What do we Fiero enthusiasts think about the Infrastructure bill? (Page 3/7)
rinselberg AUG 11, 05:03 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
(Vaccines or not, lol) There are people living a ot father out than whatever your urban sprawls limits might be, but they don't get much consideration. Case in point. People not being crammed into metrocomplex "creates more problems"... bologna.


I'm guessing that you live in an exurb. Single family homes, with more open space and more distance between neighbors, compared to big cities and the suburbs that are right on the edge or closer to big cities.

People who live, either by necesity or by choice, in cities and more densely populated suburbs, are people that are not trying to move into your neigborhood or exurb.

Be careful what you wish for, lest your exurb evolves into a suburb.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-11-2021).]

sourmash AUG 11, 05:26 PM
It's the people in the cities who demand people move into the cities and out of the suburbs. The people in the burbs and outside of cities want to be left alone by the busy-bodies in cities.
rinselberg AUG 12, 09:00 AM
The bipartisan infrastructure bill has inspired a double negative; to wit:

"The [bipartisan] infrastructure deal is not not a climate (rescue) bill"
Robinson Meyer for The Atlantic; August 3, 2021.
https://www.theatlantic.com...climate-bill/619654/

You don't see that every day.

It's not a long article. Or should I say(?) "It's not not a brief article."
maryjane AUG 12, 11:45 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I'm not opposed to an infrastructure bill... but I have a few concerns and problems that I don't think anyone actually cares about:

1 - What stake do the states have in this? Cannot they foot the bill for some of these projects? Why is it being funded at the Federal level... is everything being worked a Federal road, bridge, or infrastructure project?
2 - I take issue with what the government considers "infrastructure" as half of the stuff has nothing to do with planes, trains, and automobiles... or even telecommunications.
3 - 1.2 Trillion... is an insanely high amount to spend on anything... but seems insignificant when we are looking at a 3.5 (or higher) Democrat all-expenses-paid package that's following right behind it...



The $1.2 trillion was the usual 'structure based' infrastructure we are accustomed to seeing every few decades ... roads, bridges, waterways etc, and it is supposedly the 'b-partisan bill that just went thru the Senate and has yet to be reconciled.

Yet to be publicly released in detail is the other part of the legislation. The 'human infrastructure bill' that Sanders and the rest of the progressives are pushing.
In no particular order:

1. Path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
2. Expanding of Medicare in scope of services to include vision and dental.
3. Reducing minimum age requirements for basic (free) Medicare from 65 down to somewhere between 55-60.
And more..

The smaller physical infrastructure bill as it stands today:



The much larger (more expensive) bill as it is expected to first be debated upon, tho most analysts believe much will be added to it:


continued:


https://smartasset.com/fina...-infrastructure-plan

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 08-12-2021).]

82-T/A [At Work] AUG 12, 05:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by maryjane:

The smaller physical infrastructure bill as it stands today:




Have most of these things historically been paid for by the Federal government? And if so... since when?

I ask because I don't understand the concept of how we've become so reliant on the Federal government to pay for everything.

Airports... for example. Are these Federal? Maybe they are and I just don't know it... but it seems to me that Miami International Airport is owned by Miami-Dade County, and the taxpayers in that county. Just as Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International is owned by Broward County. Why then WOULD the Federal government be paying to renovate any of their terminals?

And to caveat, MIA and FLL are actually in really good condition... Florida has a lot of money, and they're well maintained. Probably a better example is Laguardia or Reagan, etc...
TheDigitalAlchemist AUG 13, 12:45 AM
There should be a limit as to how many pages a bill is. (I'm thinking ONE would suffice)

Taxing per mile is effing ridiculous.


Most folks involved with this bill don't even drive - their drivers handle that.


FTS.
maryjane AUG 13, 06:25 AM

quote
Originally posted by TheDigitalAlchemist:

There should be a limit as to how many pages a bill is. (I'm thinking ONE would suffice)

Taxing per mile is effing ridiculous.


Most folks involved with this bill don't even drive - their drivers handle that.


FTS.


And those drivers are usually called pilots...
FieroSTETZ AUG 13, 05:50 PM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

A mile based tax is bad. Bad for freedom. Bad for jobs.
In this day of pandemics...it would mass people into small areas in order to not commute far to work, moving to the city closer to jobs, it could mass more people into public transportation on their way to work.
A side note, what comes to mind also is the negative effect of how businesses and towns struggled and closed on Route 66 when freeways bypassed them, towns and communities outside of large cities where large employers are could struggle and "close".
What will it do to the cost of items that get shipped?



