As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The US Congress

1235745

Posts

  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited March 31
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I expect these are all under shooting the actual needs as well, but this is federal spending only - You’d need to account for state and local dollars for a 1:1 comparison with the figure I think you’re talking about.

    Also, and this is completely talking out of my ass, if you’re bringing back earmarks in some fashion, maybe you expect this thing to grow as you negotiate buy-in from various people.

    Edit: The more likely answer is just senators being paranoid about passing several multi-trillion dollar pieces of legislation in quick order for fear of public backlash, which is dumb, but also realistic about the angle of attack they’ll be facing.

    OneAngryPossum on
    monikershrykeLord_AsmodeusFencingsax
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I don't think anyone is claiming this is enough to magic want away a half century of neglect to our nation's infrastructure and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to get things back to cutting edge / world class.

    But you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't matter how many zeros you can put behind it if you can only pour so much yards of concrete in a year.

    This is a good start and might be enough to limp along with some improvements to the next bigger and better infrastructure bill.

    OneAngryPossummonikerFencingsaxMillspool32Man in the MistsMoridin889
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    All of it.

    "Automated" trucking will still require drivers for the same reason we require pilots on airplanes, and long haul truckers are not remotely dying out. There's a shortage now because the COVID shutdown put a lot of mom and pop one-truck companies out of business but that's also a contraction from the loosest transport market in decades.

    I don't think I have to elaborate on all the ways driving a truck down the I10 is not the same as piloting and landing a boeing 777.

    Trucks are already making automated runs on major interstates today. There are drivers in them because of (correct) regulation and how bleeding edge the tech is, but we're already there.

    And there is a generation long decline in truckers, companies are desperate for them (although not desperate enough to pay them like they did 30 years ago I guess...I don't get it either).

    My brother works for a trucking company and spends every day talking to truckers, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

    Driving a truck down I-10 is significantly more complicated (for a computer) and dangerous than flying a widebody aircraft. When you're flying a widebody aircraft you don't typically have another plane six inches off your wing.

    Generational devine in long-haul might be down to different definitions on long-haul, but given that you can make over median salary for comparatively negligible credentialing costs there will always be a solid market for the job, particularly among recent immigrants. Especially when after a couple years you can buy your own truck and cut the goddamn Chicago cartel out of your expenses.

    (I also work for a 3PL and spend most of my day talking to drivers and dispatchers. I am also not talking out my ass.)

    uH3IcEi.png
    XaquinStarZapperNetscapeElldrenBucketman
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    If my assisted braking 'feature' is anything to go by, I'd prefer automated trucking and cars to be as far off as possible

    LordSolarMachariustuxkamenMonwyn
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I expect these are all under shooting the actual needs as well, but this is federal spending only - You’d need to account for state and local dollars for a 1:1 comparison with the figure I think you’re talking about.

    Also, and this is completely talking out of my ass, if you’re bringing back earmarks in some fashion, maybe you expect this thing to grow as you negotiate buy-in from various people.

    Edit: The more likely answer is just senators being paranoid about passing several multi-trillion dollar pieces of legislation in quick order for fear of public backlash, which is dumb, but also realistic about the angle of attack they’ll be facing.

    Also private dollars count for a lot. Using CREATE as an example again, private freight railroads are footing ~1/4 to 1/3rd the bill. City, county, and State dollars are also contributing. So the top line Federal funding can essentially be doubled or tripled in terms of actual payments going to workers and suppliers.

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    I already trust automated vehicles more than actual drivers (except for tesla, fuck tesla) because actual drivers are fucking terrible and are also on their phones.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    GrpAhic DeiGn is My PAssIon
    LeeksMan in the MistsBucketmanSmrtnik
  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I don't think anyone is claiming this is enough to magic want away a half century of neglect to our nation's infrastructure and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to get things back to cutting edge / world class.

    But you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't matter how many zeros you can put behind it if you can only pour so much yards of concrete in a year.

    This is a good start and might be enough to limp along with some improvements to the next bigger and better infrastructure bill.

    Eh, don't get me wrong. I think it's good, and I'm glad they're doing it. Some of the choices as presented just seem odd.

