Trump Infrastructure Plan a Joke

mark kennedy said:

Talking big plans but he has effectively shifted the burden of the infrastructure on the states, who can't possibly pay for it. When are we going to wake up and realize this dude sold us a junker and it keeps breaking down because we made a bad choice.​

Anyway, what do you think of the Trump infrastructure plan?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

This was my assessment as well. How will the states pay for it? Especially the poor states.

Well, supposing our infrastructure needs are indeed $1.5 trillion - how will the federal government pay for that?

Calling a plan a "joke" just because the administration proposes to have the states share the costs with the federal government seems to be its own joke - especially when the proposal would have the federal government pay roughly 7 times what the average state's share would be.

Frankly, it would seem those who scream the loudest for "fairness" would be the most pleased at such a proposal.

Portalmon said:

Well, supposing our infrastructure needs are indeed $1.5 trillion - how will the federal government pay for that?

Calling a plan a "joke" just because the administration proposes to have the states share the costs with the federal government seems to be its own joke - especially when the proposal would have the federal government pay roughly 7 times what the average state's share would be.

Frankly, it would seem those who scream the loudest for "fairness" would be the most pleased at such a proposal.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you are correct and I misunderstood what was said. Could you please confirm or correct my knowledge?

From my understanding approximately 1.5T USD is needed for infrastructure. The Trump plan is that the federal government will contribute 200B USD, or about 14% of total cost.

If true, I would agree that the federal government paying only 14% of infrastructure costs is not a serious plan as many states will not be able to afford to pay 86% of these costs.

This plan would not be much difference from Trump saying states are 100% responsible for all costs of infrastructure, and I think we both agree that would be ridiculous "plan".

mark kennedy said:

I'm confused, if it's deficit spending then where does the other 80% go? It just seems like a lot of money, where is it going, I'm very confused here.

Click to expand...

If facts are correct in your OP, then I think I have a good analogy:

It is similar to getting a coupon from a Ferrari dealership for 14% off the cost of a new Ferrari. Yes, this is a great amount of money, but if you can not afford the Ferrari without the coupon, you can not afford the Ferrari with the coupon.

Yonny Costopoulis said:

Perhaps you are correct and I misunderstood what was said. Could you please confirm or correct my knowledge?

From my understanding approximately 1.5T USD is needed for infrastructure. The Trump plan is that the federal government will contribute 200B USD, or about 14% of total cost.

If true, I would agree that the federal government paying only 14% of infrastructure costs is not a serious plan as many states will not be able to afford to pay 86% of these costs.

This plan would not be much difference from Trump saying states are 100% responsible for all costs of infrastructure, and I think we both agree that would be ridiculous "plan".

Click to expand...

$200B is indeed about 14% of the total estimated infrastructure cost - leaving about 86% of those costs to the state(s) - emphasis on the plurality of state(s). There are 50 states, which means the 86% would be shared among them, or 86% / 50 = 1.72% per state (on average).

My point was simply this: of 51 parties, 50 states + the federal gov't, the fairest way to split the costs would be 100% / 51 = 1.96% each (on average).

Trump's plan proposes the fed'l government's share be 7 times the "fair share" of 1.96% each, reducing the average share of each state to 1.72%.

And for those who seem so concerned with "fairness," it seems rather disingenuous to me that they're not pleased with such a plan.

mark kennedy said:

I'm confused, if it's deficit spending then where does the other 80% go? It just seems like a lot of money, where is it going, I'm very confused here.

Click to expand...

Where it goes is to all the programs no one in Congress is willing to quit sending it.

mark kennedy said:

The Trump administration's infrastructure plan is finally out.The headline number is $1.5 trillion, but only $200 billion of that would come from the federal government. Cities, states and private investment would make up the rest. Ed Rendell (@GovEdRendell), former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, says shifting much of the funding burden onto states will have a negative impact. (Trump's Infrastructure Plan 'A Joke,' Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell Says, NPR)
​

This is vintage Trump, he is doing another bait and switch. Talking big plans but he has effectively shifted the burden of the infrastructure on the states, who can't possibly pay for it. When are we going to wake up and realize this dude sold us a junker and it keeps breaking down because we made a bad choice.

