Observations on this socalled infrastructure bill

[Nautiknight]

Ok, I gave not read it just some summaries .
Pete Butijudge , I don't know nor care enough to spell his last name right, came out and now claims roads are racist . who knew ?

So, it got me thinking about how Dementia Joe wants to use federal tax dollars to build charging stations across the land. Correct me if I am wrong but since when are EVs remotely affordable to the middle class ? Why should we the people pay for the infrastructure and possibly the electricity itself for charging stations for a a few hundred thousand rich people , who are mostly white ? Why are we subsidizing them?

When Henry Ford streamlined production of the automobile , The US Government didn't subsidize gas stations or build them at all. The private sector and free market people like Rockefeller did that . It was organic and thus it flourished .

I am not opposed to EVs. on the contrary they are great for our cities ,our air quality and less cars using petrol means more for other stuff . I am though against subsidizing them. If the market can't organically make them as affordable as say a Camry or Altima and if the market isn't willing to invest its own capital in charging stations and if owners are not willing to pay for the juice instead of having it handed to them by the government, then truly how viable is this tech ?

I live in the sticks why should my taxes go to funding this tech which will have virtually no benefit to me or my community ? Why should I be subsidizing the wealthy to drive their EVs when they can truly afford to pay the full freight on their transportation choices ?

So Mayor Pete called our roads racist. I guess this new bill is racist because it's funding EV tech which is largely driven by rich white liberal elites . How many charging stations will be in the hood?

Another big picture observation. I think if you want to clean up government we need several constitutional amendments. One of them is to force Congress to only have single issue bills. The recent COVID bill crammed with everything but COVID passed . They cram stuff in that if forced to stand on its own merits would never pass in a single issue stand alone bill. 90% of this so called transportation or infrastructure bill has nothing to do with infrastructure. Thus we have $2 trillion dollars being spent on mostly stuff that would never be spent if it wasn't bundled with truly necessary functions of Government.

They do this to hide stuff from the American people. They do it because they know if some of this stuff was just a single bill nobody would want it. I did a quick Google search and several articles pop up about how much pork is packed into this bill in the name of infrastructure. Here is just one of them.

https://fee.org/articles/9-crazy-ex...ing-in-biden-s-2t-infrastructure-proposal/amp

 

[fried-chicken]

Ok, I gave not read it just some summaries .
Pete Butijudge , I don't know nor care enough to spell his last name right, came out and now claims roads are racist . who knew ?

So, it got me thinking about how Dementia Joe wants to use federal tax dollars to build charging stations across the land. Correct me if I am wrong but since when are EVs remotely affordable to the middle class ? Why should we the people pay for the infrastructure and possibly the electricity itself for charging stations for a a few hundred thousand rich people , who are mostly white ? Why are we subsidizing them?

When Henry Ford streamlined production of the automobile , The US Government didn't subsidize gas stations or build them at all. The private sector and free market people like Rockefeller did that . It was organic and thus it flourished .

I am not opposed to EVs. on the contrary they are great for our cities ,our air quality and less cars using petrol means more for other stuff . I am though against subsidizing them. If the market can't organically make them as affordable as say a Camry or Altima and if the market isn't willing to invest its own capital in charging stations and if owners are not willing to pay for the juice instead of having it handed to them by the government, then truly how viable is this tech ?

I live in the sticks why should my taxes go to funding this tech which will have virtually no benefit to me or my community ? Why should I be subsidizing the wealthy to drive their EVs when they can truly afford to pay the full freight on their transportation choices ?

So Mayor Pete called our roads racist. I guess this new bill is racist because it's funding EV tech which is largely driven by rich white liberal elites . How many charging stations will be in the hood?

Another big picture observation. I think if you want to clean up government we need several constitutional amendments. One of them is to force Congress to only have single issue bills. The recent COVID bill crammed with everything but COVID passed . They cram stuff in that if forced to stand on its own merits would never pass in a single issue stand alone bill. 90% of this so called transportation or infrastructure bill has nothing to do with infrastructure. Thus we have $2 trillion dollars being spent on mostly stuff that would never be spent if it wasn't bundled with truly necessary functions of Government.

They do this to hide stuff from the American people. They do it because they know if some of this stuff was just a single bill nobody would want it. I did a quick Google search and several articles pop up about how much pork is packed into this bill in the name of infrastructure. Here is just one of them.

https://fee.org/articles/9-crazy-ex...ing-in-biden-s-2t-infrastructure-proposal/amp

These are regurgitated talking points force fed to you by right wing media outlets. You can't take the time to read the bill, understand the issues or even look up how to spell someone's last name right but you can type out 1000 words about "HOW CAN A ROAD BE RACIST?!"

