@LamontCranston Well, we'll see, but that's not the projected outcome.
Fact is, we need to deal with infrastructure or suffer the consequences on an even greater scale than we now do. It's not an existential argument. A little is more than zero and if it's the best that can be managed, then one should take with wins while still forging better paths.
@QuixoticSoul Here is the WSJ summary of the bill: The bill includes $110 billion in funding for roads, bridges and major projects, as well as $39 billion to modernize and make public transit more accessible to the disabled and elderly. Significant chunks of that money will go to major city transit systems, like New York City’s, based on federal funding formulas.
The deal also includes a $66 billion investment in rail maintenance, modernization and expansion, most of which will go to Amtrak. It would also alter Amtrak’s stated mission to focus on “the intercity passenger rail needs of the United States,” rather than turning a profit or at least breaking even, something the system hasn’t done since its creation in 1971. The system is attempting a major overhaul to provide a reliable alternative to flying and driving outside of just the Northeast Acela corridor.
The legislation will provide $11 billion in funding for highway and pedestrian safety programs. A total of $7.5 billion will go to implementing a network of electric-vehicle chargers, and another $7.5 billion will be used for zero-emission or low-emission buses and ferries. Ports and airports will be boosted with $42 billion in new spending.
The group agreed to spend $50 billion to bolster the country’s infrastructure generally against climate change and cyberattacks. Another $55 billion will go toward clean drinking water, and $65 billion will go toward broadband infrastructure and development. The deal invests $21 billion in removing pollution from soil and groundwater, job creation in energy communities and a focus on economic and environmental justice. The legislation will include $73 billion to update and expand the power grid. [i]I'll let you choose what you think is valuable and what isn't.[/i] Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper found that the infrastructure bill would widen the federal budget deficit by $256 billion over 10 years, countering proponents’ claims that the price tag would be covered by new revenue and saving measures.
@QuixoticSoul go to the library and get a copy of the Journal and read how they break it down. Fat everywhere. Bear in mind that this is just [i]federal[/i]money. States spend on infrastructure; regulated utilities spend on infrastructure; private firms (e.g Brookfield Asset Management and pipeline companies) spend on infrastructure.
@LamontCranston [quote]Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper found that the infrastructure bill would widen the federal budget deficit by $256 billion over 10 years, countering proponents’ claims that the price tag would be covered by new revenue and saving measures.[/quote] We wanted to cover the whole thing by raising taxes on the wealthy, but Sinema wouldn’t let us do that.
@LamontCranston Literally all of that is required and infrastructure. I guess if you are one of those who still believes climate change is a hoax you might have a reason to be big mad.
And the US government is not a private corporation so whining about Amtrak not being a cash cow misses the point.
@LamontCranston It’s not a big deal, just some basic investment in our crumbling and obsolete infrastructure. There is nothing to celebrate about the bare minimum, but whining about it just makes no sense.
@QuixoticSoul Your humble correspondent was not whining. $600 billion (a paltry number these days, it seems) would have been just fine. As said above, there is a whole lot of other infrastructure spending at state, local, utility and private levels.
@QuixoticSoul The infrastructure bill was under 2 trillion and I have seen some estimates by actual engineers (not politicians) it will take 5 trillion just to get the US infrastructure up to current standards. And one reason the reconciliation package was important and not just the human infrastructure parts but climate offsets that were needed. Now that and any future efforts are almost certainly DOA because yet again the Democrats caved on any leverage they had with that by passing this for a largely political win. So sure it is better than nothing but largely amounts to kicking the can down the road like everything else.
@LamontCranston My bad. But the same still applies. 5 times as much is needed just to bring everything up to standard. Not 1 trillion.
And the deficit is just an excuse to whine and cry and claim the government can't afford anything. Meanwhile no war since probably WW2 was ever paid for and DOD gets blank checks for double that AFTER a 20 year war ends.
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Interestingly, you've indicated an area of expenditure which needs to be boosted. Or don't you know about China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Jihadism?
@LamontCranston 🤦♂️ Good to know your portfolio is a who's who of American arms dealers.
Literally none of those or even every one of them combined would require the military budget of the US. The US consistently spends more then the next 10 countries combined....and yet have yet to win a war since 1945. DOD has to be the worst ROI in human history.
There is no justification for the current levels of funding and you want to set billions more on fire.
@QuixoticSoul It's next to one of those -stans, right? Kinda tucked in like a Baltic republic...you know, LLE, all in a tight little row...so smug...so tiny...
