Page 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 318

Thread: President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

  1. Top | #1
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    16,217
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    33,046
    Rep Power
    97

    President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

    After Stimulus, Biden to Tackle Another Politically Tricky Issue: Infrastructure - The New York Times - "Strengthening the country’s highways, bridges and broadband networks has broad popular support, but Washington remains bitterly divided on the details."
    President Biden’s two immediate predecessors had ambitious goals to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, but both left office having made little progress in fixing the nation’s bridges, roads, pipes and broadband. President Donald J. Trump announced so many meaningless infrastructure weeks that the term became a running joke of his administration.
    Shows how un-diligent Trump was. He had no followup.
    Unless the parties can agree on how to fund an infrastructure plan, Mr. Biden might have to try to push through another sprawling spending package with only Democratic votes. The task could prove exceptionally difficult given the competing pressures the president will face from centrists and progressives in his party — and the absence of a pandemic emergency to help fuse those factions in support of the bill.

    ...
    Biden administration officials have not decided whether to push infrastructure as a stand-alone bill or as part of a broader package. But any hopes of bringing Democrats and Republicans together on a program are almost sure to be undermined by the same disagreements that have felled previous attempts.

    ...
    The American Society of Civil Engineers has given the country’s overall infrastructure a grade of D+, estimating that a funding gap of more than $2 trillion exists between needs and expected spending by all levels of government over the next decade. And the pandemic has put a spotlight on the poor quality of digital infrastructure in many parts of the United States, as more people are forced to work and attend school remotely.

    Mr. Biden campaigned on a sprawling infrastructure agenda, with trillions of dollars invested in transportation, water and sewer lines, and the scaffoldings of an energy sector that significantly reduces the United States’ carbon emissions, funded by tax increases on multinational companies and high earners.

    The components of the plan poll well — which was not enough for Mr. Biden’s predecessors.
    Obama failed because Republicans didn't want to give him a victory.

    Trump failed because he is easily distracted.

  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,699
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,385
    Rep Power
    91
    Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
    Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.

  3. Top | #3
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    16,217
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    33,046
    Rep Power
    97
    Business groups and many Republicans have expressed a willingness to work with the administration to pass $1 trillion or more in infrastructure spending. Areas of agreement with progressives include spending on highways, bridges, rural broadband networks, water and sewer lines and even some cornerstones of fighting climate change, like electric-car charging stations.

    ...
    “I fear going small,” said William E. Spriggs, the chief economist at the A.F.L.-C.I.O., who has pushed the administration to spend aggressively to promote racial equity across the economy. “If you only do bridges and highways, they don’t generate the same number of residual jobs, and they don’t reach a broader set of workers and address fundamental inequalities.”
    Biden Team Prepares $3 Trillion in New Spending for the Economy - The New York Times
    "A pair of proposals would invest in infrastructure, education, work force development and fighting climate change, with the aim of making the economy more productive."
    President Biden’s economic advisers are pulling together a sweeping $3 trillion package to boost the economy, reduce carbon emissions and narrow economic inequality, beginning with a giant infrastructure plan that may be financed in part through tax increases on corporations and the rich.

    ...
    The $1.9 trillion economic aid package that Mr. Biden signed into law this month includes money to help vulnerable people and businesses survive the pandemic downturn. But it does little to advance the longer-term economic agenda that Mr. Biden campaigned on, including transitioning to renewable energy and improving America’s ability to compete in emerging industries, like electric vehicles. Administration officials essentially see those goals — building out the nation’s infrastructure and shifting to a low-carbon future — as inseparable.

    ...
    Mr. Biden’s advisers plan to recommend that the effort be broken into pieces, with Congress tackling infrastructure before turning to a second package that would include more people-focused proposals, like free community college, universal prekindergarten and a national paid leave program.

    ...
    That plan would spend heavily on clean energy deployment and the development of other “high-growth industries of the future” like 5G telecommunications. It includes money for rural broadband, advanced training for millions of workers, and one million affordable and energy-efficient housing units. Documents suggest it will include nearly $1 trillion in spending on the construction of roads, bridges, rail lines, ports, electric vehicle charging stations, and improvements to the electric grid and other parts of the power sector.

    ...
    The second plan is focused on what many progressives call the nation’s human infrastructure — students, workers and people left on the sidelines of the job market — according to documents and people familiar with the discussions. It would spend heavily on education and programs meant to increase the participation of women in the labor force by helping them balance work and caregiving.
    Republicans might be interested in the infrastructure part, but they don't like the idea of new taxes, especially taxes on their biggest donors.

