Omg-To The Moon - Tiger Brokers Online Investing Community - To The Moon

1
Comment
Favorite

YinFai
2021-05-28

Omg

The "sky-high" infrastructure plan in the United States has shrunk sharply again!

5月27日周四，美国参议院共和党人向白宫提出了一项9280亿美元的基建提案，作为对白宫最新1.7万亿美元基建计划的回应。尽管金额差距缩小，双方在“基建”定义与如何支付方面仍有鸿沟。分析称，这一最新提

The "sky-high" infrastructure plan in the United States has shrunk sharply again!

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

1

Report

Comment

Top
Latest

empty

No comments yet

Most Discussed

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":135121637,"tweetId":"135121637","gmtCreate":1622151286029,"gmtModify":1704180277026,"author":{"id":3582514962740876,"idStr":"3582514962740876","authorId":3582514962740876,"authorIdStr":"3582514962740876","name":"YinFai","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/8b3236777157d8b61a9865bda227804e","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Omg</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Omg</p></body></html>","text":"Omg","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/135121637","repostId":2138085173,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2138085173","kind":"highlight","pubTimestamp":1622130063,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2138085173?lang=en_US&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-05-27 23:41","market":"us","language":"zh","title":"The \"sky-high\" infrastructure plan in the United States has shrunk sharply again!","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2138085173","media":"华尔街见闻","summary":"5月27日周四，美国参议院共和党人向白宫提出了一项9280亿美元的基建提案，作为对白宫最新1.7万亿美元基建计划的回应。尽管金额差距缩小，双方在“基建”定义与如何支付方面仍有鸿沟。\n分析称，这一最新提","content":"<p>On Thursday, May 27, U.S. Senate Republicans proposed a $928 billion infrastructure proposal to the White House in response to the White House's latest $1.7 trillion infrastructure plan. Although the amount gap has narrowed, there is still a gap between the two sides in the definition of \"infrastructure\" and how to pay for it.</p><p>According to the analysis, this latest proposal will help break the deadlock in negotiations between Republicans and the Biden administration on infrastructure plans, after the White House set Memorial Day next Monday (May 31) as the deadline for progress in negotiations.</p><p>At the same time, the scale of $928 billion is also higher than the five-year spending of $568 billion previously proposed by the Republican Party. The new version of the plan will provide funds for transportation systems such as roads, bridges, railways, airports, ports, freight and passenger transport, network broadband, water supply, etc. within eight years.</p><p><b>The latest proposal suggests $506 billion for roads, bridges and major infrastructure projects, including $4 billion for electric vehicles, but does not include Biden administration priorities</b>, such as $400 billion for home health care, $100 billion for consumer benefits for electric vehicles, or spending on upgrading housing and schools.</p><p>Wall Street News once mentioned that last Friday, in order to win the support of Republican members of Congress, the Biden administration made concessions, reducing the scale of the original $2.3 trillion \"sky-large\" infrastructure and employment plan to $1.7 trillion, reducing rural broadband and investment related to roads and bridges, and transferring part of the funding in the employment plan to other bills. At that time, Republicans said that the new proposal was far higher than the scope of bipartisan support.</p><p><b>Republican senators spearheading the proposal today reiterated their opposition to the Biden administration's proposed plan to raise corporate taxes to pay for infrastructure investment</b>, Biden once said that the corporate tax rate should be raised from 21% to at least 25%. Republicans want to reallocate unused pandemic relief funds from state and local governments to infrastructure or charge user fees on transportation such as electric vehicles to pay bills.</p><p>But congressional Democrats are bound to oppose such a proposal, and it also runs counter to Biden's promise that \"individuals earning less than $400,000 a year will not raise taxes\" because electric vehicle usage fees or raising gas taxes will bring extra burden to people.</p><p><b>In addition to the fundamental and serious differences between the two parties in Congress on how to pay for infrastructure, their definitions of \"infrastructure\" are also different.</b>Republicans demand that only physical infrastructure be included in the plan, while Democrats demand that \"human infrastructure\" be included, that is, the Biden administration plans to invest funds in caring for the elderly and the disabled.