting to the republican controlled Congress.

You watch. Cali NY and other bastions of blue will receive truckloads of cash for billion dollar bus stops and unneeded digital upgrades to appear futuristic, but mostly it will get laundered to their buddies.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Y'all are beating a strawman.

My original comment, that seems so offensive was that some of what was mentioned was actually needed.  I'm frankly confused on how that could be controversial, but y'all's dog whistles hear different sounds than mine do.

[Alabuckeye]

Some of that stuff is actually needed!

Talking points to cover for where the coin actually ends up. Chamber of Commerce, Unions, Pensions, Pork, and Academia. 

Notice not a peep mentioned about the defense or military.

why would there be talk of defense appropriations in an infrastructure appropriations bill?  Two totally separate types of appropriations.

Military foundations fall under infrastructure; especially when the coin goes to civilian contractors outside of DOD.

Interesting.  I would have assumed that military bases, and their related infrastructure would have fallen under DoD appropriations.  I learned something.  Thanks.

[Syncro]

My original comment, that seems so offensive was that some of what was mentioned was actually needed.  I'm frankly confused on how that could be controversial, but y'all's dog whistles hear different sounds than mine do.

You are correct that some of this really NEEDS to be done...but you don't seem to understand that most of this money will be lit on fire rather than spent on the true needs reasonable people can agree on.

HT and Lrrp are exactly right. Anyone with an ounce of sense already know how this will end...

[Hightop77]

My original comment, that seems so offensive was that some of what was mentioned was actually needed.  I'm frankly confused on how that could be controversial, but y'all's dog whistles hear different sounds than mine do.

You are correct that some of this really NEEDS to be done...but you don't seem to understand that most of this money will be lit on fire rather than spent on the true needs reasonable people can agree on.

HT and Lrrp are exactly right.  Anyone with an ounce of sense already know how this will end...

If there is one thing that we know or should know it is that Democrats have zero interest in fixing problems in this country.  Their only goal is permanent political control and they will use our money to obtain it.

[davebucknut]

My original comment, that seems so offensive was that some of what was mentioned was actually needed.  I'm frankly confused on how that could be controversial, but y'all's dog whistles hear different sounds than mine do.

You are correct that some of this really NEEDS to be done...but you don't seem to understand that most of this money will be lit on fire rather than spent on the true needs reasonable people can agree on.

HT and Lrrp are exactly right. Anyone with an ounce of sense already know how this will end...

Most of it will be stolen and fall into the hands of unions, politicians via kickbacks and campaign contributions, and friendly corporations who tout leftwing dogma.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Alabuckeye]

My original comment, that seems so offensive was that some of what was mentioned was actually needed.  I'm frankly confused on how that could be controversial, but y'all's dog whistles hear different sounds than mine do.

You are correct that some of this really NEEDS to be done...but you don't seem to understand that most of this money will be lit on fire rather than spent on the true needs reasonable people can agree on.

HT and Lrrp are exactly right.  Anyone with an ounce of sense already know how this will end...

I never commented on whether it would actually be done.  Only that it needs done, which it clearly does.

That's why most of the comments about my original comment are just beating strawmen.

[Beastdog]

I reject the premise that we have a bunch of "infrastructure stuff" that "needs" to get done. Completely. Certainly not to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And even if this was the case, the money will not end up where it being "advertised" to go, many here have pointed out.

[Alabuckeye]

I reject the premise that we have a bunch of "infrastructure stuff" that "needs" to get done. Completely. Certainly not to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And even if this was the case, the money will not end up where it being "advertised" to go, many here have pointed out.

So, was President Trump wrong then with his $1T Infrastructure plan?


As early as May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure,[1] making it "second to none."[2] He expressed concern about the state of American infrastructure on multiple occasions, drawing comparisons with other countries. For example, he stated that American passenger trains were slow compared to those in China and American airports to be dirty and dilapidated next to their counterparts from China, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar.[3][4] He acknowledged that modernizing American infrastructure was going to be expensive but argued that in the end, such an investment would pay for itself. In this regard, his position is in line with that of the Democratic Party. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden had themselves been advocating for more federal infrastructure spending.[3]

[Beastdog]

And.....anything done that is not truly part of a bi-partisan process (majorities supporting from BOTH parties) should be summarily rejected.

The Dems are just shoving their big government horseshit down our throats, and yet I see weak-minded "conservatives" declare, "Thank you Sir, may I have another?!?"

A "younger" Alabuckeye lol.

[Beastdog]

I reject the premise that we have a bunch of "infrastructure stuff" that "needs" to get done. Completely. Certainly not to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And even if this was the case, the money will not end up where it being "advertised" to go, many here have pointed out.

So, was President Trump wrong then with his $1T Infrastructure plan?

Views, vision, and standards[edit]

As early as May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure,[1] making it "second to none."[2] He expressed concern about the state of American infrastructure on multiple occasions, drawing comparisons with other countries. For example, he stated that American passenger trains were slow compared to those in China and American airports to be dirty and dilapidated next to their counterparts from China, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar.[3][4] He acknowledged that modernizing American infrastructure was going to be expensive but argued that in the end, such an investment would pay for itself. In this regard, his position is in line with that of the Democratic Party. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden had themselves been advocating for more federal infrastructure spending.[3]

Yes. Any other questions for me?

[Alabuckeye]

I reject the premise that we have a bunch of "infrastructure stuff" that "needs" to get done. Completely. Certainly not to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And even if this was the case, the money will not end up where it being "advertised" to go, many here have pointed out.

So, was President Trump wrong then with his $1T Infrastructure plan?

Views, vision, and standards[edit]

As early as May 2015, one month before launching his presidential campaign, Donald Trump expressed his desire to "fix" America's aging infrastructure,[1] making it "second to none."[2] He expressed concern about the state of American infrastructure on multiple occasions, drawing comparisons with other countries. For example, he stated that American passenger trains were slow compared to those in China and American airports to be dirty and dilapidated next to their counterparts from China, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar.[3][4] He acknowledged that modernizing American infrastructure was going to be expensive but argued that in the end, such an investment would pay for itself. In this regard, his position is in line with that of the Democratic Party. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden had themselves been advocating for more federal infrastructure spending.[3]

Yes. Any other questions for me?

Fair enough.  I disagree, but that's ok.

[Syncro]

I reject the premise that we have a bunch of "infrastructure stuff" that "needs" to get done. Completely. Certainly not to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And even if this was the case, the money will not end up where it being "advertised" to go, many here have pointed out.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I don't think you have any idea how dire shape major infrastructure in probably all 50 states are in.

They just announced here in Oregon that they are going to lower water levels above several dams this spring/summer because of the risk of failure. We have issues with many bridges as well.

We also live on a massive fault line, so our issues out here are probably very different than other places around the country. At any rate, failing infrastructure is a huge issue...

[Alabuckeye]

I reject the premise that we have a bunch of "infrastructure stuff" that "needs" to get done. Completely. Certainly not to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And even if this was the case, the money will not end up where it being "advertised" to go, many here have pointed out.

I couldn't possibly disagree more.  I don't think you have any idea how dire shape major infrastructure in probably all 50 states are in.

They just announced here in Oregon that they are going to lower water levels above several dams this spring/summer because of the risk of failure.  We have issues with many bridges as well.

We also live on a massive fault line, so our issues out here are probably very different than other places around the country.  At any rate, failing infrastructure is a huge issue...

and it's likely, and a real shame, that the money will be frittered away rather than hitting the desperately necessary items that must be addressed.