Trump unveils 1.5 trillion infrastructure spending...

1. 77

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   Where is the fiscal discipline? And where is the money to build the wall?
   As a conservative, I am disapppointed in this proposal.
   At a time when deficits is running high, we don’t need to spend this amount now.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      https://www.constructiondive.com/news/p … ll/516869/

      replyreport
      1. 88

         wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         150 Billion per year is not enough to even keep our crumbling infrastructure in usable condition, let alone create anything new or simply add a lane to a freeway.
         
         Consider that I-80 is 3,000 miles long, and it costs over half a million to simply add a layer of asphalt on one mile of road.  Now remember that is but one of dozens and dozens of interstate highways, that simply adding asphalt is not the whole job, and that 150B goes in a hurry.  We have bridges all over the country that are literally falling down.  We have dams that are failing.  Public transport is a joke in many cities. 
         
         But 150B per year is a start - something we've put off too long.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            mike102771posted 7 years agoin reply to this

            You can't hear me clapping, but trust me I am.

            replyreport
   2. 95

      Readmikenowposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, is it possible that an investment in infrastructure will provide returns?  This is a key component to foreigners visiting, attracting companies and more.  All of this could result in an increase in tax revenue.  Do you think this could be part of Trump's plan?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         No, I doubt it. I think he wants to offset some of the costs to local and private companies...

         replyreport
2. 80

   emgeposted 7 years ago

   Trump is looking for grandiose schemes I don't think he is aware of what fiscal discipline means.  His recent decision to bolster the nuclear arsenal and cost involved  is another of his hair brained schemes.  Fiscal discipline nothing to him.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. I don’t mind he shift some of the spending from domestic programs to defense...however, it is irresponsible to spend more than we have period. He needs to cut some spending to pay for his new initiatives. Part of the discipline is to decide what is higher priority.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Well, I DO mind concerning draining domestic programs in favor of wasteful military spending. If there is going to be a drive for a balance budget, we on the left are going to make sure that domestic programs are not on the short end. And if WE don't go along Trump and his agenda are through...

         replyreport
         1. 77

            jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            What is more important? National security or entitlement spending?
            The answer should be obvious. Without national security, we won’t have any money for any domestic social programs.
            I refer you back to the Constitution and the federal government mandate have only a few functions and one of which is national defense...
            The social programs were added much later on by Roosevelt in the new deal and Johnson in the war on poverty...
            Yet, the poverty level never changed much despite the billions spent.
            How come?

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

               What is more important? National security or entitlement spending?
               The answer should be obvious. Without national security, we won’t have any money for any domestic social programs.
               I refer you back to the Constitution and the federal government mandate have only a few functions and one of which is national defense...
               The social programs were added much later on by Roosevelt in the new deal and Johnson in the war on poverty...
               Yet, the poverty level never changed much despite the billions spent.
               How come?
               --------------------
               Let's simplify it, military spending verses spending not designated for the military. I know that you believe that the conservative point of view is the only way, but I say poppycock and always will. Your myopic view of the Constitution and its purpose is under much dispute.  Who made you the universal and infallible oracle? For you, conservative types, abusive and excessively wasteful military spending are ok, Carteblanc, unquestioned. This is part of the hypocritical double standard that annoy me about conservatives and why I must consistently deny them even a trace of any support.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  That was never my position when it comes to defense spending. I always want accountability and fiscal discipline no matter where they come from. However, the 8 years of Obama has seen drastic cuts in defense and put us in danger. The general has been quoted that we are now unable to conduct war on two fronts. This is extremely dangerous considering the current problems we have in the middle-east and in the far east.
                  Rebuilding our military has additional benfits. As with Katrina and Haiti earthquake and Purto Rico and other major natural disasters, only our military has the capability of rescue and relief and reconstruction to save lives.
                  
                  The social spending is necessary as a safety net to protect the most vulnarable among us. It was never meant to be a cradle to grave entitlement that it has become. This is socialism in the worst. It robs people of dignity.
                  
                  Fundamentally, we disagree on these principles and why I refer back to the Constitution. Either you are for the Constitution or you are not. It is our only guide.

                  replyreport
               2. 82

                  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey there Cred, nice to see you pop back in. I can understand that the effort taken to wield such a large broad brush might be the reason you need to rest and regain your strength between visits. ;-)
                  
                  Your bucket for "conservative-types" must be a pretty big one to hold all those included in your definition.
                  
                  Can you support your "myopic view" claim by pointing out where his point was wrong? Can you support your view that "conservative-types are okay with "abusive and excessively wasteful military spending?"
                  
                  I am a "conservative-type, and I don't support such spending. jackclee is also a conservative-type, and he has posted that he does not support it. I am sure we all can recall the super-expensive toilet seat and hammer controversies that embroiled the military. Do you think that it was only you folks that were angered by those examples?
                  
                  I think jackclees's Constitutional references, (in this thread), are clear and supportable. What Constitutional reference can you point to that would show his view to be myopic?
                  
