The Biden Presidency

[dirtywick]

Oh sure they do. And all they say is, "Tax cuts will pay for themselves." If you assume that tax cuts will stimulate 10% growth, see, then revenues are going to increase.

That's al the democrats need to do. How will we pay for the infrastructure? Call it an investment that will pay for itself.

Or they could use the answer Trump gave on who was going to pay for his infrastructure plan. "People. Investors."

That's right. He thought that there would be "investors" to pay for fixing the bridges in rural Minnesota and Iowa. I'm not joking, this is what he actually said. Before he was elected. This is where Hilary screwed up. She should have gone after him on this type of nonsense.

I wonder what the average return on investment is for a highway overpass?

 

[Stacyhs]

I wonder what the average return on investment is for a highway overpass?

Or for fixing our bridges that kill people?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I wonder what the average return on investment is for a highway overpass?

I've tried gaming this out, toll roads are outdated.

They would need to use a subscription type service for basic road use. Then add premium features like use of fast lanes or certain avenues/boulevards/trafficways.

Right turn on red? $0.10 per occurrence or take advantage now: unlimited right turn on red for $2.50/month.

use of right turn on red may still be restricted at some sites from 7-9am and 4-6pm M-F, other exceptions may apply at the discretion of the vendor

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wonder what the average return on investment is for a highway overpass?

Billions if you count the disasters prevented such as the examples in Stacy's post.
I don't understand why so many people think spending now has to have some kind of return like tolls when if we don't upgrade things like failing bridges there will always be money needed to fix the damage. Is pay now to save later really that hard of a concept?

We have a bridge here in Seattle that is failing so it is closed. It means a huge section of the city, West Seattle, is cut off. They have to use one small bridge (1st Ave South), or go the very long way around or use passenger only ferries.

The West Seattle Bridge typically connects northern West Seattle to Downtown Seattle and SODO, however the bridge has been closed since March 2020 due to needed repairs.

West Seattle is served by bus service from King County Metro, including the RapidRide C Line. There is a Washington State Ferries dock in the Fauntleroy neighborhood, with service to Vashon Island and to Southworth on the Kitsap Peninsula. The passenger-only King County Water Taxi also runs between Duwamish Head and downtown Seattle.

It's a great way to encourage people to leave their cars home, but not everyone can do that. And it really sucks when you are limited by needing to catch the last ferry or you can't get home.

This stuff has been neglected for a couple decades so legislators can give people tax breaks that keep them in office. And people like McConnell and Dump really pushed for tax cuts that favored them and their cronies.

Biden is pushing for an investment in the country. That is what will have a big payoff and now is the time this needs to be done. Tax cuts are not needed and raising taxes are. I'd like to see that narrative marketed more than it currently is that we need this investment.

 

[Stacyhs]

The top 1% made a windfall on Trump's tax cuts and will continue to do so as will corporations. As Biden says, raise their taxes and get our infrastructure the repairs so sadly needed.

 

[dirtywick]

Billions if you count the disasters prevented such as the examples in Stacy's post.
I don't understand why so many people think spending now has to have some kind of return like tolls when if we don't upgrade things like failing bridges there will always be money needed to fix the damage. Is pay now to save later really that hard of a concept?

We have a bridge here in Seattle that is failing so it is closed. It means a huge section of the city, West Seattle, is cut off. They have to use one small bridge (1st Ave South), or go the very long way around or use passenger only ferries.

I don't see how that would attract investors. I think even in a libertarian's ultimate wet dream scenario the government is still maintaining the roads.

 

[smartcooky]

Oh sure they do. And all they say is, "Tax cuts will pay for themselves." If you assume that tax cuts will stimulate 10% growth, see, then revenues are going to increase.

Of course, when you ask Republicans to show examples of when tax cuts to the wealthy have stimulated growth... they can't. The reason is because it doesn't ever happen. There is no evidence whatsoever that so-called "trickle down economics" works - none, nada, zip! Why? Its because when the wealthy have their extra disposable income from the tax cuts, they don't increase their spending, they invest the extra money in order to enrich themselves further... the average Joe doesn't see a penny of the cash spent.

