Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Pittsburgh bridge collapse: Biden says many bridges across America in "unacceptable" condition" video.

@achannel8142 lol, all of it is for infrastructure. Hell, less than half of it is even new spending.
2
"The legislation will reauthorize surface transportation programs for five years and invest $110 billion in additional funding to repair our roads and bridges and support major, transformational projects. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law makes the single largest investment in repairing and reconstructing our nation’s bridges since the construction of the interstate highway system." Sometimes it's too easy.
1
The infrastructure bill that passed and BBB are two different bills. The bipartisan infrastructure bill allocated $110B for roads and bridges, and the majority of the bill was recurring spending rather than new.
1
@muchacho2141 You know the whole thing is online right? You can just look up where the money is allocated.
1
@muchacho2141 None. They don't operate like the Trump admin, giving millions in jobs and projects to family members and their own businesses.
1
@muchacho2141 If you say so champ. Side note, have you actually read literally any part of the bill?
1
@muchacho2141 Someone seems to be confusing the bipartisan bill that passed with the proposed bill, with a smattering of propaganda. It was a $1.2 trillion bill, $550 billion of which was new spending, and that's over 5 years, so $110 billion a year. The funding is for clean water, road and bridge repairs, high-speed broadband, airport and port improvements, Amtrak expansion, EV chargers, clean energy, weather protection, cyber attack prevention and legacy pollution cleanup. You would know all that is you read the bill, but now you don't need to. You're welcome. Let me know why you think making America better while increasing our energy independence is a bad thing.
1
@muchacho2141 Well it's nice to hear you say that. I know your admission that your claims about the bill are totally incorrect were tough for you to get out there, but I'm glad you did. I guess next time you won't go making such idiotic claims about something you obviously haven't read....one would think.
1
@muchacho2141 I am a homeowning, taxpaying citizen of this nation. Why do you ask?
1
The ones flying white nationalist flags?
1
@stevexyz1173 Gonna need a source for that. The majority of the bill wasn't even new spending.
1
@stevexyz1173 New bills can just be a repeat of old spending. A continuation of what we have done before is not new spending. Can you point out where the other 90% of the bill is going. I'll wait.
1
@stevexyz1173 More like, you made a car payment for the last 28 months, so making a car payment this month is not new spending. It's expected spending that has already been budgeted for. Or are you so poor at managing your finances that something like that sneaks up on you every 30 days or so? This also doesn't answer the question, what do YOU think is in the infrastructure bill that passed?
1
@stevexyz1173 Obviously you've never had a mortgage, or you would know that being a year or 2 of gross in debt is not a big deal. My mortgage is more than triple my gross. It's also not worth paying early because of the low rate. Why bot borrow funds when it's so cheap? Then I can build things that pay back more in the long run. As for teachers unions, they aren't in this bill. This bill is: Roads and bridges, clean water, broadband, public transit, airports, ports, rail, EV chargers, green energy, infrastructure resilience and legacy pollution. It helps of you read the bill. Again, less than half the spending is new. New spend is also over 5 years, meaning we are seeing 110 billion per year. That amount will be more than covered by the GDP benefits, and resulting tax revenues, of improving infrastructure. Public perception of the administration is nothing on how they are actually performing. GDP is up, unemployment is down.
1
@stevexyz1173 Idiots in their cars is why car centric cities have 2 hour traffic jams. Public transit is a massive step forwards. Stop buying the car lobby propaganda.