    A quick Google says the estimated cost of modernizing the US electric grid could be in the $5 trillion range, so I have no idea what $100 billion is supposed to do. Draw up the plans? Fix one county in Delaware? We literally just had the grid of one of our largest states collapse, you'll never have a greater window to argue that investment is necessary.

    The political argument seems silly as well. There is no talking head that will balk at a $4T bill who sits down and says a $3T bill is perfectly reasonable. To the average voter, all of those numbers are "infinity" anyways, so why not propose what is most likely to actually fix our problems and make a visible difference to peoples' lives?

    I am extremely skeptical that a "next bigger and better infrastructure bill" is likely, given Congress' track record of touching this like once every 10-20 years, and their consistent failing to do so over the 20th century.

    GiantGeek2020durandal4532
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I don't think anyone is claiming this is enough to magic want away a half century of neglect to our nation's infrastructure and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to get things back to cutting edge / world class.

    But you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't matter how many zeros you can put behind it if you can only pour so much yards of concrete in a year.

    This is a good start and might be enough to limp along with some improvements to the next bigger and better infrastructure bill.

    Eh, don't get me wrong. I think it's good, and I'm glad they're doing it. Some of the choices as presented just seem odd.

    A quick Google says the estimated cost of modernizing the US electric grid could be in the $5 trillion range, so I have no idea what $100 billion is supposed to do. Draw up the plans? Fix one county in Delaware? We literally just had the grid of one of our largest states collapse, you'll never have a greater window to argue that investment is necessary.

    The political argument seems silly as well. There is no talking head that will balk at a $4T bill who sits down and says a $3T bill is perfectly reasonable. To the average voter, all of those numbers are "infinity" anyways, so why not propose what is most likely to actually fix our problems and make a visible difference to peoples' lives?

    I am extremely skeptical that a "next bigger and better infrastructure bill" is likely, given Congress' track record of touching this like once every 10-20 years, and their consistent failing to do so over the 20th century.

    Texas grid failed because Texas did a lot of stupid things to avoid having the federal government have anything to do with their grid.

    Lord_AsmodeusDoodmannSoggybiscuitmonikerMartini_PhilosopherSpoitjmcdonaldReynoldsSleepFencingsaxArdolShadowfireCommander Zoomjimb213Gennenalyse RuebenCaptain CarrotDarkPrimusHappylilElfTryCatcherGiantGeek2020joshofalltradesDuke 2.0ButtersMild ConfusionHarry DresdenMunkus BeaverAistanStabbity Style38thDoeToxboogedybooNobeardLeeksNo-QuarterCentipede DamascusMan in the MistsElldrenHefflingBucketmanMoridin889emp123
  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I don't think anyone is claiming this is enough to magic want away a half century of neglect to our nation's infrastructure and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to get things back to cutting edge / world class.

    But you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't matter how many zeros you can put behind it if you can only pour so much yards of concrete in a year.

    This is a good start and might be enough to limp along with some improvements to the next bigger and better infrastructure bill.

    Eh, don't get me wrong. I think it's good, and I'm glad they're doing it. Some of the choices as presented just seem odd.

    A quick Google says the estimated cost of modernizing the US electric grid could be in the $5 trillion range, so I have no idea what $100 billion is supposed to do. Draw up the plans? Fix one county in Delaware? We literally just had the grid of one of our largest states collapse, you'll never have a greater window to argue that investment is necessary.

    The political argument seems silly as well. There is no talking head that will balk at a $4T bill who sits down and says a $3T bill is perfectly reasonable. To the average voter, all of those numbers are "infinity" anyways, so why not propose what is most likely to actually fix our problems and make a visible difference to peoples' lives?

    I am extremely skeptical that a "next bigger and better infrastructure bill" is likely, given Congress' track record of touching this like once every 10-20 years, and their consistent failing to do so over the 20th century.

    Texas grid failed because Texas did a lot of stupid things to avoid having the federal government have anything to do with their grid.

    I'm aware. The point is not that the entire country is Texas. The point is that you will never get a better political opportunity to argue that investment in the energy grid is necessary than after a large, visible failure.

    Investing trillions of tax dollars in better wires underground is invisible, boring, and hard to make people care about. If we can't make the case now, we're never going to make it.

    XaquinCelestialBadgerGiantGeek2020Buttersoverride367EinzelMan in the MistsBucketmanMoridin889
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I don't think anyone is claiming this is enough to magic want away a half century of neglect to our nation's infrastructure and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to get things back to cutting edge / world class.

