3.5 Trillion spending bill


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/08/11/us/politics/senate-budget-plan.amp.html

Does this concern anyone?  I hear the final bill will contain 10,000 pages and likely be more like 5 Trillion.

2BC32BC0-1917-4C48-84A9-607E4D5BD99E.thumb.jpeg.15cfbf757b03ded7a3714bf9ce5177c8.jpegE4E61521-53EE-4461-81FD-F24652314CF0.thumb.jpeg.e3783a174d81ef885f2e83100c6e73d6.jpeg

D85A9755-EE90-4E86-B017-C90AEC872AFE.thumb.jpeg.52ba0b6a1775a43266538a72ef8442b0.jpeg

The above are pictures of a local bridge going up near my home.  The road is rarely used, probably 1-2 trucks across it an hour.

Its actually 5 bridges being built at once though…  The old bridge had to be repaired. A temporary steel and wooden bridge was made to assist making the steel and concrete bridge.  The concrete bridge which is a doozy.  And they decided to build another bridge 1/4 mile from this one in case of a 100 year flood.  Oh and another bridge to access the old bridge (I assume to tear the old one down).  

I’m a bit baffled by the whole thing.  The Salmon must be enjoying it.

Oh, and I have to cross a small one lane bridge, probably 100 years old, with a 10 ton weight limit. Just to get to the new bridge.

I wish I was kidding.

AB9B3DA3-330E-4E04-8EFB-E050B7B516E5.jpeg.87e82f1377736dff4d333c8b1f1ebb5a.jpeg

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember getting stuck in unforgivably slow traffic jams in California my last trip there in 2018.   I also remember getting stuck in unforgivably slow traffic jams in California in a prior trip in the 2000's.   And also from a prior business trip in the 1990's.  And I remember sitting in the back seat listening to my father swear about the unforgivably slow traffic jam in a family trip to Disneyland in the 1970's.  

Perhaps those bridges will be coupled with various infrastructure projects to divert traffic from the daily logjams that has made Cali a laughingstock for 50 years.  One can hope.  Actually, you can hope.  I don't need to hope - I don't live there.

All of the traffic and projects and whatnot in my life in Utah and Colorado have made sense to me.   Even the stupid syncrete failure in 1989 Utah, was a test for a promising new technology that would have been cool if it had worked.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first problem was Trump's Tax Bill.  It created Debt and disgusted me with the Republican Party.

If they were supposed to be the party of the balanced budget and doing away with the US debt, they did the exact opposite.

It just reminded me that they are just as evil as the Democrats (and people wonder why I'm independent), just the other side of the coin doing the same thing when they are in power in many cases.

The second problem is that now that the Democrats are in charge they are writing checks that the books don't balance.

It doesn't seem which way we go, both parties are out to spend...spend...spend without accounting for how much we already owe.

It's a dangerous situations...hopefully I'm long gone before it all comes due and then comes crashing down.  I would like to keep my SS for as long as possible, even if it is overall the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

The first problem was Trump's Tax Bill.  It created Debt and disgusted me with the Republican Party.

If they were supposed to be the party of the balanced budget and doing away with the US debt, they did the exact opposite.

It just reminded me that they are just as evil as the Democrats (and people wonder why I'm independent), just the other side of the coin doing the same thing when they are in power in many cases.

The second problem is that now that the Democrats are in charge they are writing checks that the books don't balance.

It doesn't seem which way we go, both parties are out to spend...spend...spend without accounting for how much we already owe.

It's a dangerous situations...hopefully I'm long gone before it all comes due and then comes crashing down.  I would like to keep my SS for as long as possible, even if it is overall the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world.

You're just now figuring out they are two sides of the same coin?   Your SS is now set to be slashed in 12 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

You're just now figuring out they are two sides of the same coin?   Your SS is now set to be slashed in 12 years.

Well, considering the way Covid is said to mutate, my age, and the mortality rate of each variation (I think @mirkwood gave a percentage of .3%, we expand that for each mutation going forth...and how they might evade vaccines and such), the possibility of me being dead in 12 years seem to keep rising!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Perhaps those bridges will be coupled with various infrastructure projects to divert traffic from the daily logjams that has made Cali a laughingstock for 50 years.  One can hope.  Actually, you can hope.  I don't need to hope - I don't live there.

