Senate passes bipartisan infrastructure bill — but what comes next won't be easy
Democrats must keep their own party in line as they attempt to move the infrastructure bill forward in the House.
The Senate passed its bipartisan infrastructure plan Tuesday after months of fractious negotiations among lawmakers and the White House — but the path ahead may be just as torturous.
Now Democrats must keep their own party in line as they attempt to move the infrastructure bill forward in the House, where it will eventually be paired with a $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation package loaded with their party’s climate, health and social priorities. Because of the way reconciliation works, Democrats won't need any Republican votes for that huge bill — but they will need every Democratic senator's support.
At the moment, though, backers of the bipartisan deal are in a mood to celebrate.
“Rarely does federal legislation directly address issues that matter to all our constituents,” Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), the infrastructure deal’s primary Democratic negotiator, said in a victory lap on the Senate floor before the final vote. “How many times have we heard in recent months that bipartisanship isn’t possible anymore?”
She said the bipartisan bill and its $550 billion in new spending would not only create jobs and fix crumbling infrastructure. It would also prevent power outages, help more people gain access to fast internet service, protect against wildfires and more.
On the other hand, signs of rising partisan friction were not hard to find.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), another of the deal’s main architects, called the bill “a lasting achievement” that “will improve the lives of all Americans” − but still spent most of his floor speech on the legislation blasting reconciliation as a partisan “tax and spending extravaganza.”
Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), one of the original 11 Republicans to sign onto the bipartisan bill, voted against it in the end because it will add to the debt.
The House poses its own set of questions.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she won't bring the infrastructure bill to a floor vote until the Senate also passes the reconciliation bill, a process that could take months. That bill would include other Democratic priorities such as climate change, child care, elder care and housing but is unlikely to significantly boost other transportation priorities already included in the bipartisan deal, despite some progressives' wishes to the contrary.
The Senate is already getting the ball rolling on the reconciliation process, releasing a $3.5 trillion budget resolution on Monday that they hope to pass as soon as Thursday. The budget framework instructs a slew of committees to draft their pieces of the reconciliation proposal by Sept. 15.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday that the reconciliation bill "will do more to combat climate change than any legislation ever, ever in the history of the Senate." Republicans, though, have slammed it as a “reckless tax and spending spree.”
The eventual reconciliation package will be able to pass the Senate with a simple-majority vote, so Democrats can move it without any GOP support. But all 50 Senate Democrats would need to vote for it, including party-bucking mavericks Sinema and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).
Complicating matters is the fact that the federal government’s existing transportation programs are due to expire at the end of September, just 10 days after both chambers of Congress are likely to be back in town at the same time. The infrastructure bill would renew those programs for five years — but lawmakers will probably need to pass a short-term extension first.
Lawmakers had hoped to avoid such an extension, as short-term funding patches make it hard for states to plan.
Still, Democrats are keeping their composure. At an appearance Monday with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg in his home state of New Jersey, Rep. Tom Malinowski struck a confident tone.
“I’ll just say categorically, this is going to pass the House,” he said. “It’s going to pass the House with overwhelming Democratic support.”
He acknowledged the political hurdles and the complicating factor of the budget reconciliation bill, but said: “Basically, we have several planes up in the air, trying to come in for a landing in stormy weather, and we have air traffic controllers — our leadership in the House and the Senate — that are going to bring those planes down. I’m not sure what order, or exactly when, but I’m absolutely certain the House will pass this infrastructure bill.”
Passage of the bill follows months of bipartisan efforts that started almost immediately after Congress passed President Joe Biden’s top priority upon coming into office: a massive Covid relief bill. Attempts to negotiate with a group of Republicans headed up by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia collapsed in June, and a bipartisan group of moderates led by Portman and Sinema took up the mantle. The effort appeared to fall apart several times before the group finally came out with legislative text last week, overcame a series of procedural holdups and disagreements over amendments and timetables and managed to pass a bipartisan bill.
Theoretically, the House could decline to take up the bipartisan Senate bill as written and instead take it to a conference committee to be melded with a larger, more liberal surface transportation and water infrastructure bill sponsored by House Transportation Chair Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). But White House officials have privately cautioned Democrats against going the conference route, saying they would risk delaying or blowing up the deal.
A leadership aide told POLITICO on Monday that “the House schedule remains fluid and conversations regarding the [bipartisan infrastructure bill] are ongoing.“
U.S. Senate turns to $3.5 trillion bill, key to Biden's agenda
WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - The Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed a massive infrastructure bill and immediately kicked off debate on a $3.5 trillion spending blueprint for President Joe Biden's key priorities on climate change, universal preschool and affordable housing.
The bipartisan $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which the 100-member chamber passed in a 69-30 vote, could provide the nation's biggest investment in decades in roads, bridges, airports and waterways.
U.S. stocks headed to fresh records on the news. read more
With a razor-thin majority in the Senate, Democrats pivoted quickly to a budget resolution containing spending instructions for the multi-trillion-dollar follow-up package. They plan to push the package through over the next few months, using a process called "budget reconciliation," which bypasses the chamber's normal rules requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation.
House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said that her chamber will not take up either the infrastructure bill or the 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 said on Tuesday as debate began.
Sanders, one of the Senate's most liberal members, added, "The American people are sick and tired of growing income and wealth inequality in our country where two people now own more wealth than the bottom 40%."
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 on working Americans and open the border to more illegal immigration.
"This is why we have elections," Graham said, referring to next year's contests that will determine control of Congress. "In 2022, this idea will be on the ballot, and my goal and my Republican colleagues' is to fight like hell."
The Senate on Tuesday began a "vote-a-rama," a process that gives senators the opportunity to propose amendments to the budget resolution. Debate can run for days unless party leaders agree to a shorter period.
INFRASTRUCTURE WIN
Polls show that the drive to upgrade America's infrastructure, hammered out over months by senators from both parties, is broadly popular with the public. The bill includes $550 billion in new spending, as well as $450 billion in previously approved infrastructure investment.
"Big news, folks: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal has officially passed the Senate," Biden said on Twitter. "I hope Congress will send it to my desk as soon as possible so we can continue our work of building back better."
Once the budget resolution is adopted, Democrats will begin crafting the reconciliation package for a vote on passage after they return from their summer break in September.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week said the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill passed on Tuesday would increase federal budget deficits by $256 billion over 10 years -- an assessment rejected by negotiators who said the CBO was undercounting how much revenue it would generate.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted for the infrastructure bill, signaled that Republicans would try to use the vote-a-rama to erode support from moderate Democrats for what he called a "radical" larger spending plan that he said would create a permanent welfare state and usher in the largest peacetime tax hike in U.S. history.
"Every single senator will be going on record over and over and over," McConnell added. "We will debate, and we will vote, and we will stand up, and we will be counted, and the people of this country will know exactly which senators fought for them."
The budget plan would provide various Senate committees with top-line spending levels for a wide range of federal initiatives, including helping the elderly get home healthcare and more families afford early childhood education.
It also would provide tuition-free community college and foster major investments in programs to significantly reduce carbon emissions blamed for climate change. read more
Later, Senate committees would have to fill in the details for scores of federal programs.
When Congress returns in September, it will not only debate the large investment measures but have to fund government activities for the fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1, increase Washington's borrowing authority and possibly try to pass a voting reform bill.
The progressive bill might be excessive, but excessive for the poor might be necessary at this point. So I'm good with any amount being spent to make working people's lives a little better.
It would be awesome if someone would list the dollars spent, on what, and where, and why.
Face it, none of congress has read it - they just know their little (or big) piece of the pie is in it. R's, D's, I's.
It's all a show. Media covers it as some huge accomplishment. Next thing you know, congress people will be back home bragging about how much money they brought their constituents. Gotta get re elected, you know.
It would be awesome if someone would list the dollars spent, on what, and where, and why.
Face it, none of congress has read it - they just know their little (or big) piece of the pie is in it. R's, D's, I's.
It's all a show. Media covers it as some huge accomplishment. Next thing you know, congress people will be back home bragging about how much money they brought their constituents. Gotta get re elected, you know.
It would be awesome if someone would list the dollars spent, on what, and where, and why.
Face it, none of congress has read it - they just know their little (or big) piece of the pie is in it. R's, D's, I's.
It's all a show. Media covers it as some huge accomplishment. Next thing you know, congress people will be back home bragging about how much money they brought their constituents. Gotta get re elected, you know.
Hey, your boy had a chance to get it done. Instead he passed out tax cuts to the super wealthy and sat on his fat orange arse when it came to infrastructure… healthcare… releasing his taxes… At least Biden gave it more than lip service.
Thanks. What I was really looking for - and it will never be available, I know - was how much pork is in the bill. And if you've followed congress and bills, there is so much pork in the bills they pass it's un real. This one will be no different. I guess that's partly why it's 2700 pages long, with footnotes, and references, and totally unreadable.
Shoot, the congress people don't even read it. They just want assurance their pet projects are in it.
Thanks. What I was really looking for - and it will never be available, I know - was how much pork is in the bill. And if you've followed congress and bills, there is so much pork in the bills they pass it's un real. This one will be no different. I guess that's partly why it's 2700 pages long, with footnotes, and references, and totally unreadable.
Shoot, the congress people don't even read it. They just want assurance their pet projects are in it.
You're not wrong. You're not wrong at all.
I'm old and jaded enough to know how stuff works in the 202. That fat will always hang off any bill or package that gets passed. That said, I have to also say this: anything, however inefficient or laden with grift, has got to be better than what we have now. What was it- 8 years ago?... a bridge in MN collapsed during rush hour.
I don't like it any more than you do. We come from the same ethos: honest pay for honest goods/services. That's how it's supposed to be. To a certain degree, it is- in almost every facet of our lives... but not politics.
That's why it's so infuriating to all of us, from one day to the next. The only thing that changes is the headline of the day- and which camp is outraged by the latest news cycle. Spin/rinse/repeat.
____________________
IMO, I think America needs to make a big investment in its future right now. 50 years ago would have been ideal, but that ship sailed long ago. I had hoped that we'd done it at the turn of the century, but that ship sailed long ago, too. I look at it this way: America's infrastructure is 1999-2018 Cleveland Browns: Slap-dash, built on an ancient foundation, held together with spit, chewing gum, bailing wire... and luck.
