Posted on 03/09/2017 12:57:56 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Man alive. How often do you see poll results like this anymore?
That’s from Quinnipiac. CNN asked the same question and got a slightly less enthusiastic response — but note the partisan numbers:
Republicans are now more gung ho to spend on infrastructure than Democrats are, huh? Gotta be “the Trump effect” at work, with the right rushing to embrace Trump’s priorities as the left inches away from them. Here’s a famous bit from an interview Steve Bannon gave last November, 10 days after Trump’s victory:
“The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f—ed over. If we deliver” — by “we” he means the Trump White House — “we’ll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we’ll govern for 50 years. That’s what the Democrats missed. They were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It’s not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about.”…
“Like [Andrew] Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement,” he says. “It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”
Judging from today’s numbers, that was a rare case of Bannon underestimating how loyal right-wing America would be to Trump. Which conservatives are “going crazy”? The GOP is practically unanimous in both polls in supporting increased spending.
My guess when I saw that was that it was a direct result of Trump’s speech to Congress last week, in which he called for a cool trillion dollars in new infrastructure spending. GOPers heard that and adjusted their priorities accordingly, right? Well … not really, as it turns out. When Quinnipiac asked people last month, weeks before Trump’s speech, if they supported more spending for roads, bridges, mass transit and other infrastructure, the split was 89/9 among the overall population and 87/9 among Republicans specifically. Trump surely did move the needle on the right on this subject at some point, but it happened long before his speech.
In fact, go back in time further and you’ll find robust support for increased infrastructure spending pre-dates him becoming GOP nominee. In March of last year, during the GOP primaries, Gallup found the public split 75/11 in favor of spending more on roads and bridges. And waaaaay back in 2009, just three days after Obama took office, Frank Luntz reported the results of a survey of 800 people he’d conducted on infrastructure:
Fully 84% of the public wants more money spent by the federal government — and 83% wants more spent by state governments — to improve America’s infrastructure. And here’s the kicker: 81% of Americans are personally prepared to pay 1% more in taxes for the cause. It’s not uncommon for people to say they’d pay more to get more, but when you ask them to respond to a specific amount, support evaporates. (That 74% of normally stingy Republicans are on board for the tax increase is, to me, the most significant finding in the survey.)
This isn’t “soft” support for infrastructure either. It stretches from Maine to Montana, from California to Connecticut. Democrats (87%) and Republicans (74%) are prepared to, in Barack Obama’s words, put skin in the game, which tells you just how wide and deep the support is.
No way to tell how much of the ~15 percent increase on infrastructure spending among Republicans since then is due to Trump’s influence and how much is organic, but the point should be clear: As in so many other things, the GOP base is more tolerant of boosting federal spending on domestic priorities than the most outspoken conservatives in Congress are.
One more poll result for you. CNN asked today which is more important, reducing the federal budget deficit even at the risk of limiting economic growth or boosting growth even if it means growing the deficit. That’s the crux of the argument for infrastructure spending, after all. Would there be any meaningful partisan split on this subject given Republicans’ supposed insistence on smaller government? Nah, not really:
Here’s Trump talking infrastructure during last week’s speech.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Whatever it takes to get him reelected. I am so done with the idea of trying to get the deficit under control. It’s a Fool’s errand
If they do, then they should be calling for the annihilation of the Democrat Party.
bttt
No they don't. I was talking to a friend about this last week and he couldn't even remember obama's stimulus program. I was referring to the audit where the administration was touting all the good they'd done, in counties and Congressional Districts that don't exist. didn't even ring a bell. His wife finally smacked on the arm and called him a nitwit. LOL.
As long as none of it goes for current proposed high speed rail projects and they fill some potholes around here,, show me the money!! Oh, and no money for any Musk, Bezos or Soros ventures they try to weasel into.
Besides that, a trillion is a good start for what this country needs ‘bones’ improvement wise.
I favor that spending, provided the money comes form the dissolution of several unnecessary departments and agencies!
An important part of infrastructure that doesn’t cost a whole bunch but is very useful would be to replace and upgrade the nationwide weather monitoring systems, under very strict rules, and the provision that if their station or surroundings are changed out of standards, that the station data is no longer official until they are in a new standard complying location. Nor can extrapolations or interpolations be made of their actual data, as part of the data.
How much dough is sitting idle in gubamint accounts for all the federal gas taxes collected for decades?
Any repatriations of funds held by corporations overseas to avoid higher taxation rates should include some portion going towards infrastructure improvement, thus showing what good corporate citizens they are. That would definitely stimulate me. :-)
Actual spending on defective or deficient infrastructure is very much a perceived need, but one that has not been acted upon. Even appropriating the funds, and putting out bids, in no way assures the work shall ever be done, or if it is done, that it is of acceptable quality. But it is a huge slush fund, for one purpose only - to assure the perpetual continuation in power of charlatans who plead the necessity, but never deliver even when given the means, either misusing funds, or stealing those funds outright.
Isn’t potential 200 percent debt to GDP kind of a bad thing?
I heard there’s almost 80 trillion dollars worth of oil on federal land.
Any way we can pay some of it off with that?
It might be wise, given how frequently the knee jerk Never Trumpers like Allahpundit have been spanked, for them to wait and see what is actually IN the plan before going into hysterics.
That anyone pays any attention to this chicken little clown is a mystery to rational thinking adults.
The debt is the single largest existential threat to the country. If Trump and people like you abandon dealing with it, we will end up a euro-socialist country (we are already half way there). Infrastructure spending is fine, but it needs to be paid for by getting rid of useless bureaucracies.
Why can’t the US Govt float Infrastructure Bonds like they did War Bonds during WWII? I’d buy one.
Having world class infrastructure is required for world class manufacturing. I’ve never been against spending money on it as I see how well it works out for Germany, Japan, and China. My problem is the people in charge of spending it. I have a lot more confidence with a builder like President Trump at the helm.
Judging by the lack of quality of our roads, we need to spend a LOT of money on improving the roads in this country.
What all is involved in the Infrastructure Project and when will it officially start?
Will it run concurrently with the Energy Independence Project?
Will the two projects interfere with each other?
“I heard there’s almost 80 trillion dollars worth of oil on federal land.
Any way we can pay some of it off with that?”
Not with how the current lease system works. What should be happening is the gov pays a company to drill and pump with the gov payong off debt with the profit earned between the drill/pump cost and the current market rate.
Why can’t we do what you said? sounds good.
Wait until they’re told that they’re private toll roads, and they’ll be paying 30 to 50 cents per mile for driving on them.
Might change some views...
(ping, Tol)
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.