Hillary's Infrastructure Plan Loots America for Neo-Liberal Gains

[Cosmic Kitten]

Not Good Enough, Hillary!

Hillary has a *plan* to allow 1% investors
to continue to loot hard working, and poor citizens.

Clinton’s plan proposes the creation of an infrastructure bank to leverage hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign and domestic private investment for infrastructure projects, an idea that has been supported by the Obama administration, transportation experts and both conservative and liberal economists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-to-unveil-major-jobs-and-infrastructure-spending-proposal/2015/11/28/37d19c3e-95f9-11e5-a2d6-f57908580b1f_story.html

Hillary ties her idea to a previous
neo-liberal plan put forth by Obama...
the *infrastructure bank*.

The infrastructure bank provided loans
to private entities to *upgrade* our infrastructure,
while guaranteeing the PROFITS to the investor class,

Administration officials have, in turn, tried to allay fears about taxpayer losses by noting that the loans would only go toward projects that have “a dedicated revenue stream,” such as toll roads, to repay the loans. The bank would be managed by an independent seven-member board, with no more than four members from either party.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-obamas-plan-for-infrastructure-bank-would-work/2011/09/19/gIQAfDgUgK_story.html

Engineering reports put the cost
at at least a 3.6 TRILLION DOLLARS
by 2020 (total infrastructure)

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/grades/
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/a/#p/overview/executive-summary

This is the piecemeal dismantling of OUR Country,
our infrastructure, and out national security
so that Hillary and her cronies can bleed
our economy dry.

Not Good Enough, Hillary.
Just say NO to neo-liberal economics!

[Armstead]

1. Yep. the devil is always in the details.

If public services like roads are always forced to be "profit centers" then profit will always trump the needs of people and the overall public good.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. *They* want to squeeze the citizens dry

Our infrastructure is a National Security concern.

There is absolutely no justification
for putting highways, energy production,
the energy grid, water supplies, or
communications in the hands of
private OR FOREIGN control.

Hillary and her patrons can NOT
be trusted with our safety of security.

[JaneyVee]

7. Squeeze the citizens dry?

Who do you think should pay? You think the rich take mass transit?

[Cosmic Kitten]

9. Same people who pay for WARS.

Why shouold a private or FOREIGN
entity OWN a piece of OUR infrastucture?

We have trillions for death and destruction
but not enough for transportation.

Please, spare us from such obtuse arguments

[JaneyVee]

17. Tell Bernie to put his plan up.

Would you rather tolls on some or higher taxes on all to pay for it?

[Kentonio]

26. Taxes on all

Tolls are regressive.

[JaneyVee]

28. I use mass transit and already pay high taxes.

If my taxes go up anymore I will probably have to take my kids out of school and move.

[pengu]

29. Nobody pays "high taxes" in this country

Nobody.

[JaneyVee]

55. I do. Especially combined with rent and utilities.

[JonLeibowitz]

85. You do know that rent and utilities aren't taxes right?

[Sheepshank]

89. utilities here are taxed

water, power, gas, phone, internet, cable...it's all taxed

[JonLeibowitz]

90. And you know that is not what i meant.

[Sheepshank]

92. But I suspect that was what was meant upthread. Just clarifying not bashing. n/t

[JonLeibowitz]

97. Ok.

[leftofcool]

103. You might want to look at your electric and water bill again.

Check that bottom line to see how much you are paying in taxes.

[JonLeibowitz]

104. It is actually $0 but i understand that is atypical. My point was that cost of living

That is, rent and utilities, are not appropriate to lump in with taxes

[pengu]

98. No, you don't

[leftofcool]

102. I pay extremely high taxes. My tax rate is higher than Mitt Romney's

[AgingAmerican]

119. Read your lips

"No New Taxes" aka keep borrowing.

[jalan48]

46. Taxed Enough Already. Sound familiar?

That's right, it's what the T.E.A. in Tea Party stands for.

[JaneyVee]

56. Except they were talking about the rich. I'm middle class.

[jalan48]

64. No, the vast majority of Tea Party members are middle class and poor.

The idea that American's are taxed too much comes from people like the Koch Brothers (who founded the Tea Party). It's a bait and switch. The middle class saves a few hundred in taxes every year while the super rich save millions.

[JaneyVee]

66. Yes, and they were protesting proposed higher taxes on the rich.

[jalan48]

76. I have friends who are Tea Party members.

They are only worried about themselves. Their argument is that if the rich benefit as well they don't care. In the end it's all about them. Their desire for lower taxes is also justified by their racism, they say, "Why should I pay more taxes just so some black person can get welfare?" I think the emphasis should be on getting the super rich and corporations to pay their fair share. When you have .1% of the population having over 50% of the country's wealth, something is wrong. It's not a sustainable system.

[JaneyVee]

82. I agree the rich should pay higher taxes. But I'm middle class.

And my taxes are pretty high in NYC. That coupled with my high rent and utilities. And I have 2 kids.

[jalan48]

86. I understand what you are saying, I just think the emphasis needs to stay on the gross inequality

happening in our country.

[TheFarseer]

125. so we shouldn't have any roads?

Except roads owned by foreign companies. You know that's what it will come to. What kind of a country will that be?

[AgingAmerican]

117. Taxes of course

Going from Newark airport to N. Bergen cost us about 20$ in tolls. Perhaps a 15 mile drive.

[Armstead]

11. Everyone should pay what is reasonable for them

That's the idea of a progressive tax structure. Remember that little bit of nostalgia?

[Cosmic Kitten]

16. Yep, what's reasonable or what they take from the public.

Individuals, institutions, or corporations
should be contributing back to society
in measure commensurate with what
the extract or *cost* society.

The continued externalization
of expenses, and profit taking,
and tax avoidance, while degrading
our quality of life needs to stop, NOW.

[fasttense]

44. Yes the uber rich use mass transit

They use it to transport their workers. They use it to move their customers. They use it to transport their supplies, food and raw materials. Yes, the uber rich are the largest users of mass transit and our infrastructure.

[bread_and_roses]

48. I see - so the rich shouldn't pay for roads because they fly private jets everywhere?

WTF? You do realize your endless, totally misleading "higher taxes" mantra leads straight into Neocon teabaggery don't you? So let me get this straight: we worker drones should pay for the roads that take us to our underpaid jobs where we have no rights at all so the rich can suck up the total value of what we produce to get even richer?

We should also pay for our own health insurance - in my case over $1000 mo for the same plan I'm lucky enough (for a little while longer) that I get through work? Because when that goes away all I'll be able to afford is to be a "Bronze" person with deductables so high they'll bankrupt me - and no, I'm not eligible for any "rebates" or whatever the hell scam they're offering - BECAUSE NO ONE CAN REALLY AFFORD 8+ % OF THEIR INCOME AS TRIBUTE TO THE VAMPIRE INSURANCE COs - NOT WHEN WAGES HAVE BEEN FLAT FOR THIRTY YEARS OR MORE.

And I guess we worker drones should also pay the total cost of the schools that educate the underpaid worker drones of the future - because after all, the rich go to private schools, don't they? As well as the total cost of our first responders, since the rich live in gated communities and pay for their own private security?

Your simplistic, misleading "higher taxes" fear-mongering leads us straight to the rich paying nothing for the "Commons" while we peon commoners pay for the entire infrastructure that supports all .... a path we've already gone wayyyyyyyy too far down.

[leftofcool]

2. So, you don't mind raising my taxes for free college

but you don't want to pay to drive on good roads. Got it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

5. Reading comprehension much?

It's about PRIVATIZING!

Not paying taxes...
Got it!?!

[leftofcool]

23. Here's a tip: Don't drive on a toll road. Hope this helps.

[Cosmic Kitten]

25. Here's a tip...

Don't PRIVATIZE our
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
for PROFIT!

WE don't want Hillary or her cronies
sucking the 99% of citizens dry.

WE don't want neo-liberal economics
creating a permanent under-class.

K?

[leftofcool]

33. And we don't want Bernie sucking the middle class dry by raising our taxes.

Thank you very much.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Besides ... No where in that piece does WaPo indicate that the plan will do that ...

the merely conflate (blindly, I suspect) that HRC's plan will be the plan that the (President) Obama administration supported.

There are, literally, hundreds of ways to attract private investment for infrastructure repair (up-grades) without privatizing that infrastructure.

Months ago, in the Progressive Group, I offered one method that would tie together investments, tax credits, and repatriation of off-shored assets ... it didn't go over well, because TAX CREDITS TO THE WEALTHY/CORPORATIONS, OMG!!!!!

[daleanime]

77. And never any reason not to?

It's easy money.....


Just in case

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. I don't understand your response. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

93. Interstate highway system supposed to be

Financed and maintained by federal gas tax, not tolls. Paying at the pump is a pretty good way to collect this tax for many reasons including you are already stopped and it is an incentive to reduce use of carbon based fuels.

[Cheese Sandwich]

135. Sometimes there's not much choice

[JaneyVee]

4. You're mad at toll roads?

And you realize that all of America's infrastructure is built by the private sector using mostly union labor.

Imagine that, proposals with actual ways to pay for them that don't add to the debt.

[Cosmic Kitten]

6. MAD about PRIVATIZING PUBLIC infrastructure...

Yes, keep the filthy hands
of the 1% off our infrastructure!

Got it?

[leftofcool]

34. Oh FFS!

[Cosmic Kitten]

8. You worried about the *debt*???

Tell your candidate to STOP
waging WAR of aggression,
STOP toppling foreign governments,
Stop wasteful spending on for profit prisons...
etc etc etc.

Hillary doesn't care about *debt*...
only who PROFITS.
It's as plain as day.

[JaneyVee]

10. Vermont is one of the only states that ships prisoners to private prisons.

And Bernie has voted for more war than Hillary. From Kosovo, Somalia, to Afghanistan and every war funding bill before and after Hillary was even in the Senate.

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. Blah blah blah Every hear of a state called Pennsylvania?

KIDS FOR CASH SCANDAL

The "kids for cash" scandal unfolded in 2008 over judicial kickbacks at the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Two judges, President Judge Mark Ciavarella and Senior Judge Michael Conahan, were convicted of accepting money from Robert Mericle, builder of two private, for-profit youth centers for the detention of juveniles, in return for contracting with the facilities and imposing harsh adjudications on juveniles brought before their courts to increase the number of residents in the centers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

This is what For-Profit-Prison
brings to our country

Hillary takes money from those
who support For-Profit-Prison.

[JaneyVee]

15. No kitty, Hillary does not take money from private prisons...

But Vermont does ship them to private prisons.

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. We remember *Clinton's Tough on Crime*

Still defending the indefensible...
and using silly semantics to
make arguments... pfft

Does Hillary still want to incarcerate
*illegal* immigrants?

As immigration and incarceration issues become central to the 2016 presidential campaign, lobbyists for two major prison companies are serving as top fundraisers for Hillary Clinton.

Corrections Corporation of America and the Geo Group could both see their fortunes turning if there are fewer people to lock up in the future....

Richard Sullivan, of the lobbying firm Capitol Counsel, is a bundler for the Clinton campaign, bringing in $44,859 in contributions in a few short months. Sullivan is also a registered lobbyist for the Geo Group, a company that operates a number of jails, including immigrant detention centers, for profit....

Fully five Clinton bundlers work for the lobbying and law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld.

Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in America, paid Akin Gump $240,000 in lobbying fees last year. The firm also serves as a law firm for the prison giant, representing the company in court.

Akin Gump lobbyist and Clinton bundler Brian Popper disclosed that he previously helped CCA defeat efforts to compel private prisons to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Hillary Clinton has a complicated history with incarceration. As first lady, she championed efforts to get tough on crime. “We need more police, we need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders,” Clinton said in 1994. “The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets,” she added....

The future of both criminal justice reform and immigration are critical for private prison firms. The Geo Group, in a disclosure statement for its investors, notes that its business could be “adversely affected by changes in existing criminal or immigration laws, crime rates in jurisdictions in which we operate, the relaxation of criminal or immigration enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction, sentencing or deportation practices, and the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal laws or the loosening of immigration laws.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/23/1405229/-Private-Prison-Corporations-Stand-With-Hillary-Clinton

Hillary want's to PRIVATIZE every
Public institution that turns a PROFIT.

