Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats bristle at Trump infrastructure plans
ABC 7 News ^ | April 6, 2017 | Joan Lowy (Associated Press)

Posted on 04/16/2017 8:10:17 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats had hoped the one big policy area they could find common ground with President Donald Trump on was infrastructure, but they don't like what they're hearing from administration officials about the transportation portion of the plan that's still in the works.

Trump has promised to generate $1 trillion in infrastructure spending over 10 years. With two of his other top campaign pledges in trouble - an effort to repeal and replace the Obama administration health care law has failed so far, and without savings to the government from health care changes there may not be enough money to pay for lowering tax rates - infrastructure appeared to be an area ripe for bipartisan compromise.

(Excerpt) Read more at kswo.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: construction; democrats; funding; gastax; gop; infrastructure; p3s; ppps; privateinvestment; privatization; spending; taxes; transportation; trump; water

1 posted on 04/16/2017 8:10:18 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

“Democrats say they worry that Trump’s plan will focus on trying to entice more private investment in transportation projects and reduce regulations that require environmental reviews and community consultation on projects...”

Translation: “We Democrats have always used public spending as a way to line our pockets individually, and increase our power as a Party. An d that has to be part of your bill.”


2 posted on 04/16/2017 8:14:37 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

We do not want any more TTC projects. Not interested in any infrastructure plans which benefit private interests while sticking it to landowners. The local coordination process protects the stakeholders from federal overreach.


3 posted on 04/16/2017 8:19:08 AM PDT by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Further proof they don’t care about anything but themselves

Any one of them would have worthy projects in their district, but that isn’t important


4 posted on 04/16/2017 8:19:46 AM PDT by A_Former_Democrat ("Liberalism is a mental disorder" On FULL Display NOW! BOYCOTT Mexico nba NFL PepsiCO Kellogg's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

No $hit. They spent how much with Porkulus years ago not a damn thing got done except lining pockets of democrat party special interests?


5 posted on 04/16/2017 8:39:37 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Translation: “We Democrats have always used public spending as a way to line our pockets individually, and increase our power as a Party. An d that has to be part of your bill.”

+1

My VERY first thought, too!

*TRUMP BUMP* :)


6 posted on 04/16/2017 8:42:50 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

Yes, the democrats want control over the graft and corruption that goes with construction bidding process and contracts.


7 posted on 04/16/2017 8:46:09 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

DemocRATs bristle at everything Republican or Trump! Bunch of frickin’ hedgehogs!


8 posted on 04/16/2017 8:53:45 AM PDT by Polyxene (Out of the depths I have cried to Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
I really don't remember there were its repeal in your place until after he had won the nomination and was set to win the election. Up to that point the Republicans have been promising to just repeal. I think we just need to set up a high-risk pool for all those who got screwed out of personal insurance and can no longer buy private coverage. Do this to protect those that were screwed by the Obama zero care plan then we can just outright change the Senate rules and repeal the entire Obamacare package. Repeal and replace is a term that was manufactured by The Establishment Republicans. If you look back over the last eight years, the word repeal was seldom used with the term replace.
9 posted on 04/16/2017 8:53:54 AM PDT by BOBWADE (RINOs suck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Wow, so much misinformation in this one.


10 posted on 04/16/2017 8:54:08 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Happy days are here again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
there may not be enough money to pay for lowering tax rates

Sick of this liberal talking point of having to pay for lowering tax rates. Lowering tax rates brings in more money to the treasury. There is no need to pay for lowering rates.

11 posted on 04/16/2017 9:11:42 AM PDT by TheCipher (Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polyxene

Hedgehog eh....roll in mud...roast slow. ...when done. ..peal off the clay and bristles. ....yummy bit gamey.


12 posted on 04/16/2017 9:35:47 AM PDT by spokeshave (In the Thatch Weave,..Trump's Wing Man is Truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
With two of his other top campaign pledges in trouble - an effort to repeal and replace the Obama administration health care law has failed so far, and without savings to the government from health care changes there may not be enough money to pay for lowering tax rates....


13 posted on 04/16/2017 10:51:22 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Translation: “We Democrats have always used public spending as a way to line our pockets individually, and increase our power as a Party. An d that has to be part of your bill.”

...

Yep. Crooked politicians love big expensive construction projects because it’s so easy for them steal the money and not get caught.


14 posted on 04/16/2017 10:54:57 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Make America Great Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

One of the key reasons for the infrastructure initiative is to show what happens when you actually spend the money on infrastructure instead of it going into the cesspool of liberal corruption.


15 posted on 04/16/2017 12:14:07 PM PDT by Revolutionary ("Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCipher

It depends where on the laffer curve we are.


16 posted on 04/16/2017 12:41:38 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
We need to remind them, as often as possible/necessary, that we won: Image and video hosting by TinyPic And next election they don't get to claim dead voters, voters here illegally, voters in rest homes counting their toes and their community organizers and friends voting multiple times.
17 posted on 04/16/2017 1:47:39 PM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

Obamas stimulous bill has been built in to the continuing resolutions ever since. It wasn’t just a one time thing. The politicians have had that much more money every year ever since. What have they done with it? I say cut all the departments and use the money saved if they want more. No more infrastructure bills.


18 posted on 04/16/2017 5:31:49 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice
And remember, in the final tally in December, Trump only lost 2 e.v.'s while Hillary lost 5.

WINNING!


19 posted on 04/17/2017 2:28:34 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (April 2006 Message from Dan: http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Isn’t there a disconnect between “rebuilding infrastructure” and “permitting and environmental impact studies” ? If the infrastructure — highway, bridge, port, dam — already exists but needs upgrading, what is the point in requiring studies or permits ? Screw the “streamlining” from 10 years to 2 years. Request bids for a month and then award the contract.

As far as public/private partnerships go, all I ever hear about is “toll roads”. In the 19th century, the railroads were granted land and rights of way, and built the railroads out of their own pockets and for their own use.

We should trade some of the public lands to businesses to develop in exchange for them building the infrastructure — roads, rails, water, power — we need. No federal spending, just land grants. One benefit of a private company building infrastructure on their own dime, and then gifting it to the government, is the amount of graft and union padding and cost overruns would be less.


20 posted on 04/18/2017 4:16:46 AM PDT by Kellis91789 (We hope for a bloodless revolution, but revolution is still the goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson