we may be looking at an addition 6 trillion dollars in spending.

[shortylickens]

Democrats Float $6 Trillion Plan Amid Talks on Narrower Infrastructure Deal (Published 2021)

Democrats are considering moving unilaterally on a sweeping economic package even as bipartisan talks continue on a smaller infrastructure bill.

www.nytimes.com

So yeah, both parties love to raise the national debt. And according to most experts it takes one whole generation to pay off a trillion dollars of national debt.
I am old enough to remember when it was only two trillion, and people were livid about that much.

 

[ivwshane]

Seems like the smart thing would be to continue putting off our infrastructure spending like we have for the last forty years, I mean what could possibly go wrong?

/s

 

[dank69]

Seems like the smart thing would be to continue putting off our infrastructure spending like we have for the last forty years, I mean what could possibly go wrong?

/s

Yup, save those trillions for the banks and airlines. Sheesh.

 

[cytg111]

How about just spending the money and let "conservatives" worry about picking up the bill at some point down the road? Flip the roles so to speak.

 

[Bitek]

I don't know how serious this is versus pressuring gop to work with the smaller bipartisan infra bill.

 

[Mai72]

Print more money!! What could go wrong?

Severe inflation? Pfft.. Lets all live for the moment. Paaaaaarty people. 😀

 

[dank69]

Print more money!! What could go wrong?

Severe inflation? Pfft.. Lets all live for the moment. Paaaaaarty people. 😀

Wasn't a problem when billionaires needed tax cuts so they could afford yachts with smaller support yachts.

 

[K1052]

I don't know how serious this is versus pressuring gop to work with the smaller bipartisan infra bill.

I think the general scheme is to run up the figures on the bipartisan bill by any means necessary then follow on later with a reconciliation package to cover D priorities that won't get any R votes. The plan of course hinges on what the conservative Ds (not just Manchin) will support in that second package. This is the opening bid from Bernie's side.

 

[interchange]

I don't particularly have a problem with floating a transparent spending plan. This particular economic situation in America is a lot different than usual. I'm not sure if spending like this is the way out, but I think fleshing out such a plan is a very good idea regardless. I have a lot more issues with raising the debt significantly during a strong economy while preaching the reverse.

 

[ponyo]

I don't know how serious this is versus pressuring gop to work with the smaller bipartisan infra bill.

yup. Nothing more than standard negotiation tactics. Start with some crazy number so that when you later present your real number, it seems sane and they're more than happy to accommodate you.

 

[compcons]

Democrats Float $6 Trillion Plan Amid Talks on Narrower Infrastructure Deal (Published 2021)

Democrats are considering moving unilaterally on a sweeping economic package even as bipartisan talks continue on a smaller infrastructure bill.

www.nytimes.com

So yeah, both parties love to raise the national debt. And according to most experts it takes one whole generation to pay off a trillion dollars of national debt.
I am old enough to remember when it was only two trillion, and people were livid about that much.

I don't Ike when anyone does it, but as mentioned earlier, I am far less critical when we get something out of it versus simply allowing the ultra wealthy and corporations to throw more money on top of their piles of money.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Seems like the smart thing would be to continue putting off our infrastructure spending like we have for the last forty years, I mean what could possibly go wrong?

/s

Because coming up with an infrastructure plan AND a way to pay for it is SUCH a daunting task!

Also the overwhelming majority of their "plans" have nothing to do with infrastructure. "Free college" isn't infrastructure, no matter how many time you want to keep telling yourself it is.


The reality is they are too pussy to actively put up plans AND be the ones responsible for the tax burden since thats obviously the negative side of things that everyone will see in their paycheck.

 

[ondma]

yup. Nothing more than standard negotiation tactics. Start with some crazy number so that when you later present your real number, it seems sane and they're more than happy to accommodate you.

I doubt Mitch and the rest of the Reps are going to "accommodate" anything the Dems propose. They are laser focused on stopping them from getting anything done so they can make the Dems look bad for the mid terms.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Because coming up with an infrastructure plan AND a way to pay for it is SUCH a daunting task!

Also the overwhelming majority of their "plans" have nothing to do with infrastructure. "Free college" isn't infrastructure, no matter how many time you want to keep telling yourself it is.


The reality is they are too pussy to actively put up plans AND be the ones responsible for the tax burden since thats obviously the negative side of things that everyone will see in their paycheck.

Infrastructure isn't just bridges, roads, water, and sewage

Off the top of my head:
Medical infrastructure - hospitals, research labs, drug manufacturing
Human infrastructure - schools, daycare, physical and mental health facilities, local resource/training centers
Technological/Communications - data centers, telecom centers, broadband lines

And in case you forgot, the original 2.2T plan did call for a way to pay for it. By raising taxes.

 

[Mai72]

Wasn't a problem when billionaires needed tax cuts so they could afford yachts with smaller support yachts.

FACTS. But, that doesn't mean we won't as a society face some serious blowback if we continue to spend and print money. Inflation is going to rear its ugly head I think. By then, it will be too late. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck even in good economic times. What do you think will happen if milk is $4 a gallon? And gas is $6 a gallon...

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Infrastructure isn't just bridges, roads, water, and sewage

Off the top of my head:
Medical infrastructure - hospitals, research labs, drug manufacturing
Human infrastructure - schools, daycare, physical and mental health facilities, local resource/training centers
Technological/Communications - data centers, telecom centers, broadband lines

And in case you forgot, the original 2.2T plan did call for a way to pay for it. By raising taxes.

lol by that logic, just put ANY word before infrastructure, and it's infrastructure!


School lunch infrastructure!
Welfare infrastructure!
Gas pipeline infrastructure!
Media infrastructure!
Travel infrastructure!
Manufacturing infrastructure!
Pest control infrastructure!
Home Improvement infrastructure!

THE POSSIBILITIES ARE EEEEEEEEEEEEENDLESS!!!



And no - while it did contain A tax increase - it was no where remotely close to actually paying for it lol.
Charging $5T to a credit card and offsetting it with a 0.2T credit doesn't mean it's paid for lol.

 

[brycejones]

FACTS. But, that doesn't mean we won't as a society face some serious blowback if we continue to spend and print money. Inflation is going to rear its ugly head I think. By then, it will be too late. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck even in good economic times. What do you think will happen if milk is $4 a gallon? And gas is $6 a gallon...

To be blunt we've been living for 50 years off the infrastructure spending that happened in the 50s and early 60s. It's time to pay up again to enable the next 50 years of economic success. The living paycheck to paycheck issue has NOTHING to do with the debt but everything to do with shitty tax policy and the deliberate destruction of average worker's ability to bargain for a bigger piece of the pie when productivity improves. Just look at people are losing their shit over workers expecting to be paid fairly and treated with respect as hiring picks back up.

 

[ElFenix]

we may be looking at an addition 6 trillion dollars in spending.

good.

 

[soundforbjt]

If we had paid/repaired infrastructure as it was decaying it would've been cheaper. If the U.S. infrastructure was a house it'd be uninhabitable.

 

[ewdotson]

FACTS. But, that doesn't mean we won't as a society face some serious blowback if we continue to spend and print money. Inflation is going to rear its ugly head I think. By then, it will be too late. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck even in good economic times. What do you think will happen if milk is $4 a gallon? And gas is $6 a gallon...

The inflation doomers have been singing their song for more than a few years now. Is it possible that this, *this* time it'll finally happen? It seems likely that we'll at least see some. But the Fed actually has quite a few arrows in its quiver to address inflation and runaway inflation shouldn't be much of a concern at the point.

 

[compcons]

lol by that logic, just put ANY word before infrastructure, and it's infrastructure!


School lunch infrastructure!
Welfare infrastructure!
Gas pipeline infrastructure!
Media infrastructure!
Travel infrastructure!
Manufacturing infrastructure!
Pest control infrastructure!
Home Improvement infrastructure!

THE POSSIBILITIES ARE EEEEEEEEEEEEENDLESS!!!



And no - while it did contain A tax increase - it was no where remotely close to actually paying for it lol.
Charging $5T to a credit card and offsetting it with a 0.2T credit doesn't mean it's paid for lol.

I agree. They should just have pulled a page out of the Republican playbook and called it something truly ambiguous like the "Actually Making America Great Again Plan" or "Republicans are Twats So Here is a Way to Actually Help Americans Plan"

 

[hal2kilo]

Print more money!! What could go wrong?

Severe inflation? Pfft.. Lets all live for the moment. Paaaaaarty people. 😀

I'm old enough, and been around enough to know that hyper inflation is only the boogieman of the uber wealthy. My previously failed corporate leader, Mr. Figgie (ATO Sprinkler, Figgie Intl) wrote a book about it in the 80's.

 

[nakedfrog]

Meh, when the bridges and waterlines fail, it will disproportionately impact the poor, so obviously WGAF? The poor don't pay me for representation.

/s

 

[ondma]

The inflation doomers have been singing their song for more than a few years now. Is it possible that this, *this* time it'll finally happen? It seems likely that we'll at least see some. But the Fed actually has quite a few arrows in its quiver to address inflation and runaway inflation shouldn't be much of a concern at the point.

They may have the arrows; the question is "will they use them?". So far, they really haven't, but that is probably a good thing since the economy needed to be propped up during Covid. As the economy opens up again, though, they may have to. I dont blame Biden alone. We have been flooding money into the financial system (without a concomitant increase in productivity) since the financial collapse at the end of the Bush presidency.

 

[fskimospy]

FACTS. But, that doesn't mean we won't as a society face some serious blowback if we continue to spend and print money. Inflation is going to rear its ugly head I think. By then, it will be too late. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck even in good economic times. What do you think will happen if milk is $4 a gallon? And gas is $6 a gallon...

1) why would wages not rise as well?
2) you realize modestly higher inflation is GOOD for working class people, right?
3) if people want to argue why we are going to see major inflation now they first have to explain why they were wrong all the other times they predicted it and what’s different now.