Bipartisan Infrastructure deal reached

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,372
4,365
1,743
#3
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1408103224817639432
Now we just have to wait for them to pass it, so we can read it. Wonder how much crap that is RENAMED as infrastructure, but isn't, has been put into the bill.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,870
3,954
1,743
#4
I like the details I'm seeing. Hopefully they can garner enough bipartisan support to get it passed.

‘We have a deal,’ Biden says after meeting with Senate infrastructure group
The framework will include $579 billion in new spending, the White House said.
  • $312 billion will go to transportation, with $109 billion invested in roads, bridges and other major projects, $66 billion in passenger and freight rail and $49 billion in public transit
  • Only $15 billion will go toward electric vehicle infrastructure and electric buses and transit, a fraction of what Biden first proposed
  • The plan would put $266 billion into nontransportation infrastructure
  • It includes $73 billion for power, $65 billion for broadband and $55 billion for water
The group proposed various methods to pay for the plan. They do not include an increased gas tax or electric vehicle user fee, which Democrats opposed, or an increase to the corporate tax rate, which Republicans resisted.

The proposal calls to increase IRS enforcement to ensure wealthy people pay the taxes they owe. It also would redirect unused state and local coronavirus relief funds to infrastructure. The framework proposes private-public partnerships and bonds, among a bevy of other potential funding mechanisms.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,484
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#5
Hooray, half a trillion piled on top of our already unsustainable debt. I guess at this point, it doesn't matter, 30 trillion may as well be 300 trillion. Just keep spending until the inevitable collapse, I'll probably be dead and buried by the time it happens anyway.
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,912
2,236
1,743
#6
  • $312 billion will go to transportation, with $109 billion invested in roads, bridges and other major projects, $66 billion in passenger and freight rail and $49 billion in public transit
  • Only $15 billion will go toward electric vehicle infrastructure and electric buses and transit, a fraction of what Biden first proposed
  • The plan would put $266 billion into nontransportation infrastructure
  • It includes $73 billion for power, $65 billion for broadband and $55 billion for water
.
As someone that will receive personal benefit to my pocketbook due to the $65B for broadband spend ---- I can admit and say this is mostly not needed and wasteful spending IMO. Simply put, it is a transfer of money from taxpayers to either large broadband companies or to gold-plate rural broadband.
The original Biden proposal was nearly 4x that so they did cut it slightly.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,870
3,954
1,743
#8
So Biden agreed to a "bipartisan" bill, but he'll only sign it if they pass all of the partisan stuff through a second budget reconciliation bill. :facepalm:

 
Mar 11, 2006
3,912
2,236
1,743
#9
Hooray, half a trillion piled on top of our already unsustainable debt. I guess at this point, it doesn't matter, 30 trillion may as well be 300 trillion. Just keep spending until the inevitable collapse, I'll probably be dead and buried by the time it happens anyway.
Very few people: 1) have an understanding of spending; 2) have even a remote understanding what the lack of fiscal responsibility causes to the future; 3) or care in the least because they feel unaffected

No administration since Clinton has shown any care for fiscal responsibility.
 
Oct 29, 2016
618
298
113
US
#11
Hooray, half a trillion piled on top of our already unsustainable debt. I guess at this point, it doesn't matter, 30 trillion may as well be 300 trillion. Just keep spending until the inevitable collapse, I'll probably be dead and buried by the time it happens anyway.
^^ Don't give this type of proclamation any validation because it's nonsense.

For many, many decades we've all heard that this or that bill will destroy the US if passed, yet here we are. The US still the only superpower. Well, China is certainly well on its way to becoming the second superpower. The same China that is currently (and has been for a decade or two) building new infrastructure as fast as it can. Make no mistake, China is the number 1 threat to the US. And when China is finally finished building its infrastructure, the US' will STILL be in a state of disrepair. Advantage: China, with the big-time lead.

Meanwhile, the US' dilapidated infrastructure continuously crumbles into a state of disrepair. We are the richest country to have ever existed, yet our infrastructure is a disgrace. I give Biden, Dems and the GOP credit for passing new infrastructure spending, but the bill isn't even remotely close to what really is needed. The bill is a bandaid, attempting to stop the entire country's bleeding infrastructure.

It befuddles to no end regarding the utter lack of care regarding an apex of a problem that will eventually doom the US. See: how every superpower in history meet its end.. by allowing their infrastructure to be severely neglected.
 
Aug 16, 2012
2,896
1,325
743
58
#12
I like the details I'm seeing. Hopefully they can garner enough bipartisan support to get it passed.

‘We have a deal,’ Biden says after meeting with Senate infrastructure group
The framework will include $579 billion in new spending, the White House said.
  • $312 billion will go to transportation, with $109 billion invested in roads, bridges and other major projects, $66 billion in passenger and freight rail and $49 billion in public transit
  • Only $15 billion will go toward electric vehicle infrastructure and electric buses and transit, a fraction of what Biden first proposed
  • The plan would put $266 billion into nontransportation infrastructure
  • It includes $73 billion for power, $65 billion for broadband and $55 billion for water
The group proposed various methods to pay for the plan. They do not include an increased gas tax or electric vehicle user fee, which Democrats opposed, or an increase to the corporate tax rate, which Republicans resisted.

The proposal calls to increase IRS enforcement to ensure wealthy people pay the taxes they owe. It also would redirect unused state and local coronavirus relief funds to infrastructure. The framework proposes private-public partnerships and bonds, among a bevy of other potential funding mechanisms.
"Redirect unused virus relief". Ahahaha. That money is gone be it spent on legitimate costs and programs all the way down to funding rent bailouts and million dollar lottery vaccination incentive programs. Unused government funding. No such thing
 
Mar 11, 2006
3,912
2,236
1,743
#13
^^ Don't give this type of proclamation any validation because it's nonsense.

For many, many decades we've all heard that this or that bill will destroy the US if passed, yet here we are. The US still the only superpower. Well, China is certainly well on its way to becoming the second superpower. The same China that is currently (and has been for a decade or two) building new infrastructure as fast as it can. Make no mistake, China is the number 1 threat to the US. And when China is finally finished building its infrastructure, the US' will STILL be in a state of disrepair. Advantage: China, with the big-time lead.

Meanwhile, the US' dilapidated infrastructure continuously crumbles into a state of disrepair. We are the richest country to have ever existed, yet our infrastructure is a disgrace. I give Biden, Dems and the GOP credit for passing new infrastructure spending, but the bill isn't even remotely close to what really is needed. The bill is a bandaid, attempting to stop the entire country's bleeding infrastructure.

It befuddles to no end regarding the utter lack of care regarding an apex of a problem that will eventually doom the US. See: how every superpower in history meet its end.. by allowing their infrastructure to be severely neglected.
I don't think there are many people arguing against investing in the true definition of infrastructure. Biden wanted more than $3T and far-left progressive groups were arguing that gender studies were infrastructure and civil justice was infrastructure.
As I stated above, 7% of the current bill is largely going to go to large companies that are simply getting money straight from taxpayers. It befuddles me to no end that people think reconcillation spending of another $3T is a good idea. The majority of the dollars will NOT go to help real infrastructure
 
Last edited:

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
5,269
2,563
743
35
tractor
#14
Can my county commissioner get an advance? I'm sick of grading my own roads. I'll take a side of that gold plated broadband, my satellite dish is begging to retire.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,484
17,168
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#15
^^ Don't give this type of proclamation any validation because it's nonsense.

For many, many decades we've all heard that this or that bill will destroy the US if passed, yet here we are. The US still the only superpower. Well, China is certainly well on its way to becoming the second superpower. The same China that is currently (and has been for a decade or two) building new infrastructure as fast as it can. Make no mistake, China is the number 1 threat to the US. And when China is finally finished building its infrastructure, the US' will STILL be in a state of disrepair. Advantage: China, with the big-time lead.

Meanwhile, the US' dilapidated infrastructure continuously crumbles into a state of disrepair. We are the richest country to have ever existed, yet our infrastructure is a disgrace. I give Biden, Dems and the GOP credit for passing new infrastructure spending, but the bill isn't even remotely close to what really is needed. The bill is a bandaid, attempting to stop the entire country's bleeding infrastructure.

It befuddles to no end regarding the utter lack of care regarding an apex of a problem that will eventually doom the US. See: how every superpower in history meet its end.. by allowing their infrastructure to be severely neglected.
And it befuddles me to no end the utter lack of care regarding $28+ trillion in debt and growing alarmingly fast. I'm not suggesting that infrastructure isn't a problem, I'm suggesting that the national debt is a bigger one. Our elected leaders should find a way to pay for things the federal government is supposed to pay for, like infrastructure, without adding half a trillion in new spending.....especially when we know from past experience that much of this spending is going to go to special interests, cronies, pork, waste fraud and abuse. Our federal government is broken from a fiscal standpoint, they have zero concept of financial responsibility and they are corrupt to the core...yet we the people keep giving them a pass on it year after year after year. Because half of us think Dem bad and half of us think Rep bad. They're all bad, demand better.....quit finding excuses to excuse kicking the can down the road....make our representatives make the hard choices by cutting spending the federal government shouldn't be doing and applying that spending to things like this..
 
Last edited:
Mar 11, 2006
3,912
2,236
1,743
#16
6 trillion?!

“The Democrats’ two-track strategy has been to consider both the bipartisan deal and their own more sweeping priorities side by side, a way to assure liberal lawmakers the smaller deal won't be the only one.

But Biden’s vow to essentially veto or refuse to sign the bipartisan accord without the companion package being negotiated by Democrats, which is now eyed at nearly $6 trillion in child care, Medicare and other investments, was an additional step that throws the process into doubt”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/key-gop-senators-balk-terms-040136324.html
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,870
3,954
1,743
#17
It sounds like Biden may walk-back his statement that he'll only sign the bipartisan bill if a separate reconciliation bill isn't passed in tandem. We'll see what happens.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/25/biden-infrastructure-bill-496412
White House scrambles to manage fallout of Biden’s ‘tandem’ remarks
Joe Biden said the quiet part out loud and paid a price for it. Reveling in his bipartisan win on infrastructure Thursday, the president declared that he would not sign the deal he’d just endorsed unless a separate bill including his other domestic priorities arrived on his desk, too. Whether deliberate or not, the comment set off a cascade of events in and out of the Oval Office that had aides putting out fires the next day and raised questions about the future of their prized $1 trillion bipartisan deal.

