Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Deal!

[Governor]

1 hour ago, Bidens_basement said:

How many were directly from covid? How many had serious health issues before contracting covid?

That’s what I really want to know. I believe, as the years go by, this “pandemic” will be viewed quite differently than it is now. 

Many have said that the total is much higher, so it will be viewed much worse. It doesn’t matter if people had health issues, they still died of Covid. 
 

Trump’s legacy won’t improve over time mostly because he didn’t pass any meaningful legislation. There won’t be anything to point to as a success story 30 years from now. The guy never did anything. He started out bad, never grew into the job like most do, and ended worse. It was a total disaster. He also became very isolated in the job due to his bad performance, inability to hire and surround himself with good people, and lost touch with the American people, and reality in general. 
 

I can’t think of anyone that served in that administration that will be viewed favorably or go on to do great things. He started out with backups, and ended up with the practice squad. Maybe Christopher Wray? None come to mind. The only one that escaped with their career still intact was Nikki Haley. The rest will never come near any future WH administration ever again.
 

He was also impeached twice, involved in multiple scandals, and lost in a landslide as an incumbent, which is pretty rare. He never broke 50 percent approval. You could argue that he didn’t even have 1 good full week during his term. He’s got a real shot at being viewed as the worst president in history. The history books certainly won’t be kind to him.
 

Uncle Joe is the opposite. His legacy will improve over the years similar to Lyndon B. Johnson, barring some catastrophic event occurrence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Governor

[Westside]

2 hours ago, Governor said:

Many have said that the total is much higher, so it will be viewed much worse. It doesn’t matter if people had health issues, they still died of Covid. 
 

Trump’s legacy won’t improve over time mostly because he didn’t pass any meaningful legislation. There won’t be anything to point to as a success story 30 years from now. The guy never did anything. He started out bad, never grew into the job like most do, and ended worse. It was a total disaster. He also became very isolated in the job due to his bad performance, inability to hire and surround himself with good people, and lost touch with the American people, and reality in general. 
 

I can’t think of anyone that served in that administration that will be viewed favorably or go on to do great things. He started out with backups, and ended up with the practice squad. Maybe Christopher Wray? None come to mind. The only one that escaped with their career still intact was Nikki Haley. The rest will never come near any future WH administration ever again.
 

He was also impeached twice, involved in multiple scandals, and lost in a landslide as an incumbent, which is pretty rare. He never broke 50 percent approval. You could argue that he didn’t even have 1 good full week during his term. He’s got a real shot at being viewed as the worst president in history. The history books certainly won’t be kind to him.
 

Uncle Joe is the opposite. His legacy will improve over the years similar to Lyndon B. Johnson, barring some catastrophic event occurrence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I couldn’t get past your first paragraph. That is the very definition of political bias.

[Tiberius]

On 6/25/2021 at 10:43 AM, unbillievable said:

Didn't Obama already spend 2 trillion on Infrastructure?

 

 

Oh, ya, and that should be the last of it, huh? 

[Westside]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh, ya, and that should be the last of it, huh? 

How much more debt should we place on the shoulders of POC? 
We all know the rich white elites will not be affected by the rising cost of inflation these trillion dollar “projects” will sooner or later occur to the poorest communities.

[Tiberius]

18 minutes ago, Bidens_basement said:

How much more debt should we place on the shoulders of POC? 
We all know the rich white elites will not be affected by the rising cost of inflation these trillion dollar “projects” will sooner or later occur to the poorest communities.

So you don’t think our government should help build the country up? What are you some country bumpkin watching the cows walk past? 

[B-Man]

 

WHAT’S THE DEAL?

 

This could’ve been a celebratory moment for the White House. President JOE BIDEN finally — finally! — got his bipartisan deal on infrastructure, last week’s trip to Europe went well, the pandemic is easing, the country is opening back up, and a new Fox News poll has his approval rating at 56%.

 

Instead, the White House spent Friday in cleanup mode after moderate Senate Republicans fumed over Biden’s threat not to sign the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the much more expensive, partisan-crafted reconciliation bill landed on his desk at the same time.

