Yeah, conservatives are probably right. We don't need an infrastructure bill...

[rightwinger]

Biden's tax and spend monstrosity has very little to do with infrastructure. Less than 10%, in fact. You got duped if you think his Chinese assistance bill would do anything to fix the type of problem you showed above.

Why do you continue to spread lies?

Investing in roads, bridges, rail, ports, water systems, power grid, securing the internet is 100 percent infrastructure

You can’t identify a single thing that is not

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not surprising that you’re full of shit.
Here's what's in the bipartisan infrastructure package

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance, and proving my point.

President Joe Biden signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law Monday, finalizing a key part of his economic agenda.
It will deliver $550 billion of new federal investments in America's infrastructure over five years, touching everything from bridges and roads to the nation's broadband, water and energy systems.

$1,200,000,000 - $550,000,000 = $650,000,000 in spending that does not involve the maintenance/repair of roads, bridges, dams, and the electric grid.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure, Bluto can post the pork

You don’t even know what’s in the bill you blindly support?

 

[rightwinger]

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance, and proving my point.

President Joe Biden signed a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law Monday, finalizing a key part of his economic agenda.
It will deliver $550 billion of new federal investments in America's infrastructure over five years, touching everything from bridges and roads to the nation's broadband, water and energy systems.

$1,200,000,000 - $550,000,000 = $650,000,000 in spending that does not involve the maintenance/repair of roads, bridges, dams, and the electric grid.

Your math fails to identify anything that is pork…..only an incomplete list of what is in the bill

 

[BackAgain]

Your math fails to identify anything that is pork…..only an incomplete list of what is in the bill

Bullshit.

Question: Math identifies the alleged spending authorization amounts and subtraction of that from the full tab leaves you with?

Answer: The stuff that is NOT designated for actual infrastructure purposes.

ALSO, you ought to be more honest, Leftwhiner.

I doubt anyone — including the Congressman who first introduced the act — has the slightest damn clue of all the shit that’s in it.

Here is the link to the Act itself:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

Bills tend to be drafted in the least comprehensible manner and with the use of jargon and cross references to other acts and regulations. (Probably unavoidable.) Nevertheless, the legislative gobbledygook obfuscates what is being authorized and when and where and how-distributed and by whom and subject to what exceptions — etc.

Here is one example: Ask most people what the term “infrastructure” incudes and I doubt a whole lot will say “sports fishing restoration and recreational boating safety.” Those things may well be of some importance. But are they “infrastructure?” I’d say “no.” But Title VIII of this monstrous piece of legislation says “yes.”

The point is: when you add this kind of pork (including the clean energy research and other “green” items), you are doing something quite different with the huge ass deficit spending you’re legislating than what it’s label claims.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit.

Question: Math identifies the alleged spending authorization amounts and subtraction of that from the full tab leaves you with?

Answer: The stuff that is NOT designated for actual infrastructure purposes.

ALSO, you ought to be more honest, Leftwhiner.

I doubt anyone — including the Congressman who first introduced the act — has the slightest damn clue of all the shit that’s in it.

Here is the link to the Act itself:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/text

Bills tend to be drafted in the least comprehensible manner and with the use of jargon and cross references to other acts and regulations. (Probably unavoidable.) Nevertheless, the legislative gobbledygook obfuscates what is being authorized and when and where and how-distributed and by whom and subject to what exceptions — etc.

Here is one example: Ask most people what the term “infrastructure” incudes and I doubt a whole lot will say “sports fishing restoration and recreational boating safety.” Those things may well be of some importance. But are they “infrastructure?” I’d say “no.” But Title VIII of this monstrous piece of legislation says “yes.”

The point is: when you add this kind of pork (including the clean energy research and other “green” items), you are doing something quite different with the huge ass deficit spending you’re legislating than what it’s label claims.

Sports fishing restoration- rebuilding waterways, removing debris, spawning grounds
Recreational boating safety- remove boating hazards, public docking facility improvement

INFRASTRUCTURE

If that is your biggest complaint, it is a solid bill

 

[BackAgain]

Sports fishing restoration- rebuilding waterways, spawning grounds
Recreational boating safety- remove boating hazards, public docking facility improvement

INFRASTRUCTURE

If that is your biggest complaint, it is a solid bill

As usual, you studiously miss the point.

I didn’t say it was my biggest complaint. In fact, it’s just one of very many things in that lard-loaded pork legislation that answers question you’ve been asking.

Clearly, there is a shit ton more pork in that bill than anything we would properly define as actual “infrastructure.” You can continue to pretend otherwise, but your pretense doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Obviously.

America has long had an infrastructure problem. I have not said otherwise. But there are a lot of other things in this Republic that also require attention. This is why we need to prioritize. And just lumping-in anything on a socialist wish list under a fake heading of “infrastructure” isn’t a good answer.

 

[rightwinger]

As usual, you studiously miss the point.

I didn’t say it was my biggest complaint. In fact, it’s just one of very many things in that lard-loaded pork legislation that answers question you’ve been asking.

Clearly, there is a shit ton more pork in that bill than anything we would properly define as actual “infrastructure.” You can continue to pretend otherwise, but your pretense doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Obviously.

America has long had an infrastructure problem. I have not said otherwise. But there are a lot of other things in this Republic that also require attention. This is why we need to prioritize. And just lumping-in anything on a socialist wish list under a fake heading of “infrastructure” isn’t a good answer.

What you are complaining about is a very, very small part of the whole bill. It is still infrastructure. I have Kayaked quite a bit and our waterways are a mess. Every bill has something someone may not like
For you to use that to support your claim that the whole bill is pork is deceptive

 

[Grumblenuts]

Rather shameless partisan hackery.

 

[candycorn]

He had RINOs, like Speaker Ryan.

And the Senate, well a spending bill cannot originate in the Senate.

Poor Donald....couldn't get any of his bills passed.

What happened to "The Art of the Deal"? Oh yeah, he didn't read it (or write it) either.

 

[BackAgain]

What you are complaining about is a very, very small part of the whole bill. It is still infrastructure. I have Kayaked quite a bit and our waterways are a mess. Every bill has something someone may not like
For you to use that to support your claim that the whole bill is pork is deceptive

That one point I made is a small part. But add up enough small points and viola! Big point and bigger bill. And it doesn’t matter if you like kayaking. What matters is whether it belongs at all in some pork-laden hyper expensive bill that increases our debt so massively.

The deception is all yours. Because of your far left wing ideology, you don’t accept that words have actual meaning. But they do. And lumping in a lot of crap under the false name of “infrastructure” is a huge example of deception. Like your own username: it is false.

 

[rightwinger]

That one point I made is a small part. But add up enough small points and viola! Big point and bigger bill. And it doesn’t matter if you like kayaking. What matters is whether it belongs at all in some pork-laden hyper expensive bill that increases our debt so massively.

The deception is all yours. Because of your far left wing ideology, you don’t accept that words have actual meaning. But they do. And lumping in a lot of crap under the false name of “infrastructure” is a huge example of deception. Like your own username: it is false.

The bill provides for infrastructure

You may consider infrastructure that helps others but not you to be pork. But then you may benefit from some things that others object to.

But to characterize the bill as containing little infrastructure or claiming it is mostly pork is Conservative misinformation to cover for the fact that they voted against it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

They voted against it and offered nothing else. Yapping as though Republicans don't regularly pork up their bills as well is the really hilarious part. They both suck. That's what they do. And they'll never stop. Until the rich have picked us all clean.

 

[BackAgain]

The bill provides for infrastructure

You may consider infrastructure that helps others but not you to be pork. But then you may benefit from some things that others object to.

But to characterize the bill as containing little infrastructure or claiming it is mostly pork is Conservative misinformation to cover for the fact that they voted against it.

It covers quite a bit more than “infrastructure.” As you know. It finances a shit load of “green energy” blather like “carbon capture.” If there is a place for such things at all, it can be debated. But to lump it all in under the false name of “infrastructure” is pure deception. Like your username. This may explain why you’re so fond of it.

 

[rightwinger]

It covers quite a bit more than “infrastructure.” As you know. It finances a shit load of “green energy” blather like “carbon capture.” If there is a place for such things at all, it can be debated. But to lump it all in under the false name of “infrastructure” is pure deception. Like your username. This may explain why your so fond of it.

Can you show me the exact wording you object to?
Hard to argue with so little information.

 

[BackAgain]

Can you show me the exact wording you object to?
Hard to argue with so little information.

Are you that unfamiliar with the bill you’re endorsing? Fuck, boy. I even gave you a link to the entire monstrosity. Even you should be able to do a word search for buzzwords like “carbon” and “carbon capture” and “emissions.” The crap is littered throughout that massive spending bill.

 

[rightwinger]

Are you that unfamiliar with the bill you’re endorsing? Fuck, boy. I even gave you a link to the entire monstrosity. Even you should be able to do a word search for buzzwords like “carbon” and “carbon capture” and “emissions.” The crap is littered throughout that massive spending bill.

Yes, I have not memorized every phrase
Can you post the phrase you object to?

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, I have not memorized every phrase
Can you post the phrase you object to?

I object to all the green shit inserted into an infrastructure bill. Who the fuck said anything about “the phrase”? Go do a word search. It really isn’t that hard.

 

[rightwinger]

I object to all the green shit inserted into an infrastructure bill. Who the fuck said anything about “the phrase”? Go do a word search. It really isn’t that hard.

That is your right

It also contains Infrastructure for EV Charging
You may not like it, but it is a wise investment

Maybe if Republicans cosponsored the bill and actually voted for it, there would be more to your liking

 

[22lcidw]

Sports fishing restoration- rebuilding waterways, removing debris, spawning grounds
Recreational boating safety- remove boating hazards, public docking facility improvement

INFRASTRUCTURE

If that is your biggest complaint, it is a solid bill

Much of that is any infrastructure is going to Blue states by a high percentage. Unions will see a lot of this. New York states is getting twice the amount then Florida and Florida has more people.