  4. Top | #4
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    16,217
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    33,046
    Rep Power
    97
    Manchin calls for 'enormous' infrastructure package paid for with new taxes
    Sen. Joe Manchin said Wednesday that he favors a large infrastructure package that would be paid for in part by raising tax revenues — a point of contention between the two parties.

    "I'm sure of one thing: It’s going to be enormous," the West Virginia Democrat, who is seen as a swing vote in a chamber divided 50-50, told reporters at the Capitol.

    ...
    The tax benefits in the Republican law were "weighted in one direction to the upper end," Manchin said. He also suggested an "infrastructure bank" paid for with revenues, potentially a value-added tax, that would be used for "rebuilding America."


    ,,,
    Even Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the most moderate Republicans, sounded skeptical about raising taxes after Biden said they would go up for people making above $400,000.

    “I would not anticipate that it would be well received," Collins told reporters, adding that it was an understatement.
    Sen. Mitch McConnell says that there is no "enthusiasm" for tax increases among Republicans.
    "The Trojan horse will be called infrastructure. Inside the Trojan horse will be all the tax increases," McConnell said. "The only way I think they could pull that off would be through a reconciliation process."

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    4,008
    Archived
    229
    Total Posts
    4,237
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
    Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.
    For bipartisanship to work, both sides need to negotiate in good faith.


  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member TV and credit cards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    muh-dahy-nuh
    Posts
    3,847
    Archived
    174
    Total Posts
    4,021
    Rep Power
    34
    They need to do more than just repealing the 2017 Trump tax cuts. That’s just shoveling a little dirt back in a big hole. That’s not a source of funding. I’d like to see a tax on stock trades.

    They need to get this done now while Pete Buttigieg is heading up DOT. Pete will make sure projects have an eye toward the future judging them on climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging a reduction in miles driven for POVs, benefit underserved communities, are in federally designated community development zones, or apply innovative technology. That’s what Pete Buttigieg will be looking for.

  7. Top | #7
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    32,630
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    75,103
    Rep Power
    100
    Obama was screwed in '09 by the economic crash, and instead of pushing new plans, he was stuck trying to get the nation out of the ditch, though there was ACA. Biden, even with the pandemic, is going all out. The Stimulus bill shouldn't have been a "big accomplishment", but the Republicans are effectively bad guys, so it ended up being an accomplishment to provide aid to most average Americans and small businesses.

    Now he is tackling Infrastructure, something Trump mentioned several times, but never had even a inkling of a plan for it. Biden is OLD school, so he knows the clock is ticking on his first 12 months before re-election fever kicks up for the House and some in the Senate. So he is pushing and pushing hard. The Republicans must be absolutely frightened of this. If he gets an infrastructure bill passed, that'll be another boost to the economy. And assuming hyper-partisan and sociopaths don't fuck the pandemic all up, the economy should be pushing forward well by 2022, meaning it could be a very rare seat pickup for the Dems in the House, and the Senate could also be interesting.

  8. Top | #8
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    2,956
    Archived
    7,585
    Total Posts
    10,541
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
    Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.
    I’d be happily surprised if the Republicans could contribute to sound policy.

  9. Top | #9
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,526
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    18,233
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
    Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.
    Seeking anything from the GQP is an exercise in futility.
    Their party line is to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct, then play along asking for compromises until the clock runs out.
    Fuck McConnell and all the self interested trumpsucking opportunists on the right side of the Senate aisle.
    Schumer/Biden should get rid of the filibuster, give Americans what they want and let Republicans try to take it away from them in '22 and '24.
    Of course you don't want that to happen because you're basically a conservative yourself, and letting Democrats succeed on behalf of Americans is a bad thing for conservatives.

  10. Top | #10
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    32,630
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    75,103
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowy Man View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Good idea in principle but Biden really should seek a bipartisan by-in on the bill.
    Otherwise there is a danger that it will become an ideologically driven bill rather than one based on sound policy.
    I’d be happily surprised if the Republicans could contribute to sound policy.
    The GOP had the House/Senate/White House for 2 years and did nothing on infrastructure.

    I'd love for this to be a bipartisan bill, but to be fairly honest, it is obvious the GOP doesn't give a fuck about the state of our nation, so I'm pretty much done with their existence. If they want a legit seat at the table, I have absolutely no doubt Biden would provide it. He served as senator along side most of their great grandfathers. Until then, fuck 'em. It is time to get things done! Trump passed a tax cut and that was it for him. Biden has 9 months left until the first year is over and the election clock resets, and he knows how all of this works.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •