• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump unveils awesome new, "FU, U Pay For It" Infrastructure Plan

J

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Jan 31, 2001
Messages
45,987
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Trump seems to want the Government to pay for one thing, and one thing only... a wall along the Mexican border. Trump bragged during his campaign about his commitment to infrastructure. Early thoughts seemed to suggest spending that would go to make private equity investment into public works tax creditable.

Sadly, it isn't even that "good".

article said:
President Trump will finally be unveiling his long-awaited $1.5 trillion plan to repair and rebuild the nation's crumbling highways, bridges, railroads, airports, seaports and water systems Monday.

...

Administration officials say the president's plan addresses the funding shortfall by committing $200 billion in federal funding over 10 years to stimulate state and local spending and private investment. Half of the funding, $100 billion, will be used as incentives to entice cities, counties and states to raise at least 80 percent of the infrastructure costs themselves.
Click to expand...
You might have missed it, but for those that caught it... $1.5 trillion program (over 10 years)... $0.2 trillion of Federal funding. This seems a little odd. Trump and the Republicans didn't propose increasing military spending by ~$150 billion over two years, but only providing $25 billion in the budget. So, Trump's major awesome plan for infrastructure in America is an additional $10 billion a year... to state's and city's who'll fund the projects 80%... so Trump's plan will actually cost even less than $10 billion a year, because requiring states to fund at 80% with the current Republican state mindset of don't pay for anything... little will be built.

So the other $100 billion:
  • $50 billion goes to pay for rural infrastructure
  • $20 billion will go to give private equity firms free money
  • $20 billion goes to "transformative" or something with a "vision to the future" (clearly the White House doesn't know how expensive future minded stuff is)
  • $10 billion for Government building building.

I know, I know... civil engineers are climaxing across the nation because of $10 billion extra of spending a year for America infrastructure... assuming the state they live in can afford the 80-20 funding requirement.

Oh, FYI, this funding is coming at the expense of other domestic programs. So this "boost" to infrastructure spending represents a 5% cut to other non-military discretionary spending.
 
FUUPFI? Man Civil Engineers come pretty easy I guess...

Even this little bit of more spending might be hard for the Repugs to swallow after the drunken orgies they have been having. Of course it is comical to talk of cutting Amtrak and/or the Highway Trust Fund to help fund this. Add to it of stripping environmental/union regulations as part of the plot, and it could be a poison pill for many Dums.
 
But but but... they'll streamline the process for beaucoup savings. The fuckwads don't seem to understand the difference between red tape and severe waste.
 
Wow, $1.5 trillion in spending with a cost to the taxpayers of only $100 billion. That's a great bargain. It's nice that you have such a good businessman and deal maker in the Presidency that he can find these kinds of efficiencies in government spending.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Wow, $1.5 trillion in spending with a cost to the taxpayers of only $100 billion. That's a great bargain. It's nice that you have such a good businessman and deal maker in the Presidency that he can find these kinds of efficiencies in government spending.
Click to expand...
Seems like he wants to run infrastructure spending like his "charity", use other people's money and make it look like he is philanthropist.
 
On the bright side, next time a train full of Rethuglicans crashes, maybe there will be no survivors.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Elixir said:
On the bright side, next time a train full of Rethuglicans crashes, maybe there will be no survivors.
Click to expand...
Let's not say things like this.
Click to expand...

I take it that you read my comment as reflecting a lack of respect for the sanctity of life. Please rest assured - that is not the case. I only tolerate the vision of several hundred dead Congresscritters in consideration of the thousands - or tens or hundreds of thousands - of lives that would be saved by such a tragic turn of events.
 
Here come the user fees. Republicans may hate taxes but I'll bet they're just fine with user fees. Let's see what kind of sweet deals will be available to America's deep pockets. And you think these user fees will ever expire? Maybe on paper. But I'll bet my mom as the expiration draws near, there will be a need to extend them.

Need to fly out of Koch International Airport? Fuck you. Pay me.
Need to drive across the Marriott bridge to get to work? Fuck you. Pay me.
Need to flush the toilet connected to Adelson Sewage? Fuck you. Pay me.

Why not. The USA has been in escrow long enough. Let's complete the transfer to the 1%.
 
One other issue with the submital of this "plan". Congress has already passed a two-year budget. In order to make Trump's plan workable... it has to pass Congress, perhaps one of the reasons it came out so late.
jonatha said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Elixir said:
On the bright side, next time a train full of Rethuglicans crashes, maybe there will be no survivors.
Click to expand...
Let's not say things like this.
Click to expand...

Well, OK, but I'm having real trouble finding a catchy tune to put it to....
Click to expand...
*presents post of the month award*
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Wow, $1.5 trillion in spending with a cost to the taxpayers of only $100 billion. That's a great bargain. It's nice that you have such a good businessman and deal maker in the Presidency that he can find these kinds of efficiencies in government spending.
Click to expand...
Seems like he wants to run infrastructure spending like his "charity", use other people's money and make it look like he is philanthropist.
Click to expand...

^^^ exactly that. And don't forget the most important part... line his own pockets first and foremost
 
That proposal is an insult. Such a paltry sum. Only 20%?

Why isn't President (pResident?) Trump dreaming big? For someone who likes to have his name on things, his talk about infrastructure is remarkably lame.

