• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Biden infrastructure plan

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,634
4,345
126

It's a long list of investments in a variety of sectors. And shocker, actually is proposing a way to pay for it.

Transportation: 621B
Home Care Services and Workforce: 400B
Manufacturing: 300B inc. 50B in semiconductors and 30B in medical devices
Housing: 213B
R&D: 180B
Water: 111B
Schools: 100B
Digital infrastructure: 100B (can we just make a national broadband network already?)
Workforce Development: 100B
VA/Fed: 18B

What do you say, ATPN?
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,960
1,302
126
Since all Republican politicians have signed written pledges never to raise taxes this pretty much insures no GOP will vote for any such bill. OTOH this seemingly well-intentioned pledge has been amazingly destructive to the US government and probably been the number one reason for increasing concentration of income and wealth and well deserves a full frontal attack and debate.

It's going to be a tough thing to achieve but I'm in favor of it in principle (haven't studied the details yet).
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,591
3,733
126
Damn, imagine how quickly we would've gotten it if Joe wasn't so sleepy! Which, we waited what 4 years for Turmp to come up with one, so imagine how long it would've taken if he was as sleep as Joe!

Looks well done. I'm sure you could argue for different allocations, but lots to like there and it lays out a good framework for dealing with climate change and other externalities of that infrastructure.
 
Last edited:

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,740
12,413
136
Since all Republican politicians have signed written pledges never to raise taxes this pretty much insures no GOP will vote for any such bill. OTOH this seemingly well-intentioned pledge has been amazingly destructive to the US government and probably been the number one reason for increasing concentration of income and wealth and well deserves a full frontal attack and debate.

It's going to be a tough thing to achieve but I'm in favor of it in principle (haven't studied the details yet).
The pay for bill will be separate from the spending. Most Republicans will still oppose it though even while working out earmarks for their own districts and then ultimately vote, loudly, against the bill.

They're already being caught touting parts of the last COVID bill they voted against in their districts. Hard to imagine a group of people less serious about governance than the modern Republican Party. It's just insanely cynical.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,810
10,238
136
The $45B to replace all lead pipes in the US is a sneaky amazing piece. I've wanted this to be part of an infra bill for quite some time.
Is it in there? I don’t know if 45 billion will be enough. We need to remove the lead from people’s houses not just the water supply.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,740
12,413
136
Is it in there? I don’t know if 45 billion will be enough. We need to remove the lead from people’s houses not just the water supply.
Yes, money is in the bill and it's likely to be very popular. Lead in the water supply is one of those things we should pay to get rid of no matter the cost, its that bad.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,355
3,834
136

It's a long list of investments in a variety of sectors. And shocker, actually is proposing a way to pay for it.

Transportation: 621B
Home Care Services and Workforce: 400B
Manufacturing: 300B inc. 50B in semiconductors and 30B in medical devices
Housing: 213B
R&D: 180B
Water: 111B
Schools: 100B
Digital infrastructure: 100B (can we just make a national broadband network already?)
Workforce Development: 100B
VA/Fed: 18B

What do you say, ATPN?
GOP - "Federal government should not be doing this. We should instead cut taxes and incentivizes private industry to do all that sort of thing by allowing them to fire gays and not hire blacks while dumping mercury into ground water. By the way, we will compromise if you cut all that and limit funding to projects to in Kentucky, Alaska, Texas, Ohio....and this Church"
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,591
3,733
126
Yes, money is in the bill and it's likely to be very popular. Lead in the water supply is one of those things we should pay to get rid of no matter the cost, its that bad.
I don't think he's saying it shouldn't be done just that $45billion won't cover the issue. Which is right, but once it gets started it should help improve things (establish the assistance, it'll help create an industry for that, which will help figure out costs and set other things that will help make it a longer term thing).
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,740
12,413
136
I don't think he's saying it shouldn't be done just that $45billion won't cover the issue. Which is right, but once it gets started it should help improve things (establish the assistance, it'll help create an industry for that, which will help figure out costs and set other things that will help make it a longer term thing).
I don't know if 45B covers it or not. I suspect it'll be more but not like another 45B. Either way the trade unions are going to be pretty supportive of keeping it going.
 
Feb 4, 2009
31,479
11,875
136
I don't know if 45B covers it or not. I suspect it'll be more but not like another 45B. Either way the trade unions are going to be pretty supportive of keeping it going.
Even in that case think of it as 50% off to de-lead your pipes.
That’s a pretty good value and it isn’t unreasonable to expect the town or cities to pay some money to remove them.
My city has been working on this for about a decade. We are nearly complete today with a few stubborn holdouts.
One junction is at a major intersection that has road work scheduled as of last year but Covid messed that up
Another big one is somehow under a large block of apartment buildings. Why multiple huge brick building were built over a major waterline in the 50s or 60s is beyond my understanding.
The rest are sort of small jobs. I think the figure is excluding the huge apartment complex around a dozen homes serviced by lead or lead fitted lines.

Also I know a lot of the slow startup was due to the city not tracking what had been replaced and what it was replaced with. I think there was a multi year project identifying what’s in the ground and where it is.

Funny how having something shitty makes cities over build replacements. When we got our new waterline in 2019 the pipe coming out of the ground appeared to be about a six inch pipe. New pipe going in was easily eight inches and it was a pipe inside a pipe type design. Engineer told me it some sort of super corrosion resistance type pipe possible it could last 100+ years.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Pohemi420

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
37,740
12,413
136
Even in that case think of it as 50% off to de-lead your pipes.
That’s a pretty good value and it isn’t unreasonable to expect the town or cities to pay some money to remove them.
Just looked and the WH fact sheet indicated the $45B price tag is 100% replacement nationally. Like it. I like it a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyking

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
28,388
14,287
136
I like that he's paying for it by raising corporate taxes. Who benefits from infrastructure more than American corporations? Trump gave them a huge break. Now it's time for them to pony up.
Ding...ding...ding
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY