Infrastructure

Redblooded

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,267
8,221
113
As I look at it the Democrats I believe will have to go it alone to get what needs to be done to do the job right. Right now the funding is 1.2 Trillion which may not be bad but is a little lower than I think is needed, but all the things in the bill do not do enough for the working people, and the countries' needs. We can do better by going with a bill the democrat's latest proposal. Not the first proposal the Democrats started with. That was too much. Common sense needs to happen here, not politics. It is a matter of doing what is right for the country. Building back the country spread over the next 8 to 10 years.
 

Redblooded

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,267
8,221
113
Common sense spending on infrastructure will never happen, especially when the two sides can't even agree on what infrastructure is.

The political elite will just print money and throw it away.
You may be right on government spending, but if we are going to put the money into this lets do this right, and not pet projects for politicians in their district. Limit pork spending. We are going to need to spread this out over a period of 8 to 10 years to make this financially viable.
 

Redblooded

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,267
8,221
113
How do you do this when the two sides can't agree on what infrastructure is? What ever bloated bill they pass will be absolutely wasted.
There will always be a certain degree of waste in any administration. There is another way I think the democrats have to go alone, because we are wasting time arguing what is infrastructure. They will not agree. But the two sides talking have eliminated some things from the bill that the house had stuck in there. The moderate Democrats won't let this go crazy. They are controlling the common sense somewhat.
 

JOHNNY N

Athletic Director
Sep 24, 2003
16,094
25,472
113
There will always be a certain degree of waste in any administration. There is another way I think the democrats have to go alone, because we are wasting time arguing what is infrastructure. They will not agree. But the two sides talking have eliminated some things from the bill that the house had stuck in there.
Fvck it. Print more money and throw it away.
 

Wils97

First Team All-Big Ten
Gold Member
Jun 24, 2006
3,507
9,072
113
Omaha, NE USA
Let’s go for it.
We have no trouble spending huge money on unnecessary wars and bloated defense budgets.

Ask yourself what is the benefit of defense spending if we are defending a country of potholes, corroded bridges, crumbling schools, outdated power grids, vulnerable online targets, and so on…
 

Redblooded

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,267
8,221
113
Let’s go for it.
We have no trouble spending huge money on unnecessary wars and bloated defense budgets.

Ask yourself what is the benefit of defense spending if we are defending a country of potholes, corroded bridges, crumbling schools, outdated power grids, vulnerable online targets, and so on…
We do need this badly. We have put this off too long and now it is a big money ticket.
 

JOHNNY N

Athletic Director
Sep 24, 2003
16,094
25,472
113
Looking for a way to pay for this with out printing money may happen. Probably not all of this bill will be paid for but that is why you spread the cost over 8 to 10 years.
Lofl. You give the political elite too much credit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaemekon

Redblooded

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,267
8,221
113
We have to have technological infrastructure for obvious reasons due to the hacking of our systems by rogue individuals. We also are in competition with China and right now. China is a head of us in the technology for future.
 
Last edited:

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,689
38,503
113
How do you do this when the two sides can't agree on what infrastructure is? What ever bloated bill they pass will be absolutely wasted.
This is a pretty valid point though I think pubs need to realize that infrastructure is so much more than roads and bridges now.

It has to include modern technology and infrastructure to support a new transportation era and power supply infrastructure that's way different.

Maybe to some extent they acknowledge that, but not enough.
 

auski

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
5,845
6,474
113
You may be right on government spending, but if we are going to put the money into this lets do this right, and not pet projects for politicians in their district. Limit pork spending. We are going to need to spread this out over a period of 8 to 10 years to make this financially viable.
Your right. Infrastructure is roads, bridges, airports, and water ways. It should be limited to that.
 

auski

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
5,845
6,474
113
This is a pretty valid point though I think pubs need to realize that infrastructure is so much more than roads and bridges now.

It has to include modern technology and infrastructure to support a new transportation era and power supply infrastructure that's way different.

Maybe to some extent they acknowledge that, but not enough.
The extra stuff you mentioned can be part of another bill.
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,403
20,393
113
Your right. Infrastructure is roads, bridges, airports, and water ways. It should be limited to that.
you are a fvcking idiot, rural America wouldn't have electricity if that was the case
 
  • Like
Reactions: HUSKERinLA

Hail Varsity

Offensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Jul 17, 2001
8,375
4,733
113
As I look at it the Democrats I believe will have to go it alone to get what needs to be done to do the job right. Right now the funding is 1.2 Trillion which may not be bad but is a little lower than I think is needed, but all the things in the bill do not do enough for the working people, and the countries' needs. We can do better by going with a bill the democrat's latest proposal. Not the first proposal the Democrats started with. That was too much. Common sense needs to happen here, not politics. It is a matter of doing what is right for the country. Building back the country spread over the next 8 to 10 years.
I'd love to see a bipartisan solution for infrastructure. If the two sides can't agree on this, I'm not sure what they can agree on. It's a win/win at every level, especially generating jobs in local districts.

Personally, I think the bill size is about right or could be even a bit smaller. We don't have to eat the whole apple right now and $1 trillion isn't chump change. Based on the scope of the bill, it's plenty to do traditional infrastructure (about $400 billion) and then add new elements of needed infrastructure, i.e., protecting our electrical grids, broadband, technology upgrades and protections, etc. These are all basic 21st century needs.