I'm going into this with eyes wide open. I know there's gonna be a lot of stuff in this package I'm gonna absolutely hate. And other parts that will make me go, "Whuuuut?"
But as long as the beginnings of infrastructure get started, I'll look at pork as "the cost of doing business." For me, what's more important is that we don't just keep on doing nothing.
Not one single path forward is ever gonna be perfect. But some path forward has GOT to be better than no forward pat at all.
I'm willing to try another path. And I'm willing to put my tax dollars behind that effort.
Thanks. What I was really looking for - and it will never be available, I know - was how much pork is in the bill. And if you've followed congress and bills, there is so much pork in the bills they pass it's un real. This one will be no different. I guess that's partly why it's 2700 pages long, with footnotes, and references, and totally unreadable.
Shoot, the congress people don't even read it. They just want assurance their pet projects are in it.
Submit a FOIA request. We have submitted FOIA requests for several projects. You'll receive specs, email correspondence, plans, 65% design submitals, 95% designs and engineered calculations, up through 100% design submission.
Also, included will be contract award total, competitive bids, contractor payment and performance bonds backed by the Dept.of Treasury.
Google is a useful tool. If used other people wouldn't have to do your homework for you. But I can see you need the help, so....
The package calls for $550 billion in new spending over five years.
Transportation
Roads, bridges, major projects: $110 billion Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion Public transit: $39 billion Airports: $25 billion Port infrastructure: $17 billion Transportation safety programs: $11 billion Electric vehicles: $7.5 billion Zero and low-emission buses and ferries: $7.5 billion Revitalization of communities: $1 billion
Other infrastructure
Broadband: $65 billion Power infrastructure: $73 billion Clean drinking water: $55 billion Resilience and Western water storage: $50 billion Removal of pollution from water and soil: $21 billion
How would they pay for it?
The package would be financed through a combination of funds, including repurposing unspent emergency relief funds from the COVID-19 pandemic and strengthening tax enforcement for cryptocurrencies. While negotiators said that the cost of the plan would be offset entirely, the Congressional Budget Office predicted it would add about $256 billion to projected deficits over 10 years.
I think the devil is in the details. If one looks at it, the bill only actually approves an additional 550 billion to what has already been approved previously. So while our infrastructure spending will total 1.2 trillion, only 550 billion of it is new.
Quote:
A bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday finally reached an agreement on the key details of a sweeping infrastructure bill that includes $550 billion in new spending.
That's very interesting and brings up a logical set of circumstances.....
If we're moving from gas powered vehicles to electric vehicles, the current gas tax will fund less and less of our highway and road maintenance. There hasn't been an increase in the federal gas tax since 1993. We all know it costs much more now to repair our roads per mile than it did in 1993 so we're already losing ground in that department and have been for some time now. When you combine that with the fact that vehicles have become much more fuel efficient since 1993, it's a situation that has formed the perfect storm as to why our highway infrastructure has gotten so bad an in such disrepair.
So there is no doubt that continuing the use of a federal gas tax is not going to work moving forward. There is 7.5 billion going toward building electric charging stations which will make EV's even more practical and many auto makers have announced a major increase in EV models coming out.
So somehow they had to come up with a new method to make up for the loss in gas tax. I think this may be a practical solution in addressing that issue.
A strict 'mileage tax' leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but the gas tax amounts to more or less the same thing... I guess.
Still, I would be really bummed (to put it nicely) to realize my master plan of a Tesla Model Y coinciding with a solar panel and power pack just to get taxed on my mileage anyway.
Then you have to ask the question, how are they going to fund the highway system?
I see it much the way I see the state tax system. Here in Tennessee there is no state income tax. They just get that money in a different way. They tax all food. When you go to the grocery store they tax everything you buy. So in effect every person who eats contributes to the tax base of our state. Rich, poor or otherwise, you pay your share. Does that seem fair to a family of five who have an income of 45k? Maybe not, but everyone contributes.
An EV already saves you a ton on fuel and the overall maintenance costs appear to be much lower. A lot less moving parts. I really didn't think you would be one who felt driving an EV should exclude you from paying your fair share of the maintenance of the very highways you drive on and use.
There are certainly some I would expect that from however.
Yeah, that's what I was starting to get at with the first statement in my previous post. If the only thing I have issue with is the 'packaging' of how I contribute to maintaining roads, then it's probably not much of an issue at all.
As for the original argument... repurposing 'rona dollars to something other than response right now doesn't seem to be the savviest move. And prior to that, it doesn't address the issue of pork. A response to pork spending that includes "it's ok, more than half of the money is just diverted funds from other stuff like Coronavirus relief" doesn't really inspire a lot of confidence.
No, it's not a tax because they called it a fee. The bill does not specify that this is only for electric vehicles.
From the bill: PER-MILE USER FEE.—The term ‘‘per-mile user fee’’ means a revenue mechanism that— (A) is applied to road users operating motor vehicles on the surface transportation system;
Knowing how the government works, I wouldn't put it past them to make us pay a gas tax and a per mile user fee.
No, most of us really don't. We're just not ready to convict them based on nothing. There's a difference. That's why there's so many conspiracy theories floating around. The "I think, I feel and I believe" crowd might wish to put the brakes on once in a while.
A strict 'mileage tax' leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but the gas tax amounts to more or less the same thing... I guess.
Still, I would be really bummed (to put it nicely) to realize my master plan of a Tesla Model Y coinciding with a solar panel and power pack just to get taxed on my mileage anyway.
I have the same master plan.
I sometimes wonder if you and I are actually the same person posting from two different dimensions.
No, most of us really don't. We're just not ready to convict them based on nothing. There's a difference. That's why there's so many conspiracy theories floating around. The "I think, I feel and I believe" crowd might wish to put the brakes on once in a while.
Using text from the bill itself is nothing? Is a conspiracy theory?
Again, from the bill:
Quote:
OBJECTIVES.—The objectives of the pilot program are— (A) to test the design, acceptance, implementation, and financial sustainability of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee; (B) to address the need for additional revenue for surface transportation infrastructure and a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee; and (C) to provide recommendations relating to the adoption and implementation of a national motor vehicle per-mile user fee
Enlighten me. Where in the objectives does it state this will only apply to electric vehicles?
Also note item B. It states additional revenue. Not a replacement for gas tax revenue. This will be in addition to all other taxes we pay.
Quote:
TOOLS.—In selecting the methods described in subsection (c)(1), the Secretary shall coordinate with entities that voluntarily provide to the Secretary for use under the pilot program any of the following vehicle-miles-traveled collection tools: (A) Third-party on-board diagnostic (OBD-II) devices. (B) Smart phone applications. (C) Telemetric data collected by automakers. (D) Motor vehicle data obtained by car insurance companies. (E) Data from the States that received a grant under section 6020 of the FAST Act (23 U.S.C. 503 note; Public Law 114–94) (as in ef4 fect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act). (F) Motor vehicle data obtained from fueling stations. (G) Any other method that the Secretary considers appropriate.
Note item F above. Fueling stations. Another indication this will apply to all vehicles. If this was meant to be a revenue stream for electric vehicle owners, that would have been specified in the bill.
A strict 'mileage tax' leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but the gas tax amounts to more or less the same thing... I guess.
Still, I would be really bummed (to put it nicely) to realize my master plan of a Tesla Model Y coinciding with a solar panel and power pack just to get taxed on my mileage anyway.
Gas taxes are a big portion of the money used to maintain roadways, bridges, etc. At least in theory.
I would be against all of these electric and hybrid car drivers driving down the road tax free. Going to a mileage based taxation seems to be the only way.
How it is collected will be the key. Currently we are on a pay as you go system. Collecting on mileage won't be simple. We can forget the honor system.
Do we just set a standard tax you pay when you get your tag renewed, then have a annual adjustment up or rebated at the end of the year? Probably more like quarterly.
How and who enforces that? Local and state police? Bad idea.
More toll roads?
It will probably be quarterly stamps on your tags where drivers have to go through a undermanned tax station at the DMV to have mileage verified and stamps issued and fees collected at that time. People who drive gasoline, diesel powered vehicles won't have to go through that process since they pay as they go at the gas station.
That or maybe electrics pay at the charging station. People with home charging stations will have to have them on separate, monitored meters that collect the tax as they charge.
Those electric vehicles are going to get a usage tax slapped on them one way or another. People who already own them will probably owe some sort of back tax. Those cars are being used and helping to wear down our roads and bridges without out paying road taxes.
OK...probably no back tax, but we need to insist those folks start paying one way or another ASAP. They should be paying in to the road maintenance pool.
Pffffft. The miles-driven fee idea is really just a dastardly plan to get camera equipped GPS devices into every vehicle, so the government knows everywhere you go. Then they can also sell that data to bring in even more revenue. Plus these devices would be a convenient place to install remote detonation units or amplifiers for vehicle control takeover stations, so that "accidents" can be staged to dispose of dissenters.
They often do a lousy job allocating the money they have. I don't think more money solves the problem if they continue to waste it. Investing in infrastructure sounds great, but the devil is in the details. They'll probably put in millions of random roundabouts that idiots don't use properly.
You crack me up. Everything you quoted is nothing more than looking into how this would be accomplished. There is nothing, I repeat nothing in the bill that mandates any of these measures into law. As you even admitted yourself....
Quote:
Another indication this will apply to all vehicles.
An indication and your beliefs do not and did not make any of these measures a law. They are simply measures to see how they could work. An exploratory experiment when looking towards the future.
The corporations that are obviously gonna control the electric grid are gonna make a crap ton of money the more EVs get in the road.
Tax them an extra 1% every 5 years and call it a day.
The problem is states need the gas tax as well. States with lower populations, such as Nevada count on drivers passing through and filling up.
Maybe all EV have a annual tag they have to renew that costs them a few hundred bucks.
Based on say 25,000 miles a year....seems like a good average.
If a person averages say 26MPG total, that is about 960 gallons of gas used per year. A quick look showed the average state and federal gas tax is .47 per gallon. That is basically $450 each driver pays per year in gas tax.
Somehow EV drivers will need to pay a similar amount in tax to keep equal dollars flowing.
Simple fix: stop calling it a 'gas tax,' and start calling it a 'usage fee.'
I've always had no problem with paying a gas tax. I pay for everything else I use in life, whether purchased from public or private sources. If I switch to an EV, I'll still be using the roads. It's only right that I should pay my way like everyone else.
I carry my share of the load without complaint. I do my share with no complaint.
Besides, my primary goal of driving an EV is to reduce my carbon footprint. My yard working gear is all electric. I've never owned a gas lawn mower or string trimmer. My yard work is quiet, efficient, and doesn't stink of partially-burnt hydrocarbons.
My father and Uncle (a truck driver) used to go round and round over who should pay for roads. Father's point would be that Trucks (semis) do the most damage to the roads, so most of the burden should fall on those businesses that ship their goods.
My uncle being a trucker believed that roads helped everybody, and everybody should pay the same (cutting the amount a shipping business would pay if it were all on them).
I think trucks do cause more damage too, but I see no way of passing that on without some sort of shipping tax which in the end would still hit everyone... except those that don't buy shipped items or buy less. That would be a fairer distribution of the costs if we want a true USE tax. A flat rate for all with license plates, then a shipping tax to carry 2/3s of the upkeep expense.
You really think they will conduct this pilot and then not apply it to all vehicles? Taking peoples money is what the government does. Making people with ICE vehicles pay a gas tax and fee per mile is something the government will do. Punish people for having an ICE vehicle in hopes they will go EV. It will happen.
I think they will adapt to one system of taxing vehicles. That's the reason this is being looked into. A way to adapt a usage tax on our highways that creates a situation to where as we change over to EV's we have a taxation system fair to owners of both types of vehicles. That will end up being a usage tax based on mileage for all vehicles. Not double dip on gas vehicles. This really isn't complicated. But then again I'm not looking for some conspiracy theory around every corner.
I think trucks do cause more damage too, but I see no way of passing that on without some sort of shipping tax which in the end would still hit everyone... except those that don't buy shipped items or buy less. That would be a fairer distribution of the costs if we want a true USE tax. A flat rate for all with license plates, then a shipping tax to carry 2/3s of the upkeep expense.
You may wish to take a look at this. It's been around for a long time.
Was not aware of that tax, thanks. Like I said it was between my dad and uncle a long time ago. Heck it might have been when this was being debated for all I know. Thought about that conversation briefly many times since then but never put a second into researching it.
I've never really heard truckers who work for trucking companies discuss it. But owner operators go on about it all the time. They certainly cause more road damage due to their weight and the miles they log.
Simple fix: stop calling it a 'gas tax,' and start calling it a 'usage fee.'
I've always had no problem with paying a gas tax. I pay for everything else I use in life, whether purchased from public or private sources. If I switch to an EV, I'll still be using the roads. It's only right that I should pay my way like everyone else.
I carry my share of the load without complaint. I do my share with no complaint.
Besides, my primary goal of driving an EV is to reduce my carbon footprint. My yard working gear is all electric. I've never owned a gas lawn mower or string trimmer. My yard work is quiet, efficient, and doesn't stink of partially-burnt hydrocarbons.
In the end that is probably want will happen, at least in the long term. It's what they do over the next 10 years that will be a concern.
I have little doubt that EV's will eventually supplant ICE vehicles. The question to be answered is how soon?
Look at internet sales and tax collections. It's still a mess even though it is way past the point of not discouraging internet sales. Something needs to be done about that.
The 7.5 billion for bolstering charging stations will certainly be helpful with that.
Shouldn't that be the job of private business??
Are these charging stations going to be state run or are we building them for some private business?
Is that money for R&D or in the form of tax breaks for business to move forward. I can buy in to that to a degree. I don't know if $7.5 billion is a good number or not.
I would think the feds gave some sort of incentive to companies like Comcast to string wire and AOL to build platforms to host the net.
I guess my question is how is the 7.5 billion going to be awarded? The details is what counts.
I don't know. They've been subsidizing the coal, oil and gas industry for decades now. Agriculture subsidies, healthcare subsidies and the list goes on.
I guess it depends if you think the government should spend money on helping develop a more efficient energy sources to help save the planet or not. I haven't noticed you carry on about spending government money on those other things or ask if they are going to be state run.
Give me 7.5 billion, I'll spend every cent putting in charging stations across the country and then reap the profits from the charges to hook up and charge.
I like the concept, but I'd really like to know what stipulations there are in getting the money. Like you said, Comcast probably got subsidies to run internet lines, and then they profit heavily to supply the product to the consumer.
So it's no problem giving subsidies to oil and gas but now that it's renewable energy you're suddenly concerned?
One, you will never find were I ever said anything about subsidies for oil and gas.
Two, I've never liked giving subsidies to profitable business without stipulations. There should be a trade off, if you're taking taxpayer money, there should be a benefit to the taxpayer, otherwise, use your own profits to pay for it.
Same goes for grants to pharmaceuticals, and such.
If you dig deep enough, you might even find in the past where I mentioned that I think Electric, Gas and Water, and maybe internet, should be government run co-ops to provide the basic necessities to everyone at a fair price. That price basically covering the service and the costs to maintain/repair services, non-profit.
I think we actually agree to a point. Where I think we differ is in terms of investing in new technology. New technology is an area where I believe you either advance in the world or fall behind. It's more so an investment in the future of your economy than an investment in a business. We are already well behind China in terms of EV's. It's not even close.
It's sort of like investing in college. Here in Tennessee high school graduates get two free years of college. Yes, free to them, not free to everyone.
Now one can perceive that into funneling tax money into educational institutions. Tennessee, who is heavily red sees it as an investment in bringing high paying jobs to the state and helping the states economy long term. You must have an educated populace to attract and fill those jobs in order to attract those jobs. If we as a nation plan to advance the future of our job market, we must also invest in the future to accomplish the same goal.
That's how I see the advancement of EV's. It's an investment in the future of our economy. I certainly understand how people may view it differently.
If you dig deep enough, you might even find in the past where I mentioned that I think Electric, Gas and Water, and maybe internet, should be government run co-ops to provide the basic necessities to everyone at a fair price. That price basically covering the service and the costs to maintain/repair services, non-profit.
Another area we should dump some money-even if it is seed money or money for site remediation-is in production of necessary items this country needs that we shouldn't be getting from third world countries but are-like medicine or semiconductors-
I saw a short video this morning about the chip shortage for 5g and automobiles-and the analyst doing the video says among other issues that we have to wait for older technology to get back into production in areas like South Korea-because we can't count on China anymore because they are on purposedly holding back sending some chips to the US because they are still po'd at the trump tariff.
Electric vehicle charging stations: $7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations, with a focus on highways and routes that connect rural and disadvantaged communities. The good news? It’s the first-ever US investment in EV chargers. The bad news is it’s only half of what President Joe Biden wanted in order to build a national network of 500,000 charging stations.
I also know from seeing some bid requests coming in-there are lots of requests at least in PA and Ohio right now for EV charging projects in state parks and at municipal buildings with parking decks or larger surface lots.
I certainly won't disagree with you there. On the chip shortage there is already some good news. It doesn't help our current situation but is a good sign for the future...
Intel is spending $20 billion to build two new chip plants in Arizona
Do we really need a fully-fleshed out charging network? I understand not everyone (especially renters) will have the ability to get a good charging setup where they live, but many people can and will. We don't need as many charging stations as we do gas stations as a large portion of EV drivers will do 90+% of their refueling at home.
No. But we need to inspire confidence to a consumer base that is used to gas stations on every corner. I think the govt is firm in their stance of "build it and they will come"... we'll see to what extent that is true over the next decade or so.
Start by installing them in every interstate rest area and turnpike comfort center. That would form the spine of our infrastructure.
Build out from there.
I think this is the right approach. Govt buildings (parking lots, etc) parks, muni public parking areas. From there we may find that our only hurdle is rural areas.
Another area we should dump some money-even if it is seed money or money for site remediation-is in production of necessary items this country needs that we shouldn't be getting from third world countries but are-like medicine or semiconductors-
I saw a short video this morning about the chip shortage for 5g and automobiles-and the analyst doing the video says among other issues that we have to wait for older technology to get back into production in areas like South Korea-because we can't count on China anymore because they are on purposedly holding back sending some chips to the US because they are still po'd at the trump tariff.
When did the greatest country in the would become so dependent upon other countries? We really need to become self dependent augmented by the production of "stuff" from other countries.
Another area we should dump some money-even if it is seed money or money for site remediation-is in production of necessary items this country needs that we shouldn't be getting from third world countries but are-like medicine or semiconductors-
I saw a short video this morning about the chip shortage for 5g and automobiles-and the analyst doing the video says among other issues that we have to wait for older technology to get back into production in areas like South Korea-because we can't count on China anymore because they are on purposedly holding back sending some chips to the US because they are still po'd at the trump tariff.
When did the greatest country in the would become so dependent upon other countries? We really need to become self dependent augmented by the production of "stuff" from other countries.
When we became controlled by greedy corps and shareholders that will outsource toilet paper to save 5 cents.
Airports. That is one of the major hurdles for me to consider a full EV. I either need a reliable 300+ range or easy access to charge in the airport lot.
I drive to Fort Lauderdale for flights, due to availability. It's 130ish miles each way, with regular traffic issues due to accidents. I don't want to have to stop once I get back into town and charge up before heading home across the Alley, 80 miles of nothing but Everglades and 1 Indian, err Native American Reservation, gas station.
Wonder if the airport Long Term lot could have a mobile charging vehicle, that goes around based on a reservation system, and does a quick charge the morning of your arrival? hmmm.
Airports. That is one of the major hurdles for me to consider a full EV. I either need a reliable 300+ range or easy access to charge in the airport lot.
I drive to Fort Lauderdale for flights, due to availability. It's 130ish miles each way, with regular traffic issues due to accidents. I don't want to have to stop once I get back into town and charge up before heading home across the Alley, 80 miles of nothing but Everglades and 1 Indian, err Native American Reservation, gas station.
Wonder if the airport Long Term lot could have a mobile charging vehicle, that goes around based on a reservation system, and does a quick charge the morning of your arrival? hmmm.
All airports should have train service as well. I dislike having to get a car or Uber/Lyft.
Do we really need a fully-fleshed out charging network? I understand not everyone (especially renters) will have the ability to get a good charging setup where they live, but many people can and will. We don't need as many charging stations as we do gas stations as a large portion of EV drivers will do 90+% of their refueling at home.
I agree. A lot of people think of them like gas stations, but really, the business model will probably end up being more like ATMs. If you own a business or parking area, you will buy a charging station that is tied into some sort of payment network. Electricity is everywhere, so there is really no need for large scale infrastructure deployment. The bigger problem is making the business model work, because, like you said, most people are going to charge at home 90% of the time or more.
Do we really need a fully-fleshed out charging network? I understand not everyone (especially renters) will have the ability to get a good charging setup where they live, but many people can and will. We don't need as many charging stations as we do gas stations as a large portion of EV drivers will do 90+% of their refueling at home.
Yes. Not everyone driving around town is a local. My drive to go skiing is 250-300 miles round trip. An EV will not make that in a single charge. There's people that take road trips and vacationers that will need a place to charge that is not their home.
Actually many of the new models of EV's meet or exceed 300 miles on a single charge. As you state that certainly won't help long range vacation travelers or people who drive long range. But exceeding 300 miles on a single charge will certainly help eliminate the vast majority of obstacles the average driver will face.
Do we really need a fully-fleshed out charging network? I understand not everyone (especially renters) will have the ability to get a good charging setup where they live, but many people can and will. We don't need as many charging stations as we do gas stations as a large portion of EV drivers will do 90+% of their refueling at home.
Yes. Not everyone driving around town is a local. My drive to go skiing is 250-300 miles round trip. An EV will not make that in a single charge. There's people that take road trips and vacationers that will need a place to charge that is not their home.
Unless you plan on getting a Porsche or high end Audi EV, Tesla EVs will more than make a trip like that.
Like MPG, these ranges are likely under ideal circumstances. What happens when you load up the car for a road trip? Two other factors in my case with the ski trips: 1. Cold. Batteries drain faster in the cold 2. Altitude. I'm going up hill. I gain about 5,000 feet of elevation on my drive.
I get less than the posted mpg in my current car making these drives. I would expect to get less than the posted distance on a charge in an EV.
by the way, there are entire communities and message boards dedicated to outdoor living with EV's, especially here in america.
the information has been out there for some time now. you're either choosing to be ignorant to maintain some anti-EV narrative, or seriously need to look outside of your normal scope of information sources.
Makes sense. As with most things as the technology advances I would say the ranges will increase. There are a few models that reach well over 300 miles per charge but they are very high end models that would not be a practical alternative for the budget of most consumers at this point in time.
I never said an EV couldn't make the drive. Whats being discussed is can EV make the drive I make on a single charge? I pointed out factors of winter driving that will reduce the distance an EV can go on a single charge. Your site even states EV will get shorter range in the cold.
Your site talks about planning routes with charging stations. I'm talking about making a drive with no charging stations.
Right but that’s no different than a car getting less range when it’s packed full of people with luggage.
And then on top of that, when in this discussion, I’m thinking about resorts in Colorado or something that does have charging stations. Not at the resort itself, but the surrounding area. Especially because if it’s a ski resort, then you aren’t actually driving around that much until you leave.
Last time I was in Colorado, I saw Model X’s all the time. Apparently they can pull it off. So it’s strange why you can’t.
See, this is the problem overall with these sort of discussions on anything.
Y’all will spend all day everyday coming up with every excuse why you or “we” as a country can’t do something, and very little on what we’re actually capable of doing.
Listening to some of y’all, sounds like you plan on making the move to Hungary with your boy tucker.
I mean damn, at least bring up the cost to buy a functional EV for your needs. I can at least sympathize with that.
But when you start talking about lack of capabilities for your needs when there’s clearly stuff available for your needs, then I have to really question intent.
And that’s with overall infrastructure as well. Y’all keep saying we can’t do something. Well what the hell CAN we do?
Now while the AWD X model isn't outrageous in price that's still a hefty price tag for the average buyer. Once you upgrade to the other two models it simply puts the price out of range for most people by a pretty good stretch.
I mean it "can be done" but as with every technology as it develops those prices will come down.
In 2020 the average price of light vehicles sold to consumers was $37,876. Almost a full 10k less than what the cheapest of these long range Tesla models sell for.
As I said, as the technology advances and EV's become more popular, more modest priced EV's will match or exceed these parameters. But as of now I think practical consumers working within their budget see this as an obstacle.
Like MPG, these ranges are likely under ideal circumstances. What happens when you load up the car for a road trip? Two other factors in my case with the ski trips: 1. Cold. Batteries drain faster in the cold 2. Altitude. I'm going up hill. I gain about 5,000 feet of elevation on my drive.
I get less than the posted mpg in my current car making these drives. I would expect to get less than the posted distance on a charge in an EV.
The fact is they aren't good for road trips or renters.
The numbers of people who choose to rent and not buy homes is growing at a fast pace.
Actually many of the new models of EV's meet or exceed 300 miles on a single charge. As you state that certainly won't help long range vacation travelers or people who drive long range. But exceeding 300 miles on a single charge will certainly help eliminate the vast majority of obstacles the average driver will face.
You can throw those ranges in the garbage for real life driving.
If you drive 70 to 75 MPH you lose about 15 percent of that range.
Driving into the wind will reduce that range.
Payload can reduce that range.
Tire traction can reduce that range. Gee none of us drive in the rain or snow
Cold weather can reduce that range by 12 percent when it's 20 degrees outside.
You lose about 2 percent of battery life every year, so after 5 years the range is going to drop about 10 percent.
Now sit down and hold onto your hat. If we want to turn on the heat while driving in the winter the range can drop by 41, yes that's forty one percent.
I’ll just place this here as more proof that trump is a complete and utter failure with everything with his name on it. Thank God he never got around to building bridges or we’d all be screwed.
Trump's Border Wall Torn Apart by Arizona Monsoon Rains Record monsoon rains have blown floodgates off their hinges as Trump's border wall breaks down.
“ It turns out ignoring bedrock environmental laws may not have been the best choice for a multibillion-dollar construction project. Photos show former President Donald Trump’s border wall in deep disrepair after summer monsoon rains literally blew floodgates off their hinges.
The damage took place near San Bernardino Ranch, a historic site that sits between Douglas, Arizona, and the San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge. Much of the West is suffering through a deep megadrought, but the monsoon rains that have swept across parts of the Southwest this summer have doused the southern half of Arizona with record-setting rains. Douglas has seen nearly double its average monsoon season rainfall so far, including a blast that came through on Monday and unleashed flooding on the Arizona-Sonora border. The National Weather Service data shows 2.15 inches (5.5 centimeters) of rain fell, which in turn funneled into washes and drove flooding.
José Manuel Pérez Cantú, the director of the nonprofit Cuenca de Los Ojos, said in an email that six gates were washed out at this location alone. Other gates were also reportedly impacted by the heavy rainfall and flooding. The power and height of the waters can be seen in not just the heavy gates ripped open but the debris that wrapped around intact portions of the wall.
Who could have predicted this? Ah yes, just about everyone.
“I will build a great wall—and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me—and I’ll build them very inexpensively,” Trump said when he announced his run for president in 2015. “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.”
Mexico did not, in fact, pay for the wall, which led former Trump to declare a national emergency so he could funnel money from other federal projects and programs to build the wall. Nor was the wall inexpensive, costing the public billions in overruns. It was, however, chintzily built.
In the rush to build the wall, Trump sidelined environmental and cultural protection laws. Those laws are meant to protect the natural world and historically significant artifacts and sites. But they also serve the purpose of ensuring multibillion-dollar construction projects don’t face catastrophic failures within a few years of being built.
Much of the work was outsourced to private companies that raked in billions, including Southwest Valley Constructors, which did most of the work in Arizona. The company pulled in $2.7 billion in federal contracts and has faced lawsuits from private landowners who claim explosions tied to construction sent “car-sized boulders” onto their land. (There are also multiple OSHA complaints against the company, which is a whole other issue.) The location near San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge is one of a growing number of chinks in the rushed wall. Another section in Texas where levees were destroyed has left hundreds of thousands exposed to catastrophic flooding.
“It’s clear that these were not companies that really were taking the long term integrity of the product into account,” said Myles Traphagen, the borderlands program coordinator of the Wildlands Network. “The sad thing is that it was overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps has a long and illustrious history... Taking off the environmental hat, when you’re building dams, the snail darters die out and salmon are affected. However, the bottom line is that there is an economic net gain by society ... whereas the border wall is a complete suck of money. We don’t benefit by any of that.”
It remains to be seen what the future holds for the wall. President Joe Biden has put a construction moratorium in place. Still, Trump managed to get 452 miles (727 kilometers) of wall built. That has created an environmental catastrophe for one of the most fragile ecosystems in North America, a place where the wildlife from the tropics, desert, and mountains mingle. Images captured during construction of iconic saguaros being razed as well as numerous environmental impact statements laid the risks bare, and Traphagen described camera trap photos his group has taken documenting everything from rare jaguars to common javelinas pacing along the wall in search of a way around.
The severe floods may have given them a passageway near San Bernardino. And the monsoons—which have become more intense due in part to the climate crisis—could rip further parts of the shoddily constructed wall asunder. But it’s clear that there’s a need for a much deeper reckoning and remediation.
“It’s not often that an ecologist can actually put a time stamp on the day that the evolutionary history of an area was sealed off,” Traphagen said. “Step number one [to reversing course] is to open up the gates where they exist and to remove sections of border wall in places where they’re having the greatest impact to species’ movement and migration.”
Those contractors are lucky if they even got paid. They better be glad they weren't building a Casino known as the Taj Mahal. Well, formerly known as I should say. Of course when your credit is so bad you have to build a casino on loans from high interest junk bonds things like that will happen I guess.
As per your article. Is that what they mean by opening the flood gates? No, that couldn't be it because this isn't a wall at all. It's a fence.
Couple things I see in the article, one they mention the flood waters were high, based on the debris left up against the posts. Which would mean 2-3 feet of water. The areas destroyed are gates, meaning they are not permanently fixed to the structure and would be the weakest points.
Then as we've just seen in Tennessee, a 2-3 wall of water will rip a house off the foundation.
So while this damage would be concerning, when I take those variables into consideration, and that in the photo the wall itself looks fine, just the gates ripped open and pulled from their hinges, I begin to think the writer is taking liberties and trying to create a bigger story than it is.
DOUGLAS, Ariz. (AP) — Several metal flood gates in the newly built section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall in easternmost Arizona were ripped off their hinges last week by flooding from unusually heavy monsoon rains, authorities say.
A spokesman for the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector confirmed Monday the gates were open last week when water from the historic rainfall rushed through the Douglas area near the San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge in Cochise County. He said a Border Patrol team is currently assessing flood damage along the wall.
An official with Customs and Border Protection said authorities planned to repair the damage.
Flood gates are located in areas along the border to prevent boulders, branches and other debris from building up during rains. Border Patrol agents typically open the gates when major rainfall is expected.
“The rainfall this year is far above normal,” said forecaster Aaron Hardin of the National Weather Service office in Tucson.
He said so far the Tucson area has seen about 11.8 inches (30 cm) of rainfall, compared with about 1.6 inches (4 cm) during the current monsoon season that began June 15 and runs through Sept. 30.
I’ll just place this here as more proof that trump is a complete and utter failure with everything with his name on it. Thank God he never got around to building bridges or we’d all be screwed.
When they are using phrases like "double the amount of normal rainfall" and "historic rains".. it's pretty easy to understand that there will be damage. Nothing man has ever built will survive if nature roars loud enough.. just a fact.
And we have built hundreds of bridges using federal money during the Trump administration.. so I would suggest you might want to stay home if that scares you.
When it comes to your bridge comment you may wish to consider the overall picture here. During every administration there is money spent on infrastructure which includes bridges. That however is nothing close to what he claimed he would do. Your claim seems to be, "Well he didn't stop building bridges".
In order to actually address the bridge crisis in this country a total infrastructure rebuild is and was needed. It appeared that not only he but his supporters understood that. Something we were told he would do. Rather than propose a federal infrastructure bill with any validity, his proposal was to shift much of the cost of that proposal off to the states and cities.
Now we can certainly debate whether printing money is a good idea or not. I don't think our opinions would be vastly different on that level. But what I think we can both agree on is that cities and states can't print money. There is no logistical way that states and cities could have taken on the financial burden that was being proposed.
It was pretty much a proposal that in reality wasn't a federal infrastructure bill at all. Just a grifters way of making it appear he made an effort.
Trump infrastructure plan seeks to shift funding burden to states
The bridge comment was more a dig at donny for his lack of a real infrastructure bill.
Hard to have a bill for something for which you don't have a plan.
I just read the numbers on the current infrastructure bill and, having done construction all my adult life, realize how truly little construction work this will get done. It will help, don't get me wrong, but people who think this will bring an end to potholes, speed up their commute, or replace all coal fired plants are just fooling themselves.
For example, there is $40 billion for bridge repair and replacement. They are replacing the 301 bridge over the Potomac River that connects MD to VA right now, it's about a 1.7 mile project and the current cost is half a billion, final will likely be three quarters of a billion... So build/replace one nice bridge in every state, spread out across the country, and that money is gone. And that wouldn't leave anything to fix older bridges that are decaying..
While you are correct that this bill alone will not solve the entire problem it seems you decided to use an example in one situation that you aren't mentioning in the second situation.
Remember all those bridges you credited Trump with? That was based on what was the current infrastructure spending. This bill is in addition to the current infrastructure spending. So it's like all the bridges Trump was building with the current infrastructure spending plus 40 billion MORE for bridges.
For example, there is $40 billion for bridge repair and replacement. They are replacing the 301 bridge over the Potomac River that connects MD to VA right now, it's about a 1.7 mile project and the current cost is half a billion, final will likely be three quarters of a billion... So build/replace one nice bridge in every state, spread out across the country, and that money is gone. And that wouldn't leave anything to fix older bridges that are decaying..
That, or use all of it to only repair/replace the Brent Spence bridge here in Cinci (a newer bridge that is decaying).
Infrastructure. prefix infra and prefix intra mean within a set, or inside of a group, while the prefix inter means something that spans outside of or through a multiple of sets or group.
And that is, imo, another reason to hate science, because those suffix's defy logic! reason! and show the particular problem of letting the educated form words.
In the prefix, "inter" the vowel letter, the e', is contained "inside of" the consonant, "ter" therefore, inter should logically, refer to something in a set, that is contained inside a group.
but NO! the educated flip logic on it's head, because they are so dense it's frustrating and always so.
Then, The prefix, intra, and infra, both, push- the vowel, the letter a' outside- to the edge of the prefix.
Therefore, only logically intra and infra should refer to items or things that are among multiple or go between sets or groups, and not contained inside groups or sets.
But! We're dealing with the educated here, so, you know they are going to get it wrong because they're so bleepin dense!
They so constantly demand things which are as absolutely defiant of logic as holding up 3 fingers and having to say it's two, while holding up 2 and having to say it's 3.
Another instance. " it's a thin line between love and hate" which is, crazy.
because there is a "huge" amount of overlap, and all that overlap, means the line, is vague, and thus wide.
if it were a thin line, it would be two things which can not overlap at all, like, life and death. There is no gray area, something is either alive or it's dead that's it. which is a very thin, very well defined line. You can't trust the system. And I find with more education comes a smaller less functioning reasoning area of the brain.
So last week the negotiations between a handful of centrists dems and the overwhelming majority of the rest of the left heated up then fizzled. Progressives are backing Bidens build back better plan and sticking to their guns to see it through. It's a good thing too because Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are conservatives in sheep's clothing. Those two would have loved for progressives to sign off on and vote for the 1.5T bipartisan infrastructure bill, which is mostly a republican leaning bill. Then all they would have had to do is say NO to the progressive 3.5T Human Infrastructure bill that will actually help people.
About 8-10 conservative centrist dems in the house and two conservative dem Senators are all that's in the way of doing a lot of good for working people, the poor, the old, and children. Those dems now need to get on board with both bills or lose both to the great ire of constituents.
Sinema got an underserved but deserved dose of that this past weekend:
Sinema Stalls: Constituents confront senator in Arizona State University bathroom over Build Back Better agenda and immigration
And why is she teaching while being a sitting Senator? It's not like she does anything in Washington other than cozy up to her Donors anyway, I guess. I just find it odd as hell.
I think trying to claim that other than two Democratic senators that everyone else insists on holding firm at 3.5 trillion is a myth. The "I want it all and I want it now" crowd does not rule the party. And as a matter of fact, they're holding the infrastructure bill hostage. They will either have to compromise or it will cost many of them their jobs. When it's explained to their constituents that they could have gotten them a lot but instead ended up empty handed, it's not a good look.
They will also cost the democrats the house. Voters won't soon forget.
People fighting for freedom are under attack in the usa. Standers up for the constitution are under attack in the usa. The democrats want to steal Ameciacns families' futures, and have positioned themselves in a position antithetical to freedom and the us constitution. Members of congress, female ones, are being followed into bathrooms by groups of people, mobs, who are small steps away from being a militarized attack mob.
The faked election party, has ruined the dollar value, now they have interrupted the ability of school lunch rooms to get food to school children, As tonights news shows teachers and administrators in Tenn iirc, having to go to grocery stores to purchase supplies to have cafeteria lunches.
So! The infrastructure, bridges, airplanes, trains- don't get on one, 1940's. electric power, and food and transportation cannot be solved until the democrats tyranny and ignoring of all things Lawfulness, Holy, decency, or supporting Human Life and not ending it tragically are dealt with, have no hope of being fixed. You can't fix the infrastructure in the USA until you deal with the democrats and stop them from their humanistic, selfish lustful, Pharisee-etic, Hypocrytical, steal from others first, steal from you later, steal from somebody when nobody's left, totalitarian, time enslaving, resource confiscating, misery spreading ways, while remaining on the same side the Anti-Chirst would have on all issues.
So Infrastructure doesn't even matter, you can't talk about infrastructure in a country, when the country is on fire! The president, illegitimate, said he/ (said WE) can't even define what an American is! Which would make sense to him, if he doesn't even believe America is a soverign country anymore, which is illustrated, or demonstrated, by his support and announcement that every person in the world, or on the earth, (there is a difference) should come to the Southern Border of the US. and be welcomed with free money, free healthcare, free university, which people born in America can't get
Infrastructure is an attempt, by an empty sack of nothingness, to prop up a failing dollar value, by printing trillions, out of thin air, which will result, in hyper hyper inflation seen before in history, but I'm not sure on a dollar, as used as widespreadly as the US dollar. Therefore the only thing anyone should be focused on, is not infrastructure but stopping the democrats.
I think trying to claim that other than two Democratic senators that everyone else insists on holding firm at 3.5 trillion is a myth. The "I want it all and I want it now" crowd does not rule the party. And as a matter of fact, they're holding the infrastructure bill hostage. They will either have to compromise or it will cost many of them their jobs. When it's explained to their constituents that they could have gotten them a lot but instead ended up empty handed, it's not a good look.
They will also cost the democrats the house. Voters won't soon forget.
Progressives aren't holding a damn thing hostage. The centrist and republicans cobbled that bill together in hopes of avoiding all the crap that helps working people and not just the rich. And you need to put the joint down if think the progressives are in anyway shape or form out of line! They are carrying Biden's agenda that HE RAN ON AND YOU VOTED FOR to the finish line despite the centrist lies and trying to treat progressives like second class legislators. Nope, progressives started out at 6 Trillion based on Biden's platform for programs to help Make America Great for the lower and middle classes.
The centrist and GOP argument that we can't afford it is a damn lie! Mitch McConnell and Joe Manchin BOTH supported and passed Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Those cuts cost 5.6 trillion in deficit.
Quote:
The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 “Bush” Tax Cuts
What Were Their Main Features?
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts reduced the top four marginal income tax rates (see Table 1), as well as the tax rate on capital gains and dividends. Reducing the top marginal tax rates (the tax on each added dollar of income above a threshold) reduced the average tax rate (total tax liability as a share of total income) for all taxpayers with incomes above those thresholds.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts also phased out the estate tax, repealing it entirely in 2010.
In addition, the tax cuts included three components that are often referred to as “middle-class” tax cuts. One provision created a new bottom income tax rate of 10 percent for some of the income that was previously taxed at a 15 percent rate. Another provision increased the Child Tax Credit from $500 to $1,000 per child and made many low-income working families eligible for the credit.[2] The third provision was “marriage penalty relief” — a set of changes that reduced taxes for some married couples.
Many higher-income people benefitted from these provisions as well. All high-income taxpayers benefitted from the creation of a new 10 percent rate at the bottom, and some high-income married couples benefitted from the “marriage penalty relief” provision.
