Infrastructure Bill

Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
The plan calls for investing $200 billion in federal money over the coming decade to entice other levels of government and the private sector to raise their spending on infrastructure by more than $1 trillion to hit the administration's goal of $1.5 trillion in new funding over 10 years. It also seeks to dramatically reduce the time required to obtain environmental permits for such projects.

White House aides say Trump is open to a new source of funding to cover the federal share — such as raising the federal gas tax for the first time since 1993 — but Congress will have to make such decisions.
Click to expand...

For now, the White House is suggesting that lawmakers cut money from elsewhere in the budget, including some existing infrastructure programs. That prospect seems unlikely given that Congress just last week reached a bipartisan deal to spend significantly more funds over the coming two years.
Click to expand...

Of the proposed $200 billion in federal spending over the coming decade, half of it would be used to create an incentives program to reward states and localities that invest more in infrastructure projects. The money would be doled out on a competitive basis, with awards that amount to up to 20 percent of a project's cost, aides said.
Click to expand...

Another $50 billion would be directed to rural infrastructure programs, distributed to governors through block grants. That's in keeping with what White House aides say is a broader philosophical shift to give states and localities a greater say in their infrastructure priorities than the federal government.

Another $20 billion would be spent on "transformative" projects, such as plans to build tunnels for high-speed trains.

The remaining $30 billion would be used to significantly expand loan programs, for private activity bonds and for a capital financing fund. Those provisions are likely to draw more support.
Click to expand...

In private meetings, Trump has mused about raising the gas tax as a means to generate more revenue for infrastructure projects.

The gas tax has been the same - 18.4 cents a gallon - since 1993. Many think tanks and expert studies have recommended raising it to fund road and bridge repairs.

Last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called for a 25-cent-per-gallon increase, which it said would raise more than $375 billion over the coming decade.
Click to expand...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...trump-infrastructure-plan-20180211-story.html
 
S

Starman

New Member
So a $200b plan with the rest to be made up from thin air (aka states and localities).

What a fecking grifter.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Where would states get this money, is my question. It's my understanding states earmark transportation projects throughout the year based on a budget set forth with money received from gas taxes and the federal govt. If the feds want more projects on top of that, states will need to come up with more money, which will liekly mean higher taxes for some.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
Where would states get this money, is my question. It's my understanding states earmark transportation projects throughout the year based on a budget set forth with money received from gas taxes and the federal govt. If the feds want more projects on top of that, states will need to come up with more money, which will liekly mean higher taxes for some.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The shift back to rightful authority of the states will HAVE to come from states raising taxes and the federal (in the long run) getting out of States' businesses.
 
Chris0nllyn

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Exactly.

The shift back to rightful authority of the states will HAVE to come from states raising taxes and the federal (in the long run) getting out of States' businesses.
Click to expand...

As it should be, I agree. I was just hoping to hang on to my tax decreases a little longer. :lol:
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
As it should be, I agree. I was just hoping to hang on to my tax decreases a little longer. :lol:
Click to expand...

Someone has to pay back the $10T borrowed by the first 42 presidents, and the $10T borrowed by the 43rd president. And, now the $1T borrowed by president #45, the 44th president.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Chris0nllyn said:
Why? Nothing points to govt. spending less. I agree that's how things should work, but we're talking about the govt. here.
Click to expand...

On this we greatly agree. I was referring to some of these plans. "$1.5 Trillion deal" the headlines all shout, but the print shows it is a $200B deal spread out over 10 years. In another thread, Trump is blamed for trying to starve poor people because he wants to give them food in an efficient manner, limiting waste, fraud, and abuse. These all seem like small, seemingly insignificant steps towards modifying the culture to accept that the states and not the federal government are actually responsible to do more. As Obama found out, the ship of state is VERY difficult to steer, and changing course takes multiple administrations - generations - to accomplish.
 
S

Starman

New Member
This_person said:
Someone has to pay back the $10T borrowed by the first 42 presidents, and the $10T borrowed by the 43rd president. And, now the $1T borrowed by president #45, the 44th president.
Click to expand...

This is just silly.

Our government is run by borrowing money, with interest, from a private banking system.

As long as that is the case, the debt can literally never be paid off.

How much is too much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top