No Good Enough, Hillary

[JaneyVee]

20. Bernie voted for that 1994 crime bill.

Hillary did not.

[Bluenorthwest]

47. Hillary had no vote but strongly promoted Bill's Crime bill, both before and after it became law

In addition, the vast majority of Democrats voted for the crime bill, this includes 2/3 of the Black Caucus and all the leadership of that caucus. House Democrats were 188 yes, 64 No. Bernie voted with the Democrats as usual.
I actually lobbied against that bill as a private citizen via the office of Rep Maxine Waters, who also opposed the bill. So I remember all sorts of things about it.

[PatrickforO]

31. Dirty money. Very dirty.

For profit prisons are an offense against everything this nation supposedly stands for.

[karynnj]

32. Bernie has been in Congress and mayor, neither played

A role in that decision. The problem is lack of capacity and mandatory sentences from the bill signed by Bill Clinton.

[MrMickeysMom]

37. ^^^THIS^^^

Commentary based on facts, not HRC talking points which clearly are not making their point in this thread.

[Armstead]

13. Like Clinton would have voted against Kosovo, Afghanistan, etc?

[Cosmic Kitten]

24. Don't let her derail or distract from HILLARY'S *PLAN*

She uses every edge to conflate
of create false equivalencies
to justify Hillary's horrible policy stances.

She NEVER gives a forthright defense...
it's always *but but but they did it too*!!!

[sleepyvoter]

67. He opposed the war.

The only reason Bernie voted AYE on those war funding bill was to support the troops. He did not authorize for Chimp to start the war.

[JaneyVee]

69. HE VOTED YES ON AFGHANISTAN WAR.

And yes on HR Res 64.

[Scuba]

14. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[brooklynite]

133. MY candidate ISN'T waging war...

...that's the prerogative of the President and the Secretary of Defense.

YOUR candidate has already said he won't be taking an isolationist stand. Might want to get ready for some disappointment.

[Warren Stupidity]

95. Toll roads are stupid and irritating.

I suggest your candidate make "More Toll Roads" the centerpiece of her campaign.

[LonePirate]

18. Is this an anti-Obama thread disguised as a rant against Hillary?

It sure seems like it given how Hillary is merely supporting an Obama plan.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. It's an Anti-PRIVATIZE America thread

Neo-liberals seek to squeeze the
middle class, crush the working poor,
and ignore the impoverished...

all for the sake of PROFITS

It's immoral, inhumane,
and outright despicable!


Hillary doesn't seem to care!

[bread_and_roses]

52. oh - she cares allright ...for her donors (n/t)

[leftofcool]

22. Yes.

[BlueCaliDem]

35. Yes. The OP dislikes Democrats President Obama and Hillary Clinton equally,

and has a posting history to back that up.

These Democrats, obviously, can do no right no matter what.

[MrMickeysMom]

40. What a weak response to distort what this is about...

Are you accusing the person starting this thread of something? Or, do you just not like what has been pointed out regarding the policies that have hastened this nation's un-sustainability?

[BlueCaliDem]

63. I've been reading the OP author's posts for MONTHS now.

When I wrote my post, I knew exactly what I was writing about.

Are you accusing the person starting this thread of something?

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Or, do you just not like what has been pointed out regarding the policies that have hastened this nation's un-sustainability?

I don't take anything a proven anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party poster at DU posts seriously, especially when that poster believes that the president, rather than Congress, has the power to dictate domestic policy. Sorry.

[MrMickeysMom]

73. Who said it was anti-anybody...

YOU did.

I don't take anything a proven anti-Obama and anti-Democratic Party poster at DU posts seriously, especially when that poster believes that the president, rather than Congress, has the power to dictate domestic policy. Sorry.

Sorry? That's a very sorry response. You should either take ownership over what this thread is about or start a new thread on who you think is anti-Obama. That subject appears to be in your future, not mine.

[BlueCaliDem]

78. Yes. I did. And I base that on past posts by the OP author.

Sorry? That's a very sorry response.

It's a truthful and fact-based one.

