• Trump reportedly has a list of $137 billion in infrastructure projects he wants to build
    39 replies, posted
[QUOTE] President Donald Trump's administration has compiled a list of 50 infrastructure projects, totaling $137.5 billion in investment, that it wants to undertake according to documents obtained by the Kansas City Star and The News Tribune in Tacoma, WA. [URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html"] A presentation[/URL] obtained by the Star and Tribune reportedly lays out the impact of the investment. 50% of the projects will be funded by private investment according to the presentation and directly create 193,350 job years [URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html"] according to the presentation. [/URL] [URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html"]According to the report[/URL], the list was circulated around governors' offices in December, and it was assembled from requests for three to five projects from each state. The presentation and proposals have been passed around for some time, [URL="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html"] said the Star and Tribune[/URL], [B]and it is unclear if the list is finalized or a draft. [/B] [B]Trump initially proposed a [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-campaign-1-trillion-infrastructure-plan-with-no-tax-hike-2016-10"] $1 trillion infrastructure package[/URL] during the campaign, but later decreased the promised amount to $550 billion following the election.[/B] [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-137-billion-infrastructure-project-list-2017-1[/URL] [QUOTE]White House spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said on Wednesday that [URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html"]this more detailed document[/URL] [B]is “not an official White House document.”[/B] Read more here: [URL]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html#storylink=cpy[/URL] [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article128492164.html[/URL]
Seems like a lot of good projects in that. Lot of bridges and highways that need to be rebuilt, and ports expanded.
damn thats a lot of walls
hope he fixes flint asap
[QUOTE=Untouch;51726392]damn thats a lot of walls[/QUOTE] Roads are just sideways walls.
Interesting. This seems to fit with CaspianReport's prediction: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsKnsgPiWEA[/media]
[QUOTE=IceBlizzard;51726481]hope he fixes flint asap[/QUOTE] IDK about that seeing as the Republicans voted to shut down the investigation into the water crisis.
Building up infrastructure is a good thing, hopefully if any of these projects come to fruition it will create a hell of a lot of jobs.
Can't really fault trump for this, it's a good initiative. A lot of America's infrastructure was built 50+ years ago, it isn't surprising that it's in need of an overhaul.
I actually agree with Trump on this one - America's infrastructure's crumbling apart and it could use some repairs or more.
That'd be great if we could pay for it, but since Trump's cutting taxes for the wealthy, we'll have to gut social programs to do it.
It's interesting to note that Bernie had a very similar idea himself, both being to the value of 1 trillion dollars. However, trump's reduced the amount quite a lot, but this willl honestly create loads of jobs and stimulate the economy.
Wasn't the main republican criticism of Bernie Sanders how he was going to pay for his projects?
This has been my biggest reason for giving trump a chance since he announced this plan. Our infrastructure has gone to shit and projects are gonna require a LOT of labor. Hopefully this turns out well
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51728684]That'd be great if we could pay for it, but since Trump's cutting taxes for the wealthy, we'll have to gut social programs to do it.[/QUOTE] I somehow doubt gutting social programs would help the USA curb any inflationary pressures that may result from pursuing large scale infrastructure projects
I mean at the end of the day, debt accured from internal development isn't a bad thing. If the debt counter goes up but there's a tangible benefit from the projects it's honestly nbd
[URL="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3409546-Emergency-NatSec50Projects-121416-1-Reduced.html"]a lot of the shit in the document makes sense.[/URL] Shit hydroelectrics, roads, bridges, trains, etc. the ATC systems I can semi personally comment on - better systems/tools for controllers = better information for ATC = better information for pilots. I think anyone that's ever piloted a craft in/out of busy, shitty American airports will tell you it can get a little scary when the controllers are so bogged down they can't even tell you what number you are in the circuit. happens a lot at high-traffic airports with a few charters and schools running out of them. I don't know what specific places will get these installations (likely only major airports) but this is a -serious- major plus for aviation, and aviation/airports really do attract business, jobs and prosperity. Look at something like YVR - the island its on is FULL of shipping companies, hotels, restaurants, etc. and is the result of private interest investing a lot of money to make the airport as large and efficient as possible, something other recently privatized airports in canada share in common. A lot of federal american airports legitimately suck ass. Specifically the Seattle-Tacoma airport. Like holy shit yes expand that, that place is handling way more traffic than it's designed for because, like most port authority airports, its handled terribly. It's a huge facility already but it really needs to be bigger considering it's one of the biggest american hubs on the west coast Like yeah if he builds some dank ATC systems and some much needed bridges/roads (seriously american roads suck dick too) I'm all for that. Fuck off with the wall tho.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51728684]That'd be great if we could pay for it, but since Trump's cutting taxes for the wealthy, we'll have to gut social programs to do it.[/QUOTE] As much as I would love to see major investment into public infrastructure, this is my fear. Trump will gut critical social programs to pay for it.