Not possible.  There are a few farms on the far side of the bridge and a salmon fish hatchery.

Seriously, only a couple trucks go over this bridge an hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mikbone said:

Does this concern anyone?

It might if I understood the economic affect of a $5,000,000,000,000 infrastructure bill. I remember the world was supposed to end when Obama passed the stimulus bill. I may have missed that, cause I’m still fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting to me that throughout history that prior to any catastrophic event that there were "signs" indicating that something was wrong - but, for whatever reason the vast majority of individuals felt that they would somehow be excluded and an exception to what was changing.  

It is my understanding that for the most part the Latter-day Saints will not be exempted from the trials and tribulations of the Last-days except that they will be better prepared to endure them.

As I understand economics - deficit government spending is a precursor to inflation.  Inflation is a cause of suffering and unrest that is almost always a companion of war.  Not since the Civil War has a war been fought on our American soil.  I could be wrong but I am under the impression that the Saints will be drawn into war that is a continuation of previous wars in which the Saints has fought.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Hey Siri, how much money did the US spend on the Iraq and Afghan wars?

Wikipedia provides an estimate of 1.1 trillion for Iraq and the AP estimates almost 2.2 trillion for Afghanistan.

Are you bringing this up because the new spending bill is also spread out over 2 decades?

Or because you think this bill is justified by “promoting the general welfare” just as that spending was justified under “providing for the common defense”?

Or do you think the comparison will have bite because most people on this site support the nation building parts of those wars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

Hey Siri, how much money did the US spend on the Iraq and Afghan wars?

This is a good question, but it’s more complicated than that. 
 

Republicans only care about government spending when a democrat is in office, and democrats only care about “deficits” when a republican in office. So again, it’s strictly politics and gives the sides another reason to bicker. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Republicans only care about government spending when a democrat is in office, and democrats only care about “deficits” when a republican in office. So again, it’s strictly politics and gives the sides another reason to bicker. 

 

I’m still not convinced we really know what debt will and won’t do in the long run

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

I’m still not convinced we really know what debt will and won’t do in the long run

Oh, I'm pretty darn convinced what enough debt will do in the long run.  Problem is, we won't know what is "enough", until it's pretty much too late to do anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 9:27 PM, Grunt said:

You're just now figuring out they are two sides of the same coin?

I've been baffled by the fervency so many in the US have for the Republican and Democratic parties when neither party gives an iota about the national debt.  Both parties are irresponsible, reckless stewards over the finances of this country. 

The national debt hasn't been taken seriously for quite some time.  We're fine throwing money at America's problems as the go-to solution we think works for everything.   

Who's interested in balancing America's budget and restoring fiscal conservative values?  No one.  We need another party to emerge soon that embraces fiscal conservatism, but I'm afraid even if it did, the popularity of writing blank checks seems like it will prevail until a rude awakening comes.

The country at large either willfully or ignorantly embraces anarchy with its irresponsible spending.

232800776_thisisfine.jpg.be83534cbace71588cfb7324e3a48a78.jpg

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

I've been baffled by the fervency so many in the US have for the Republican and Democratic parties when neither party gives an iota about the national debt.  Both parties are irresponsible, reckless stewards over the finances of this country. 

The national debt hasn't been taken seriously for quite some time.  We're fine throwing money at America's problems as the go-to solution we think works for everything.   

Who's interested in balancing America's budget and restoring fiscal conservative values?  No one.  We need another party to emerge soon that embraces fiscal conservatism, but I'm afraid even if it did, the popularity of writing blank checks seems like it will prevail until a rude awakening comes.

The country at large ignorantly embraces anarchy with its irresponsible spending.

232800776_thisisfine.jpg.be83534cbace71588cfb7324e3a48a78.jpg

It's not just a problem in the USA. The problem lies in the fact that we've raised people to believe the day of reckoning will never come and so voting for fiscal responsibility isn't a priority. The fact of the matter is that cuts and austerity don't win elections so no party that wants to actually get in power seems able to pull this off.

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fether said:

What does this mean?

Eventually if you keep getting deeper into debt the bill gets so big you can't even pay off the interest.  At that point you can't get your self out, you can't dig yourself out, even if you paid everything you had, the interest would accrue faster than you could pay it.  It becomes an unending spiral.