Anyway, what do you think of the Trump infrastructure plan?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

I thought the point of a joke was to be funny?

Hey! Who needs clean air and water? As part of the infrastructure plan Trumps aims to do away with all those pesky environmental regulations.

Trump's infrastructure plan aims to sweep away 'inefficient' environmental reviews

So folks drink that lead/ mercury polluted water whilst all that beautiful new infrastructure built on flood plains, not taking account of sea level rise, sinks.

Am I write in thinking Mr Trump’s plan is for each state to come up with a plan?

Genius

Portalmon said:

$200B is indeed about 14% of the total estimated infrastructure cost - leaving about 86% of those costs to the state(s) - emphasis on the plurality of state(s). There are 50 states, which means the 86% would be shared among them, or 86% / 50 = 1.72% per state (on average).

My point was simply this: of 51 parties, 50 states + the federal gov't, the fairest way to split the costs would be 100% / 51 = 1.96% each (on average).

Trump's plan proposes the fed'l government's share be 7 times the "fair share" of 1.96% each, reducing the average share of each state to 1.72%.

And for those who seem so concerned with "fairness," it seems rather disingenuous to me that they're not pleased with such a plan.

Click to expand...

My point is that Trump did not present a "plan". Please lay out the Trump "plan" for all to see, because I have not seen a plan.

Trump gave a supermarket coupon for 14% off, which is not even a very good supermarket coupon!.

mark kennedy said:

Yea, and Trump and his friends will make a lot of money.

Click to expand...

Yes.

And they will move far away from the polluted ground water and cancerous the agents that will kill some of the children of those who cannot afford to move away.

mark kennedy said:

The Trump administration's infrastructure plan is finally out.The headline number is $1.5 trillion, but only $200 billion of that would come from the federal government. Cities, states and private investment would make up the rest. Ed Rendell (@GovEdRendell), former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, says shifting much of the funding burden onto states will have a negative impact. (Trump's Infrastructure Plan 'A Joke,' Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell Says, NPR)
​

This is vintage Trump, he is doing another bait and switch. Talking big plans but he has effectively shifted the burden of the infrastructure on the states, who can't possibly pay for it. When are we going to wake up and realize this dude sold us a junker and it keeps breaking down because we made a bad choice.

Anyway, what do you think of the Trump infrastructure plan?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Click to expand...

The $200 billion is not even new spending....it's re-allocated funds from other programs such as transit, and community development block grants.

Trump Infrastructure Plan Would Pay For A Fraction Of Investment

Portalmon said:

Well, supposing our infrastructure needs are indeed $1.5 trillion - how will the federal government pay for that?

Calling a plan a "joke" just because the administration proposes to have the states share the costs with the federal government seems to be its own joke - especially when the proposal would have the federal government pay roughly 7 times what the average state's share would be.

Frankly, it would seem those who scream the loudest for "fairness" would be the most pleased at such a proposal.

Click to expand...

why is it the Federal Government's responsibility to ensure all of the infrastructure. Some things, yes. But most things are under the jurisdiction of the states, and one state should not have to pay for another state.

If another state (or more specifically, business in another state) has interests in improving the infrastructure of another state, that comes down to their decision.

Why does Trump have any say in this at all besides precedent set by FDR? It isn't really a part of his authority to make these proposals.


but I also say assuming all of the above is wrong. and that the Federal Government should shoulder the burden, (and by that I mean all of the states pay for each other), why is anyone surprised that Trump is doing this?

mark kennedy said:

The point is how they will come up with the money. Did you miss that?

Click to expand...

I wa being sarcastic.

Did you miss that?