Of course there is. There are always nefarious, lunatic actors planning attacks.
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Curious about what folks thought about Biden's infrastructure plan? I thought this piece from Forbes on how Biden and his plan was a bit eye opening on how little of the $2.5 trillion goes to actual infrastructure.
"Infrastructure as many people think of it—construction or improvement of bridges, highways, roads, ports, waterways, and airports—accounts for only $157 billion, or 7%, of the plan’s estimated cost. That’s apparently what Vought was referring to. The definition of infrastructure can reasonably be expanded to include upgrading wastewater and drinking water systems, expanding high-speed broadband Internet service to 100% of the nation, modernizing the electric grid, and improving infrastructure resilience. That brings the total to $518 billion, or 24% of the plan’s total cost."
fortune.com
"Infrastructure as many people think of it—construction or improvement of bridges, highways, roads, ports, waterways, and airports—accounts for only $157 billion, or 7%, of the plan’s estimated cost. That’s apparently what Vought was referring to. The definition of infrastructure can reasonably be expanded to include upgrading wastewater and drinking water systems, expanding high-speed broadband Internet service to 100% of the nation, modernizing the electric grid, and improving infrastructure resilience. That brings the total to $518 billion, or 24% of the plan’s total cost."
How much infrastructure is in Biden's infrastructure plan?
Like all humongous-scale legislative efforts, the Biden administration’s new $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan contains surprises.
whatithink
GOLD
The writer explains why in his 4th paragraph, I'd guess, but then he ignores that because he's the media I suppose.Curious about what folks thought about Biden's infrastructure plan? I thought this piece from Forbes on how Biden and his plan was a bit eye opening on how little of the $2.5 trillion goes to actual infrastructure.
"Infrastructure as many people think of it—construction or improvement of bridges, highways, roads, ports, waterways, and airports—accounts for only $157 billion, or 7%, of the plan’s estimated cost. That’s apparently what Vought was referring to. The definition of infrastructure can reasonably be expanded to include upgrading wastewater and drinking water systems, expanding high-speed broadband Internet service to 100% of the nation, modernizing the electric grid, and improving infrastructure resilience. That brings the total to $518 billion, or 24% of the plan’s total cost."
How much infrastructure is in Biden's infrastructure plan?
Like all humongous-scale legislative efforts, the Biden administration’s new $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan contains surprises.
Are you saying you think the media is calling it an infrastructure bill as a means to attack the plan? Hmm. I would say it's more likely he's ignoring the name of the plan because the selling point that is being presented (for the most part) is that it's an infrastructure bill?
Perhaps the creating union jobs didn't focus group well with the ongoing issues with the police and teachers unions.
whatithink
GOLD
No, I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that the article states that Biden's admin are not calling it an infrastructure bill, but the media is. So dissing it because its not all infrastructure seems strange, once you admit/recognize that the authors aren't saying its (all) infrastructure.
From the article, $2.2T total - I can see $1.4T detailed but no mention of union jobs unless you mean the people doing the work I suppose. The third one seems a lot to me, but I don't know that industry. TBH, there's more money, from the article, in aid to business than trad infrastructure work, but then the article isn't making some anti union point, that's you.
- $157B traditional infrastructure
- $361B water, waste water, electric grid & high speed internet
- $400B create jobs & raise pay for home care workers
- $300B aid for manufacturers and small businesses
- $180B for public investment in technology and research and development
Oh sorry, I miss understood. Think I got caught up on some of the wording in the 4th paragraph which you cited...
"It’s worth remembering that while the media call the initiative an infrastructure plan, the Biden administration doesn’t. Officially, it’s the American Jobs Plan, and it consistently proposes creating or protecting jobs, especially union jobs. But the administration’s fullest description of the plan, a nearly 12,000-word fact sheet, leans heavily on infrastructure from the beginning. A close reading reveals just how much is really there."
Anyway, adding up your list of number in my head... and it looks like your total is around $1.5 Trillion... when of course Bidens 'job plan' is closer to $2.5 Trillion. Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make: no one seems to know what the hell is in this massive government bill.
whatithink
GOLD
At 12,000 pages, I'm not surprised. Not much is being made of the fact that its a multi year spending plan, 8 years I read. $300B a year seems palatable. Its plan is to create 18M jobs in the next 4 years, which is a good thing, if it works obviously. There's also a plan to pay for it, but we'll see how that fairs.
In any case, we'll have to see what comes out of congress (if anything). I have no doubt there are items in the bill I would disagree with and items I would agree with. I heard recently on some news program that infrastructure spending in the US, mostly locally driven, saw a net $4T fall relatively since the 2008 crash. The GOP & Dems seem to agree something needs to be done, just not what.
