Everything Is Infrastructure Now

How spending got out of control and words lost their meaning.


"I truly believe we're in a moment where history is going to look back on this time as a fundamental choice that had to be made between democracies and autocracies," President Joe Biden declared during a March 31 speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. What exactly could be so vitally important that not only America's future but the entire project of liberal democracy hangs in the balance?

Infrastructure. Well, "infrastructure."

In Biden's telling, everything hinged on passing a multi-trillion-dollar spending package that was ostensibly meant to upgrade America's basic infrastructure but that also contained a wide range of unrelated spending on new social programs, industrial policy, and other forms of federal bureaucracy. Previous generations may have fought civilization-defining battles against tyrannical rulers and such toxic ideas as slavery and Nazism. But the fate of the free world, the president would have you believe, now depends on whether 50 senators (plus Vice President Kamala Harris) will vote for bigger Amtrak subsidies and expanded government-run internet service.

On one hand, you can't really blame Biden for overselling his infrastructure proposal. That's what presidents have to do to get Congress' attention, especially at a time when culture wars have come to dominate so much of the political discourse. Biden is working with a razor-thin Senate majority at a time of hardened partisan lines. He knows that Congress almost never does anything without an impending deadline or a lot of outside pressure. And infrastructure is mostly pretty boring—as most things the government does should be. Recasting his proposal as democracy's last stand might prompt a few more people to pay attention.

On the other hand, he's really overselling it.

Biden's American Jobs Plan began its life in March as a $2.25 trillion proposal, but by mid-summer it had been split into two separate legislative efforts: a roughly $1 trillion bipartisan bill that includes about $550 billion in new spending, and a parallel, Democratic-backed $3.5 trillion budget proposal that encompasses many of the so-called "human infrastructure" elements from Biden's original plan.

However it gets divided up for the purposes of clearing the necessary votes in Congress, what the president outlined in March remains a useful framework for understanding how Democrats, in particular, have approached this summer's debate over infrastructure—much of which has little to do with infrastructure. Only about a quarter of Biden's initial proposal was aimed at anything traditionally classified under that term, such as roads, bridges, railroads, ports, pipes, and power lines. The original package spent twice as much to expand government-run health care as it did on highway projects.

Some parts of Biden's plan would actually work against the stated goal of improving America's infrastructure. His push for "Buy American" rules and union regulations would drive up prices for raw material and labor. That means taxpayers would pay more and get less.

Biden pitched his infrastructure proposal by promising "transformational progress" on climate change, corporate welfare for industries making computer chips and other "innovative edge" products, and "historic job growth." In that March 31 speech from Pittsburgh and in remarks in the months since, the president and other officials have compared the plan favorably to interstate highways and the Apollo program.

But those were tightly focused projects with clear (if highly ambitious) goals. Build modern highways across the country. Put a human being on the lunar surface. Biden's plan, in contrast, is a mishmash of poorly defined objectives, political giveaways, and unrelated line items.

And even that isn't enough for some members of his party. "Paid leave is infrastructure," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D–N.Y.) wrote in a widely parodied tweet about a week after Biden outlined his proposal. "Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure."

It's a good thing the stakes are considerably lower than the administration would like you to believe, because the gap between Biden's ambitions and what he's likely to deliver is wide enough for a four-lane highway.

It's fitting that Biden announced his infrastructure plan in Pittsburgh. More accurately, it's fitting that Biden flew into Pittsburgh International Airport before giving the speech at the Carpenters Pittsburgh Training Center.

"I just left your airport," Biden told the crowd. "The director of the airport said, 'We're about to renovate the airport….We're going to employ thousands of people.' And she looked at me and said, 'I can't thank you enough for this plan.'"

The Pittsburgh International Airport is an apt symbol for the disconnect between the ambitions behind government infrastructure plans and the far-less-impressive reality that often follows. Beginning in 1987, the airport underwent a massive expansion funded largely with public dollars. By the time the project was finished in the mid-1990s, Pittsburgh International was large enough for an estimated 35 million passengers per year. If it actually handled that many, it would have been America's fifth-busiest airport in 2019—a year when fewer than 5 million people actually passed through its gates.

Even in the parts of Biden's infrastructure plan that actually focus on infrastructure, there are red flags warning of boondoggles like Pittsburgh's pointlessly capacious airport.

Take Amtrak. The government-owned passenger rail service already receives about $2 billion in annual federal subsidies. The American Jobs Plan called for giving it another $80 billion over eight years. Around the same time that Biden announced that proposal, Amtrak released a comprehensive plan for the next 15 years; it envisions 39 new rail routes reaching more than 160 cities that currently lack Amtrak service. And the text of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, which was introduced in the Senate in early August, tells Amtrak to prioritize adding new routes over turning a profit.

Railroad aficionados may love the idea of expanding the Amtrak network to such metropolises as Pueblo, Colorado; Christiansburg, Virginia; and Eau Claire, Wisconsin. But those routes are likely to end up looking more like Pittsburgh International Airport—expensive and empty—than like the rail lines in Europe or Japan that advocates want America to replicate. At least the planned new route from New York City to Scranton, Pennsylvania, will please one very important customer.

You can break down Biden's original proposal into three mostly distinct categories: obvious infrastructure spending, kinda-sorta-infrastructure spending, and not-even-close-to-infrastructure spending. The first category is not, as Amtrak's plans demonstrate, immune to waste—but the plan did include $154 billion for repairing highways and bridges, $77 billion for mass transit, $25 billion for airport upgrades, and $82 billion and $111 billion, respectively, for improving the electric grid and drinking water supply. Yet even throwing in the $300 billion for Veterans Affairs projects and upgrades to domestic military bases, the amount of clear-cut infrastructure spending was well below half of the total.

The second category is a bit fuzzier, and what belongs in it probably depends to some extent on your political priors. For example, Biden proposed $174 billion to subsidize the production and purchasing of electric vehicles while also working with state governments to "build a national network" of at least 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2030. He also wants to electrify the entire federal vehicle fleet, including the U.S. Postal Service's delivery vans, and to provide grants to electrify up to 20 percent of the nation's school buses.

Is that infrastructure? School buses and mail trucks might be. Tax breaks for people who buy a Tesla instead of a Ford stretches the definition more than a little, but at least it has something to do with going places and building stuff.

The best example of this second category might be the $100 billion Biden proposed spending on government-run broadband internet. The White House's official fact sheet on the American Jobs Plan compared this to the Rural Electrification Act, a Depression-era federal effort to run power lines to every home and farm in the country. "Broadband internet is the new electricity," the document argues. "Yet, by one definition, more than 30 million Americans live in areas where there is no broadband infrastructure that provides minimally acceptable speeds."

There are several caveats here. For starters, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) gives a far smaller number, about 14 million Americans in 4.3 million households, who don't have access to broadband internet speeds. And that figure has been shrinking rapidly—it fell by 20 percent during 2019 alone—as new technologies such as low-orbit satellites and faster mobile connections have brought more Americans online.

Internet access is certainly important—but so is access to groceries. That doesn't mean either one should be defined as infrastructure or subsidized by taxpayers.  Broadband internet might be the new electricity, but there's no evidence that a $100 billion government scheme is necessary to get Americans online.

The notion of "minimally acceptable speeds" is also far less objective than it might appear. The FCC defines broadband connections as having "25/3" speeds—that is, a download speed of 25 megabits per second and an upload speed of three megabits per second. In layman's terms, that's fast enough to stream a high-definition movie in one room while three other people simultaneously check Facebook, send email, or do some online shopping. A typical Zoom call, meanwhile, uses about 1.5 megabits per second in upload bandwidth.

The text of the bipartisan infrastructure bill unveiled in August includes a provision changing that definition so that only "100/20" connections would be classified as broadband. Americans who desire a 100/20 connection can pay for one if they want it, but using those speeds as a national standard would do little more than create the appearance of a broadband access crisis for the government to solve.

Once you get past the parts of Biden's plan that are actually infrastructure and the parts that are almost-kinda infrastructure, there's still a huge amount of proposed spending that has literally nothing to do with infrastructure. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a number-crunching nonprofit that advocates lower deficits, $1.7 trillion of the American Jobs Plan's $2.6 trillion price tag would have gone to "areas outside of core infrastructure."

This largest portion of Biden's plan included $400 billion for long-term health care for elderly Americans and $566 billion in subsidies for manufacturing and research and development, to be aimed primarily at American producers of computer chips, like Intel, and other high-tech manufacturers. Smaller non-infrastructure items jammed into the plan included a $10 billion "Civilian Climate Corps" and $100 billion to help schools "go green by reducing or eliminating the use of paper plates and other disposable materials." Another $126 billion would have subsidized the construction of energy-efficient housing, while community colleges stood to receive $12 billion for technological upgrades. The plan didn't include anything about paid leave, but Gillibrand's tweet calling for that was in keeping with the spirit of the proposal—even if it served as a sort of accidental parody.

The senator from New York was not alone in demanding more, more, more from the plan. "This is not nearly enough," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) tweeted shortly after Biden's Pittsburgh speech. "Needs to be way bigger."

When heavy rains hit New York City in early July, viral videos of straphangers wading through filthy, waist-deep water inside a subway station in upper Manhattan prompted Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D–N.Y.) to call for federal action. "Our infrastructure is flooding and overwhelmed," he tweeted. "It is urgent that our infrastructure package makes significant investments to prepare for and mitigate future emergency weather events." Common Dreams, a progressive publication, said the subway flooding demonstrated why "climate is key" to Congress' upcoming "infrastructure fight."

The real cause of the flooded subway stations? Clogged drains, The New York Times reported a few days later. Removing water from the New York subway system is indeed a complicated bit of infrastructure—an estimated 13 million gallons of liquid are pumped out of the tunnels and stations on an average day—but making sure the drains are clear and the pumps are working shouldn't require an act of Congress.

A certain subset of the political left cynically saw Biden's infrastructure plan as a vehicle for all manner of social programs. Infrastructure spending, after all, is politically popular on both sides of the aisle, so why not redefine everything as infrastructure?

If you dream it, you can be it. Build it and they will come.

Just ask the Pittsburgh International Airport.

"The correct way to respond to a low-trust environment," the liberal blogger-turned-Substacker Matt Yglesias wrote in January, is "to commit yourself to the 'it does exactly what it says on the tin' principle." In other words, public policy should be easy to understand and easy to judge. If you buy a can that says orange paint, you expect it to paint things orange. If it actually turns your walls purple, you won't buy that brand again.

Yglesias wasn't writing about Biden's infrastructure bill, which hadn't been officially announced at the time. But his general guideline is useful for judging most major policy proposals. Even (or especially) if someone disagrees with you, he should be able to understand what you are trying to accomplish. I might hate orange-painted walls, but I can acknowledge that the paint in the can did what it said it would do. Think about the direct payments issued several times by the federal government during COVID-19. There are good arguments against them—checks went to relatively wealthy individuals and to households that hadn't lost any income due to the pandemic, for example—but they were an obvious, easily understandable idea. The policy did what it said on the tin.

Biden's infrastructure plan plainly fails the "it does exactly what it says on the tin" test. That's partly because so much of the proposal is unrelated to infrastructure. But there's an even more basic problem here: The American Jobs Plan might very well result in fewer American jobs.

That's one of the conclusions drawn by the Tax Foundation, a fiscal policy think tank, which found that "the combined effects of" Biden's proposed spending and the corporate tax increase he has proposed to help pay for it "would reduce U.S. gross domestic product in the long run by 0.5 percent and result in 101,000 fewer U.S. jobs."

The Penn Wharton Budget Model, published by the University of Pennsylvania, came to a similar conclusion. Higher taxes and more borrowing to pay for the infrastructure package would reduce the size of the U.S. economy over the next few decades, because "the crowding out of investment due to larger government deficits outweighs productivity boosts from the new public investments." Also, there will be fewer jobs created and lower wages than if the package doesn't pass.

Something called the "American Jobs Plan" probably shouldn't have a net-negative effect on the number of American jobs. And a proposal that Biden promised would "grow the economy, make us more competitive around the world, promote our national security interests, and put us in a position to win the global competition with China in the upcoming years" probably shouldn't shrink the economy and leave America with more debt and a less competitive corporate tax system.

