Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Shrugs Off Biden's $2Tn Infrastructure Package as 'Not Enough'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Newsweek

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a progressive Democrat from New York, dismissed President Joe Biden's $2.25 trillion infrastructure proposal, arguing that the package was "not enough" to address the problems facing the country.

Details of the White House proposal broke this week, with the package expected to include about $650 billion to rebuild crumbling U.S. infrastructure. Additionally, the package would include about $300 billion to shore up manufacturing and another $300 billion for housing infrastructure, among other proposals.

While the Biden administration is already defending the high price tag, especially coming after the passage of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan this month, Ocasio-Cortez believes the government should spend even more.

"This is not nearly enough. The important context here is that it's $2.25T spread out over 10 years. For context, the COVID package was $1.9T for this year *alone,* with some provisions lasting 2 years," Ocasio-Cortez tweeted on Tuesday. "Needs to be way bigger."

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-shrugs-off-bidens-dollar2tn-infrastructure-package-as-not-enough/ar-BB1fa3eT?ocid=DELLDHP&li=BBnb7Kz

[Me.]

1. Sigh

[Hortensis]

51. Sigh, all right. What on earth would it take to make her proud?!

[Me.]

55. ...

[jrandom421]

52. She's a Congresswoman

If she thinks Joe's bill is too small, have her put her bill out there with what she want in it and as big as she wants it. Let her steer it through passage in the House and Senate and then dare Joe not to sign it.

It's called legislating and that's at least half her job. I've always had my doubts on how she turns her ideas in to legislation, and they've been confirmed by whining like this and whining about other issues. If you don't like what some one comes up with, don't whine. come up with something better and sell it.

[Me.]

56. This

[George II]

62. Your last sentence was basically the subject of my very last class in college 49 years ago....

Our student advisor told us just that - if you don't like what someone comes up with, don't just complain or balk but have something better and sell it.

Then he sent us off to our careers and lives. I remember it like it was yesterday.

[Jedi Guy]

66. Yep, I had a boss who had a similar saying.

"Don't come to me with problems. Come to me with solutions." She had no tolerance for those who just complained and never proposed a fix for the issue.

[OldBaldy1701E]

74. Yeah, I once had a boss like that as well

The problem was that he did not want any solution that did not make him look good and make him money without spending any. When you couple that with his rampant and oversized ego, you were faced with either offering a real solution and having it shot down, or offering something that might get things working again for a very short term (even as they ruin things in the long term), but will placate his massive but easily injured ego. In other words, very few things were improved upon or fixed for good under him. I think you will find that this is the issue that AOC and others like her are facing. Yes, you can offer solutions, but when none of them will be taken seriously, regardless of their merit, what else is there but to complain?

[smb]

76. So, What Was It Like Working For Trump? nt

[OldBaldy1701E]

82. Exactly

But, imagine Trump as a big ole redneck jock. That was my former boss.

[karynnj]

85. That analogy is problematic

Joe Biden is not the counterpart of this fragile egotistical boss. He also is NOT in the position of a boss who can unilaterally put everything he wants into practice. He can and HAS already done much of what he can do via executive actions or regulations.

The infrastructure package he proposed is his view of what they can fight hard and get through reconciliation - though he would prefer to use regular process and gain significant Republican support. He is quite aware that the Congress may be too polarized for this to happen. (The very fact that he "pays" for this bill through reversing much of the Trump tax cuts to me shows that he did not think bipartisan support likely. Leading to people like Senator Wicker complaining that he cancels legislation that all Republicans in the Senate voted for - ignoring that they tried a huge number of times to end ACA that all 60 Democrats voted for.)

As others noted, the Biden plan will not be voted on as is. Many committees will have input and any legislator can try to get an amendment passed. In the case of AOC, her green new deal is such a bill - but it does not have sufficient support in either house and it is not specific enough to be an alternative. However, one thing it does is that it introduces some ideas to DC that were new. Those House and Senate bills were passed when NOTHING would have passed both Houses and been signed by Trump. They did have an impact in moving where popular opinion was and helped us win.

Now, the point is to get something that makes a difference that can pass. The Biden plan converted into a bill will start to transform at least the energy and transportation segments. Private companies will be multipliers in that change as the bill will create economic opportunities. This will be the biggest infrastructure bill in many decades. It also will likely pass with all Democratic Senators and no Republican help - under reconciliation.

Biden and several people in his cabinet and many advisors will be doing all they can to sell the bill written based on this and it will not be easy. Even a cursory look at what he proposed shows that many people put a lot of thought into this. Even Biden himself would not say that this bill alone meets every need we will have. However, it is a great first step and may be the biggest first step that can pass.

