Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Kellhound]

Yep, it’s this one. Not sure why you deny it. And the necessity of providing high speed internet, roads, electricity, and everything else is higher per capita for rural areas.

No matter how many times you use it out of context, it will not change the fact that is not where the conversation started.

[Kellhound]

For fuck sake, the money they are adding is a drop in the bucket it's more of the same it's not working shit is going to continue falling apart because they need to be replaced period.

Most things need repaired, not replaced. Many things cannot be replaced.

[Endus]

What can’t be replaced? Literally every piece of infrastructure is replaceable.

Like, seriously, every single piece of infrastructure has an expected lifespan. Repairs can extend that, but the question of whether it's worth doing so rather than simply replacing that piece of infrastructure is always debateable. For an extreme example, Hoover Dam is currently well past its expected lifespan as a dam. It needs regular repair and maintenace over and above what's "normal" to offset that. The question of where that ongoing cost is greater than just demolishing and rebuilding would be, that's a big question.

But the idea that you could replace the dam, and eventually will need to replace it, that's been a given since the thing was built.

[Kellhound]

Yep, it’s this one. Not sure why you deny it. And the necessity of providing high speed internet, roads, electricity, and everything else is higher per capita for rural areas.

You are the one who brought up the spread out nature of the US as part of the deficit, yet the rural infrastructure is in better shape than urban areas as a percentage. Thats because all of the infrastructure that urban areas need to survive has to go through rural areas, where it is cheaper and easier to build it.

If cities need more money to spend on their infrastructure, they are fully capable of raising it within their city.

- - - Updated - - -

What can’t be replaced? Literally every piece of infrastructure is replaceable.

Anything that would not pass environmental muster.

- - - Updated - - -

Like, seriously, every single piece of infrastructure has an expected lifespan. Repairs can extend that, but the question of whether it's worth doing so rather than simply replacing that piece of infrastructure is always debateable. For an extreme example, Hoover Dam is currently well past its expected lifespan as a dam. It needs regular repair and maintenace over and above what's "normal" to offset that. The question of where that ongoing cost is greater than just demolishing and rebuilding would be, that's a big question.

But the idea that you could replace the dam, and eventually will need to replace it, that's been a given since the thing was built.

Around here, dams that are removed are not replaced.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, claiming all you can do is repair certain parts of infrastructure is about as ignorant as it gets.

Good luck replacing the Grand Coulee Dam.

[Endus]

Around here, dams that are removed are not replaced.

Are you under the impression that this is for any particular environmental or fiscal reason that would be universally true, rather than simply true by happenstance in a particular example's case?

Because if so, I'm gonna demand a citation for that wild claim. And if not, what you're really saying is that the few local dams that have been removed in your area have not been replaced for reasons contextually relevant to those dams and only those dams, which makes me wonder why the hell you'd bring it up.

[Zan15]

By definition, you have to have underage kids to use childcare, which a large portion of the adult population does not have. And of those that do have kids, most have the ability to either pay for it or use other methods to address it.


Age out or don't have kids, which is a significant portion of the population. It also isn't a matter if some level of assistance should be available, but if it should be available as a last resort or not.

Again its called spreading the cost out over your lifetime.

Its no different than public education. Could you imagine what your property tax would be per year if you had to pay all the cost of your child going to school in the 12 years they attended? Waaaaaaaaay more than you are paying now. So instead you pay even when you no longer have kids in school.

Sure there are people who don't ever have kids, but there are also people who never use the police but still have to pay for it

We were talking about 25 billion spread out over 330 million people, or 75 dollars. Over the 5 year plan that would be 15.15 a head per year to fund this infrastructure.


This is what we are balking at? What's that about 250 or so F-35's?

- - - Updated - - -

Good luck replacing the Grand Coulee Dam.

doesn't look like its needed for a few generations and it really does not look like it would be that crazy of a project.

The amount of electricity and water supply will pay the total cost off in another 20 years. Would be feasable that they could bank it from that point getting ready for a replacement if needed.

[Kellhound]

Are you under the impression that this is for any particular environmental or fiscal reason that would be universally true, rather than simply true by happenstance in a particular example's case?

Because if so, I'm gonna demand a citation for that wild claim. And if not, what you're really saying is that the few local dams that have been removed in your area have not been replaced for reasons contextually relevant to those dams and only those dams, which makes me wonder why the hell you'd bring it up.

