Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Though for what it's worth...

I mean. It's not like she doesn't have some plans? The at least initial plans are laid out pretty clearly, and in a few years you'll be able to check and see how much she managed to get done.

[NullForceOmega]

Eeagh that's vague as hell, couldn't she have provided some transparency there?  It's something, but it doesn't give me any idea what is going to actually happen with those funds.

[SquatchHammer]

Eeagh that's vague as hell, couldn't she have provided some transparency there?  It's something, but it doesn't give me any idea what is going to actually happen with those funds.

Even if she gets elected, the congress will have to be elected to be a total Democrat control to get any of it to be done. Mostly I see it not even happening due to politics.

[Frumple]

Eeagh that's vague as hell, couldn't she have provided some transparency there?  It's something, but it doesn't give me any idea what is going to actually happen with those funds.

... that's... more transparent that the vast majority of policy statements I've seen come out of politics, ever. Certainly about the best I've seen come out of a current cycle politician on the subject. I mean, that's not saying too much considering who's been in the lineup, but still. There was some pretty specific stuff in there. Bit more if you actually follow the bit at the bottom of it, too.

Could you actually point to someone running that does any better? Or was running, whatever.

But maybe it could be more overt, I'unno. Maybe not, too. A lot of the specifics you're talking about would only come once the stuff started getting ground through government implementation, and particularly not until you've actually got access to all the information the POTUS position would entail. Can't exactly say how much money's going to state X or region Y or project Z until you actually know how much you've got to work with and where it needs to go, and while a fair amount of that's publicly available, and a fair bit more's probably accessible to upper level politicians (i.e. folks that are actually able to make a serious run for president), m'pretty sure quite a lot just... isn't. I've seen the same problem on local level stuff, and the wider the area and more feet gets stepped on in the process the worse that particular issue gets.

And no, you wouldn't need total control of congress for a fair bit of that. Good chunk's just regulation change and whatnot, and that's pretty much entirely executive. Certainly it's likely much of it is goals that won't be reached, either in full or at all, but that's... normal. For any kind of policy position. Reality and desired goals often don't meet very well, and realistic ones are usually both kinda' boring (i.e. it's not going to attract voters, even if not stating 'em turns off the silly small niche of ones that would prefer to see 'em) and make for terrible negotiation points besides.

[SquatchHammer]

I thought much of her policy needs mostly governmental monetary backing in which needs congress to approve in the budget. No one really has a solution except a group of Republicans that want it to be turned over to private interests (which that would be a horrific plan). As stated above, it will take a Congress that is inline to pass that if she does get elected and if she does what she says if she gets elected.

At this point, I agree with most analysts that say this is the worst election in US history by far so there is really no good choice.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

I thought much of her policy needs mostly governmental monetary backing in which needs congress to approve in the budget. No one really has a solution except a group of Republicans that want it to be turned over to private interests (which that would be a horrific plan). As stated above, it will take a Congress that is inline to pass that if she does get elected and if she does what she says if she gets elected.

At this point, I agree with most analysts that say this is the worst election in US history by far so there is really no good choice.

The US president cannot implement this policy without congressional approval since it is outside the legal sphere of the executive branch set forth in the constitution.

[Sheb]

If it needs new money, sure. But at, some point for stuff like infrastructure which is relatively non-controversial, you should be able to shame Congress into passing some of it.

[Orange Wizard]

needs congress to approve

cannot implement this policy without congressional approval

Why say it twice?

[NullForceOmega]

Frumple: Well, it could be a bit clearer on the actual focus of money distribution, priorities, something that gives an indication of actual intent, the page linked has so much political speak that it's unclear what some of the basic goals are even.  The one plan near the bottom that's mostly fleshed out is so pie-in-the-sky disconnected, for starters rebuilding US rail systems has been estimated as a multi trillion dollar operation several times, I have no clue how the hell she thinks that will be even remotely implementable.

Sheb: Excepting the part where republicans have stonewalled every single effort to do anything about US infrastructure that isn't handing the whole thing over to private industry.

Like I said, I'm glad to see that she has actually given some thought to the problem, but that manifesto is so vague and open to interpretation that it could mean nearly anything.

[Starver]

Like I said, I'm glad to see that she has actually given some thought to the problem, but that manifesto is so vague and open to interpretation that it could mean nearly anything.

That's a bit uncharitable.  It could have been far more vague, and I see quite a lot of differentiation of intent that (whilst I suspect it will get watered down by opposition, which is probably pre-planned) sets out goals a lot more complicated than "We'll build a wall" and detailed than "Make America great again", not that the other guy hasn't got some details behind him, but his podium language (I do try to keep abreast of these, even this side of the Pond) always seems to be a few notches down on the specifics and clarity so as not to blind his supporters with 'politics'.

Also beware very specific and unambiguous pledges...   "We will have a referendum..."

[mainiac]

I dont believe that Clinton calls for a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending.  I believe she calls for 250 billion dollars and an infrastructure bank within 4 years and says that this is just part of a trillion dollars that are needed long term.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

needs congress to approve

cannot implement this policy without congressional approval

Why say it twice?

I thought much of her policy needs mostly governmental monetary backing in which needs congress to approve in the budget. No one really has a solution except a group of Republicans that want it to be turned over to private interests (which that would be a horrific plan). As stated above, it will take a Congress that is inline to pass that if she does get elected and if she does what she says if she gets elected.

At this point, I agree with most analysts that say this is the worst election in US history by far so there is really no good choice.

The US president cannot implement this policy without congressional approval since it is outside the legal sphere of the executive branch set forth in the constitution.

It is not just a budgeting issue.

[Sindain]

PTW

[martinuzz]

Slowly the US is turning into the DS. The Divided States

[sluissa]

Almost all of the US infrastructure is taken care of on a local or state level. Long distance rail lines are almost entirely owned by private organizations. (The rails themselves are mostly owned by private freight companies and amtrak just runs on them.) There's basically nothing the president can do here. It's entirely within the realm of congress to pump money into these things and even then they have very limited power over how that money is used. It can be earmarked for things, but once it actually gets down to the state or local level it's questionable what the money will actually end up doing.