You should either take ownership over what this thread is about or start a new thread on who you think is anti-Obama. That subject appears to be in your future, not mine.

And you should stop trying to censor people you don't agree with. This OP is under the GENERAL DISCUSSION: PRIMARY section, not the Bernie Sanders Group. You don't like what I've posted? Fine. Ignore or move on, but don't tell me what I can and cannot post.

[MrMickeysMom]

94. You should take your own advice...

If you wished to comment and use the excuse, "I base that on past posts by the OP author".... then why don't you post it IN THOSE OTHER POSTS?

Let me give you some advice. If you're going to highjack the thread, while following up with the statement, "you should stop trying to censor people you don't agree with", take a breather and come back to a conversation where where we are on the same subject. Then, you can rightfully moan and complain that somebody's trying to censor you. Right now, who the heck knows what you think you're being censored over.

False accusations are a bit tiring to read after a while.

[BlueCaliDem]

100. Still trying to censor me? Tsk. Tsk.

If you wished to comment and use the excuse, "I base that on past posts by the OP author".... then why don't you post it IN THOSE OTHER POSTS?

Why should I have to? Again, allow me to remind you...THIS IS THE [font color="red"]GENERAL DISCUSSION[/font]~PRIMARIES section of DU. So stop trying to censor me and stop trying to dictate what I can and cannot post just because you disagree with me.

Let me give you some advice.

Puh-lease don't bother yourself.

False accusations are a bit tiring to read after a while.

I repeat - ignore them or move on.

[MrMickeysMom]

101. Who is censoring you?

If you didn't like what the OP said in their other posts, then you have the opportunity to go to those other posts.

You call that trying to censor you?

I call what is going on here an alert bait, and I think you know this already. The ignore button is also your friend.

[BlueCaliDem]

107. TRYING to censor (and failing miserably).

If you didn't like what the OP said in their other posts, then you have the opportunity to go to those other posts.

Why are you so convinced that I haven't done so?

You call that trying to censor you?

Nope. I call telling me what's acceptable to you to write, censoring.

If you're going to highjack the thread, while following up with the statement, "you should stop trying to censor people you don't agree with", take a breather and come back to a conversation where where we are on the same subject.

Censor: noun: an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

I hope that clears it up for you.

I call what is going on here an alert bait, and I think you know this already.

I have no clue what you mean by the above statement.

The ignore button is also your friend.

I know. It's why I recommended it to you first.

[MrMickeysMom]

115. Enough of this alert baiting...

If you've proven anything, it's that you don't know the meaning of censor...

Good luck in your next post, because it's a necessity of your life.

Meanwhile, I'll go back to addressing the issues with people who don't come to these boards just to pick a fight, stalk, or alert bait, as you most certainly have done.

Have a nice day

[BlueCaliDem]

124. ??? What an odd post.

But you have a nice day, too!

[Trajan]

36. Fan of Gungeon ....

And of Hillary. ..

Gone

[LonePirate]

45. How short-sighted to consider my pro-repeal of the 2A stance as being a Gungeon fan!

Also, I intend to vote for Bernie but I absolutely despise all of the anti-Obama, anti-Hillary, anti-Democrat and anti-Bernie bile spewed on this site. We spend far too much time tearing each other down which does nothing but tarnish our brand and make it easier for our enemies on the right.

[frylock]

109. It's an anti-shit policy thread..

it only looks anti-Obama if one supports shit policy.

[LonePirate]

111. Does O'Malley oppose this? Otherwise he agrees with Obama, Hillary and Bernie here.

If it is such a bad policy, it certainly has support from the current President and whichever Dem becomes the next one.

[TheFarseer]

127. I'm certain Bernie doesn't support privatizing infrastructure

If that is what you are implying. Any democrat who supports privatizing infrastructure for the profit of foreign and domestic millionaire investors is no democrat and should be ashamed of themselves.

[LonePirate]

128. See post #58 for Bernie's support of an infrastructure bank.

I'm not sure why everyone is jumping to the conclusion that toll roads are automatically privately owned. In my state, the state government owns the toll roads.

[TheFarseer]

134. this is the first I'm hearing of this

Not sure what's in it for corps if not ownership but I'll look into it.

