[nathanbedford]

When Barack Obama proposed his $800 million stimulus package to restore our infrastructure Republicans quite rightly opposed it. Now Donald Trump advances a $1 trillion package to restore infrastructure and Republicans are supposed to uncritically support it.

Granted, the Obama proposal to restore the economy along with the infrastructure by funding "shovel ready jobs" was a flat-out lie, the bulk of the money went to support voter ready Democrat infrastructure, as Obama was later ruefully to admit when he said that the shovel ready jobs were not so shovel ready. But Republicans who initially opposed Obama's proposal could not then have been aware of the corruption that was subsequently occur, only that they were dealing with Democrats and that was to be expected. The same people will now argue that Donald Trump is a builder by profession who has a stellar record of bringing projects in under cost and we can expect better from him. We shall see.

Those who oppose these kinds of projects as job creators are mindful of Milton Friedman's reference to the shopkeeper's broken window hypothetical in which the cost to repair a vandalized window was said to ripple through the economy enriching everyone from glass manufacturers to carpenters etc. But the conservative points out that the money used to replace the broken window was money that the shopkeeper did not now have to enlarge his business and perhaps hire new employees, causing his own ripple effect.

The argument is that when the government takes money out of the economy, even to improve infrastructure, it is taking money that the marketplace knows better where to invest for greater return.

There are two counterarguments to this: first, the infrastructure needs to be fixed anyway and that is certainly true in America now; second, the money taken out of the economy by the government to fund infrastructure repair is borrowed money and therefore the reduction of available money to the private sector to invest is minimized and or postponed. Anyway, there is disagreement about whether government borrowing diminishes the funds available in the private sector because there is so much foreign money coming into the United States. In rebuttal, it is noted that our income tax rates are so high that much money he staying out of the United States.

My view is that there are arguments on both sides. This is in the nature of American government and it is quite proper that these arguments be waged from both sides. On one hand, every president to be effective must be feared by Congress. On the other hand, any president who operates unfettered by Congress, is liable to overreach and even become tyrannical as we have seen with Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama.

It is unfortunate that those who speak on behalf of Congress are the likes of Mark Sanford who hardly lends credibility to any issue.

[sargon]

1) Our infrastructure does need to be fixed anyway.

2) Such federal investment is at least Constitutional.

3) There will be accountability for those companies doing the work.

I'm reminded of Donald Trump's redevelopment of the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., and how it was accomplished both ahead of schedule and under budget. If America's infrastructure spending can be accomplished under those conditions, it bodes well in a way that differs significantly from other federal "infrastucture" (corporate welfare) programs.

Where did 0bama's ridiculous Solyndra racket fit in? Was that swindle passed off as "infrastructure spending"?

[mrsmith]

The greatest danger in this government expenditure is that Congress will turn it from fiscally productive to ‘politically productive’.
It seems at this point that Trump isn’t as likely to do that.

But, indeed, we shall see.

[Sgt_Schultze]

That original stimulus was passed in the early days of the bamster's first term. Since it occurred before before the end of the fiscal year, the new administration was trying to inflate the baseline deficit of GWB's last term to be able to demonstrate success in cutting it, down the road. So they also passed the budget that was languishing when 43 left because there was haggling over amounts. The bamster's goons passed everything, creating the largest ever deficit- most of it by the hand of bammy. And that was the last budget passed. Since then it's been nothing but continuing resolutions.

Since those continuing resolutions froze and maintained spending, didn't the stimulus spending also continue as part of that same CR? If yes, then that must be a great part of the doubled debt under obama. But what exactly did we get for 8 years of stimulus?

[octex]

Another very good posting by you!

I believe some of the RINOs in the House and Senate are about to have an awakening.

[SauronOfMordor]

Take the money for infrastructure projects out of the welfare budgets, thus having the positive effects of more welfare people having to work, and fewer welfare women spawning future welfare recipients

[Mr. K]

Trump has not “proposed” anything- he is not president yet.

If they are all giggly over another $1trillion in spending, wait until he says he is CUTTING $2Trillion elsewhere to pay for it

[Awgie]

A smart analysis. I say, let the Trump Train roll!

[MNJohnnie]

Now Donald Trump advances a $1 trillion package to restore infrastructure and Republicans are supposed to uncritically support it.

Except that is a falsehood. Please show us the details of this $1 Trillion Infrastructure plan you claim Trump is advancing. How about the habitual #Never Trumpers wait and SEE the plan before spending so much time complaining about it?

[ckilmer]

Nobody better to lead on infrastructure projects than a builder.

[MNJohnnie]

In politics it best to keep your powder dry rather then fire too soon and be false footed.

Once we actually SEE the Trump plan, they people will know if it need to be opposed in Congress.

Opposing an idea simply because it has “infrastructure spending” in the name is ridiculous. Like it or not, there is a whole lot of Federal infrastructure, such as the Interstate highway system, that must be maintained with Federal money.