That isn't the only way the details of the plan could undermine Biden's soaring rhetorical promises. Consider the White House's insistence on tightening "Buy American" rules for federal procurement. Promising that the federal government will buy goods and equipment only from "an American company with American products all the way down the line and American workers," as Biden did in March, makes for a nifty slogan. But it ignores the dynamics of the modern global economy and will inflate the cost of just about every part of the proposal that deals with actual infrastructure.

This is ultimately a question of priorities. If the goal of the Biden infrastructure plan is to build infrastructure, the White House should aim to get the most bang for taxpayers' trillions of bucks. If buying cheaper steel from overseas means we can afford to build more bridges, we should do exactly that.

Even as the specifics of the infrastructure plan came into focus during the summer, those priorities remained fuzzy. Buried inside the 2,700-page bill that the Senate began moving in early August are head-scratching provisions such as a planned eight-person government commission to encourage more women to seek jobs in the trucking industry and $10 million for a new program to determine which wildflowers are the most "pollinator friendly" for planting alongside highways. And there are myriad politically motivated handouts, such as a $1 billion grant for the Appalachian Regional Commission, a multi-state economic consortium that just so happens to be co-chaired by the wife of U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W. Va.).

The can of paint mostly contains some other substance, that substance isn't orange, and it lights itself on fire when I brush it onto my walls. Congress might pass it anyway.

Since the initial announcement, the American Jobs Plan has been split into two separate bills and pared down in some significant ways. The $548 billion Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework incorporates much of what the president originally proposed to spend on roads, bridges, rail, and utilities. It includes smaller windfalls for government-run broadband internet ($65 billion instead of $100 billion) and electric vehicle incentives ($15 billion instead of $154 billion). And it excludes the obviously extraneous spending on long-term health care and corporate welfare. As such, it is an improvement over the sloppy, confusing proposal that the White House first put on the table in March.

Everything not included in the bipartisan bill—the "human infrastructure" items such as paid family leave and universal pre-K—would have to be passed separately. This would probably be done with a simple Senate majority along party lines, via the reconciliation process, sometime after the bipartisan bill becomes law.

Paying for it all requires some budget gimmickry. Biden initially proposed hiking the corporate income tax from 21 percent to 28 percent—prior to the 2017 tax cuts, the rate was 35 percent—and using the new revenue to cover the plan's cost. But he would have spread the spending over just eight years while using 15 years of higher corporate taxes to pay for it.

The bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate includes no tax increases (though the corporate tax hike could still be included in the budget reconciliation bill to come later). But there's still plenty of gimmickry. The bill repurposes COVID-19 relief spending to pay for some of the new infrastructure costs and counts on promised (yet unlikely to materialize) future savings from cracking down on unemployment insurance fraud, among other things. Rather than covering the full $548 billion, the CRFB estimates that those offsets would amount to about $250 billion at most.

Many voters do seem aware of the shell game happening before their eyes. An NPR/PBS/Marist University poll taken in April found that 96 percent of Americans, including 95 percent of Republicans, consider roads, bridges, and ports to be part of the country's infrastructure. When asked about "pipes that supply drinking water" and "the electrical grid," 89 percent and 85 percent agreed that those things are infrastructure too—including 79 percent of Republicans in both cases. But with other things Biden is trying to sell as infrastructure, a stark contrast emerged.

Among Democrats, 80 percent were willing to nod along with the president's claim that long-term health care is infrastructure. Similarly large majorities of Democrats say broadband internet service (74 percent) and electric vehicle charging stations (72 percent) should count. Republicans largely disagreed, with just 26 percent viewing electric vehicle charging stations as infrastructure, 35 percent seeing long-term health care as infrastructure, and 44 percent considering broadband internet service to be infrastructure.

Infrastructure has historically been a bipartisan effort, a fact Biden has stressed. But he's also eager to redefine what qualifies. "Two hundred years ago, trains weren't traditional infrastructure either until America made a choice to lay down tracks across the country," Biden said in his March 31 speech. "Highways weren't traditional infrastructure until we allowed ourselves to imagine that roads could connect our nation across state lines."

The two efforts are pulling against one another. Many voters, accustomed to a low-trust political environment, are correctly surmising that he's not telling them what's really inside the tin.

Infrastructure bills don't generally get through Congress because of what they mean for America's competition with China or because they achieve "transformational progress" on climate change or even because they promise to reinvent the Eisenhower interstate system. Infrastructure bills get through Congress because they contain a lot of money that individual members can spend on their constituents. Almost everything about politics is transactional, but infrastructure bills are maximally so.

In that sense, infrastructure might be defined as "big things the government does that affect a lot of people." And under that expansive definition, Biden's plan comes into focus. Infrastructure, the White House and its allies are arguing, is not about roads and bridges and trains and pipes. It's a catchall for spending that's supposed to benefit large swaths of the population—whether you're trying to drive from city to city or trying to get online or trying to afford an electric car.

And yet even under a definition that stretches the meaning of the word infrastructure almost beyond recognition, Biden's proposal still runs into problems. The tax increases, favors for unions and other special interests, and economically nonsensical mandates like the "Buy American" rules mean that the American Jobs Plan undercuts its own ambitions.

Meanwhile, by prioritizing sloppy and politicized goals that are disconnected from the realities of what he's proposing, Biden is encouraging less serious policy making. Amid the flurry of tweets mocking Gillibrand's claim that "paid leave is infrastructure," a comment from the former South Carolina governor and likely future GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley stood out. "Protecting the unborn is infrastructure," she wrote. "Religious freedom is infrastructure. Fiscal responsibility is infrastructure."

Haley was probably not trying to do much more than score some retweets by—as the kids say—owning a lib. But she made an important-if-incidental point. Stretching the definition of infrastructure is a game that both parties can, and will, play.

In that light, Haley's tweet comes across not as a joke at Democrats' expense but as a warning to the party that currently holds slight majorities in Congress. A future Republican administration—maybe even a Haley administration—and a GOP-controlled Congress could very well push an "infrastructure" bill that bans abortion or requires voters to show a photo ID at their polling place. If paid family leave is infrastructure, why not subsidies to encourage having children? You need electricity to run your phones and other digital devices, so maybe regulating speech on the internet is infrastructure too?

This would be a terrible way to make policy. Whatever your views on religious freedom, abortion, online speech, the minimum wage, or the legality of selling your own kidney, such debates should not be settled by legislation that's ostensibly about building bridges and airports.

Infrastructure is important. Not every important thing is infrastructure.

NEXT: COVID Led to Massive Improvements in State Cottage Food Laws

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Our wonderful Rogue President and Rogue Congress who are COMPLETELY ignorant as to which country they live and work in.

    The USA **IS NOT** a democracy. It’s a Constitutional Union of Republican States. A Constitution Union that NEVER granted federal officials the authority to pass legislation for infrastructure or fake-infrastructure pet projects. CRIMINALS is what they are.

    If you want the LEGAL authority for this your going to need a whole heck of a lot more than ‘just’ congress. Your going to need 2/3rd majority vote, and State Ratification…. THAT IS THE LAW!!!! The People’s Law over their government in this country…

    What happens when Rogue officials run a country outside the law and to their own desires?? An Autocratic Nation (so what if it’s not just one person but congress)? And what is National Socialism? Nazism….

    It’s Infrastructure alright; It’s the Infrastructure for Democratic Nazism…. Word for word… If the Supreme Court won’t uphold the people’s law over their own government; perhaps it’s time the people did.

    1. ” If the Supreme Court won’t uphold the people’s law over their own government”
      Why should they? It’s not a democracy; they have been given life time appointment by criminals.

      1. Democracy vs lifetime employment by criminals is a false dichotomy. So you have no point unless you were going to make one.

        1. The judges aren’t elected, but appointed. They act as one would expect.

          1. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

            You can check it out here……………. VISIT HERE

          2. …And confirmed by a representative democratic senate.

            So really; The lack of the Supreme Court to enforcement of the Constitution is the people of State’s fault (or election fraud of course) for electing members of the Senate who have ZERO respect for the U.S. Constitution a clear violation of their oath to honor it. I.e. Lying Crooks.

            Checks and Balances. How to fix a world that keeps electing corrupt Sheriffs who has no honor in his own oath.

    2. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

      1. Doesn’t say anything about bankrupting us though paid troll

        1. Us? Are you talking about your mom who pays taxes on her cigarettes?

          1. Either you love Trump or you’re a liberal/progressive/communist. “Libertarians” are just fictional characters created by Reason employees.

            1. Either you’re sarc, or you have some acquaintance with reality.
              Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.

              1. Such a pleasant, rational fellow! I’m of course shocked to see he’s a Trumpista.

                1. Sevo’s a one-trick-pony. All he does is find people he believes to be leftists (anyone who doesn’t want join himself, Nardz and others in rounding up the couple hundred million people who didn’t vote for Trump and murdering them) and calls them lefty piles of shit.

                  1. He’s so angry and so dumb. Perfect Trumpista.

                    1. No different than an emotional Hillary supporter circa 2016. The only difference is political party.

                    2. Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably. I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot …

                      GOOD LUCK………….. VISIT HERE

                  2. sarcasmic
                    September.5.2021 at 10:53 am
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    Either you love Trump or you’re a liberal/progressive/communist. “Libertarians” are just fictional characters created by Reason employees.

                    Sarc posts this in response to nothing to do with Trump, then calls out someone else for being a one-trick pony.

                    I know it’s a holiday weekend, but it’s still a bit early to be drunk, sarc.

                    1. I am now making more than 350 dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything.

                      Follow Instructions Here……….. Home Profit System

                  3. Sevo may be a one-trick pony, but he’s got you two pegged right.

                    Daily reminder that Queen Anathema is one of White Mike’s sockpuppet’s and sarcasmic is only here to troll:

                    August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm

                    I only show up to watch the clowns duke it out, while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is a circus.


                  4. Funny how you always pal around with the Marxist scumbags here. You really are trash.

                2. Devi’s a senile old drunk.

                  1. *Sevo.

                    Fucking autocorrect

                    1. You misspelled ‘sarcasmic’ again.

                    2. Cut KAR some slack. The Mormon top he gimps for probably tore his ass up really good. He’s probably still woozy from the cornholing.

                    3. He likes it when the Mormons bring em young.

                3. You have no room to talk about rational, bricks-for-brains.

            2. Goddamn that is a retarded post sarc.

          2. Most people pay virtually nothing in federal taxes outside of income and income-based FICA taxes.

            Federal gas excise tax, federal excise taxes on tobacco products, and federal excise taxes on alcohol are probably the primary federal taxes that individuals pay (that aren’t income taxes). Fewer people might pa things like excise tax on airline tickets, or on firearms, etc.

            Federal excise tax on cigarettes is $2.11 per pack for large cigarettes ($1.01 for small). A two-pack a day smoker pays $1540, a pack-a-week smoker pays about $110. Among smokers, the mean number of cigarettes smoked per day is about 14.5, or about 265 packs per year, so $558 per year. Of course, only about 14% of people in the US smoke regularly.

            Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents pert gallon, so someone using 1000 gallons per year (i.e., driving 25K miles in a car getting 25MPG) will pay $184 in federal gas taxes. The average per capita consumption of gasoline is about 1.15 gallons per day in the US, so about $77.25 per year in federal gas excise taxes.

            Alcohol taxes are harder to work out because the tax varies depending on the type of alcohol be it beer, still wine, sparkling wine, hard cider, or distilled spirits and the alcohol content (proof).
            But it’s something close to about 21 cents per ounce of pure alcoholic content of spirits, 10 cents per ounce of alcohol of beer, and eight cents per ounce of alcohol in wine. Note that this is not per ounce of beer or wine or spirits, but per ounce of alcohol. A 12oz can of 6% ABV beer has about 0.75oz of alcohol, so a tax of about 7.5 cents. A hard-drinking man drinking a case (24 cans) of beer every day would be paying about $657 every year in federal excise taxes, someone enjoying 3 beers each on Friday and Saturday night would pay about $24.

            Average beer consumption per capita in US is about 26 gallons This is about 288 cans per year, so about $22.

            A person buying a $500 Glock would pay $50 in federal excise taxes, but how many handguns guns will an average person buy in a year?