With Republicans threatening to abandon the deal, Steve Ricchetti, one of Biden’s lead negotiators, who a day earlier had been credited by the president for his efforts shepherding the deal, scrambled to contain the fallout on Capitol Hill. Both he and Louisa Terrell, the White House top congressional liaison, told the senators involved in negotiations that Biden was enthusiastic about the deal and would soon hit the road to tout its benefits as well as the merits of bipartisanship. According to two sources familiar with his efforts, Ricchetti told Republicans that the White House was going to clarify the comments.
 
Dec 18, 2019
346
89
78
41
Central Oklahoma
#18
And it befuddles me to no end the utter lack of care regarding $28+ trillion in debt and growing alarmingly fast. I'm not suggesting that infrastructure isn't a problem, I'm suggesting that the national debt is a bigger one. Our elected leaders should find a way to pay for things the federal government is supposed to pay for, like infrastructure, without adding half a trillion in new spending.....especially when we know from past experience that much of this spending is going to go to special interests, cronies, pork, waste fraud and abuse. Our federal government is broken from a fiscal standpoint, they have zero concept of financial responsibility and they are corrupt to the core...yet we the people keep giving them a pass on it year after year after year. Because half of us think Dem bad and half of us think Rep bad. They're all bad, demand better.....quit finding excuses to excuse kicking the can down the road....make our representatives make the hard choices by cutting spending the federal government shouldn't be doing and applying that spending to things like this..
That train left the station a long time ago. Anybody who even mentions the idea of trying spend within our means is labeled as some extremists who wants everyone to die. Don’t yiu know by now the only way to keep people alive is by spending trillions we have to print?
 

steross

he/him
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
31,283
32,420
1,743
oklahoma city
#19
It sounds like Biden may walk-back his statement that he'll only sign the bipartisan bill if a separate reconciliation bill isn't passed in tandem. We'll see what happens.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/25/biden-infrastructure-bill-496412
White House scrambles to manage fallout of Biden’s ‘tandem’ remarks
Joe Biden said the quiet part out loud and paid a price for it. Reveling in his bipartisan win on infrastructure Thursday, the president declared that he would not sign the deal he’d just endorsed unless a separate bill including his other domestic priorities arrived on his desk, too. Whether deliberate or not, the comment set off a cascade of events in and out of the Oval Office that had aides putting out fires the next day and raised questions about the future of their prized $1 trillion bipartisan deal.

With Republicans threatening to abandon the deal, Steve Ricchetti, one of Biden’s lead negotiators, who a day earlier had been credited by the president for his efforts shepherding the deal, scrambled to contain the fallout on Capitol Hill. Both he and Louisa Terrell, the White House top congressional liaison, told the senators involved in negotiations that Biden was enthusiastic about the deal and would soon hit the road to tout its benefits as well as the merits of bipartisanship. According to two sources familiar with his efforts, Ricchetti told Republicans that the White House was going to clarify the comments.
Does anyone really think this was just an "Oops, I didn't mean to say that out loud?"

This is all negotiation tactics. Biden just gave himself a "free" future compromise. He can give up the tandem when some R senator wants to add something and he doesn't really lose anything.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
11,372
4,365
1,743
#20
It sounds like Biden may walk-back his statement that he'll only sign the bipartisan bill if a separate reconciliation bill isn't passed in tandem. We'll see what happens.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/25/biden-infrastructure-bill-496412
White House scrambles to manage fallout of Biden’s ‘tandem’ remarks
Joe Biden said the quiet part out loud and paid a price for it. Reveling in his bipartisan win on infrastructure Thursday, the president declared that he would not sign the deal he’d just endorsed unless a separate bill including his other domestic priorities arrived on his desk, too. Whether deliberate or not, the comment set off a cascade of events in and out of the Oval Office that had aides putting out fires the next day and raised questions about the future of their prized $1 trillion bipartisan deal.

With Republicans threatening to abandon the deal, Steve Ricchetti, one of Biden’s lead negotiators, who a day earlier had been credited by the president for his efforts shepherding the deal, scrambled to contain the fallout on Capitol Hill. Both he and Louisa Terrell, the White House top congressional liaison, told the senators involved in negotiations that Biden was enthusiastic about the deal and would soon hit the road to tout its benefits as well as the merits of bipartisanship. According to two sources familiar with his efforts, Ricchetti told Republicans that the White House was going to clarify the comments.
Does anyone really think this was just an "Oops, I didn't mean to say that out loud?"

This is all negotiation tactics. Biden just gave himself a "free" future compromise. He can give up the tandem when some R senator wants to add something and he doesn't really lose anything.
Unless he really did slip it out and he's made some democrats mad for saying the quiet part out loud..... I mean whispering the silent part out l.... Oh forget it. The guy is weird and I don't think there's anyway to know what he really meant.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk