• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Behind Hillary Clinton’s $250 Billion Infrastructure Plan

David_N

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
6,562
Reaction score
2,769
Location
The United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm liking the looks of this.
Behind Hillary Clinton's $250 Billion Infrastructure Plan | ThinkProgress
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced on Monday her plan to spend $250 billion over five years to improve the nation’s infrastructure, a plan that could create 3.25 million jobs, according to government projections.
The plan — which includes proposals to improve roads and bridges, transit systems, energy systems, and electric grids — is the first phase of Clinton’s month-long focus on jobs. In addition to a $250 billion federal investment, her plan calls for establishing a $25 billion national infrastructure bank to encourage private investments. The campaign said the proposals will be paid for through business tax reforms.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers has estimated that every $1 billion in infrastructure investment creates 13,000 jobs. And a report by Standard & Poors last year found that investing $1.3 billion in infrastructure in 2015 would add at least 29,000 jobs and $2 billion to economic growth while reducing the deficit by $200 million.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gives the U.S. a D+ grade on our roads, bridges, waterways, electrical grids, and other infrastructure, and says the country needs to spend an additional $1.6 trillion by 2020 to get it all up to par. Clinton’s plan would target much of the country’s struggling industries with direct investments.
“I don’t have to tell you what a sorry state we’re in,” she said in Boston. “Our roads and bridges are potholed and crumbling. Families endure blackouts because our electric grid fails in extreme weather. Beneath our cities, our pipeline infrastructure — our water, our sewer, you name it — is up to a century or more old. Our airports are a mess. Our ports need improvement. Our rail systems do as well.”
Her plan outlines a number of specific proposals, including a call for connecting all U.S. households to high-speed internet by 2020. She also has called for improving the nation’s airports and aviation technology — the United States invented air travel, she said, but has since lagged behind and has not invested in our outdated airports and air traffic control system.
 
Yep, those "shovel ready" jobs only need more federal "business" taxation to start right away. Didn't we hear that somewhere before?

The included "stimulus" math, as usual, contradicts itself. How will spending $1 billion more create 13K jobs but spending $1.3 billion more will create $28K jobs? The spending per job created ratios are quite different - implying that you somehow get an exponential increase in jobs created by spending only $.3 billion more. Obviously at least one of these "estimates" is wrong.

What is left unexplained, by either jobs estimate, is how taking money (via added taxation) from some (unnamed businesses) will have no negative impact on jobs but spending that same money differently will create jobs.

I am all for more infrastructure spending but by changing current spending priorities not by taking more taxes from the economy to do so.
 

Though infrastructure is certainly important and in rare cases even an economically public good, it would be important to see the list and a study of the long term costs and benefits, before I would want to think about voting for anyone proposing such a public works project during a period of relatively good economic activity. Usually I would take such a promise as an attempt to utilize the low economic savvy of the street to gain votes and take it as a warning that we are dealing with a swindler.
 
The left is famous for good sounding rhetoric but when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, where's the beef? They are against wars, for women's and minorities rights, against income inequality, are for the poor and the middle class, but what have they actually done for any of it? Nothing. Every goal they have ever had they have done nothing for but they keep using the same ole rhetoric to get elected and the same ole rhetoric against the Republicans to get elected. Have seven years of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer so what are we going to do about it? Blame it on the Republicans (How about GWB?) and elect us again because we have the best rhetoric.
 
The left is famous for good sounding rhetoric but when it comes down to the nuts and bolts, where's the beef? They are against wars, for women's and minorities rights, against income inequality, are for the poor and the middle class, but what have they actually done for any of it? Nothing. Every goal they have ever had they have done nothing for but they keep using the same ole rhetoric to get elected and the same ole rhetoric against the Republicans to get elected. Have seven years of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer so what are we going to do about it? Blame it on the Republicans (How about GWB?) and elect us again because we have the best rhetoric.

Yes, the left tends to be against unnecessary wars. Leftists led the fight to pull us out of Vietnam. Women's and minority rights? You know the left actively works for this and helped us make great strides. It's hard to combat income inequality when one party has decided they will not let you do anything.
 
Yes, I think we should do something to improve infrastructure. But the government has to figure out how to pay for it without borrowing or increasing taxes. It has to give something else up. We can just add spending over more spending. We could give up the department of education or commerce or transportation. The states handle all that stuff fine without any interference from federal government.
 
Back
Top Bottom