Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

They think we are photo bombing their nice little lives.

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

The lights are all blinking red.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

The media handbook says “controversial” is the most negative description that can be used for a Republican.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

This country desperately needs a functioning fourth estate.

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

If a good thing happens for a bad reason, it’s still a good thing.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

A tremendous foreign policy asset… to all of our adversaries.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Happy Infrastructure Week

Happy Infrastructure Week

by | 141 Comments

This post is in: ,

So, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Schumer and Trump met at the White House today to talk infrastructure, and they reached agreement on a figure. CBS News:

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said President Trump and Democrats agreed to spend $2 trillion on infrastructure over 25 years in a “constructive” White House meeting, and will meet again in three weeks on how to pay for it.

“We agreed on a number, which was very very good, $2 trillion for infrastructure,” Schumer told reporters outside the White House Tuesday. “Originally we had started a little lower, even the president was willing to push it up to $2 trillion. And that is a very good thing.”

But that number, reached in a meeting with only Democratic members present and no Republican members present, could be in jeopardy if Republicans lack the appetite for agreeing to spend that much.

Adam Serwer finds this alarming. Via Twitter:

I assume McConnell will rescue them, but still striking to see Democratic Leadership commit to the Re-elect Trump and break the Democratic Party Forever Act of 2019

It’s also more than twice as much as some Dems wanted to give obama at the pit of the worst recession in decades but who’s counting.

If McConnell calls the bluff though, they’ll be in quite a dilemma. This is something that would help a lot of people, in particular people Dems say they want to help, and so would be hard to say no to.

But if you doubt that a racist party can make inroads among its targets by materially improving their circumstances, then read up on the New Deal.

Right-wing authoritarianism and left wing economics is the sweet spot for aspiring strongmen. If Trump actually starts abandoning Ryanism, well…

What do y’all think?

Reader Interactions

141Comments

  2. 2.

    Doug R

    Not too worried. Like the “crazy” Кавказ will let it go through. Although if it does, it will help- which makes me think Mitch is going to put in some kind of poison pill.

  3. 3.

    Just One More Canuck

    In all likelihood, Trump will renege on the deal himself. Serwer can go fuck himself

  4. 4.

    Roger Moore

    Serwer needs to look at that “over 25 years” part. $40 billion per year is a nice boost to current spending, but it’s nothing close to what Obama wanted. Quite frankly, it’s a pretty anemic infrastructure package.

  5. 5.

    MJS

    Seems like a lot of handwringing on Serwer’s part for nothing. They’re going to meet again to discuss how to pay for it. At that point, the deal dies, because increasing taxes on someone, somewhere, is a non-starter for all Republicans, including Trump.

  6. 6.

    germy

    “We agreed on a number, which was very very good, $2 trillion for infrastructure,” Schumer told reporters outside the White House Tuesday. “Originally we had started a little lower, even the president was willing to push it up to $2 trillion. And that is a very good thing.”

    In 25 years I imagine most of it will be spent on stilts and seawalls.

  7. 7.

    schrodingers_cat

    @Roger Moore: Just because one is good at writing about how race infects American politics and has cute cats doesn’t make one good at economics or political maneuvering in the Congress. IIRC he doesn’t even vote in order to preserve his neutral journalistic stance.

  8. 8.

    germy

    @schrodingers_cat:

    IIRC he doesn’t even vote in order to preserve his neutral journalistic stance.

    Isn’t that somewhat like Kafka’s Hunger Artist working as a restaurant critic?

  10. 10.

    ruemara

    I think jumping to conclusions of disaster is an olympic event for pundits – ESPECIALLY THE POLITICAL ONES.

    Good god, if you don’t even know the damned details, shut up with your prognostications.

    @schrodingers_cat: Also, this. Show me which whiner with a masthead has gotten shit done & worked Trump over like Nancy Pelosi & I’ll trust their analysis. I like Serwer but he’s being ridiculous for a paycheck.

  11. 11.

    dmsilev

    @schrodingers_cat: Yeah, same here. Pelosi has proven that she can handle Trump and come out ahead (see: government shutdown). Until I have a really good reason to believe otherwise, I’m going to assume that she’s gamed this through.

  13. 13.

