I agree.
The $3.5T bill includes tax increases that are supposed to generate $2T of tax revenue. Our baseline deficits over the next 10 years are probably over $10T.
Let’s enact all the tax increases in the $3.5T bill, but none of the spending. Use that tax money to pay for the bipartisan bill and make a modest dent in deficits (not in the debt, which will continue to go up, just in how fast in increases).
I’d like to see a few more things fully paid for first.
The people promoting the spending should be able to tell me what they think are the valuable parts. If I have to go search it out, then we don’t need to spend any of it.
Odds are that something will pass.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7291/How-much-spending-in-the-reconciliation-package
Do you expect them to come knock on your door or call you and tell you in person?
Go find one of your reps in Congress who are for it and ask them. I agree, they should be able to articulate what they want to spend it on and why that is important.
You seem to be a proponent of the bills, and your big selling point is safer bridges and roads. Until you’re called out, then you say “well, water and energy too”. When prompted to sell me on the “water and energy too”, you say “look it up yourself if you’re that interested”.
The thing is, I’m opposed to spending that much money in the first place, so if a big proponent of the bill isn’t interested in selling it, I’m not buying.
Of the things on the list I may personally benefit from, I think it is mostly the roads and bridges, as I use those and would like them to be safe. I do not like living in a country where we have a city like Flint where the city water is toxic, or places in the country that experience frequent blackouts, because the energy grid can’t handle the loads. They may not have impacted me personally, but those issues tend to show the US is in decline. They are problems poor countries deal with, not the self proclaimed greatest country on Earth.
Other items - protecting infrastructure against cyber attacks - those will only get worse, and we can’t cripple large portions of our economy when they happen.
If you own a home, you know you need to replace and upgrade things from time to time. When I look at the list in the bill, I see things other countries are fixing and upgrading in their countries, while we sit there and fight over it because of which side came up with the idea. Maybe your roof can hold off being replaced until the next owner takes over. Unfortunately for the country, unless we expect our kids to live in another one, we are passing that on to them to deal with. A bunch of hypocrites we are to point at the baby boomers reaping the benefits of their generation only to pass the buck to the next while we enjoy our low taxes and expect everything to be financed through debt, and kick the can on a host of other problems.
Maybe the list isn’t 100% right. Those things can and should be debated. We don’t need any of it seems to me like a lazy position - government spending is always bad and inefficient. What would the country look like without an interstate highway system? Could it have been done without the federal government?
Roads are your thing, but “only” $500 billion out of $4.7 trillion is for roads.
Did you miss the part where I was focusing on the smaller bill?
I should have just gone with my initial response that you have no interest in being sold on it.
You asked for a more thoughtful response. I provided one. Next time I won’t waste my time.
post…post…post…post…post…post…post…post…post…post…post…post…post
It’s nice to have someone to argue with, but it would be better if you were at least slightly honest.
BTW, I’m annoyed by Manchin/Sinema’s power here. There’s nothing especially ‘wrong’ with them, but nobody elected them to decide everything. Just another facet of our stupidly divided government.
Of which less than half is for roads.
Honest … like talking about all the good things less than half the smaller bill is supposed to pay for as justification for the entire smaller bill (and then when no one’s looking, as justification for the larger one too)?
They have 2 votes out of 100. And of the other 98, 50 don’t want the big bill, but 48 do. Why should 48 get the “power” over 52?
I went well beyond roads and bridges in my comment last night. You are being dishonest focusing on a post from 2 days ago.
Why should I even bother responding to you anymore? You and Ranger can cry about how this forum is a bunch of leftists that treat conservatives unfairly, but you really aren’t giving anyone a reason to engage with you.
In a better country, laws wouldn’t always pass exactly 50/50. Sometimes it would be 60/40 or 70/30 or 80/20, so there would be more space for compromise and less power in the hands of the few.
It’s not just Democrats, I think it’s also silly that Susan Collins had a lot of power.
I like moderates, I just don’t think a couple random senators should be in charge of the country.
No, honest like being a decent friend. I don’t care all that much about this bill. If you want to argue about it, then go right ahead, but it would be nice if you argued honestly.
(And to be fair, sometimes you do argue honestly, as in this post, but often you don’t and it’s simply exasperating.)
Dude, The_President is a proponent of the bill, and his big thing seems to be roads and bridges. When I said “that’s less that half of the smaller one”, he said to go do my own research. For the thing he supports. Tell me (honestly, since that’s what you’re into) why I should go do research to provide backup for the position I’m against? Why isn’t the guy in favor of the bill responsible for backing up every dollar of it?
They’re not in charge, They have their opinions, just like everyone else. Why should their opinion always fit neatly into 1 of the 2-party slots?