You even are so off base in your opinion that you type the words "The US Government didn't subsidize gas stations" ........what reality are you living in? The US 100% did subsidize fossil fuel production and usage in the early 1900s and continues to do so today. The magnitude at which fossil fuel was subisidzed is like 6x what renewables are subsidized at today.

Please realize that you aren't as informed as you think you are if you base your argument on obvious falsehoods. Listening to an obscure right wing podcast doesn't make you an expert on infrastructure.

 

[firm_bizzle]

It must be really nice to go through life oblivious to the history of this country and government's role in aiding people who look like the OP at the expense of people who don't look like the OP.

The reason that we have the current infrastructure and transportation set up today is because of government intervention in the 1950's & 60's. After that it was left to the private sector to expand on that, but they didn't.

A Brief History Of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways - The Tennessee Tribune

(NPR News) In his $2 trillion plan to improve America’s infrastructure, President Biden is promising to address the racism ingrained in historical transportation and urban planning. Biden’s plan includes $20 billion for a program that would “reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic...

tntribune.com

https://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/content/dam/arts-sciences/history/documents/FINAL-Segregation-Along-Highway-Lines-by-Will-Fox.pdf

The Racist Legacy of America's Inner-City Highways

www.dmagazine.com

 

[DaShuckster]

Once upon a time, the beauty of our system of governance is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress had to compromise with each other to pass major bills. But today’s Republicans would rather do nothing and bitch than work to make bills — be it the Affordable Care Act or an infrastructure bill — better.

Its always better to score political points than improve a bill, right Nauti?

 

[OLearyLastCall]

Ok, I gave not read it just some summaries .
Pete Butijudge , I don't know nor care enough to spell his last name right, came out and now claims roads are racist . who knew ?

So, it got me thinking about how Dementia Joe wants to use federal tax dollars to build charging stations across the land. Correct me if I am wrong but since when are EVs remotely affordable to the middle class ? Why should we the people pay for the infrastructure and possibly the electricity itself for charging stations for a a few hundred thousand rich people , who are mostly white ? Why are we subsidizing them?

When Henry Ford streamlined production of the automobile , The US Government didn't subsidize gas stations or build them at all. The private sector and free market people like Rockefeller did that . It was organic and thus it flourished .

I am not opposed to EVs. on the contrary they are great for our cities ,our air quality and less cars using petrol means more for other stuff . I am though against subsidizing them. If the market can't organically make them as affordable as say a Camry or Altima and if the market isn't willing to invest its own capital in charging stations and if owners are not willing to pay for the juice instead of having it handed to them by the government, then truly how viable is this tech ?

I live in the sticks why should my taxes go to funding this tech which will have virtually no benefit to me or my community ? Why should I be subsidizing the wealthy to drive their EVs when they can truly afford to pay the full freight on their transportation choices ?

So Mayor Pete called our roads racist. I guess this new bill is racist because it's funding EV tech which is largely driven by rich white liberal elites . How many charging stations will be in the hood?

Another big picture observation. I think if you want to clean up government we need several constitutional amendments. One of them is to force Congress to only have single issue bills. The recent COVID bill crammed with everything but COVID passed . They cram stuff in that if forced to stand on its own merits would never pass in a single issue stand alone bill. 90% of this so called transportation or infrastructure bill has nothing to do with infrastructure. Thus we have $2 trillion dollars being spent on mostly stuff that would never be spent if it wasn't bundled with truly necessary functions of Government.

They do this to hide stuff from the American people. They do it because they know if some of this stuff was just a single bill nobody would want it. I did a quick Google search and several articles pop up about how much pork is packed into this bill in the name of infrastructure. Here is just one of them.

https://fee.org/articles/9-crazy-ex...ing-in-biden-s-2t-infrastructure-proposal/amp

BDS

 

[NinjaKnight]

Lmao inbred cult member post.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Once upon a time, the beauty of our system of governance is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress had to compromise with each other to pass major bills. But today’s Republicans would rather do nothing and bitch than work to make bills — be it the Affordable Care Act or an infrastructure bill — better.

Its always better to score political points than improve a bill, right Nauti?

The Republican Party is an anti-government party. Outside of tax cuts, and Covid relief, they don't want to pass bills, only want a straw man to be constantly at war with in order to fundraise. Solving problems actually works against their goals.

