- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Curiousity Poll. Would you support deficit Trump Infrastructure Spending...
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:35 pm to Loserman
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:35 pm to Loserman
And assuming that Trump would treat those expenditures just like it was his money. Demanding honest bang for the buck; holding Administrators accountable. No siphoning to cronies or profiteers. That alone would be monumental.
2
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:39 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:Can't wait for America to lose its shirt in Atlantic City and then make a comeback by licensing the "Made in America" sticker to mobbed-up developers and the Sharper Image
And assuming that Trump would treat those expenditures just like it was his money.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:44 pm to RCDfan1950
I would accept short term severe deficit spending on infrastructure so long as this changed to as close to revenue neutral as feasible at some point in the future. I wouldn't need true revenue neutral as infrastructure could potentially help commerce, and would help reduce transportation costs, especially to the trucking sector.
I guess you'd first have to define deficit spending as it has multiple meanings when used by governmental entities. But my above answer would be the same for the two most common usages of deficit spending.
I guess you'd first have to define deficit spending as it has multiple meanings when used by governmental entities. But my above answer would be the same for the two most common usages of deficit spending.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 1:50 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
And assuming that Trump would treat those expenditures just like it was his money. Demanding honest bang for the buck; holding Administrators accountable. No siphoning to cronies or profiteers. That alone would be monumental.
Quality that is Under budget and ahead of Schedule
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:01 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
What is your down reasoning, CC? Even the Dems would love this
It is neigh impossible to borrow ones way out of debt, tackling spending issues to fund infastruce is much more appealing to me.
Every president for the last 50 years has fell to the siren song of deficit spending only to end up with much larger debt in the end.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:03 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
I would accept short term severe deficit spending on infrastructure so long as this changed to as close to revenue neutral as feasible at some point in the future. I wouldn't need true revenue neutral as infrastructure could potentially help commerce, and would help reduce transportation costs, especially to the trucking sector. I guess you'd first have to define deficit spending as it has multiple meanings when used by governmental entities. But my above answer would be the same for the two most common usages of deficit spending.
I assume - perhaps wrongly so - IG, that Obama's doubling of the National Debt was mostly from new, deficit spending. And most going to expansion of Government Bureaucracy (make work/Dem cronies/votes) and subsidies to all manner of Social Programs...as opposed to real concrete and steel infrastructure. Am I wrong? Was it interest on the accumulated Debt that doubled it; nws that the Interest Rate was near zero?
I realize that the size of the Debt, as related to a rising Interest Rate is highly problematic if not essentially calamitous. Might be wrong there to?
But having read the Book "Abundance", I am inclined to think that high tech can solve a lot of fiscal problems. Just don't know. But if we pump a trillion into this Nation's Infrastructure instead of war/rebuilding/bribes, it seems that would be a win.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:05 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
hat is interesting, and likely a true reflection of Conservatives across the Nation
Yep, as I've always said, most fiscal conservatives are only fiscally conservative when it comes to programs/ideas they disagree with. If it's something they agree with, they can always justify the spending, regardless of the impact on the budget, debt, and/or deficit.
I would support an infrastructure bill, depending on how the spending is focused. I think it's past time we upgraded our rail system that at least initially connects our major cities. In addition to road/bridge improvements.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:08 pm to RCDfan1950
What spending would ever not be "deficit" spending?
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:13 pm to cave canem
quote:
It is neigh impossible to borrow ones way out of debt, tackling spending issues to fund infastruce is much more appealing to me. Every president for the last 50 years has fell to the siren song of deficit spending only to end up with much larger debt in the end.
Mostly agree, CC. But debt incurred as wise investment can indeed pay off. It would seem to me that our prime directive would be to insure that productive Society stays afloat, dodge any calamitous economic collapse, and hope that high tech can solve a lot of problems. Toward that end, I see no way in the interim, that there is any other option.
China owns a lot of our Debt. They have STOLEN a LOT of intellectual property that we paid a lot to develop. In honesty, they should not get a pass. The Debt should be adjusted accordingly.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:17 pm to goatmilker
quote:
What spending would ever not be "deficit" spending?
During the 90's the Budget was balanced, gm. Of course, there was a Bubble (DotCom) that I guess would qualify as a form of 'deficit'.
This stuff wears me out!
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:31 pm to RCDfan1950
There a lot here, so I answered as best I could in (.......)
quote:
I assume - perhaps wrongly so - IG, that Obama's doubling of the National Debt was mostly from new, deficit spending. And most going to expansion of Government Bureaucracy (make work/Dem cronies/votes) and subsidies to all manner of Social Programs...as opposed to real concrete and steel infrastructure. Am I wrong?
(I don't think you're wrong. I don't think his new spending doubled the debt, but your categorization of his new spending is correct as far as I know)
Was it interest on the accumulated Debt that doubled it; now that the Interest Rate was near zero? (Not alone)
I realize that the size of the Debt, as related to a rising Interest Rate is highly problematic if not essentially calamitous. Might be wrong there to? (No, you're generally correct again in my opinion)
But having read the Book "Abundance", I am inclined to think that high tech can solve a lot of fiscal problems. (Growth of any kind reduces the deficit, or slows the deficits growth rate)
Just don't know. But if we pump a trillion into this Nation's Infrastructure instead of war/rebuilding/bribes, it seems that would be a win. (I see this as two issue, allocation, and allocation to something that aids growth. Infrastructure aids growth. The interesting part to watch going forward is how the new infrastructure spending is structured if it happens)
Posted on 1/17/17 at 2:45 pm to Iowa Golfer
Hannity just took off on this very issue. Said that he knows the Dems would support it, but he fears abuse. Said he'd like to see it block granted to the States, with accountable oversight a la 'on time' and 'on budget'.
Hmmm. "Whithersoever the carcasse lies...the birds gather" (Good Book). I wonder if we could find an honest Administrator in this State; totally committed to treating this money as their own.
Hmmm. "Whithersoever the carcasse lies...the birds gather" (Good Book). I wonder if we could find an honest Administrator in this State; totally committed to treating this money as their own.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 3:04 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
Hmmm. "Whithersoever the carcasse lies...the birds gather" (Good Book). I wonder if we could find an honest Administrator in this State; totally committed to treating this money as their own.
This is exactly what will happen.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 3:12 pm to MasonicTiger
quote:
This is exactly what will happen.
You got me, MT. I totally missed it. It is a damn shame if we can't find a single individual we'd trust enough to be a good steward of taxpayer monies. Borrowed at that.
Sometimes...I'm inclined to invoke that Bible verse "he that warreth doth not involve himself in the affairs of men"...and just head to the the beautiful landscape. Of course, evil and ignorant men would ruin that, sooner or later.
Oh well. Balance.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 3:14 pm to RCDfan1950
Obama's original stimulus money is still in the budget, compounding at 5-6% annually. I support using that money for infrastructure...
Posted on 1/17/17 at 3:24 pm to RCDfan1950
You currently would have an eligible recipient, the State of Louisiana, who has, or will be drawing up a state actions plan, and distributing funds to several local governmental entities who drew up plans and programs, either municipalities or parishes, with respect to federal flood money that is derived from the Stafford Act, which includes community block grant funding.
It's a long story why some guy from Iowa understands your flood situation, but trust me, I do. Having spoken to the Mayor of Baton Rouge about the flood issue, I would share your concern about the integrity and competence of Louisiana elected officials. He was offered help, and a previously developed plan that FEMA approved to help get funding that was housing related redirected to businesses that were flood impacted, and he told me to go pound sand.
It's a long story why some guy from Iowa understands your flood situation, but trust me, I do. Having spoken to the Mayor of Baton Rouge about the flood issue, I would share your concern about the integrity and competence of Louisiana elected officials. He was offered help, and a previously developed plan that FEMA approved to help get funding that was housing related redirected to businesses that were flood impacted, and he told me to go pound sand.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 4:02 pm to Iowa Golfer
That is deflating, IG. The buck should stop with the Governor. It all starts at the top.
Power corrupts. Apparently we have a hard lesson to learn.
Power corrupts. Apparently we have a hard lesson to learn.
Posted on 1/17/17 at 5:13 pm to RCDfan1950
No
Posted on 1/17/17 at 5:57 pm to Anfield Road
quote:
No
Rationale?
Posted on 1/17/17 at 6:16 pm to RCDfan1950
Negative.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News