 

{snip}

 

“A White House official disputed the notion that Ricchetti suggested Biden may have misspoke — an impression that those two sources said was left. The official said that the president’s team anticipated dustups during the early phases of the process and noted that White House press secretary JEN PSAKI several times during Friday’s briefing took a softer tone than Biden did on Thursday.”

 

Think of it as the “moonwalk” approach to damage control: The White House is trying to walkback without appearing like they’re walking back.

 

It’s clear that the White House knows they messed this one up. The threat to veto the bipartisan bill hasn’t been repeated by staff or the president since his initial remarks, and a readout of his call with Sen. KYRSTEN SINEMA (D-Ariz.) said “the President also reiterated that he would fight to pass the Bipartisan Agreement, as he committed to the group,” and that he “looks forward to signing both these bills.”

 

Politico of course discreetly avoids the obvious evidence of Biden’s declining mental faculties embedded in this episode, but what about Biden’s Republican partners? They appear to have signed off on a deal that represents a staged defeat of massive proportions. What’s their excuse? Paul Mirengoff’s attempt to sort it out left us hanging on a the edge of a cliff, and that is approximately where we are again today.

 

Here is the statement of “Joe Biden,” via this morning’s Playbook here. Burgess Everett separately reports “Republicans back on board after Biden’s infrastructure clean-up” (“with Republicans praising his newly clarified approach to their bipartisan infrastructure plan and a key Democrat endorsing work on a separate, larger spending package”). What manner of “compromise” is this? It’s a sad situation.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/06/26/cleanup-at-1600-penn-493387

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/06/whats-the-deal.php

[Westside]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you don’t think our government should help build the country up? What are you some country bumpkin watching the cows walk past? 

Is it worth putting your kids and grand kids as well as millions of POC oppressed for generations to come?

 

I thought you are against oppression, yet your policies would do exactly that.

 

Why do you speak out of both sides of  your mouth?

[B-Man]

 

 

Biden: On third thought, maybe I won't veto the infrastructure bill

 

 

Watching the chaos engulfing the White House since the announcement of the bipartisan infrastructure deal has turned into something bordering on infotainment at this point.

 

First, Biden’s massively bloated proposal was deemed to be dead in the water by most observers.

 

Then, the “grand bargain” took everyone by surprise, primarily because the progressives in Joe Biden’s party had seemed insistent that there wasn’t going to be a deal that didn’t include all of the “human infrastructure” items on the Democrats’ wishlist.

 

Act three came when Biden almost casually announced on Thursday night that the bipartisan deal wasn’t happening unless the rest of the original package went through via reconciliation at the same time.

 

This sent the Republicans who agreed to the smaller deal scrambling, while Biden pretended that nobody should be surprised and that was always part of the plan.

 

More at the link:

https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2021/06/27/biden-on-third-thought-maybe-i-wont-veto-the-infrastructure-bill-n399171

[Governor]

4 minutes ago, Bidens_basement said:

Is it worth putting your kids and grand kids as well as millions of POC oppressed for generations to come?

 

I thought you are against oppression, yet your policies would do exactly that.

 

Why do you speak out of both sides of  your mouth?

Trump added 12 trillion to the debt, but it will be this infrastructure bill that puts us in danger? Nope.

[Westside]

4 minutes ago, Governor said:

Trump added 12 trillion to the debt, but it will be this infrastructure bill that puts us in danger? Nope.

12 trillion?

First I heard of this. Please elaborate on this 12 trillion dollars you mentioned.

[Governor]

8 minutes ago, Bidens_basement said:

12 trillion?

First I heard of this. Please elaborate on this 12 trillion dollars you mentioned.

Sorry, 8 trillion.

[B-Man]

 

[Doc]

5 hours ago, Bidens_basement said:

Put the blame where it belongs, china.

With an assist from The WHO, CDC, Fauci and hundreds of thousands to millions of people that didn’t listen.  But yeah, it’s all Trump’s fault. 🙄

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Bidens_basement said:

Is it worth putting your kids and grand kids as well as millions of POC oppressed for generations to come?

 

I thought you are against oppression, yet your policies would do exactly that.

