What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2 trillion in infrastructure (1 Viewer)

NCCommish

Footballguy
So apparently Trump is turning to the Democrats to get an infrastructure deal going. Looking at 2 trillion in spending. Still have a lot of work to do on paying for it but Trump seemed willing, today, to have a serious discussion about it.

So what do you guys think from a political standpoint. This would be a win for the admin but you can also see it as a win for Dems if they can get a deal but the GOP spikes it in the Senate. Which I think they would. Might help Democratic Senate candidates running in red states which would see plenty of investment. 

Personally I say if they can get a deal they should jump on it. What say you?

 

joffer

Footballguy
So apparently Trump is turning to the Democrats to get an infrastructure deal going. Looking at 2 trillion in spending. Still have a lot of work to do on paying for it but Trump seemed willing, today, to have a serious discussion about it.

So what do you guys think from a political standpoint. This would be a win for the admin but you can also see it as a win for Dems if they can get a deal but the GOP spikes it in the Senate. Which I think they would. Might help Democratic Senate candidates running in red states which would see plenty of investment. 

Personally I say if they can get a deal they should jump on it. What say you?
Pay for some of it with a carbon tax and I’m in

 

SaintsInDome2006

Footballguy
I'm guessing it's a sweetener from Trump considering everything he has going on.

- However when dealing with Trump I'd recommend: don't do an open presser alongside him, and never believe it's in the bag until it is. This is the same guy who just ripcorded his own negotiators with his own party just last December.

 

The Commish

Footballguy
Id ask for the requirements in writing and get to work. Id insist on a payment plan and bring up the tax gift to the rich over and over should he push back on it. 

Of course this all assumes turtle boy does his job which isn't likely. 

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I'm guessing it's a sweetener from Trump considering everything he has going on.

- However when dealing with Trump I'd recommend: don't do an open presser alongside him, and never believe it's in the bag until it is. This is the same guy who just ripcorded his own negotiators with his own party just last December.
For sure.  That's why I put today in there that way. We have to wait until President Hannity weighs in.

 

Jackstraw

Footballguy
So apparently Trump is turning to the Democrats to get an infrastructure deal going. Looking at 2 trillion in spending. Still have a lot of work to do on paying for it but Trump seemed willing, today, to have a serious discussion about it.

So what do you guys think from a political standpoint. This would be a win for the admin but you can also see it as a win for Dems if they can get a deal but the GOP spikes it in the Senate. Which I think they would. Might help Democratic Senate candidates running in red states which would see plenty of investment. 

Personally I say if they can get a deal they should jump on it. What say you?
My answer is this. Nothing. 

If we've learned anything during the Obama/McConnell era it's that obstruction works. Let's take back the Presidency and let them have  chance to play nice. I'll be damned if we're giving him across the aisle victories after two years of the BS we've put up with. Plus I don't have any faith whatsoever that the Repubs can put together a plan that is more than a disguised giveaway to big companies or a de facto giveaway of public revenues to private companies. 

But he's perfectly free to put forward a propasal. Go ahead Mr. President. Dazzle me. 

 

timschochet

Footballguy
I agree that Democrats should work with Trump on this, but there are 2 issues that need to be resolved: 

1. The Republicans in the past have wanted money paid to private companies to do most of the work. This either has to be heavily regulated or scrapped altogether, as its become a corrupt system. 

2. Based on what I’ve read Trump doesn’t want anything boring like fixing the water supply- he wants a big project that everyone can see that will have his name on it- like the Eisenhower tunnel. But it’s the boring stuff that demands immediate attention. So they’d better get their priorities right beforehand. 

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I agree that Democrats should work with Trump on this, but there are 2 issues that need to be resolved: 

1. The Republicans in the past have wanted money paid to private companies to do most of the work. This either has to be heavily regulated or scrapped altogether, as its become a corrupt system. 

2. Based on what I’ve read Trump doesn’t want anything boring like fixing the water supply- he wants a big project that everyone can see that will have his name on it- like the Eisenhower tunnel. But it’s the boring stuff that demands immediate attention. So they’d better get their priorities right beforehand. 
Well the Dems want 80% public financing so that may be the sticking point that kills it. As far the boring stuff goes let him have some big signature projects he can plaster his name on who cares as long as they are necessary but make it a trade off for the less sexy stuff.

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I don’t want that to kill the deal. I want the Democrats to win the argument but I don’t want to kill the deal over it. 
To me this is already a compromise. I think they should start at 100% and then negotiate.  Ask for the whole loaf first but be willing to take a bit less.

My guess is the GOP or should I say McConnell won't take anything that isn't majority private. He shouldn't get that.

 

Mookie

Footballguy
I'm all for it and I can't believe it has taken so long to have this discussion.  Seemed like low hanging, bi-partisan fruit. 

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
Great. The Democrats can look like they want to do something that Americans support in a bipartisan way and they can point to the Kochs and the GOP and say "see we want to bring jobs and a better life all those guys want are more tax cuts and license to do whatever they want". That's good political messaging if done correctly. 

 

Slapdash

Footballguy
2 trillion of new spending by Trump's corrupt administration does not sound like a great idea.  Of course, his infrastructure plans in the past have mostly been tax cuts for the construction firms, so there really isn't much to evaluate here.