 

[gnome]

I don't see how that would attract investors. I think even in a libertarian's ultimate wet dream scenario the government is still maintaining the roads.

Not sure about that... "but muh roads" is a common libertarian stereotype of who they call "statists".

 

[ponderingturtle]

I haven't looked into this, but Biden has no control over patent rights outside our borders. Foreign countries sometimes have mandatory licensing of patents built into their laws. I never managed patents in India, so I have no idea what their system looks like, but I know Biden has no control over it.

Well he can set government policy to ignore countries violating said patent. Or voiding the patent because being patented in the US only applies to the US and it would need to be patented in say India(which I am sure it is).

 

[pgwenthold]

Of course, when you ask Republicans to show examples of when tax cuts to the wealthy have stimulated growth... they can't. The reason is because it doesn't ever happen. There is no evidence whatsoever that so-called "trickle down economics" works - none, nada, zip! Why? Its because when the wealthy have their extra disposable income from the tax cuts, they don't increase their spending, they invest the extra money in order to enrich themselves further... the average Joe doesn't see a penny of the cash spent.

But since when does that actually matter?

I didn't say they need to show that there is massive growth, just claim it will cause massive growth.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I don't understand why so many people think spending now has to have some kind of return like tolls when if we don't upgrade things like failing bridges there will always be money needed to fix the damage. Is pay now to save later really that hard of a concept?

Yes, because it is hard to quantify. It's hard to understand the economic impact of that new bridge because you can't directly see the economic effects of it. The gains are indirect. Since it's indirect, it's hard for people to make the mental connection between the two. Tolls are easier to understand because you can directly see "this bridge made $X".

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The Biden administration is considering using outside firms to track extremist chatter by Americans online, an effort that would expand the government's ability to gather intelligence but could draw criticism over surveillance of US citizens.

sigh

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/dhs-partner-private-firms-surveil-suspected-domestic-terrorists/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2021-05-03T13%3A00%3A04

Yeah, that's what we need.

Sure, you might wonder why we need an expanding security state considering that the right wing extremists being cited here planned their violence in plain view of the whole world, or often committed acts of violence openly in front of police with no fear of arrest, but sure, we need more data on citizens.

Right wing extremist groups, who espouse their violent ideology in plain view, are being used for justify expanding the surveillance power of police who routinely do nothing to stop said groups and instead abuse these powers to target their political enemies. What could go wrong?

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, because it is hard to quantify. It's hard to understand the economic impact of that new bridge because you can't directly see the economic effects of it. The gains are indirect. Since it's indirect, it's hard for people to make the mental connection between the two. Tolls are easier to understand because you can directly see "this bridge made $X".

I really don't think that is the problem. Pretty much "everyone" and that means both Democrats and Republicans can see that there are tremendous financial benefits to "that bridge". That isn't really the problem. It's more that people take it for granted and want someone else to pay for it. It's also procrastination squared. Sometimes there's an existing bridge that never was supposed to last 50 years that seems to be fine even today 70 years later.

We have trillions of dollars that should have gone to maintenance to or the long overdue bridge replacement which instead have found their way into a billionaire's bank account.

China continues to kick our ass because they have been investing in infrastructure. An infrastructure that supports their businesses.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't see how that would attract investors. I think even in a libertarian's ultimate wet dream scenario the government is still maintaining the roads.

Pffft... Why do we need investors? We need tax dollars.

Yes yes, public-private partnerships.. great idea. But it by no means is the only way to rebuild infrastructure.

