United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

Study: So-Called Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Creates No ‘Significant’ Economic Growth

The University of Pennsylvania Penn-Wharton Budget Model found Thursday that the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill would “have no significant impact” on economic growth.

The Penn-Wharton model found that the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill, otherwise known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, would result in $548 billion in additional spending, $132 billion in new taxes, and $351 billion in deficits, all of which would not lead to additional growth in GDP by 2031 or 2050.

The Penn-Wharton Model also found that selling wireless spectrum and selling some of the nation’s strategic reserve of petroleum “effectively adds to government debt” rather than serving as an offset to the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. The model explained:

In addition, the announced deal allocates revenues from the sale of spectrum and oil totaling $93 billion. Proceeds from spectrum sales are slated to go to the U.S. Treasury, so this revenue source does not significantly change the government’s budget relative to the baseline. Furthermore, we assume that the strategic petroleum reserve will be restocked to its baseline value at some point in the future. Therefore, applying these sources of funding to infrastructure aid effectively adds to government debt.
The Penn-Wharton Model’s release arises as the Senate remains prepared to invoke cloture and advance the bill potentially on Thursday. This means that the Senate could pass the bill by Saturday.

The Penn-Wharton Model serves as one of the key analyses for lawmakers to understand proposed legislation’s fiscal and economic impact, alongside the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) analysis. A dismal report from the Penn-Wharton Model and the CBO could undermine lawmakers’ support for the bill.

The analysis also found that the bipartisan bill would not boost American workers’ wages.

“Overall, workers’ productivity is unchanged, which is reflected in wages that do not change in 2040 and 2050,” the report read. “Overall, similar hours worked and lower private capital lower GDP, an effect that is offset by the productivity benefits of the infrastructure investment. Overall, GDP does not change in 2031, 2040, or 2050.”

2,700 pages of pork and embezzlement, bribery and corruption; did ANYONE expect growth to be slipped in somewhere? this is a communist backstop; they'll pass it, and we won't be able to look back and fix it without a major civil uprising.

There is a deeper plan here. There are tens of thousands of illegal aliens crossing our border each day. They are given an envelope of cash, put on a bus, and taken to the blue city of their choice.

The infrastructure bill ensures they are taken care of financially until Pelosi makes them all US citizens, after which they will all vote democrat. There are 50-100 million of them by now.
 





[Edit]

Lets see how long it takes for this to become reality.

 
Last edited:
QUOTE="Arlos, post: 190800, member: 347"]
I know it’s not the thread, but in France we have pretty much given up electric cars, the focus now is getting hydrogen working, we’ve been making some nice advance here.
[/QUOTE]
Hydrogen fuel cells are just really bad batteries with a convoluted charging system. They are recharged with hyrdolosis, which is very inneficient, and hydorgen is such a pain to store that we only really use it for rocketry. Even then, there is a preference for other fuels if possible.
 
Last edited:
...#7 isn't actually crazy. Wildlife crossings are important, both to protect drivers AND the environment. Especially in the mid-west were you have seasonally migratory species.
Yeah; wildlife crossings/bridges are a very economical way to protect wildlife and drivers at the same time; dear are the deadliest creature in the US for a reason, and migratory species get a few safe corridors to help preserve their numbers to a greater degree.

They also can turn out to be really cool architectural projects, and incorporate really interesting designs.
 
...#7 isn't actually crazy. Wildlife crossings are important, both to protect drivers AND the environment. Especially in the mid-west were you have seasonally migratory species.
#6 depends on implementation, in Arizona (a fringe case admittedly), there are a lot of covered spaces for parking* or in play lots at schools that are also solar panel arrays so that IS a kind of infrastructure. It's just not super important to your kid being educated.

Various "green" energy projects are fine for reducing the power demand of the school (and good for an on-site learning opportunity) if impliemented properly.

*This is an example from Tucson Airport
iu
 
Last edited:
Pedo senator nabbed.
 
Hey, where’s our gib? Why isn’t France getting infrastructures money? 🙁

You already got one, called the Marshall Plan. Then we put you under our defense umbrella called “NATO” and even had air bases as a commitment…until that ungrateful ass DeGaulle decided that wasn’t enough.

I hear some county in Ohio is openly defying Biden's eviction order. Good for them. Maybe we can see more of this sort of thing in the future.

Not surprised…the thing was already declared unconstitutional, and lawsuits are already winding through the courts. And I’m pretty sure this time Kavanaugh has realized that Biden and Co don’t actually care about the rule of law so they need to be expressly told they can’t do this.
 
DeGaulle wasn't wrong though.
France was still recovering and wasn't the powerhouse they are now, and would have needed some extra.
 
You're a commie in denial.
With respect, get some new material.

Traditionally, the arguments against communism were 'it'll make you into a serf with no rights whose entire labor surplus is absorbed merely to break even'. These were entirely valid arguments, insofar as communism actually did those things. However, nowadays, you'd be just as likely to find the ideology of 'all property will be held in common by a few unelected tyrants who dole it out to peasants so the peasants can use it to labor for said tyrants, while said peasants are banned from using it for thoughtcrimes, which leads to the peasants being kicked out of society as a whole and starving' advocated for by neoliberal corporatists as communists. The only difference between the society Schwab and his buddies want and hardcore communism being that under communism, bourgeoisie parasites like Schwab would be rounded up and shot and right now, that's looking like a real point in communism's favor. If your ideology has produced identical results to those you use as a bogeyman to demonize anyone against it, why should people follow it?
Hmm. You have me pondering a potential sci fi future where clean eco friendly cars involve some kind of a synthetic type of gasoline that's clean to produce (no more drilling) and highly efficient emissions systems in cars to prevent air pollution, instead of electric. I've always pictured it as electric, rather than highly efficient gasoline.
evilauthor said:
Scottty said:
 
Under communism, bourgeoisie parasites like Schwab and his buddies would be running the party. This is something the commies out there wrecking small businesses and homes don't seem to understand.
That's my point. Your system is yielding identical results. Change your system so it doesn't do that or get a new bogeyman since saying, 'support our system or X will happen to you' doesn't work if under your system X is already happening to you.
ben-browning-yesterday-at-6-08pm-1990s-capitalism-communism-is-bad-43618544.png
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top