....................

Why are Republicans suddenly excited about Trump's $1 trillion infrastructure plan?

In one of many standing ovations last night, the gathered masses in the U.S. Capitol took to their feet to applaud President Donald Trump's proposed spending on infrastructure.

"

• ur infrastructure at home is crumbling.... To launch our national rebuilding," he said, "I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in the infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital — creating millions of new jobs."
  
  Cheers! Exultations of joy! Finally America will be made great again, as only massive amounts of stimulus spending can make it! It certainly sounds good in a speech, but it's a speech I can't help feeling we've heard before. See if you can remember who said this:
  
  [W]e are remaking the American landscape with the largest new investment in our nation's infrastructure since Eisenhower built an interstate highway system in the 1950s. Because of this investment, nearly 400,000 men and women will go to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges[.]
  
  Give up? It was Barack Obama in 2009 as he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the $787 billion stimulus project that was supposed to create jobs, repair infrastructure, and put America back on its feet.
  
  - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/why-are-republicans-suddenly-excited-about-trumps-1-trillion-infrastructure-plan#sthash.3BjUGgLV.dpuf

A little bit of cheese to throw to the Dems and RINO's, shit can a bunch of useless programs, clear the Govt roles of the dead weight and shuffle the money into something worthwhile. Yeah I think we need some infastructure spending, its better than shipping the money to the middle east or South America or those PLO buzzards, that's where I'd pull the money from.

Start with relief to the states, rolling back unfunded mandates. Each state has its own burdens, there, but giving them back their own money would help tremendously.

Reagan managed it when he ended the cold war and killed off the USSR, leaving Clinton with a whole lot of room to bargain budget wise.
Despite Newt holding Bill's feet to the fire and forcing budget negotiations, they were able to close a shit load of bases at the time.
Difference now is Trump is in the beginning of his term and will be able to reap the benefits of shrinking govt and using a lot of the money for infrastructure repair.

Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2017, 03:34:04 PM
Reagan managed it when he ended the cold war and killed off the USSR, leaving Clinton with a whole lot of room to bargain budget wise.
Despite Newt holding Bill's feet to the fire and forcing budget negotiations, they were able to close a shit load of bases at the time.
Difference now is Trump is in the beginning of his term and will be able to reap the benefits of shrinking govt and using a lot of the money for infrastructure repair.

I am sure Trump can do away with a lot of big slush funds that are in every department that were widely abused during the b o's administration. 

Quote from: walkstall on March 02, 2017, 03:42:11 PM
I am sure Trump can do away with a lot of big slush funds that are in every department that were widely abused during the b o's administration.

Easily, just "Green Energy" alone is close to 210 billion and all that entails.
I expect to see Tesla go belly up soon enough.

The devil will be in the detail. I'll wait to pass judgement.

Quote from: Solar on March 02, 2017, 03:34:04 PM
Reagan managed it when he ended the cold war and killed off the USSR, leaving Clinton with a whole lot of room to bargain budget wise.
Despite Newt holding Bill's feet to the fire and forcing budget negotiations, they were able to close a shit load of bases at the time.
Difference now is Trump is in the beginning of his term and will be able to reap the benefits of shrinking govt and using a lot of the money for infrastructure repair.

What you said about "shrinking government" struck a nerve.

When the Obomination took office in 2008, the national debt stood at roughly $10,700,000,000,000. When Trump took office on Friday, January 20, the national debt was estimated to be roughly $19,970,000,000,000. So, as we've all heard, Obama added about roughly $9.27 Trillion dollars to the deficit which is almost twice what was accumulated under all previous presidents combined ... just short of twice by just $430 Million. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1

So where was all of this going? Well, he built up this massive machine that just burns money at an unprecedented rate.

Now, I estimate that $3.7T went into buying bad securities under the guise of quantitative easing. I would guess that is included in the deficit calculation but don't know for sure. If it is and I understand it right, when the bonds mature the money gets paid back, we can get some, maybe even most, of this back. Maybe even with some minor amount of interest. Hope Trump's administration does this successfully but carefully in the fragile economy.

That leaves about $5.6T unaccounted for. Let me make a gross estimate that of this, BO spent 30% of it on non-continuing initiatives and the other 70% on continuing initiatives where a non-continuing initiative would be something like the census jobs he "created" (fake jobs that made no return and dissapeared) and a continuing initiative is one where the funds are still being spent like more government agencies and the hordes hired for the fake ACA (Obamacare) jobs. This 70 / 30 split are numbers I made up for sake of the discussion - if it matters to tighten up the values then maybe a few of us can dig deeper.

So, under these numbers, that would mean that about 5.6T * 0.7 = 3.9T rate over some time-frame is still being spent while we sleep. There is a chart on http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/author/admin/ that shows the debt by presidential administration. BO's debt wasn't rising uniformly. So average it over four years identifies that we have an additional spend rate ongoing of about $1.0T per year now compared to the pre-BO years.

If we're to get back to the level of debt before BO, not only do we have to recover the QE money and cut government to the tune of $1.0T per year that's still going on now, then we have to somehow collect another $9.27T to get back to where we started. That's such a deep hole.

Now, here is the main point: Shrinking government is important from several viewpoint but it's a small part of the current financial equation. I'd like to emphasize the magnitude of the problem that BO has caused. So we all know that the cuts in government have to be deep to move our economy back toward pre-BO levels. If we roll back all the government growth, we'll maybe stop about $1.0T per year as estimated above. But the cuts in government should NOT be interpreted as monies freed up to put into other projects. I sense that some feel that the government cuts will free up money to pay for stuff like additional military spending. It's not true if we want to move back toward being fiscally responsible - ok, less irresponsible as we were before BO.

Fortunately, President Trump seems to admit he sees this from what I'm hearing. I haven't heard him being explicit about it by setting any targets of where he intends to try and take our deficit situation. But he has said repeatedly things like the fact he will bring back our companies and our workers so that we produce again. The GDP was roughly $18.6T in 2016. If Trump's programs succeed in pulling in a GDP increase of 10% (2016 increase was 1.9%), his initiatives would bring about $1.9T dollars. The 9.27T hole that BO made would take about five years to fill.

To make up for BO's sins, we have to get smarter about how we use the funds that were being spent in a pre-BO era. For example, it has been identified that the border wall will pay for itself by the reduced cost on processing (and reprocessing) illegals plus reduce the cost on the war on drugs, human trafficking, and other illegal activities from down south. That's the philosophy I hope to see in the emerging budgets. But I have no idea, for example, where $1T of infrastructure spending can come from? Or another $56B of military spending can come from. There will be more taxes paid when there is more US work. A flat tax may also help find the dead beats and maybe raise additional capital to fund some of his initiatives. It will be very interesting to see Trump's budget and how he addresses the deficit along with it.

BO just blew so much money and we now have such a mess to clean up now - we're living in the refuse of his legacy. In 100 years, when people look back, I hope they see that they're still paying for his reckless, destructive, Marxist philosophy. I pray that Trump's nationalist policies can fill the hole.

Just one area that needs to be added when we're looking at the overall effects of pruning back government and the effects of Obama's overt Marxism: GDP. Basic principle: a healthy economy needs less welfare programs and at the same time generates higher total revenues, even at lower, more business friendly tax rates.

Of course, Obama made damned sure we had anything but a healthy economy. We'll have to wait and see what all Trump has in mind to get it growing again. Cut regulations, cut taxes and fees, opening federal lands to natural resource development, the end of Obama Care - we may not need protectionist policies to bring business and manufacturing back to our shores.

Quote from: topside on March 02, 2017, 09:03:11 PM
What you said about "shrinking government" struck a nerve.

When the Obomination took office in 2008, the national debt stood at roughly $10,700,000,000,000. When Trump took office on Friday, January 20, the national debt was estimated to be roughly $19,970,000,000,000. So, as we've all heard, Obama added about roughly $9.27 Trillion dollars to the deficit which is almost twice what was accumulated under all previous presidents combined ... just short of twice by just $430 Million. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/national-debt-deficit-added-under-president-barack-obama-2017-1

So where was all of this going? Well, he built up this massive machine that just burns money at an unprecedented rate.

Now, I estimate that $3.7T went into buying bad securities under the guise of quantitative easing. I would guess that is included in the deficit calculation but don't know for sure. If it is and I understand it right, when the bonds mature the money gets paid back, we can get some, maybe even most, of this back. Maybe even with some minor amount of interest. Hope Trump's administration does this successfully but carefully in the fragile economy.

That money is gone, it was used to pay interest on the debt, essentially rob Paul to pay Peter., assuming I'm following you correctly here.

QuoteThat leaves about $5.6T unaccounted for. Let me make a gross estimate that of this, BO spent 30% of it on non-continuing initiatives and the other 70% on continuing initiatives where a non-continuing initiative would be something like the census jobs he "created" (fake jobs that made no return and dissapeared) and a continuing initiative is one where the funds are still being spent like more government agencies and the hordes hired for the fake ACA (Obamacare) jobs. This 70 / 30 split are numbers I made up for sake of the discussion - if it matters to tighten up the values then maybe a few of us can dig deeper.

Gone, paid off his crony friends and lined the pockets of likeminded Marxists.

QuoteSo, under these numbers, that would mean that about 5.6T * 0.7 = 3.9T rate over some time-frame is still being spent while we sleep. There is a chart on http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/author/admin/ that shows the debt by presidential administration. BO's debt wasn't rising uniformly. So average it over four years identifies that we have an additional spend rate ongoing of about $1.0T per year now compared to the pre-BO years.

Part of Qe-Infinity was to pay off debt loans to Chinese as well as Americans that invested via Wall st, not real investments persay, because the return was based on FIAT returns, in other words, as long as the country printed money backed by nothing, people got paid.
What really occurred was inflation a weakened dollar and an ever increasing debt.
Again, he spent money we didn't have, it's gone, there is no way to recover it or write it off or cash it in, it's akin to buying last week's lottery ticket after the numbers had already been read.

QuoteIf we're to get back to the level of debt before BO, not only do we have to recover the QE money and cut government to the tune of $1.0T per year that's still going on now, then we have to somehow collect another $9.27T to get back to where we started. That's such a deep hole.

Ninety-five % of that money is gone, all we can do now is slash spending, something the Marxists counted on.
They gave away money to get people addicted to govt handouts, made a regular income they could count on when he killed off half the workforce with Commie care, they never got off their asses to find work and now they'll be angry at Trump when he cuts their food stamps off and they don't have enough for rent and cable both, Heaven forbid they have to sacrifice a lifestyle they became accustomed too, thanks to Marxists.

QuoteNow, here is the main point: Shrinking government is important from several viewpoint but it's a small part of the current financial equation. I'd like to emphasize the magnitude of the problem that BO has caused. So we all know that the cuts in government have to be deep to move our economy back toward pre-BO levels. If we roll back all the government growth, we'll maybe stop about $1.0T per year as estimated above. But the cuts in government should NOT be interpreted as monies freed up to put into other projects. I sense that some feel that the government cuts will free up money to pay for stuff like additional military spending. It's not true if we want to move back toward being fiscally responsible - ok, less irresponsible as we were before BO.

That was always part of the Marxists plan, to literally reshape America, make so diffrerent in dependency that any change will appear drastic and harmful to a new American economy, one based upon dependency.

QuoteFortunately, President Trump seems to admit he sees this from what I'm hearing. I haven't heard him being explicit about it by setting any targets of where he intends to try and take our deficit situation. But he has said repeatedly things like the fact he will bring back our companies and our workers so that we produce again. The GDP was roughly $18.6T in 2016. If Trump's programs succeed in pulling in a GDP increase of 10% (2016 increase was 1.9%), his initiatives would bring about $1.9T dollars. The 9.27T hole that BO made would take about five years to fill.

Agree, it's the big gamble on the economy in risking how the rest of the world will view this move.
Personally, I think he'll succeed beyond anyone's expectations because once he changes the rules, the move will snowball, be a bit self feeding, creating a wave of business returning.
I believe if he can pull this off, he'll be remembered as one, if not the greatest POTUS of the 21st century. (assuming the GOP doesn't fight him)

QuoteTo make up for BO's sins, we have to get smarter about how we use the funds that were being spent in a pre-BO era. For example, it has been identified that the border wall will pay for itself by the reduced cost on processing (and reprocessing) illegals plus reduce the cost on the war on drugs, human trafficking, and other illegal activities from down south. That's the philosophy I hope to see in the emerging budgets. But I have no idea, for example, where $1T of infrastructure spending can come from? Or another $56B of military spending can come from. There will be more taxes paid when there is more US work. A flat tax may also help find the dead beats and maybe raise additional capital to fund some of his initiatives. It will be very interesting to see Trump's budget and how he addresses the deficit along with it.

I think this is an area Conservatives are not going to be happy with, but Marxist RINO and dims will love, spending and growing new govt.
The trick for Trump is to find some kind of balance so as not to piss off the base yet keep his campaign promises.
The base doesn't care if we pay for it or not, we bit that bullet decades ago when we demanded a fence be built and the GOP funded before they stole the funds to line their own pockets.

QuoteBO just blew so much money and we now have such a mess to clean up now - we're living in the refuse of his legacy. In 100 years, when people look back, I hope they see that they're still paying for his reckless, destructive, Marxist philosophy. I pray that Trump's nationalist policies can fill the hole.

It all depends on who wins the war, writes the history books.