Speaking of save now pay a lot more later, Mexico just had a bridge collapse last night. I'm sure there'll be a thread on it if there isn't one already. Early reports are there was earthquake damage that went unrepaired.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Of course, when you ask Republicans to show examples of when tax cuts to the wealthy have stimulated growth... they can't. The reason is because it doesn't ever happen. There is no evidence whatsoever that so-called "trickle down economics" works - none, nada, zip! Why? Its because when the wealthy have their extra disposable income from the tax cuts, they don't increase their spending, they invest the extra money in order to enrich themselves further... the average Joe doesn't see a penny of the cash spent.

IIRC, it stimulated the economy under Reagan the way spending on a credit card you won't be paying back would.

Both Reagan and Bush included a bit of cash for the peons to make it look like it stimulated the economy. As time went on more tax-break benefits went to the rich.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes, because it is hard to quantify. It's hard to understand the economic impact of that new bridge because you can't directly see the economic effects of it. The gains are indirect. Since it's indirect, it's hard for people to make the mental connection between the two. Tolls are easier to understand because you can directly see "this bridge made $X".

"No one knew it could be so hard."

Puhleese! It's called marketing, the government is capable. Show a few of those collapsed bridges on the telly a few times and people get it.

 

[dirtywick]

Pffft... Why do we need investors? We need tax dollars.

Yes yes, public-private partnerships.. great idea. But it by no means is the only way to rebuild infrastructure.

Speaking of save now pay a lot more later, Mexico just had a bridge collapse last night. I'm sure there'll be a thread on it if there isn't one already. Early reports are there was earthquake damage that went unrepaired.

We don't need investors. The point I am making is relying on investors is nonsensical since you wouldn't find any because there's no way to extract a return from the investment.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

sigh

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/03/politics/dhs-partner-private-firms-surveil-suspected-domestic-terrorists/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=link&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2021-05-03T13%3A00%3A04

Yeah, that's what we need.

Sure, you might wonder why we need an expanding security state considering that the right wing extremists being cited here planned their violence in plain view of the whole world, or often committed acts of violence openly in front of police with no fear of arrest, but sure, we need more data on citizens.

Right wing extremist groups, who espouse their violent ideology in plain view, are being used for justify expanding the surveillance power of police who routinely do nothing to stop said groups and instead abuse these powers to target their political enemies. What could go wrong?

That article claims the state department might have been away of the Jan 6 planning if they had had XYZ powers.

"There was only limited awareness before January 6 of what violent extremists were planning through social media," said Tom Warrick, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who served as DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism Policy from 2008 until 2019 and has decades of experience as a career government official at agencies including the State Department.

Bull ****. Search for Jan 6th planned in plain sight and you get a page of returns with it was.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That article claims the state department might have been away of the Jan 6 planning if they had had XYZ powers.

Bull ****. Search for Jan 6th planned in plain sight and you get a page of returns with it was.

You need only look across the country over the last year or so and it becomes plainly clear that police are simply not interested in policing right wing violence. Jan6 was simply the culmination of a series of violent, extreme-right street rallies that were allowed to run wild across the country without police intervention, many of which involve the exact same groups and/or individuals that are currently looking at multiple count felony and conspiracy indictments.

It's not that the police are unaware of the risks of right wing political violence, it's that they are complicit. If cops aren't directly collaborating with these groups, they are assisting them through selective non-enforcement of the law.

 

[ahhell]

Of course, when you ask Republicans to show examples of when tax cuts to the wealthy have stimulated growth... they can't. The reason is because it doesn't ever happen. There is no evidence whatsoever that so-called "trickle down economics" works - none, nada, zip! Why? Its because when the wealthy have their extra disposable income from the tax cuts, they don't increase their spending, they invest the extra money in order to enrich themselves further... the average Joe doesn't see a penny of the cash spent.

IIRC, it stimulated the economy under Reagan the way spending on a credit card you won't be paying back would.

Both Reagan and Bush included a bit of cash for the peons to make it look like it stimulated the economy. As time went on more tax-break benefits went to the rich.

Also the tax cuts under Kennedy. In both cases, they also coincided with increased spending. So, you can draw what ever conclusions you want.