    Hidalgo de Arizona

    I trust Pelosi on this – if this all falls through because of McConnell (as seems likely) she and the Democrats can hammer on him and the other Republicans in congress and potentially use it for electoral advantage. Remember, we don’t get any policy if we don’t have a majority

    If it goes through then… well we all knew that Trump was going to lie either way that he was responsible for the BIGGEST and BEST EVERYTHING OF AWESOMENESS EVER! I don’t think an infrastructure plan that is (as was mentioned above) peanuts will make a difference.

  14. 14.

    Burnspbesq

    @MJS:

    Watch. Trump’s answer to the how-to-fund-it question will be to eliminate SNAP and take the rest out of Social Security.

  16. 16.

    germy

    @MJS:

    They’re going to meet again to discuss how to pay for it. At that point, the deal dies, because increasing taxes on someone, somewhere, is a non-starter for all Republicans, including Trump.

    They had no problem raising taxes on military widows.

    Mara Lago members won’t be inconvenienced, but I’m sure I’ll lose a lot more deductions.

  17. 17.

    patrick II

    @MJS:

    At that point, the deal dies, because increasing taxes on someone, somewhere, is a non-starter for all Republicans, including Trump.

    Agreed. It is amazing to me how virulently anti-tax the very rich have become. Any tax above 0 is socialism.

  19. 19.

    Betty Cracker

    This bit from the linked CBS article made me laugh:

    “Now we have a much easier path because the Democrats will come to us with a plan for infrastructure, a plan for health care, a plan for whatever they’re looking at, and we’ll negotiate,” Mr. Trump said in a press conference on Nov. 7, 2018. He added, “From a dealmaking standpoint, we are all much better off the way it turned out” than if Republicans had kept control of the House.”

    What a fucking moron!

    Anyhoo, I tend to agree that Serwer is overreacting (minus the bile leveled at him in some of the foregoing comments). But he’s not wrong when he says combining populist economics with hard-right authoritarianism is a classic strongman formula. People like McConnell, Graham, et al, are more invested in servicing plutocrats than Trump per se, and they have and will act as a check on any populist economics Trump might otherwise adopt. He’s just a dope who listens to people who flatter him.

  20. 20.

    waspuppet

    I agree with Steve M on this. Write a bill, pass it in the House, THEN talk with Trump. The Republicans are going to destroy this; let them do it in broad daylight.

  21. 21.

    chopper

    Adam Serwer find this alarming.

    are we not supposed to do anything about our crumbling infrastructure then? what kind of stupid-ass take is this?

  23. 23.

    Roger Moore

    @MJS:

    At that point, the deal dies, because increasing taxes on someone, somewhere, is a non-starter for all Republicans, including Trump.

    This is not true. As their tax law showed, raising taxes on poor and middle class people in blue states is just fine.

  24. 24.

    Wjs

    I love it when people assume Nancy Pelosi isn’t already ten steps ahead of a man who, in normal circumstances, would have the TV remote slapped out of his tiny hands by a trained Beagle.

    She is the best politician in the Democratic party. She has proven this over and over again. Stupid pundits, STFU.

  25. 25.

    dmsilev

    @Burnspbesq:

    Trump’s answer to the how-to-fund-it question will be to eliminate SNAP

    Trump heard that attempting to ‘eliminate SNAP’ was big in the news this past weekend and wanted to get in on the action.

  26. 26.

    Brachiator

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said President Trump and Democrats agreed to spend $2 trillion on infrastructure over 25 years in a “constructive” White House meeting, and will meet again in three weeks on how to pay for it.

    Over 25 years? This is almost meaningless in terms of any stimulus. And I doubt that Trump is really interested.

    But if Pelosi can get Trump to even commit to the idea of infrastructure spending, it gets the idea down on the table and presents opportunities in the future.

  27. 27.

    rikyrah

    This is all a game.
    No Republicans in the meeting?
    Nothing but a game. I would like a serious infrastructure plan…but, since I know that it’s not happening…good optics for 2020

    Well played by Nancy Smash…

  29. 29.

    rp

    @Brachiator: Exactly. This is setting a marker and potentially pissing off Trump’s base when the deal inevitably falls through. It’s true that this could be very appealing for Trump’s racist base, so all the more reason to use it to drive a wedge between his base and the plutocrats.

  30. 30.