Generally though, someone has a multi year plan, during which $Ts will be spent but paid for (!), creating millions of jobs and improving a wide range of traditional infrastructure, non-trad infrastructure, green technology and green infrastructure etc. Biden's put his stake in the ground, we'll see what if anything passes.
So 18m jobs... for $2.5 trillion comes out to around $140,000 per job created. I'm sorry, but I just feel we can do better.
Although admittedly, if the plan does pay for itself in the end then I could be convinced otherwise.
whatithink
GOLD
Yeah, we'll see where it ends up. It is somewhat refreshing to have someone with an actual plan, written down and presented - to be supported, amended, torn down or whatever.
BTW, the 18M jobs vs the $2.5T in spending = $140K per job created is a very simplistic view.
- the plan is 18M jobs in the next 4 years
- the plan is $2.5T over the next 8 years
For example, 18M at $60K per year, slightly below the national average, is about $1T in pay annually. Gov takes say 25% between taxes, ss etc, so "makes" $250B back. So for the second 4 years, that's an additional $1T back, so now you are at $84K per job ... and the corp taxes need to be factored in and the tax "revenue" beyond the 8 years etc.
I'm not cheerleading the plan as such, but I am cheerleading that someone has an actual plan which is looking to fix items that need to be fixed (infrastructure) and wants to generate jobs. I'm sure it will differ once Congress is done with it. I do hope it pays for itself ... but I'm very skeptical of that.
Well... maybe simplistic to a guy who shrugs his shoulders about a trillion dollar hole in his understanding of 'the plan'.
whatithink
GOLD
$300B a year isn't a lot in a $21T economy. Creating 18M jobs directly ripples out and creates more. We'll see what the "hole" is when/if congress passes it ... in fact we'll see what the "plan" is when/if!Well... maybe simplistic to a guy who shrugs his shoulders about a trillion dollar hole in his understanding of 'the plan'.
You know what really worries me about 'the plan'. Let's say we do borrow $2.5 trillion. Then the next day Russia and China make a coordinated attack on the Ukraine and Taiwan. I'm nervous about what happens then. How's Jimmy Carter going to pay for that... er, sorry. I mean how's Biden going to handle that?
We need start paying for what we're spending. We need to be realistic about how the world works. Or we're going to end up in trouble.
We need start paying for what we're spending. We need to be realistic about how the world works. Or we're going to end up in trouble.
whatithink
GOLD
FFS
- borrowing $300B for the next 12 months as part of the 8 year plan isn't going to be a Eureka moment for Russia & China to coordinate shit
- if they do decide to do something in Ukraine or Taiwan, their economies tank just as much as everyone else and they do care about that
- Putin just gave himself a couple of more terms, but is there for life, as is Xi - why would they do anything now?
- neither the GOP or Dems give a shit about paying for what they are spending, not a single one of them in Congress give a crap
You're skipping over trillions again. We're talking about borrowing $4.5 Trillion in less then a year. After 4 years of Trump who ran the engine at $1.5 trillion a year plus. That's going to have an effect on our ability to protect China from Hong Kong-ing Taiwan, or Russia going Crimea-ing the rest of the Ukraine.
As for the economic fall out? You understand Russia and China aren't democracies, and that their leaders aren't accountable to their populations. If you look at the world from that perspective, what's a few years of depression for the populous if it adds your name to the list of great emperors and czars that are remembered down history.
Yes I agree neither the gop or dems care about debt. But at this moment I will admit I have more faith in the gop coming around.
whatithink
GOLD
I'm not skipping over trillions. Its an 8 year plan, so you don't have to spend it all in year one. It also allegedly pays for itself, but we'll see on that.
I'm meh on Taiwan. They should be able to take care of themselves. They have the money and manpower - have at it. They have zero practical value to the US. The Ukraine has been bubbling for years and will continue. I don't think Putin is going to full on invade a country of 40M who do not want him. He needs the $ from gas & oil exports to fund his fantasy. He may take some more nibbles and it suits him to go all nationalistic. Always be wary of leaders who go all nationalistic ... there are some locally too.
As for the GOP and the debt, that's just hilarious. The GOP care about the national debt when the Dems are in control only. That's it. When they get it back, they rack it up at a faster rate than the Dems.
I'm just not into abandoning traditional allies so Joe Biden can fund all this prancing around sprinkling money. It just more bad government that is going to haunt us down the road.
That said, I respect that you think about it differently. Cheers mate.
whatithink
GOLD
No worries. I'm not generally OK with abandoning allies, but Taiwan has had decades to figure out a relationship with China. Obviously that's a very overly simplistic statement but is the US really prepared to go to war with China (or they with us) over Taiwan?
In contrast, I was utterly disgusted with the abandonment of the Kurds after they had literally gone to war in support of and with the US in Syria. The Kurds have bled with the US military in support of US geo political goals, and they were cast aside without a second thought. It was despicable to me.
I likewise respect the difference in opinion and civil conversation.