Posted on 02/11/2018 8:37:41 PM PST by Innovative
The White House on Monday will unveil its long-awaited $1.5 trillion infrastructure package aimed at overhauling U.S. public works.
The plan is structured around four goals: generate $1.5 trillion for an infrastructure proposal, streamline the permitting process down to two years, invest in rural infrastructure projects and advance workforce training.
The current system is fundamentally broken and it’s broken in two different ways,” a senior administration official told reporters in a Saturday phone call. “We are underinvesting in our infrastructure, and we have a permitting process that takes so long that even when funds are adequate, it can take a decade to build critical infrastructure.”
The Trump administration confirmed a $200 billion direct federal investment for the package, which will be included in the White House’s Monday spending blueprint for fiscal 2019.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I opposed it when Bush, 0bama and Clinton wanted it. I oppose it now.
let’s hope there’s more accountability and auditing than happened with the ‘shovel ready’ funding
President Trump got a promise of foreign investment in infrastructure when he visited with the Saudis last year.
Perhaps its not all increased national debt and or higher taxes.
But we do have to watch out.
Corruption can seep into this kind of stuff.
It did in Canada some years ago when the Liberal Party in Canada steered infrastructure money to outfits associated with campaign gifts to the Liberal Party in Canada.
Infrastructure plan ping.
Trillion = million x million
Billion = thousand x million
Million = thousand x thousand
If Trump was Dictator I would feel better about this :)
But he’s not. And OF COURSE corruption and graft are going to happen. And overages etc. etc.
I thought we were all about states taking care of their own infrastructures.
How many years is this spending stretched out compared to previous plans..
some say it will only be 200 billion in new spending.
Is that a one time 200 billion or 200 billion each year.
Only 100 billion? would be used as matching funds
as incentives for state,local and private investment in
infrastructure projects The remaining 100 billion for
other programs.
1.5 trillion over ten years or 150 billion a year
sounds bad if we are talking about federal spending.
but if it is truly coming from mostly local and private
funding, that is not federal spending.
I'm not to confident that states or cities will be
encouraged by a small funding match that would come
from a 100 billion dollar fund. But if we are talking
about 100 billion per year then there is motivation for
local and private investment. But then the plan would
be 100 billion x 10 (1 trillion in new spending).
100 billion (one time) not much incentive..
100 billion (ten times) :( massive Gov spending.
But that is only half. So are we really talking about
a 2 trillion dollar plan?
I am sure someone smarter than I, can paint a better
picture. But right now all I see is a bunch of dead
presidents getting a swirly in the federal toilet
bowel....
I would rather have dirt roads and own them than be in debt, things have gone too far, take a few billion of that and build the wall first
Its coming....
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/fe/30/34/fe3034d14974ac84d007182388b79bde—weimar-germany.jpg
AMEN BROTHER!!
I’m gonna use your post in arguments with my friends and family :)
If individual states want to tackle their infrastructure problems, let them.
“Extend the eligibility for Pell Grants”?
As if we aren’t wasting enough taxpayer money already building up the “higher ed” propaganda factories.
Let students pay for their own educations so they will at least value it and try to get something out of it.
If private organizations or parents want to elevate their schooling beyond community college studies they can complete while also getting experience working, great.
But to force others to pay to add oxygen to the conflagration that is higher ed today is immoral.
Kick out the illegals and we’ll have more than enough roads, hospitals, schools, etc. Then we can simply apply infrastructure money already allocated to upgrades as needed.
This country needs a break from the costs and impacts of ever-increasing overcrowding.
First, there is the direct spending this year.
Then there is an assumed continuation and growth, year to year, in the federal budget.
Then there is the additional taxation at the state and local level to come up with matching funds.
Then there is the simple fact that “public-private partnerships” are never free. More toll roads and the like, as well as more corruption and graft, inevitably come from such.
Taxpayers still always pay. And it is reasonable to assume that they will end up paying at least as much as the initial, projected total cost. In this case, $1.5T.
Please put your thinking cap on.
Either the Saudis are making that promise because they see a way to more than make their money back on such “investment”—or it is something of a tribute that we could have extracted and dedicated elsewhere.
It’s only money. Your grandkids money ...
Is that Zimbabwe bill enough to buy a hamburger, fries and a coke? or will I need two of them?
I don’t support it. Want to build infrastructure? BUILD GAS REFINERIES!
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.