Trumps Infrastructure plan Good or Bad

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by 10GAGENUT, Feb 13, 2018.

  1. 10GAGENUT

    10GAGENUT Elite Refuge Member Sponsor Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    12,932
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Location:
    JeffcoMO
    My thoughts at first are $1.5 Trillion is a lot of money, then again I'd rather we be in debt fixing our roads and bridges in this country than wasting money trying to bring peace and prosperity to a world that doesn't appreciate it.
    What say you
     
    Bear, yellowlab03 and hartfish like this.
  2. buck_master_2001

    buck_master_2001 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,723
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2000
    Location:
    Southern Mitten
    Isn’t he only planning on spending $200 billion? The rest would come by the states and private industry? I don’t believe the private industry should be involved determining what roads get built. They have an obligation to make a profit. Which is fine in business but not when it comes to public service. That’s just my opinion.

    I am against it solely because my state already increased the price of registration and our gas tax for road funding. So we have what we need. This plan would call for states to shoulder more of the burden and raise our taxes even more. Hell no. No. Roads and infrastructure is what our taxes should be going towards anyways.
     
  3. Ducker 4 Ever

    Ducker 4 Ever Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,689
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2000
    Location:
    MN, USA
    Give me a second to predict the PAF responses...

    Obama infrastructure money - bad.
    Trump infrastructure money - good.

    Thank you.
     
    hobbydog and hartfish like this.
  4. Lip Shooter

    Lip Shooter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,588
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2014
    Location:
    Bottom of the Slough
    I agree but we have to quit being world peace makers, put our budget money here instead of all that wasteful crap Rand Paul was pointing out. Natural gas station in Afghanistan with no natural gas cars in the country to lower our carbon foot print over there ...............
     
    widgeon likes this.
  5. widgeon

    widgeon Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,064
    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ga
    Like most things, if we choose to not fix our infrastructure, we'll pay for it down the road.

    Fell free to use this poetic statement
     
    Bear likes this.
  6. 10GAGENUT

    10GAGENUT Elite Refuge Member Sponsor Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    12,932
    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2003
    Location:
    JeffcoMO
    Granted Obama was left with a mess by the Bush - Cheney profiteer campaign, however he did little to nothing to clean it up and left Trump with just as a big a mess. Trump is at least trying to get the mess under control with little help from his own party and a Democratic party who think of themselves first and their constituent's second.
     
    ALMODUX likes this.
  7. ALMODUX

    ALMODUX Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    18,441
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Location:
    Alabama
    Actually, we have evidence supporting th first premise: Obama’s infrastructure spending vs existing infrastructure 8 years later.

    At least Trump has laid out SOME public plan for the expenditure.
     
  8. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    14,939
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    I haven't looked at it nor will I, Pres budgets are always wish lists intended to show red meat to the base. There was a time when they mattered but that went out the window under GW and was killed under Obama when his party chose not to even bother with a budget from the House an Senate.
    So we will see as we go if Trumps budget matters as a plan for where priority spending goes. We shall see if things go back to what a Pres budget once was or if it continues as they have been!

    If you are asking if the idea of improving our roads and bridges are worthy of consideration I would say always. We have a lot of bridges that are in very bad shape for the traffic they handle.

    But the Feds programs are a problem in regards to implementing and assigning spending in that it lacks flexibility and common sense like so many other programs.
    Most of us never look into this, but as a result of where I live the past 15 years I have seen this occur over and over! Projects are submitted by local and states for consideration of funding with dollars from the Feds. Cities for example put in requests based on future plans of growth. They will get approved, but maybe wont get the funds on approval. At a later date they may receive that funding then they have a window in which to start the project to receive the Fed dollars and if they don't they lose those dollars as they cant be moved to another project.

    What many cities do is build projects that no longer make sense or where because of growth changes or other things infrastructure needs make more sense. The money cant be re-assigned. More flexibility to move some of that money would save dollars all the way around. My neighborhood has seen a huge increase in building and expansion once sewer and water was brought into an area as a result of another city contracting with Fargo to handle waste and drinking water. This area was never expected to develop this soon. So little in the way of streets and interstate access on and off had been planned.

    However the old growth plan had an underpass being put in that no longer made any sense as land use to the area the underpass would serve changed from commercial to residential use. However our city tried to go ahead with the underpass in order to not lose the fed dollars. The people who where to be taxed with specials to pay for the cities share stood up and said NO!

    Having more flexible use of the dollars would make more sense that they could have moved that funding to the same area and built the needed infrastructure at that time. Instead they had to wait another 5 years with added costs thus block grant funding would go a long way to allow for more flexibility. Instead by not using it that funding return actually hurts them in securing future funding.

    This was just one example but we had others similar. Next is the lack of coordination of Fed programs as well. Cities where given money and grants to increase access to high speed internet that included fiber optic cable installation. Again deadline for use forced cities to install this when a year or two later areas of street and sewer improvements where on deck to be done. Savings of doing the fiber cable at that time would have been huge. But rules and restrictions without common sense application rules.

    These are not one party over the other but a fundamental example of why spending and such is so out of control and in need of an overhaul. But we get to caught up in party vs party and neither wants to give the other side any advantage and we don't see people from across the aisle come together on issues like this.

    So bang away over the spending all you want the focus should be in pushing for common sense applications from the Feds and if your state or local municipality is inept well then that is a separate issue!
     
  9. Boomn4x4

    Boomn4x4 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,006
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
    Our whole infrastructure needs to be reevaluated. Its archaic in design. Our population is continuing to grow and our metropolitan arteries cannot be expanded any more. In 50 years, the traffic problems you see in the places like Atlanta, LA, and Baltimore/DC are going to be the norm. We are going to need to eventually break the paradigm where everyone over the age of 16 has their own car. High speed and easily accessable mass transit along with ride sharing services need to be expanded. That's where our focus should be. We need to address and fix the problems, not just paint over them.
     
  10. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    14,939
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    You think so?? Spoken like a true liberal! To make it work you have to restrict where people live and also create places for them to work. To do that would require a complete redesign of most major cities!

    Again the inept belief that if you build it they will come! Amtrack anyone!! Light Rail in MN and CA anyone????? Cars are going to remain and need to deal with them will remain.
     

Share This Page