Eventually the US is going to get so deep into debt it will go into this spiral.  At that point (if it didn't already occur before that point arrives) the dollar will either become worthless, or be drastically reduced.  Things taken for granted will become unaffordable.  The housing market that is currently occurring in many areas will only be a sign of what is too come.  Where now many who make the median income cannot even afford a place to live, food and other necessities become beyond the ability for many to obtain. 

It's a long prediction that was made decades ago, but it seems that instead of avoiding the future that they said could occur, we are doing everything we can to force it to occur.

We know what will happen because it's happened to other nations throughout history...and normally what happens largely follows a rather well known path...a path which the US (and many of the other Western economies which is a bad sign) seems to be intent on forging forward on.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Wikipedia provides an estimate of 1.1 trillion for Iraq and the AP estimates almost 2.2 trillion for Afghanistan.

Are you bringing this up because the new spending bill is also spread out over 2 decades?

Or because you think this bill is justified by “promoting the general welfare” just as that spending was justified under “providing for the common defense”?

I think that if we're going to spend that kind of money, I'd prefer to see it improving infrastructure here at home. It's crazy to me that the Right will gladly dump money into military spending to fund stalemate wars overseas, but won't invest in their own country.

And yes, the fact that this spending bill is meant to fund several years worth of projects is certainly relevant. 

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Or do you think the comparison will have bite because most people on this site support the nation building parts of those wars?

And how's that worked out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My old college buddy figured he had a bulletproof solution to the whole thing.   Once things got bad, we'd just dissolve the union and re-incorporate under new ownership.

"You want to redeem your bonds?  I'm sorry, this is the Confederated Federation of Northern Mexico.  We know nothing of this 'united states' of which you speak."

He figured we'd have to remain the world's strongest superpower to pull it off.  Otherwise, our creditors might figure they could pull off a nationwide repo effort.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

My old college buddy figured he had a bulletproof solution to the whole thing

My old college buddy once stole an orange road cone then put it in the window that faced the dean’s office. I was going to tell him how stupid that was, but then I realized that we both went to the same college, so who am I to judge? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Godless said:

I think that if we're going to spend that kind of money, I'd prefer to see it improving infrastructure here at home. It's crazy to me that the Right will gladly dump money into military spending to fund stalemate wars overseas, but won't invest in their own country.

...

And how's that worked out?

@anatess2 isn't on these boards anymore. I know there's a number of people on the right who defend nation building, but I haven't seen nearly as much this board. Maybe I'm missing something. Quick poll: Who here thinks that when we deploy troops (or even drones) there should be a well-defined scope and it should not include nation-building? Bonus question: Who here thinks Congress should grow a spine and formally declare war before deploying troops?

As for the initial wars - I'll remind you that there was bipartisan support for both Iraq and Afghanistan (including Senator Clinton), can the same be said for such infrastructure as universal pre-K? 

Quote

And yes, the fact that this spending bill is meant to fund several years worth of projects is certainly relevant. 

Spending bills are set for 10-year windows. Should we compare it against total Medicaid spending without drawing attention to the difference in time scales?

Now that we're out of Afghanistan we might save $1T over the next 10 years (I don't think that's how the actual numbers work but let's use it) then that means we can now fund almost 1/3 of this spending bill. In other words, this proposed bill is 3 1/2 Afghanistans! @Grunt and @JohnsonJones have expressed that what bugs them about this bill is how it will affect our debt. Assuming they were okay with the Afghanistan spending I'm sure you can see how replacing that with triple spending might make a taxpayer or citizen nervous.

And the Afghanistan spending was done by Federal agencies directly accountable to both the Executive and Legislative branches. This bill includes some Federal things (like Medicaid expansion) but a significant portion is going to the States to administer. @mikbone expressed concern about how the funds would be handled (incompetently) locally. Even if he was okay with the Federal administration of tax dollars for the Afghanistan War I'm sure you can see how including State and local governments in the administration would make a person nervous when they haven't shown themselves to be very trustworthy in the past (such as the light rail train to nowhere in recent years).

I could see a person wanting FEMA to come offer relief instead of passing money to your mafia-run construction agencies.

All this rhetoric is built on "if". Your comment is a complete non sequitur if most posters on here would like less hawkishness from our Executives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share