General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm told the $1 trillion infrastructure bill is a give away to the rich
that it is a payout to big oil and corporations more broadly. They say it's worse than passing nothing. Yet no one will provide any specifics that show that the bill does what they say. Are there provisions in the bill that actually are corporate giveaways? If not, isn't irresponsible to trash Biden's efforts without any evidence?
hedda_foil
(16,371 posts)Do ya maybe have a link?
See responses in this thread. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15914451
Make7
(8,543 posts)And that's why the price of oil and gas are so high?
PortTack
(32,750 posts)NYT reporter. That deal, of course is now off. the saudis have backed downproduction leading to increase prices
iemanja
(53,026 posts)PortTack
(32,750 posts)iemanja
(53,026 posts)Thanks.
Wounded Bear
(58,618 posts)other than it is typical RW-speak, or maybe ultra-green speak.
In any event, if we pass the $1T bill to fix roads and bridges and such it would just increase vehicle emissions unless we pass the green parts of the bigger bill to encourage the shift to electric vehicles.
Deuxcents
(16,154 posts)Until n unless the public gets to see what these bills do and how they are interrelated, were gonna have confusing ideas. Im glad Biden is getting out to educate on these bills. The $$ amount turns people into..what? Just was the Rs want.. break it down .. let the people know what is what in simple non political talk. Biden is good with that. Once people know, I believe it will change the momentum needed to pass these important bills for our future. This is the 21st century for gods sake.. other nations are passing us by n we cannot for that reason and for our future, too.
betsuni
(25,442 posts)and decarbonized hydrogen fuel that pretend to address the climate crisis but don't, that the fossil fuel industry will use these technologies to "greenwash" their image. I failed to see how this was a huge giveaway.
Another article said the problem was three old deductions that remain. Deduction for intangible drilling (whatever that is), something about oil and gas production, and one for mineral rights owners. I failed to see how this was a huge giveaway.
I really wish the people insisting the bill is a horrible giveaway to Big Oil would tell us what they're talking about.
it's a knee-jerk effort to defend AOC. It's probably based on nothing, especially since they refuse to answer when asked for specifics.
betsuni
(25,442 posts)The usual.
ymetca
(1,182 posts)They get people to believe that any kind of spending bill is a "give away" to the undeserving, while tax breaks are just "letting you keep more of your hard-earned money". Never mind that those tax breaks are WAY tilted NOT to benefit YOU in the slightest, just the already very, very, VERY rich.
Every time my conservative relatives start with that crap, I just shut them down with "Jesus Christ, ALL government spending is giving away our taxes to someone. Why not you or me, instead of Exxon, Pfizer, Aetna, or Northrop Grumman for a change?"
Response to ymetca (Reply #8)
Post removed
Celerity
(43,248 posts)Biden wanted $2.6 trillion in new spend and tax incentives (plus of course the renewals)
The Infrastructure Plan: Whats In and Whats Out (it's brutal)
iemanja
(53,026 posts)but it doesn't address the question in the OP. Do you believe it is a give away to the rich?
Celerity
(43,248 posts)https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/07/senators-want-to-pay-for-infrastructure-with-asset-recycling-thats-just-a-fancy-term-for-privatization/
Last week, President Biden and a bipartisan group of senators announced a major deal on infrastructure, agreeing to $1.2 trillion worth of spending on roads, public transit, and utilities. The exact details of the proposal are scant, as are clear plans on how to pay for it. But a preliminary Link to tweet
/photo/2" target="_blank">list of nearly a dozen potential financing sources included something called asset recyclinga fancy term for a type of privatization that has long enticed Wall Street investors, while bringing frustration to local residents who are often left footing the bill.
The term asset recycling appears to have been coined in Australia, when in 2013 the countrys government launched a program aimed at funding new infrastructure by leasing existing public assetslike roads or electrical gridsto private companies. In recent years, institutional investors have pushed for programs like this in the United States, even raising billions to pursue infrastructure projects. These sorts of partnerships are framed as mutually beneficiala money-maker for private investors, and a windfall for underfunded public goods. That win-win framing made its way into the Trump administration, when National Economic Council director Gary Cohn championed a proposal to pay states and localities a bonus for selling off public infrastructure. Take a project you have right now, sell it off, privatize it, we know it will get maintained, and well reward you for privatizing it, he told executives in 2017.
Trumps proposal never came to fruition. But in recent years, a number of states and localities have gone ahead with forms of privatization of local resources. Often, these public-private deals have not turned out well for the people who most depend on local infrastructure: the residents themselves. Heres a roundup of some of the places where asset recycling and privatization have caused a lot more problems than theyve solved.
Down Under
Asset recycling came about in Australia in 2013 under Tony Abbott, an archconservative prime minister known to his critics as the Mad Monk. The plan was simple: To encourage states to sell or lease assets like ports, the federal government offered a bonus payment equal to 15 percent of the sale price. The money from the sale and the federal bonus would then be invested in new infrastructure projects. The policy worked in the sense that states and territories did offload billions of dollars worth of assets. But some of the deals were highly controversial. A Chinese company, for example, got a 99-year lease to the Port of Darwin in Australias Northern Territory. Critics raised serious national security concerns about turning a strategically located port over to a foreign company, and they questioned why the territorial government leased the port before it had even come up with a plan for what to do with the windfall. Federal senators called the decision weird and absurd.
snip
EndlessWire
(6,477 posts)I cannot recall the specifics, but Obama did something similar with one of our ports in Florida. But, this was for Russian control. Nope, can't remember the port or the company or anything else, except that it was one of those 99-year leases. I don't know if I can find that info anymore. But, it is interesting that Australia did the same.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)opinion. We need infrastructure...it has been neglected and there is other good stuff in the bill. Have you read it? Look the bottom line is if we can pass both bills...that is great. I will be delighted but if we can't get the votes for reconciliation then we pass infrastructure and win the midterm and come back with more Senators and pass a bigger better bill. That is our only road...otherwise, we will lose our Republic.
Celerity
(43,248 posts)the money is not going to be used for its orginal purpose...so this is a good use in my opinion.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/28/politics/infrastructure-bill-explained/index.html
What's missing
It would also have improved the wages of home health workers, who now make approximately $12 an hour, and would have put in place an infrastructure to give caregiving workers the opportunity to join a union. Also left on the sideline: $100 billion for workforce development, which would have helped dislocated workers, assisted underserved groups and put students on career paths before they graduate high school. The deal also leaves out the $18 billion Biden proposed to modernize the Veterans Affairs hospitals, which are on average 47 years older than a private-sector hospital.
What's also out is a slew of corporate tax hikes that Biden wanted to use to pay for the American Jobs Plan but that Republicans staunchly opposed. Biden's original proposal called for raising the corporate income tax rate to 28%, up from the 21% rate set by Republicans' 2017 tax cut act, as well as increasing the minimum tax on US corporations to 21% and calculating it on a country-by-country basis to deter companies from sheltering profits in international tax havens.
It also would have levied a 15% minimum tax on the income the largest corporations report to investors, known as book income, as opposed to the income reported to the Internal Revenue Service, and would have made it harder for US companies to acquire or merge with a foreign business to avoid paying US taxes by claiming to be a foreign company.
How Congress will pay for it
snip
Another item in the bill text is $53 billion that stems in part from states opting to terminate the pandemic unemployment benefits early to push the jobless to return to work. Some 26 states announced that they would stop at least one of the federal unemployment programs before they are set to end in early September -- though Indiana and Maryland have had to continue the payments after losing court battles. Also, the Congressional Budget Office reduced its forecast for the unemployment rate because of the improving economy.