I agree with others that pork should be trimmed from this bill as there will be plenty of local economic stimulus from the infrastructure work. I'm also not a fan of the $400 billion in the original bill focused on Medicaid for the young and elderly. If it's needed, put it into a a piece of social services legislation, not bundled here.

As for how to pay for it, I'm increasingly concerned about our mounting deficit. Regarding this bill, I'm okay with raising the corporate tax to 28%, which is still less than the 35% it had been for at least a decade before 2016. I'm also supportive of closing loopholes for the very wealthy and taxing the $400K and above class. The deficit grew under Trump by a couple trillion before COVID, and with COVID and additional Dem spending initiatives, we could be looking at almost half of our federal budget going to "debt service" annually in the near future. That's not sustainable and I don't want the US to be so leveraged by loan commitments to Japan and China that we lose our status in the world and compromise our economic strength.
 

Bobfather

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Oct 6, 2002
14,638
7,531
113
50
There will always be a certain degree of waste in any administration. There is another way I think the democrats have to go alone, because we are wasting time arguing what is infrastructure. They will not agree. But the two sides talking have eliminated some things from the bill that the house had stuck in there. The moderate Democrats won't let this go crazy. They are controlling the common sense somewhat.
What moderate democrats?
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,403
20,393
113
I'd love to see a bipartisan solution for infrastructure. If the two sides can't agree on this, I'm not sure what they can agree on. It's a win/win at every level, especially generating jobs in local districts.

Personally, I think the bill size is about right or could be even a bit smaller. We don't have to eat the whole apple right now and $1 trillion isn't chump change. Based on the scope of the bill, it's plenty to do traditional infrastructure (about $400 billion) and then add new elements of needed infrastructure, i.e., protecting our electrical grids, broadband, technology upgrades and protections, etc. These are all basic 21st century needs.

I agree with others that pork should be trimmed from this bill as there will be plenty of local economic stimulus from the infrastructure work. I'm also not a fan of the $400 billion in the original bill focused on Medicaid for the young and elderly. If it's needed, put it into a a piece of social services legislation, not bundled here.

As for how to pay for it, I'm increasingly concerned about our mounting deficit. Regarding this bill, I'm okay with raising the corporate tax to 28%, which is still less than the 35% it had been for at least a decade before 2016. I'm also supportive of closing loopholes for the very wealthy and taxing the $400K and above class. The deficit grew under Trump by a couple trillion before COVID, and with COVID and additional Dem spending initiatives, we could be looking at almost half of our federal budget going to "debt service" annually in the near future. That's not sustainable and I don't want the US to be so leveraged by loan commitments to Japan and China that we lose our status in the world and compromise our economic strength.
Thank God China has a fvck ton of debt piling up also and great post
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,403
20,393
113
What moderate democrats?
Socialist welfare queen says more than yawn

T1bl.gif
 

Redblooded

Athletic Director
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
16,267
8,221
113
I'd love to see a bipartisan solution for infrastructure. If the two sides can't agree on this, I'm not sure what they can agree on. It's a win/win at every level, especially generating jobs in local districts.

Personally, I think the bill size is about right or could be even a bit smaller. We don't have to eat the whole apple right now and $1 trillion isn't chump change. Based on the scope of the bill, it's plenty to do traditional infrastructure (about $400 billion) and then add new elements of needed infrastructure, i.e., protecting our electrical grids, broadband, technology upgrades and protections, etc. These are all basic 21st century needs.

I agree with others that pork should be trimmed from this bill as there will be plenty of local economic stimulus from the infrastructure work. I'm also not a fan of the $400 billion in the original bill focused on Medicaid for the young and elderly. If it's needed, put it into a a piece of social services legislation, not bundled here.

As for how to pay for it, I'm increasingly concerned about our mounting deficit. Regarding this bill, I'm okay with raising the corporate tax to 28%, which is still less than the 35% it had been for at least a decade before 2016. I'm also supportive of closing loopholes for the very wealthy and taxing the $400K and above class. The deficit grew under Trump by a couple trillion before COVID, and with COVID and additional Dem spending initiatives, we could be looking at almost half of our federal budget going to "debt service" annually in the near future. That's not sustainable and I don't want the US to be so leveraged by loan commitments to Japan and China that we lose our status in the world and compromise our economic strength.
I am with you on most of this. I am thinking 1.5 trillion is about what will have to be to do all of this. Bipartisan group agreed on 1.2 which may work if they can get the additional stuff paid for, that you listed. It is a shame that they waited so long that the bill got so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelsonj22

Bobfather

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Oct 6, 2002
14,638
7,531
113
50
There are two senators Krysten Sinema from Arizona, and Joe Manchin of West Virgina will not let the progressives go to far. They have the deciding votes in the Senate.
So 2 demoRats out of 270 elected demoRats in DC are between Lenin and Stalin yippeee!!!!!
 

nelsonj22

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2014
19,403
20,393
113
No they don't and no my family has not Comrade Commie!
So you have never cashed a govt subsidies or other check. Never had the govt pay for a percentage of a project on your land ect?

And yes they do 100% they helped pay for fencing and seed to rotational graze cattle 3 miles from my house.

They also pay for tiling and dirt work, all socialist programs.
 

Latest posts