• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump Proposes $550 Billion in Infrastructure Spending, Paid By Borrowing

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,071
Reaction score
13,752
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
82,248
Reaction score
50,622
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The King of Debt would certainly know how to pull this off.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....

Stupid proposals do not improve by being doubled up. And he knows that there are very few infrastructure items that are better produced by government.
 

reinoe

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2013
Messages
16,824
Reaction score
7,183
Location
Out West
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....
1. Eisenhower was a conservative Republican and he proposed the National Highway System.

2. Government spending isn't always bad. It just usually turns out that way because the government is incompetent.

I'd rather have infrastructure spending in THIS COUNTRY instead of the Obama/Clinton proposals of engaging in nation-building overseas in some godforsaken country where the people hate us. This is just another "I hate Trump" thread.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,934
Reaction score
29,372
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How come the States are never mentioned in these discussions. Could it be the left-leaners have a fanatical need for the federal govt to do everything? Ever heard of tolls?
 

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
65,965
Reaction score
32,591
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....

And by his track record, he will renege on paying it back.
 

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
68,035
Reaction score
34,531
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....

He's So Conservative!!!
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
14,512
Reaction score
8,010
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....

I'm not sure a $50 billion dollar wall counts as "infrastructure"
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
22,622
Reaction score
3,363
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....

Before we give another dollar to Clinton or Trump for infrastructure, we should find out what the govt did with the last trillion.

I
n 2014, public spending on transportation
and water infrastructure totaled $416 billion.
That total includes spending by federal, state,
and local governments for capital (structures
and equipment) as well as their spending for
operation and maintenance.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/49910-Infrastructure.pdf

Were' spending 400bn a year. Why is that not enough?
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,071
Reaction score
13,752
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
How come the States are never mentioned in these discussions. Could it be the left-leaners have a fanatical need for the federal govt to do everything? Ever heard of tolls?
What the...?

How did you get from Trump saying "let's borrow $500 billion to fix infrastructure" to "lefties never discuss the states!"

When Hillary Clinton proposed a $275 billion infrastructure package, what was your reaction?
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The King of Debt would certainly know how to pull this off.
I think the true king of debt, Obama, already tried... remember that $800 billion much supposedly to go towards infrastructure? Yeah, right... where did it all go? The only truly shovel ready jobs were piling ** it on the American people.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
76,864
Reaction score
31,067
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd rather have Trump borrow money to improve infrastructure than have Obama give $400 million to Iran.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
82,248
Reaction score
50,622
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I think the true king of debt, Obama, already tried... remember that $800 billion much supposedly to go towards infrastructure? Yeah, right... where did it all go?

Same place the Republocrats send everything, to the banks, wall street, and their corporate donors.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,071
Reaction score
13,752
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I think the true king of debt, Obama, already tried... remember that $800 billion much supposedly to go towards infrastructure? Yeah, right... where did it all go?
$246 billion was tax breaks and tax credits. Millions of people got a temporary and small increase in their paychecks with a payroll tax break, for example; that money was spent immediately by most recipients.

Some of the programs included:

$100 billion for transportation, e.g. highways ($26bn) and rail ($8bn)

$80 billion for unemployment, COBRA, child care etc
plus another $34 billion for unemployment in 2010

$38 billion went to food stamps, farm aid (those programs are linked btw), child care for low-income families

$50 billion went to education including Pell Grants, keeping teachers employed, and job training

$58 billion were given to states and municipalities, for everything ranging from keeping police officers on the rolls to emergency relief (i.e. plugging holes in state tax revenues due to the recession)

$43 billion for targeted aid (Amtrak, clean water, housing subsidies etc)

$26 billion to fund public sector jobs (e.g. kept 250,000 teachers hired, along with police, summer youth programs etc)

$41 billion for energy, such as fixing the grid, making federal buildings energy efficient, and loans to renewable energy companies

$13 billion for science and tech (mostly NASA, R&D and education)

$18 billion for health care

$3 billion for "Cash for Clunkers"



So why didn't we notice it that much? There are several reasons for this.

1) A lot of the funding was actually plugging holes in state and municipal taxes. "Keeping 10,000 teachers in their job" does not get as much attention as "hiring 10,000 new teachers."

2) A lot of the infrastructure in the US has been deteriorating for years. Again, repairing an existing road (which I saw quite a bit of btw) does not get as much attention as building new roads.

