Trump's Infrastructure "Program" (Scam)

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you do want to invade, though, we are happy to torch your White House again and we're willing to do it while Trump is home.

Doesn't sound like Donny's going to be spending a lot of time there so you'll have to time it just right.

Actually, he may need to. The Mayor of NYC isn't keen on Trump closing off a block of NYC whenever he is home or closing off so much of NYC when he flies in at the airport and drives to Trump Tower and shuts down half of downtown NYC traffic. Secret Service probably isn't keen on it either.

 

[LordKiran]

Remember guys, giving out your tax dollars to a poor family is bad, but giving those same tax dollars to a private company for personal financial gain is perfectly fine.

 

[Will Wiley]

Making a few of Trump's pals Great Again...

"The federal government can indeed borrow very cheaply; meanwhile, we really need to spend money on everything from sewage treatment to transit. The indicated course of action, then, is simple: borrow at those low, low rates, and use the funds raised to fix what needs fixing.

But that’s not what the Trump team is proposing. Instead, it’s calling for huge tax credits: billions of dollars in checks written to private companies that invest in approved projects, which they would end up owning. For example, imagine a private consortium building a toll road for $1 billion. Under the Trump plan, the consortium might borrow $800 million while putting up $200 million in equity — but it would get a tax credit of 82 percent of that sum, so that its actual outlays would only be $36 million. And any future revenue from tolls would go to the people who put up that $36 million.(quote][/B]

Is there any evidence Trump proposed that?

I think he might have the areas involved issue municipal bonds that are federally backed but not on the federal balance sheet. that would still give a tax break as those kind of bonds will be tax free IIUC

 

[Elixir]

Making a few of Trump's pals Great Again...

"The federal government can indeed borrow very cheaply; meanwhile, we really need to spend money on everything from sewage treatment to transit. The indicated course of action, then, is simple: borrow at those low, low rates, and use the funds raised to fix what needs fixing.

But that’s not what the Trump team is proposing. Instead, it’s calling for huge tax credits: billions of dollars in checks written to private companies that invest in approved projects, which they would end up owning. For example, imagine a private consortium building a toll road for $1 billion. Under the Trump plan, the consortium might borrow $800 million while putting up $200 million in equity — but it would get a tax credit of 82 percent of that sum, so that its actual outlays would only be $36 million. And any future revenue from tolls would go to the people who put up that $36 million.(quote][/B]

Is there any evidence Trump proposed that?

Yes. But you'd have to read something besides Breitbart to know that...

 

[fast]

You better hope not. If it gets fucked up bad enough, we will have to invade someone to take our minds off it. Canada has lots of natural resources. And we know all of you secretly want to be US citizens, so....

You should want us to be US citizens as well. Out of the 30 million who live here, there's maybe four who'd have voted for Trump.

If you do want to invade, though, we are happy to torch your White House again and we're willing to do it while Trump is home.

The place isn't what it used to be. I'm still trying to wrap my head around how many nights he'll actually stay there.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Oh well. I guess we'll just stay home and watch Netflix instead then.

 

[Will Wiley]

Is there any evidence Trump proposed that?

Yes. But you'd have to read something besides Breitbart to know that...

I take it you have no evidence? I'll just put you on ignore until you grow up a bit.

 

[Elixir]

Yes. But you'd have to read something besides Breitbart to know that...

I take it you have no evidence?

Of course you so take it, little one. Don't worry your little head about it - your alt-right sources will keep you safe from those nasty facts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes. But you'd have to read something besides Breitbart to know that...

I take it you have no evidence? I'll just put you on ignore until you grow up a bit.

Pathetic!

If you bothered to read up on anything, you'd know that the NY Times Op-Ed is citing a paper authored by Wilbur Ross. He'd be that guy Trump tapped as Commerce Secretary. You'd be better off going to the Net and finding out why you are supposed to support it at web boards here, that denying the connection to Trump.

 

[funinspace]

I take it you have no evidence? I'll just put you on ignore until you grow up a bit.

Pathetic!

If you bothered to read up on anything, you'd know that the NY Times Op-Ed is citing a paper authored by Wilbur Ross. He'd be that guy Trump tapped as Commerce Secretary. You'd be better off going to the Net and finding out why you are supposed to support it at web boards here, that denying the connection to Trump.

Or from dozens of other new sources...a simple Google search that even a child could handle:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+infrastructure+plan+tax+credits

I wonder just how long it will take some of the Trumpsters to notice that the trickle down affect is rather yellow. Maybe after they see no tax cuts, but for chump change, while the moneyed rake in the windfall? Maybe after the ACA is stripped naked, and their health care costs keep rising? Maybe after the financial industry starts running even wilder again with deregulation? Or maybe after the drone wars don't slow down, and we are still battling those radical Islamists? Nah, they will still be gnawing on the Cuban bone thrown to them re-installing cold war relic sanctions.

Then there is another Goldman Sachs man to head Treasury, maybe we should just call him Mr. Foreclosure....
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/29/50375...easury-secretary-headed-a-foreclosure-machine

After campaigning with lots of populist and anti-Wall Street rhetoric, Donald Trump is seriously considering a veteran Wall Street financier, Steve Mnuchin, to be his Treasury secretary.

Mnuchin spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs, ultimately as a partner at the investment bank.<snip>

But Mnuchin's resume also includes a stint as chairman and CEO of a California bank that's been called a foreclosure machine.
<snip>
Kevin Stein of the California Reinvestment Coalition, a housing advocacy group, says that profit was made on the backs of suffering California homeowners. "In essence what they did is they bought a foreclosure machine," he says.

According to the coalition, OneWest foreclosed on more than 36,000 homeowners under Mnuchin. During that time, the FDIC made payments to OneWest totaling more $1 billion. Those payments went to the "billionaire investors of OneWest Bank," says Stein, "to cover the cost of foreclosing on working-class, everyday, American folks," many of whom lived in California.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pathetic!

If you bothered to read up on anything, you'd know that the NY Times Op-Ed is citing a paper authored by Wilbur Ross. He'd be that guy Trump tapped as Commerce Secretary. You'd be better off going to the Net and finding out why you are supposed to support it at web boards here, that denying the connection to Trump.

Or from dozens of other new sources...a simple Google search that even a child could handle:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+infrastructure+plan+tax+credits

I wonder just how long it will take some of the Trumpsters to notice that the trickle down affect is rather yellow. Maybe after they see no tax cuts, but for chump change, while the moneyed rake in the windfall? Maybe after the ACA is stripped naked, and their health care costs keep rising? Maybe after the financial industry starts running even wilder again with deregulation? Or maybe after the drone wars don't slow down, and we are still battling those radical Islamists? Nah, they will still be gnawing on the Cuban bone thrown to them re-installing cold war relic sanctions.

These people have been voting against their own self interests for decades. People blame Clinton for losing because she didn't try to relate to the low info white worker. The truth is, the low info white worker simply has drank so much right-wing Flavoraid, they stopped noticing it had changed to piss over 10 years ago and they praise policies that have long gone against them.

This infrastructure plan is frightening! It is sci-fi/fantasy level bad (think Total Recall) where private consortiums control everything.

 

[funinspace]

This infrastructure plan is frightening! It is sci-fi/fantasy level bad (think Total Recall) where private consortiums control everything.

Nah....it would be if Trump were Dictator in Chief, but as it is, the 'plan' even if they try to roll it out will mostly flounder as it crashes on the shores of reality. Investors won't take over jack unless there is a solid path to a real revenue stream. And states certainly won't hand over infrastructure to be raped by KBR. Maybe they can sell off of Reagan National with tax credit allowances and then place a $100 surcharge on every flight passenger that passes thru.

Some real life examples:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13628382/donald-trump-infrastructure-plan

To date, such set-ups are relatively rare. Over the last quarter-century, the US has only had 36 privately financed road projects, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of those, 14 are complete, three have declared bankruptcy, and one required a public buyout. The rest are still in construction stage.
<snip>
DeGood says. “There are only a very, very small number of projects that would fit the parameters that would make them attractive in theory for tax credits. Because you have to be able to charge really high margin tolls and user fees. So the facility has to be big enough and have high demand that it’s going to generate revenue that you can go out and take on expensive private equity capital.”

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nah....it would be if Trump were Dictator in Chief, but as it is, the 'plan' even if they try to roll it out will mostly flounder as it crashes on the shores of reality. Investors won't take over jack unless there is a solid path to a real revenue stream. And states certainly won't hand over infrastructure to be raped by KBR.

But the deal is this, the Republicans have been cutting taxes across the country in State legislatures. The whole goal is to make it so they can't afford these things in the first place. Then the hand of the free market can come in and beat us to a pulp.

Some real life examples:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13628382/donald-trump-infrastructure-plan

To date, such set-ups are relatively rare. Over the last quarter-century, the US has only had 36 privately financed road projects, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Of those, 14 are complete, three have declared bankruptcy, and one required a public buyout. The rest are still in construction stage.
<snip>
DeGood says. “There are only a very, very small number of projects that would fit the parameters that would make them attractive in theory for tax credits. Because you have to be able to charge really high margin tolls and user fees. So the facility has to be big enough and have high demand that it’s going to generate revenue that you can go out and take on expensive private equity capital.”

Indiana leased their turnpike out. The State got a short-term windfall, tolls didn't drop, and the road isn't as good as it was.

I see this being a huge windfall for underground utilities (water / sewer) where you dig it, bury it, and forgot it. AND LEASE IT FOREVER. By the time it needs work, they won't be around anymore or they'll just settle with the municipality. For roads and bridges, the benefit is long term cash leasing. As long as they can generate enough revenue from leasing the roads and bridges back to the DOT, they may be able to make it work, especially with the instant tax credit. This only works with lending rates being as low as they are. Of course, it costs money to maintain these structures, but equity firms can find ways around that (campaign donations).

 

[Will Wiley]

I take it you have no evidence? I'll just put you on ignore until you grow up a bit.

Pathetic!

If you bothered to read up on anything, you'd know that the NY Times Op-Ed is citing a paper authored by Wilbur Ross. He'd be that guy Trump tapped as Commerce Secretary. You'd be better off going to the Net and finding out why you are supposed to support it at web boards here, that denying the connection to Trump.

I read that paper, though I doubt you did. there is no evidence in that paper that Trumps plan (if he even had one) resembles the plan attributed to Trump in that paper.
Now please present some evidence

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pathetic!

If you bothered to read up on anything, you'd know that the NY Times Op-Ed is citing a paper authored by Wilbur Ross. He'd be that guy Trump tapped as Commerce Secretary. You'd be better off going to the Net and finding out why you are supposed to support it at web boards here, that denying the connection to Trump.

I read that paper, though I doubt you did. there is no evidence in that paper that Trumps plan (if he even had one) resembles the plan attributed to Trump in that paper.
Now please present some evidence

Ross published the paper last month and Trump said that he wanted private investment into public infrastructure during the debates. Equity firms won't put money into such a program without a massive carrot, the tax credit is that carrot.

Do you need a pie chart of something?

 

[funinspace]

Pathetic!

If you bothered to read up on anything, you'd know that the NY Times Op-Ed is citing a paper authored by Wilbur Ross. He'd be that guy Trump tapped as Commerce Secretary. You'd be better off going to the Net and finding out why you are supposed to support it at web boards here, that denying the connection to Trump.

I read that paper, though I doubt you did. there is no evidence in that paper that Trumps plan (if he even had one) resembles the plan attributed to Trump in that paper.
Now please present some evidence

Wilbur Ross has been tapped to be Trump's commerce secretary. The other author of that paper, Peter Navarro, has been Trump's trade adviser during the campaign. You are correct that Trump hasn't personally been real specific (Huuuuuge shock there....NOT). Trump also hasn't said that he wants the Federal government to spring out a trillion dollars for infrastructure spending. Do you have any evidence that Trump want that as part of his 'plan'? But Trump does have this on his campaign website, hinting at exactly what this white paper says. I assume that Trump approves of this site, though I have no proof that he has ever read it (do you?):
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/an-americas-infrastructure-first-plan

Harness market forces to help attract new private infrastructure investments through a deficit-neutral system of infrastructure tax credits.

Of course all this ignores the Huuuuge reality that the Repugs would never pass a trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill. They would sooner pass a bill mandating federally paid for abortions in all states w/o restrictions.

 

[Will Wiley]

I read that paper, though I doubt you did. there is no evidence in that paper that Trumps plan (if he even had one) resembles the plan attributed to Trump in that paper.
Now please present some evidence

Wilbur Ross has been tapped to be Trump's commerce secretary. The other author of that paper, Peter Navarro, has been Trump's trade adviser during the campaign. You are correct that Trump hasn't personally been real specific (Huuuuuge shock there....NOT). Trump also hasn't said that he wants the Federal government to spring out a trillion dollars for infrastructure spending. .

Yes, I get all that. I just don't understand why Jimmy is digging his heels in when he can't point to any evidence. Municipal bonds may be proposed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course all this ignores the Huuuuge reality that the Repugs would never pass a trillion dollar infrastructure spending bill. They would sooner pass a bill mandating federally paid for abortions in all states w/o restrictions.

It wouldn't be a trillion, only $167 billion. The cost savings with be yuge! I mean sure, the cost savings to the taxpayer will be non-existent, but yuge!!!

 

[Will Wiley]

I read that paper, though I doubt you did. there is no evidence in that paper that Trumps plan (if he even had one) resembles the plan attributed to Trump in that paper.
Now please present some evidence

Ross published the paper last month and Trump said that he wanted private investment into public infrastructure during the debates. Equity firms won't put money into such a program without a massive carrot, the tax credit is that carrot.

Do you need a pie chart of something?

Elixer posted that the Federal government would borrow to pay for it.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...am-quot-(Scam)&p=356577&viewfull=1#post356577

I suggested Municipal bonds could be used (with the attendant tax break). I asked for evidence from Elixer that that was the case. He got hysterical

Why on earth you felt compelled to chime in about it being privately funded with tax breaks I don't know . I assume you didn't read or didn't understand what had been posted

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Looks like we need to speed up construction on that wall to keep the Americans out.