Why not something like a network of high-speed railroad lines connecting the more populated US cities? It's rather easy for me to think of some suitable lines.

An Atlantic Axis extending the Northeast Corridor from Maine to Florida. Portland - Boston - New York City - Philadelphia - Baltimore - Washington DC - Richmond - Raieigh - Charlotte - Atlanta - Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami

What I like to call Greater Chicagoland. Lines radiating out from Chicago to Toledo, with Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, Indianapolis with Columbus, Cincinnati, and Louisville, St. Louis with Kansas City, Des Moines with Omaha, and Milwaukee with Madison and Minneapolis.

The under-construction California and proposed Texas systems, and lines in the Pacific Northwest, between Ohio's three C's, and elsewhere.


 High-speed rail notes some market-share values that indicates that trains can easily compete with airplanes for trips less than 3 or 4 hours.  List of high-speed railway lines has the length of such lines per nation. Its definition: new lines with speeds of 250 km/h (160 mph) or more, or upgraded lines with speeds of 200 km/h (120 mph) or more.
  • China: 25,000 km (16,000 mi) -- around 2/3 of all high-speed trackage
  • Spain: 3,240 km (2,010 mi)
  • Germany: 3.038 km (1,338 mi)
  • Japan: 2,764.6 km (1,717.8 mi)
  • France: 2,647 km (1,645 mi)
  • Atlantic Axis: 2,000 mi (3,200 km)
  • Greater Chicagoland: 2,600 mi (4,200 km)
  • California and Nevada: 1,000 mi (1,600 km)
  • Texas Triangle: 700 mi (1,100 km)
  • Pacific Northwest: 280 mi (450 km)
  • Ohio 3C's: 250 mi (400 km)
A grand total of 6,800 mi (11,000 km). Not quite China, but more than what any other nation has.
 
lpetrich said:
An Atlantic Axis extending the Northeast Corridor from Maine to Florida. Portland - Boston - New York City - Philadelphia - Baltimore - Washington DC - Richmond - Raieigh - Charlotte - Atlanta - Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami
Click to expand...

Fuck no - at best it might be Columbia SC - Montgomery - Tupelo - Little Rock - Oklahoma City - Dallas

Blue states can pay for their own fucking rail systems!
 
Elixir said:
lpetrich said:
An Atlantic Axis extending the Northeast Corridor from Maine to Florida. Portland - Boston - New York City - Philadelphia - Baltimore - Washington DC - Richmond - Raieigh - Charlotte - Atlanta - Jacksonville - Orlando - Miami
Click to expand...

Fuck no - at best it might be Columbia SC - Montgomery - Tupelo - Little Rock - Oklahoma City - Dallas

Blue states can pay for their own fucking rail systems!
Click to expand...

How about Wasilla to Wales, Alaska?
 
Found these on the Amtrak Web Site

Texas Eagle

Chicago, Springfield, IL, St Louis, LIttle Rock, Texarkana, Dallas-Ft Worth, San Antonio and then on to LA


Heartland Flyer

Ft Worth, Ardmore, Norman, OKC

Later,
ElectEngr
 
lpetrich said:
Why not something like a network of high-speed railroad lines connecting the more populated US cities? It's rather easy for me to think of some suitable lines.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. We don't have high speed rail because it's not viable here. There are three basic issues:

1) Population density. Very few places in the US have the population density needed to support good passenger rail.

2) Cities exist. You either put the rail station on the outskirts (negating much of the advantage) or you are faced with incredibly expensive construction due to the cost of what you're tearing down to build it. Note that in many places in Europe the existing tracks were changed over to passenger rail rather than freight--that means more trucks on the road. (However, shipping is far more useful in Europe than it is here.) While in theory both types of train can use the same tracks it doesn't work very well in practice. The passenger trains want to run fast, the freight trains run slow because the situation isn't suitable for them to run fast. Mix them and you force the passenger trains to run slow.

3) You give examples of where to build high speed rail--but they are lists of cities. Oops, now the train isn't competitive with the airplane any more due to the time it spends at the stops along the way. (Which is also going to doom California's high speed rail boondoggle.)

 High-speed rail notes some market-share values that indicates that trains can easily compete with airplanes for trips less than 3 or 4 hours.  List of high-speed railway lines has the length of such lines per nation. Its definition: new lines with speeds of 250 km/h (160 mph) or more, or upgraded lines with speeds of 200 km/h (120 mph) or more.
  • China: 25,000 km (16,000 mi) -- around 2/3 of all high-speed trackage
Click to expand...


  • Note that China is a special case. They are undergoing extreme urban renewal--near 100% replacement of the buildings anyway. This greatly cuts the cost of running a train into the city.

    Besides, lets look at that high speed rail. I'm taking an example specifically stated as being competitive to air travel: Shanghai to Beijing.

    High speed train: 5 hours from the Shanghai Honqqiao train terminal, cheapest tickets ~$130.
    By air: 2 hours from the Shanghai Hongqiao airport, cheapest tickets ~$80.

    Given the extra time needed to actually get into Beijing and the greater security time at the airport (there is a security check with the trains) I would consider the time to be similar.

    This is about as good as it gets--and note that the train still is behind. (Not to mention that it's easier to buy that air ticket and you can buy it much farther out if you want. On the other hand, there isn't a close-in fee with the train.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom