What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bipartisan infrastructure deal now looks likely to happen? (1 Viewer)

Amused to Death said:
Do you think airports are infrastructure? Rail lines? Utilities, incl. water/elect/broadband? Dams? Do you really think infrastructure is nothing more than roads & bridges?
Click to expand...
I would add that the government should be leading the way towards standardized and upbiquitous electrical charging stations to help transition to more electric cars/trucks on the road.

Also, probably within roads and bridges, but instead of just fixing old structures, we should be adding whatever it takes to facilitate driverless cars/trucks (no idea what that entails - but we should be anticipating a move in that direction.

Broadband to remote areas of the country will have to be subsidized by the government - but that is probably the most 21st Century infrastructure project we need, and can be accomplished relatively easily.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I would add that the government should be leading the way towards standardized and upbiquitous electrical charging stations to help transition to more electric cars/trucks on the road.

Also, probably within roads and bridges, but instead of just fixing old structures, we should be adding whatever it takes to facilitate driverless cars/trucks (no idea what that entails - but we should be anticipating a move in that direction.

Broadband to remote areas of the country will have to be subsidized by the government - but that is probably the most 21st Century infrastructure project we need, and can be accomplished relatively easily.
Click to expand...
Agreed. When making such a large investment in infrastructure, we can't design for *now*, but it needs to be for the future. And the future is certainly EV. And for the electrical grid, there has to be an investment in renewables, not fossil fuels exclusively.

I love that there's a big push towards wind energy along the East coast. None of this is "radical leftist thinking", its keeping up with global technology. 

 
supermike80 said:
Fine.  Put it in something else.  Don't call it infrastructure.  Let that stand on it's own
Click to expand...
But it is infrastructure.   Broadband is infrastructure.   Securing our utilities is infrastructure.   
Im not saying everything in the original bill is...I get that.   But infrastructure is more than bridges and roads.

 
sho nuff said:
So then you know why just cutting it to bridges and roads like the Rs want isn’t  an actual compromise or something the Dems would do.
Click to expand...
And I know some of the other things the dems want are NOT part of infrastructure and you can see the Republicans wont do it either

Duh.  Just don't blame the mean republicans, like you guys always do, for stalling this. its BOF SIDEZ.

And before you board cop me, no, I haven't seen YOU specifically say it. 

 
Amused to Death said:
Why do you read that as anger? I asked a series of questions.

The computer can't tell you the emotional story. It can give you the exact mathematical design, but what's missing is the eyebrows. -  Frank Zappa
Click to expand...
This is what the republican counter proposal has in it:

$299 billion for roads and bridges

$61 billion for public transit,

$20 billion for rail

$35 billion for drinking water and wastewater

$13 billion for safety

$17 billion for ports and waterways

$44 billion for airports

$65 billion for broadband

$14 billion for water storage

So again, I don't know why you are so angry.  Seems it meets all your needs?  Why are you not in favor of it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80 said:
This is what the republican counter proposal has in it:

$299 billion for roads and bridges

$61 billion for public transit,

$20 billion for rail

$35 billion for drinking water and wastewater

$13 billion for safety

$17 billion for ports and waterways

$44 billion for airports

$65 billion for broadband

$14 billion for water storage

So again, I don't know why you are so angry.  Seems it meets all your needs?  Why are you not in favor of it?
Click to expand...
First, drop the "angry" narrative. TIA.

That's a good start, but the details of their proposal matter. Does the $299B for roads and bridges include enough for developing the necessary infrastructure for electric vehicles? I see nothing in your list for the electrical grid and investing in green energy. That's much needed. Does the $20B for rail include new high speed lines or just repairs of existing? How much does the GOP counteroffer include for cybersecurity?

Design for the future, not today.

Also, what's the GOP plan to pay for the $568B in that list - push the cost onto the middle class? Or will they be willing to increase the corporate tax rate to 25% or 28% from its current 21%?

 
This is so refreshing, amd it’s another sign that Joe Biden really is doing an extraordinary job. Not only is his administration a return to normal (which is the most I hoped for) he is actually really attempting to have some significant bipartisan accomplishments for the first time in over a decade, and it appears to be working. 

 
Amused to Death said:
First, drop the "angry" narrative. TIA.

That's a good start, but the details of their proposal matter. Does the $299B for roads and bridges include enough for developing the necessary infrastructure for electric vehicles? I see nothing in your list for the electrical grid and investing in green energy. That's much needed. Does the $20B for rail include new high speed lines or just repairs of existing? How much does the GOP counteroffer include for cybersecurity?