                  Ha! Using a fine-point brush didn't tire my arm at all. Plenty of piss and vinegar left. Onward!
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Cred's generalization aside, I assume you agree the "conservative" GOP that controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives has made a mockery of conservative values.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        No promisem, I can't agree with that. First, a Conservative isn't in control of the White House. Second, I think the GOP is so fractured that I don't know what to call them, but I don't think just "Conservative" is adequate.
                        
                        And lastly, the current difference between the Senate and the House couldn't be much different if one were of the other party.
                        
                        My point, to you, as it was to Cred - these are not times that lend themselves to the broad brush.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           A conservative isn't in control of the White House? He just:
                           
                           - Massively cut taxes
                           - Sabotaged ACA
                           - Demolished the EPA
                           - Proposed a massive boost to defense spending
                           - Has a new budget that slashes $250 billion from Medicare.
                           
                           If that isn't a conservative, I don't know what is.
                           
                           The GOP is fractured only because Libertarian billionaires have bought themselves a faction within Congress to get their way. Otherwise, the GOP is acting more conservative than any time in modern history.
                           
                           The differences between the House and Senate are minor. They just cooperated on passing a massive tax cut, right?

                           replyreport
                           1. 77

                              jackclee lmposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              I agree, this administration is more conservative than Reagan. The only few items not conservative is the deficit spending and the failure to replace ACA. Trying to solve the immigration problem is a conservative goal. Building the wall and path to citizenship for DACA is conservative. Reducing the over reach by the EPA is a good thing. Our energy policupy is finally heading in the right direction. We are a net exporter of oil. How great is that. The XL pipeline is being build providing jobs and better way to move oil. Isis is on the run and we are winning...

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Good points, jackclee.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 82

                              GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              You got me promisem. I was following your GOP line of thought and was thinking "GOP conservative," which I do not believe Pres. Trump is.
                              
                              I should have been paying more attention.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 I do think you are on to something about Trump's version of government and what we get from House and Senate Republicans.
                                 
                                 They seem more fractured than not and so far come together only on a few major issues.

                                 replyreport
                  2. 81

                     Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, GA, as always it is nice to see you, and it is nice to be missed.
                     
                     The conservative movement is Trump and Trump is the conservative movement. As I have said before, if there are conservative moderates, they are few and far in between with no expressive political voice that I can hear.
                     
                     The fact that your 'moderate' voices are not heard to any extent, allows me to question your very existence. 
                     
                     "Your bucket for "conservative-types" must be a pretty big one to hold all those included in your definition."
                     
                     It is......
                     
                     Domestic spending and programs are just as important as the military, conservatives take issue with that idea. What in the Constitution elevates the Defense over Domestic Tranquility? This is what Jack implies with his comments and they don't sit well with me. After all if it is just a 'rightwing' universe and the only correct interpretation of the Constitution is that from the conservative side  we would not have had Warren Courts' and court decisions that have come down on the left side of the issues.
                     
                     Who says that military spending has to increase at the expense of domestic spending? Jack said that he "did not mind". Well, I certainly do. I am opposed to the whole concept of spending for offense instead of defense.  Being part of the government contracting community, I am certain familiar with the negative instances of military procurement.  As for those examples, the right is prone to more easily excuse them over any such outrage from the domestic side. So, as I suspected, right wing wobblers do stick together, regardless of how they may label themselves.
                     
                     "I think jackclees's Constitutional references, (in this thread), are clear and supportable. What Constitutional reference can you point to that would show his view to be myopic? "
                     
                     Are you referring to the Constitution's support of the federal mandate that the national defense be provided for? I have no issue with it, but not to the point of absurdity and no accountability regarding DOD spending.  I also say that the domestic agendas are just as important and I adamantly support FDR and LBJ and their prospective programs as now patched in as a part of our national agenda, in spite of the fact that conservatives say otherwise.
                     
                     
                     
                     "Ha! Using a fine-point brush didn't tire my arm at all. Plenty of piss and vinegar left. Onward! "
                     
                     Indeed, onward.........

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Nicely done Cred, much easier to address seriously.
                        
                        I may have to backtrack a bit on my "Pres. Trump is not a Conservative" declarations. I think I may need to add a qualifier - moderate. I think Pres. Trump could fit into the "Moderate Conservative" bucket I carry.
                        
                        And I know I have been a thorn in too many sides to have my Moderate Conservative voice's existence denied.
                        
                        Think about it. Look at Trump's history before he decided to run for the presidency. Look at how the "conservative" GOP tried to mug him before he won the nomination. Look at his initial policy directions, and, fights with the GOP in the "swamp" before he made his point with them. I think you might see him more as the Moderate Conservative I am talking about than the GOP conservative you have painted him as. Do you think a GOP conservative would have gone with the 1.8 million DACA number - instead of the commonly accepted 800,000 the GOP wanted to run with?
                        
                        Now, to jackclee's point - and it doesn't mean I have to disagree with yours, proportion is important, and I think that is what you are talking about. But... to jackclee's point, if we don't have our national defense covered - first, then your favorite spending programs won't matter, jackclee was adressing priorities, (I think), with his Constitutional reference, and that is the part I think he was right about. Nothing myopic about that perspective.
                        
                        You might want to argue degrees and proportion with him, or, even the validity of the claimed need, but can you really argue with his perspective of priority?.
                        
                        And there you are Cred, we painted a picture instead of a fence. ;-)
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh, he is more than conservative enough. According to a Politico article that I read, he compromises to have any chance at all of any Democratic support, which he may well need to have any success.  Trump has shown that he is smart enough to realize that without reaching across the aisle, his agenda may well become DOA. The GOP, particularly in the Senate, is operating on paper thin margins. And the positions of Republicans across the board are all over the place, but I am getting the impression, short of being a hard liner, the more mainstream GOP want less pressure on legal immigration. The conservative (hard liners) are saying that Trump’s DACA numbers are too generous and his proposal is too liberal.
                           
                           From the perspective of a true progressive, there are fundamental differences between the views of most conservatives and the rest of us. You all remind me of M and M candies, I should note the difference between the one that has a green candy shell from the other, having a yellow one. But the only thing that I see is that you are all M&Ms in the same package.
                           
                           But, rather than be affiliated in any way with the Democrats, the conservative of any stripe aligned him or herself with Trump, problems with Trump accepted. What else would they do?
                           
                           I hear you, but even in the Constitution, ‘provide for the national defense’ is just one of several obligations assigned to the national government. If domestic matters are not addressed on an equal basis, there would be nothing here to defend, now would there? I don’t consider Defense any greater priority than any of the other obligations designated to the national government. And, if I am right about the impression that Jack gave about the hegemony of national defense over all else, then I say that he is wrong.

                           replyreport
                           1. 82

                              GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              I think you are right Cred, He is more than conservative enough to wear the label. This is the second time I have had to backtrack on that thought, but to my defense, considering who I was replying to, (you and promisem), I was reading "conservative" as what you two typically declare as Right-wingers of the Freedom Caucus-type. Mia Culpa.
                              
                              The rest of your points are also valid, but isn't Pres. Trump understanding that he must reach across the aisle a good thing?
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 Yes, his coming to the conclusion that he must reach across the aisle is a positive development.
                                 
                                 He is a chess player who has his King in check, where there is only one move available to save him and the game. He would not even consider this route if anything else were possible.
                                 
                                 Trump is amoral, apolitical and devoid of ideology and principle. He couldn't care less about DACA, but has to give in to those that do, in order to otherwise get the 'win'  that he craves.
                                 
                                 Trump is  conservative only as a by product of his personality and the style of his business practices, win at all costs be it fair or foul.
                                 
                                 Just one of the many reasons that I dislike and distrust him in a way that I could not say about any of his predecessors that held the office within my lifetime.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 82

                                    GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                    Whoa.....
                                    
                                    "Trump is amoral, apolitical and devoid of ideology and principle. He couldn't care less about DACA, but has to give in to those that do, in order to otherwise get the 'win'  that he craves. "
                                    
                                    Come on buddy, wouldn't you like to edit that to add a preface, like; "I think?" Shirley you don't want your comment to be taken as provable fact when you can't provide the proof.
                                    
                                    GA

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                       There's no need to call him " Shirley", GA! 
                                       
                                       Oops, I forgot it was martini night for you.......and me, as a matter of fact! 

                                       report
                                       1. 81

                                          Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          Ok, GA, to simplify matters, I should have prefaced my paragraph with "I think".

                                          report
                                       2. 82

                                          GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                          Thanks for the opening Randy. I have been hoping for a chance to explain "Shirley."
                                          
                                          An old friend, one with the sharpest "trip-you-up" wit I have ever seen, used that "Shirley" line with great success.
                                          
                                          When ever someone would address him with a "Surely you...," he would immediately reply, with a stern face, "Of course I did, and don't call me Shirley!" Inevitably the other person would automatically begin explaining that they didn't call him Shirley... before they looked at his face and realized the trap he had caught them in.
                                          
                                          
                                          

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                             Yeah right, GA. They used the same skit on one of the old Airplane movies.

                                             report
                                             1. 82

                                                GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                Well damn! You mean old George stole it? Or wait... maybe the movie stole it from him, he was a few years older than me, and he did get around a bit.   Hmm...
                                                
                                                GA

                                                report
                                                1. 60

                                                   Randy Godwinposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Whatever, Leslie Nielsen used the line, "and don't call me Shirley."  At least you try and have a sense of humor, GA.

                                                   report
3. 67

   mike102771posted 7 years ago

   That discipline just crashed off the crumbling bridge connected to the nearly unusable highway we need to keep our economy growing. We need our roads, bridges, and rails more than the wall. If you want to build the wall you will need those roads. Roads are necessary for security just ask Eisenhower.

   replyreport
4. 77

   jackclee lmposted 7 years ago

   On the contrary, trump has been more conservative on most issues. The only ones I have problems with are deficits, healthcare reform and borders wall.

   replyreport