    But you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't matter how many zeros you can put behind it if you can only pour so much yards of concrete in a year.

    This is a good start and might be enough to limp along with some improvements to the next bigger and better infrastructure bill.

    Eh, don't get me wrong. I think it's good, and I'm glad they're doing it. Some of the choices as presented just seem odd.

    A quick Google says the estimated cost of modernizing the US electric grid could be in the $5 trillion range, so I have no idea what $100 billion is supposed to do. Draw up the plans? Fix one county in Delaware? We literally just had the grid of one of our largest states collapse, you'll never have a greater window to argue that investment is necessary.

    The political argument seems silly as well. There is no talking head that will balk at a $4T bill who sits down and says a $3T bill is perfectly reasonable. To the average voter, all of those numbers are "infinity" anyways, so why not propose what is most likely to actually fix our problems and make a visible difference to peoples' lives?

    I am extremely skeptical that a "next bigger and better infrastructure bill" is likely, given Congress' track record of touching this like once every 10-20 years, and their consistent failing to do so over the 20th century.

    Texas grid failed because Texas did a lot of stupid things to avoid having the federal government have anything to do with their grid.

    I'm aware. The point is not that the entire country is Texas. The point is that you will never get a better political opportunity to argue that investment in the energy grid is necessary than after a large, visible failure.

    Investing trillions of tax dollars in better wires underground is invisible, boring, and hard to make people care about. If we can't make the case now, we're never going to make it.

    That’s why we need big signs that say “Electric grid upgrade paid for by the Federal Government” next to all the digs.

    GiantGeek2020NetscapeMan in the Mists
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.

  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Tomanta wrote: »
    kaid wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Roads are kind of a big deal and kind of a big mess in a thousand ways. There'a a lot if progress to be made.

    Like improving their ability to not get torn apart by the winter/summer temp shifts every year.

    Also the sheer damage that long distance trucking causes. If we could move that to rail and just use trucks for last mile, that would help.

    But that change would be insanely expensive and face a ton of pushback from the industry so good luck.

    Weirdly it will be easier to argue a transition to rail once trucking becomes automated. And even before that, we're going to have to because we're running out of long haul truckers.

    Absolutely not the case

    Which part?

    Automated Trucking is already almost here and long haul truckers are a dying group of workers.

    All of it.

    "Automated" trucking will still require drivers for the same reason we require pilots on airplanes, and long haul truckers are not remotely dying out. There's a shortage now because the COVID shutdown put a lot of mom and pop one-truck companies out of business but that's also a contraction from the loosest transport market in decades.

    I don't think I have to elaborate on all the ways driving a truck down the I10 is not the same as piloting and landing a boeing 777.

    Trucks are already making automated runs on major interstates today. There are drivers in them because of (correct) regulation and how bleeding edge the tech is, but we're already there.

    And there is a generation long decline in truckers, companies are desperate for them (although not desperate enough to pay them like they did 30 years ago I guess...I don't get it either).

    My brother works for a trucking company and spends every day talking to truckers, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.

    I mean this is seems to be the case whenever some industry says they have a shortage of workers.
    It's not so much that there's work being left undone, but that the bosses don't want to pay for the labor and are trying to drum up a labor surplus out of whole cloth.

    In this case there really is work being left undone. Spot FTL rates are between double and triple what they were in 2019 (2020 numbers aren't really comparable due to COVID.)

    uH3IcEi.png
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.

    The schools, elder care facilities, and so on are critical infrastructure in their own right. And putting money there upgrading them to more energy efficient and safer environments is a huge win. Same with housing, especially low income housing and such. Especially with how under invested these areas are and how much of a housing crunch we are in.

    I do want them to go bigger though. But also hopefully this isn't the end either.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    monikerIncenjucarshrykeFencingsaxCommander ZoomLord_AsmodeusGiantGeek2020Duke 2.0NetscapeMan in the MistsElldrenBucketmanemp123
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.

    The schools, elder care facilities, and so on are critical infrastructure in their own right. And putting money there upgrading them to more energy efficient and safer environments is a huge win. Same with housing, especially low income housing and such. Especially with how under invested these areas are and how much of a housing crunch we are in.

    I do want them to go bigger though. But also hopefully this isn't the end either.

    The thing about Presidential budget proposals is that the numbers are both very meaningful and utterly meaningless because Congress will do what they want regardless. So, hopefully this is the start and not the end. Especially if people are willing to hang some ornaments on it.

    shrykeIncenjucarFencingsaxArdolCommander ZoomLord_AsmodeusGennenalyse RuebenGilgaronMartini_PhilosopherGiantGeek2020durandal4532Man in the MistsElldrenemp123
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Not a Fictional Character Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.

    The schools, elder care facilities, and so on are critical infrastructure in their own right. And putting money there upgrading them to more energy efficient and safer environments is a huge win. Same with housing, especially low income housing and such. Especially with how under invested these areas are and how much of a housing crunch we are in.

    I do want them to go bigger though. But also hopefully this isn't the end either.

    Realistically I doubt you'd run out of things to fix or improve with $10T. We're so incredibly behind where we should be and there are so many possible improvements available and there is always a need for new R&D.

    monikerrndmheroDoodmannDarkPrimusMartini_PhilosopherGiantGeek2020durandal4532spool32Elldrenemp123
  • rndmherorndmhero Registered User regular
    Mazzyx wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.

    The schools, elder care facilities, and so on are critical infrastructure in their own right. And putting money there upgrading them to more energy efficient and safer environments is a huge win. Same with housing, especially low income housing and such. Especially with how under invested these areas are and how much of a housing crunch we are in.

    I do want them to go bigger though. But also hopefully this isn't the end either.

    It strikes me as similar to the covid bill, where they used the covid umbrella to pass a lot of other things that were super necessary but a bit tangential. Because we can apparently only pass 2-3 actual bills a year, you have to cram as much in there as you can. The good is that you can get money for things like elder care, schools, energy efficiency, etc that may not get through on their own. The bad is that it waters down the top item, when we really probably do need $3-4T just for roads and bridges at this point.

    Commander Zoomdurandal4532
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited March 31
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    zepherin on
    Martini_Philosopher
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's also nothing really stopping them from rolling a budget next year and using reconciliation on yet another infrastructure bill then too right?

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
    zepherinMarathonMild ConfusionStabbity StyleKayne Red Robedurandal4532spool32FoolOnTheHill
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I don't think anyone is claiming this is enough to magic want away a half century of neglect to our nation's infrastructure and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to get things back to cutting edge / world class.

    But you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't matter how many zeros you can put behind it if you can only pour so much yards of concrete in a year.

    This is a good start and might be enough to limp along with some improvements to the next bigger and better infrastructure bill.

    Eh, don't get me wrong. I think it's good, and I'm glad they're doing it. Some of the choices as presented just seem odd.

    A quick Google says the estimated cost of modernizing the US electric grid could be in the $5 trillion range, so I have no idea what $100 billion is supposed to do. Draw up the plans? Fix one county in Delaware? We literally just had the grid of one of our largest states collapse, you'll never have a greater window to argue that investment is necessary.
    ...
    Maybe it's $100B to create regulatory body with actual teeth that beat the utility companies with sticks until they invest their profits into upgrades.

    steam_sig.png
    Martini_PhilosopherFencingsaxMatevMan in the Mists
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    Maybe I'm overthinking this, or maybe I'm seeing what's happening in Missouri (open in private window b/c stupid newspaper reasons) and thinking that if there's a way for state Republicans to fuck this up, they'll finds ways to fuck this up.

    tl;dr -- Missourians voted to expand Medicaid and the state GOP has decided that they're going to ignore that by not putting any of the money from the feds into it. Instead that money is going to different state projects.
    Though the expanded eligibility, which begins July, passed as an amendment to the state constitution, Republican lawmakers contend they are not obligated to pay for it. Only the legislature — not voter-initiated ballot measures — can direct the state to spend money, they said.