</p><p>Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator who once ran for president of the United States, said today that the latest proposal of Republicans is \"not a serious counter-offer\" and that \"they have illusions about taking away the money that has been promised for other places and expenditure projects\".</p><p>Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito said that Republicans and the White House are close to reaching an agreement on the infrastructure plan, but they still need to solve the fundamental issues about the coverage and payment methods of the package plan. \"I am optimistic, but there is still a big gap between the two sides\".</p><p>She additionally noted a possible bipartisan agreement in Congress on transportation spending. The roughly $300 billion surface transportation bill was introduced a week ago by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which she believes could guide broader infrastructure agreements.</p><p><b>Analysts generally believe that if the negotiations fail, Democrats will try to advance the White House version of the infrastructure bill through the \"budget coordination process\" without the support of the Republican Party.</b></p><p>This only requires a simple majority vote, but it also means that the Senate Democratic Party must stabilize all 50 votes in the party. People familiar with the matter told the media that Democratic senator aides have begun early discussions on how to advance the infrastructure package through the \"budget coordination process\".</p><p>Under the current rules, since the Democratic Party in Congress forcibly passed the Biden administration's $1.9 trillion anti-epidemic relief spending plan through relevant coordination procedures in February this year, exhausting the quota for the 2021 fiscal year ending at the end of September this year, it is expected that After entering the next fiscal year of the U.S. government on October 1 this year, the infrastructure plan is very likely to be implemented again through the \"budget coordination\" mechanism.</p>","source":"wallstreetcn_api","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The \"sky-high\" infrastructure plan in the United States has shrunk sharply again!</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe \"sky-high\" infrastructure plan in the United States has shrunk sharply again!\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">华尔街见闻</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-05-27 23:41</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>On Thursday, May 27, U.S. Senate Republicans proposed a $928 billion infrastructure proposal to the White House in response to the White House's latest $1.7 trillion infrastructure plan. Although the amount gap has narrowed, there is still a gap between the two sides in the definition of \"infrastructure\" and how to pay for it.</p><p>According to the analysis, this latest proposal will help break the deadlock in negotiations between Republicans and the Biden administration on infrastructure plans, after the White House set Memorial Day next Monday (May 31) as the deadline for progress in negotiations.</p><p>At the same time, the scale of $928 billion is also higher than the five-year spending of $568 billion previously proposed by the Republican Party. The new version of the plan will provide funds for transportation systems such as roads, bridges, railways, airports, ports, freight and passenger transport, network broadband, water supply, etc. within eight years.</p><p><b>The latest proposal suggests $506 billion for roads, bridges and major infrastructure projects, including $4 billion for electric vehicles, but does not include Biden administration priorities</b>, such as $400 billion for home health care, $100 billion for consumer benefits for electric vehicles, or spending on upgrading housing and schools.</p><p>Wall Street News once mentioned that last Friday, in order to win the support of Republican members of Congress, the Biden administration made concessions, reducing the scale of the original $2.3 trillion \"sky-large\" infrastructure and employment plan to $1.7 trillion, reducing rural broadband and investment related to roads and bridges, and transferring part of the funding in the employment plan to other bills. At that time, Republicans said that the new proposal was far higher than the scope of bipartisan support.</p><p><b>Republican senators spearheading the proposal today reiterated their opposition to the Biden administration's proposed plan to raise corporate taxes to pay for infrastructure investment</b>, Biden once said that the corporate tax rate should be raised from 21% to at least 25%. Republicans want to reallocate unused pandemic relief funds from state and local governments to infrastructure or charge user fees on transportation such as electric vehicles to pay bills.