[QUOTE]50% of the projects will be funded by private investment[/QUOTE] So basically throwing money at private companies to do substandard work and leave the infrastructure with bandaids instead of renovations while running off with cash in hand.
[QUOTE=1239the;51730563]So basically throwing money at private companies to do substandard work and leave the infrastructure with bandaids instead of renovations while running off with cash in hand.[/QUOTE] not really any different from what our government workers do already
[QUOTE=Carlito;51726892]IDK about that seeing as the Republicans voted to shut down the investigation into the water crisis.[/QUOTE] [url]http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/17/politics/epa-100-million-flint/[/url]
One of these projects will be to tear down the statue of liberty and replace it with a statue of Trump made of gold.
[QUOTE=IceBlizzard;51726481]hope he fixes flint asap[/QUOTE] doubt it since he wants to nuke the EPA all together
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51976347]One of these projects will be to tear down the statue of liberty and replace it with a statue of Trump made of gold.[/QUOTE] No complaints here. The french suck anyways.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51730485]As much as I would love to see major investment into public infrastructure, this is my fear. Trump will gut critical social programs to pay for it.[/QUOTE] Called it
This isn't a criticism of Trump himself, but of politicians in general: Why is infrastructure spending often an election promise from virtually every politician in the world? You'd think that if they were elected to improve the infrastructure, that it wouldn't be an issue by the time of the next election? Do people only ever propose it just to get elected, but then completely forget about it afterwards? At least Trump seems to be acting on it, so no problems here.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;51728684]That'd be great if we could pay for it, but since Trump's cutting taxes for the wealthy, we'll have to gut social programs to do it.[/QUOTE] Which is great because it makes it harder to own cars and utilize new infrastructure so it will last longer!
[QUOTE=BF;51976506]This isn't a criticism of Trump himself, but of politicians in general: Why is infrastructure spending often an election promise from virtually every politician in the world? You'd think that if they were elected to improve the infrastructure, that it wouldn't be an issue by the time of the next election? Do people only ever propose it just to get elected, but then completely forget about it afterwards? At least Trump seems to be acting on it, so no problems here.[/QUOTE] A lot of it had to do with the fact that most politicians significantly oversell and underperform on their promises regarding infrastructure. See Trump's promise to invest a trillion, while only actually allotting $100bn (latest number I've heard). Another is that America is fuggin huge. There's always infrastruxture to be improved, repaired, or replaced, and it's incredibly expensive. That $100bn is barely even enough to overhaul all of New York City, let alone all of the United States.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51729185]This has been my biggest reason for giving trump a chance since he announced this plan. Our infrastructure has gone to shit and projects are gonna require a LOT of labor. Hopefully this turns out well[/QUOTE] everybody has been wanting to move on infastructure for over a decade, obama signed a infastructure package in his first 3 months. clinton and bernie both wanted one too. i'm extremely skeptical about how they will be able to raise half the money through private equity especially when the things like highways, roads and bridges are not going to generate any money themselves. on the face of it this is a bandaid to a bigger problem. congress needs to raise the gas tax or install some new tax to help raise funds to the highway trust fund so that 1) its not going to go insolvent every other year as it currently does, 2) so that we can continually afford to repair and rebuild our infastructure instead of having to wait for a new admin with another omnibus bill.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51976719]A lot of it had to do with the fact that most politicians significantly oversell and underperform on their promises regarding infrastructure. See Trump's promise to invest a trillion, while only actually allotting $100bn (latest number I've heard). Another is that America is fuggin huge. There's always infrastruxture to be improved, repaired, or replaced, and it's incredibly expensive. That $100bn is barely even enough to overhaul all of New York City, let alone all of the United States.[/QUOTE] Right? Even a small stretch of highway in New Mexico costs $9 million around here, or so I've noticed from local infrastructure renovation projects.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.