Design for the future, not today.

Also, what's the GOP plan to pay for the $568B in that list - push the cost onto the middle class? Or will they be willing to increase the corporate tax rate to 25% or 28% from its current 21%?
Click to expand...
I don't know those answers.  However you asked about the other parts of infrastructure, and angrily asked if I "cared" about them.  And it seems they are included in the proposal, so again, I don't know why you are against this.  

 
Amused to Death said:
First, drop the "angry" narrative. TIA.

That's a good start, but the details of their proposal matter. Does the $299B for roads and bridges include enough for developing the necessary infrastructure for electric vehicles? I see nothing in your list for the electrical grid and investing in green energy. That's much needed. Does the $20B for rail include new high speed lines or just repairs of existing? How much does the GOP counteroffer include for cybersecurity?

Design for the future, not today.

Also, what's the GOP plan to pay for the $568B in that list - push the cost onto the middle class? Or will they be willing to increase the corporate tax rate to 25% or 28% from its current 21%?
Click to expand...
Forget those numbers- they’re based on a press release in late April designed mostly to be obstructionist. Yesterday McConnell indicated he’s willing to agree to much more serious numbers. 

 
supermike80 said:
I don't know those answers.  However you asked about the other parts of infrastructure, and angrily asked if I "cared" about them.  And it seems they are included in the proposal, so again, I don't know why you are against this.  
Click to expand...
The GOP needs to compromise to include the electrical upgrades and alternative energy development. Throwing numbers at a category does nothing. What does it pay for? And how are they proposing to pay? Hopefully not sticking to the middle class. Biden's proposal includes fully funding all of it, and not by raising taxes on 99% of Americans.

I can't be "for" it if I don't know what it includes.

 
timschochet said:
Forget those numbers- they’re based on a press release in late April designed mostly to be obstructionist. Yesterday McConnell indicated he’s willing to agree to much more serious numbers. 
Click to expand...
I see McConnell has said he's willing to go as high as $800B. But again, is he willing to fund it with a corporate tax increase?

 
supermike80 said:
And I know some of the other things the dems want are NOT part of infrastructure and you can see the Republicans wont do it either

Duh.  Just don't blame the mean republicans, like you guys always do, for stalling this. its BOF SIDEZ.

And before you board cop me, no, I haven't seen YOU specifically say it. 
Click to expand...
I just stated above I know some of it was not and my conversation today was not just  blaming republicans.  Is this where I accuse you of being angry?  You admit I didn’t  say it...yet added that middle part?

The point is just giving the Rs their proposal is not compromise.   There needs to be other additions, you seem to agree other parts are infrastructure...so they should be in an infrastructure bill.

 
sho nuff said:
I just stated above I know some of it was not and my conversation today was not just  blaming republicans.  Is this where I accuse you of being angry?  You admit I didn’t  say it...yet added that middle part?

The point is just giving the Rs their proposal is not compromise.   There needs to be other additions, you seem to agree other parts are infrastructure...so they should be in an infrastructure bill.
Click to expand...
I sincerely asked you to NOT board cop and you did it anyway.  Man and I had hopes.

 
Amused to Death said:
timschochet said:
Forget those numbers- they’re based on a press release in late April designed mostly to be obstructionist. Yesterday McConnell indicated he’s willing to agree to much more serious numbers. 
Click to expand...
I see McConnell has said he's willing to go as high as $800B. But again, is he willing to fund it with a corporate tax increase?
Click to expand...
Apparently no. He wants the middle class to pay.

“We’re not interested in re-opening the 2017 tax bill,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, in comments outside the White House. “That is a red line,” he said

He suggested, however, that he would not back down on tax increases to pay for infrastructure. Citing transportation user fees as an example, he said such a pay-for would fall on working-class people. “This has to be a burden shared across the spectrum,” Biden said. Biden’s infrastructure plan calls for raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21% — though the president has recently suggested he could accept a 25% rate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biden's plan would direct $174 billion to electric vehicles through the construction of a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle stations, replacing diesel vehicles, electrifying bus fleets and offering tax incentives and rebates to make electric cars more affordable. 

"But again, we didn't go through a list and say 'yes' on this and 'no' on that," Pelosi said. "But that emerged as something they might not be too fond of."

This is something I hope the Republicans will compromise on. Moving forward with EVs is something that will most definitely be part of the not-too-distant-future.

Another of my favorite Zappa quotes applies here: "Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."