On the flip side, it could encourage more companies to allow employees to work from home, if they work in a function where doing so is feasible. The employees would gain increased *freedom* to work more comfortable hours, they'd get back all the time they normally spend commuting, and increase the amount of time they could spend with their families. I've given employees the option of remaining on "work from home" at their current pay, or come back into the office with a raise, and almost everyone has taken the "work from home" option. My average employee saves 90 minutes a day of commuting. That's almost a hundred people, off the freeways during rush hour just at one company. That's less fuel used, less traffic congestion, I don't have to add offices as we add staff, I don't have to worry about having adequate parking for employee vehicles - it's a net positive to the company, and it's a net positive to the employee. The only loser is the tax revenue from fuel sales, which needs to be supplemented somewhere. The employees that opted to come into the office were given raises in anticipation of potential increased taxes, to offset the difference and then some.

Increasing the availability (and intelligent planning) of public mass transit isn't objectively a bad thing. The idea of taking a bus or train to work in the United States is generally *awful*, but that's because our mass transit systems are terrible. If you could take a 10-15 minute train ride to work instead of sit in a car for 45-60 minutes, wouldn't you at least consider it? I get really tired of spending over an hour in the car to go 14 miles. If I could eat breakfast while sitting on a train listening to music, for only 15 minutes.. that sounds pretty sweet to me. Decreased fuel expenses, decreased vehicle maintenance costs...

As far as how businesses and towns will fare? We're American - we improvise, we adapt, and we overcome. Already foot traffic in retail spaces is drastically down over the last 10 years. It's trending downwards, so the writing is on the wall. Will these changes potentially hasten the demise of small businesses unable to compete? It's possible, but not certain. There's been a surge of interest in supporting small locally owned places due to improved levels of customer service. "Boutique" retail hasn't suffered nearly as much. Business that have adapted to the changing world seem to be mostly ok, it's mainly the holdouts that refuse to rethink their approach that are in danger of being left behind. That's not terrible though - that's how evolution works, by adapting and changing to suit the environment.
Jake_Dragon AUG 13, 06:06 PM

quote
Originally posted by FieroSTETZ:


On the flip side, it could encourage more companies to allow employees to work from home, if they work in a function where doing so is feasible. The employees would gain increased *freedom* to work more comfortable hours, they'd get back all the time they normally spend commuting, and increase the amount of time they could spend with their families. I've given employees the option of remaining on "work from home" at their current pay, or come back into the office with a raise, and almost everyone has taken the "work from home" option. My average employee saves 90 minutes a day of commuting. That's almost a hundred people, off the freeways during rush hour just at one company. That's less fuel used, less traffic congestion, I don't have to add offices as we add staff, I don't have to worry about having adequate parking for employee vehicles - it's a net positive to the company, and it's a net positive to the employee. The only loser is the tax revenue from fuel sales, which needs to be supplemented somewhere. The employees that opted to come into the office were given raises in anticipation of potential increased taxes, to offset the difference and then some.

Increasing the availability (and intelligent planning) of public mass transit isn't objectively a bad thing. The idea of taking a bus or train to work in the United States is generally *awful*, but that's because our mass transit systems are terrible. If you could take a 10-15 minute train ride to work instead of sit in a car for 45-60 minutes, wouldn't you at least consider it? I get really tired of spending over an hour in the car to go 14 miles. If I could eat breakfast while sitting on a train listening to music, for only 15 minutes.. that sounds pretty sweet to me. Decreased fuel expenses, decreased vehicle maintenance costs...

As far as how businesses and towns will fare? We're American - we improvise, we adapt, and we overcome. Already foot traffic in retail spaces is drastically down over the last 10 years. It's trending downwards, so the writing is on the wall. Will these changes potentially hasten the demise of small businesses unable to compete? It's possible, but not certain. There's been a surge of interest in supporting small locally owned places due to improved levels of customer service. "Boutique" retail hasn't suffered nearly as much. Business that have adapted to the changing world seem to be mostly ok, it's mainly the holdouts that refuse to rethink their approach that are in danger of being left behind. That's not terrible though - that's how evolution works, by adapting and changing to suit the environment.



Google is reviewing wages of people working from home and going to reduce the salaries of employees that don't come back to the office. Google it.
sourmash AUG 13, 06:14 PM
Yes, heard that today.


quote
Originally posted by FieroSTETZ:

Increasing the availability (and intelligent planning) of public mass transit isn't objectively a bad thing. The idea of taking a bus or train to work in the United States is generally *awful*, but that's because our mass transit systems are terrible. If you could take a 10-15 minute train ride to work instead of sit in a car for 45-60 minutes, wouldn't you at least consider it? I get really tired of spending over an hour in the car to go 14 miles. If I could eat breakfast while sitting on a train listening to music, for only 15 minutes.. that sounds pretty sweet to me. Decreased fuel expenses, decreased vehicle maintenance costs...



The danger of public transportation is also a major deterrent. You might get shoved onto the tracks by diversity. You might get accosted on the train by diversity.

[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 08-13-2021).]