GOP Backing Trump's $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan — For Now

[mystery-ak]

Newsmax
GOP Backing Trump's $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan — For Now
Thursday, November 17, 2016 07:42 AM

By: Jeffrey Rodack

Congressional Republicans are backing President-elect Donald Trump's $1 trillion proposal to improve America's infrastructure. But they warn support from conservatives still depends on how the plan is paid for and whether it includes other GOP priorities, The Hill reports.

"There's an interest among our members, frankly, on both sides, in doing something on infrastructure," Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, told reporters.

"But my guess is, if that gets done, it probably hitches a ride on tax reform. I don't know that just an infrastructure bill on its own, as a stand-alone, would go anywhere."

Trump has not yet announced details of the proposal, which calls for $550 billion worth of infrastructure investment paid for by bonds, as well as a $1 trillion package financed by tax credits to private investors, according to The Hill.

"We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals," Trump announced on election night.

Steve Mnuchin, who is considered a candidate for Treasury secretary, said Trump was exploring creating an infrastructure bank — an idea the president-elect had opposed in the past.

New York Magazine reports infrastructure banks would help fund projects via long-term bonds.

It added Trump's plan involved no direct federal spending but is designed to inspire private investment by offering federal tax breaks to prospective investors.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/GOP-backs-trump-trillion/2016/11/17/id/759359/

[Night Hides Not]

Perfect! Drain the swamp by adding at least $500 billion in pork. 

[Hoodat]

GOP Backing Trump's $1 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

The real Democrats will be backing it as well.  Trump plans to out-Obama Obama.

[txradioguy]

Until Obama...the most profligate spending President was Bush #43.

BHO surpassed him.

Now it seems like Donny wants to top the both of them.

[Oceander]

Another $1 trillion wasted on "stimulus ".  Didn't we learn anything from Obama's waste of $1 trillion back in 2009?

[txradioguy]

Another $1 trillion wasted on "stimulus ".  Didn't we learn anything from Obama's waste of $1 trillion back in 2009?

No we didn't.  That particular "stimulus" deal is now a permanent part of the budget every year.

[Night Hides Not]

No we didn't.  That particular "stimulus" deal is now a permanent part of the budget every year.

No lie, if a perpetual $400+ billion deficit each year isn't "stimulus", then what the hell is it?

[corbe]

  I can see the NY/NJ Mob is gonna make a financial comeback.

[Night Hides Not]

  I can see the NY/NJ Mob is gonna make a financial comeback.

It appears that the New Jersey family known as the "Christie Family" suffered the same fate as the Barzini and Tattalgia families.  lol

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The massive, $800B Obama stimulus was not focused on infrastructure.  Only about $50B went towards things that actually needed it like roads and bridges.  Most of it went towards bailing out state governments so they wouldn't have to cut the salaries of public employee union members, and similar things.  In fact, the Senate Republicans actually offered a proposal to double the amount spent on actual infrastructure, and spend less on leftist giveaways, but were shot down.

Unless you're a radical libertarian, maintaining things like roads and bridges are a legitimate function of the government.  So if some additional spending is sent in that direction, I'm keeping an open mind on it.  Of course, that also depends on what happens with spending elsewhere in the budget so we don't blow the deficit wide open.

[Frank Cannon]

The massive, $800B Obama stimulus was not focused on infrastructure.  Only about $50B went towards things that actually needed it like roads and bridges.  Most of it went towards bailing out state governments so they wouldn't have to cut the salaries of public employee union members, and similar things.  In fact, the Senate Republicans actually offered a proposal to double the amount spent on actual infrastructure, and spend less on leftist giveaways, but were shot down.

Unless you're a radical libertarian, maintaining things like roads and bridges are a legitimate function of the government.  So if some additional spending is sent in that direction, I'm keeping an open mind on it.  Of course, that also depends on what happens with spending elsewhere in the budget so we don't blow the deficit wide open.

Where the hell are all these deaths and injuries from infrastructure collapsing?

Also states are taxing the hell out of people to pay for these things. Secondly, if you think a fraction of the Donny Money is going to make it to these projects you're nuts. Finally we do not have any money to piss away on this bullshit that is already funded.

[LMAO]

 I'm not opposed to spending money on things like roads and bridges. The problem is Infrastructure spending is the excuse used to create  make  jobs programs. And then there's the issue of how it will be paid for, of course, without expanding the deficit and growing the debt.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Where the hell are all these deaths and injuries from infrastructure collapsing?

You think we should wait until bridges actually collapse before fixing them?  I can tell you that there were some chunks of concrete falling off the underside of a crappy bridge onto the road below in Cleveland before they started fixing it.  Wouldn't have wanted to get hit by one of those.  or drive on that bridge anymore, for that matter.  And it was a major artery.

Secondly, if you think a fraction of the Donny Money is going to make it to these projects you're nuts. Finally we do not have any money to piss away on this bullshit that is already funded.

Well, I don't know exactly what he's going to do.  That's why I specifically said "I'm keeping an open mind on it."  If you prefer to have a closed mind before you actually know anything, that's your prerogative.

I was simply pointing out that the idea Obama spent all that money on "infrastructure"  was a gigantic lie.  I'm not a civil/structural/electrical engineer, so I don't profess to know the condition of our infrastructure.

[Cripplecreek]

The real Democrats will be backing it as well.  Trump plans to out-Obama Obama.

Meaning he WILL get it.

[INVAR]

Oh goodie - because this nation is not broke and in debt enough already.

This is all NY Liberal Democrats know how to do: spend everyone else's money and reward their cronies.

[Hoodat]

So if some additional spending is sent in that direction, I'm keeping an open mind on it. 

Also keep an open mind to expanding the money supply by $1 trillion, thus stealing value from everyone who works for a paycheck.  This means that everyone who works for a paycheck will have less purchasing power, resulting in less economic activity.  But hey, government knows best, right?  Besides, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

[Cripplecreek]

Oh goodie - because this nation is not broke and in debt enough already.

This is all NY Liberal Democrats know how to do: spend everyone else's money and reward their cronies.

Sounds like his plans for military rebuilding are just as big. I don't know what kind of magic he intends to conjure up to pay for it all.

[INVAR]

Sounds like his plans for military rebuilding are just as big. I don't know what kind of magic he intends to conjure up to pay for it all.

Why - tariffs and punishing companies that don't 'make their crap here' of course.

For starters.

[Cripplecreek]

Why - tariffs and punishing companies that don't 'make their crap here' of course.

For starters.

The sad part is that we do need to rebuild our infrastructure and military but its time to recoup some of the trillions we've already paid for these things, not time to spend trillions more.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Also keep an open mind to expanding the money supply by $1 trillion, thus stealing value from everyone who works for a paycheck.  This means that everyone who works for a paycheck will have less purchasing power, resulting in less economic activity.  But hey, government knows best, right?  Besides, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Ugh...

Okay, do you disagree with the proposition that maintenance of roads and bridges is a legitimate function of government?  If you do, then that's fine.  We have a baseline disagreement and there's no where to go.

But otherwise, just because we waste a crapload of money on other things does not mean that every dollar we spend is wasted.  Eliminate the green energy and ObamaCare subsidies.  Cut foreign aid.  Take some of the money you spent on those things and fix up some roads and bridges.  Is that really so objectionable?

Again, I don't see the logic in getting outraged before you actually know what is being proposed, and how they plan on paying for it.  Why not hold the outrage until you get some actual facts?  I mean, I have absolutely zero faith on Trump when it comes to budget issues, but I do think Pence and Ryan care.  So before panicking at something in which they are involved, I'd like to see the proposal first.

[Frank Cannon]

You think we should wait until bridges actually collapse before fixing them?  I can tell you that there were some chunks of concrete falling off the underside of a crappy bridge onto the road below in Cleveland before they started fixing it.  Wouldn't have wanted to get hit by one of those.  or drive on that bridge anymore, for that matter.  And it was a major artery.

Well then it looks like Ohio needs to start taxing the shit out of their people like we are in PA to fix their own stuff. I do not want to be stuck with their bill.

Well, I don't know exactly what he's going to do.  That's why I specifically said "I'm keeping an open mind on it."  If you prefer to have a closed mind before you actually know anything, that's your prerogative.

I was simply pointing out that the idea Obama spent all that money on "infrastructure"  was a gigantic lie.  I'm not a civil/structural/electrical engineer, so I don't profess to know the condition of our infrastructure.

Judging by states budgets on fixing this stuff and the amount of repairs I see going on everywhere all the time, I do not see this Donny plan as anything other than another stimulus boondoggle. I also know that he has stated that his plan is to spend us into oblivion and then default. Whant to know what that looks like? See whats happening in India right now....

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-16/stunning-scenes-panic-gold-price-skyrockets-india-after-currency-ban

[Cripplecreek]

Well then it looks like Ohio needs to start taxing the shit out of their people like we are in PA to fix their own stuff. I do not want to be stuck with their bill.

Works for me and while we're talking about the states taking care of their own I think we should look at FEMA costs vs spending.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Well then it looks like Ohio needs to start taxing the shit out of their people like we are in PA to fix their own stuff. I do not want to be stuck with their bill.

That's fine.  If your position is that the federal government has no business building and maintaining an interstate highway system, then discussing whether more or less should be spent is not even relevant since you believe the amount should be zero.

[txradioguy]

The massive, $800B Obama stimulus was not focused on infrastructure.  Only about $50B went towards things that actually needed it like roads and bridges.  Most of it went towards bailing out state governments so they wouldn't have to cut the salaries of public employee union members, and similar things.  In fact, the Senate Republicans actually offered a proposal to double the amount spent on actual infrastructure, and spend less on leftist giveaways, but were shot down.

The entire package was sold as money for "shovel ready" jobs.  The only thing that got shoveled was a lot of BS by BHO in regards to what the money was used for...which was primarily a discretionary slush fund for the POTUS.

And now that "stimulus" is baked into the budget every year.  It wasn't a one time thing.  That $800B is now a permanent part of the budget.

Unless you're a radical libertarian, maintaining things like roads and bridges are a legitimate function of the government.  So if some additional spending is sent in that direction, I'm keeping an open mind on it.  Of course, that also depends on what happens with spending elsewhere in the budget so we don't blow the deficit wide open.

If as you claim $50B went to this mythical infrastructure construction...how come we're STILL being told our bridges and roadways are in a sorry state of repair and even MORE money is needed yesterday before we have a major crisis?

And I hate to break it to you...the deficit IS blown wide open...it has been for years.  Exacerbated by 8 years of last second spending bills to keep the government afloat and kick the can down the proverbial road. 

The last budget that was passed and put into law by Congress was the last one GWB submitted for FY 2009.

[Night Hides Not]

Sounds like his plans for military rebuilding are just as big. I don't know what kind of magic he intends to conjure up to pay for it all.

I would hope that reform in government contracting is included with any increases in military spending.   

We can dream, can't we?