We already ARE spending lots of money on infrastructure. Why the need for another trillon? What happened to the money that was spent and allocated?
Posted on 11/30/2016 8:38:38 AM PST by SeekAndFind
To National Review...Trump is elected...Just stop with the BS....
Thank God we have a printed, totally unbacked currency and a Central Bank that monetizes government debt and suppresses interest rates to zero - or Washington would actually need to make hard decisions....
But they won’t.
>>Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute
In other words, anything that creates a good paying job or helps the working class in any way is “BAD, bad I say!” We can borrow money for a million boondoggles, but we can’t fix a bridge or expand a highway.
Michael Tanner, and the entire collection of gadfly scribes from the NR, have lost all intellectual authority when it comes to a critique of the Trump administration.
Shouldn’t we rebuild Syria first? sarc
“To National Review...Trump is elected...Just stop with the BS....”
Yeah, Tell Dana Loesch to take her “super beets” and stuff them!
There's nothing wrong with taking on debt to finance long-term capital expenditures like infrastructure. In fact, marrying the term of payment for a major project to the useful life of that project might even be preferable to a pay-as-you-go scenario.
The root of this country's fiscal problems is that we have been taking on debt to finance short-term operating expenditures. This is the equivalent of borrowing money to pay for groceries -- or, even worse, running up $5,000 in credit card debt for a trip to Disney World -- and paying it off over ten years. Nobody with even a rudimentary understanding of finance or economics would tell you that this is a good idea. In fact, it's a recipe for disaster.
Cato is also bad alt-right, it just supports the master race of corrupt businessmen.
If Trump’s infrastructure spending is offset 100% by real spending cuts, I’m all for it. Otherwise, it’s another big-government, borrow and spend, porkulis boondoggle.
Actually, not short term operating expenses: consumption subsidies and corrupt tax breaks. Welfare (otherwise known as vote and donation buying), both personal and corporate.
This is the way Federal transportation dollars have been allocated for years. Federal transportation funding is generally used for capital projects, while regular maintenance is left to the jurisdictions that own the infrastructure (states, counties, municipalities).
The Southern Wall is the ultimate in infrastructure spending. Do it!
I understand Mr. Tanner’s reluctance on this topic, we just saw an administration waste trillions without much to show for it.
I suspect that Trump is going to try and take a different approach to solve legitimate infrastructure problems. Whatever you think of him, he knows construction. We shall see.
This article assumes that Trump will fund the infrastructure improvements in the same manner as Obama did using stimulus money and/or passed pork.
Why does he assume Trump will do things the same way? when it didn’t work? Trump will figure out how to semi privatize (or some other solution) this so that it actually gets done underbudget and on time.
This author assumes that Trump will operate in the same manner as his failed predecessors. This is unlikely and one wonders why the author of the piece is so negative.
Trump will come up with an effective plan to fix our bridges, etc. based upon his own assessment of the situation.
Whatever you call it, the point is that we're borrowing money and then using it to finance something that has a (very) short-term benefit.
RE: Michael Tanner, and the entire collection of gadfly scribes from the NR, have lost all intellectual authority when it comes to a critique of the Trump administration.
I would rather read your refutations of Michael Tanner’s actual arguments instead of attacking the man himself.
“Congress tends to ignore useful projects like road and bridge maintenance, in favor of more grandiose efforts that can serve as reelection fodder.”
That’s a good point.
I wish the author had made that the focus of the article: Congress’ desire to divert spending to wasteful, but politically helpful, efforts.
Instead of a general attack at Trump.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.