    Roger Moore

    @My Side of Town:
    Sorry, my math isn’t great today. Even $80 billion/year is not nearly enough. It might bring our infrastructure spending up to the point where we’re actually able to pay for the upkeep on our current infrastructure, but we need an extra trillion or two in spending to deal with the deferred maintenance on existing infrastructure.

  31. 31.

    waspuppet

    @Burnspbesq: At which point the headline will be “Dems would rather spend money on Those People than putting Real Americans back to work.”

    Like I said above (and Steve M said first): Write a bill. Pass it in the House. THEN talk with President Dumbass.

  32. 32.

    realbtl

    I assume Trump thinks each bridge etc will get a large gold sign saying “TRUMP Roaring Creek bridge”.

  33. 33.

    waspuppet

    @Baud: Because it would be an example — finally — of Trump making actual Americans’ lives better. And since he’s in on it from the ground floor, he gets to take credit, as opposed to the House passing a real bill and daring the GOP to oppose it.

    Which brings us, to, of course, the REAL motivation behind this so-called infrastructure talk: Biden got a union endorsement yesterday and Trump is freaking the fck out.

  34. 34.

    schrodingers_cat

    I like Adam Serwer better than the average MSM pundit. But to be a pundit in good standing the first rule is blame Democrats first. He is just following the rules of his professional guild.

  35. 35.

    randy khan

    I said something like this yesterday, but the infrastructure bill is part of the larger set of substantive initiatives on the Dem agenda in the House, all intended to show what would be done with the Dems in control across the board. Since the meeting didn’t involve the Senate, and didn’t come up with a funding mechanism, I think it’s safe to say that the likelihood of actual legislation that Trump could take credit for is low. And if the deal craters, it’s one more example of Trump being unable to deliver, which is good for our team.

    Also, I always like to remember that Democrats want to do things that are good for the country, and so we should be happy when our leaders push those kinds of initiatives forward.

  36. 36.

    Brachiator

    As for Adam Serwer…

    I assume McConnell will rescue them, but still striking to see Democratic Leadership commit to the Re-elect Trump and break the Democratic Party Forever Act of 2019

    This is a bit strident, no?

    Right-wing authoritarianism and left wing economics is the sweet spot for aspiring strongmen. If Trump actually starts abandoning Ryanism, well…

    I am not sure what he is going on about here. Trump does not have a coherent economic policy, and he is incapable of coming up with one. His only approach to tax policy is to give tremendous breaks to the rich, and to pretend to do something for any other group. And he and the Republican leadership think that the lower income classes are undeserving thieves who don’t even merit the small credits they currently receive.

    Still, I would not be surprised if Trump resurrects the idea of a 10% middle class tax cut, but the price would entail slashing other benefits.

  37. 37.

    Mike in NC

    Give Trump 24 hours or less to do a 180. That’s just how he rolls. Whatever became of the ridiculous notion of going back to the moon in five years? Everybody has laughed and moved on. Trump the master bullshit artist. Nothing he says should be taken seriously.

  40. 40.

    Fair Economist

    “Right-wing authoritarianism and left wing economics” will smash the existing Republican party asunder and the Republican party, not Trump, is the real problem. Trump is a symptom. When the funding comes up the options will be deficit spending and undoing the tax cut (remember, Nancy can block any benefit cuts, to huge political benefit) and the Republican party will look horrible trying to collapse bridges to maintain tax cuts for the ultrawealthy.

  41. 41.

    trollhattan

    “Trillion here, trillion there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money.”

    Are we now back in the Cheney “deficits don’t matter” phase of governin’? IIUC this fiscal year’s deficit is nearly a trillion, thanks to the Mitch and Paul Kill Government via Debt and Let Billionaires Run Things legislation.

    Not saying we don’t need fixin’, but they’re going to try and pry the money for it out of social programs and other “entitlements.”

  42. 42.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    I assume McConnell will rescue them, but still striking to see Democratic Leadership commit to the Re-elect Trump and break the Democratic Party Forever Act of 2019

    Panic first, think later. I like Serwer, but this sounds more like Matt Stoller or Cenk Ugyur. I don’t say that to be mean, it’s just my reaction.

    It’s also more than twice as much as some Dems wanted to give obama at the pit of the worst recession in decades but who’s counting.

    yeah, and most of those Dems are gone, and we wish most of them were still there. Politics is hard, Blue Dogs are dumb an Republicans are hypocrites

  43. 43.