Environmental concerns will make the replacement of any dam in this area, no matter how important, hard to impossible to replace.

[Endus]

Environmental concerns will make the replacement of any dam in this area, no matter how important, hard to impossible to replace.

Again, I'm gonna need a citation. Environmental concerns would be raised for a new dam, based on how it will impact the ecosystem, particularly fish migration. If you've got an existing dam, those concerns have A> already been accepted and any "damage" is already done, and B> the new construction would present a new opportunity to ameliorate those issues.

[s_bushido]

Environmental concerns will make the replacement of any dam in this area, no matter how important, hard to impossible to replace.

Please explain why "we shouldn't do this thing because it's difficult" is an acceptable position to hold. Bonus points for describing how such cowardice how it fits in with our myth notion of just how exceptional we are here in the US of A.

[Kellhound]

Again its called spreading the cost out over your lifetime.

Its no different than public education. Could you imagine what your property tax would be per year if you had to pay all the cost of your child going to school in the 12 years they attended? Waaaaaaaaay more than you are paying now. So instead you pay even when you no longer have kids in school.

Sure there are people who don't ever have kids, but there are also people who never use the police but still have to pay for it

We were talking about 25 billion spread out over 330 million people, or 75 dollars. Over the 5 year plan that would be 15.15 a head per year to fund this infrastructure.


This is what we are balking at? What's that about 250 or so F-35's?

- - - Updated - - -



doesn't look like its needed for a few generations and it really does not look like it would be that crazy of a project.

The amount of electricity and water supply will pay the total cost off in another 20 years. Would be feasable that they could bank it from that point getting ready for a replacement if needed.

Education is something everyone needs in youth, and is a legal requirement. Childcare (especially government subsidized) is not needed by many parents, it just makes life easier.

The government has a near monopoly on police activities, so it is hard to not rely on them even in a prescriptive manner.

"Oh, sir, it's only a tiny, little, thin one."

Its not the cost or the practicality that will prevent it from being replaced.

[Kaleredar]

All of this quibbling over dams is leading down an nonconstructive path and does not hit home at the heart of the matter.

The per-person investment required is tiny. So much so that whatever @Kellhound's "misgivings" are about this nonsense are pretty inconsequential and can be safely ignored, full stop, no matter the supposed intricacies of what or how infrastructure "should" be dealt with.

And hey, if you think that tiny investment is still too high, then maybe the tax could be designed to draw off precipitously more money from the people whose millions of dollars wont even notice the subtraction, while the people scraping by will owe practically nothing.


But let me guess, that wouldn't be fair, would it? Giving the poor people more ready access to childcare they otherwise wouldn't afford isn't fair if some tax has to be raised on a person who wont even notice the double-digit loss in salary at the end of the year?

The republicans aren't opposed to this for any "legitimate" financial reason. They're opposed to it because their only platform has been to "oppose the evil democrats to save the nation" under the vague supposition that whatever democrats are doing is going to steal your guns, bibles, and turn your daughter into a marijuana-smoking socialist who marries a man of a different skin color. But they know that infrastructure spending is both a necessity and popular, so they can't allow the democrats a victory to show that yes, the democrats know how to actually govern.

[Kellhound]

Again, I'm gonna need a citation. Environmental concerns would be raised for a new dam, based on how it will impact the ecosystem, particularly fish migration. If you've got an existing dam, those concerns have A> already been accepted and any "damage" is already done, and B> the new construction would present a new opportunity to ameliorate those issues.

The damage hasn't been accepted and is actively criticized. There is already a push for removing large operational dams on the Snake.

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain why "we shouldn't do this thing because it's difficult" is an acceptable position to hold. Bonus points for describing how such cowardice how it fits in with our myth notion of just how exceptional we are here in the US of A.

Its a "We shouldn't do this thing because it has negative environmental impacts."

[Kaleredar]

Its a "We shouldn't do this thing because it has negative environmental impacts."

I'm sorry, conservatives never get to suddenly "care" about environmental impacts to oppose something liberals want to do. Gas, coal and oil have gotten... I'd say a free pass, but in fact the "pass" was more to the tune of billions of dollars in subsidies... and those three conservative darling industries have collectively done far more harm than any dam or any number of birds flying into windmills that conservatives suddenly care so dearly about ever will.