More savings would come from delaying a controversial Trump administration rule that would radically change how drugs are priced and paid for in Medicare and Medicaid until 2026, at the earliest. The measure would effectively ban drug makers from providing rebates to pharmacy benefit managers and insurers. Instead, drug companies would be encouraged to pass the discounts directly to patients at the pharmacy counter. It is currently expected to go into effect in 2023. The summary lists the savings as $49 billion and the CBO report as nearly $51 billion.
Also, the infrastructure proposal relies on generating $56 billion in economic growth resulting from a 33% return on investment on the long-term projects, according to the summary. Biden said in a statement that the bill won't raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year and does not include a gas tax increase or fee on electric vehicles. He initially called for raising taxes on corporations to fund the infrastructure investments -- but that proposal did not make it into the latest package after strong opposition from Republicans.
EndlessWire
(6,477 posts)Doesn't anyone else remember how the Orange Turd sucked up to the Saudis when he was first elected, and he told us that the Saudis were giving him a Billion bucks for our infrastructure? Also, a million dollars to Ivanka for her charity? Whatever happened to that "gift?" I mean, he SAID that. I remember thinking, why would SA give us a Billion bucks for our infrastructure??
This was news right around the time he was looking stupid dancing that sword dance.
sheshe2
(83,708 posts)I noticed that as well.
WHITT
(2,868 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,748 posts)Searching for them shows me nothing except another thread where you make the same claims... Also with no cite:
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100215773168#post66
Where are you getting this information from?
WHITT
(2,868 posts)The BIF:
* STEALS MONEY from the Education Stabilization Fund.
* STEALS MONEY from relief for airline workers.
* STEALS MONEY from the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program for small businesses and nonprofit groups.
* STEALS MONEY from the Paycheck Protection Program.
* STEALS MONEY from Covid relief funds for states and locals.
* The bill relies on generating $56 billion from 'dynamic scoring', which has never happened.
* It's a MUCH longer list.
The bill also promotes corporate welfare they call 'public/private partnerships', where they build roads, but charge tolls that workers and consumers have to pay to the corporations for the rest of their lives, build bridges and charge tolls that workers and consumers have to pay to the corporations for the rest of their lives, take water owned by communities and then sell it back to them at greatly inflated prices for the rest of their lives.
AND, according to the EPA, the $15 billion they propose to spend on replacing lead pipes, will replace LESS THAN A THIRD of all the lead pipes in the country. Of course, that means MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS of communities will continue to drink lead-contaminated water.
It DOES NOT fully fund rural broadband. Just like the lead pipes, it only spends a token amount so they can CLAIM they're funding nationwide broadband.
In addition to all that, much of this is NOT paid for, and will add hundreds of billions to the federal debt.
Autumn
(45,012 posts)a narrative better.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)LINK
sheshe2
(83,708 posts)wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)sheshe2
(83,708 posts)wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)which both touch on mere potential rather than ablative absolutes.
Hey... we get it.
Not "editorials".
lame54
(35,277 posts)That's what THEY would do with it
Hekate
(90,616 posts)Because your first two sentences set up a straw man and your last two sentences ask that we, the supporters of Bidens bill, dig up the evidence to refute what they say.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)every year due to shitty roads and other infrastructure.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)vital to Democrats winning the midterms.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)a repurposing of the funds...and considering some red states are currently building prisons...I think it is a good idea to repurpose the money. As for not supporting Biden...that is bullshit.
Biden wants both bills (as do I) and I think we might get both...but no matter what, Biden wants something to pass. If we don't pass anything, we are screwed for the midterms and beyond. I would also say, I expect the Reconciliation bill to be less than 3.5 trillion...how much I don't know. But politics is the art of compromise. And if we don't get Reconciliation now then we come back after the midterms with new Democratic Senators and get it then. Hell, a couple more Senators will allow us to end the filibuster most likely. But your bashing of the infrastructure bill by saying 'some say' is just plain wrong. State the facts and make your case.