However, if it does pass, we get better roads, airports, water treatment plants, support for a transition from fossil fuel vehicles. Economists have projected that this will create good jobs, and economic growth. In addition, it will make the US more competitive.

I do not think AOC's negative response is really damaging - as long as she does not call for voting against a bill going in the right direction but far short of what she wants. In fact, by delineating a position far to Biden's left, it may actually make some people in the center see Biden's plan as centrist (even though it is one of the most progressive plans proposed in decades.)

[OldBaldy1701E]

87. Every thing you say is true

However, if you have to do this amount of maneuvering just to get a few good things through, then the system is broken and needs to be overhauled. Our society not addressing our ills is not some mystical issue, it is people being greedy and not wanting to help others. To change this, we need to stop pandering to those who will not help. As in stop making them richer. Stop allowing them to control the dialogue. In short, stop bowing to the little green piece of paper. (What am I saying... no one in this modern America is going to stop doing this, and that means very little is going to change. Sorry, I just cannot take anything said in regards to a more progressive agenda in this country until I see it done.... not waved about, not started and dragged on, but DONE.)

[Cha]

65. So Glad Biden is President!

We are so Fortunate!

Aloha 💙

[Me.]

67. Right?

He's got this and has a lot of very good thinkers/analysts/professionals to help him.

Aloha to you Miss Cha...🌸💐

[Cha]

68. Yes, Team Biden is Excellent! And their Infrastructure Plan..

Biden's Infrastructure Plan To Be The Biggest Since The New Deal

https://www.politicususa.com/2021/03/30/biden-infrastructure-biggest-new-deal.html

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215287383

And, I've read it's only the beginning..

So not sure why anyone is complaining about this.. How long have we Waited?!

Mahalo, Me

[Me.]

70. Joe SEems To Be Taking THe Spotlifght From Everyone

After all he is president and boy is he trying to do good by us.

[Cha]

71. Excellent point!

[BlueTsunami2018]

2. She's right but get what you can get.

I thought they were splitting it. Like this is the first installment.

[brush]

14. Right, Joe signalled earlier that that was the first installment.

AOC should just say nothing sometimes. Seems it would get tiring to always be in conflict with one's own party.

[PortTack]

17. She has as yet to learn that

[LiberalFighter]

37. There is a time to talk and a time silence.

She apparently has never learned that.

Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.

Silence is sometimes the best answer. - Dalai Lama

Silence is the secret tool of power negotiators. Knowing when to listen, not talk.

[soothsayer]

3. How about "but it's a good start"?

[ColinC]

5. It might not be

It is using a huge amount of political capital on something that will hardly be felt on any level. If we have the opportunity to go much further, we gotta do it. We cannot expect to be able to do it again.

[brush]

21. Oh, please. Since when will two trillion of anything not be felt?

We're talking trillions here.

A trillion is one thousand billion. I repeat, one thousand billion.

And two trillion is 2000 billion.

Come on, gain some appreciation of how much money that really is. And that's just the first installment.

[ColinC]

27. Over ten years*?

Like every day.

[brush]

33. You have no idea. Two trillion is huge.

[ColinC]

38. I take it back.

Broadband for all WILL be felt. And that isnt all it will get us. Great news!

[George II]

28. The budget for the entire Federal government is less than $5T. One or two TRILLION is huge....

Of course there will be complaints that it's "not enough".

Do any of those who are complaining that it's "not enough" have any idea from where the money will come? I don't think so.

[former9thward]

61. This is over ten years.

The current size of the US economy is 21 Trillion. Over 10 years it will be a cumulative of about 275 trillion.

So 2 trillion is about 0.7 % of the total econ0my. So will it be felt? Yes but not to the degree some think. Infrastructure projects take years and years to plan, start, deal with lawsuits, etc.

[George II]

25. Do you know the details of the proposal and the full term of it yet? Biden is going to release....

....the details this afternoon yet everyone knows what it has and doesn't have and already it's "not enough".

[ColinC]

29. Actually it looks like it may be more than what has been said.

But we will see!

To answer your question I do not.

[Demsrule86]

77. That is not true. This is the biggest infrastructure bill since Roosevelt.

[twodogsbarking]

58. She should listen to you

it is good advice.

[ColinC]

4. But if we make it bigger we will have to increase the highest marginal tax rate to, maybe, 50%!

We can't do that!

[redstatebluegirl]

6. Large sigh on this one.

You get what you can. If the far left of our party continue to push for "all or nothing" we will lose everything including the house and senate in 2022.

[Miguelito Loveless]

7. When the GOP went for Tax Cuts

they didn't settle for "what they could get", they rammed through what they wanted. Cancel the tax cuts and double the allocation.

[Blasphemer]

10. They also lost the House... nt

[Miguelito Loveless]

11. They lost because of tax cuts for the rich

while cutting spending for the poor.

We are proposing the opposite. Restore tax cuts for the wealthy, and provide high-paying infrastructure employment that cleans up pollution, and gives of a sustainable energy source that doesn't depend on murderous Saudi dictators.

[PortTack]

18. We need to trust our dem president and leaders. They were the ones overwhelmingly elected

We should not be, especially with minimal knowledge or experience be second guessing their strategies

[Miguelito Loveless]

43. I have been following their escapades for decades

and wached them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory many times.

[lagomorph777]

49. +1

[Rebl2]

60. Yes

and she seems to want that.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. More than $2 Trillion? If you can pass it and get it through Congress, fine.

Otherwise you're up against political reality.

[Blasphemer]

9. Priority #1 is retaining the house and getting more seats in Senate

So when assessing the words and actions of any Democratic politician, my question is: are they helping that cause? I don't think AOC is doing that with this response.

[lagomorph777]

50. I do.

Remember, 99% of voters are not billionaires.

[iluvtennis]

12. It's a stepping stone AOC, it's a stepping stone. nt

[ramapo]

13. Hugh sigh

I try very hard to not get annoyed with these type of ridiculous pronouncements. I think AOC is great but not in this case

[comradebillyboy]

15. Of course she does. Will she write legislation and

build a legislative consensus to move her agenda? No, she will tweet.

[Midnight Writer]

32. Exactly.

Roll up your sleeves, put out some specific proposals, gather support among your colleagues, get some co-signers, work on swaying the support of voters.

I love her idealism and passion, but I don't care for her flailing at "both sides", as if there is an equivalence.

[NurseJackie]

16. How about a "thank you Mr. President" and "what can I do to help you, Mr. President?"

[PortTack]

20. Well stated!!

[justhanginon]

31. Yes!

[PatSeg]

45. Yes, wouldn't that be nice?

[KG]

19. I'll see those sighs, and raise two eye-rolls.

[marie999]

22. As I was reading this post, I thought, I though that it was great.

That was until I read that it was over 10 years. Our infrastructure needs that $650 billion now. And what is that extra $1 trillion for?

[George II]

23. Does she say what else the "way bigger" would be spent on? Biden hasn't even released the details.

[Vinca]

24. Can't this woman see the glass half full for once in her life? She's so negative if anything

isn't precisely as she wants it. Biden will be lucky if he gets anything through this Congress and I imagine she'll carp about that, too.

[Auggie]

26. "Shrugs:" incorrect, sensational word for the headline ...

I loathe that crap

[TwilightZone]

35. The term is "shrugs off"

Shrugs and shrugs off are not interchangeable terms. Shrugs indicates indifference. Shrugs off in this context means to brush aside. It's pretty clear from her statement that she did the latter. She's not indifferent to it. She "brushed it aside" as not big enough.

[Auggie]

36. Thank you Grammar Police

[Cha]

64. Thank you for explaining the

the difference.

[LymphocyteLover]

30. Yes, but the important thing will be to get this passed

[ancianita]

34. It's a three-part funding package. She should step out of the perfect-as-the-enemy-of-the-good zone

and do more reading. She should confer more with Speaker Pelosi and Democratic leadership.

OTOH, she could be setting up some Republican votes for it by loudly being against it, to ensure their reflexive rejection of all things AOC.

[nuxvomica]

39. I think her opposition actually helps a lot

Not only does she act as a constant nudge to the Democrats, her criticisms make the package seem more palatable to Republican voters. So she keeps that stake in the ground but at the same time makes conservatives think we aren't going as far as we could. In other words, the package can be defended as centrist.

[Evolve Dammit]

40. Interesting possibilty. Good cop, bad cop

[George II]

41. Does she say what's missing?

[oldsoftie]

42. I'll tell you whats missing; realistic funding.

Simply raising the tax on the wealthy & corporations will not do the trick.

[lagomorph777]

48. Trump/McConnell gave away $2T to the billionaires and corporations.

That needs to be taken back; it was obscene in the first place.