            1. Shut the fuck up slaver and get off your knees.

          3. Us, as in most normal people who arent privileged princesses who never had to do anything productive in their lives.

            However, on the long run, this shit is indeed gonna bankrupt US, in total. I know youre too much of a dipshit to see that coming though.

      2. Awe the good old flip it on it’s head story.

        general Welfare of the United States doesn’t mean Infrastructure now does it? What is the ‘United States’ anyways? Each State? Each Person? Each City?

        Nope; Just as it is used EVERYWHERE in the Constitution. The United States refers to the USA Government. Of course if people could grasp the simple concept that the Constitution instituted and is the Supreme Law over the federal government such word games would be so popularly played.

        1. *wouldn’t be so popularly played.

        2. The United States is our country. The Congress has the power to spend money to provide for the general welfare of it.

          1. So if there is States everywhere WHERE EXACTLY is this “United States” Country you speak of? UR pretty stupid to fall for such a deceitful trick of words.

            1. The United States country is in the United States. And this measure clearly gives that government the power to tax and spend for the general welfare of it.

              1. Yes you fucking idiot, except that this isnt welfare.

                1. When Queenie thinks of ‘welfare’, she thinks of government charity. Like the kind she receives.

                  1. Inside the mind of every welfare queen, “It’s not armed robbery; It’s Gov-Gun-Forced ‘charity’….”

                    Any excuse they can imagine to STEAL from others.

              2. There’s a whole other country inside all the states of the Union?
                You know why your first sentence sounds so stupid? Because it is.

                The United States is a UNION of STATES government. A Union put in place SPECIFICALLY for a strong national defense. It’s not a place of a single democratic autocratic nation as lefty retards think it is.

                So where is the United Nations ………. Nation?

                1. This is all beyond her. She just sees a massive federal entity that is meant to rule by decree by learned democrats from on high.

          2. Hey look another trick; How to REWRITE it to fit your narrative..
            “Congress has the power to spend money” YA; NOT THERE!

            1. It’s literally, explicitly there. The Congress shall have Power To….provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

              1. General Welfare is not Specific Welfare.

                1. …And it wasn’t granted for the people or the states.

              2. You sure like welfare, Queen.

              3. Are you blind or just wildly stupid. “Provide” does not equal “spend money”.

                1. She’s a communist and an authoritarian piece of shit. She thinks government can do anything it wants unilaterally as long as the people in charge have a ‘D’ after their name.

          3. What’s even more IRONIC is even if you wanted to stand by your deceitful trick of words.. WHO’S going to define ‘General Welfare’? You?????????? You think you can just put anything you want in the Constitution as long as you title it ‘General Welfare’???? Do you really think the founders were THAT STUPID???

          4. Please read Madison in the federalist papers so you dont come across as a fucking idiot. The rest of article I section 8 is uneeded if general welfare was a catch all. All that clause does is allow for taxation to authorize the spending in the rest of the section.

            Amazing how dumb you are QA.

          5. “The United States is our country. The Congress has the power to spend money to provide for the general welfare of it.”

            What are you? 12?

        3. Shouldn’t even use the word “The United States refers” … It the actual NAME of the Union Government.

          As-if such wasn’t blatantly obvious by the fact everywhere the Constitution is talking about the people it uses the word ‘people’ and every-time it talks about state’s the word ‘state’ is used. Yet absolutely NOWHERE does the word ‘federal government appears’. And all be darn if the Union of States Government wasn’t NAMED the United States Government.

          1. Dance Club X files a statement of structure that includes “shall provide for the general welfare of Dance Club X”………

            And deceitful moronic criminals drooling at the mouth to STEAL anything they possibly can thinks it means their welfare.

    3. Political prejudice has divided us, as Putin and his demons got to work, fooling our less-than-rational folk, the emotional ones.
      Now Republicans want America to fail, so they can “own the libs”.

      1. Unlimited Democracy has divided us. Far too much [WE] gang centralized POWER over everyone’s lives; to the point control of the Gov-Gun POWER is part of a livelihood.

        Most Republican’s want to SAVE America from the ‘libs’ Power-Mad base and gangster mentality democracy. It’s undeniable when reading the parties platforms. The entire Democratic platform not once honors the U.S. Constitution or Individual Liberty and Justice. It’s *all* about the [WE] mobs power to steal.

      2. “Now Republicans want America to fail”

        Yet it’s Democrats that are working towards failure.

  2. I’m from Pittsburgh, live near that carpenters hall, and I can tell you… About 50% of the people listening to his speech here were illiterate morons who didn’t graduate high school and a 2 month carpenter union course is there only chance at job.

    Little do they know that carpenters union is notorious for goosing seniority and they aren’t ever going to get called to a job to do any work to get paid. That carpenters union just takes their dues plus the training course fee, teaches them Jack shit, and then tells them to try collecting unemployment. Which many can’t do because they don’t have enough hours worked in any of the previous quarters. But don’t forget to pay your dues rube!

    1. Sooooo progressives?

    2. “About 50% of the people listening to his speech here were illiterate morons who didn’t graduate high school and a 2 month carpenter union course is there only chance at job.”

      So, perfect Trump voters? “I love the poorly educated!”

      1. Who pay taxes and pay attention. Compared to the self righteous narcissists that pretend to be liberal paid trolls.

        1. I like how buckie owns it.

          1. He owns paying taxes and attention. You should own being a pathetic unicorn princess whose thought processes only make sense in a fucking cartoon movie.

      2. Yes trump voters…to see Biden speaking at their union hall that donates 99% of its political contributions to democrats.

        Wow are you stupid white mike.

      3. Democrats are the most poorly educated people in America. They’re also either raving bitches, or beta male pussies too.

  3. “or requires voters to show a photo ID at their polling place”

    Horrors! We can’t just have *voters* voting!!

    Thanks for warning us about this grave danger.

    1. Drone striking innocent children in Afghanistan on the way out of a botched exit is also apparently infrastructure.

    2. Papers, please!

        1. Again, poor buckie is so alarmed at the idea that one should know what they’re talking about before, y’know, talking.

          1. ‘Again, poor buckie is so alarmed at the idea that one should know what they’re talking about before, y’know, talking.’

            If so, he’s not at all concerned about Queen Asshole, who has yet to pot anything approaching reality.

            1. Poor Sevo, you almost passed your two sentence milestone, and then mucked it up with that ‘pot’ thing. Keep trying m’boy!

              1. Sevo just doesnt care to waste too many letters per post on unicorn worshipping lowlifes. He says more when talking to people like soldiermedic or Paul.

              2. You’re a raving idiot, and valueless. Your family would likely celebrate your death.

                Did you know that?

      1. Funny how Conservatives want people to show papers to vote or to walk around freely in the country, yet they compare their treatment by social media to that of Jews in 1938 Germany.

        The irony is rich.

        1. They’re not remotely self-aware.

        2. Funny how progressives want vaccine passports just to buy groceries or indeed enter any business, want little kids to be doubly masked outdoors and always with a parent around, and accuse others of irony and can’t see their own.

          1. Are you accusing me of supporting those things? Because I do not.

            Ohhh, it doesn’t matter what I say. I support what you say I support, and then I’m wrong when I disagree.


            1. Oh, and that comment doesn’t exist because the narrative says I’m a leftist who supports all of those things.

              1. Poor, poor, sarc.

                1. Go cry more about the election. Waaah!

                  About Twitter and Facebook being mean to Trump. Waaaah!

                  The way conservatives are being treated is no different than how Hitler treated the Jews! Waaaah!

                  They’re all out to get you! Waaaah!

                  1. Sarc’s drunk off his ass.

                    1. Early in the month so the EBT card’s got some of your money still in the account.

                    2. Sarc woke up drunk.

                    3. Nad he might have gotten a tip from a rough trick.

            2. You probably wouldn’t get so much shit if you didn’t throw up retarded leftist talking points like requiring I’d to vote is in any way equivalent to “papers please”.

            3. I mean, you only gaslight and agree with QA to attack only conservatives. Lol.

          2. And by the way, there was no irony in your statement.

            1. That’s ironic.

              Look, bub, you are too cute by half. You try to project this “sarcasmic” persona, poking holes in everybody’s rants, trying to pretend to be neutral and unbiased and The Only True Libertarian. You don’t do a very good job at it. Mostly you come off as just a grumpy old fuss-budget angry at the world. You poke fun at people who are inconsistent, and are inconsistent yourself. You poke fun at quibblers, and quibble yourself. You post comment after comment after comment, did too, did not, did too, did not, and any validity in your initial comments gets lost in the repetitive anger. Your inconsistency leaves you wide open to every charge you level at others.

              Give it a break, or do it better and/or less.

              1. Why don’t you just fuck off and stop replying to my posts. All you do is accuse me of things I’ve repeatedly said I oppose, and tell me I’m wrong when I disagree with your accusations. So please, go fuck yourself.

              2. And no, that’s not anger. Though I’m sure you’ll tell me I’m wrong.
                It’s just really, really stupid when people tell me what I think and then tell me I’m wrong when I correct them. The only possible explanation for people doing that is that they’re liars or functionally retarded.

                Which one are you?

                1. Well….. you’ve got both those occupations sewn up, so I guess I’m not either.

                  1. Dude, when alphabet, overt, and zeb all call you out, the problem might be you

                    1. supposed to be a reply to sarcasdick

                    2. That’s what happens when you’re broken.

                2. When you’re so anxious and worked up you feel the need to reply AGAIN because he hasn’t responded. We know we’ve got you beat sarc. Take your blood pressure meds and take the L putz.

        3. Attacking conservative and defending progs. The Sarcasmic way.

          You’re a useful idiot for the DNC.

        4. The only people who side with you on this site are leftist trolls and you ask why people call you a leftist. Lol.

      2. You have to show ID to attend a Biden fund raiser dinner. To but a gun. To buy alcohol and tobacco. Some replaces require showing ID to eat in a restaurant. But heaven forbid someone prove who they are to protect the integrity of their own vote.

        1. For most of my life when I voted I just went in, said my name, the guy at the desk looked up my name in the records and crossed it out. Democracy didn’t die and the Republic didn’t fall.

          The thing is, there’s just no realistic threat to the vote. In a secret ballot system no one is going to expend effort to get ‘illegals’ to go vote and virtually no illegals will be interested in doing that.

          This is a thing invented by conservative who just can’t believe they ever just lost an election. I’m old enough to remember when conservatives, rightly, fought ‘Real ID’ requirements as a ‘papers, please’ federal power grab. But hey, Trump gives the orders now and the Right just says ‘how high, Dear Leader?’

          1. This is a thing invented by conservative who just can’t believe they ever just lost an election.

            I believe the technical term is “sour grapes.”

            1. The appropriate technical term here is steaming pile of lefty shit”.

              1. Leaving out the first ” and putting the second before the period? Trump’s kiss!

          2. I’m truly sorry to hear Queen Asshole voted; what a waste of a vote.

            1. I not only voted, but your mom, in post-coital joy, let me fill out her mail in vote too. Soros gave me ten bucks for that!

              1. The only sexual interaction you could ever have with a female would be getting pegged.

            2. You mean waste of a life. I bet her parents regret not having an abortion

          3. Ballot harvesting is much easier if no one checks ID. That’s the reason Dems are opposed to voter ID, not out of any concern for minority voters. Getting ID is not difficult.

            1. Well,they are raging racists who believe minorities are incapable of getting ID and so need to be protected by their white saviors.

          4. It was insecure when the vast majority of voting was in person. It is more insecure now.
            Trump delivered the vaccine and told folks to take it. How does that fir the narrative that Trump supporters both follow his word obediently and that they are the ones refusing vaccination?

  4. Not to be too philosophical but, when a post modernism ethos of there’s no truth but only your truth, it’s not that far from words have whatever definition and meaning that you want. Infrastructure is a word/adjective that tests well in focus groups. Add the adjective ” Infrastructure ” to anything, say it enough, get it circulated in social media, and wallah, up is down and anything is perceived and accepted to be Infrastructure.

    The manipulation of definition of words was seen in ” real time ” during the Barrett hearing. Online dictionaries changed the definition of sexual preference DURING the hearing after an exchange with Senator Booker.

    1. Exactly.

      “natural immunity from previous infection”

      Is being scrubbed from every cdc, FDA, and government health website or resource as we speak.

      1. Oh and even more 1984ish stuff from this corrupt administration…

        “today we are at war with Oceania”

        Next day.

        “today we are at war with… ISIS K!”

        who the fuck ever heard of “isis K” until last week?

        1. Last week was the first time Biden the botcher heard of them.

      2. Add vaccine to that list as well.

        The CDC’s current definition of a vaccine is “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease”.

        Compare this to the definition of vaccine that I found in a high school textbook from 2016 “A small dose of a safe version of a pathogen that forces the immune system to make antibodies for that particular invader”.

        1. The CDC often gets things wrong, but their definition is better than the high school textbook definition.

          The etymology of the word, vaccination, comes from the Latin word, vacca, because people were purposely infected with cowpox to simtimulate immune resistance to smallpox. The “that particular invader” isn’t even a good definition for using cowpox to trigger resistance to smallpox — so the high school definition doesn’t even get it right for the very first vaccine invented.

          1. My pets were recently vaccinated for rabies with a “dead virus” vaccine.

          2. Or, as with Corona viruses, maybe you develop immunity to an entire family of viruses because they use similar mechanisms and really aren’t that different besides having the word “cow” and “small” infront of them.

            But you knew that, you just had to focus on semantics to make your Google search into an argument somehow turd.

        2. Technology has moved past using dead viruses.

          1. Google “mRNA.”

            1. A genuine modern medical miracle! Everyone should be celebrating this milestone achievement, but, instead, we have morons rejecting a beneficial, safe preventative medical treatment for partisan reasons.

              1. Yep. It’s fucking stupid.

              2. These people would literally vote for Covid as President if Biden were the alternative.

                1. COVID doesn’t exist. It’s a liberal plot to take away our freedom.

                  1. Said nobody but the voices in your head.

                    Are you familiar with the inventory of mRNA since it is the first time you’ve apparently googled him, and his warnings against using it in children? No? Maybe use a better search engine. Learn about increased heart inflammation. Etc.

                    Oh, and try to pretend to be a libertarian and let people view their own risk profiles.

                    Shit like this is why people call you a leftist.

                2. Queen Strawmanthea. Anyhow, Chinese nationals are ineligible to become POTUS.

                  1. Meh, Gorsuch can fix that with a shadow docket opinion.

                    1. The virus is only a few years old. And a virus. Project more to address those.

                    2. Chumby , it’s too stupid to do that. Democrats are morons.

                3. “These people would literally vote for Covid as President if Biden were the alternative.”

                  And if Covid won, we’d have a more intelligent and competent POTUS.

                  1. Sevo is wondering, will Trump give me permission to buy a Covid 2024 shirt?

                    1. Missing the censorship by Trump. He has been on the receiving end of that though. Got a cite?

                4. Speaking of words no longer having meaning, somebody literally doesn’t know what literally means.

                  1. In my few days posting I have figured out that I rarely agree with you, R Mac, but you are 100% right. I literally hate the way that word is misused.

                    1. If you weren’t so full of hate you’d probably realize how right I am.

                    2. If he were only 50% of this hate, would that be a half Nelson but instead he is a full Nelson?

                    3. R Mac, hating people isn’t worth the time and effort. Accept people for who they are, whether you agree with them or not. Work to make the world a better place, whatever your definition of “better” is. If you succeed, awesome for you. If you fail, accept it. If it’s really, really important to you, try, try again. But don’t waste your life in hate.

                      Chumby. I have to admit that made me laugh. And I’ve heard a lot of half Nelson jokes in my life.

                  2. Ok, this leads me to trot out a Chris Treager montage form Parks and Rec.


            2. It is a bit ironic on both sides. The same people who would protest GMO corn are now ready to force mRNA into people. And the people who are leery of mRNA will chow down on hormone-infused beef.

              1. So who are the people that will inject liquid hormone-infused beef, chopped liver?

              2. What about folks that opt out of both?

            3. Google “swine flu vaccine” and “H1N1 vaccine” for reasons to be leery of vaccines produced in emergency situations in record time.

              When the H1N1 vaccines were being mandated as a condition of health care workers keeping their jobs, they were being told “We learned our lessons from the swine flu jab, and this time it’ll be different.” It wasn’t.

              1. Can you link to an article that specifically talks about whatever you are referring to?

                1. And Mike still doesn’t care to be intellectually curious.

        3. It’s almost like the messenger rna vaccines don’t work like the old definition work, so they updated the definition to take into account new technology. How dare they consider new things!

          1. Actually the J&J vaccine uses sophisticated new technology to modify the viral vector. It is not old school or traditional. The difference is it uses double stranded DNA. The cell then makes mRNA which will code for the spike protein like the others. It actually gives somewhat less protection against mild to moderate symptoms. Probably because it is a single dose. It still may require a booster at some point.

            It is hard to know how long it lasts because it came out later than the others.

          2. It’s almost like the messenger rna vaccines don’t work like the old definition work, so they updated the definition to take into account new technology. How dare they consider new things!

            “Updating the definition” ≠ “considering new things”

            Perhaps the main point of the article is that government is changing the definition of words to get something over on the public.

            In that light, ask yourself this: would people cheerfully line up by the millions for an “experimental mRNA treatment” that no one’s ever heard of, or for a “vaccine”, a term they’ve been familiar with for generations?

            If they’re changing the definition of words on you, they’re trying to get something over on you. And people are arguing that this isn’t the case? WTF is the major malfunction in comprehension here?

            1. I see that the confusion is lack of understanding of the difference between a vaccine and a treatment. That is too basic to bother explaining.

              1. Yea, the cdc is now calling treatments vaccines. It’s no wonder you’re so misinformed.

            2. “Perhaps the main point of the article is that government is changing the definition of words to get something over on the public.”

              There was already a well-established anti-vaccination movement. One could just as well argue that calling the new mRBA invention a “vaccine” was asking for knee-jerk rejection, not acceptance, from quite a few people.

          3. The definition has not changed. There are many types of vaccines which produce varying levels of protection and may require boosters or a series to be effective.

            Tetanus for example is a toxoid vaccine. It uses the toxin produced by the bacteria which is inactivated and then injected. It is effective for about 10 years.

            They have been working on mRNA vaccines for at least a decade. These are just the first time they found one that works. The breakthrough came with the delivery system. They found a lipoid capsule which would contain the RNA and allow it to enter the cell. If you just inject the mRNA it degrades and never gets to where it needs to go.

            All vaccines end up doing the same thing. They introduce an antigen which provokes an immune response. Memory cells are created which recognize the invader the next time it comes around.

            1. They all do the same thing…except some prevent actual infection. this one doesn’t, it allows you to get infected with data showing breakthrough cases becoming ever more common, and more deadly with higher death rates and viral loads.

              Some prevent transmission because you never become infected. This one doesn’t, you still can become infected, at ever increasing regularity, and breakthrough cases are showing far higher viral loads in the nasal passage compared to unvaxxed, and thus much more likely to shed the virus.

              Some prevent all symptoms AND death because they prevent infection. This one just prevents death, and not well with delta based on israels and the uks death numbers being higher among the vaxxed.

              So yep, all the same.

              1. Give Mike, sarcasmic, qa a break. They just learned about The Science recently.

        4. They hijacked ‘vaccine’ so they can call the people who don’t want it anti-vaxxers.

          1. They changed the definition of anti-vaxxer to include being against mandatory vaccines back in like 2018.

            1. Nature is not found in a dictionary. Human behavior is a natural observation.

              1. What does that have to do with changing the definition of anti-vaxxer to include people who don’t believe in forcing it?

    2. “Not to be too philosophical but, when a post modernism ethos of there’s no truth but only your truth”

      This is not a postmodern ethos. You are probably confusing the idea of Jacques Derrida that there is no final reading to any text. Everything is always open to novel interpretation, in other words.

      1. If only the Founders had compiled a list of arguments over what they really meant when they wrote the Constitution. They could have put them in books and called them the “federalist papers” or some catchy name like that.

        1. “If only the Founders had compiled a list of arguments”

          Why limit it to the founders? What’s to stop people living today doing the same thing?

          1. They can. There is a process to amend the USC. Or they can post their arguments on Facebook. And they will stay posted there if the White House approves of them.

            1. I don’t visit Facebook. Americans are notoriously obsequious to presidential authority. Carving their faces into mountain sides, for example.

              1. Don’t have FB. Seems like a time waster. The fact that they censor, ostensibly based on input from a politician, endears them less to me. Absent of the censorship, folks can post their arguments there. Or amend the USC.

                1. I don’t have any social media accounts because I didn’t like most of the people I went to high school and college with back in the day. I see no point in finding out if I like them now. There are way too many interesting people out in the world that I’ve never met.

    3. Alternative facts?

      1. It’s only a fact if you like the person’s politics.

        1. Yes, you live by that statement.

    4. “[W]hat the president outlined in March remains a useful framework for understanding how Democrats, in particular, have approached this summer’s debate over infrastructure[.]”

      I.e.: “Lying”

  5. TLDR. Cut spending.

    1. /thread

  6. They call their schemes “infrastructure spending” because they assume the voter is too ignorant to know when they’re being lied to, and they’re right for the most part.

    1. They also assume voters like “infrastructure” being improved. And then they skip explaining the part where they need to spend another 4.7 trillion dollars on infrastructure when it should already be included in the baseline budget if it is so important.

  7. And Biden chooses de facto autocracy while praising the appearance of democracy.

    1. Maybe so. Meanwhile, the other major party has shown absolute disregard for democracy.

      1. Just the other day I read about Trump talking about “fixing 2020” before running in 2024. Which is kinda dumb, because then he’d be running for a third term which isn’t allowed. Not that his followers would mind. I’m positive they’d like to amend the Constitution to give him powers and terms equivalent to that of Putin.

        1. Pretty surprising that in an article about Democrats lying to spend trillions of dollars, here’s Dee and sarc complaining about republicans.

          And by surprising I mean predictable, because they never criticize Democrats for some unknown reason.

          1. If this pile of shit graft bill is passed, they will blame the drizzling stinkyness results on Republicans for not stopping it. And find a quote from some elected Republican that says it had good stuff in it to claim bipartisanship.

          2. And Boehm will write multiple columns about it.

            1. New on Reason:
              “Here’s why people opposing totalitarianism and inflating their earnings away are way worse than the totalitarians spending money”

      2. Both sides!!

        1. I think he’s referring to the refusal to accept the outcome of the election, which is an absolute disregard for democracy. So that’s one side, not both.

          1. Commenters here have pointed out there were Democrats who didn’t accept the results of the 2016 election. I don’t deny that, and have no reason to, since I’m neither a Democrat or Republican.

            So, I’m fine if they want to think of disregard for democracy as a both sides thing. The Trump Republicans have taken it to a whole nuther level, though, and anyone who denies that is deeply deluded or being deeply disingenuous.

            1. In 2016 Trump won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. So for those who support pure democracy (of which I am not one, I totally support the EC) they could in their minds have a legitimate belief that there was something wrong with the election. Though they would be wrong.

              However in 2020 Trump lost both the EC and the popular vote.

              So I don’t really see much of a comparison.

              1. I don’t support the EC, it’s indefensible imho.

                1. The president is elected by the States, not the People. I support the EC for the same reason I’d like to see the 17A repealed.

                  1. Yea, no offense but that’s nuts. States aren’t things, the people in those states are.

                    1. sarc, Queen Asshole and Mike; can’t get a bigger pile of stupid this time of the morning.

                    2. You’ve never been called a ‘smart man,’ have you Sevo?

                    3. State governments implement federal policy. Without the 17A the Senate would represent state governments, not the people. That’s what the House is for. All spending must originate in the House, and be approved by the Senate. The point of that setup was to give state governments veto power over the wishes of the mob.

                    4. Yeah, I don’t want to give career politicians veto power over the people.

                    5. What about when the federal government coerces the state governments by applying conditions to federal funds? You know, change the drinking age or no highway funds. 55mph or no funds. Seatbelt laws or no funds. Things like that.
                      That’s one of the ways in which the feds skirt the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
                      If the Senate represented the States, do you think the federal government would be able to do things like that? I don’t.

