quote:
If Trump wants a massive stimulus package for infrastructure, as long as that money actually goes to infrastructure rather than paybacks to campaign contributors like Jamaican rum distillers and solar panel manufacturers, then it will be something I can support despite it being a massive government expense. Transportation infrastructure is one of the few things virtually all Americans can agree is within the federal government's scope of enumerated powers. It's basically the only thing that the federal government does that we all benefit from and is completely uncontroversial.

Damn SKIPPY>......Conservatism be damned...cut taxes and spend money dammit.....borrow you way to greatness...and when things get tight simply tell the lendor they are going to have to renegotiate the terms of the loan to one you can live with!!!! It is going to be fricking YUGE!!!!!

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by kingbob

Sorrento, LA

Member since Nov 2010

67234 posts

Posted on 12/1/16 at 9:31 pm to germandawg

The difference is that by investing in infrastructure, the costs to transport goods becomes lessened, and transportation times become lessened as well resulting in cheaper goods, more goods, more spending, and greater tax receipts. Indirectly, most infrastructure programs pay for themselves. In fact, the gains in efficiency created by the massive expense that was the first interstate system paid for itself in less than 5 years.

Fiscal conservatism isn't just about spending less. It's about spending in ways which result in more government income in the future. There are tons of things which need to be cut long before ceasing to spend money on critical infrastructure.

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board