    Fair Economist

    @Wapiti:

    Speaker Pelosi’s stance on Pay-Go seems prescient.

    Unpossible! All mainstream Democrats are neoliberal sellouts! I saw that on Russia Today!

  45. 45.

    Scott

    Right-wing authoritarianism and left wing economics

    That’s called Peronism. Could it be that Trump is jealous of Venezuela?

  46. 46.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @waspuppet: Like I said above (and Steve M said first): Write a bill. Pass it in the House. THEN talk with President Dumbass.

    much better response than Serwer’s

  47. 47.

    trollhattan

    @realbtl:
    Can you imagine an “OBAMA built this” sign on every Stimulus-funded project? Just the traffic jams of wingnuts who refused to drive on them would be epic.

    “According to Chopper Dave, about a thousand pickups pulled over to the shoulder east of the I-70 Bridge. You probably want to avoid the area on your commute.”

  50. 50.

    MomSense

    Haven’t the media been harping on the dangers of Democrats pursuing investigations and impeachment while voters perceive they aren’t doing any work on behalf of the people? Pundits say voters will punish them for putting politics over people. And now they are trying to do something for the people and the pundits are saying they should be putting politics first.

  51. 51.

    Redshift

    @Mike in NC:

    Whatever became of the ridiculous notion of going back to the moon in five years? Everybody has laughed and moved on.

    Sadly, no. NASA had to take it seriously. They’re developing a supplemental budget request, and Trump’s NASA Administrator tweets about it every few days.

  53. 53.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @MomSense: TBF Adam Serwer’s about as far from Chris Cilliza or your average CW monger as you can imagine. This seems like some frustration breaking through. It’s way, way too early to panic. IMHO.

  54. 54.

    Betty Cracker

    New Quinnipiac poll is mostly good news for Biden, but it has Warren ahead of Sanders! Poll was of Dems and Dem leaners.

    Biden 38%
    Warren 12%
    Sanders 11%
    Buttigieg 10%
    Harris 8%
    O’Rourke 5%
    Booker 2%

  55. 55.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    Quinnipiac University Poll @ QuinnipiacPoll
    #JoeBiden Surging Among Democrats in Presidential Race, Poll Finds; U.S. Voters Support Wealth Tax, Oppose Free College

    Nate Silver @ NateSilver538
    Biden 38
    Warren 12
    Bernie 11
    Butti 10
    Harris 8
    Beto 5

  56. 56.

    meander

    I sometimes think of an alternate universe where the Pres* changed his mind in Jan 2019 and pivoted to building stuff — “F*ck the wall, I want infrastructure. I want to build.”. And followed that up with strong leadership that created the projects to fix our roads, bridges, etc. It would have been hugely popular with the press, voters sick of potholes, and even many Dems. But he’s too lazy and weak — and prefers to rile up the racist base.

    If they are going to have any meetings at the White House, the topic should be health care — perhaps get the Pres* to make some wild statements about how he has a plan and it will be ready soon, or try to get him to explain how pre-existing conditions will be covered. Or get him to support ideas that the GOP hates to drive wedges — he’s famous for saying whatever he thinks the ‘room’ wants to hear.

  58. 58.

    NotMax

    Dolt 45 is the Tacoma Narrows bridge of presidents. Probably believes infrastructure funding mean the government will pay for gilded faucets in his hotels.

  59. 59.

    TenguPhule

    @MJS:

    They’re going to meet again to discuss how to pay for it. At that point, the deal dies, because increasing taxes on someone, somewhere, is a non-starter for all Republicans, including Trump.

    Trump will lie. Mitch McConnell will make sure that whatever is agreed upon will not actually be in any final bill.

    And within three months, the media will be all “Compromise means Democrats must concede.”

  60. 60.

    jimmiraybob

    There’s no proof that Trump stole the $2T dollars to build his wall. And, even if their was, the wall needed to be built. And, besides that, look over there (points to White House created chaos elsewhere). Wait a minute, I think I’m getting ahead of myself.

  61. 61.

    TenguPhule

    @Baud:

    Why would an infrastructure bill re-elect Trump?