 

Why do you speak out of both sides of  your mouth?

Investing in the future is a good thing. That's why you are against it. 

[Westside]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Investing in the future is a good thing. That's why you are against it. 

I’m against investing in the future? I absolutely am interested in investing for the future. Unlike you, who wants to only invest for the past. 

[plenzmd1]

42 minutes ago, Governor said:

Sorry, 8 trillion.

please at least try to be factually correct, and with context.

 

The debt would have grown appx $4.1 Trillion if Covid did not hit.

 

Trump deficit spending was responsible for $3.5T of that increase. 

 

A nearly unanimously passed bipartisan Covid relief bill(s) added in $3.7T  in 2020. That aint on Trump or the republicans, it is on all politicians that voted for it.

 

I agree that the $3.5 T is ridiculous in and of itself, but MMT advocates say no worries!

 

Lets now add in the fact ole Uncle Joe wants to pass $6t to that...wowser!

 

But your arguments become specious at best if you do not at least use correct numbers.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Governor]

Just now, plenzmd1 said:

please at least try to be factually correct, and with context.

 

The debt would have grown appx $4.1 Trillion if Covid did not hit.

 

Trump deficit spending was responsible for $3.5T of that increase. 

 

A nearly unanimously passed bipartisan Covid relief bill(s) added in $3.7T  in 2020. That aint on Trump or the republicans, it is on all politicians that voted for it.

 

I agree that the $3.5 T is ridiculous in and of itself, but MMT advocates say no worries!

 

Lets now add in the fact ole Uncle Joe wants to pass $6t to that...wowser!

 

But your arguments become specious at best if you do not at least use correct numbers.

 

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But Covid did hit during Trump’s term. 
 

Are we supposed to erase all of Obama’s spending too because he inherited an economy in free-fall?

[plenzmd1]

Just now, Governor said:

But Covid did hit during Trump’s term. 
 

Are we supposed to erase all of Obama’s spending too because he inherited an economy in free-fall?

My argument was not if the deficit number was good or bad, my argument was with your numbers. No Covid, and the number is no where the $8T you stated. Context matters. What Obama era numbers were/ what he spent has zero to do with this argument.

 

Joe wants to add in one year double what Trump's deficit numbers would have been in almost 4. As mentioned, one can agree with MMT and say deficits matter not...some are not buying that argument. 

 

Would love to get your why deficits do not matter

[Governor]

2 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

My argument was not if the deficit number was good or bad, my argument was with your numbers. No Covid, and the number is no where the $8T you stated. Context matters. What Obama era numbers were/ what he spent has zero to do with this argument.

 

Joe wants to add in one year double what Trump's deficit numbers would have been in almost 4. As mentioned, one can agree with MMT and say deficits matter not...some are not buying that argument. 

 

Would love to get your why deficits do not matter

Key Takeaways

 

During his campaign in 2016, President Trump promised to eliminate the national debt in eight years.

Instead, it was projected that he would add at least $8.3 trillion.

In October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion, an increase of almost 36% since President Trump took office in 2017.

 

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Governor said:

Key Takeaways

 

During his campaign in 2016, President Trump promised to eliminate the national debt in eight years.

Instead, it was projected that he would add at least $8.3 trillion.

In October 2020, the national debt reached a new high of $27 trillion, an increase of almost 36% since President Trump took office in 2017.

 

damn, so frustrating trying to have a logical discussion on here.

 

Again, i dont care what was projected, i care what happened. Deficit spending increased by almost $3.5T before the effects of all the Covid spending bills are added in under Trump. A number that i think is ridiculous and harmful in the long run as a financial conservative, but that is the number.

 

Joe wants to add another $6T in his "infrastructure" bill...(I am not even including the $1.7t they rammed through under reconciliation)  just about doubling all of Trumps deficit spending.

 

Your initial argument is " no big deal"...I asked you to explain why you think massive deficits do not matter...I don't care who the President is...why do YOU think deficits don't matter? Use whatever theory you want, any numbers..i am open to listen...I would just like to hear you explain your position with out using the word Trump or Republican.