</p><p>But congressional Democrats are bound to oppose such a proposal, and it also runs counter to Biden's promise that \"individuals earning less than $400,000 a year will not raise taxes\" because electric vehicle usage fees or raising gas taxes will bring extra burden to people.</p><p><b>In addition to the fundamental and serious differences between the two parties in Congress on how to pay for infrastructure, their definitions of \"infrastructure\" are also different.</b>Republicans demand that only physical infrastructure be included in the plan, while Democrats demand that \"human infrastructure\" be included, that is, the Biden administration plans to invest funds in caring for the elderly and the disabled.</p><p>Elizabeth Warren, a Democratic senator who once ran for president of the United States, said today that the latest proposal of Republicans is \"not a serious counter-offer\" and that \"they have illusions about taking away the money that has been promised for other places and expenditure projects\".</p><p>Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito said that Republicans and the White House are close to reaching an agreement on the infrastructure plan, but they still need to solve the fundamental issues about the coverage and payment methods of the package plan. \"I am optimistic, but there is still a big gap between the two sides\".</p><p>She additionally noted a possible bipartisan agreement in Congress on transportation spending. The roughly $300 billion surface transportation bill was introduced a week ago by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which she believes could guide broader infrastructure agreements.</p><p><b>Analysts generally believe that if the negotiations fail, Democrats will try to advance the White House version of the infrastructure bill through the \"budget coordination process\" without the support of the Republican Party.</b></p><p>This only requires a simple majority vote, but it also means that the Senate Democratic Party must stabilize all 50 votes in the party. People familiar with the matter told the media that Democratic senator aides have begun early discussions on how to advance the infrastructure package through the \"budget coordination process\".</p><p>Under the current rules, since the Democratic Party in Congress forcibly passed the Biden administration's $1.9 trillion anti-epidemic relief spending plan through relevant coordination procedures in February this year, exhausting the quota for the 2021 fiscal year ending at the end of September this year, it is expected that After entering the next fiscal year of the U.S. government on October 1 this year, the infrastructure plan is very likely to be implemented again through the \"budget coordination\" mechanism.</p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> source：<a href=\"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3631483\">华尔街见闻</a></p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/017a2d51f9605f643f552ed0e3997176","relate_stocks":{".DJI":"道琼斯"},"source_url":"https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3631483","is_english":false,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2138085173","content_text":"5月27日周四，美国参议院共和党人向白宫提出了一项9280亿美元的基建提案，作为对白宫最新1.7万亿美元基建计划的回应。尽管金额差距缩小，双方在“基建”定义与如何支付方面仍有鸿沟。\n分析称，这一最新提案有助于打破共和党人与拜登政府就基建计划的谈判僵局，此前白宫将下周一（5月31日）阵亡将士纪念日设定为谈判必须取得进展的截止日期。\n同时，9280亿美元规模也比共和党此前提议的五年内支出5680亿美元有所增加，新版计划将在八年内为道路、桥梁、铁路、机场、港口、货运和客运等运输系统、网络宽带、供水等提供资金。\n最新提案建议将5060亿美元用于道路、桥梁和重大基础设施项目，其中有40亿美元用于电动汽车，但不包括拜登政府的优先事项，例如4000亿美元用于家庭医疗保健、1000亿美元用于电动汽车消费者优惠，或用于升级住房和学校的支出等。\n华尔街见闻曾提到，上周五，为博取国会共和党议员的支持，拜登政府作出让步，将原本2.3万亿美元的“天量”基建和就业计划规模压缩至1.7万亿美元，减少乡村宽带和路桥相关投入，将就业计划中的部分拨款转移到其他议案。当时共和党人称，新提议远高于两党支持通过的范畴。\n牵头起草提案的共和党参议员今日重申，他们反对拜登政府拟议用提高公司税来支付基建投资的计划，拜登曾称公司税率应从21%至少提高至25%。共和党人希望将州和地方政府未使用的抗疫救助资金重新分配给基础设施，或者对电动汽车等运输收取使用费来支付账单。\n但国会民主党人势必会反对这样的提议，而且也与拜登对“年收入低于40万美元的个人不会提高税收”承诺相悖，因为电动车使用费或抬高汽油税会给人们带来额外负担。\n国会两党除了在如何支付基建费用方面存在根本性的严重分歧，他们对“基建”的定义也不一样。共和党人要求只有实体的基础设施可被囊括进方案中，民主党则要求纳入“人力基础设施”，即拜登政府计划将资金投入到照顾老年人和残障人士等。\n曾参与竞选美国总统的民主党参议员大佬伊丽莎白·沃伦今日称，共和党人的最新提案“并非一次严肃认真的还价”，“他们对拿走已经承诺用于其他地方和支出项目的钱抱有幻想”。\n共和党参议员Shelley Moore Capito称，共和党人同白宫已经接近就基础设施计划达成协议，但仍需解决有关一揽子计划涵盖范围和支付方式的根本问题，“我很乐观，不过双方设想还有很大差距”。\n她额外指出，国会两党在运输支出方面可能达成协议。一周前参议院环境与公共工程委员会提出了约3000亿美元的地面运输法案，她认为这可以指导更广泛的基础设施协议。\n分析普遍认为，如果谈判失败，民主党人将尝试在没有共和党支持的情况下，通过“预算协调程序”推进白宫版基础设施法案。\n这只需要简单多数投票支持即可，但也代表参议院民主党必须稳住党内所有50张选票。知情人士对媒体称，民主党参议员助手们已经开始就如何通过“预算协调程序”推进一揽子基建计划进行早期讨论。\n在现行规则下，由于今年2月国会民主党已经通过相关协调程序强行通过了拜登政府1.9万亿美元的抗疫纾困支出计划，用完了到今年9月末结束的2021财年配额，因此，预计在今年10月1日进入美国政府下一财年后，基建计划有极大可能再次通过“预算协调”机制落地。","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{".DJI":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1481,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":3,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}