Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Plan

[Kuzcotopia]

Senate democrats are close to unveiling a plan for a much needed trillion dollar update to our crumbling infrastructure. Several bills were introduced during the Obama administration, but were consistently blocked by republicans in the House.

Senate democrats have stated their full support of Trump with his campaign promise to revive US infrastructure, and hope this bill can get passed quickly.

It's a win-win in my book, and I can't imagine why Republican led congress would block Trump this early in his administration. . . Or would they?

Do you agree with both Trump and Senate Democrats that we need this infrastructure bill?

Senate Democrats unveil a Trump-size infrastructure plan

 

[Quetzal]

Senate democrats are close to unveiling a plan for a much needed trillion dollar update to our crumbling infrastructure. Several bills were introduced during the Obama administration, but were consistently blocked by republicans in the House.

Senate democrats have stated their full support of Trump with his campaign promise to revive US infrastructure, and hope this bill can get passed quickly.

It's a win-win in my book, and I can't imagine why Republican led congress would block Trump this early in his administration. . . Or would they?

Do you agree with both Trump and Senate Democrats that we need this infrastructure bill?

Senate Democrats unveil a Trump-size infrastructure plan

I think this is a wonderful idea. They just need to figure out how to pay for it. That is always the tricky part.

 

[buddhist]

Take it back from the bankers. If they're doing god's work, then they shouldn't need our money.

 

[tytlyf]

I think this is a wonderful idea. They just need to figure out how to pay for it. That is always the tricky part.

Not really tricky, democrats will close loopholes and raise taxes on the top 1%. They don't even pay their fair share to begin with. Another good idea would be to start taxing the churches.

 

[Revoltingest]

Senate democrats are close to unveiling a plan for a much needed trillion dollar update to our crumbling infrastructure. Several bills were introduced during the Obama administration, but were consistently blocked by republicans in the House.

Senate democrats have stated their full support of Trump with his campaign promise to revive US infrastructure, and hope this bill can get passed quickly.

It's a win-win in my book, and I can't imagine why Republican led congress would block Trump this early in his administration. . . Or would they?

Do you agree with both Trump and Senate Democrats that we need this infrastructure bill?

Senate Democrats unveil a Trump-size infrastructure plan

I see a cloud around this silver lining.....
That amount of spending will be impossible to manage well.
I expect a large portion would be wasted on pork.
(Not the good kind of pork.)

 

[Quetzal]

Not really tricky, democrats will close loopholes and raise taxes on the top 1%.

Source?

 

[Altfish]

Another good idea would be to start taxing the churches.

That'd solve a lot of funding short falls.
It should be a no-brainer

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I see a cloud around this silver lining.....
That amount of spending will be impossible to manage well.
I expect a large portion would be wasted on pork.
(Not the good kind of pork.)

I'm sure there's a pig farmer in Iowa who needs an updated bridge somewhere . . . That's pork pork.

Well, the ban on earmarks and public scrutiny over pork has solve a lot of that problem in the last five years.

I think some is inevitable. I'm okay with it, as it's part of a larger compromise.

It's like saying that since the NBA should be disbanded because referees sometimes fail to call 3 seconds on the offense.

I won't agree with all the plan's spending. Absolutely no one will. . . Which is why it might be a good bipartisan action.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Not really tricky, democrats will close loopholes and raise taxes on the top 1%. They don't even pay their fair share to begin with. Another good idea would be to start taxing the churches.

I wish. I think the religious influence in the US is still massive. Both sides of aisle still have to pander to it constantly.

We aren't anywhere close to the point where this would be feasbale to pass as a law yet, but we can still dream.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

If funding is a controversy, I like to think of it like this:

We've spend 2.5 trillion on the Iraq war alone. The primary action of thst 2.5 billion is to pay personal and buy/develop resources to tear stuff down. Trump agrees. . . He was always against the Iraq war. . .