1
@stevexyz1173 Right, but gas costs are not a measure of the economy. They're barely a blip on the total framework of the country. In fact, high prices now are mainly cause by low prices just over a year ago. I know something so nuance is a lot for you to take in, so I'll give you some time to process this. Your border claims are straight up false. The numbers are based on apprehensions. People crossing with drugs never stopped crossing, and the people being apprehended want to be apprehended so they can ask for asylum. Drug trafficking was the same under Trump as it is now. Wages have actually increased to meet inflation, meaning your fears over prices going up should be met with a raise from your employment. Facts are not gaslighting. Unemployment IS down. GDP IS up. The average American like yourself has been fed a steady diet of lies and propaganda from car lobbyists for close to a century. The car is not the answer for city transportation. Adding more lanes is not the answer to traffic problems. Traffic will always be worse until we resolve it with real solutions. This also does nothing for people too old or young to drive. Then you just start projecting your opinions onto others. We get it, you hate public transit and think people on it are all poor and dirty. No need to stick a big flag up for everyone to see how bigoted you are.
1
@stevexyz1173 1. As I explained, gas prices are high because of the oil price crash during the pandemic. It put all the fracking out of business and the US oil production has never recovered. Biden doesn't have a war on fossil fuels you absolute egg. Production has gone up since he took office. 2. Ah yes, comparing people you disagree with to Nazis, very classy. While we're at it why not look at the massive negative affect the states that have not pushed so hard on masking or vaccines have seen. Oh look, people dying. Weird how the people you are comparing to Nazis are the ones NOT killing their citizens. 3. It's not ad hominem, it's facts, which is why you failed to actually address any of them. Your statements however were ad hominem. Attacking the "Democrat elites" was a pathetic jab at best that revealed your own sick psyche. The you went on with your Nazi comparison. You sicken me.
1
@stevexyz1173 Oh I'm sorry, are you struggling to read? Is that why you didn't comment on a single thing I said? Here, let me show you how to actually reply to people: "Technically petroleum.. natural gas is green plant material" That's not what green energy means. Green energy is a reference to reducing or eliminating carbon emissions in energy production. "The Earth provided this energy source that was derived from the Sun" How about we just use the Sun? Cut out the millions of years middle man and the massive carbon emissions. Maybe learn what green energy is before commenting next time. Also, try to stick to 1 comment. Stretching you thoughts over 2 is very egotistical.
1
@stevexyz1173 Ah yes, the Sun, the least reliable resource. Could you imagine if people had solar panels on their roofs. How on earth would they get the power all the way to their houses. Crazy. There is of course also geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, biomass and hydrogen, but who even remembers those. Did you know homes can be retrofitted with geothermal so that their heating costs become practically zero? Of course, the real short term goal is to use more of these types of alternative energy sources while reducing fossil fuels where possible, slowing lowering our oil dependency, but I'm sure you thought of that. The fact that you think clean energy will be expensive in the long run shows a real lack of forethought. Clean energy will make both energy and gas cheaper. Energy is cheaper due to more supply, and gas is cheaper due to lower demand. Attacking you doesn't discredit my position if I'm presenting an actual argument. It's just a bit of fun, which apparently you like to use to not actually address anything I'm saying. That's called a red herring, which you should have also leant about in your debate class. Unless of course you did learn about it and now you're being intentionally dishonest. Either way, your blatant avoidance of my points isn't an argument. Also, you seem to be mistaken, of course the Earth will still be here if we heat it up by a few degrees. The issue however is the thousands of species of animals that will not, and the billions of people on top of that for good measure. Sea levels rising, deserts expanding and extreme weather increasing. You think Texas freezing over was a 1 off? Get ready for that to happen a lot more often thanks to warming, specifically on the west coast, forcing polar temperatures to migrate further south. Like visiting Florida? Well get your fill because it's going to be a lot smaller at this rate. Nobody cares about your stupid oil/Sun analogy. It doesn't change the fact that what your advocating for is a really dumb idea, and a lot of very smart people have been pointing that out for decades. That by the way is a valid argument from authority. You can check that one in your textbook. Now, for the attack on you personally: You're incapable of reading, and probably just hit the predictive text on your phone until you get bored and hit send, that would explain your replies. See, totally separate from the arguments.
1
@stevexyz1173 See what I mean about red herrings. Let me know when you address an argument. To add, your entire argument in this comment is an appeal to emotion.
1