Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 122

Thread: President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

  1. Top | #31
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    1,054
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    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.
    My understanding is that Biden's initial proposal was to repeal just HALF the Trump cuts, at least on corporations. And he's already backed away from that, trying to keep Manchin on board.

    The filibuster is almost irrelevant, since only 49 Senators are pro-American.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel 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.
    Comedy gold!

  2. Top | #32
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    24,065
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    27,099
    Rep Power
    100
    Attached Images Attached Images
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

    Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we can't satisfy the rich.

  3. Top | #33
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,009
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,381
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post

  4. Top | #34
    Veteran Member TV and credit cards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    muh-dahy-nuh
    Posts
    3,634
    Archived
    174
    Total Posts
    3,808
    Rep Power
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Or you could just look up infrastructure and determine if this is something that keeps a country working effectively. Care of family members in need of care is every bit as necessary as heat and water. Could you leave children and seniors to fend for themselves? Sure. You can also burn wood for heat and fetch water from the well.

  5. Top | #35
    Contributor Trausti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    8,009
    Archived
    372
    Total Posts
    8,381
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Or you could just look up infrastructure and determine if this is something that keeps a country working effectively. Care of family members in need of care is every bit as necessary as heat and water. Could you leave children and seniors to fend for themselves? Sure. You can also burn wood for heat and fetch water from the well.
    Cite one previous infrastructure bill/law - just one of the thousands - that included child and elder care as infrastructure. I mean, if this isn't all bullshit you'd be able to do that easily, right?

  6. Top | #36
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    19,977
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    35,663
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    My understanding is that Biden's initial proposal was to repeal just HALF the Trump cuts, at least on corporations. And he's already backed away from that, trying to keep Manchin on board.
    I think the proposal was to increase the corporate tax rate to 28%, which would make it higher than many other countries.


    The filibuster is almost irrelevant, since only 49 Senators are pro-American.
    So what you are saying is that if a Senator does not support the Biden agenda 100%, they are anti-American?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. Top | #37
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    19,977
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    35,663
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    [stupid tweet by Craig Frizzell]
    Calling everything infrastructure makes the very term meaningless!

    Sure, he may need child care to do his job. He may also need a car. Or a laptop. Does that mean federal government should provide him those things as "infrastructure"?
    He may also need a suit. Does that mean federal government should provide him a few suits as part of "sartorial infrastructure"?

  8. Top | #38
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguous states westernmost - IOW here
    Posts
    14,194
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    32,407
    Rep Power
    63
    No so at all Derec. Biden is calling everything humans need to do as a community to sustain it as a working community infrastructure. So doing is a perfectly rational way of describing such. Just because you know-nothings want to remain in a horse and buggy world gives you no right to constrain Biden from legitimately doing so. This is reinforced by the popularity among us with Biden's call to action. Time for Horse-and-Buggy Luddites to discover bullet rail not just bullets.

  9. Top | #39
    Veteran Member TV and credit cards's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    muh-dahy-nuh
    Posts
    3,634
    Archived
    174
    Total Posts
    3,808
    Rep Power
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Trausti View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post

    Or you could just look up infrastructure and determine if this is something that keeps a country working effectively. Care of family members in need of care is every bit as necessary as heat and water. Could you leave children and seniors to fend for themselves? Sure. You can also burn wood for heat and fetch water from the well.
    Cite one previous infrastructure bill/law - just one of the thousands - that included child and elder care as infrastructure. I mean, if this isn't all bullshit you'd be able to do that easily, right?
    I need to cite precedent of the nation caring for it's children and elderly as part of infrastructure in the past to justify it doing so in the future? I don't think I do. I don't think every future act requires past guidance for justification. This is why I suggested considering the definition of infrastructure.
    Infrastructure is the set of fundamental facilities and systems that support the sustainable functionality of households and firms. Serving a country, city, or other area, including the services and facilities necessary for its economy to function.

    Will government providing for these costs benefit the economic activity of the nation? Yes. Further, child and elder care do not equate to a suit, laptop, or POV as Derec suggests. Child and elder care are costs that sap the productivity of the nation by leaving jobs unfilled. If you want a nation to sustain two income households, you need to free up that second person to earn. Momma's not going to go take a $11 an hour retail job when $8 has to go to child care. And elder care? Forget about it. If grandma and grandpa didn't enter their golden years with a pot of gold, they are relying on their children to care for them until such time as physically lifting them out of bed becomes a necessity.

  10. Top | #40
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,784
    Archived
    4,183
    Total Posts
    6,967
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    [stupid tweet by Craig Frizzell]
    Calling everything infrastructure makes the very term meaningless!

    Sure, he may need child care to do his job. He may also need a car. Or a laptop. Does that mean federal government should provide him those things as "infrastructure"?
    He may also need a suit. Does that mean federal government should provide him a few suits as part of "sartorial infrastructure"?
    There needs to be a special online Democrat dictionary, where regular folk who are "not in the know" can look up the intended meaning of their words and phrases. For example, "infrastructure" or "defund the police". Of course, all such words should be known and established in the lexicon ahead of time, otherwise its gives the impression that the word meaning was disingenuosly modified to fit a particular narrative. Just a suggestion.

Posting Permissions

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