House passes $1.2 Trillion infrastructure bill

It was 6 D's against, 14Rs for?
Not bad bipartisanship. America 1st

 

Tx and Fl shut down also.

 

Party over country. That is the partisan way.

 

I play the game partisanship people play.
To try and show how silly partisanship is.

 

Sure they can.
Just as trump people can claim how great he made the economy when he inherited a 7 yr bull run economy.
When in reality, the president has very little impact on the over all economy.

The fed res has the greatest impact.

 

Wow. You missed completely what my question was.

It was basically a yes or no answer.

 

Economists even said the economic success was due to Trump policies but hey, when you live in a bubble you never learn the facts.

 

After a 7 yr bull run.

But go ahead and post a link.

 

No, this was not for social programs, but infrastructure, which is why I said what I said.

 

Roads, bridges and infrastructure, something we have far more then Australia, and 100's of millions more people/usage then you have..

What were you yammering about, roads, population, socialism or OUR PAMPERED ARSES? Funny how you always seem to attack and insult Americans, sorry if I get a little annoyed with the Australian posters always adding a little insult and flame baiting at we PAMPERED American arses expense..

 

Well I appreciate the recommendation and I have ordered it and will read it. One of the reasons I engage with people here on PF is to (in a meaningful way) exchange ideas with people I disagree with. That being said. My expectations for learning that there really is a proverbial free lunch are not very high.

 

The majority of it goes to social programs. They have redefined social programs to be "human infrastructure." They make these redefinitions because people like you fall for it every time.

 

Nonsense.

 

Tax & Spend is the fiscally responsible approach. Obviously, and its ironic that Republicans preach about fiscal responsibility, when they never live up to it. I guess 'hypocritical' is the right word.

Rand Paul actually said the GOP economics practically defines the word "hypocrisy"

 

That may be what you have been told, but it is not true. As a matter of fact that is a very old talking point, and has not been valid in a long time. It would have been a part of the much larger $3.5T bill, which was never passed. Infrastructure is a must-have, which is why even Trump pushed for it, but then we got hit by Covid and he spent trillions in hand outs instead.

New spending:
$110 billion to repair the nation’s aging highways, bridges and roads
$39 billion for public trans
$66 billion to improve the rail service’s Northeast Corridor
$7.5 billion for electric vehicle charging stations
$65 billion for broadband access
$65 billion to improve the reliability and resiliency of the power grid.
$25 billion to improve runways, gates and taxiways at airports
$11 billion for transportation safety
$17 billion in port infrastructure
$55 billion to upgrade water infrastructure
$21 billion to clean up Superfund and brownfield sites, reclaim abandoned mine land and cap orphaned gas wells

The rest goes to funding existing infrastructure programs.

 

No. Tax and spend is not the fiscally responsible approach we need. What's needed is to limit spending to those things required by the US constitution. Increasing tax rates is an obstacle to economic growth.


There has to be a balance. You can't always increase taxation and increase spending. That idea has led to the US accumulating 30 trillion dollars worth of debt. History shows over and over again that increasing tax rate rates slows the economy and results in less revenues. Then the spending increases always remain in place.


We need to have taxation, but it needs to be done in such a way as it does not impede economic growth. Government does have legitamate expenses, but they, the federal government, have overstepped the restraints placed upon them by the US constitution.

 

Yes it is. It is also known as balanced budget. You spend what you have, as opposed to spending what you don't have. Can spending be reduced? Yes, but balancing spending & revenue is far more responsible than spending borrowed money.

Out taxes have been reduced to a point where half the nation doesnt pay anything. We are WAY below Reagans 'low' taxes.

I am not saying I want more taxes, I am simply saying we need to pay for our spending, not just borrow.

No, the opposite is true. Debt goes up when you spend, but cannot, or will not pay for it.

 

The majority goes to what's now called "human infastructure." Those are the "handouts" you seem to oppose. At least you did during the Trump administration.


d focus in large part on President Joe Biden’s “human infrastructure” agenda: expanding the child tax credits; establishing paid family and medical leave; funding universal preschool and free community college; and further action on climate change. These are all things, again, that would have a sizable impact on people’s lives, adding up to the biggest expansion of social welfare programs since former President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, which included Medicare and Medicaid, in the 1960s

 

I read today that the bill includes an increase in the SALT deduction cap from $10,000 to $80,000. If true, this would largely benefit high income earners. Can anyone explain why this was in the bill? It seems to run contrary to Democrats' frequent expression that "the rich need to pay more in taxes".

 

You are uninformed and simply repeating old talking points. The human infrastructure would have been in the old $3.5T bill, but it didn't fly. This is a different bill.

Hand-outs as in sending people checks, including people who didn't even lost their jobs is ridiculous waste of money, and that is what we witnessed in 2020. Some social programs make more sense than others, and you can call programs like medicaid and VA "hand-outs" but that is only a spin of words.

Different bill. You are uninformed.

Its in another bill, which hasn't passed.

 

Because most politicians are phonies and only care about themselves

 

We are not undertaxed. Not anywhere close to that condition. Have you ever heard of "tax freedom day?" That's getting later and later every year.

What we need to do is decrease spending, then limit spending increases.

Seeing that you brought up Reagan, when he took office the marginal tax rate was somewhere around 90% and revenues were about 450 billion dollars a year. He persuaded the congress to lower that tax rate into the 20% range and revenues doubled to nearly a trillion dollars. That is a fact.

 

[QUOTE="Pro_Line_FL, post: 1073054361]

....Its in another bill, which hasn't passed.[/QUOTE]

There is another bill which is nearly all spending on social programs. There's plenty of that spending in this current bill too. You are uninformed.

 

I liked Reagan, but revenue did come anywhere near doubling. He reduced top rate to 50% (which would be considered outrageous today), and towards the end of his presidency there was another cut. He hiked taxes when he realized the debt was skyrocketing, but in the end of the day national debt tripled when he was president. So, there is that.....his presidency started the "borrow and spend" trend which has brought the dent to where it is now.

 

Yes, revenues went from 450 billion to close to a trillion dollars by lowering the top marginal tax rate. This is an unarguable fact.

You do realize that only the congress can raise or reduce spending, right? A president can only recommend or request. This is another unarguable fact.

When revenues increased through the cuts in tax rates, the congress raised spending at a much greater rate resulting in more debt. They saw that revenue increase and went crazy.