Infrastructure

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by bambino

Is Mr Skeptical still around now the ECruiser is back? Or is that Munchies second account?

A bandles bandle?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by bambino

Is Mr Skeptical still around now the ECruiser is back? Or is that Munchies second account?

You still believe that? Like you still believe the dumpster fire should be the president?

Munch isn't a poet. Stop lying to yourself. Don't you know style? (Rhetorical question)

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You still believe that? Like you still believe the dumpster fire should be the president?

Munch isn't a poet. Stop lying to yourself. Don't you know style? (Rhetorical question)

Style is in the eyes of the beholder.

[oeb11]

'things' Done - such as trillions of $ for indoctrination and Pavlov conditioning of humans who used to have the freedom to think for themselves

95 and zeros and ilk - made sure not any more - and how happy could One DPST be about it ?

No more than if all the LSM declared Santa Claus is DEAD.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

What??????

All that is simply gibberish you wrote. 19 of 50 is pretty damned close to half. 38% isn’t far off 50%. But to make you happy how about this. Over a 1/3 of republicans voted for it. Good job Rs.

Now on to the complaining part of your statement, ok, not all 1T is roads and bridges. But that’s the case with every bill that gets passed in Washington, Baton Rouge, Austin or Tallahassee. But it’s an infrastructure bill that’s long needed and as I said, the last president promised infrastructure for like 100 weeks and never got anything done. Not anything.

And in the words of Democrats lately "how are we supposed to get anything done when the "opposition" won't compromise"? Now apply that to what you just said and see if it sinks in even a little.


How the sam hell was the most hated Republican President in history suppose to get anything done, even 800 billion in infrastructure if I remember the Trump number correctly, when Pelosi opposed anything Trump proposed, anything, much like the Democrats claim McConnell does.


You can't be that naive, I would never call you naive, partisan, lie when you need to sure but naive, never.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And in the words of Democrats lately "how are we supposed to get anything done when the "opposition" won't compromise"? Now apply that to what you just said and see if it sinks in even a little.


How the sam hell was the most hated Republican President in history suppose to get anything done, even 800 billion in infrastructure if I remember the Trump number correctly, when Pelosi opposed anything Trump proposed, anything, much like the Democrats claim McConnell does.


You can't be that naive, I would never call you naive, partisan, lie when you need to sure but naive, never.

You’re being too diplomatic. But rules are rules.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And in the words of Democrats lately "how are we supposed to get anything done when the "opposition" won't compromise"? Now apply that to what you just said and see if it sinks in even a little.


How the sam hell was the most hated Republican President in history suppose to get anything done, even 800 billion in infrastructure if I remember the Trump number correctly, when Pelosi opposed anything Trump proposed, anything, much like the Democrats claim McConnell does.


You can't be that naive, I would never call you naive, partisan, lie when you need to sure but naive, never.

Hmmm. I suspect that the non-naive one is you. I don’t even think you intend to say things that are absurd. No one blocked Trump from passing infrastructure on the Dem side but Trump. Hell he had the house and senate for 2 years and only passed a tax cut along Republican Party lines. He could have well pushed infrastructure but he never did in those two years and only gave it lip service in the last 2. He coulda passed it with Dem help but he was too busy whining tweeting and bitching about people not being nice to him.

But you know all this and rather say some disingenuous shit. You are better than what you type.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Hmmm. I suspect that the non-naive one is you. I don’t even think you intend to say things that are absurd. No one blocked Trump from passing infrastructure on the Dem side but Trump.


https://thehill.com/homenews/house/444675-democrats-wary-of-handing-trump-a-win-on-infrastructure


Democrats wary of handing Trump a win on infrastructure



Democrats are growing skeptical about working with President Trump on an infrastructure deal, fearing it would help him score political points as he campaigns for reelection.
While the House Democratic Caucus sees infrastructure as a possible area for bipartisanship with Trump, they don’t want to risk the appearance of business as usual with a president who is stonewalling their probes and all but daring them to impeach him.
The competing interests present a tricky situation for Democrats agitating to hold Trump accountable.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) emerged from a meeting with Trump at the White House in late April saying they had agreed to pursue a $2 trillion infrastructure package.


Pelosi said Trump is talking with Democrats about infrastructure because he wants to show he can get things done. But she argued that it’s precisely what gives Democrats leverage in the talks, because Trump wants something to run on aside from the GOP’s tax overhaul enacted in 2017.
“He needs it, that gives us leverage.


But some progressives clamoring to oust Trump say that working with him on infrastructure is likely to backfire on Democrats.


Billionaire liberal activist Tom Steyer, whose group Need to Impeach is trying to pressure Democrats to start impeachment proceedings, dismissed the infrastructure talks as a “distraction” that probably won’t yield a deal.
“By now, it should be crystal clear that Donald Trump and the Republican Party do not represent good faith partners and do not share the goal of promoting the best interests of the country. A massive infrastructure bill has no chance of clearing a Republican Senate, and this is clearly meant to serve as a distraction from the corruption that has taken root in the White House,” Steyer said in a statement to The Hill.
“Instead of participating in this charade, Democrats should begin impeachment proceedings,” he added.
Yeah, nobody was trying to block Trump

“It would be a bonus if voters come to understand that, even on the infrastructure issue, Trump has a corrupt vision — selling off our roads and bridges to Wall Street and foreign investors who would put up tolls, a nice contrast with progressive priorities like a Green New Deal as we head into 2020.”


Hell he had the house and senate for 2 years


And here we go again with you disengenious disquised as naivete. Trump never had 60 votes in the Senate, without which, as we just witnessed, nothing can be passed. Right or not?


and only passed a tax cut along Republican Party lines. He could have well pushed infrastructure but he never did in those two years and only gave it lip service in the last 2. He coulda passed it with Dem help but he was too busy whining tweeting and bitching about people not being nice to him.

But you know all this and rather say some disingenuous shit. You are better than what you type.

Maybe the most disingenuous, oh hell, LIE, ever told on this board. Trump couldn't pass ANYTHING, period because Nancy Pelosi said no, period and your idea of what level of effort he put into anything, is worthless partisan crap.


And I am exactly who I type. Believe that I believe every word I say and I come to these conclusions, with as you can clearly see, research. I understand the issues as well as anybody on this board. I can make every argument from the right and the left.


I can tell you exactly what Democrats say and don't say about a subject like CRT "It's only an attempt to teach history", which is BS because we have the questionnaires on "checking you're White privilege" and pamphlets that have been produced in classrooms, ones that the children are told not to take home and show your parents.


And I can tell you the exact arguments Republicans make and I can do it on any issue you choose. I'm so versed on this shit, I could make you believe I'm a fan of Ibarm Kendi.

You are better than what you type

Your condescending shit has no bounds.

[eccieuser9500]

U.S. Senate pivots to $3.5 trillion bill, key to Biden's agenda


https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-...et-2021-08-10/

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said that her chamber will not take up the infrastructure bill or spending package until both are delivered, which will require the Democratic leadership to hold its narrow majorities in Congress together to get the legislation to Biden's desk.

"Today we move this country in a very different direction" with a budget plan that will "ask the wealthiest people in our country to start paying their fair share of taxes," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, one of the Senate's most liberal members, said on Tuesday as debate began.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the budget committee, railed against the spending plan, saying it would fuel inflation, lead to higher taxes and energy costs for working Americans and open the border to more illegal immigration.

[1blackman1]

HF I like you, I really do, but damn man what you’re saying gets more nonsensical each time. Sticking to infrastructure Pelosi was the speaker of the house after the midterms. The Republicans had control of the house for the first 2 years. They didn’t need a single Democratic house vote to pass anything until January 2019. Quit acting as if Pelosi had the ability to stop anything for those two years.

Now, no he didn’t have 60 votes in the senate but he only needed to get 7 Dems I believe on board with an infrastructure bill. But guess what, during those two years it never came up. He couldn’t even get Mitch or the house Republicans to write and present a bill. He did pass a tax cut on the 52 votes (I think) and failed to pass a repeal of the ACA with 49 votes. Those were the only two big pieces of legislation that made it to a vote in 2 years.

Nothing even attempting to look bipartisan or even attempting to be negotiated. I won’t call you a liar, blind maybe because of your partisan lense, or more likely caught in the Tucker Hannity Ingraham web of limited information, or hell you could just continue to be being disingenuous, because you’re used to talking circles around the likes of DF, Bambi, Oeb and a few of the other folks that clear less smart than you to put it nicely.

But let’s get real for a sec, Pelosi did not stop Trump from pushing an infrastructure deal in either 2017 or 2018, because she couldn’t, wasn’t possible. Shuemer didn’t either, because he didn’t have to because Trump couldn’t even get Republicans to consider it, at all. If you continue to believe otherwise your recollection is failing you and your research is inept.

Now let’s move to 2019 (because 2020 had a pandemic and the priority rightly changed). Pelosi would’ve passed the infrastructure bill out of the house but the structure Trump discussed was, to put it plainly, stupid. He wanted public private partnerships to do the road and bridges projects. That was DOA. She didn’t block him, she told him no to that structure. He also wanted border wall money, again, he got a no to that. If I recall correctly his plan also wanted to sell and lease additional public lands, again no. I think there was some block granting but I don’t recall the specifics. He was however offered over a trillion dollars maybe upward of two in the standard way govt contracts for building projects without his border wall and I think a DACA fix may have been in there as well (since it was all of a 3-4 day negotiation outta 4 years it’s hard to remember all the details). I even think there was discussions to trade wall money for the DACA fix, but that failed somehow.

In any event, what I do recall is that Trump walked away from the negotiations because Pelosi told him they were still going to open house investigations into him. And that made him have a fit and he threw a tantrum and negotiations essentially ended. Blame Pelosi all you want but she had every incentive to pass infrastructure early in Trump’s term (the political calculus is it would bolster Dems in house elections) but she wasn’t gonna give him a bunch of ill conceived bullshit or shut down investigations.

I’ll reiterate, you’re better than what you write.

[rexdutchman]

Mo MO tax'sss

[eccieuser9500]

“The End of Neoliberalism”: Rep. Ro Khanna Hails “Historic” $3.5 Trillion Budget Plan


https://www.democracynow.org/2021/8/...get_resolution

The budget blueprint passed 50-49, less than 24 hours after a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill was approved 69-30 in the Senate. Both spending packages now go to the House of Representatives, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated she will not bring the bipartisan bill to the House floor unless the reconciliation bill is considered at the same time.

[oeb11]

[Strokey_McDingDong]

Is it odd to do infrastructure at the national level? I would think governors might be incentivized to invest in infrastructure, and the people would vote on it. Guess that's not how it works ...

[oeb11]

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ma...ge-11628690521

Manchin warns of ‘grave consequences’ if Democrats pass $3.5 trillion package



Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on Wednesday voiced opposition to his party’s efforts to pass a $3.5 trillion package, saying he supported a procedural vote on it but worries about Washington “continuing to spend at irresponsible levels.”
Democratic-run Washington is aiming to take a two-part approach to President Biden’s spending plans. First, a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill on Tuesday drew enough votes in the 50-50 Senate to bypass the filibuster, as 19 Republican senators voted with 50 Democrats to approve the measure and send it over to the House of Representatives.
Next, Senate Democrats are working to go it alone to pass a $3.5 trillion package by a simple majority vote through a process known as budget reconciliation. That bigger package calls for massive spending on efforts related to “human infrastructure,” climate change and other Democratic priorities.
The Senate had a procedural vote for that package early Wednesday that was 50-49, along party lines.
“Early this morning, I voted ‘YES’ on a procedural vote to move forward on the budget reconciliation process because I believe it is important to discuss the fiscal policy future of this country. However, I have serious concerns about the grave consequences facing West Virginians and every American family if Congress decides to spend another $3.5 trillion,” Manchin said in a statement.
Democrats need the support of Manchin and other moderate senators in their party in order to advance any legislation, given the Senate is split 50-50 and they only have control of the chamber because Vice President Kamala Harris can cast tiebreaking votes.

Another key moderate Democrat, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, said two weeks ago that she does not support the $3.5 trillion package, though she would support the process of starting consideration of it.
“While I will support beginning this process, I do not support a bill that costs $3.5 trillion,” Sinema said. Progressive Democrats then criticized Sinema, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York tweeting: “Good luck tanking your own party’s investment on childcare, climate action, and infrastructure while presuming you’ll survive a 3 vote House margin.”
As Manchin voiced his opposition, on Wednesday, he expressed concerns about the growing national debt and rising inflation following the U.S. government’s massive spending in response to the COVID-19 crisis.
“Adding trillions of dollars more to nearly $29 trillion of national debt, without any consideration of the negative effects on our children and grandchildren, is one of those decisions that has become far too easy in Washington,” the senator said.
“Given the current state of the economic recovery, it is simply irresponsible to continue spending at levels more suited to respond to a Great Depression or Great Recession — not an economy that is on the verge of overheating. More importantly, I firmly believe that continuing to spend at irresponsible levels puts at risk our nation’s ability to respond to the unforeseen crises our country could face.”


The last two paragraphs are telling

Thank Heavens for One DPST Senator who loves his country and representative democracy.
will 95 and zeros pay attention - likely not able to do so.