Now a proposal to spend 1 trillion. . . And it's only outcome is to build stuff up. Trump agrees. His campaign promise was all about this.

Morally, this is a no-brainer to me, to Trump, to Dems, and to everyone. Who's going to stop it?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How did the infrastructure get into such a state in the first place?

I would not allow any expenditure on infrastructure unless there was a lock down plan in place to fund its up keep and maintenance.
It would be like giving a some one a horse who would not feed it. It would not survive long.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I wish. I think the religious influence in the US is still massive. Both sides of aisle still have to pander to it constantly.

We aren't anywhere close to the point where this would be feasbale to pass as a law yet, but we can still dream.

Religious power comes from People, not churches. Religious beliefs and ethos are enforced by people pressure. Almost no other western country still has this tie up with politics. (except perhaps Poland)

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure there's a pig farmer in Iowa who needs an updated bridge somewhere . . . That's pork pork.

Well, the ban on earmarks and public scrutiny over pork has solve a lot of that problem in the last five years.

I think some is inevitable. I'm okay with it, as it's part of a larger compromise.

It's like saying that since the NBA should be disbanded because referees sometimes fail to call 3 seconds on the offense.

I won't agree with all the plan's spending. Absolutely no one will. . . Which is why it might be a good bipartisan action.

Well, I don't say we shouldn't spend money on infrastructure just because incompetence & corruption will
bleed off some. Just that the proposed amount had better be spent over a manageable amount of time.

 

[Quetzal]

Well, I don't say we shouldn't spend money on infrastructure just because incompetence & corruption will
bleed off some. Just that the proposed amount had better be spent over a manageable amount of time.

I wonder how they will dictate priorities in how these funds are spent?

 

[esmith]

I wonder how they will dictate priorities in how these funds are spent?

With a lot of bureaucratic wrangling.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

With a lot of bureaucratic wrangling.

Definitely. Hashing out how this money will be used is a fine argument that will probably take half a year.

Nobody will be happy, which will be a great sign of actual bipartisan compromise.

 

[Milton Platt]

Senate democrats are close to unveiling a plan for a much needed trillion dollar update to our crumbling infrastructure. Several bills were introduced during the Obama administration, but were consistently blocked by republicans in the House.

Senate democrats have stated their full support of Trump with his campaign promise to revive US infrastructure, and hope this bill can get passed quickly.

It's a win-win in my book, and I can't imagine why Republican led congress would block Trump this early in his administration. . . Or would they?

Do you agree with both Trump and Senate Democrats that we need this infrastructure bill?

Senate Democrats unveil a Trump-size infrastructure plan

Can't argue against the need to maintain infrastructure, but you can argue against going into even more debt to do it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Almost no other western country still has this tie up with politics.

Tax exemption is a disentanglement from government and politics. Also, many western countries have far greater ties between the state and church, including church taxes and state funding of official religions.

Quite frankly, I am amused by the shortsightedness of leftists who want to begin the process of tearing down the wall between church and state. They want to use the government to hurt religions through taxation, but don't realize how they would open Pandora's Box. Where do you think that will lead in our country? Less religion? Ha. You'll see church subsidies well beyond situations such as the agriculture subsidy before you see any additional monies from taxed churches. Would you be okay with a 20B a year religious subsidy(what the agriculture subsidy is)? How about 40 or 100?

Personally, as someone who supports the spirit of Americanism, I like our wall. The state neither shuts down nor keeps open churches, it neither levies taxes nor grants monies. That is the way it should stay.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, as someone who supports the spirit of Americanism, I like our wall. The state neither shuts down nor keeps open churches, it neither levies taxes nor grants monies. That is the way it should stay.

What about the granting of services to churches for free (paid for
by property taxes of others), eg, road maintenance, firemen?

 

[Mister Emu]

What about the granting of services to churches for free (paid for
by property taxes of others), eg, road maintenance, firemen?

There is an over-riding public good in providing things like fire and police services and maintaining the methods of access for those services.