3) Some projects get a lot more attention than others. E.g. Cash for Clunkers cost very little compared to infrastructure payments, but because it involved citizens turning in older cars, it got far more notice than the dollar amount would suggest.

4) $500 billion sounds like a lot, but for a nation like the US -- with over 320 million people, one of the most expensive economies in the world, and spread out over 3 years -- it really is not that much. We are talking about 0.35% of 2009's GDP.

That's one reason why many economists though the stimulus wasn't big enough.

5) It's very difficult for people to understand that without the stimulus, the economy may well have been much worse.

It's like Y2K. Most businesses prepared well for it, resulting in few problems; however, most people didn't notice it because most of the issues were fixed in advance. This was in no small part because of the huge effort put in, as a result of the warnings that it would cause a problem. However, most people don't credit the hard work that went into mitigating the issue -- they just assume it was scaremongering.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
22,622
Reaction score
3,363
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think the true king of debt, Obama, already tried... remember that $800 billion much supposedly to go towards infrastructure? Yeah, right... where did it all go? The only truly shovel ready jobs were piling ** it on the American people.

Well, they built a tunnel for turtles in my town. It employs zero people. It wasnt just Obama though. Democrats in congress approved it.

ZW50Il1d.jpg
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,934
Reaction score
29,372
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What the...?

How did you get from Trump saying "let's borrow $500 billion to fix infrastructure" to "lefties never discuss the states!"

When Hillary Clinton proposed a $275 billion infrastructure package, what was your reaction?
I should have replied to reinoe, because he was supporting federal efforts on infrastruction.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
$246 billion was tax breaks and tax credits. Millions of people got a temporary and small increase in their paychecks with a payroll tax break, for example; that money was spent immediately by most recipients.

Some of the programs included:

$100 billion for transportation, e.g. highways ($26bn) and rail ($8bn)

$80 billion for unemployment, COBRA, child care etc
plus another $34 billion for unemployment in 2010

$38 billion went to food stamps, farm aid (those programs are linked btw), child care for low-income families

$50 billion went to education including Pell Grants, keeping teachers employed, and job training

$58 billion were given to states and municipalities, for everything ranging from keeping police officers on the rolls to emergency relief (i.e. plugging holes in state tax revenues due to the recession)

$43 billion for targeted aid (Amtrak, clean water, housing subsidies etc)

$26 billion to fund public sector jobs (e.g. kept 250,000 teachers hired, along with police, summer youth programs etc)

$41 billion for energy, such as fixing the grid, making federal buildings energy efficient, and loans to renewable energy companies

$13 billion for science and tech (mostly NASA, R&D and education)

$18 billion for health care

$3 billion for "Cash for Clunkers"



So why didn't we notice it that much? There are several reasons for this.

1) A lot of the funding was actually plugging holes in state and municipal taxes. "Keeping 10,000 teachers in their job" does not get as much attention as "hiring 10,000 new teachers."

2) A lot of the infrastructure in the US has been deteriorating for years. Again, repairing an existing road (which I saw quite a bit of btw) does not get as much attention as building new roads.

3) Some projects get a lot more attention than others. E.g. Cash for Clunkers cost very little compared to infrastructure payments, but because it involved citizens turning in older cars, it got far more notice than the dollar amount would suggest.

4) $500 billion sounds like a lot, but for a nation like the US -- with over 320 million people, one of the most expensive economies in the world, and spread out over 3 years -- it really is not that much. We are talking about 0.35% of 2009's GDP.

That's one reason why many economists though the stimulus wasn't big enough.

5) It's very difficult for people to understand that without the stimulus, the economy may well have been much worse.

It's like Y2K. Most businesses prepared well for it, resulting in few problems; however, most people didn't notice it because most of the issues were fixed in advance. This was in no small part because of the huge effort put in, as a result of the warnings that it would cause a problem. However, most people don't credit the hard work that went into mitigating the issue -- they just assume it was scaremongering.

The Stimulus was a failure in design and implementation. It simply didn't do what it was suppose to do, didn't stimulate the economy or recovery, with very little actual beneficial infrastructure accomplished. A lot of money went to Democrat client groups in education, renewable energy, those on food stamps, the unemployed, child care...all of which you mentioned but failed to mention which party faired better due to the stimulus. A stimulus that did very little to actually stimulate the economy and, as mentioned, very little for infrastructure. Besides, its not the federal governments job to plug holes in the states, education is not supposed to be a fed function at all. States have their own governments charged with figuring those things out. When times are rough, you tighten your belt.

To try to promote the idea that the largest economic recovery plan in our history [ adjusted for inflation it was five times the Works Progress Administration during the Depression ] or 500 billion proposed wasn't big enough or isn't huge is insulting. Half a trillion not enough? The $800 bil was almost a trillion and our entire GDP is only a little over 17 trillion total. Fact of the matter is that it was a failure and the Obama Admin was at fault. Its not like that was the only spending allocated by Congress to many of these very same areas, either.

Be that as it may, Obama is still king of debt, Trump is nowhere close. Only GWB is anywhere even in the running.

As to Y2K, my opinion, having lived through it, was the it was over hyped. Yes there may have been some advance work that did help, and there were some slight problems, but mainly it was not a major threat or problem.
 

beerftw

proud ammosexual
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
18,913
Reaction score
5,520
Location
kekistan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
1. Eisenhower was a conservative Republican and he proposed the National Highway System.

2. Government spending isn't always bad. It just usually turns out that way because the government is incompetent.

I'd rather have infrastructure spending in THIS COUNTRY instead of the Obama/Clinton proposals of engaging in nation-building overseas in some godforsaken country where the people hate us. This is just another "I hate Trump" thread.

but but but afghanistan turned out ok right, I mean the roads they did not blow up are still there oh wait the afghan govt does not maintain any of them, Unless america flips the bill.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,071
Reaction score
13,752
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
The Stimulus was a failure in design and implementation.
Numerous economists, who have studied the data, and do not share your bias, disagree with your conclusion. It didn't knock things out of the park (in part because it was too small), but the effect was generally positive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...n-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html


It simply didn't do what it was suppose to do, didn't stimulate the economy or recovery, with very little actual beneficial infrastructure accomplished.
It spent billions on infrastructure. Again, the problem is that with a system as big as the US, and with so much needing to be done, it was a drop in the bucket. Despite putting together some huge projects, if they weren't right in your neighborhood, you didn't hear about them. (Some were in my area, so I did see a few of the effects.)


Besides, its not the federal governments job to plug holes in the states, education is not supposed to be a fed function at all. States have their own governments charged with figuring those things out. When times are rough, you tighten your belt.
How, by firing teachers and closing schools?

Many states, by law, can't run deficits. In addition, many of their tax revenue sources drop during recessions, notably sales taxes.

To make matters worse, one of the worst times for swaths of states to slash their budgets is during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. That would have meant putting even more people out of work, which would make the recession worse, and further delay recovery.


To try to promote the idea that the largest economic recovery plan in our history [ adjusted for inflation it was five times the Works Progress Administration during the Depression ] or 500 billion proposed wasn't big enough or isn't huge is insulting. Half a trillion not enough?
It's not an insult. It's a basic understanding of the difference between 1935 and 2009.

You can't really compare the WPA to the 2009 stimulus. When the WPA started, it allocated $11 billion at a time when the federal budget was around $3 billion. In comparison, spending $500 billion over 3 years when we had a $3 trillion federal budget, when the states spent another $3 billion, and when big swaths of that spending was filling holes in state budgets? That's not going to have a big impact.

Meanwhile, it was an opportune moment to get a lot of stuff fixed, while borrowing at near-zero interest rates, when private construction was in a lull. Oh well....


Be that as it may, Obama is still king of debt, Trump is nowhere close. Only GWB is anywhere even in the running.
lol

The phrase is largely sarcastic. Trump borrowed $3 billion for his businesses back in the 1990s. That was about 1-2 years before they went bankrupt, in no small part because he borrowed far too much money. Back when he did something other than rent out his name, he borrowed quite a bit. (As is typical for real estate.)

He also doesn't have the slightest idea how government debt operates, as indicated by him thinking it's some new and innovative idea to sell bonds to pay for a $500 infrastructure package, or that those rates (which are nearly zero) can be negotiated somehow.

Tho' as I expected, this utter absurdity and violation of conservative principles has gotten swamped by the dozens of other epic fails by Trump this week. Ah well.