 
Amused to Death said:
The GOP needs to compromise to include the electrical upgrades and alternative energy development. Throwing numbers at a category does nothing. What does it pay for? And how are they proposing to pay? Hopefully not sticking to the middle class. Biden's proposal includes fully funding all of it, and not by raising taxes on 99% of Americans.

I can't be "for" it if I don't know what it includes.
Click to expand...
You asked the question.   And I showed you numbers.  If you wanna keep moving the goalposts fine, just try to be a little more calm about it OK?

 
Amused to Death said:
Apparently no. He wants the middle class to pay.

“We’re not interested in re-opening the 2017 tax bill,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, in comments outside the White House. “That is a red line,” he said

He suggested, however, that he would not back down on tax increases to pay for infrastructure. Citing transportation user fees as an example, he said such a pay-for would fall on working-class people. “This has to be a burden shared across the spectrum,” Biden said. Biden’s infrastructure plan calls for raising the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21% — though the president has recently suggested he could accept a 25% rate.
Click to expand...
Soooo...it's important to you..but you don't want to actually sacrifice anything to get it?  Love that.    

 
supermike80 said:
Soooo...it's important to you..but you don't want to actually sacrifice anything to get it?  Love that.    
Click to expand...
I'm not in favor of tax breaks for corporations and increases on the middle class. Biden's willing to raise the corporate tax to 25%, which is still lower than it was when Trump took office.

 
Amused to Death said:
I'm not in favor of tax breaks for corporations and increases on the middle class. Biden's willing to raise the corporate tax to 25%, which is still lower than it was when Trump took office.
Click to expand...
So again, It;s only important if YOU don't have to pay anything for it.  

Well I use the roads and all the infrastructure so I figure I can pay a little for it to be improved.  I don't want to be selfish.

 
The title changes highlight something I think problematic on the board and nationwide.

Mitch said he would stop Biden from turning America into a socialist nation.  Tim translated that to Mitch will block anything Biden ever tries to do.  Now we see Mitch is in fact willing to work with Biden and that perhaps Mitch intends to try to block policies he deems as socialist and not others.  

When someone from the opposite side says something that's CLOSE to being bad--we translate it the rest of the way for them.  Mitch says he's going to stop socialism--so basically he's going to stop Biden from doing anything.  When maybe that's not what he meant.  

When someone from the opposite side says something that sounds bad--even if we think maybe it's not what they literally meant--we jump on that literal meaning.  Why would you say it and not mean it?  

Of course when someone from our own side says something that sounds bad--we're quick to examine what they actually meant, and explore the valid reasons they would say such a thing.

 
jm192 said:
The title changes highlight something I think problematic on the board and nationwide.

Mitch said he would stop Biden from turning America into a socialist nation.  Tim translated that to Mitch will block anything Biden ever tries to do.  Now we see Mitch is in fact willing to work with Biden and that perhaps Mitch intends to try to block policies he deems as socialist and not others.  

When someone from the opposite side says something that's CLOSE to being bad--we translate it the rest of the way for them.  Mitch says he's going to stop socialism--so basically he's going to stop Biden from doing anything.  When maybe that's not what he meant.  

When someone from the opposite side says something that sounds bad--even if we think maybe it's not what they literally meant--we jump on that literal meaning.  Why would you say it and not mean it?  

Of course when someone from our own side says something that sounds bad--we're quick to examine what they actually meant, and explore the valid reasons they would say such a thing.
Click to expand...
JM, that all sounds rational and under normal circumstances I subscribe to it 100%. The problem becomes when obstructionism is the new normal, which it is and has been for well over a decade, the words become far more divisive and ultimately true.  It’s no longer about trusting the spirit of what intended to be said. It’s just the nature of what’s happening and so your left having to believe the actual words. How else could one not?  

 
dkp993 said:
JM, that all sounds rational and under normal circumstances I subscribe to it 100%. The problem becomes when obstructionism is the new normal, which it is and has been for well over a decade, the words become far more divisive and ultimately true.  It’s no longer about trusting the spirit of what intended to be said. It’s just the nature of what’s happening and so your left having to believe the actual words. How else could one not?  
Click to expand...
But then we have to do it for both sides, no?  It seems like we choose the path that supports our narrative. 

If you take Mitch at his literal words--he's going to stop Biden from enacting socialism.  No more, no less.  But someone goes on to add that means Mitch will block anything Biden wants to do.

But moreover--when our side's literal words sound bad--we DO tend to explain it away and look for what was actually meant.