Nearly all of the tax cuts were originally scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, but policymakers extended many of their provisions for two years as a part of a budget deal in December 2010. This agreement reinstated the estate tax starting in 2011, but with a lower tax rate and higher exemption levels, applying only to the wealthiest estates (those worth more than $5 million per person or $10 million per couple, indexed for inflation).[3] The 2012 American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) made permanent the tax provisions affecting low- and moderate-income households, but allowed certain tax rate cuts that affected only the highest-income taxpayers to expire, including restoring the top income tax rate to its previous level of 39.6 percent. The budget deal, enacted with President Obama’s support, made about 82 percent of the cost of the Bush tax cuts permanent.
How Much Did They Cost?
The cost of the tax laws enacted during George W. Bush’s administration is equal to roughly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, the year the provisions were fully phased in.[5] This figure includes the amount the tax cuts increased the cost of “patching” the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to keep the tax from affecting millions of upper-middle-class households, a problem the tax cuts helped to cause.[6]
At the time, many policymakers — including President Bush and Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan — cited projected surpluses and falling debt as a reason to cut taxes.[7] But as the nation’s fiscal outlook changed, because the tax cuts were financed by borrowing, they added to a growing national debt.
The 2 percent of GDP cost figure does not include the extra interest costs resulting from the required borrowing. In 2013 CBPP estimated that, when the associated interest costs are taken into account, the Bush tax cuts (including those that policymakers made permanent) would add $5.6 trillion to deficits from 2001 to 2018.[8] This means that the Bush tax cuts will be responsible for roughly one-third of the federal debt owed by 2018.
Whom Did They Benefit the Most?
The largest benefits from the Bush tax cuts flowed to high-income taxpayers.
From 2004-2012 (the years for which comparable estimates are available), the top 1 percent of households received average tax cuts of more than $50,000 each year. On average, these households received a total tax cut of over $570,000 over this period. [9]
High-income taxpayers also received the largest tax cuts as a share of their after-tax incomes. The Tax Policy Center estimated that in 2010, the year the tax cuts were fully phased in, they raised the after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent of households by 6.7 percent, while only raising the after-tax incomes of the middle 20 percent of households by 2.8 percent. The bottom 20 percent of households received the smallest tax cuts, with their after-tax incomes increasing by just 1.0 percent due to the tax cuts.[10]
The Trump tax cuts cost 2.1 trillion added to the deficit.
Even the lowest estimate of both tax cuts has them at 3.4 trillion total or about one hundred billion less than the human infrastructure bill.
The costs of these tax cuts were no problem for Mitch and Joe. And if we cannot do for the poor over high deficits, then we could not afford those cuts when we gave millionaires and billionaires their big bonanzas (plural). Fact is, we can afford all of it and some, but we have to raise taxes on the donor class. This is the real problem; the rich elite wants it all for themselves.
So, Pit that centrist crap doesn't fly. The "I want it all and I want it now" crowd already has it all. The progressives however want working people to have a slice of that in the form of universal childcare, child tax credits, eldercare so people can go to work. Free community college to educate the workforce we need NOW, and to give us a highly trained workforce to remain globally competitive. Climate change programs to fight global warming subsidies for clean energy development, upgrading public buildings with solar, etc. There are a lot of programs to help working people in this package.
So after all these years of getting treated like the wackadoos that we ARE NOT, progressives finally get to turn it around on centrists. This time it's not a band aid and kick the can down the road, nope. This time it's progressives saying lets bite the bullet and do this right so we can reap the returns, strengthen our economy, strengthen our workforce, and ultimately our GDP. Let's take care of the working people first this time...
I hope the explain all the programs to regular people, so they see what they are losing due to ANY politician voting no. Then maybe people like you will even grasp that we can have it all. We've damn sure waited long enough for congress to take care of the people who pay most of those taxes that have funded all the wars and other BS spending politicians use to give money/tax credits to the rich and corps.
So, after progressives negotiating IN GOOD FAITH for months, the center wants to put this stall on progressives that have come down from 6 trillion to 3.5 trillion on the HIB. Don't you see how it works with the DC establishment Dems? It's our way or no way... We'll just have Joe and Krysten sink it all until progressives take what we give them... Seen this movie so MANY times smh...
So nope Pit, you don't get to go there, period. Don't try to argue because it's all blah blah blah centrist BS. And your fear mongering about voters not showing up is laughable BS, unless the center kills these bills for their corporate owners. Centrist could not beat Trump without us, so if voters leave it will because the center did diddly squat for the people. Once again centrist are trying to crap on progressives when they don't get their way, even when they voted for Biden AND his agenda!
Better tell your Senator and Rep to get on board and stay there, else the lost votes will be for the politicians who tell people they don't need Medicare at 60 that covers vision, dental, and health. They can tell the people not going back to the workforce that not reversing the GOP tax cuts, which were supposed to pay for themselves with a boon to the GDP but did not, is more important than funding childcare, funding schools, funding senior programs, etc. And good luck with that winning you votes. I can tell you right now that progressives are going after GOPer and Centrist alike next cycle with strong messaging on this IF Bidens full agenda does not get codified. Same with voting rights, abortion rights, and universal healthcare. Establishment Dems cheat us in elections, screw us over when they make promises, and treat us as undesirable all the time, EXCEPT campaign season. Then they need us... well now that comes with a price because we are only a Trump jail sentence away from splitting the party anyway. More Americans support these programs than anything the GOPers or Centrist have put forward for the last three decades. Go ahead and let them play those damn games. I dare them.
You can carry on with your rant all you like. But see, here's where people lump everyone who voted for Biden in the same group when clearly we're not.
Let me tell you something else the progressives said. They said they would fix the tax code so the rich paid for all of this. That they would make the rich pay their fair share. It seems your argument is that Trump and the republicans gave that huge tax cut to the rich so that's an excuse to do the same thing for average Americans. On the surface that sounds rational. But you see, I didn't approve of Trump and the Republicans handing out huge tax cuts with no way to pay for it. While I do understand sometimes there's no choice in spending, I do not approve of bloating the deficit. Why would I approve of the democrats doing the same thing I disapproved the republicans of doing?
So my solution is simple. I think you could get Manchin to compromise on pretty much the same amount that the Trump tax cut for just the rich was. 2.1 trillion. The rest of that tax cut went to working families. Isn't that the same people you claim to be supporting now? From my understanding his stance is, and I agree, if you want more, fix the tax code as you promised you would do. That would actually be paying for the package like the progressives promised they would do.
You see, the progressives claimed that this would not bloat the deficit and they explained how. How many times have you heard Bernie say, "The billionaires will pay their fair share. That's how we're going to pay for this."? Okay, then do it.
I don't disagree with the Build Back Better program. I don't disagree with the amount the progressives want to spend on it. I just expect them to live up to what they've said all along. And that is they had a way to pay for it.
I'm not going to hold them to a lesser standard than I would Republicans. I'm not going to approve of them creating an even larger deficit when they said this wouldn't. I'm not going to say it's okay for the democrats to do the same thing I harp on republicans for doing.
So fix the tax code like they said they would. Show me you're actually going to pay for it like you said you would. You seem to forget that's what they ran on too.
In the mean time stop holding the infrastructure bill for ransom.
And what you seem to forget is most of this country isn't far left. The Democrats going home having accomplished nothing won't sell. It doesn't take that much to flip the house or the senate. Be careful what you wish for.
Thinking you just moved that goal post a bit, but we mostly agree anyway. Looks like you want to worry about the deficit, yet nobody in Washington gives a damn about it. McConnell and Manchin had no issues when it benefited donors, they just don't want that money going to the poor and working-class issues. They want to keep donors happy.
We both like what the programs will do, we both voted for Biden and his agenda, and we both want tax reforms. Where we differ is I don't think we should care about the deficit because this spend will offset itself in benefits to people and boosts to the economy. Not to mention reversing some tax cuts, all the money that will be saved on negotiated Medicare pricing, and lifting millions of kids out of poverty by making the monthly child tax credit stimulus permanent. There is SO much in these bills to help America, its people, its businesses, and its government!
Despise deficit spending on wars, tax breaks for those who don't need them, and really despise people using deficit as an excuse when they could not genuinely care less about it but just want to politically fear monger.
I think the spending package should be a first priority, but progressives will push both tax reforms immediately after and look for ways to reduce the deficit later this year.
Actually I do agree with you all the way up to the deficit part.
I even agree that nobody in Washington cares about it either. When their party is in power, they are always willing to spend on what they view as their priorities. I think that's one of many reasons I feel neither party actually represents me as an individual. I've always been concerned with deficit spending. And really it isn't isolated to either party.
The only place I see we really disagree is that I want to see the money before we spend it. You approve of spending it before we see it. That doesn't change the fact we agree with the policies we would like to see enacted.
Billionaire Donates 98% of Private Funds Raised for Texas Border Wall
By Brian Freeman
06 October 2021
Billionaire Timothy Mellon has contributed nearly 98% of the donations to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s $54 million border wall fund, The Texas Tribune reported on Wednesday.
Mellon, who is based in Wyoming and the grandson of banking tycoon and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, donated $53.1 million in stock to Texas in August, according to public records.
Before Mellon’s donation, Abbott’s private fundraising campaign, which started in June, had raised only about $1.25 million in its first two months.
Mellon was a major donor to the reelection campaign of former President Donald Trump and has also in the past contributed money to defend legislation targeting immigrants.
Forbes has estimated that Mellon’s worth is about $1 billion in recent years.
Besides the contribution from Mellon, the fund has received a total of approximately $1.3 million from some 12,100 individuals.
Tax experts said that by donating stock instead of cash, Mellon could receive a significant tax benefit, according to The Texas Tribune.
"It’s common to give stock that’s increased in value because they can get rid of the gains and they can deduct the donations," Notre Dame Law School Prof. Lloyd Mayer explained.
Mellon did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
In addition to Abbott’s border wall fund, the Texas Legislature has approved almost $3 billion over the next two-year budget cycle towards security along the border with Mexico.
This includes some $1 billion going to the governor’s office for grants, of which $750 million was dedicated to construction of a border wall.
Texas and Abbott took these steps after President Joe Biden stopped funding for Trump's border fence upon entering the White House and amid the migrant crisis at the border that erupted after the new administration's change in policies toward those seeking to cross the border.
Hey, your boy had a chance to get it done. Instead he passed out tax cuts to the super wealthy and sat on his fat orange arse when it came to infrastructure… healthcare… releasing his taxes… At least Biden gave it more than lip service.
