Op-Ed: If We Don't Spend Trillions On Whatever Is In This Bill, We'll All Die!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A critical bill that could end or save life as we know it doesn’t come along very often—maybe every month or two—and one has just arrived in the form of the $3.5 trillion social spending bill. If this bill doesn’t pass, millions will die for lack of whatever exactly it is that this bill is going to pay for.
Just think of it: It’s $3.5 trillion in spending. Some of it just has to be absolutely critical. Even if $2 trillion were just completely wasted on stupid nonsense, that would still leave $1.5 trillion spent on extremely crucial stuff—stuff someone, somewhere, probably needs. That’s why I’m violently angry at whoever is standing in the way of whatever this bill is all about.
Much of my ire is directed at Senators Manchin and Sinema, who are basically murderers, denying the people this bill which was going to do something for the very thing this bill was going to pay for—a thing I can only assume those people really needed and without which they will probably die. And if Manchin and Sinema get their way, those people will die unmourned—because I’m not exactly sure who those dying people are.
And yet, Manchin and Sinema stand absolutely alone in blocking this bill I can only presume is essential— alone with no one except fifty Republicans. So are Manchin and Sinema worse than Hitler? Well, Hitler never once voted with Republicans, so I’ll leave that up to you.
So what can we do? Well, I don’t usually advocate violence—not more than once a week—but I think it’s morally necessary here that we intimidate Manchin and Sinema into passing this bill. That’s how really, really important I assume this bill is. I very strongly suppose this is a matter of life and death. That’s why we have to take a firm stand and make Manchin and Sinema support this bill so the history books will say about us, “When the time came to do something about the thing, they passed that spending bill which paid for the stuff that was needed and helped some groups of people.” Or something like that.
Tags
Who is online
84 visitors
Great seed!
[ Being serious ]
Work on the infrastructure bill to ensure the funds are spent productively, with minimal waste and on the intended purpose (i.e. bolstering our national physical infrastructure). If Biden were to just do that and keep the ship afloat, his one term will be successful IMO.
This ⇡ is an important fact for our irresponsible spenders in Congress to keep in mind.
If they can use the money as intended. It seems to get siphoned off along the way.
One thing I will agree with the right on, all the fluff they stuff into bills.
Imo if they can target it and actually improve things and not just fix one bridge and a road, it will be successful.
There is so much that needs to be done though, not just roads and bridges. The electric grid, water works, internet, etc.
Exactly. That is why I explicitly stated 'intended purpose' because we all know that is unlikely to happen.
It is sickening and it just keeps getting worse. The process of incrementalism. These bozos are so used to their spending games that they have become desensitized to the inherent corruption at its core.
Agreed.
I agree with this too. But my expectations are so low I would be amazed if they actually carried out the infrastructure mega-project to intended results and within budget.
And if not?
Absolutely agree, with no end to the rise in sight..
Then something else would have to happen in the positive to offset it otherwise his presidency would be a net failure IMO. If Biden's presidency is COVID-19 (net positive), illegal immigration / border control (net negative), Afghanistan (net negative) and infrastructure (hypothetically considered net negative) then I do not see how that can be seen as a successful presidency. I suppose the economy could get superheated and that could balance things out, but it is more likely to go South than North during his term and of course, as PotUS, Biden will be blamed for it.
I know a lot of people see leaving Afghanistan as a negative yet I see it as a positive.
Should have happened a long time ago.
I agree that we should have left Afghanistan long ago ... probably under Obama once ObL was killed. The negative is the way it was handled, not that we ultimately left.
I know. I am just under the impression that no matter when or how we left, it would have been chaos.
Better be careful my friend, someone might consider you a republican talking like that....
I think your reasoning is sound Ender. But part of my concern is that our military and political officials also knew that. I think they could have done a vastly better job dealing with that known. Especially since we spent decades there and had exquisite intelligence to work with.
This is how independents tend to work. It is not unusual for an independent to agree with the Ds on some things, agree with the Rs on other things, and sometimes agree with neither.
What is typical, is that most people seem unable to grasp that there are some of us who do not care what a party says and instead think for ourselves. Most people seem to think that if you hold a D position then you MUST BE a D and vice-versa with the Rs. Or if you agree with a conservative position that you MUST BE a conservative and vice-versa with liberals.
It it ridiculous but this phenomenon has repeated for decades in my personal experience.
Amen to that!
Amen, I live it every day here just because I'm a libertarian I'm automatically a republican....
Not hardly....
The gop/gqp/republicans/alleged conservatives go OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT NO DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT IS ABLE TO DO SO WELL
Of course it's always blamed on the Democrat President and not those who obstruct him every step of the way.
No one has stopped Biden from doing anything