Jump to content

Infrastructure week--and Dem only big budget bill (now at $3.5T)


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, marioandsonic said:

What are the chances of these passing, if they split it into two separate bills?  I'd like to think the roads/bridges bill would have at least SOME bipartisan support...

 

 

4 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

lol 

 

 

Here's the thing, it would have some bipartisan support.

 

The question is would it have any bipartisan votes?

 

And the answer is probably no. Because it's not about legislating for Republicans, it's that anything Dems pass is a win, and the GOP sees governing in only the most stark, zero sum terms.

 

And we can't blame Trump on this one, this has been the position of the Republican party since at least when McConnell declared that their number 1 priority was making Obama a one term president.

 

It's likely McConnell would let half the country burn if it meant depriving the Dems of a "win".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

 

 

 

Here's the thing, it would have some bipartisan support.

 

The question is would it have any bipartisan votes?

 

And the answer is probably no. Because it's not about legislating for Republicans, it's that anything Dems pass is a win, and the GOP sees governing in only the most stark, zero sum terms.

 

And we can't blame Trump on this one, this has been the position of the Republican party since at least when McConnell declared that their number 1 priority was making Obama a one term president.

 

It's likely McConnell would let half the country burn if it meant depriving the Dems of a "win".

I mean he kind of already has considering the state of wild fires, hurricanes, tornados, and floods in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

Some points:

 

Upgrading electrical infrastructure and investing in electrical vehicles is a huge plus.   But inter-city rail?  That is just pipe-dream boondoggle.  


Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joe said:


Why?

 

Because it's less convenient, and often times slower, than other modes of transport.  If I wanted to take rail from Las Vegas to San Diego, there will not be a direct, non-stop route.  It's going to probably make stops in Barstow, Victorville, 3 (or more) stops in Los Angeles, and Orange County before actually arriving in San Diego.  Direct flights are offered a dozen times a day between these two cities, and I can drive down to San Diego in about 5 hours if I time it right to not get stuck in Riverside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Because it's less convenient, and often times slower, than other modes of transport.  If I wanted to take rail from Las Vegas to San Diego, there will not be a direct, non-stop route.  It's going to probably make stops in Barstow, Victorville, 3 (or more) stops in Los Angeles, and Orange County before actually arriving in San Diego.  Direct flights are offered a dozen times a day between these two cities, and I can drive down to San Diego in about 5 hours if I time it right to not get stuck in Riverside. 


Why not have an alternative to flying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If only there were something to do to make rail faster and more convenient

 

Oh well better double down on the status quo

 

The California high speed rail project would like to have a word with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mclumber1 said:

 

The California high speed rail project would like to have a word with you.


This is a terrible argument against rail. In fact, it’s not an argument against rail at all. I really hate this maneuver in discussions where people suddenly go to the “well, it can’t happen anyway” card!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Because it's less convenient, and often times slower, than other modes of transport.  If I wanted to take rail from Las Vegas to San Diego, there will not be a direct, non-stop route.  It's going to probably make stops in Barstow, Victorville, 3 (or more) stops in Los Angeles, and Orange County before actually arriving in San Diego.  Direct flights are offered a dozen times a day between these two cities, and I can drive down to San Diego in about 5 hours if I time it right to not get stuck in Riverside. 

If theres enough demand for a non-stop train between those cities there will be, trains don't have to stop at every station along the way, but internationally trains go hundreds of miles in a few hours, and theres zero reason we can't do that here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

If theres enough demand for a non-stop train between those cities there will be, trains don't have to stop at every station along the way.

 

Exactly. And you can have more than one train on the tracks. You could have a train that goes back and forth non-stop, and another that makes stops.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • b_m_b_m_b_m changed the title to Infrastructure week--and Dem only big budget bill (now at $3.5T)

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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...