    So, yeah. I hope that Peolsi and her crew writing this bill up keeps this in mind and has a number of ways to shore up the means for people to force their states to do this shit. Otherwise...otherwise I could see some states not following through with their obligations to spend it as they're told to.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    Maybe I'm overthinking this, or maybe I'm seeing what's happening in Missouri (open in private window b/c stupid newspaper reasons) and thinking that if there's a way for state Republicans to fuck this up, they'll finds ways to fuck this up.

    tl;dr -- Missourians voted to expand Medicaid and the state GOP has decided that they're going to ignore that by not putting any of the money from the feds into it. Instead that money is going to different state projects.
    Though the expanded eligibility, which begins July, passed as an amendment to the state constitution, Republican lawmakers contend they are not obligated to pay for it. Only the legislature — not voter-initiated ballot measures — can direct the state to spend money, they said.

    So, yeah. I hope that Peolsi and her crew writing this bill up keeps this in mind and has a number of ways to shore up the means for people to force their states to do this shit. Otherwise...otherwise I could see some states not following through with their obligations to spend it as they're told to.

    ...um, what. They're straight up declaring themselves above an amendment?

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    Kayne Red Robespool32Centipede DamascusMan in the MistsElldrenSmrtnik
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    rndmhero wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    rndmhero wrote: »
    I would love to see these allocations side-by-side with what industry/expert assessments are of actual needs. Because my understanding has been that our infrastructure is in need of trillions in repairs just to not collapse and kill us. I don't know the numbers for energy grid off the top of my head, but I would wager it's a fuckton more than $100B. None of these values mean much without some context, and I suspect that they are all massively undershooting the respective needs. Given that Manchin and others seem to be behind a massive bill, I'm not sure why the opening offer would be so low.

    I don't think anyone is claiming this is enough to magic want away a half century of neglect to our nation's infrastructure and it will take decades and trillions of dollars to get things back to cutting edge / world class.

    But you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't matter how many zeros you can put behind it if you can only pour so much yards of concrete in a year.

    This is a good start and might be enough to limp along with some improvements to the next bigger and better infrastructure bill.

    Eh, don't get me wrong. I think it's good, and I'm glad they're doing it. Some of the choices as presented just seem odd.

    A quick Google says the estimated cost of modernizing the US electric grid could be in the $5 trillion range, so I have no idea what $100 billion is supposed to do. Draw up the plans? Fix one county in Delaware? We literally just had the grid of one of our largest states collapse, you'll never have a greater window to argue that investment is necessary.
    ...
    Maybe it's $100B to create regulatory body with actual teeth that beat the utility companies with sticks until they invest their profits into upgrades.

    Honestly it's probably 100B to do planning and distribution upgrades. Most of the cost is distance. But it'll take a year of planning and then making the changes at the distribution legs to handle a widespread grid upgrade, without outages. That last part is going to be the tough part. Because parts of the grid are effectively power islands with only 1 distribution point, and one set of lines.

    moniker
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Specifically, Missouri's legislature is explicitly rejecting it because rural volk folk are opposed and they're the only ones who matter.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerTicaldfjamFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusAistanJaysonFourNetscapedurandal4532boogedybooElldrenemp123
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited March 31
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    Maybe I'm overthinking this, or maybe I'm seeing what's happening in Missouri (open in private window b/c stupid newspaper reasons) and thinking that if there's a way for state Republicans to fuck this up, they'll finds ways to fuck this up.

    tl;dr -- Missourians voted to expand Medicaid and the state GOP has decided that they're going to ignore that by not putting any of the money from the feds into it. Instead that money is going to different state projects.
    Though the expanded eligibility, which begins July, passed as an amendment to the state constitution, Republican lawmakers contend they are not obligated to pay for it. Only the legislature — not voter-initiated ballot measures — can direct the state to spend money, they said.

    So, yeah. I hope that Peolsi and her crew writing this bill up keeps this in mind and has a number of ways to shore up the means for people to force their states to do this shit. Otherwise...otherwise I could see some states not following through with their obligations to spend it as they're told to.
    Honestly not giving the states control of the money is an option. We are going in and fixing these bridges, here is the schedule, you figure the rest of this shit out. With the penalty being, ok you don't want to get on the schedule, we'll go fix the next states bridges, you go to the back of the line. Enjoy being behind North Dakota.

    zepherin on
    DoodmannFencingsaxLord_Asmodeus
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    Maybe I'm overthinking this, or maybe I'm seeing what's happening in Missouri (open in private window b/c stupid newspaper reasons) and thinking that if there's a way for state Republicans to fuck this up, they'll finds ways to fuck this up.

    tl;dr -- Missourians voted to expand Medicaid and the state GOP has decided that they're going to ignore that by not putting any of the money from the feds into it. Instead that money is going to different state projects.
    Though the expanded eligibility, which begins July, passed as an amendment to the state constitution, Republican lawmakers contend they are not obligated to pay for it. Only the legislature — not voter-initiated ballot measures — can direct the state to spend money, they said.