Trump had the house, senate and the white house.. He accomplished tax cuts for the wealthy and managed to do damage to our environment..
They all loved an infrastructure spending plan not so long ago. But of course it was Trump's idea then. Like I've been saying, it's not about what politicians want to do, it's about which politicians want to do it.
Trump says another coronavirus stimulus should include up to $2 trillion for infrastructure
People liked infrastructure until people started including welfare handouts with infrastructure.
I am not saying some of the items aren't needed in full, or at least in part, but lets call them what they are, and they aren't infrastructure as has been defined for a long time.
Are we going to start adding school lunch programs to defense bills?
It's Human infrastructure. And dems MUST pass a big bill to undo 40+ years of trickle-down damage to the working class. It's easy for a boomer that made their money in a financial heyday, compared to the economy now, to point fingers and grumble about spending, yet you never faced the same types of obstacles young adults deal with today. Imagine living with your parents until you are almost 30 because buying a home is out of reach. I think some of you are clueless as to what poor people and young people are facing today. Then the difficulty gets compounded if they ever have or had legal or financial trouble.
And yes, we had it tough in different ways, but I'm not sure they don't also have to deal with the same crap we did while getting started in life.
Maybe we should cut all those SS Check welfare handouts too and start means testing that? I mean it's obvious you don't need those handouts. Medicare for somebody like you seems to me like a handout too. You have the money to pay your own way after all... Maybe if the BOOMERS could figure out how to quit taking for five damn seconds, they could see all the harm their taking has wrought us.
Yes, you paid into that social safety net, so you are "entitled" to SS and Medicare. But those checks are every bit as much a socialist handout as any other assistance program would be (welfare). Only in your case, it's welfare for the rich(?), or at least somebody that says they don't truly need it.
I don't think you republicans ever listen to yourselves before you dump a steamy load of your 'wisdom' on the world to read. Sometimes you guys sound so desperate to keep the status quo it's laughable. Calling aid programs welfare and handouts in effort to degrade anyone who receives them is asinine and wrong. You are a guy that claims to be alright financially, yet anybody that gets help from these aid programs gets slammed by you for trying to get to a life like yours or for wanting more? I know you would encourage the raw ambition to get ahead in a likeminded individual. Well, if it didn't involve what GOPers perceive as their tax dollars being spent. So why do you begrudge others trying to get a life like yours?
The thing is that SS isn't a welfare program. It was earned and paid for by the employee and their employer. The more you and your employer paid in, the more you get.
It isn't their fault the federal government hasn't run the program correctly.
I paid for it, I am going to collect it. It can't be means tested, unless of course you are for robbing people of money they contributed and money that was contributed on their behalf by their employer.
Matched SS and paid unemployment insurance and workers comp for years Peen, I know. And if you re-read what I said you'll see I used that as an example of our social safety net. As an older citizen you get that check from the "socialist" social security program.
And these "handouts" are targeted to need and help these people become productive citizens like you... are you against that?
OFF topic but still pertinent to SS, boomers did pay in, and they will all draw SS. These young kids will pay into it to make sure Boomers get a check, most knowing (feeling) that there is no way SS will still be viable and in effect when they retire. So, your "I paid in, I'm going to collect" nose thumb to these kids struggling is ironic because their generation will provide you income for many years to come hopefully. And they will never see a return.
BTW, the money you paid in was gone long ago, they borrow against the future to pay you the benefits you were promised every month.
I don't have a problem with socialist programs if that is what you want to call them. Our country has all sorts...roads bills could be an example. Sharing for the common good has always been a part of the American way. I have never been against that.
I also realize that SS has more or less been run as a Ponzi Scheme from it's inception. The problem was at the beginning when we paid long time benefits to people who didn't pay in to the system, or paid very little. We would have been better handing the program over to a few Wall Street firms or insurance agencies to run the program with some government oversight and backing. The problem with government run programs is there is nobody to watch over that.
Some years ago the average worker contribution to SS was a bit over $3000. That doesn't count the employers 6.2% contribution, though not all of that is directed to the SS "trust". Medicare, etc take up a portion of that.
My point is I am not against a forced savings mechanism on the American worker. Many would just spend the money and not think about saving until they were maybe 50 something, which by then is too late to save enough. Think about how much money you would, I would have if every dollar you contributed as well as those of your employer went in to a IRA type account.
No doubt there would have to be some strict oversight on the types of investments that could be made. You couldn't take the money out. The payout would be made based on equal payments plus COlA to last until age 90. You couldn't pass the account along upon death. The people who die before age 90 would end up funding those who live past age 90.
That is just a broad brush thought. No doubt much more detail would have to be added.
SS worked great when after the war parents were having 3-4-5 kids and a boat load of us were born from around 1946 until 1966...most in the 50's. We could fund our parents and grandparents retirement payments. Now that we are starting to collect, since we only had 1-2-3 kids...gee, it doesn't work all that swell anymore.
Grand ideas with little forethought.
Trust me, I have no problem with a social safety net. We just have to make sure they work and are sustainable over time.
The thing is that SS isn't a welfare program. It was earned and paid for by the employee and their employer. The more you and your employer paid in, the more you get.
It isn't their fault the federal government hasn't run the program correctly.
I paid for it, I am going to collect it. It can't be means tested, unless of course you are for robbing people of money they contributed and money that was contributed on their behalf by their employer.
Is that your position?
Perhaps you should tell Moscow Mitch that.. Maybe if it comes from someone in his own party, it will sink it..
Let's go a step further, Under what president did the SS fund get raided and never paid back?
I don't have a problem with socialist programs if that is what you want to call them. Our country has all sorts...roads bills could be an example. Sharing for the common good has always been a part of the American way. I have never been against that.
I also realize that SS has more or less been run as a Ponzi Scheme from it's inception. The problem was at the beginning when we paid long time benefits to people who didn't pay in to the system, or paid very little. We would have been better handing the program over to a few Wall Street firms or insurance agencies to run the program with some government oversight and backing. The problem with government run programs is there is nobody to watch over that.
Some years ago the average worker contribution to SS was a bit over $3000. That doesn't count the employers 6.2% contribution, though not all of that is directed to the SS "trust". Medicare, etc take up a portion of that.
My point is I am not against a forced savings mechanism on the American worker. Many would just spend the money and not think about saving until they were maybe 50 something, which by then is too late to save enough. Think about how much money you would, I would have if every dollar you contributed as well as those of your employer went in to a IRA type account.
No doubt there would have to be some strict oversight on the types of investments that could be made. You couldn't take the money out. The payout would be made based on equal payments plus COlA to last until age 90. You couldn't pass the account along upon death. The people who die before age 90 would end up funding those who live past age 90.
That is just a broad brush thought. No doubt much more detail would have to be added.
SS worked great when after the war parents were having 3-4-5 kids and a boat load of us were born from around 1946 until 1966...most in the 50's. We could fund our parents and grandparents retirement payments. Now that we are starting to collect, since we only had 1-2-3 kids...gee, it doesn't work all that swell anymore.
Grand ideas with little forethought.
Trust me, I have no problem with a social safety net. We just have to make sure they work and are sustainable over time.
Stunning. I fully expected you to call me a commie, not agree. Now I have nothing to do this morning. smh
So I noticed you have so far refused to explain what you think these "welfare handouts" are that you claim are in the bill. It's always been easy to throw out some generalized cliche' with no specifics just to see if it sticks. Reminds me of Fox News. So once again, what are these "welfare handouts" you're talking about that are in the bill?
When it comes to aid, the government needs to get out of the business of throwing money out there with no strings attached. It rarely gets used for what it was intended for. Look at the rental mess for example.
People had been getting free money from the government for 18 months. Some decided not to pay their rent with it. Now they are screaming to cancel rent. They were given money to pay their rent and they choose not to.
Same with corporations, first covid relief bill threw money out there and some businesses went out buying Lamborghinis and other crap.
If the government is going to provide aid, the money they hand out should only be allowed to be used for what it was intended(rent, loans, etc.).
"If unconditional charity is all we know, then we begin to rely upon it─to expect it."
I don't have a problem with socialist programs if that is what you want to call them. Our country has all sorts...roads bills could be an example. Sharing for the common good has always been a part of the American way. I have never been against that.
I also realize that SS has more or less been run as a Ponzi Scheme from it's inception. The problem was at the beginning when we paid long time benefits to people who didn't pay in to the system, or paid very little. We would have been better handing the program over to a few Wall Street firms or insurance agencies to run the program with some government oversight and backing. The problem with government run programs is there is nobody to watch over that.
Some years ago the average worker contribution to SS was a bit over $3000. That doesn't count the employers 6.2% contribution, though not all of that is directed to the SS "trust". Medicare, etc take up a portion of that.
My point is I am not against a forced savings mechanism on the American worker. Many would just spend the money and not think about saving until they were maybe 50 something, which by then is too late to save enough. Think about how much money you would, I would have if every dollar you contributed as well as those of your employer went in to a IRA type account.
No doubt there would have to be some strict oversight on the types of investments that could be made. You couldn't take the money out. The payout would be made based on equal payments plus COlA to last until age 90. You couldn't pass the account along upon death. The people who die before age 90 would end up funding those who live past age 90.
That is just a broad brush thought. No doubt much more detail would have to be added.
SS worked great when after the war parents were having 3-4-5 kids and a boat load of us were born from around 1946 until 1966...most in the 50's. We could fund our parents and grandparents retirement payments. Now that we are starting to collect, since we only had 1-2-3 kids...gee, it doesn't work all that swell anymore.
Grand ideas with little forethought.
Trust me, I have no problem with a social safety net. We just have to make sure they work and are sustainable over time.
Stunning. I fully expected you to call me a commie, not agree. Now I have nothing to do this morning. smh
See, I am not a dork. Lot's of thing we do in this county are basically socialist, especially in the area of infrastructure.
No way the Hoover dam could have been built without a combined effort of all the states. There is nothing wrong with doing things for the common good of the nation. I just think we take it too far at times.
Gas taxes are a big portion of the money used to maintain roadways, bridges, etc. At least in theory.
I would be against all of these electric and hybrid car drivers driving down the road tax free. Going to a mileage based taxation seems to be the only way.
Why wouldn't you just tax the sale of new vehicle and trailers? It would be trivial for NHTSA to classify each vehicle based on its weight and expected lifetime miles. Seems a lot simpler than trying to track every vehicle on a continuous basis.
Gas taxes are a big portion of the money used to maintain roadways, bridges, etc. At least in theory.
I would be against all of these electric and hybrid car drivers driving down the road tax free. Going to a mileage based taxation seems to be the only way.
Why wouldn't you just tax the sale of new vehicle and trailers? It would be trivial for NHTSA to classify each vehicle based on its weight and expected lifetime miles. Seems a lot simpler than trying to track every vehicle on a continuous basis.
One, it would make the cost of new vehicles prohibitive. Secondly, how would you base the tax? On owning the car 4 years? 10 years? 25 years?
You could apply the same thinking to total miles driven. A car driven 50 miles a week has less impact on roads and the environment than a car drive 1000 miles a week.
Pretty simple to report your mileage when you renew your tags.
You can lie, but when you sell the vehicle, the mileage at sale can be checked against reported, and they can send a bill if there is a large discrepancy.
States with inspections could record mileage at inspection.
Setup with dealerships, so service records update mileage.
Not to mention most cars have links. I don't pay for any live service, but I still get updates from my Jeep every month with maintenance reports, mileage, oil levels, tire pressure, etc.
It really wouldn't increase the cost of the vehicle by enough to deter sales unless there are a lot of people out buying cars that don't then have enough money left to fill them with gas. If you lease a vehicle with no additional tax and fill it with taxed gasoline, it is going to cost you roughly the same as if you lease a vehicle with an additional road tax, but fill it with tax-free gasoline.
Also, It's not like gasoline consumption or total miles driven correlates perfectly with the costs of building and maintaining roads and each car's representative contribution to those costs. One form of estimate is about as good as another (they are all imperfect) and one that incorporates vehicle class is absolutely essential because vehicle class is the best indicator of the wear and tear put on the road. An 80,000 lb tractor trailer weighs 20X as much as as an average car but causes as much road damage as 9600 individual cars. So you have to have a system that accounts for class of vehicle as the primary factor.
The other problem is ease of implementation and enforcement. There will be a lot of resistance to anything that erodes privacy. A giant infrastructure will have to be implemented to perform annual vehicle inspections and process new types of taxes. Hate waiting in line at the BMV once every five years? Wait till you get to do it once a year a the BMV 2.0. - and then you get consumers who are getting a surprise tax that they maybe weren't budgeting very well for, and lose their car because they didn't save enough to pay the tax. Also, depending on the tracking method there will be a some problems with hacking these vehicles in order to save on taxes or problems with the tracking devices themselves. There are just so many potential pitfalls...
If you just classify the vehicle by type and build this tax in with all the other upfront taxes, then it is a simple solution. I like simple solutions over complicated solutions.
Maybe the government could put a tracking deice on your vehicle so they know where you have been and how many miles you have driven?
Oh wait, you already carry one of those around. They're called cell phones.
It's not even just the cell phone. Our new Equinox has tons of bells and whistles.. One of which is OnStar. It can be tracked via that. In fact, I have an app on my phone that will tell me exactly where the car is sitting right now... It tells me how many miles are on the car, what % of Oil I've used and fuel level.
Hell it even tells me the tire pressure in each tire. All on the App.
Maybe the government could put a tracking deice on your vehicle so they know where you have been and how many miles you have driven?
Oh wait, you already carry one of those around. They're called cell phones.
You don't have to carry a cell phone. If we taxed it that way. everybody would have a burner phone for their car.
I would imagine you would have to go through a DMV mileage check station in order to get your tags renewed. No doubt that would cost $15-$20.
With people having the ability to charge at home, they will have to come up with something. It's pretty easy being able to tax a gallon of gasoline. It's also easier on the consumer since it is a pay as you drive type deal.
Biden and the fauccis and the governors, can shut down the economy and put 100 restaurants out of ability to have sit down customers,
But they want people to make an investment and they need truck drivers to get goods and other goods to move from one place to another. Then after the deception events and slide of hand used on Nov. 3. 2020, the Biden later said "ehh we have enough money just look at how much private people have." (to mean they can just confiscate it.
So now, there are no truck drivers to move goods around the country?? Why won't the democrat playbook work for moving goods and services around the country by truck.
Can't they just reparations payment the goods from the ships to the port, and then from the port through the trucking route? Can't they just race card shame the goods and services off the ships into the port and then from the port through the trucking route??
Can't they just yell science denier, and have them recycle the goods off the ships onto the port and then across the country. Can't they just print money for the goods and services to materialize off the ships onto the port
Can't they just shut down a pipeline to have the goods and services hop off the boat and into the port? Why won't the democrat playbook work?
Can't the democrats tell the good that are on the boats, that the exit pollsters showed that the goods were already through the port and on their way across the country on trucks?
Can't the democrats shame the goods on the boats about why they hate gender different labled folks or how it benefits women to have the female goods jump off the boats into the ports and across the country in spite of the laws of physics?
Can't the democrats invite other goods and services not on the boats to come in through the southern border of the usa and allow those goods to not only be unvaccinated, un tested for covid, but to not comply with any regulations that people born in America must comply with, in order to get the goods off the boats, through the ports and across the rest of the country.
Hey THROW you should use the Republican technique of ‘thoughts and prayers’ to unload the ships. Your side seems to think it works to stop school shootings. It’d have to help unload ships right?
Oh… prove your claims of ‘slight of hand’ used on November 3rd…. Prove it… Or shut up.
Biden and the fauccis and the governors, can shut down the economy and put 100 restaurants out of ability to have sit down customers,
But they want people to make an investment and they need truck drivers to get goods and other goods to move from one place to another. Then after the deception events and slide of hand used on Nov. 3. 2020, the Biden later said "ehh we have enough money just look at how much private people have." (to mean they can just confiscate it.
So now, there are no truck drivers to move goods around the country?? Why won't the democrat playbook work for moving goods and services around the country by truck.
Can't they just reparations payment the goods from the ships to the port, and then from the port through the trucking route? Can't they just race card shame the goods and services off the ships into the port and then from the port through the trucking route??
Can't they just yell science denier, and have them recycle the goods off the ships onto the port and then across the country. Can't they just print money for the goods and services to materialize off the ships onto the port
Can't they just shut down a pipeline to have the goods and services hop off the boat and into the port? Why won't the democrat playbook work?
Can't the democrats tell the good that are on the boats, that the exit pollsters showed that the goods were already through the port and on their way across the country on trucks?
Can't the democrats shame the goods on the boats about why they hate gender different labled folks or how it benefits women to have the female goods jump off the boats into the ports and across the country in spite of the laws of physics?
Can't the democrats invite other goods and services not on the boats to come in through the southern border of the usa and allow those goods to not only be unvaccinated, un tested for covid, but to not comply with any regulations that people born in America must comply with, in order to get the goods off the boats, through the ports and across the rest of the country.
Why doesn't the democrat playbook work?
If you keep making nonsensical rants and acting crazy, they might run you for congress next... as long as you don't mind getting on your knees for Trump.
Hey THROW you should use the Republican technique of ‘thoughts and prayers’ to unload the ships. Your side seems to think it works to stop school shootings. It’d have to help unload ships right?
Oh… prove your claims of ‘slight of hand’ used on November 3rd…. Prove it… Or shut up.
It cannot be proven. There was no large scale voter fraud. The only conspiracy to be found was the one run by Trumpians to attempt to overthrow the election and take over the country. Have you noticed that republicans always point fingers at Democrats for doing the very things they themselves do.
Hey THROW you should use the Republican technique of ‘thoughts and prayers’ to unload the ships. Your side seems to think it works to stop school shootings. It’d have to help unload ships right?
Oh… prove your claims of ‘slight of hand’ used on November 3rd…. Prove it… Or shut up.
It cannot be proven. There was no large scale voter fraud. The only conspiracy to be found was the one run by Trumpians to attempt to overthrow the election and take over the country. Have you noticed that republicans always point fingers at Democrats for doing the very things they themselves do.
LOL...you are a milquetoast if you think any actions that day would have resulted in taking over the country.
What would you call trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power to install a duly elected president and keep the person who lost the election in power?
How many 10s of millions have to end up dead until the infrastructure works?
I always have and always will support infrastructure spending... We are so far behind it's crazy.... Roads, Bridges all crumbling.
I think we all do. It's a shame the items you talk about get held while some on both sides at various times hold it hostage, trying to add items that have nothing to do with bridges, roads, dams, power grids, etc. The newest hot word being "human infrastructure".
I am not saying some or all of that shouldn't be considered and addressed in total or to some degree, but it shouldn't be attached to a roads bill.
Seriously, my comment is intended to be as neutral as possible. How is it that we are at a point where fixing friggen roads has become a political hot potato? This isn't that damn hard.
If we thought the same Healthcare should be for all Peen Why won’t you agree?
Healthcare should be for all. I have never felt otherwise.
We just have honest disagreements on how it should be delivered.
Even thought your opinions are at out there at times, and you sometimes get a bit too combative in the defense of those opinions, or maybe more on point, with those who disagree, good to see you posting again.
I just want to say to all those Trump fans that boasted how Trump would fix the roads and bridges, "HAPPY INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK! Thanks Joe and dems.". Republicans are against new roads and bridges, they voted no to the man. 6 important progressives voted no because they don't think Manchin and Sinima will do what was agreed to behind closed doors.
I just want to say to all those Trump fans that boasted how Trump would fix the roads and bridges, "HAPPY INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK! Thanks Joe and dems.". Republicans are against new roads and bridges, they voted no to the man. 6 important progressives voted no because they don't think Manchin and Sinima will do what was agreed to behind closed doors.
What else is in the bill? That might give you an answer.
I just want to say to all those Trump fans that boasted how Trump would fix the roads and bridges, "HAPPY INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK! Thanks Joe and dems.". Republicans are against new roads and bridges, they voted no to the man. 6 important progressives voted no because they don't think Manchin and Sinima will do what was agreed to behind closed doors.
What else is in the bill? That might give you an answer.
My bad, republicans voted for this BIP, it's the other they won't vote on. No social programs or voting rights from them.
If you can rig enough elections, maybe you will take congress. We'll see.
The way GOPers are attacking voting rights, they will NEVER win a legit election again. Even if the get more votes by far, we on the left will feel y'all cheated. You can thank congressional GOPers for that, since they won't defend the constitution or protect voting rights.