You don't get to be "concerned" about the impacts of a dam while simultaneously chastising Biden for shutting down an unnecessary pipeline's development to prop up a dying industry.

[Kellhound]

All of this quibbling over dams is leading down an nonconstructive path and does not hit home at the heart of the matter.

The per-person investment required is tiny. So much so that whatever @Kellhound's "misgivings" are about this nonsense are pretty inconsequential and can be safely ignored, full stop, no matter the supposed intricacies of what or how infrastructure "should" be dealt with.

And hey, if you think that tiny investment is still too high, then maybe the tax could be designed to draw off precipitously more money from the people whose millions of dollars wont even notice the subtraction, while the people scraping by will owe practically nothing.


But let me guess, that wouldn't be fair, would it? Giving the poor people more ready access to childcare they otherwise wouldn't afford isn't fair if some tax has to be raised on a person who wont even notice the double-digit loss in salary at the end of the year?

Heaven forbid people try to figure out how to solve their own problems before turning to the government. There is nothing wrong with the government providing support to individuals as a last resort, but it shouldn't be the first resort.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry, conservatives never get to suddenly "care" about environmental impacts to oppose something liberals want to do. Gas, coal and oil have gotten... I'd say a free pass, but in fact the "pass" was more to the tune of billions of dollars in subsidies... and those three conservative darling industries have collectively done far more harm than any dam or any number of birds flying into windmills that conservatives suddenly care so dearly about ever will.

You don't get to be "concerned" about the impacts of a dam while simultaneously chastising Biden for shutting down an unnecessary pipeline's development to prop up a dying industry.

Uhh.... Its not the conservatives that are pushing dam removal.

[Kaleredar]

Heaven forbid people try to figure out how to solve their own problems before turning to the government. There is nothing wrong with the government providing support to individuals as a last resort, but it shouldn't be the first resort.

Yeah, clearly "everything is fine for everyone, you all just don't want it hard enough" has proven a terrible means of governance.

You know how I know? Because if things like... easy accessibility to childcare worked out for everyone, then people wouldn't be needing it.

That you, personally, are blind to the difficulties people face accessing things does not mean that people don't have problems, it just means you don't want to see them. Nor do your pedantic arguments about the definitions of infrastructure at the expense of actually trying to do anything ameliorate said problems.

And let me counter with "heaven forbid poor people have their burden lessened by taking a pittance of money more from vastly more wealthy individuals who will not be remotely encumbered by the increase of tax on them."

You know what sounds easier for all involved? Yeah, my solution.

Uhh.... Its not the conservatives that are pushing dam removal.

And yet you're the conservative, in this thread, and the only one complaining about it here.

Like I really could give zero fucks about the logistics of dams right now. Absolutely zero.

And hey, if something relevant to dams were to come up, I would have at least some decent faith that the Biden, or any democrat, administration could address those concerns with ACTUAL environmental impact reports in mind, instead of a focus on pure profit for some billion-dollar industry, as is the conservatives main concern when the environment is involved.

Because like I said, whenever the topic switches to hydroelectric dams or solar power or wind power, or anything that denigrates and undermines the hegemony of fossil fuels, suddenly conservatives are up in arms about the poor birds that fly into windmills or what about covering up their habitats?. As if fossil fuels, let alone the global climate change they cause, haven't killed, and won't continue to kill, magnitudes more wildlife the world over.

[Draco-Onis]

Most things need repaired, not replaced. Many things cannot be replaced.

Most things the US has reached end of life decades ago, that's why the cost of constant repair keeps going up. You seem to think that they were built to last forever.

[JohnBrown1917]

Heaven forbid people try to figure out how to solve their own problems before turning to the government. There is nothing wrong with the government providing support to individuals as a last resort, but it shouldn't be the first resort.

- - - Updated - - -



Uhh.... Its not the conservatives that are pushing dam removal.

You can just will money out of nothing to pay for childcare, as for dams, the people elect the government exactly for those reasons. How else are you going to get proper, non-profit driven, dams?

[Zan15]

Education is something everyone needs in youth, and is a legal requirement. Childcare (especially government subsidized) is not needed by many parents, it just makes life easier.

.

umm childcare is also a legal requirement. Go try leaving your child alone and see what happens.