    So, yeah. I hope that Peolsi and her crew writing this bill up keeps this in mind and has a number of ways to shore up the means for people to force their states to do this shit. Otherwise...otherwise I could see some states not following through with their obligations to spend it as they're told to.

    That's thanks to the Supreme Court breaking the Medicaid expansion. Not sure if there's a way to avoid it if the Court decides to do it again, but also, that just means more money for somewhere else. Like how Scott Walker gave Wisconsin's ARRA high speed rail money to California instead, and I still can't take a train to Madison.

    zepherinFencingsaxemp123
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    We can do anything we want if there are 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    In this Congress there are not 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    Ceteris paribus...

    No, the Vice President can simply tell the parlimentarian that Reconciliation means whatever we want it to mean and it takes 60 votes to counter that action, and we are back to a simple majority for the reconciliation

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    We can do anything we want if there are 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    In this Congress there are not 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    Ceteris paribus...

    No, the Vice President can simply tell the parlimentarian that Reconciliation means whatever we want it to mean and it takes 60 votes to counter that action, and we are back to a simple majority for the reconciliation

    Yes, you are back to a simple majority of 50 votes. Same as before.

    There's no like one-trick-the-man-doesn't-want-you-to-know-about. You can do anything you want in the senate with 50 votes. But the votes to do that do not exist. The votes to leave the filibuster in place and go by the rules of reconciliation do exist though, so here we are.

    PreacherjmcdonaldkimezepherinmonikerIncenjucarzagdrobArdolQuidElldren
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Mvrck wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's also nothing really stopping them from rolling a budget next year and using reconciliation on yet another infrastructure bill then too right?

    Once per fiscal year, as long as you have both chambers and a president who won’t veto

    zepherin
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    We can do anything we want if there are 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    In this Congress there are not 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    Ceteris paribus...

    No, the Vice President can simply tell the parlimentarian that Reconciliation means whatever we want it to mean and it takes 60 votes to counter that action, and we are back to a simple majority for the reconciliation

    Yes, you are back to a simple majority of 50 votes. Same as before.

    There's no like one-trick-the-man-doesn't-want-you-to-know-about. You can do anything you want in the senate with 50 votes. But the votes to do that do not exist. The votes to leave the filibuster in place and go by the rules of reconciliation do exist though, so here we are.

    Doesn’t give me any confidence we’re gonna make it through some perilous near-term shit without some sort of direct action

    zepherin
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    Maybe I'm overthinking this, or maybe I'm seeing what's happening in Missouri (open in private window b/c stupid newspaper reasons) and thinking that if there's a way for state Republicans to fuck this up, they'll finds ways to fuck this up.

    tl;dr -- Missourians voted to expand Medicaid and the state GOP has decided that they're going to ignore that by not putting any of the money from the feds into it. Instead that money is going to different state projects.
    Though the expanded eligibility, which begins July, passed as an amendment to the state constitution, Republican lawmakers contend they are not obligated to pay for it. Only the legislature — not voter-initiated ballot measures — can direct the state to spend money, they said.

    So, yeah. I hope that Peolsi and her crew writing this bill up keeps this in mind and has a number of ways to shore up the means for people to force their states to do this shit. Otherwise...otherwise I could see some states not following through with their obligations to spend it as they're told to.

    That's thanks to the Supreme Court breaking the Medicaid expansion. Not sure if there's a way to avoid it if the Court decides to do it again, but also, that just means more money for somewhere else. Like how Scott Walker gave Wisconsin's ARRA high speed rail money to California instead, and I still can't take a train to Madison.

    I'd need to read through it because the original post mentioned that their dumbass legislature wants to take the funds the feds give them for medicaid and use it for other things. Something they fucking can't do. The SCOTUS decision only gave them the option to refuse the funds and the expansion, not the means to take the funds and not use them for what they are intended for. They are also sorely mistaken if they think they can convince the current SCOTUS to jettison tons of existing case law that allows the feds to having strings attached to any funds they give the states.

  • OghulkOghulk Registered User regular
    The feds will absolutely clawback those funds with interest if they're not used appropriately

    zepherinLord_Asmodeus
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    We can do anything we want if there are 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    In this Congress there are not 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    Ceteris paribus...

    No, the Vice President can simply tell the parlimentarian that Reconciliation means whatever we want it to mean and it takes 60 votes to counter that action, and we are back to a simple majority for the reconciliation

    Yes, you are back to a simple majority of 50 votes. Same as before.

    There's no like one-trick-the-man-doesn't-want-you-to-know-about. You can do anything you want in the senate with 50 votes. But the votes to do that do not exist. The votes to leave the filibuster in place and go by the rules of reconciliation do exist though, so here we are.

    Like, pick up five or seven more senators and fuck if I know where where numbsr 50 is willing to hashtag Black Lives Matter. We might get shit done.

    When we are on razors edge where Manchin and Feinstein are the most powerful senators? Good luck.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 1
    zagdrob wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Doing some more reading, I suppose it's possible that a renewable electricity standard could actually be done through reconciliation as long as it includes a credit system (tradable or auction based) where the supply of the credits is based on the feds selling it (creates inflows). It effectively becomes a cap-and-trade program but instead of doing emissions targets actual generation. That might actually be a better system than a carbon tax one (in economic efficiency terms), so kudos to the administration for listening to people far more knowledgeable than I, a wannabee economics PhD/local finance professional, on these things.

    we can do anything we want through reconciliation and pretending otherwise infuriates me

    the only risk is manchin might vote no when it comes time, which he might, but we should be honest about the problem here

    We can do anything we want if there are 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    In this Congress there are not 50 votes to abolish the Filibuster.

    Ceteris paribus...

    No, the Vice President can simply tell the parlimentarian that Reconciliation means whatever we want it to mean and it takes 60 votes to counter that action, and we are back to a simple majority for the reconciliation

    Yes, you are back to a simple majority of 50 votes. Same as before.

    There's no like one-trick-the-man-doesn't-want-you-to-know-about. You can do anything you want in the senate with 50 votes. But the votes to do that do not exist. The votes to leave the filibuster in place and go by the rules of reconciliation do exist though, so here we are.

    Like, pick up five or seven more senators and fuck if I know where where numbsr 50 is willing to hashtag Black Lives Matter. We might get shit done.

    When we are on razors edge where Manchin and Feinstein are the most powerful senators? Good luck.

    I suspect it's actually the opposite in some ways. At 50 the pressure is on them something fierce. At like 51 or 52 or the like maybe you are even better cause the pressure is still there but a few people get a golden ticket or whatnot. At 55+ suddenly bipartisanship without killing the filibuster starts looking obtainable to many and the whole thing stalls out as these useless shits try to make the Grand Bargain.

    shryke on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    DiFi is on board last I saw. It's just Sinema and Manchin. Sinema is not saying her position anymore (progress) and Manchin is at least open to a talking filibuster I believe.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    monikerspool32emp123
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    Maybe I'm overthinking this, or maybe I'm seeing what's happening in Missouri (open in private window b/c stupid newspaper reasons) and thinking that if there's a way for state Republicans to fuck this up, they'll finds ways to fuck this up.

    tl;dr -- Missourians voted to expand Medicaid and the state GOP has decided that they're going to ignore that by not putting any of the money from the feds into it. Instead that money is going to different state projects.
    Though the expanded eligibility, which begins July, passed as an amendment to the state constitution, Republican lawmakers contend they are not obligated to pay for it. Only the legislature — not voter-initiated ballot measures — can direct the state to spend money, they said.

    So, yeah. I hope that Peolsi and her crew writing this bill up keeps this in mind and has a number of ways to shore up the means for people to force their states to do this shit. Otherwise...otherwise I could see some states not following through with their obligations to spend it as they're told to.
    Honestly not giving the states control of the money is an option. We are going in and fixing these bridges, here is the schedule, you figure the rest of this shit out. With the penalty being, ok you don't want to get on the schedule, we'll go fix the next states bridges, you go to the back of the line. Enjoy being behind North Dakota.