Defund the police doesn't even mean defund the police.  But if I take everything at it's literal meaning--well then I sure as heck oppose that idea.  If you wanted to talk to me about police reform--well I can get behind that.  "Well, we mean police reform."  

 
jm192 said:
But then we have to do it for both sides, no?  It seems like we choose the path that supports our narrative. 

If you take Mitch at his literal words--he's going to stop Biden from enacting socialism.  No more, no less.  But someone goes on to add that means Mitch will block anything Biden wants to do.

But moreover--when our side's literal words sound bad--we DO tend to explain it away and look for what was actually meant.

Defund the police doesn't even mean defund the police.  But if I take everything at it's literal meaning--well then I sure as heck oppose that idea.  If you wanted to talk to me about police reform--well I can get behind that.  "Well, we mean police reform."  
Click to expand...
Re: bolded- Yes, absolutely.  Words matter and your defund the police is a perfect example.  Mitch’s exact words were… “One hundred percent of my focus is standing up to this administration,” the Kentucky Republican said at a press conference in his home state Wednesday, in response to questions about infighting among House Republicans. “What we have in the United States Senate is total unity from Susan Collins to Ted Cruz in opposition to what the new Biden administration is trying to do to this country,” 

He’s been in Congress for over 40 years. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s throwing red meat to his base. And when Pelosi or those on the other side do the same it’s every inch is bad. I’m not gonna give him or Pelosi or any of them the benefit of the doubt about the spirit of their words when neither side has been willing to work with the other for as long as I can remember.

These Partisan, self serving, vapid empty suits need to be taken to task and I’m no longer willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  When someone has been doing a job as long as I’ve been alive they are extraordinarily aware of their actions.  

 
jm192 said:
But then we have to do it for both sides, no?  It seems like we choose the path that supports our narrative. 

If you take Mitch at his literal words--he's going to stop Biden from enacting socialism.  No more, no less.  But someone goes on to add that means Mitch will block anything Biden wants to do.

But moreover--when our side's literal words sound bad--we DO tend to explain it away and look for what was actually meant.

Defund the police doesn't even mean defund the police.  But if I take everything at it's literal meaning--well then I sure as heck oppose that idea.  If you wanted to talk to me about police reform--well I can get behind that.  "Well, we mean police reform."  
Click to expand...
The reason that I took it as obstruction in the first place is because Mitch didn’t say he was going to stop socialism; he said he was going to stop Biden’s socialism. Since Biden doesn’t have any socialism, I reasonably took that to mean Mitch was simply going to obstruct. I didn’t get it wrong; McConnell simply changed his tune. 

 
dkp993 said:
22 hours ago, jm192 said:
The title changes highlight something I think problematic on the board and nationwide.

Mitch said he would stop Biden from turning America into a socialist nation.  Tim translated that to Mitch will block anything Biden ever tries to do.  Now we see Mitch is in fact willing to work with Biden and that perhaps Mitch intends to try to block policies he deems as socialist and not others.  

When someone from the opposite side says something that's CLOSE to being bad--we translate it the rest of the way for them.  Mitch says he's going to stop socialism--so basically he's going to stop Biden from doing anything.  When maybe that's not what he meant.  

When someone from the opposite side says something that sounds bad--even if we think maybe it's not what they literally meant--we jump on that literal meaning.  Why would you say it and not mean it?  

Of course when someone from our own side says something that sounds bad--we're quick to examine what they actually meant, and explore the valid reasons they would say such a thing.
Expand  
Click to expand...
JM, that all sounds rational and under normal circumstances I subscribe to it 100%. The problem becomes when obstructionism is the new normal, which it is and has been for well over a decade, the words become far more divisive and ultimately true.  It’s no longer about trusting the spirit of what intended to be said. It’s just the nature of what’s happening and so your left having to believe the actual words. How else could one not?  
Click to expand...
The other larger issue here IMO, is that the GOP has labeled damn near everything Biden has put forth as "socialism".  That sort of rhetoric and incorrect usage of terms is problematic for those like you, jm192 and me because while we understand the differences and can discuss them, there is plenty of "noise" from the "sides" that gets in the way.

 
Glad to see there's actual compromise happening. Still a ways to go though. However once again the GOP wants to push at least some of the cost onto the middle class rather than an increase on corporations/top 1%.

Senate GOP unveils its $928 billion infrastructure counteroffer to Biden — here’s what’s in it

The plan includes:

$506 billion for roads, bridges and major infrastructure projects, including $4 billion for electric vehicles

$98 billion for public transit

$72 billion for water systems

$65 billion for broadband

$56 billion for airports

$46 billion for passenger and freight rail systems

$22 billion for ports and waterways

$22 billion for water storage

$21 billion for safety efforts

$20 billion for infrastructure financing

To reach a deal, the sides would have to resolve not only a gap in the price tag but also differing visions of how to offset the spending. In their counteroffer, Republicans again rejected Biden’s call to raise corporate taxes, contending they could cover infrastructure costs with funds already allocated by Congress or with transportation user fees.