If we are going off how many people need it there is a long list of programs that we can cut to help pay for Childcare. Hell technically not "that many people" need CHIP so we should get rid of child healthcare too! I can give you some more extreme examples but i think you will get the point.


Also the plan never said the childcare would be free.

- - - Updated - - -

Heaven forbid people try to figure out how to solve their own problems before turning to the government. There is nothing wrong with the government providing support to individuals as a last resort, but it shouldn't be the first resort.

.

btw how many decades of childcare problems till they are allowed to turn to the govt for the solution when the private sector has failed?

[Kellhound]

Yeah, clearly "everything is fine for everyone, you all just don't want it hard enough" has proven a terrible means of governance.

You know how I know? Because if things like... easy accessibility to childcare worked out for everyone, then people wouldn't be needing it.

That you, personally, are blind to the difficulties people face accessing things does not mean that people don't have problems, it just means you don't want to see them. Nor do your pedantic arguments about the definitions of infrastructure at the expense of actually trying to do anything ameliorate said problems.

And let me counter with "heaven forbid poor people have their burden lessened by taking a pittance of money more from vastly more wealthy individuals who will not be remotely encumbered by the increase of tax on them."

You know what sounds easier for all involved? Yeah, my solution.



And yet you're the conservative, in this thread, and the only one complaining about it here.

Like I really could give zero fucks about the logistics of dams right now. Absolutely zero.

And hey, if something relevant to dams were to come up, I would have at least some decent faith that the Biden, or any democrat, administration could address those concerns with ACTUAL environmental impact reports in mind, instead of a focus on pure profit for some billion-dollar industry, as is the conservatives main concern when the environment is involved.

Because like I said, whenever the topic switches to hydroelectric dams or solar power or wind power, or anything that denigrates and undermines the hegemony of fossil fuels, suddenly conservatives are up in arms about the poor birds that fly into windmills or what about covering up their habitats?. As if fossil fuels, let alone the global climate change they cause, haven't killed, and won't continue to kill, magnitudes more wildlife the world over.

I am acutely aware of the conundrum of childcare, hence my willingness for government involvement when no viable alternative exists for an individual. You see, the issue is not if government assistance should exist, but when it should kick in and to what extent.

All I did with dams is point out that environmental concerns will make it impossible to replace many dams in the future, as being in line with my statement that not all infrastructure can be replaced.

- - - Updated - - -

Most things the US has reached end of life decades ago, that's why the cost of constant repair keeps going up. You seem to think that they were built to last forever.

How do you replace the Interstate? What is your plan to replace the transcontinental railroad?

- - - Updated - - -

umm childcare is also a legal requirement. Go try leaving your child alone and see what happens.

If we are going off how many people need it there is a long list of programs that we can cut to help pay for Childcare. Hell technically not "that many people" need CHIP so we should get rid of child healthcare too! I can give you some more extreme examples but i think you will get the point.


Also the plan never said the childcare would be free.

- - - Updated - - -



btw how many decades of childcare problems till they are allowed to turn to the govt for the solution when the private sector has failed?

There is no legal requirement for you to place your child in childcare, just one to no leave them alone. There is a significant difference between them.

The point is, government assistance should be a last resort, not a first resort. But it should be a resort.

Can one parent stay home? Can you afford childcare? Can the parents work split shifts to ensure one is always home? Do they have family that can watch the child? Do they have friends that can watch the child? If the answer is truly no to all of those, then government assistance would likely be in order.

[Endus]

How do you replace the Interstate? What is your plan to replace the transcontinental railroad?

You realize that, in this context, this just means "tear the existing structures out and rebuild them"?

That's already done on a recurring basis, just not the whole section of the Interstate at the same time.

- - - Updated - - -

Can one parent stay home? Can you afford childcare? Can the parents work split shifts to ensure one is always home? Do they have family that can watch the child? Do they have friends that can watch the child? If the answer is truly no to all of those, then government assistance would likely be in order.

If those answers are all "no" for anyone, then it demonstrates that government assistance is a policy that should exist.

It's fairly trivial to demonstrate that this would be true for someone, somewhere. Particularly as employment is not 100%. Particularly as the idea of a two-income household being the default is itself a problematic anachronism that only exists to serve capitalists. Particularly as plenty of people have bad relationships with their family. Particularly as "friends" can only provide child care if they themselves are saying "no" to all these things and need to stay home already; otherwise, those friends are working, too, and literally can't.