[tammywammy]

130. Sanders supports a national infrastructure back

Sanders explains how his Infrastructure bill will rebuild America's crumbling economy

• National Infrastructure Bank: Capitalized with $5 billion a year, the NIB will leverage enough private capital to finance $250 billion in transportation, energy, environmental and telecommunications projects.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/1/investing-in-infrastructure-will-support-13-million-jobs

[riversedge]

27. So, your are calling Obama a neo-liberal ? Why hit on Pres Obama??

[MrMickeysMom]

41. I'd say you were making a pretty good case of distortion here with that post.

Do you always take approach when you don't like what is being said?

If you don't like it, then don't distort it.

[Phlem]

43. "New Democrat" = Thirdway = Neo Liberal

Try reading, it works wonders.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. Yes he is a center right democrat.

[PatrickforO]

30. Shock and awe infrastructure banking

Great. So, how come we can't get these big corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and publicly fund this stuff? Why is that. Because the way Clinton wants it, even more of our tax money will be funneled into corporate profits and to the 1%.

[NCTraveler]

38. It's painful watching Sanders supporters position themselves as anti-union,

anti-infrastructure, and anti-social equality just to oppose Clinton. His supporters are sounding more and more like the right every day in their endless need to fight against progressives.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. All you do is characterize other people without any citation. I read a post of yours today which

used very nasty tropes. You are calling me, a gay Bernie supporter and Union member for 35 years anti Union and anti equality. How dare you do that? Based on what? 'Those people, they hate equality and Unions' you say. With impunity. It's vile, it's rude, it's pure nasty and much of it smacks of hugely disturbing elements.

[arcane1]

105. This topic is too complex for some people, so they resort to name-calling and disloyalty claims.

And they will call you anything rather than comprehend.

[MrMickeysMom]

70. You know what's REALLY PAINFUL, NCTraveler?

People who say they are Democrats not getting that over the last 20 years that this nation has been in precipitous decline in the standard of living for working families. It's pretty pathetic that some candidates like HRC purposely stray away from acknowledging corporate ownership of our major television networks like General Electric which owns the NBC television network. GE makes billions of dollars producing weapons and is therefore interests in defense spending and questions of foreign policy. GE has also shipped thousands of American jobs overseas to take advantage of cheap labor. So, they are KEENLY interested in NAFTA, GATT, Most Favored Nation status with China and other issues shaping the race policy of the United States.

These same Democrats somehow forget that GE got away with paying absolutely nothing in federal taxes and would like to be in the same position AGAIN. So, there it is again... that SAME sense of interest in federal tax policy, that long reputation as an anti-union corporation that constantly battles with workers. SAME INTEREST IN FEDERAL LABOR POLICY.

Tell me who is anti-union again?

[2pooped2pop]

39. she just can't stop can she?

OMG if she is elected we are damned near as bad off as a republican in there.

[WillyT]

42. K & R !!!

[raindaddy]

49. Stop making the US taxpayer pay for a government that has become the corporate world's global.......

police force.

Cut our military budget to equal our nearest competitor "China"... Use the billions of dollars of surplus to rebuild America and deal with the causes of climate change creating millions of new jobs.. Focus on serving humanity instead of endless war, divisive politics, fear mongering etc....

[Recursion]

50. AYFKM? DU is now against an infrastructure bank?

Seriously. Screw this place. This is Ross Perot-level crazy. I'll be back in a few months. I cannot take this lunacy.

[jeff47]

59. Now?

The "infrastructure bank" has always been a scam to hand public money over to private investors.

[tammywammy]

60. It's just ignorance about what the infrastructure bank is

At least I hope. Bernie Sanders is for an infrastructure bank as well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Yep ...

They oppose a plan that they haven't seen because WaPo (blindly, I suspect) conflates HRC's plan (that hasn't been rolled out) with a plan the (President) Obama Administration supported.

[frylock]

110. Remember how off-base that crackpot was regarding NAFTA?

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. Where in the linked article does it say that HRC's plan is anything like the plan ...

that had been supported by the Obama administration, that had the infrastructure bank provide loans to private entities to *upgrade* our infrastructure, while guaranteeing the PROFITS to the investor class?

