Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure if those strategies will work, but that seems to be their plan as of now.
Yeah - well, I'm cautiously interested in this. Key word being "cautiously" here.
The White House official responsible for overseeing implementation of President Obama’s massive infrastructure initiative says this,
"Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects."
"Moreover, as others have noted, desperately needed infrastructure projects that are not attractive to private investors — municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls — get no help from Trump’s plan."
The numbers appear to be accurate. I don't see why anyone would not use inflation-adjusted figures, unless he or she was trying to score a political point.
How will this be paid for? There is no money for it.
Did you see the repatriation tax holiday? There is hundreds of billions of in US assets sitting overseas because the tax is so high to bring it back onto this country. Companies like Exxon, Intel, Apple etc.
If you give the an incentive to bring that money here you may generate less tax revenue but you will generate revenue. In addition to that you're dumping hundreds of millions into the economy which those companies can use for investment here or pay dividends to the stockholder.... and before you go off the handle about paying stockholders realize the primary holder of a company like Exxon is pension funds and other average Joe investments.
The White House official responsible for overseeing implementation of President Obama’s massive infrastructure initiative says this,
"Trump’s plan is not really an infrastructure plan. It’s a tax-cut plan for utility-industry and construction-sector investors, and a massive corporate welfare plan for contractors. The Trump plan doesn’t directly fund new roads, bridges, water systems or airports, as did Hillary Clinton’s 2016 infrastructure proposal. Instead, Trump’s plan provides tax breaks to private-sector investors who back profitable construction projects. These projects (such as electrical grid modernization or energy pipeline expansion) might already be planned or even underway. There’s no requirement that the tax breaks be used for incremental or otherwise expanded construction efforts; they could all go just to fatten the pockets of investors in previously planned projects."
"Moreover, as others have noted, desperately needed infrastructure projects that are not attractive to private investors — municipal water-system overhauls, repairs of existing roads, replacement of bridges that do not charge tolls — get no help from Trump’s plan."
Yeah, I read the same details back in November, too, and I was pretty negative about it. That said, this WSJ article seems to indicate he has an interest in funding/getting behind rail and other transit projects...which makes me cautiously interested.
I guess I'd like more details on this to better understand what the real plans are and to see if Trump is actually serious about investing in these kind of projects (or if he's just blowing smoke).
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 03-08-2017 at 08:07 PM..
For as much of a hard time I give Mr. Trump (and I do give him a really hard time about a lot of things), I'm 100% behind his infrastructure plans (assuming it's more than just oil pipelines).
Couple of things that jumped out at me:
We need regulations - but good projects that actually make the world more efficient/cleaner (such as transit projects that take cars off of the road) should be fast tracked.
Yes!
Double Yes!
I like the idea of mixed private and public funding - I wish more local projects did this. Here in the SF Bay Area, we should really be working with the many large companies to see if they can help bridge the gap on funding of major projects.
I'm cautiously interested to see what comes of this plan of his. I hope he keeps to his words on this.
Yes, we are all for infrastructure now, the last couple of years we were against it, glad to get the update. Oh and your taxes are going to go up, just so ya know. Thankfully we are not going to have to pay for the Wall, Mexico is, right?
Did you see the repatriation tax holiday? There is hundreds of billions of in US assets sitting overseas because the tax is so high to bring it back onto this country. Companies like Exxon, Intel, Apple etc.
If you give the an incentive to bring that money here you may generate less tax revenue but you will generate revenue. In addition to that you're dumping hundreds of millions into the economy which those companies can use for investment here or pay dividends to the stockholder.... and before you go off the handle about paying stockholders realize the primary holder of a company like Exxon is pension funds and other average Joe investments.
You seem to forget "tax repatriation holiday" falls under "been there and done that"; and did Jack *S* for the American economy overall.
Oh companies brought back a whole lot of money from overseas, then promptly used it to either pay dividends or buy back shares. In the end the scheme actually *cost* the US government money.
Yes, we are all for infrastructure now, the last couple of years we were against it, glad to get the update. Oh and your taxes are going to go up, just so ya know. Thankfully we are not going to have to pay for the Wall, Mexico is, right?
Are you mistaking me for a Trump supporter?
I'm ok for higher taxes if we get something for it (like infrastructure improvements).
Yeah, there's no way Mexico is paying for anything, agreed.
I'm cautiously interested in what Trump is proposing here. Hopefully he isn't just blowing hot air...which he could be doing.
For as much of a hard time I give Mr. Trump (and I do give him a really hard time about a lot of things), I'm 100% behind his infrastructure plans (assuming it's more than just oil pipelines).
Couple of things that jumped out at me:
We need regulations - but good projects that actually make the world more efficient/cleaner (such as transit projects that take cars off of the road) should be fast tracked.
Yes!
Double Yes!
I like the idea of mixed private and public funding - I wish more local projects did this. Here in the SF Bay Area, we should really be working with the many large companies to see if they can help bridge the gap on funding of major projects.
I'm cautiously interested to see what comes of this plan of his. I hope he keeps to his words on this.
This should be very interesting. Democrats have wanted this but repulicans have pushed it aside
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We need regulations - but good projects that actually make the world more efficient/cleaner (such as transit projects that take cars off of the road) should be fast tracked. 