 
I haven't read thru the thread so apologies if this has already been discussed. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c

The engineers' group says the U.S. is spending only half of what it needs to invest in infrastructure improvements just to bring systems up to par, and projects an infrastructure funding shortfall of $2.59 trillion over the next 10 years.

If the country doesn't pay its overdue infrastructure bill, ASCE estimated that the U.S. will lose $10 trillion in economic growth and will lose more than 3 million jobs by 2039.

Sounds like we really need to go bigger if we really are going to get things addressed. And these figures are just to maintain existing, leaving nothing for additions and improvements.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cap'n grunge said:
I haven't read thru the thread so apologies if this has already been discussed. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/03/973054080/potholes-grid-failures-aging-tunnels-and-bridges-nations-infrastructure-gets-a-c

The engineers' group says the U.S. is spending only half of what it needs to invest in infrastructure improvements just to bring systems up to par, and projects an infrastructure funding shortfall of $2.59 trillion over the next 10 years.

If the country doesn't pay its overdue infrastructure bill, ASCE estimated that the U.S. will lose $10 trillion in economic growth and will lose more than 3 million jobs by 2039.

Sounds like we really need to go bigger if we really are going to get things addressed. And these figures are just to maintain existing, leaving nothing for additions and improvements.
Click to expand...
This can has been kicked down the road way too long and now we'll have to pay the price assuming we do it right. Even here in Tampa at the local level, it's clear budgets are barely putting a dent in maintaining roads let alone any "improvements"

 
Osaurus said:
This can has been kicked down the road way too long and now we'll have to pay the price assuming we do it right. Even here in Tampa at the local level, it's clear budgets are barely putting a dent in maintaining roads let alone any "improvements"
Click to expand...
Just think how much money we've wasted over the years on defense. Now I'm a proponent of a strong military deterrance but you really can't convince me that a significant percentage of that money wouldn't have been spent more wisely by investing it here at home.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
I really like that proposal/counter.   Will be interesting to see the response.  
Click to expand...
Team Biden has shown some savvy lately.

This compromise seems on its face pretty hard to argue against. It’s more complicated of course but who is going to say a company should be paying zero taxes. It’s a good, straight forward message.

They also positioned themselves well recently with the Covid / lab escape virus story.

 
Leftists are gonna hate it. Trumpers are gonna oppose it because they have to oppose everything Biden does; they can’t accept his legitimacy. 
Hopefully though, there’s enough of the rest of us to support getting this deal done. 

 
timschochet said:
Leftists are gonna hate it. Trumpers are gonna oppose it because they have to oppose everything Biden does; they can’t accept his legitimacy. 
Hopefully though, there’s enough of the rest of us to support getting this deal done. 
Click to expand...
Have yet to see the Hannity’s of the world reasoning for opposing this.

It’s still early though.

 
timschochet said:
Because it doesn’t raise taxes enough for them, and because it doesn’t spend enough for them. 
Click to expand...
I’m a leftist and I don’t hate it.  It isn’t as much as I would prefer but it’s a big step in the right direction.

I do think the Biden strategy is at least in part to call Republicans’ bluff so that Manchin and Sinema are willing to pass something with 50 votes.  If Manchin and Sinema see the offer as reasonable and the Republicans walk away, the Dems might get them on board to pass something with no Republicans.  No idea how it plays out but I think it’s the right move.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
I’m a leftist and I don’t hate it.  It isn’t as much as I would prefer but it’s a big step in the right direction.

I do think the Biden strategy is at least in part to call Republicans’ bluff so that Manchin and Sinema are willing to pass something with 50 votes.  If Manchin and Sinema see the offer as reasonable and the Republicans walk away, the Dems might get them on board to pass something with no Republicans.  No idea how it plays out but I think it’s the right move.
Click to expand...
OK. I hope most leftists agree with you. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
232
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Did Democrats Transition From Complacent 'Pro-Choice' To No Limit Pro Abortion Extremists? (6/28/22 21:38 PST)
Replies
11
Views
463
jon_mx
J
GordonGekko
The Atlantic: "Democrats Really Are That Dense About Climate Change" (6/23/22 01:00 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
Maggot Brain
Maggot Brain

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top