    Because trying to work with Trump after the Mueller report came out makes our Democratic Congress folks look like either A) They’re not serious about Trump being a threat and doing bad things because otherwise they wouldn’t be trying to work with him or B) They’re just as corrupt as he is because in spite of the Mueller report they’re still trying to work with him.

    Trying to be bipartisan with a Russian backed traitor and his fellow Republican traitor has no upsides. Its a Morton’s fork.

  64. 64.

    Gravenstone

    Our infrastructure is a clusterfuck right now, and needs all the attention it can get. And given this is a 25 year program, I am skeptical just how much benefit might be afforded Trump in the remaining time before the 2020 elections. By the time it makes it through the sausage factory and gets voted on (assuming Trump doesn’t then veto it for Trump reasons),it will barely be a year before election day. Or as S-C said, I trust Pelosi rather more than random pundit type.

  66. 66.

    Baud

    @waspuppet:

    Because it would be an example — finally — of Trump making actual Americans’ lives better.

    If all it takes is a mild bill that is implemented over 25 years, then we’re ultimately done for anyway.

  68. 68.

    rikyrah

    See all these people running for President?

    Some of them could be running to take back a Governorship..

    We could use some Dem Secretaries of State in Red States, to keep elections fair.

    We don’t all have to run for President to make an impact.

    — Bianca Delarosa Harris Warren (@Bravewriting) April 30, 2019

  70. 70.

    TenguPhule

    @Brachiator:

    I am not sure what he is going on about here. Trump does not have a coherent economic policy, and he is incapable of coming up with one.

    One of the Democratic party’s traditional strengths has been economic stewardship, Trump’s been very lucky to coast on the foundations that President Obama laid, but he’s been doing his best over the last two years to lay waste to all of the policies, rules and laws that keep our businesses in business. When, not if, it all comes crashing down, people are going to panic and want to blame someone for it. Trump is very good at redirecting blame when it comes to angry and stupid people.

  73. 73.

    rikyrah

    @meander:

    I sometimes think of an alternate universe where the Pres* changed his mind in Jan 2019 and pivoted to building stuff — “F*ck the wall, I want infrastructure. I want to build.”. And followed that up with strong leadership that created the projects to fix our roads, bridges, etc. It would have been hugely popular with the press, voters sick of potholes, and even many Dems

    See, what YOU are describing is ACTUAL infrastructure.
    Dolt45 was never for ACTUAL infrastructure.
    He was for a bunch of privatization scams…

  75. 75.

    schrodingers_cat

    @Baud: That reflects what I see in my liberal New England town that went for Sanders over HRC in the last primary season. And HRC won easily by over 70% of the vote in 2016. Most of the Sanders supporters have moved over to Warren.

  76. 76.

    joel hanes

    I think Schumer got played, again, and Pelosi was unable to restrain him this time.
    I hope she can pull something good out of this, but cooperating with Republican narratives is a mug’s game.
    Bipartisanship died with Gingrich, and McConnell has been pissing on its grave for ten years.

  77. 77.

    The Lodger

    @meander: In your alternate universe, doing one thing with decency and competence still wouldn’t have prevented him from being Donald Trump.

  79. 79.

    ET

    I sort of feel like they are trying to show everyone (i.e. voters) that Democrats are trying to do things, act like growns-up, etc.. Republicans ran Congress for several years and besides the innumerable Benghazi hearings, Republicans didn’t do either of those things. That no Republicans were in the room says more about them and the “esteem” that tRump and even Pelosi has for them.

    Not trying to do things is not a good strategy – it just plays into the hands of Republicans who seem to want the Average American to be made at “Washington” because that suppresses voter turnout which only ever benefits them. Add to that, Democrats are going to be portrayed (by Republicans) as not doing anything but hearings and Impeachment, this is not either of those things which they can point to and say “look we are doing other things.”

    I don’t have any doubt that tRump will renege or backtrack because the only thing he seems to stick to is immigration and its associated pieces.

  80. 80.

    NotMax

    Just going to throw this out there in hopes those better versed in the area might chime in one way or the other.

    Recent volatility/uncertainty in the oil market, stemming from a combination of Dolt 45’s idiotic fulminations on Iran plus the situation in both Venezuela and Libya leading me to thinking that oil will creep up to $100 per barrel again, possibly even heading toward $150 after one more crisis (whether politically, natural disaster or human – deliberately or accidentally – induced). Already can foresee summertime gasoline prices whipsawing from week to week.

  84. 84.

    Major Major Major Major

    Given that this will not even make it into a single committee before Trump insists it include language banning brown people and healthcare for women, and paying for a wall, I’m not terribly worried.

  86. 86.

    Tim C.

    @patrick II: Agree. I think there’s a good argument that the whole fight over the Constitution in the 1780s was pretty much a fight about taxes. Revolutionary War soldiers were being sent to debtor’s prisons because Congress wouldn’t pay them. They had fought a war for their country, but the anti-tax nuts of the era felt they shouldn’t really get paid for it.

  87. 87.

    Raven

    @eemom: Welcome to high school. It’s like this stupid fucking “Wilmer”, really hip insiders get to be in on something really special.

  88. 88.

    Martin

    @Wapiti: Yep. Pelosi’s rule says that the $2T can be paid for by rolling back Trumps tax cuts for corporations. So that’s the bill the Senate and WH will see. That puts Trump in a position he’s unaware of – that he’ll talk about how great the infrastructure spending will be, and then discover he needs to pay for it. What is he going to say – that Pelosi wants to actually pay for Trumps infrastructure? That the infrastructure plan he’s been promoting for 6 months can’t happen? That we need to raise taxes to pay for it? It’s a trap and Trump is too dumb to realize it. Pelosi and Schumer will talk about how much they want to improve infrastructure, how that was a major goal under Obama, but Democrats aren’t going to sink future generations further in debt, and that it needs to be paid for now.

    Will it work? Probably not. I think we’ve determined that there is no level of failure low enough for Trump to lose support.

  89. 89.

    counterfactual

    @Mike in NC: Arstechica.com had an article on that today. The first committee that any increased NASA funding will hit is chaired by a Hispanic Democrat who’s already saying nothing more for NASA until Puerto Rico gets more funds. To make the 2024 deadline, NASA would have to skimp on a bunch of safety tests, and the guy in charge of safety is pushing back hard on that. If Space-x and Blue Origin come through with their planned rockets, the whole thing is moot anyway.

  92. 92.

    Martin

    @NotMax: Yeah, the oil market is not going to take this economic turn gracefully. We’re between $4 and $4.50/gal here in CA, mostly owning to the LCFS implementation. But if we see $100bbl oil, it’s going to hit $6 here. People will lose their shit again.

  94. 94.

    LongHairedWeirdo

    Frankly, there’s a piece of me that wants Speaker Pelosi to say, in a news conference “of course, we don’t trust Donald; he’s a terrible deal maker who always goes back on his word, and continuously attacks the people he needs to get votes from; we’re sure that he’s going to find some poison pill to attach to this, so that we’re unable to support the final bill. Still: since we care about American workers, and he doesn’t, we can still hope he might want to claim a win by passing bipartisan legislation. Just make sure it’s clear: this is for American workers, not Donald.”

  95. 95.

    Martin

    @counterfactual:

    If Space-x and Blue Origin come through with their planned rockets, the whole thing is moot anyway.

    Won’t happen. Space X isn’t designing for that kind of mission, nor is BO. Going to the moon has a specific kind of launch profile that there isn’t a market for. SpaceX has a 4,000 satellite constellation to launch before their 2024 license runs out that they believe will make them bank. This lunar thing is a one-off in its current state. It’s a gimmick, and these guys know it.

    Nobody is going to the moon anytime soon.

  98. 98.

    Another Scott

    @Roger Moore: +1

    Plus, the Republicans will never go along. They won’t be noisy about it, but it won’t come to a vote in the Senate. (Unless, of course, they try to do it with accounting tricks and giveaways.)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  101. 101.

    Aleta

    @rikyrah: Exactly. The three Bs come to mind for me.

    Indiana has two R Senators and a R representing South Bend’s district in the House. And Rs hold the governorship and other state offices. Has Buttigieg indicated why he thinks running for president is more helpful to the country than running for Sen, Rep or Gov? Does he have so little chance of winning any of those seats that getting visibility by running for Pres. seems the most beneficial?

    Or is his motivation to oppose Pence, which is very important? He could do so much good in the Senate, House or gov’ship.
    (His hope to win the Presidency goes without saying.)

  102. 102.

    Kay

    Susan Hennessey
    ‏Verified account
    @Susan_Hennessey
    7h7 hours ago
    More Susan Hennessey Retweeted David Gura
    The reason we have anti-nepotism laws is to bar people who want power without accountability in government. Ivanka is Special Assistant to President with a taxpayer-funded staff, except when it’s an inconvenient litigating position and then aw shucks she’s just his daughter.

    The minute the Trumps are out of there we need to write some strong laws to prevent this happening again. It’s disgusting. It has to be outlawed.

  105. 105.

    Kay

    @NotMax:

    It’s her job! She knows full well he’s full of shit. I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but is there any better result than getting him to publicly promise to spend 2 trillion dollars on something she wants? That’s a very good meeting for her, as meetings go. Obviously there’s no real agreement but she knows what she wants and he just agreed to spend 2 trillion dollars on “it” :)

  106. 106.

    Mai Naem mobile

    @trollhattan: blue areas really should have highways/bridges/major roads named after Obama just to piss off the GOPigs.Especially useful would be blue pockets surrounded by red where the red idiots have to drive through these blue areas.
    I trust Nancy. I am a little concerned that Trumpov will try to slide in some anti immigration legislation as part of the infrastructure package, obviously for the politics. I assume Nancy has factored this in.

  108. 108.

    Kay

    @Mai Naem mobile:

    The stimulus here did have signs saying it was stimulus funding. State Route 15 in Ohio was full of them. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or whatever. There was even a logo. This town got a bridge and a (rather elaborate) rebuilt berm. There was zero media coverage of it.

  111. 111.

    Matt McIrvin

    @schrodingers_cat: Most of the 2016 Sanders supporters I know are favoring Warren now but worried about electability. There are a few Bernie diehards–they’re the ones who were going the heaviest for “DNC pushed Hillary on us” talk before.

  112. 112.

    David ??Merry Christmas?? Koch

    Quinnipiac National Poll – April 30 (link)

    Biden…………..38%
    Warren…….12%
    Wilmer………….11%
    Buttigieg………10%
    Harris……………..8%
    Beto……………….5%

    Warren is starting to break through!

    Her plan to cancel student debt was galvanization – a program that directly targets average voters. More of this, please.

    Also too: empty suit Wilmer is in danger of being lapped by Mayor Pete and Kamala and falling to 5th place.

  113. 113.

    Seanly

    1) McConnell and other conservatives will not be willing to raise the taxes on corporations and the rich to fund any sort of package,
    2) 25-years is an insane length of time; most of the highway funding packages have been 4 or 6 years (after a few years of year-to-year which the states hated). We’ve been limping along on single year continuations of the last highway bill.
    3) Pelosi & Schumer are probably well aware of 1 & 2. I think they will use this talk about how willing they were to work with Trump but now these feckless Republicans won’t do what’s needed for the country.
    4) Regardless of what happens, Trump will act like the plan went through & talk about this at every stop in between his rascist BS.

    From the CBO – “In 2017, spending by federal, state, and local governments for transportation and water infrastructure totaled $441 billion.” I found another source which stated that state & local spending on transportation infrastructure is around $175 billion (leaving $266 billion from Feds alone).
    So is this $2 trillion over 25 years (about $80 billion* per year) on top of the current levels of spending? I work in transportation infrastructure & can unequivocally say that we need to up our spending. Yes, I would greatly benefit by continuing to have a job, but there is a big need in every state.
    * I say “about $80 billion” because the scheduled amounts are not the same every year, but typically start out smaller and increase.

  114. 114.

    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony

    McConnell won’t support the infrastructure bill. He will find a way to spike it.

  115. 115.

    TenguPhule

    @Kay:

    The minute the Trumps are out of there we need to write some strong laws to prevent this happening again.

    Actually I think the lesson is that without effective enforcement mechanisms, all the laws are just words on paper.

  117. 117.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    Right-wing authoritarianism and left wing economics is the sweet spot for aspiring strongmen. If Trump actually starts abandoning Ryanism, well…

    Seriously, this is Trump, he’s going to screw over the deal and the Dems know it, that’s why they made it.

  118. 118.

    TenguPhule

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Fuck it. Let’s just let some bridges collapse, amirite?

    I thought you weren’t in favor of futile attempts to get stuff through the Senate.

  119. 119.

    TenguPhule

    @Martin:

    That puts Trump in a position he’s unaware of – that he’ll talk about how great the infrastructure spending will be, and then discover he needs to pay for it. What is he going to say – that Pelosi wants to actually pay for Trumps infrastructure? That the infrastructure plan he’s been promoting for 6 months can’t happen? That we need to raise taxes to pay for it?

    Trump has already demonstrated he’s perfectly fine with stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Would not surprise me at all if he tries to simply transfer the money he wants to use from other programs in violation of Congress’s power of the purse.

  120. 120.

    Miss Bianca

    @Betty Cracker: That’s a really good article – *really* good – but I still think he’s being prematurely alarmist about Nancy’s and Chuck’s overtures.

  125. 125.

    TenguPhule

    @Omnes Omnibus: McConnell is not going to pass an infrastructure bill in the Senate that Democrats will accept in the House which Trump would sign.

    Tell me how this saves a single bridge.

  129. 129.

    satby

    @Aleta:

    Does he have so little chance of winning any of those seats that getting visibility by running for Pres. seems the most beneficial?

    Yes. In fact he’s on record that he initially thought he’d run for governor. It’s a crazy red state.

    Or is his motivation to oppose Pence, which is very important?

    I’m sure that’s a part too.

  130. 130.

    Chyron HR

    @TenguPhule:

    McConnell and his caucus will never convict Trump if he’s impeached in the House but that didn’t stop you from pissing and moaning that the Democrats haven’t held a vote on that.

  132. 132.

    Yutsano

    @Chyron HR: Let’s be fair. He’s a young’un. It’s not exactly like he knows how politics works. I expect hearings and lawsuits that the administration will should lose in order for the records to be claimed. Although something tells me the shredders are working overtime and e-mails are being deleted right and left.

  134. 134.

    Another Scott

    @My Side of Town: Hey, we were told there wouldn’t be any math today.

    ;-)

    Cheers,
    Scott.
    (“Who figures someone else has likely already made this observation.”)

  135. 135.

    Another Scott

    Well, the Kochs (not DMCK) are against it, so Donnie and the GOP will fall in line. CNBC:

    The libertarian political network funded by billionaire Charles Koch on Tuesday is not happy with the $2 trillion infrastructure price tag agreed upon by President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate.

    In a statement first given to CNBC, Americans for Prosperity, one of the key groups in the influential Koch network, ripped the idea of spending that much on infrastructure and instead urged leaders to focus on cutting regulations.

    Maybe we should cut taxes too. [Life Cereal Mikey]That’ll fix everything.[/Mikey]

    (groucho-roll-eyes.gif)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  137. 137.

    sdhays

    For fuck’s sake, everyone knows “President” Anus-mouth always agrees with the last person he talks to. He likes the idea of infrastructure because it’s about “building things” and that fits in with his self image; getting him to agree to wanting to do something was always going to be easy. The actual person on the other side of the negotiating table is McConnell.

    Do Senate Republicans want an infrastructure bill? I see no indication that they do. They don’t give a shit what their moron leader agrees to; if they don’t want to do it, they’ll treat him like his (more competent) staff does when he’s telling them to crazy illegal shit – pretend they don’t hear him.

    The only question about how this plays out is how much Democrats are able to make the President shit on his own party before he forgets what he’s talking about and stomps off to cheat at some golf.

  139. 139.

    Frank Wilhoit

    It was a critical mistake for the Speaker to agree to this meeting. The precondition for any meeting should have been unconditional surrender with respect to the powers of oversight of the House of Representatives — and an abject public apology, namechecking the relevant section(s) of the Constitution. Without that, going to the White House conveys that nothing really matters. Madame Speaker is not a stupid person, but this was to do a very stupid thing.

  141. 141.

    Wizened_Guy

    Although it’s small ball stuff, given the enormity of Trumpian depravity, it’s pretty good small ball. Chuck & Nancy got the idiot to agree to a number on the record before discussing how to pay for it. The next move will be to propose rolling back some of the tax cuts to pay for it, which will of course be a non-starter for McConnell (and Trump). It forces Republicans into the position of publicly rejecting a popular proposal in order to protect billionaires.

    In normal times that would be good tactical electoral politics. But these are anything but normal times, and it’s a little disappointing to see leadership wasting time on tactics. The stakes are much higher.

Comments are closed.