As to Y2K, my opinion, having lived through it, was the it was over hyped. Yes there may have been some advance work that did help, and there were some slight problems, but mainly it was not a major threat or problem.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

It was "over hyped" because a lot of the companies that faced serious issues spent significant time, effort, money and manpower fixing it in advance. If you weren't one of those people directly involved (e.g. working at a bank that used 2-digit year codes all over the place), you had no idea how much work went into making sure it wasn't going to be a problem for everyone else.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Numerous economists, who have studied the data, and do not share your bias, disagree with your conclusion. It didn't knock things out of the park (in part because it was too small), but the effect was generally positive.

...

It spent billions on infrastructure. Again, the problem is that with a system as big as the US, and with so much needing to be done, it was a drop in the bucket. Despite putting together some huge projects, if they weren't right in your neighborhood, you didn't hear about them. (Some were in my area, so I did see a few of the effects.)

Yes, those economists don't share my bias, they have their very own. We all know we are still not back to where we should/need to be... this after almost a trillion dollars in stimulus spent. An opportunity cost, all that money misspent could have been spent elsewhere, not squandered. Again, too small an amount is a prejudice from your side of the political spectrum. Interference in the marketplace by government is what made the Great Depression very long, but not so great for Americans.

Am also familiar with Klein's bias. Undeniably too few billions out of the almost trillion were well spent, especially on infrastructure. In Orlando, we got a lot of new sidewalks. Usually too hot outside, very few people walk anyplace. Sidewalk construction companies sure made some moola, tho. Just not a practical use of not enough infrastructure monies.


How, by firing teachers and closing schools?

Many states, by law, can't run deficits. In addition, many of their tax revenue sources drop during recessions, notably sales taxes.

....
Changes in circumstances require states to deal with that reality. Necessary changes, reductions in pay increases, perhaps cuts might be necessary. I was a teacher during much of this crisis. Teachers would not like it, but hell, everyone else had to deal with the reality. Adjustments were required, would have been made. A good opportunity to get rid of the non performing teachers, one positive.



It's not an insult. It's a basic understanding of the difference between 1935 and 2009.

You can't really compare the WPA to the 2009 stimulus. When the WPA started, it allocated $11 billion at a time when the federal budget was around $3 billion. In comparison, spending $500 billion over 3 years when we had a $3 trillion federal budget, when the states spent another $3 billion, and when big swaths of that spending was filling holes in state budgets? That's not going to have a big impact.

Meanwhile, it was an opportune moment to get a lot of stuff fixed, while borrowing at near-zero interest rates, when private construction was in a lull. Oh well....
Where are you getting this 500 bil you keep using? The stimulus, over the three years was more like 840 billion. Close to a third of the entire annual budget.

Thing was, not a lot did get fixed.


lol

The phrase is largelysarcastic. Trump borrowed $3 billion for his businesses back in the 1990s. That was about 1-2 years before they went bankrupt, in no small part because he borrowed far too much money. Back when he did something other than rent out his name, he borrowed quite a bit. (As is typical for real estate.)

He also doesn't have the slightest idea how government debt operates, as indicated by him thinking it's some new and innovative idea to sell bonds to pay for a $500 infrastructure package, or that those rates (which are nearly zero) can be negotiated somehow.

Tho' as I expected, this utter absurdity and violation of conservative principles has gotten swamped by the dozens of other epic fails by Trump this week. Ah well.
I would rather he have an idea of how to spend the money properly which the community organizer, who had never actually had to run anything in his life, obviously had no idea.



Yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

It was "over hyped" because a lot of the companies that faced serious issues spent significant time, effort, money and manpower fixing it in advance. If you weren't one of those people directly involved (e.g. working at a bank that used 2-digit year codes all over the place), you had no idea how much work went into making sure it wasn't going to be a problem for everyone else.
I had a laptop, very primitive and much smaller, thicker and heavier than my current. I changed the date ahead to past 2000 to check, it did not have a problem. It was a problem over-hyped. The problem was with units that had been developed in the 60s and 70s trying to save money when using storage which was then so so expensive.

The fixes were pretty easy and it was mainly a nonevent.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Can't make this stuff up.

Donald Trump Calls for Yuge Infrastructure Plan

On Fox News, he made an impromptu remark to spend "double" what Clinton proposed for an infrastructure bill.

How will the US pay for it, given that he also openly wants to slash taxes?