                    6. We are a union of states. The states create the federal government, not the other way around. You don’t understand that

                2. Yes, but that’s because you’re an idiot.

              2. Hmm, I don’t have a strong opinion a lot the electoral college.

                I think the main problem is that so many states have winner-takes-all awarding of their electoral votes. But I also understand why no state would want to unilaterally change that; it would be giving up their clout.

                1. Without the EC presidential candidates would campaign in a dozen cities and completely ignore the rest of the country, because the rest of the country wouldn’t matter. Being that urban areas tend to be liberal while rural areas tend to be conservative, it’s no surprise that liberals want to abolish the EC.

                  Here’s another comment of mine that doesn’t exist, because it doesn’t fit the narrative that I’m a leftist.

                  1. They’d matter, but they wouldn’t *disproprtionately* matter, which is an insult to the autonomy of everyone.

                    1. No, they wouldn’t matter at all because a few key metropolitan areas have more popular votes than all of flyover country. So as far as the popular vote goes, rural areas would literally have no voice at all.

                      Of course that’s what liberals want. They want to urban mob to tell everyone what to do.

                    2. Sarc actually has it right here. What he says is spot on.

                      See? I call it like I see it. If you’re right, you’re right.

                  2. This is true. Neither party would bother with the ruby red or deep blue states. The only campaigning would happen in swing states.

                    I live in Delaware, which is in the Philadelphia media market. Election season is already enough to make my ears bleed. I can’t imagine what having four or five times more attention from campaigns.

                    That said, and as someone who lives in a state that benefits from it, the EC needs to be reformed. Right now the total number of EC votes is the sum of the US Representatives (proportional) and Senate (two for everyone). That means that small states like mine have more proportional power than large states. Delaware gets one EC vote for every 325,000 residents, but Texas only gets one EC vote for every 805,000 residents. Wyoming gets one EC vote for every 192,000 residents, but California only gets one for every 745,000 residents. Because of the Senate votes, small states wield outsized influence in the Presidential election. EC votes should be proportional to prevent outsized influence of the small states.

                    1. Or end federal overreach and let people make decisions on education, healthcare, housing and retirement for themselves with their own dollar. Then their one vote would cover just one person.

                    2. Chumby, how does that connect to the Electoral College?

                      I agree that voting with your dollars is the best way to make your preferences known because, follow me here, capitalism works. I know it’s crazy to say, but it’s true.

                      However, capitalism isn’t a means to reform the unbalanced influence of small states in the EC.

                    3. If the results of the EC matter a lot less then the EC matters less.

                    4. The reason for the EC is just as valid now as it was during the founding. There’s no way that you could get little states to be part of the union if they were going to be governed from the big states.

                      If you want to change the EC make an amendment — but good luck getting 37 states on board to sign away their power.

                    5. Well I disagree, because if smaller states had equal influence as populated states based upon population, they would effectively have no influence at all.
                      The state I live in has fewer people than the average metropolitan area. Should my entire state’s votes be canceled by one city? You might think so. I don’t.

                    6. The reason for the EC is just as valid now as it was during the founding. There’s no way that you could get little states to be part of the union if they were going to be governed from the big states.

                      What he said.

                    7. That means that small states like mine have more proportional power than large states.

                      Proportional to what? Right now, their relative power is proportional to A) their population (that’s the House portion of their EC vote) and B) their relative sovereignty (that’s the Senate portion of their EC vote). Since all the states are equally sovereign, all the states get the same portion of that EC vote. That’s the way the Constitution envisioned the federal government working – as a collection of sovereign states, as the united states. 50 separate states working together on mutually beneficial projects but free to go their own way on internal affairs. If one state wants tacos for dinner and another wants fried chicken, they can each eat what they want since it doesn’t affect the other.

                      So what you’re arguing in favor of is a purer democracy, straight majority rule. Shut up and eat your fucking broccoli. How is that fair?

                    8. You are correct that it would take a Constitutional amendment. And no, I’m not sayong it should be a pure democracy. That allows for way too much abuse.

                      Each state would still have the decision about how to distribute their votes, as it is now, with most states except Nebraska and Maine being winner-take-all. It would just mean that each state had two less votes. So still a Republic, not a pure democracy like you seem to think. Sorry to disappoint you.

                    9. Like I said, my state benefits from it. So if you want my vote to be two to three times more valuable than yours, I’m good with that. Like the kids say, FYIGM.

            2. These people are not fans of democracy in general. It takes about two discussions before they go all ‘two wolves vote to eat the sheep.’

              1. The Founders weren’t fans of democracy either. That’s why they created a republic.

                1. The Founders were a very mixed bag, but yes, their view on democracy was one of their many flaws.

                  1. Democracy is mob rule. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it right. A Constitutional Republic was supposed to temper that. Not that it worked, but it was a good try.

                    1. It’s not mob rule, it’s taking very person’s autonomy equally seriously.

                    2. The term ‘mob rule’ was just some elite-speak for ‘lots of people would like to do something I don’t.’

                    3. If Sevo and Nardz convinced the mob to murder anyone who didn’t vote for Trump, you’d go along? Or is that just elitist?

                    4. Two wolves voting to eat the sheep is bad, but one sheep declaring it can eat the two wolves is worse.

                    5. I’ll take that as a yes. That if the mob says it’s ok to kill certain people, you’d go with it. Because mob rule is better than a representative democratic republic.

                  2. If only the sheep would identify as a trans wolf, all would be better…

                  3. It really wasn’t, you would probably be much more comfortable in communist China, or Soviet Russia. The US is a constitutional republic created from a union of individual states. Not a national entity that apportioned itself into states.

          2. In your world 2000, 2004, and 2016 never happened because you’re a retarded fuck. In your world, see above, voter ID is a means to sway an election. In your world confirming voters are actually legally voting is terrible. Because you’ve turned into a leftist and will push any form of gaslighting that lets you attack conservatives.

            You have no principles.

      3. One thing I learned this year is that there is no greater assault on democracy than asking for an election to be audited to make sure it was accurate and fair.

        1. When the definition of “accurate and fair” means “we’re not going to stop until we overturn the election because waaaaah!!” then yes. Because Trump supporters have no interest in “accurate and fair.” Only in winning.

          1. Because, your Democratic party has no interest in ‘winning’?

          2. Sounds exactly like Washington state in 2008.

            1. They kept counting until the correct result was reached.

          3. Accurate and fair was more than a dozen doubts ruling democrats illegally changed voting rules just prior to voting.

            1. Dozen courts*

              Weird how you consistently ignore that

        2. There were tons of audits and recounts. Votes were counted three times in Georgia, for example.

          1. And thr numbers were changed 3 times. They refused to check double voting which they admit were in the thousands. Had up to 30k voting illegally in wrong districts. Never verified adjudicated ballots which in the tens of thousands, a stunning increase from prior elections woth no auditable trail.

            1. Lots of chain of custody issues too, with many required documents missing. But hey, they kept counting them.

        3. The fist time is fine. I can even see a second one in closet races. But to keep auditing until you get the result you want? And then when honest people keep finding it was free and fair, going out and getting partisan guns-for-hire with no knowledge or experience in ballot counting? Yeah. That’s pretty scary.

          1. Except that’s not what happened. It was only a first level audit and they even admitted that they had no audit trails for all of the issues offered up, see above. And any move to try and add audit trails to increase faith in future elections is being blocked by democrats.

  8. “The idea of infrastructure has always evolved to meet the aspirations of the American people and their needs. And it is evolving again today.”

  9. As long as there’s funding to make sure the strategic ice cream reserve is protected.

    1. As a member of the lactose intolerant community, I say fuck that.

  10. “I truly believe we’re in a moment where history is going to look back on this time as a fundamental choice that had to be made between democracies and autocracies,” President Joe Biden declared during a March 31 speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    And given that Biden now leads a party that wants to control the economy, the media, education, speech, assembly, and the weather, we know which option he prefers.

    1. Biden switched parties?

      1. Only if you count the slumber party.

      2. No, he was always a Democrat.

      3. You mean the guy that was friends with a KKK leader and presided over his funeral, and who Cowrote the most racist piece of legislation in our countries history in 1994?

  11. The paintings by Hunter Biden, aka Botcher Jr, will also be considered infrastructure.

    1. Know who else was a painter? Yep, Hitler! That makes the Bidens Hitlers!!

      1. An incestuous pedophile uncle who fucked his own niece? Check.
        A failed artist who was often blitzed on coke and meth? Check.

        Gee, sarcasmic, maybe he is.

        1. Did Hitler get kicked out of the military for narcotics use and fuck his dead brother’s wife like Hunter did? Or knock up strippers and refuse to pay any support or even acknowledge the child until a judge made him? On some levels, Hunter is literally worse than Hitler. Fortunately Hunter lacks Hitlers competency.

          I would also love it if someone in the press corps asked Biden if ALL of his grandchildren will visit for Christmas this year.

  12. So when is paid troll Asshole Mike going to recant his bullshit rolling stone fake news? Seems the story fell apart and that doctor hadn’t worked there for months.

    Or he’ll be around with one of his many sock accounts to make it seem as if he’s one of many instead of a lonely incel like sarc.

    1. “instead of a lonely incel like sarc.”

      Projection is indeed a hell of a drug.

      1. But sarcasmic is involuntarily celibate, and you are a paid troll asshole who never recanted your bullshit rolling stone fake news.

      2. Mike’s sock comes to defend Mike lmao. It’s soooo predictable

        1. It was hilarious when Mike quoted White Knight. At least Chumby thought it was.

          1. Nardz agrees. Nardz laughed his ass off.

    2. The OK poison center says they’ve gotten 12 calls about ivr overdoses. “Mostly mild”, no number of anybody who actually had to go to the hospital.

      Even if it was all 12, the idea that it’s somehow overrunning the hospitals is nuts.

  13. The Trumpistas are monumental morons but sadly the Democrats are a party who just want to hurl other people’s money at any problem. We’re screwed.

    1. “The Trumpistas are monumental morons…”

      This from a TDS-addled steaming pile of lefty shit…

      1. I’m curious about how a Trump-worshiping incel like yourself does it. Do you first imagine you have a girlfriend and then imagine Trump having sex with her while you fap in the corner avoiding eye contact with the Dear Leader? Or something else?

        1. You spend time contemplating the sex lives of others and then project your fantasies on them. This is…pathological.

        2. Isn’t Laursen pulling out old frogposter “cuck” memes here? Like the old saw goes, the left can’t meme, they can only imitate, poorly.

          1. It’s a pattern too. Hihn/Kirkland, mike/queen… All obsessed with other people’s sex lives and specifically their maturation habits. Kirkland has an oral fixation too.

            1. Masturbation is bad according to google

    2. Democrats are morons, too, but in different ways.

  14. nice article admin keep it up श्रमिक पंजीयन कार्ड upbocw

  15. “If you dream it, you can be it.”

    Hmm. Biden channeling Dr. Frankenfurter?

  16. Thing is they will spend all of this money but will they actually fix the roads and bridges, clean up and improve the water supply, manage the forests to prevent fires, improve the harbors and airports, fix the unreliable power grid. Nope.

    They won’t even fill in the potholes on rt.8.

    The money will go into useless projects and line crony pockets.

    1. Echospinner got what it wanted.

  17. We don’t need the federal government to make community college affordable. It already is.
    We don’t need the federal government to subsidize electric cars for rich people. They’re rich.
    We don’t need the federal government to build out the internet and make it faster and cheaper. It’s been getting faster and cheaper for the past 30 years thanks to private companies chasing dollars.
    We don’t need the federal government to provide childcare and classes for toddlers. Kids should be home with their parents in their formative years, and with “work from home” now being commonplace it is easier than ever before.
    We don’t the federal government to push “green energy” that leaves us without power when it gets too cold or too hot outside.

    Even if you think all or some of these things are good ideas the federal government ought to be pushing, the federal government is already 29 trillion dollars in debt and shouldn’t be adding to that mountain for your children to pay off.

    1. The people who are pushing for these things honestly believe that if you don’t want the federal government to pay for community college, you don’t want anyone to go to college. If you don’t want the federal government to build out the internet, you don’t want anyone to have internet.

      To paraphrase Bastiat, if you don’t want government to run the farms you don’t want anyone to eat.

      Can’t argue with people like that. There’s no way to get through.

      1. In many respects college has become nearly worthless. Not everyone should go to college. Because when everyone is super, no one will be. Plus we really need a lot more tradesmen and skilled laborers. And a sociology degree is really only useful to wipe your ass with.

    2. For what do we actually NEED the federal government?

      1) Protect individual rights.
      2) Maintain a federal court system to settle interstate disputes and deal with item number 1.
      3) Maintain a defensive military — emphasis on “defensive.”

      From my point of view, that pretty much covers it.

    3. In general, CE, I agree with you. I might quibble with the broadband spending, since companies aren’t going to bother investing in sparsely populated rural areas. They wouldn’t get any return on their investment, so that’s where the government needs to help lower the cost to the companies by building out the infrastructure for them to use. Think of it as supply-side economics that actually works.

      But spending $3.5 TRILLION on a hodgepodge of giveaways and hopes-and-wishes programs without coming close to paying for it is economic malpractice of the highest order. And it’s making us numb to the massive deficit numbers that we have had since the 1980s.

      We can’t go back in time and unspend the money wasted by every president in my lifetime (1970), but we can at the very least STOP FUCKING DIGGING! It will take longer to get back to zero, but with a debt as large as ours, it’s the only way we will get our balance sheet back in order.

      1. Or maybe somebody comes along and solves the problem without all the infrastructure.

        1. Which problems? And which version of infrastructure? The real one in the bipartisan bill or the *nod nod, wink, wink* infrastructure in the $3.5 Trillion bill.

          1. Well as long as there’s the nod nod, wink ink $3.5 trillion, there will never be any other solution, meaning there will never be any actual solution.

            1. As long as we have $3.5 trillion dollar bills (not annual budgets, single bills!) that shoehorn not-what-the-word-means stuff and rebrands it for public consumption, we are screwed.

      2. The country continues to urbanize. Rural folks have options. Cell phone internet. Service through existing phone line. This is sleight of hand to help justify graft.

        1. I live in northern Delaware, where we have fiber lines and more internet bandwidth than I need. Right now I’m in southern Delaware helping my partner’s dad recover after knee surgery and I can’t even keep a clean Zoom connection. If you think that someone here would be able to work in the modern world with such poor connectivity, you’re dreaming. I manage 11 people who work from home and I would never be able to keep someone with a connection like this. They wouldn’t be able to do their job.

          One of the most exciting things about broadband is that it will allow qualified people who prefer to live in rural places the ability to work anywhere and compete for high-paying jobs without having to make the sacrifice of moving to the suburbs or a city. But it won’t happen without some sort of government investment to lower the cost for companies. Otherwise it wouldn’t make sense for them, financially.

          1. I live in rural Maine. The town has fewer than 50 people per square mile, including the town proper. Out of town we are about 10 people. And have no issues streaming video. Did a videochat this morning with no problems as per usual. All through the phone line. The broadband in Biden’s bloated bill is a boondoggle.

            1. Planning a trip to Maine, any recommendations? Thinking of a nice harbor town with cool day trips inland within an hour or so. Breweries are a bonus.

              1. The tour guide magazines will probably suggest Bar Harbor, Rockland and Belfast in that order.
                My favorite “on the coast” places in order are Stonington, Castine and North Haven (check the ferry schedule or when there are mail planes). All three have working harbors. Not a lot to do in North Haven but pulling into the harbor the first time is absolutely gorgeous. Very friendly people there. Castine has a maritime academy and some British history. A few good restaurants there too. Most times I’m in Stonington I see eagles.
                Bar Harbor has Acadia National Park nearby, which is worth visiting. Off season but when stuff is still open. You probably won’t see a bear or moose but there are beaver lodges and may see an eagle or two.
                Young’s in Belfast is a solid place to get lobster if they still let you eat on the deck an byob. Not a lobster roll fan but hear McLaughlin’s in Hampden is very good. Sea Dog brewery is also there and they have decent beer. Hampden is next to Bangor. Imo the better breweries are in southern Maine like Allagash and Sebago.
                If you were in southern Maine, Freeport is worth visiting.
                Look those places up and see of they meet what you’re looking for. If you are driving, you could consider the the Bangor to Route 9 Airline Road to Calais, then Route 1 south along the coast. If you go wicked early but not in the dark, you might see a moose. Don’t drive it in the dark.

              2. Maine is amazing. I’ve gone several times to several different areas and have yet to be disappointed.

                Maine is like pizza. The least you can get is “meh” and the best is amazing.

        2. And satellite internet. Which Elon and Bezos are in the process of making cheaper.

        3. Cell phone, yeah, but barely 4g. My max download speed is 600 kb/s. It’s annoying seeing all the constant commercials on TV for fast internet (200 megabits per second) and I can’t even get 1 where I live.

          Existing phone line? Unless you mean dial up, that’s not an option.

          1. And yet that is exactly what I use. I’m sure it is a lot less data rate than someone in say San Jose. But it is adequate to stream and videochat. But let us pretend it isn’t so we can justify a $3.5T Biden supporter SWAG package. YMMV.

          2. You don’t have 4G, you have edge. Actually maybe it’s the first version of 3g which really wasn’t 3G. 4G should be capable of gigabit when stationary.

      3. “I might quibble with the broadband spending, since companies aren’t going to bother investing in sparsely populated rural areas. They wouldn’t get any return on their investment, so that’s where the government needs to help lower the cost to the companies by building out the infrastructure for them to use.”

        And that, my friend, is a local and State problem. Not one for the Federal government.

    4. Eh, internet companies have basically ignored rural people. The only option is satellite and while there is Starlink it seems like it’s being gobbled up by hipsters/Musk fanboys and the government with not much left for actual people without internet choice.

  18. One wonders what the books of the Federal government would look like if they had to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principles?
    If Enron’s books were fraudulent, then times 10 for what the current Federal books are like.

  19. How sad for the Koch reason crowd that their senile old man is in thrall to anti libertarian forces. But he’s no mean tweeter and that spells success for the CIA agitprop to control the messaging.

    Paid trolls are out in force to spam that message home. Amoral billionaires will soon control it all through their multi national trillion dollar corporations who aren’t beholden to any laws. In a world run by trial lawyers this is how it works.

    1. That’s really funny, because when O’Bummer was president these comments were filled with idiot leftists saying Reason is a conservative Koch rag that hates the president because he’s black.

      1. Except that’s not really true, and, as usual, you’re making shit up.

      2. The only ones who consistently said that were shrike and Tony.

    2. Biden accomplished one big libertarian goal — getting the USA out of Afghanistan. We should always be thankful for that.

      And if the fact that he botched the execution of the exit so badly means he won’t get reelected in 2024, and may help the Repubs win back Congress in the 2022 midterms, all the better. (Except for the servicemen who died and the Americans who were stranded of course.)

      1. And the innocent kids that died from his drone.
        The abandoned military equipment now in the hands of the Taliban.
        Thousands of Afghanis that helped the US during the occupation that are still there without a clear path for something else.

      2. I think their goal is to cram the US full of as many needy indigent foreigners as possible that they can largely turn into reliable democrats voters for the next generation or two. Even if it costs them in the short run. Look how much damage they’ve already done leveraging illegals in this manner for the last forty years.

        We now have rising stars in the democrat party that are openly Marxist, and they are the further of the democrats.

  20. On the other hand, he’s really overselling it.

    On the other hand, he is, in the words of Doug Stanhope, “a soft-headed tit and a danger to all of us.”

  21. “how words lost their meaning” said the journalist who is:

    1. Waking up from his 30 year nap
    B: Born after twitter.

  22. CDC no longer tracks breakthrough cases if they don’t result in hospitalization or death.

    The obvious set of questions this leaves is…what’s the effectiveness of the vaccines. Fair questions to ask:

    do they work? Do they only work as symptom mitigation? Are you still a super-spreader even when vaccinated?

    Individual states now set their own criteria for collecting data on breakthrough cases, resulting in a muddled grasp of COVID-19’s impact, leaving experts in the dark as to the true number of infections among the vaccinated, whether or not vaccinated people can develop long-haul illness, and the risks to unvaccinated children as they return to school.

    “It’s like saying we don’t count,” said Ingram after learning of the CDC’s policy change. COVID-19 roared through her household, yet it is unlikely any of those cases will show up in federal data because no one died or was admitted to a hospital.

    1. Your State may have those stats. Oregon tracks and publishes all cases, whether they result in hospitalization or not, on a weekly basis. Of course, those with mild cases probably don’t even report it, and those who are asymptomatic would not report count it. According to the last report I read,

      — Ninety-seven percent of reported cases involved unvaccinated individuals.
      — There have been 13,166 breakthrough cases in the vaccinated population of 2,715,109.
      — To date, 4.9% of all known breakthrough cases have been hospitalized, and only 0.9% have died. The median age of the people who died was 81 (43 – 101)
      — Total deaths in breakthrough patients was 155.

      Feel free to extrapolate to your own State.

      1. One other tidbit:

        The percentage of breakthrough cases has gone down by 25% over the last six months.

      2. ‘Only’ 0.9% have died?

        1. Most of whom had co-morbidities that made their deaths likely to happen fairly soon.

      3. COVID-19 cases in vaccinated and unvaccinated people

        Weekly summary

        During the weeks of August 1-14, there were 20,701 cases of COVID-19. 17,719 (85.6%) were unvaccinated and 2982 (14.4%) were vaccine breakthrough cases.


        Weird how you idiots always talk about ‘cases to date’ instead of what’s actually happening right now.

        Note they also don’t provide recent deaths on this report, even though they have done that in the past.

        1. That is actually a different report.

          Try this. There is also a dashboard with lots of different reports:


          1. I don’t see anywhere here that has the information you claim.

            1. Then, please be specific in what information you want.

              1. When you said mine was ‘a different report’, I assumed you actually had a recent vax/unvaxxed breakdown that was different.

                Otherwise why would you say 97% of cases are in the unvaxed? We know for sure that’s using a terrible metric involving a time when there were tons of cases but hardly anybody fully vaccinated. Nobody cares what the breakdown was in February.

                1. “When you said mine was ‘a different report’, I assumed you actually had a recent vax/unvaxxed breakdown that was different.”

                  Alrighty then. I think this is the stat you wanted:
                  As of Sept 3, 2021: “During the week of August 22-28, there were 16,265 cases of COVID-19. 13,673 (84.1%) were unvaccinated and 2,592 (15.9%) were vaccine breakthrough cases. The median age of breakthrough
                  cases was 49 years. 51 breakthrough cases were residents of care facilities, senior living communities,
                  or other congregate living settings. 647 (25.0%) of cases were 65 or older. There were 58 (2.2%) cases
                  aged 12-17.”


                  1. So two weeks ago breakthroughs were 14.4% and now they are 15.9%. How have they fallen by 25%?

                    1. UH….Over the past several months they have fallen. It may rise. It might continue to fall. A lot of it depends on the health of the population being vaccinated.

                      Consider: since more younger people are being vaccinated, and since they much are less likely to 1) have serious symptoms from Covid, and, correspondingly, less likely to have serious symptoms from “breakthroughs,” it makes perfect sense that the number of reported cases will continue to fall.

                2. From the same report:
                  “Cases of COVID-19 are much more common in unvaccinated Oregonians than in vaccinated
                  Oregonians (Figure 1). The rate of COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated individuals in the most recent
                  week was approximately 5 times the rate of COVID-19 cases among fully vaccinated individuals.”

        2. Also please notice the median age of deaths of those with breakthrough cases: 81 years. One would expect that those most vulnerable to dying of Covid would also be of higher risk of death resulting from a breakthrough.

          1. Also please notice the median age of deaths of those with breakthrough cases: 81 years. One would expect that those most vulnerable to dying of Covid would also be of higher risk of death resulting from a breakthrough.

            All of these facts are undeniable. Well… mostly undeniable. My problem with the reporting is that the median age is conveniently left out during the media’s breathless reports on Coronavirus, deaths, why (if) one should get vaccinated.

            But it’s conveniently left out as the media turns into a mouthpiece, aka propaganda machine to demand “everyone” get vaccinated, including those who are the least vulnerable.

            It’s also absent in the policies to which we’re currently being subjected.

            I posted an AP “fact check” link yesterday (too lazy to post it here) that literally debunked itself, first denying that the survival rate for covid (yes, admittedly across the entire population) was 99%, and insisted it was 98.2%, but in the next sentence pointed out that there was likely massive underreporting of cases so the survival rate was much higher than 98.2%. Then it suddenly went into a frank an honest discussion about how the must vulnerable were octogenarians with comorbidities, so context is important.

            That’s exactly what so many of us have been saying: Context is important, and the constant harping in the media on “cases” and “people are DYING!” is misleading.

            1. “That’s exactly what so many of us have been saying: Context is important, and the constant harping in the media on “cases” and “people are DYING!” is misleading.”

              I agree entirely. “Click-baiting” has, in many regards, for much of the MSM, taken over actual, meaningful reporting. It seems that most of MSM is convinced that most of their readers are merely “the unwashed masses” incapable of using the basic tools of inquiry to separate the wheat from the chaff. Unfortunately, they might be right.

          2. LOL what’s the median age of death for covid patients the entire time?

            1. Last time I checked, (a couple of months ago?), it was 84.

              1. So the vaccine cuts life expectancy by 3 years? 😉

                1. LOL. Well, as the first page of the text book which I as assigned stated:

                  “There are Lies, Big Lies, and Statistics.”

                2. Largely for people with serious underlying health problems.

            2. The information is actually there (I could not find that stat broken out for the entire “pandemic) If one wants to do some math, one would have to take the case statistics by age group, and then compare that age group as a percent of the general population. I am not inclined to do that. It would be nice if some so-called “investigative reporter” would do that, no? Of course, someone somewhere certainly has. The other trick is to find where they posted the results, or where they might publish it. Funny that should be so hard to find, no?

              It’s certainly safe to say that a relatively small percent of the population has much to fear from THE DREADED COVID.

              1. These people don’t want the information.

                They’re 50 centers. Their stock and trade is Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD.

                All they want to do is make some statement, possibly technically even true, in such a way that it sounds like vaccines are bad. They’ll argue numbers with you, picking and choosing, deliberately misunderstanding, because they know people won’t go look up the real data.

                My county and the counties next to us publish excellent, clear data. I’d prefer they package it slightly differently because they still have dashboards with totals, but they made that decision in April last year and want it to remain for consistency. But there are actual numbers, including what you get the last moth, this year, and in total, so you can see it all. This is common lots of places.

                1. I was stuck in California for quite a long time, as well. My sympathies.

                2. WTF we’re talking about the real data right now.

                  If the jab doesn’t stop transmission, there’s no benefit to the community. The bug is going through the population.

                  1. So it is your claim that the “jab” doesn’t seriously slow the spread of the bug? Okay. That’s your stance. I disagree.

      4. Isn’t that the same stats for the wu flu

        1. Which stat? If you mean the percentage of breakthrough cases, it’s a percentage of the total number of cases.

          I am no epidemiologist, but I can identify two factors which may account for the decrease:

          1) Immunity from the vaccine increases somewhat, at least temporarily, after the first month or two. This would not be unheard-of.

          2) And, more likely, IMHO, since the more-recently vaccinated population is much younger, overall, and much less likely to have bad effects from the vaccine, many breakthrough cases are probably less severe, or asymptomatic, and therefore, go unreported.

          Either case would decrease the percentage of reported breakthrough cases among the vaccinated.

      5. Why would you trust numbers from a state government that doesn’t believe in math?

        1. “Why would you trust numbers from a state government that doesn’t believe in math?”

          Well, NARDZ, the site lists the cases, with numbers, as well as outcomes (cases reported, hospitalizations, deaths, by name of the institution, by name of the schools, hospitals, senior living centers, SNFs, other institutions, etc. And since I do have a relationship with several of these institutions, even including some of the personnel at a local supermarket and a local veterinarian who have had outbreaks in the last few weeks,it is pretty easy the verify at least some of the numbers.

          So, unless a huge percentage of the thousands of medical personnel who work there, and most every bureaucrat from the county level on up, are all conspiring together, the numbers are more than likely to be fairly accurate.

          1. You missed the joke.

            Sense of smell goes when you catch covid. I wonder if sense of humor goes when you catch leftism.

            1. I am sorry I missed the joke.
              Perhaps you could explain it to me.
              Perhaps my “humor-detector” is malfunctioning and needs to be checked by an expert.

              However, if you think I am any kind of “leftist,” you might be suffering from something else. Or is that another joke I missed?

            2. Nardz.

              Oh wait. I just GOT IT. Damn. My jokeometer must, indeed, have been turned off.

              Okay, Nardz — that is a DAMN GOOD JOKE! 🙂

              1. It took me a second too.

  23. $566 billion in subsidies for manufacturing and research and development

    “Hey Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, Facebook, here’s your reward for all that hard work you did fortifying everything. We’re still on for 2022, right?”

    1. At least you aren’t claiming outright fraudulent claims that are easily disproven like you were a few months ago.

      1. Fuck off Mormon holocaust Nazi.
        Stormfront’s over there and take Misek with you.

        1. Please cite me being anti Semitic or stop claiming I am.

        2. He’s not antisemitic. his mom was just a Mormon plaything.

          1. Thanks?

        3. Seems like you and Nazi Nardz would be more home at stormfront. You can blabber on about how evil CRT is and how it needs to be banned and your hard on for Trump. You have a lot in common with those Racists.

          1. If that’s how it seems, it’s because your IQ is hovering around 90.
            Otherwise, you’re knowingly lying and spreading libel because you’ve never had to face any consequences for your actions.
            Now tell us more about the river to the sea, faggot.

            1. Note how incredibly generous I’m being here.

              1. You spoil him. We all do. If he actually met any of us, I’m betting that guy wouldn’t dare say shit if he had a mouthful.

            2. “River to the sea?”

              What are blathering about you Nazi Nardz?

              You know the Stormfront folks hate gays too. That’s another thing you have in common with them.

              1. *What are you blathering about Nazi Nardz?

                The you ran past blathering about

              2. Are you gay? There’s nothing wrong with that.

                Faggot designates a fascist shill.

                And it’s unsurprising that you were repeating militant Palestinian slogans without realizing it.

                1. It doesn’t matter, but I’m not.

                  It’s ironic you claim I’m uneducated because I don’t have perfect grammar on an Internet forum while using words that only bigots and rubes use.

                  1. No, you’re uneducated for a host of other reasons. Primarily a lack of education.

                2. What did I post that’s a “militant Palestinian slogan?”

              3. There is no point in responding to an antisemite neo Nazi.

            3. “Otherwise, you’re knowingly lying and spreading libel because you’ve never had to face any consequences for your actions.”

              What am I lying about Nazi Nardz?

              You say all the time you want to kill over half the voters in the US. Just because they didn’t vote for your boyfriend Trump.

              1. Fuck off, you antisemitic Mormon-hating troll.

                1. Please cite me being anti Semitic or stop saying it.

              2. Here we see KARen lie, as usual.

                Let me know when you get to Jacksonville.

                1. What am I lying about?

  24. The vaccines are doing what they were designed to do. Keeping you from getting moderate to severe disease. There is no way to keep the virus from entering your body.

    What is happening is some waning of the response and the delta which is much more infectious.

    1. Weird because all the EUAs say prevent covid.

    2. They are only working if you change the definition of vaccine.

      1. You obviously don’t know what a vaccine is. I explained it already. Even a high school level of biology can understand it.

        And you can’t “change the definition” it would be like changing the definition of an Apple. We all know what an Apple is.

      2. Actually it is a lot like the chickenpox vaccine. You can still get chickenpox but the cases are milder. About 15-20% do after one dose if exposed.
        Where do people get this stuff?

        1. “Where do people get this stuff?”

          I think they get it from close contact with other people. But in this case, there really isn’t a vaccine.

        2. Your vaccine doesn’t vaccinate.
          Try again.

        3. > Where do people get this stuff?

          They get it from their handlers. These are 50 centers spreading the anti-vax message.

          Could be China pays them. Could be Robert Kennedy. Or maybe they are just repeating what the Chinese and Russian bots have been putting out for a year, but it’s just propaganda. The big lie. Say it enough and people will believe it. That’s why every single one of these “people” say the same few talking points, over and again.

  25. I watched Biden give a press conference today, which he punctuated with some hard-won words of wisdom for the attentive press corps.

    “I am about to say something outrageous. I’ve never been particularly poor at calculating how to get things done in the United States Senate. So the best way to get something done if you hold near and dear to you that you uh, like to be able to uh… anyway.”

    Quotes have not been edited for presumed meaning.

    1. The few times that Biden goes off script, I have sympathy for the person doing sign language.

    2. Biden is also performing as expected.

        1. What is up with the permanent squint?

    3. That was in March?

  26. You can see that in Israel. They report every positive as a case and have the highest case rate ever. However the death rate is less than half of what it was in the previous wave and they are reporting the vast majority of serious cases are in unvaccinated people.

    1. Is it more or less than this time last year?

  27. I don’t normally link to Fox News, but this one was too good to pass up.

    Parkland activist calls out media for not ‘aiding’ gun reform efforts under Biden after doing so under Trump

    Former Parkland student Cameron Kasky called out the media for its sudden shift on gun reform efforts during the Biden presidency after “aiding” such efforts during the Trump presidency.

    Kasky, who was a student at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School where a horrific mass shooting left 17 dead in 2018, has been an outspoken advocate for gun reform.

    Speaking to The Young Turks on Monday, Kasky indicated that advocates like himself are receiving less help than before now that a Democrat is in the White House.

    “Right now, this very moment is a very complicated time for gun violence prevention activists because with Biden in the White House, the media does not want to aid us in demanding stronger gun reforms because whatever Joe Biden does is suddenly the right thing to do, Kasky said. “When Donald Trump was the president, calling for an assault weapons ban and saying that the measures that he was putting in place were not nearly enough was a very popular opinion. Now if you’re calling for an assault weapons ban, suddenly you’re just an angry leftist who will never be happy with anything.”

    The only thing I can say about Mr. Kasky is he’s getting something he never got in school: A valuable education.

    1. Biden was too busy transferring firearms to the Taliban that are restricted to Americans.

    2. It’s always funny when useful tools discover that they were only useful tools.

      1. Not just tools, but tools of tools, as he describes.

    1. Russia is cold and has precipitation in winter. Guess you could say that Edward is snowed in.

      1. That’s the kind of comment that’ll earn you the freeze-out.

        1. Actions like Obama’s have a chilling effect on whistleblowers.

          1. Just so you know, we’re all playing second fiddle to Chumby’s comment.

            1. And it’s not even close.

      2. ++

      3. Oh, God. That was awful. Puns are cruel and unusual punishment.

        1. Don’t be so cold hearted, comrade.

          1. Ha. Ha. ????

  28. Does Australia, where they’re currently building reeducation camps for dissidents, qualify as a liberal democracy or would it be better described as an autocracy? If it’s the latter how far behind is the US? What do these words actually mean? Why do the guardians of liberty at Reason and the ACLU seem completely unconcerned?

    1. And this is a country where pretty much everything can kill you.

    2. “Why do the guardians of liberty at Reason and the ACLU seem completely unconcerned?”

      Because they took the same buyout as the National Review?

      1. More like guardians of corporate freedom.

    3. Probably because, like ghosts, aliens, and Trump’s 2020 victory, they don’t exist. It’s hard to get worked up over a fever dream.

      1. Don’t you mean like ghosts, aliens, COVID came from a wetmarket, Biden doesn’t have dementia, Masks work, Cuomo didn’t kill old people, Dominion systems were secure, Hunter Biden is an artist, Trump colluded with Russia, Jan 06 was an insurrection, Transwoman are real women, BLM is mostly peaceful, Trump had a pee pee tape, Antifa is an idea, George Floyd didn’t overdose, Advanced coursework is racist, 1619 is real history, Hunter Laptop wasn’t real, Trump caused asian hate, White rage is the problem, CRT isn’t poisonous, All white people are racist, A pipe in ATL stopped the count, Jussie Smollet was attacked by MAGA, etc?

        1. Some of those are true, most of them are bullshit.

          1. The leftist shows its lack of credibility.

    4. I think you’d see an attempt in Canada before the US and then it would likely be in progressive, subservient areas first.

    5. They are going for the New Zealand strategy of zero Covid. Now they are getting their first spike and freaking out.

      1. Flatten the curve citizens.

        1. Unsurprisingly, echospinner is not upset by Australia building concentration camps, just don’t you dare compare anything to the holocaust. After all, the people in these concentration camps deserve it.

        2. Australia is all about cutting down the tall poppy.

    6. Sounds like an illiberal democracy.

    7. Is there an _Australian_ Civil Liberties Union?

  29. In a true miracle of miracles, Secretary of the Department of Transportation Pete Buttplug and his husband Chasten have given birth to fraternal twins, Penelope Rose and Joseph August Buttplug:

    Best wishes and congratulations to the father and the… umm… also the father!

    1. That is a miracle, which one carried and do biologists know?

      1. I hope you aren’t saying that adopted kids don’t count as real kids. They are exactly the same to their parents.

        1. Adopted kids are figments of your imagination.

          1. Better not tell the anti-abortion zealots that. They insist all the unwanted rape babies they force people to carry to term will end up in happy, loving homes.

            1. Who are you referring to?

              1. It is referring to itself.

        2. He’s making fun of how they posed in a hospital bed, like they had given birth…

          1. He knows that. He’s just trying to change the topic slightly as part of a cheap rhetorical trick. I’m pretty sure ‘Nelson’ is just chemjeff’s latest sockpuppet.

          2. Actually, I didn’t know they posed in a hospital bed. I saw the headline but didn’t bother looking at it because I don’t understand how public figures having babies or adopting or getting IVF or whatever counts as news to anyone other than their friends and families.

            Posing on a hospital bed sounds cheesy as hell.

  30. So how many people are going to lose their homes so Amtrak can waste money building rail lines no one wants?

    1. God I hate eminent domain. Especially when it steals someone’s land to give to a developer for a shopping mall or a golf course or some other frivolous thing.

      1. It would be ok to take Justice Roberts’ ranch to build Freedom Park.

        1. Admission will be free, except for the penaltax if you decide not to go.

  31. Reminder that the Rolling Stone Ivermectin story that White Mike and the rest of our DNC fifty-centers have been pushing has turned out to be… you guessed it, a complete and utter hoax. Fabricated, made up, completely invented out of nothing.

    Absolutely everything our paid shills push here inevitably turns out to be horseshit. Without exception.
    Has there ever been anyone here with a higher failure record than them?

    1. Are there cases?


      Are people dying?


      Why care about the stupid details?

      1. Hospital beds

          1. Why national statistics, ignoring states that show a correlation between low vaccination rates and hospital bed shortages?

    2. The Rolling Stone also trashed Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, and Bob Dylan.

      But they did hire Hunter S. Thompson.

      So there is that.

      1. Ok, goebbels.

      2. You’re beginning to look like a trueman sock; full of irrelevancies and just plain bullshit.
        So there’s that.

      3. Hunter S. Thompson at least had the decency to kill himself when his time was past.

        1. Well calling suicide decency says a lot about you, not him.

          He was a gifted writer. He created a new style of journalism which has yet to be matched.

          Obviously having mental health issues ending in suicide is decency to you.

  32. Remember kids, the biggest threat to your liberty is those rascally republicans in flyover country banning the mandate!

    Washington school districts that “willfully” violate state COVID-19 health mandates are at risk of losing state funding, the state’s top school official said Wednesday, but they will be given at least two chances to come into compliance.

    Chris Reykdal, state superintendent of public instruction, filed an emergency rule outlining the penalties for school districts that fail to comply with Washington’s COVID-19 health measures, including the statewide mask mandate and the vaccine requirement for school employees. His office announced the penalty for districts that don’t follow state rules in July.

    School districts that “willfully” don’t follow the health and safety requirements are at risk of having state funding withheld, Reykdal said.

    “These safety measures work, and they are not at the discretion of local school boards or superintendents,” Reykdal said in a notice sent Wednesday to school district officials.

    Looking forward to the 3,000 word article next week.

    1. Teachers and nurses are such heroes we need to fire them if they don’t want a jab that doesn’t stop transmission. We’re going to destroy the hospitals we had to stay home all year to protect, and I bet you a dollar that means we’ll have to stay home to protect them again this year.

      Jay Inslee is an idiot.

  33. Is this really surprising. Part of politics is selling the agenda and that means finding words that move people. That everything is now infrastructure is part of the word salad. This is the same as labeling all spending as for defense or to fight terrorism. Ask yourself how much is being squeezed into the CRT debate? It is easier to roll your ideas into an existing word that motives than it is to make up a new campaign and explain it all again. The public need to stop and ask for explanations, but that is across the board and right now it appears that people only question when it is the other tribe’s argument. This again make the case for the middle ground where all arguments are heard and scrutinized.

    1. In other words sit on your wooden fence, get splinters in your ass, and call it a good day.

      Holy shit I respect the progtards more than you. At least they have a demented dream as stupid as it is and are willing to fight. Fence shitters just like to throw poo at people and pretend they did something.

      1. Were the founding father fence sitter throwing poo. They found a way to bring together different ideas, compromise and create a nation that would go on to be a world leader.

        1. Yes, they found a way to appeal to intelligent people. Not you.

    2. I’m pretty shocked you don’t care about this issue.

    3. “…This again make the case for the middle ground where all arguments are heard and scrutinized.”

      Isn’t that just PRECIOUS, folks? I ask you, where else can you find such adolescent drivel posted such that it is NOT intended ironically?
      M4e; 50 going on 13 and PROUD OF IT!

  34. “And there are myriad politically motivated handouts, such as a $1 billion grant for the Appalachian Regional Commission, a multi-state economic consortium that just so happens to be co-chaired by the wife of U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W. Va.).”

    I try not to complain too much about Senator Manchin, even though he is essentially the personal senator of Koch Industries, a simple-minded transactional puppet whose cynical excuses for standing in the way of direly needed progress don’t pass even the most forging smell test.

    The real problem is the unanimous consensus of Republicans, who apparently nobody expects to govern anymore. We wouldn’t need to rely on useless tools like Manchin if the GOP were held to any standards of accountability or sanity. Alas, mainstream journalists are all agreed, it’s just Republican political philosophy to seek power at all costs, leaving no hypocrisy unturned, obstructing any legislation that isn’t a tax cut. Constitution-shredding nihilistic anarchy, it’s just one of those products in the marketplace of ideas!

    But seriously, what a doofus. I know guys who live on their boats. None of them should be senators.

    1. “…We wouldn’t need to rely on useless tools like Manchin if the GOP were held to any standards of accountability or sanity…”

      Shitstain can’t spell “Dems”.

    2. Tony apparently thinks it’s 2005 and conservatives and libertarians don’t hate Charles Koch.

      1. Not surprised he has a #fail on this. Tony sucks on Koch.

  35. When you’re looking to Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and AOC for economic solutions, you are beyond f%$ked.

    1. Pelosi is smarter than Biden, Sanders, AOC and Harris put together.

      1. Pelosi is more ruthless than the rest of them put together.


    As Israel’s “coronavirus czar” called on the country to prepare for a fourth shot of the Covid-19 vaccine while virus variants continue to evade the first three, American’s top infectious diseases specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, prepares the ever-trusting general public for a domestic booster shot program.

    According to Fauci, the US booster shot program will begin exclusively with Pfizer and BioNTech SE jabs, after announcing that Moderna is still “getting their data together,” and would be delayed by “a couple of weeks – if any.”

    Biden has set a Sept. 20 target for kicking off the booster campaign, once the CDC and FDA sign off on it.

    1. “The bottom line is very likely at least part of the plan will be implemented, but ultimately the entire plan will be,” Fauci told CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

      I’m sure he’s just talking about boosters, and not anything more sinister…


    Cybersecurity experts are urging California’s top elections official to conduct an audit of ballots cast in the recall election to ensure no problems occurred.

    The recent disclosure of binary images of the Dominion Voting Systems’ election management system boosts the risk of nefarious action against the state’s election system, the group of experts warned in a Sept. 2 letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

    The software versions shown in the images are not the same ones as those used in California, but the differences are relatively minor, they added.

    1. A friend called me who lives in Washington State with her husband, and they haven’t lived in CA for years

      “How’s your recall election going? I looking at 3 ballots that were sent to my house….. (her, her husband, and someone else that used to live at their old address).”

      Her: “Do you have any doubt Gavin will win, and that they are stealing this?”


    JUST IN – Six planes with hundreds of evacuees, including American citizens, are not allowed to leave Afghanistan. “The Taliban is basically holding them hostage to get more out of the Americans,” a senior congressional source told CBS.

    1. Aren’t you and Sevo supposed to be killing Democrat voters as an act of self defense, because their votes are a violent attack against your person?

      1. And the steaming pile of lefty shit sarc shows up to clean and jerk a brand new strawman, and is entirely too frightened to deal with those who call him on his assholery and his dishonesty!
        Stuff it up your ass, steaming pile of lefty shit. Your head wants some company.

      2. Look at sarcasmic try to play top troll. What a pathetic fuck.

  39. “…“The Taliban is basically holding them hostage to get more out of the Americans,”…”

    Droolin Joe’s continuing legacy!
    Oh, and we have Harris showing her face in CA for the first time in a while; hoping some of droolin’ Joe’s colossal fuck up sticks to Newsom.

  40. A friend called me who lives in Washington State with her husband, and they haven’t lived in CA for years

    “How’s your recall election going? I looking at 3 ballots that were sent to my house….. (her, her husband, and someone else that used to live at their old address).”

    Her: “Do you have any doubt Gavin will win, and that they are stealing this?”

    1. Does this have anything to do with the topic? It is BS but save it for when it is relevant to the topic and we can discuss.

      1. Fuck off, M4e – an idiotic asshole you are, a moderator, you ain’t.

  41. Droolin’ Joe – the fuck up who continues to deliver fuck ups:

    “Taliban holding evacuee flights, lawmakers told”
    “An Afghan official at the airport in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif said that the would-be passengers were Afghans, many of whom did not have passports or visas, and thus were unable to leave the country. He said they had left the airport while the situation was sorted out.
    Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, top Republican on the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, however, said that the group included Americans and they were sitting on the planes, but the Taliban were not letting them take off, effectively “holding them hostage.” He did not say where that information came from. It was not immediately possible to reconcile the accounts.”

    Quacks like a hostage, waddles like a hostage? I’m saying “hostage”. Thanks, droolin’ Joe!

  42. Nice Article And Nice Information Please Anyone Need Jobs please this Website
    Work At Home

  43. Back in the day, people considered the ethics of borrowing from future generations.

    They allowed it for two reasons:

    1. War
    2. Infrastructure

    Both were seen as benefitting future generations, and so were ethical. Loss at war benefitted the free not. And roads and so on lasted decades, and so were a benefit.

    A lot of this “infrastructure” is the current generation borrowing to lavish on themselves, and so it unethical.

    Barring emergencies, a generation should pay its own way for its own goodies. You want child care? Pay for it yourselves as a generation. You want pork jobs to get you elected? Pay for it yourselves as a generation.

    This was how Social Security works, in theory, building up a surplus so they don’t have to borrow, setting generations against each other (gasp, politicians might have to make painful choices!)

    But calling much of this bill “infrastructure” is a lie voiding the ethical considerations of each generation paying for itself as it goes.

    1. THIS!!! And yes, I was yelling.

  44. I am Serach A New Bank Job In Usa Anyone Need Bank Joibs Visit This Website
    Work At Home

  45. Nice Article And Nice Information Please Anyone Need Jobs please this Website
    Part Time Jobs

  46. Nice Article And Nice Information Please Anyone Need Jobs please this Website
    Remote Jobs

  47. Hey check this out helpful blog, Aplikasi Akun Togel

  48. Nice Article And Nice Information Please Anyone Need Jobs please this Website
    Work At Home

  49. very understanding article everything doubts are clear IFHRMS
    bsf pay slip

  50. The Rolling Stone also trashed Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, and Bob Dylan..

    Source image: Christmas Clipart, Clipart images

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.