[oldsoftie]

63. Its always much easier to give than take. Corps will simply keep more overseas again.

People will simply alter the way they do business. And Corporations will also just raise prices if they feel the need. People just arent going to pay more than they feel they should; they'll shelter/hide/avoid
What we need is a VAT like every other major country has. We simply have too many people in the US who pay NO income taxes. That doesnt happen in the EU, who we always point to for programs we'd like to have. Its just way too easy for millions to pay little or no taxes and nobody seems to understand how that works. I'm talking "real" income, not the so-called "underground" economy.

Not to mention some of the stuff in this bill has nothing to do with "infrastructure"

[lagomorph777]

73. Excellent summary of trickle-down economics.

Which I do not buy any of.

[oldsoftie]

79. The proof is in the pudding. Look how the EU funds their programs.

EVERYONE pays into the system. We refuse to follow their lead, but we want what they have.
Here, the "rich" already pay 90% of the income taxes. There simply arent enough of them to raise the money we need for what we want to do with a tax increase.
Its reality and sometimes we dont like it. But we'll go further in debt because we wont accept it.

[lagomorph777]

84. There aren't many billionaires.

But they have 80% of all the money.

[oldsoftie]

86. And pay 90%+ of all the income taxes. And also have the ability to pay less.

Again, why do we always look fondly at European programs that we'd like to have but ignore how THEY pay for it? Here, we have 10s of millions of wage earners who pay NO income tax. Dont even get me started on "stated income" earners & how many trillions go untaxed there.
Relying only on income from the most wealthy results in a Nat. debt that will balloon even faster than what its done so far. Because they will ALWAYS fins a way to reduce what they pay once its above what they consider an acceptable amount
Corporations are the same; when the corp tax was 35% the average rate actually paid was under 10%. And you know as well as I do how many big ones paid NOTHING.

[lagomorph777]

47. +1

[lagomorph777]

46. "shrugs off" - typical Newsweek spin.

It's called "taking a negotiating position." That's what the right wing does every time. We're just startled when our side begins to catch on, too.

[comradebillyboy]

54. Is she in any way involved in

the negotiations? She couldn’t cut a deal if her life depended on it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

53. She's doing her job. Its about time we had a progressive force pushing from the left

Obama, whether some may dismiss it as electioneering, said "we are the change" and challenged Democrats and others to help him move towards new legislation.

For too many years the progressive left has been marginalized, glaringly even within the Democratic party. No matter that they've been proven right about every issue in the last decades.

Thank gawd for AOC. And the rest of the squad, and Katey Porter. And of course Bernie. If there were not voices allowed from the left, the only ones you'd get any pressure from is from the right. Which, surprise, is the direction the Democratic party has been moving during the Clinton and Obama terms.

I like that it it looks like Biden, and his advisors, realize how trying to not upset Republicans and their mouthpiece Fox News, is not necessary anymore. That they understand how AOC is part of their future, and the next generation she represents.

People seem to have little problem with conservative Democrats tamping down enthusiasm for things like the popular M4A, but get their hackles raised when more liberal Democrats push for more to be done. We need voices from the left to counter the well funded, media supported, whining by the center/right politicians.

[littlemissmartypants]

69. I think you are talking about sloganeering which is invention of slogans, typically in politics,

Like "yes we can" or "make America great again."

Electioneering is the activity of trying to persuade people to vote for a particular political party.

If I'm wrong, please forgive the intrusion.

❤ pants

[hydrolastic]

83. Love Love Love AOC

Exactly, its her job to keep showing us what could be.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

57. I love watching people getting triggered over her every utterance.

Seriously, she’s supposed to say thank you sir? Lol

[harun]

78. Me too. I come just to read them as entertainment.

They know nothing about negotiation, leverage and playing a roll.

[LanternWaste]

81. The corollary also being true.

But we get it... six of one is often not the same as half a dozen of the other when sacred cows are on the menu.

[elleng]

59. 'The important context here is that it's $2.25T spread out over 10 years.'

[myohmy2]

72. I'm all for more...

...how do we get more?

...2.25 trillion / 10 = 225 billion per year...

...that does sound a little puny considering our problems...

...maybe figuring out how to get the 2.25 trillion will make it easier to go back for more?...practice does make perfect and the rich do have deep pockets...

...we piss away over 700 billion a year on defense, that's 7 trillion in 10 years and very few complain about that...

...we only seem to worry about deficits and government spending when it's our turn...

...I'm feeling cheated...

[Maxheader]

75. I bet the wealthy will come up with advice....

If Joe is considering funding from the top tiers...taxes that is.

they'll dispute wore out roads and bridges. Dispute housing

improvements. Stumpy has come out with gloom and doom

predictions. Fook stumpy...

[Hugh Bloody Bastards]

80. She's right

But also very impractical.