    Especially since we don't even really have bridges :P

    zepherin
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular

    zepherin wrote: »
    zepherin wrote: »
    enc0re wrote: »
    I'm a little disappointed that in a $2.2T infrastructure proposal, only $650B is for traditional infrastructure. Maybe $950B, if you count broadband, electric, local water stuff.
    Honestly, 2.2T is a pretty great start. But 650B for roads, bridges, rail is a good number, it's a very good number. The estimated cost to fix the backlog of bridges is 123 billion. The cost to fix the backlog of roads is 420 billion. The backlog for amtrack is 80 billion. So they could repair 100% of our transportation infrastructure backlog with this money. I'm not sure if they are going to, but they could.

    Maybe I'm overthinking this, or maybe I'm seeing what's happening in Missouri (open in private window b/c stupid newspaper reasons) and thinking that if there's a way for state Republicans to fuck this up, they'll finds ways to fuck this up.

    tl;dr -- Missourians voted to expand Medicaid and the state GOP has decided that they're going to ignore that by not putting any of the money from the feds into it. Instead that money is going to different state projects.
    Though the expanded eligibility, which begins July, passed as an amendment to the state constitution, Republican lawmakers contend they are not obligated to pay for it. Only the legislature — not voter-initiated ballot measures — can direct the state to spend money, they said.

    So, yeah. I hope that Peolsi and her crew writing this bill up keeps this in mind and has a number of ways to shore up the means for people to force their states to do this shit. Otherwise...otherwise I could see some states not following through with their obligations to spend it as they're told to.
    Honestly not giving the states control of the money is an option. We are going in and fixing these bridges, here is the schedule, you figure the rest of this shit out. With the penalty being, ok you don't want to get on the schedule, we'll go fix the next states bridges, you go to the back of the line. Enjoy being behind North Dakota.

    Especially since we don't even really have bridges :P

    Oh, you'd be surprised. Railroad bridges galooooore.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Most bridges aren't what people think of as bridges. Highway overpasses and the like rather than grand suspension bridges.

    MatevSleepIncenjucarStabbity StyleFencingsaxLord_AsmodeusGiantGeek2020ButtersMartini_PhilosopherzepherinshrykeMillTofystedethboogedybooTynnanNobeardMan in the MistsElldrenHefflingBucketmanMagellemp123
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    What Amtrak can do with $80bn

    b24h86on7go8.jpg

    I have, like, 6 quibbles with the map. Plus frequency is key to any sort of meaningful service being useful and used. (There is currently a train from Chicago to Grand Rapids via St Joe's. I would love to take it and meet up with West Michigan friends for a cheap beach vacation/ long weekend. There is only one single train to get us home, though, and it is at 08:00am in the goddamn morning.) But on the whole... this is pretty great for not a lot of money.

    jmcdonaldButtersDoodmannFencingsaxShadowfireBucketman
  • MazzyxMazzyx Comedy Gold Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    What Amtrak can do with $80bn

    b24h86on7go8.jpg

    I have, like, 6 quibbles with the map. Plus frequency is key to any sort of meaningful service being useful and used. (There is currently a train from Chicago to Grand Rapids via St Joe's. I would love to take it and meet up with West Michigan friends for a cheap beach vacation/ long weekend. There is only one single train to get us home, though, and it is at 08:00am in the goddamn morning.) But on the whole... this is pretty great for not a lot of money.

    Here is the full paper release.

    http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Amtrak-Connects-Us-Fact-Sheet-for-Statement.pdf

    It includes more trains, better times and so on. The yellow lines are more trains and probably better lines.

    Overall its a great map. Now just to move from slower traditional trains to high speed on a lot of these lines. It would be even better.

    u7stthr17eud.png
    monikerFencingsaxShadowfire
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Most bridges aren't what people think of as bridges. Highway overpasses and the like rather than grand suspension bridges.

    The shitty overpass likely needs more work than the suspension bridge for all kinds of reasons. One simply being that states actually do the work on them to upkeep them because if they don’t rich white people call their bosses.for example the Brooklyn Bridge has been renovated and repaired several times (bout every 30 years). And most other major bridges have that, but that janky Bronx Underpass that has chicken wire under it to catch rocks, where you have to go through if you forget to get gas in New Jersey... that one could use some work.

Sign In or Register to comment.