 

[fabknight]

Once upon a time, the beauty of our system of governance is that Democrats and Republicans in Congress had to compromise with each other to pass major bills. But today’s Republicans would rather do nothing and bitch than work to make bills — be it the Affordable Care Act or an infrastructure bill — better.

Its always better to score political points than improve a bill, right Nauti?

Why would you single out Republicans? Isn't that being disingenuous?

 

[DaShuckster]

Why would you single out Republicans? Isn't that being disingenuous?

Where is the Republican counter proposal on infrastructure?

What happened to the Republican plan for a better ACA? Last I heard a couple years ago, Trump said he’d be releasing it “in another few weeks.” Talk about being disingenuous!

 

[fabknight]

Where is the Republican counter proposal on infrastructure?

What happened to the Republican plan for a better ACA? Last I heard a couple years ago, Trump said he’d be releasing it “in another few weeks.” Talk about being disingenuous!

I seem to remember that Republicans weren't even allowed in the room when Democrats were crafting the ACA. Am I misrembering, Shucky?

 

[Boosted87]

Ok, I gave not read it just some summaries .
Pete Butijudge , I don't know nor care enough to spell his last name right, came out and now claims roads are racist . who knew ?

So, it got me thinking about how Dementia Joe wants to use federal tax dollars to build charging stations across the land. Correct me if I am wrong but since when are EVs remotely affordable to the middle class ? Why should we the people pay for the infrastructure and possibly the electricity itself for charging stations for a a few hundred thousand rich people , who are mostly white ? Why are we subsidizing them?

When Henry Ford streamlined production of the automobile , The US Government didn't subsidize gas stations or build them at all. The private sector and free market people like Rockefeller did that . It was organic and thus it flourished .

I am not opposed to EVs. on the contrary they are great for our cities ,our air quality and less cars using petrol means more for other stuff . I am though against subsidizing them. If the market can't organically make them as affordable as say a Camry or Altima and if the market isn't willing to invest its own capital in charging stations and if owners are not willing to pay for the juice instead of having it handed to them by the government, then truly how viable is this tech ?

I live in the sticks why should my taxes go to funding this tech which will have virtually no benefit to me or my community ? Why should I be subsidizing the wealthy to drive their EVs when they can truly afford to pay the full freight on their transportation choices ?

So Mayor Pete called our roads racist. I guess this new bill is racist because it's funding EV tech which is largely driven by rich white liberal elites . How many charging stations will be in the hood?

Another big picture observation. I think if you want to clean up government we need several constitutional amendments. One of them is to force Congress to only have single issue bills. The recent COVID bill crammed with everything but COVID passed . They cram stuff in that if forced to stand on its own merits would never pass in a single issue stand alone bill. 90% of this so called transportation or infrastructure bill has nothing to do with infrastructure. Thus we have $2 trillion dollars being spent on mostly stuff that would never be spent if it wasn't bundled with truly necessary functions of Government.

They do this to hide stuff from the American people. They do it because they know if some of this stuff was just a single bill nobody would want it. I did a quick Google search and several articles pop up about how much pork is packed into this bill in the name of infrastructure. Here is just one of them.

https://fee.org/articles/9-crazy-ex...ing-in-biden-s-2t-infrastructure-proposal/amp

OK so I'd never heard the "highways are racist" thing. So I spent a whopping 5 minutes and find historians discussing how road placements were often used to create "walls" between socio-economic groups (often dividing by race). And that the poorer areas had less political power to fight the eminent domain used to grab the land for road construction. So if you're a person who's actually interested in learning, it seems there's a history there that you and I are both ignorant on. It's usually better not to form hard opinions on something until you move beyond the meme you saw on Facebook.

Keep romanticizing the free market and pretending that government funded road construction wasn't a key factor in growing the automobile industry. And just ignore the billions of dollars in subsidies that go to the fossil fuel industry each year. I mean, have an opinion on subsidizing electric, just don't pretend all of the existing infrastructure exists free of market interference by government.

 

[fabknight]

Remember Pelosi's famous words, "You have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Paraphrase.

 

[sk8knight]

It must be really nice to go through life oblivious to the history of this country and government's role in aiding people who look like the OP at the expense of people who don't look like the OP.

The reason that we have the current infrastructure and transportation set up today is because of government intervention in the 1950's & 60's. After that it was left to the private sector to expand on that, but they didn't.

A Brief History Of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways - The Tennessee Tribune

(NPR News) In his $2 trillion plan to improve America’s infrastructure, President Biden is promising to address the racism ingrained in historical transportation and urban planning. Biden’s plan includes $20 billion for a program that would “reconnect neighborhoods cut off by historic...

tntribune.com

https://arts-sciences.buffalo.edu/content/dam/arts-sciences/history/documents/FINAL-Segregation-Along-Highway-Lines-by-Will-Fox.pdf

The Racist Legacy of America's Inner-City Highways

www.dmagazine.com

The second article is an interesting look at how applying a prism to history will let you conclude whatever you want. They look at a result, that the highways were built in poor neighborhoods, and then conclude racism. It’s supported by the racism of someone involved with the issue but not much actual evidence that their intent was specifically to disenfranchise black people. They may be right, may be wrong, but there’s no clear evidence in this article.

I remember blighted areas of Chicago way back in the ‘80s. The factories had closed and the neighborhoods that were once vibrant were dead. Factory buildings and homes were falling apart and housed all kinds of criminal activity. Those criminals preyed upon the few citizens that were holding on in those neighborhoods. In no way were these “today’s multicultural neighborhoods.” To try to paint these areas with today’s brush and wipe away their reality is disingenuous in the least.

Beyond that, they’re still government programs with limited resources. Government can’t just go buy up expensive properties because there will be money for nothing else. Also, if you want these government programs to pay for this and that to help people, then you have to increase the tax base. That doesn’t happen by maintaining large areas of decrepit and often condemned properties that don’t pay taxes and just drain the system. It’s an economic problem, not a racist one.

So go out and prove they solved their economic problem with the express intent to harm black people and black people only. I’m sure it’s happened somewhere but that doesn’t mean that it happened everywhere and everyone was racist.

 

[DaShuckster]

I seem to remember that Republicans weren't even allowed in the room when Democrats were crafting the ACA. Am I misrembering, Shucky?

Yeah, those poor Republicans were gagged from telling the American people what they’d do instead - you know, the first step in a genuine compromise.

 

[fabknight]

Yeah, those poor Republicans were gagged from telling the American people what they’d do instead - you know, the first step in a genuine compromise.

The first step would have been to include them in the first place...you know, for input and ultimately buy-in. All the dems did here was assure themselves an embattled bill. The rest is history.

 

[OLearyLastCall]

OK so I'd never heard the "highways are racist" thing. So I spent a whopping 5 minutes and find historians discussing how road placements were often used to create "walls" between socio-economic groups (often dividing by race). And that the poorer areas had less political power to fight the eminent domain used to grab the land for road construction. So if you're a person who's actually interested in learning, it seems there's a history there that you and I are both ignorant on. It's usually better not to form hard opinions on something until you move beyond the meme you saw on Facebook.

Keep romanticizing the free market and pretending that government funded road construction wasn't a key factor in growing the automobile industry. And just ignore the billions of dollars in subsidies that go to the fossil fuel industry each year. I mean, have an opinion on subsidizing electric, just don't pretend all of the existing infrastructure exists free of market interference by government.

Chances are, if you live or lived anywhere near a big or moderately sized city, a major highway was placed right through a Black community at some point which absolutely kills an area's property value.

I don't expect our local geniuses like @Nautiknight to get it, though.

 

[Crazyhole]

Chances are, if you live or lived anywhere near a big or moderately sized city, a major highway was placed right through a Black community at some point which absolutely kills an area's property value.

I don't expect our local geniuses like @Nautiknight to get it, though.

I guess it works differently elsewhere, but in Nebraska you have a highway running through the middle of town basically everywhere, and the towns that don't have one have died off. Traffic is good for business here.

 

[Cubs79]

The first step would have been to include them in the first place...you know, for input and ultimately buy-in. All the dems did here was assure themselves an embattled bill. The rest is history.

Republicans were not excluded from the ACA negotiations.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Republicans were not excluded from the ACA negotiations.

lol @ you trying to reason with a cult member.

 

[Nautiknight]

OK so I'd never heard the "highways are racist" thing. So I spent a whopping 5 minutes and find historians discussing how road placements were often used to create "walls" between socio-economic groups (often dividing by race). And that the poorer areas had less political power to fight the eminent domain used to grab the land for road construction. So if you're a person who's actually interested in learning, it seems there's a history there that you and I are both ignorant on. It's usually better not to form hard opinions on something until you move beyond the meme you saw on Facebook.

Keep romanticizing the free market and pretending that government funded road construction wasn't a key factor in growing the automobile industry. And just ignore the billions of dollars in subsidies that go to the fossil fuel industry each year. I mean, have an opinion on subsidizing electric, just don't pretend all of the existing infrastructure exists free of market interference by government.

Well for starters I did some transportation planning and GIS analysis for the Volusia County MPO a couple decades ago. I am well aware of how roads are built and why some neighborhoods got plowed under. I am well versed in the NIMBY crowd and how poor people, white and black , often didn't and don't have a voice when it comes to building new roads and such.

DOT and the government would put roads where the land is the cheapest,where costs of property to destroy is the cheapest and where the political voice is the most weak. I am not naive to this reality.

With that said I think Mayor Pete here is a hypocrite when it comes to this bill because EVs are not for the poor and I doubt highly you will see EV charging stations located in poor neighborhoods or even rural areas black or white .

 

[DaShuckster]

lol @ you trying to reason with a cult member.

No, Ninja, you're just not LISTENING to these cultists, er, I mean right-leaning citizens. If Republican Congressmen hadn't been excluded from doing their jobs -- and, apparently, muzzled too -- the American people would have finally learned THEIR PLANS for improving health care.

Of course, you might also wonder why we didn't hear them during Trump's tenure (as he kept assuring us we would.) But I think we were supposed to eliminate the existing ACA first before their grand plan was unveiled.

And now? Where is the Republican infrastructure plan? Let me guess: It's coming in a couple of weeks, right guys?

With that said I think Mayor Pete here is a hypocrite when it comes to this bill because EVs are not for the poor and I doubt highly you will see EV charging stations located in poor neighborhoods or even rural areas black or white .

It wasn't that long ago that smart phones were for the rich too. God forbid we have a government who prepares us for the future.

 

[Nautiknight]

Republicans were not excluded from the ACA negotiations.

Yes they were. They were locked out, literally locked out of committee conference rooms.

If you want to see how a pure democracy works where the 51 percent rule over the 49 percent without consideration in a single party controlled government,then look no further than today. Pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the masses. I have observed over the past 25 or 30 years as soon as one party gets total control even if they don't have a true plurality of the vote they go off the rails shouting we have a mandate ,we have a mandate . Currently they have plus 4 in the House and plus 1 in the Senate and they don't give a crap about what the minority wants or says. I have nothing but contempt for both parties.

 

[DaShuckster]

Currently they have plus 4 in the House and plus 1 in the Senate and they don't give a crap about what the minority wants or says.

In a functioning democracy, we're talking about an exchange of ideas for improving our country.

If this is really all about 'not giving a crap about what the minority wants,' what infrastructure plans and how to pay for them are the majority ignoring?

 

[Nautiknight]

No, Ninja, you're just not LISTENING to these cultists, er, I mean right-leaning citizens. If Republican Congressmen hadn't been excluded from doing their jobs -- and, apparently, muzzled too -- the American people would have finally learned THEIR PLANS for improving health care.

Of course, you might also wonder why we didn't hear them during Trump's tenure (as he kept assuring us we would.) But I think we were supposed to eliminate the existing ACA first before their grand plan was unveiled.

And now? Where is the Republican infrastructure plan? Let me guess: It's coming in a couple of weeks, right guys?

It wasn't that long ago that smart phones were for the rich too. God forbid we have a government who prepares us for the future.

This is a false equivalency. In your idea the Government is there to determine winners and losers in the free market. So,who is to say the future if electric vehicles are charging stations? Who is to say what the next 20 years of tech will bring to the transportation sector? Maybe they develop better batteries where you simply exchange batteries like you do in your remote for your TV? you roll into a station, unplugged your discharged battery and swap it for a charged one and away you go. But Government said we are going to build charging stations for today's tech that will take 10 years to complete but today's tech is now outdated .

The free market, a newly minted electrical engineer from UCF invents something not foreseen and everything then changes. This is why Government at best could invest in R and D and leave the market to decide the products . The government is horrible at predicting what's best for our futures. See Social Security, see $30 plus trillion debt and I could go on. I have determined those here who lean left have this trust in Government like it's a benevolent thing . It's not. For the hand that feeds you there is another hand and a boot of authority to extract your wealth and make you comply to their ideas.

 

[Cubs79]

If you want to see how a pure democracy works where the 51 percent rule over the 49 percent without consideration in a single party controlled government,then look no further than today. Pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the masses. I have observed over the past 25 or 30 years as soon as one party gets total control even if they don't have a true plurality of the vote they go off the rails shouting we have a mandate ,we have a mandate . Currently they have plus 4 in the House and plus 1 in the Senate and they don't give a crap about what the minority wants or says. I have nothing but contempt for both parties.

So explain how Democrats today are leading by tyranny of the masses? And also, what is your solution? Just let the minority party have control so we can have tyranny of the minority?

 

[Poolside Knight]

wasn’t it just reported that Obama took Grassley’s(R) recommendations on some tweaks to ACA and when Obama asked him if he then would vote yes on the Bill he still said No?

Republicans have been playing this game since 2009 . They don’t want to govern

 

[Cubs79]

This is a false equivalency. In your idea the Government is there to determine winners and losers in the free market. So,who is to say the future if electric vehicles are charging stations? Who is to say what the next 20 years of tech will bring to the transportation sector? Maybe they develop better batteries where you simply exchange batteries like you do in your remote for your TV? you roll into a station, unplugged your discharged battery and swap it for a charged one and away you go. But Government said we are going to build charging stations for today's tech that will take 10 years to complete but today's tech is now outdated .

The free market, a newly minted electrical engineer from UCF invents something not foreseen and everything then changes. This is why Government at best could invest in R and D and leave the market to decide the products . The government is horrible at predicting what's best for our futures. See Social Security, see $30 plus trillion debt and I could go on. I have determined those here who lean left have this trust in Government like it's a benevolent thing . It's not. For the hand that feeds you there is another hand and a boot of authority to extract your wealth and make you comply to their ideas.

You are more than welcome to disagree with some things the government does, obviously. But this idea that the free market is always the solution is completely misguided. The free market is about profit, nothing else. Not to mention, the government often times reacts to the market. Charging stations are something the government is looking into, because EV's are becoming more popular. The need for charging stations came before the governments push for charging stations.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is a false equivalency. In your idea the Government is there to determine winners and losers in the free market.

Pardon me, what are corporate tax incentives all about?

Was it wrong for the government to pave roads for that 'new-fangled' invention called the automobile?

 

[Boosted87]

Well for starters I did some transportation planning and GIS analysis for the Volusia County MPO a couple decades ago. I am well aware of how roads are built and why some neighborhoods got plowed under. I am well versed in the NIMBY crowd and how poor people, white and black , often didn't and don't have a voice when it comes to building new roads and such.

DOT and the government would put roads where the land is the cheapest,where costs of property to destroy is the cheapest and where the political voice is the most weak. I am not naive to this reality.

With that said I think Mayor Pete here is a hypocrite when it comes to this bill because EVs are not for the poor and I doubt highly you will see EV charging stations located in poor neighborhoods or even rural areas black or white .

What you typed right here is far more nuanced, well thought out, and informative than your OP.

My point is this - we can debate the value of government subsidizing EV's in the same we can debate the value of government subsidizing roads, fossil fuels, sending someone to the moon, or anything else. Let's just not pretend that our entire automotive industry and infrastructure is the result of purely free market forces and subsidizing EV infrastructure is a departure.

 

[Cubs79]

wasn’t it just reported that Obama took Grassley’s(R) recommendations on some tweaks to ACA and when Obama asked him if he then would vote yes on the Bill he still said No?

Republicans have been playing this game since 2009 . They don’t want to govern

Republicans basically refused to work with Obama at all, and then complain that Obama is leaving them out. But reality is also that the ACA had a number of amendments that Republicans wanted throughout the negotiating process.

 

[OLearyLastCall]

Yes they were. They were locked out, literally locked out of committee conference rooms.

If you want to see how a pure democracy works where the 51 percent rule over the 49 percent without consideration in a single party controlled government,then look no further than today. Pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the masses. I have observed over the past 25 or 30 years as soon as one party gets total control even if they don't have a true plurality of the vote they go off the rails shouting we have a mandate ,we have a mandate . Currently they have plus 4 in the House and plus 1 in the Senate and they don't give a crap about what the minority wants or says. I have nothing but contempt for both parties.

51% are not ruling over 49%. The Republican incumbent lost by more than 7 million votes. Democrats represent many more millions of individuals than Republicans do. If not for Republican super-representation in the Senate and state house gerrymandering and voter suppression in other locations, Democrat margins would be much higher in both chambers of Congress.

Stop with the lies.

 

[Cubs79]

51% are not ruling over 49%. The Republican incumbent lost by more than 7 million votes. Democrats represent many more millions of individuals than Republicans do. If not for Republican super-representation in the Senate and state house gerrymandering and voter suppression in other locations, Democrat margins would be much higher in both chambers of Congress.

Stop with the lies.

Yep, if anything at this point in time, the minority party actually has a disproportional amount of power compared to their actual voters.

 

[firm_bizzle]

The second article is an interesting look at how applying a prism to history will let you conclude whatever you want. They look at a result, that the highways were built in poor neighborhoods, and then conclude racism. It’s supported by the racism of someone involved with the issue but not much actual evidence that their intent was specifically to disenfranchise black people. They may be right, may be wrong, but there’s no clear evidence in this article.

I remember blighted areas of Chicago way back in the ‘80s. The factories had closed and the neighborhoods that were once vibrant were dead. Factory buildings and homes were falling apart and housed all kinds of criminal activity. Those criminals preyed upon the few citizens that were holding on in those neighborhoods. In no way were these “today’s multicultural neighborhoods.” To try to paint these areas with today’s brush and wipe away their reality is disingenuous in the least.

Beyond that, they’re still government programs with limited resources. Government can’t just go buy up expensive properties because there will be money for nothing else. Also, if you want these government programs to pay for this and that to help people, then you have to increase the tax base. That doesn’t happen by maintaining large areas of decrepit and often condemned properties that don’t pay taxes and just drain the system. It’s an economic problem, not a racist one.

So go out and prove they solved their economic problem with the express intent to harm black people and black people only. I’m sure it’s happened somewhere but that doesn’t mean that it happened everywhere and everyone was racist.

If the government policies always end up disproportionally hurting minorities, wouldn't you consider that a pattern? Do you think that these things happen randomly?

 

[Boosted87]

This is a false equivalency. In your idea the Government is there to determine winners and losers in the free market. So,who is to say the future if electric vehicles are charging stations? Who is to say what the next 20 years of tech will bring to the transportation sector? Maybe they develop better batteries where you simply exchange batteries like you do in your remote for your TV? you roll into a station, unplugged your discharged battery and swap it for a charged one and away you go. But Government said we are going to build charging stations for today's tech that will take 10 years to complete but today's tech is now outdated .

The free market, a newly minted electrical engineer from UCF invents something not foreseen and everything then changes. This is why Government at best could invest in R and D and leave the market to decide the products . The government is horrible at predicting what's best for our futures. See Social Security, see $30 plus trillion debt and I could go on. I have determined those here who lean left have this trust in Government like it's a benevolent thing . It's not. For the hand that feeds you there is another hand and a boot of authority to extract your wealth and make you comply to their ideas.

Your argument is the equivalent to someone 100 years ago arguing against the highway system because surely we'll have flying cars soon. You make decisions based on the best information you have available at the time, not based on hypotheticals.

I'm not particularly trusting of government. But it's kind of like the Churchill quote to the effect of "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried." It's not that government solutions are ideal or perfect, it's just that sometimes all solutions have pros/cons and I'm open to weighing them. I'm sure there are some "pros" to fully privatizing the United States military, but I can't imagine it creates a better overall solution than public institutions.

I think a flawed view is one that assumes free-market or government is always best without actually working through it on a case by case basis...

 

[Nautiknight]

In a functioning democracy, we're talking about an exchange of ideas for improving our country.

If this is really all about 'not giving a crap about what the minority wants,' what infrastructure plans and how to pay for them are the majority ignoring?

I don't think many Republicans are against the true infrastructure part of the bill. it's the 90 percent of stuff that has zero to do with the title or purpose of said bill. I am all for mandating through a Constitutional Amendment to force Congress to only draft single issue bills so we can have an exchange of ideas on that one issue. For the record we are Constitutional Republic and not a democracy. You won't find the word Democracy anywhere in our Constitution which the states used to create said federal government.

 

[Nautiknight]

Your argument is the equivalent to someone 100 years ago arguing against the highway system because surely we'll have flying cars soon. You make decisions based on the best information you have available at the time, not based on hypotheticals.

I'm not particularly trusting of government. But it's kind of like the Churchill quote to the effect of "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried." It's not that government solutions are ideal or perfect, it's just that sometimes all solutions have pros/cons and I'm open to weighing them. I'm sure there are some "pros" to fully privatizing the United States military, but I can't imagine it creates a better overall solution than public institutions.

I think a flawed view is one that assumes free-market or government is always best without actually working through it on a case by case basis...

To some degree I agree with this notion ,but the reality is the automobile industry and gas stations both developed without a single government penny. The Government did build roads through our taxes . The Government can do some cool stuff like create the satellite GPS network. What the government can't do is predict what the implications or how that tech gets developed like the GPS tech on my boat or my Garmin Quatix watch or how land surveyors use it. The Government just wanted better military navigation and tech for smart bombs. The greater use of GPS today is well beyond what was envisioned. on my wrist I can bring up maps and charts for pretty much anywhere in the world.

I do think the nexus of research and development through Government and the private sector is more good than bad. our Constitution calls for Government to invest in the sciences by the way.
There is the issue though of paying for infrastructure that only 5% of the electorate uses by the other 95%. I am not poor but I can not afford a Tesla either. So why is it my job as tax payer and business owner to ensure Tesla drivers can zip up and down I-95 corridor? Elon Musk needs to Rockefeller up and invest in charging stations, partner with Buckees or Exon or BP or who ever and get them to build charging slots and then have the Tesla owners pay for the electricity and our tech through their charging fees. I don't get why that's the purpose of Government?

 

[Cubs79]

To some degree I agree with this notion ,but the reality is the automobile industry and gas stations both developed without a single government penny. The Government did build roads through our taxes . The Government can do some cool stuff like create the satellite GPS network. What the government can't do is predict what the implications or how that tech gets developed like the GPS tech on my boat or my Garmin Quatix watch or how land surveyors use it. The Government just wanted better military navigation and tech for smart bombs. The greater use of GPS today is well beyond what was envisioned. on my wrist I can bring up maps and charts for pretty much anywhere in the world.

I do think the nexus of research and development through Government and the private sector is more good than bad. our Constitution calls for Government to invest in the sciences by the way.
There is the issue though of paying for infrastructure that only 5% of the electorate uses by the other 95%. I am not poor but I can not afford a Tesla either. So why is it my job as tax payer and business owner to ensure Tesla drivers can zip up and down I-95 corridor? Elon Musk needs to Rockefeller up and invest in charging stations, partner with Buckees or Exon or BP or who ever and get them to build charging slots and then have the Tesla owners pay for the electricity and our tech through their charging fees. I don't get why that's the purpose of Government?

That isnt going to be the case much longer. There are tons of electric vehicles that are going to be coming to the market over the next several years, and all of them arent ridiculously priced, and will likely even get cheaper in the not to distant future.

I dont know that Exxon and BP are going to want to partner with developing infrastructure that is essentially a direct competitor to their oil business.

 

[Nautiknight]

wasn’t it just reported that Obama took Grassley’s(R) recommendations on some tweaks to ACA and when Obama asked him if he then would vote yes on the Bill he still said No?

Republicans have been playing this game since 2009 . They don’t want to govern

I am not a Republican or Democrat . This Republicans don't want to govern is gas lighting. How about this? How about reading Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution which outlines the specific authority the states, I repeat the states, gave the Federal Government. you will not see any socialist program, no social security , which is a failure, no free college ,no free healthcare .Maybe just maybe when you say Republicans don't want to govern you're right but one thing is for sure the left in this country do not recognize the limits on the power the states gave to the federal government. Our Supreme Court is spineless and time and again they ignore the over reaches in Government taking power and claiming dominion over our retirement,our healthcare and what ever else it wants. So ,maybe Grassly realized it's not the role ,job or authority of the Feds to take over healthcare industry?

The feds are not there to run my life. I am a citizen not a subject. I want them to respect their role,their limits on their power and the Constitution. It's the contract between me as a citizen and my government and time and again for the past 30 years,well since Woodrow Wilson that the feds keep expanding power that they Constitutionally don't have at all.

 

[Cubs79]

I am not a Republican or Democrat . This Republicans don't want to govern is gas lighting. How about this? How about reading Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution which outlines the specific authority the states, I repeat the states, gave the Federal Government. you will not see any socialist program, no social security , which is a failure, no free college ,no free healthcare .Maybe just maybe when you say Republicans don't want to govern you're right but one thing is for sure the left in this country do not recognize the limits on the power the states gave to the federal government. Our Supreme Court is spineless and time and again they ignore the over reaches in Government taking power and claiming dominion over our retirement,our healthcare and what ever else it wants. So ,maybe Grassly realized it's not the role ,job or authority of the Feds to take over healthcare industry?

The feds are not there to run my life. I am a citizen not a subject. I want them to respect their role,their limits on their power and the Constitution. It's the contract between me as a citizen and my government and time and again for the past 30 years,well since Woodrow Wilson that the feds keep expanding power that they Constitutionally don't have at all.

How is social security a failure? You take away social security and a good portion of this population would never be able to retire. It is also quite popular.

 

[Crazyhole]

That isnt going to be the case much longer. There are tons of electric vehicles that are going to be coming to the market over the next several years, and all of them arent ridiculously priced, and will likely even get cheaper in the not to distant future.

I dont know that Exxon and BP are going to want to partner with developing infrastructure that is essentially a direct competitor to their oil business.

Actually, BP started divesting from their fossil fuel infrastructure last October to generate cash to invest in EVs. If I remember correctly they were planning on liquidating 15% in 2021 and reinvesting that money.