This is DU just being DU ... getting out ahead of the plan details, when waiting just a couple of weeks, for the plans full announcement, would end the speculation (that DU always seems to get wrong) and put people in a position to speak intelligently on a topic.

But hey ... the media that we are to distrust, and for good reason, is to be trusted; but, only in certain situations, i.e., speculation of the worst.

[SoapBox]

54. Bad, bad, bad.

Not good enough!

And I say, Hey Hill, Cut it Out!

[tammywammy]

58. I support a national infrastructure bank

First proposed in the 1980s, the idea of a federal bank to finance road projects has never quite come to fruition, but it’s attracting enthusiasm from both sides in the current polarized political climate. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have proposed plans to create one, as has Lindsey Graham. Thought its origins lie with Democrats, the leading Senate and House proposals this year to launch a bank include several Republican champions. Past legislative proposals have generated support from groups as politically diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, both of which like the idea of a growth policy that creates new jobs and keeps goods flowing.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/infrastucture-americas-roads-and-bridges-000155

[beerandjesus]

62. The right-wing talking points in this thread are absolutely incredible.

Good thing Hillary is such a liberal, or I might think her supporters actually meant all the Republican shit they're spewing here!

[abelenkpe]

65. I know right?

Because being against privatization is a republican position.

[stupidicus]

72. in other words, you can't rebut any of it

but the use of the "rightywing!!!!" word makes you think you can and did

[beerandjesus]

99. Actually, the OP rebuts everything the Hillary crowd has been spamming the thread with.

But you're right, I can't be bothered, on an ostensibly Democratic board, to rebut Republican talking points. Pretending that keeping taxes low has to be America's #1 priority, but America is too broke to afford any public infrastructure investment, but we've got plenty of money for endless war, is beneath the dignity of a Democratic forum.

If Hillary supporters want to pretend that's a "victory", have at it. It's me throwing up my hands, like i would with someone who believes that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

[stupidicus]

112. I'm sorry

I musta misread your effort, or responded to the wrong post

[beerandjesus]

122. Funny though, I misinterpreted yours too....

But I guess my post was misleading, since I didn't stop to consider how the Hillary crowd is calling us crypto-right-wingers all the time for supporting Bernie.

Surreal, isn't it? We support the guy walking in FDR's footsteps, but we have to endure accusations of creeping conservatism because Certain People are so invested in Hillary's fake "liberalism". Just read the Chris Hedges article posted elsewhere, so I'm extra pissed about it at the moment, too, hahaha!

Glad we're on the same side of this!

[stupidicus]

123. it's been a bit mindboggling

but I can't say wholly unexpected given my long history of battling that type.

It only affirms what I've long thought about them -- not only is there seemingly some overlap in their morality/politics with their rightwing cousins, it is also seen in the "by any means necessary" debating style that closely resembles that of their cousins as well.

[Docreed2003]

131. The pretzel twisting logic....

The pretzel twisting logic to support any neoliberal policy, no matter the detriment to those whom the Democtatic Party ostensibly supports, is amusing and yet utterly disgusting at the same time. What future is there as a party, or better yet a country, if our choices are between evangelical lunacy and pro-corporate compromise. Because that's how I see it right now. I hope that, even if Bernie isn't the nominee, that his legacy in this campaign will be a reigniting of the liberal roots of the Democratic Party.

[beerandjesus]

132. Couldn't agree more!

[Doctor_J]

114. so is the neo-liberal proposal to give the roads to profiteers

[beerandjesus]

120. Absolutely. Can't stand how quick Hillary's people are...

....to enable and rationalize the banksters.

[Dustlawyer]

68. Another example of the Third Way!

this is why the big donors donate to Hillary. It is these type of "solutions" that have bankrupted the poor and middle class. We could pay for these infrastructure projects by changing our priorities and the tax code. Tax the people/corporations that are actually making the money. They have so many loopholes etc., that they pay almost nothing while we pay the lion's share of the bills.

Bernie has a plan for this that does not involve privatizing more of our Commons. This is looting our country and has to stop!