“We’ll get a fund, we’ll make a phenomenal deal with the low interest rates and rebuild our infrastructure,” Trump said. He said that the money in the “fund” would come from bonds.

“We’d do infrastructure bonds for the country, from the United States.”


For those of you not in the know (like Trump), that's how the US borrows; the Treasury Department issues bonds, which are sold on the open market. These can't be negotiated, as a significant part of the rate is based on market demand. Oh, and Treasury Bills pay less than 1% right now on everything shorter than 3 years, and are only 2.2% for 30 year T-Bills.

Full disclosure, I'm not opposed to this type of proposal. I'm just gobsmacked that the Republican candidate proposed it, as it is yet another total violation of conservative and Republican principles. I'm curious to see the reaction -- unless it gets buried under all the other stuff he's saying this week....

Trump could easily get this done. Have contractors do the work, then don't pay them. LOL.
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
How come the States are never mentioned in these discussions. Could it be the left-leaners have a fanatical need for the federal govt to do everything? Ever heard of tolls?

What on earth are you talking about.

This is one of the most nonsensical, out-of-left-field, utterly irrelevant replies to any discussion I've ever seen.
 
Last edited:

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
20,071
Reaction score
13,752
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
An opportunity cost, all that money misspent could have been spent elsewhere, not squandered.
Spent where, exactly?

Did you actually sit down with a list of the programs, and decide which ones would have worked? And another list of programs that we didn't fund, that could have worked better? Care to share the list?


Interference in the marketplace by government is what made the Great Depression very long, but not so great for Americans.
Actually, it was a combination of the wrong types of interference, and the wrong inaction, along with the wrong types of action, that dragged out the Great Depression.

The first problem was that the feds did not pursue the right monetary or bank policy. They let the banks fail, and tightened the money supply before and after the crash. Bernanke and Paulson, with support from Bush and Obama, largely avoided those mistakes. We also relied on existing protections like FICA, which were set up after the Great Depression.

The second was indulging in protectionism, e.g. increasing tariffs on foreign goods. Rather than spark local investment, it prompted a round of retaliatory tariffs by trading partners and competitors, leading to a drop in US exports, which hurt US businesses. There was a tiny bit of this in the stimulus, but for the most part we avoided that trap.

In both cases, the federal government did some stimulus. We can make a good case that neither stimulus was perfect, but it does appear that they did some good.

Finally, when the worst of the Great Depression was over, the federal government slashed spending -- but did so too soon, sparking another recession. Whoops.


Changes in circumstances require states to deal with that reality. Necessary changes, reductions in pay increases, perhaps cuts might be necessary.
If a cut is forced not because of what constituents need, but because the economy has taken a turn for the worse, and if making those cuts along with increasing taxes will make the recession worse? Then no, those cuts are not "necessary." They are forced and foolish.

Do you not remember that far back? In 2007, Florida had a $1.1 billion shortfall, and slashed education and health spending. In 2008, the shortfall continued, and Crist started pushing for increasing property taxes.

And then.. the federal stimulus kicked in. After 2 years of cuts to education, close to 20,000 teachers' jobs were saved by the stimulus funds. Given that there is somewhere around 170,000 public school teachers in Florida, if you're a public school teacher then there is more than a 1 in 10 chance your job was saved by the stimulus. At a minimum, even you have to realize that losing 20,000 teachers would not have been a good thing for Florida's public schools.

This is when you should say "Thanks, Obama!"


Where are you getting this 500 bil you keep using?
Roughly $246 billion were tax breaks; the rest was spent on a variety of programs. Much of the spending also went to things like bolstering unemployment insurance, COBRA payments, food stamps, and so forth. As I've explained -- and as your own comments illustrate -- a lot of that is things you won't see by looking out your door and not seeing a dozen new bridges.

So if we're talking only about infrastructure, the total is more like $100 billion. That's the equivalent of $317 per person in the US. It really is not much, especially when spread out across a fairly large nation.

So: Florida got around $13 billion, which spread over 3 years is about 6% of the state budget. That included over $1.6 billion sent directly to the Florida Department of Transportation, which selected its own projects. (If that money wasn't spent wisely, then blame the FDOT.)

You do also realize that rounding up $780 / $831 to "$1 trillion" is not valid, right?