[Betty Karlson]

71. Not good enough.

But please stay cued in: Clinton might try to steal just enough of the Bern to make herself look progressive again.

Also: did you know he is a socialist? And that he might raise taxes (and it could be yours, I heard someone tell me)?

[Tarc]

74. CosmicKitten is missing an important fact

Bernie Sanders also supports this.

First proposed in the 1980s, the idea of a federal bank to finance road projects has never quite come to fruition, but it’s attracting enthusiasm from both sides in the current polarized political climate. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have proposed plans to create one, as has Lindsey Graham. Thought its origins lie with Democrats, the leading Senate and House proposals this year to launch a bank include several Republican champions. Past legislative proposals have generated support from groups as politically diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, both of which like the idea of a growth policy that creates new jobs and keeps goods flowing.

The details vary by proposal, but the principle is similar: Big highway and bridge projects are expensive, and the government can make them a lot cheaper by offering low-interest loans and other forms of financing. In some schemes the bank would replace direct federal funding. In others, it would supplement it.

- http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/07/infrastucture-americas-roads-and-bridges-000155

Will there be a retraction, an attack on Sanders too, or backpedaling?

[NurseJackie]

91. That's frequently the case in many similar posts.

Your post and link have very interesting information. Thank you!

[daleanime]

75. I do not want to go....

where Hillary would lead us.

[valerief]

79. I thought over 60% of our discretionary taxes went to this shit--you know the WAR BUDGET.

We read the stories. Our tax money goes to projects that are barely done or not done at all and the WAR PROFITEERS pocket most of the cash.

[tularetom]

80. Why doesn't she just come out of the closet and switch parties now?

I actually think she'd have a better chance of getting elected if she ran as a republican, rather than continuing to pretend to be a Democrat.

And all the slimy shit the Clintons have pulled over the years would be forgotten as if by magic, by the liberal media.

[SHRED]

81. Fascism

"When private and government interests merge;.

Privatization is killing our government and therefore our country. Sold to the big monied interests.

[Nyan]

83. This kinda reminds me of the parallel between Hillary and Margaret Thatcher drawn by Killer Mike

Margaret Thatcher privatized England's railroad for corporate profits. While this may not be as overt as that, the plan seems to have an element to that effect...

[tammywammy]

88. Is Bernie Sanders also like Thatcher?

He supports a National Infrastructure Bank as well

Sanders explains how his Infrastructure bill will rebuild America's crumbling economy

• National Infrastructure Bank: Capitalized with $5 billion a year, the NIB will leverage enough private capital to finance $250 billion in transportation, energy, environmental and telecommunications projects.

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2015/1/investing-in-infrastructure-will-support-13-million-jobs

[Zorra]

84. Recommend nt

[FloridaBlues]

106. Do you even know about infrastructure? Sat on any local committees for road way funding ?

Or state funding or road repair?
Didn't think so. Talking points from the Fox News. (Neo liberal)
The cost can get high.
No it's not piece mealing the house won't pass much of a budget.
Not easy as sanders makes it sound oh we will fix our crumbling roads. This current president has been all over asking for funding and guess what very little in budget gets freed up from the republicans
And it won't change if sanders gets elected for road repair or highway

[d_legendary1]

108. Yay! More toll booths!!! Just what we need!

It isn't enough that some of the highways have been sold to private entities who are making a mint off of roads that used to be free. Now we gotta subsidize the profits for construction companies as well? This is bullshit!

[Doctor_J]

113. That explains a lot. less infrastructure improvement for much more money than Sanders plans

And a big transfer of tax dollars to the investor class. Just like her healthcare swindle.

[MrMickeysMom]

116. K&R, Cosmic Kitten!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

118. It looks like her "donors" expect to cash in. K&R

[PowerToThePeople]

121. Just fricken tax them!

[leveymg]

126. Privatization at taxpayer expense. Welcome to Hillary's America.

Now pay up to Saudi Arabia or the bridges will fall down.

[Cheese Sandwich]

129. Great post. Just say no.

We don't need to go begging corporate investors to save our public infrastructure, or our economy. We can build our own people powered economy that works for everyone instead of just the very rich.