I had a laptop, very primitive and much smaller, thicker and heavier than my current. I changed the date ahead to past 2000 to check, it did not have a problem....
Your anecdotal claims are flawed to the point of absurdity. There were hundreds of thousands of servers, running software that used two-digit dates, sometimes relying on legacy software that was years old and difficult to trace. The US largely started working on the problem years in advance, and spent around $180 billion fixing it, mostly (but not entirely) before 1/1/2000. You obviously were not working in IT at the time. (I was.)

But hey, YOUR laptop didn't have a problem, so no one else really had an issue, right? Egads.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Spent where, exactly?

Did you actually sit down with a list of the programs, and decide which ones would have worked?...



Actually, it was a combination of the wrong types of interference, and the wrong inaction, along with the wrong types of action, that dragged out the Great Depression.

The first problem was that the feds did not pursue the right monetary or bank policy. They let the banks fail, and tightened the money supply before and after the crash...

The second was indulging in protectionism, e.g. increasing tariffs on foreign goods. Rather than spark local investment, it prompted a round of retaliatory tariffs by trading partners and competitors, leading to a drop in US exports, which hurt US businesses...

If a cut is forced not because of what constituents need, but because the economy has taken a turn for the worse, and if making those cuts along with increasing taxes will make the recession worse? Then no, those cuts are not "necessary." They are forced and foolish.

Do you not remember that far back? In 2007, Florida had a $1.1 billion shortfall, and slashed education and health spending. In 2008, the shortfall continued, and Crist started pushing for increasing property taxes.

And then.. the federal stimulus kicked in. After 2 years of cuts to education, close to 20,000 teachers' jobs were saved by the stimulus funds...



Roughly $246 billion were tax breaks; the rest was spent on a variety of programs. Much of the spending also went to things like bolstering unemployment insurance, COBRA payments, food stamps, and so forth...

So if we're talking only about infrastructure, the total is more like $100 billion. That's the equivalent of $317 per person in the US. It really is not much, especially when spread out across a fairly large nation...

You do also realize that rounding up $780 / $831 to "$1 trillion" is not valid, right?



Your anecdotal claims are flawed to the point of absurdity. There were hundreds of thousands of servers, running software that used two-digit dates, sometimes relying on legacy software that was years old and difficult to trace. The US largely started working on the problem years in advance, and spent around $180 billion fixing it, mostly (but not entirely) before 1/1/2000. You obviously were not working in IT at the time. (I was.)

But hey, YOUR laptop didn't have a problem, so no one else really had an issue, right? Egads.

Spent where? Hell, could well stay in American taxpayer pockets and they, WE, could spend our earned money as WE so choose. That is the way the market is supposed to work, dontcha see.

I've already spent time telling you it is not the Feds job to interfere in states, paying teachers, making sure jobs are retained, etc... the job of the Federal govt is supposed to be very limited and, until the advent of the Federal Reserve, income tax and with this the idea that the Fed can/does insert itself in almost any aspect of our lives in any part of the nation...

We can debate about the causes of the GD and why it lasted as long as it did all day/all night, I do not think we would ever come to any sort of agreement as you seem a Keynesian. I am absolutely not. I will agree with you on your interpretations of our flawed trade policy and Fed interference, loose money policy then tight money policy causing bank runs/collapses on a massive level... and I think you meant the FDIC rather than FICA. And the FDIC wasn't after the GD that it was set up, it was during.

I WAS a teacher in Florida during those times. So please do not tell me how I am supposed to believe on such things. That was not the way to handle it at all. We would have made due, as one does when times are tough, cleaned out much of the soft/dead wood teachers/clerical/administrators, then come back stronger. Its like nature, every once in a while a hurricane comes along, and while destructive, it comes through and takes out all the dead and opens the land up for new growth, regeneration. Its how its supposed to work.

Exactly, all the truly needed infrastructure work was primarily ignored, the shovel ready jobs were not any where near being shovel ready and so mostly only the cosmetic work, just the gilding on the outside to make some things looks shiny, but not the truly needed hard work of repairing the infrastructure was readily accomplished... too much siphoned off, as you indicate and as I stated before, in things other than infrastructure, more to keep the liberal base voting for more security of their working jobs and non working paychecks.

Given, not earned, money is often not spent wisely.

As regards rounding, I know it was closer to a trillion than a half a trillion, right?

The fixes to the software were not complex... and if you are in IT, you know it. It was a scare mainly and if you were in IT at the time, you probably profited by it.
 
Top Bottom