 

The Commish

Footballguy
Great. The Democrats can look like they want to do something that Americans support in a bipartisan way and they can point to the Kochs and the GOP and say "see we want to bring jobs and a better life all those guys want are more tax cuts and license to do whatever they want". That's good political messaging if done correctly. 
Bingo. It's a gift. Don't blow it

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
2 trillion of new spending by Trump's corrupt administration does not sound like a great idea.  Of course, his infrastructure plans in the past have mostly been tax cuts for the construction firms, so there really isn't much to evaluate here.
Pretty sure even the Chuck and Nancy aren't stupid enough to sign on to something like that.

 

NREC34

Footballguy
At some point the national debt will be so high we won’t be able to pay the interest. They need to be cutting spending and buying physical gold like other countries are doing. 

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
At some point the national debt will be so high we won’t be able to pay the interest. They need to be cutting spending and buying physical gold like other countries are doing. 
How about instead of cutting spending we actually make the tax system fair again? Corporations pay record low taxes while making record profits time to pay more. How about the one percent pay more since they get more? Time to put a stop to this gilded age.

 

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
Let's start by fixing the drinking water in Flint.
Flint??    I agree Flint is a better story but  Flints water is like Perrier compared to other counties in Michigan.

The embattled city of Flint has received nearly half a billion dollars in federal and state aid over the past two years to replace its aging water pipelines and make restitution for any damage that may have been done to its citizenry by lead-contaminated H2O.

But at least 22 other Michigan communities have an even worse tainted water problem than Flint, according to recent data from the Michigan Dept. of Health & Human Services (DHHS). How are they going to pay to fix it?

Gov. Rick Snyder’s 21st Century Infrastructure Commission released a report at the end of last year that argued that Michigan must close a $60 billion gap over the next two decades in order to achieve a modern infrastructure system. Investing in Michigan’s aging water systems, the report contends, is an investment in public health. Many of Michigan’s community water systems, including Flint’s, were built 50-100 years ago.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Herb

Footballguy
1. The Republicans in the past have wanted money paid to private companies to do most of the work. This either has to be heavily regulated or scrapped altogether, as its become a corrupt system. 
I get what you're saying here, and I agree in principle. But if not private companies,  who does the work? Do we have tens of thousands of public workers with the necessary knowledge, tools and massive amounts of heavy equipment to accomplish such an immense infrastructure upgrade? I dont see the problem with private companies doing the work and making the profits as long as the bidding and construction processes are transparent enough that corruption can be minimized (no one's naive enough to think there won't be a little grifting going on).

 

shader

Footballguy
There are some things that shouldn’t be political. Like public services and infrastructure.  That’s literally the job of the government.  

 

PhantomJB

Footballguy
I get what you're saying here, and I agree in principle. But if not private companies,  who does the work? Do we have tens of thousands of public workers with the necessary knowledge, tools and massive amounts of heavy equipment to accomplish such an immense infrastructure upgrade? I dont see the problem with private companies doing the work and making the profits as long as the bidding and construction processes are transparent enough that corruption can be minimized (no one's naive enough to think there won't be a little grifting going on).
Maybe the government could create a WPA-inspired program of debt forgiveness/free college in exchange for service as a partial contribution to the infrastructure labor force.

 

msommer

Footballguy
How about instead of cutting spending we actually make the tax system fair again? Corporations pay record low taxes while making record profits time to pay more. How about the one percent pay more since they get more? Time to put a stop to this gilded age.
With Trump?

Don't be silly

 

msommer

Footballguy
Flint??    I agree Flint is a better story but  Flints water is like Perrier compared to other counties in Michigan.

The embattled city of Flint has received nearly half a billion dollars in federal and state aid over the past two years to replace its aging water pipelines and make restitution for any damage that may have been done to its citizenry by lead-contaminated H2O.

But at least 22 other Michigan communities have an even worse tainted water problem than Flint, according to recent data from the Michigan Dept. of Health & Human Services (DHHS). How are they going to pay to fix it?

Gov. Rick Snyder’s 21st Century Infrastructure Commission released a report at the end of last year that argued that Michigan must close a $60 billion gap over the next two decades in order to achieve a modern infrastructure system. Investing in Michigan’s aging water systems, the report contends, is an investment in public health. Many of Michigan’s community water systems, including Flint’s, were built 50-100 years ago.
I'm sure the Michigan Republicans are raring to go tackle that....

 

NCCommish

Footballguy
I'm sure the Michigan Republicans are raring to go tackle that....
It isn't just Flint or Michigan. There is a nationwide crisis in our water systems. I know lets cut taxes and get rid of more clean water regulations that's sure to fix it.

 

matuski

Footballguy
Infrastructure discussion almost immediately becomes about an opportunity to gain politically.

Awesome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Da Guru

Fair & Balanced
I'm sure the Michigan Republicans are raring to go tackle that....
The should, and the media should cover the other counties as much as they have Flint. I know Flint is a better ratings story but bad water is bad water.

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
I'm all for it and I can't believe it has taken so long to have this discussion.  Seemed like low hanging, bi-partisan fruit. 
The discussion's been ongoing for years. Obama spent a good bit of his campaign and first term pushing an "infrastructure bank," and eventually just started asking for increased spending, over and over. The lack of progress stems for Republicans in Congress rejecting those efforts because they didn't want the Obama administration and the Dems calling for increased spending to get any credit for it. Here's one of many examples, related to an Obama/Sanders proposal killed by the GOP Senate.

This bad faith obstruction during the Obama years- and voters' decision to reward that bad faith obstruction by electing Republicans in 2014 and 2016- puts the Dem in a bind now. If they work with Trump they not only boost his reelection efforts but also reward the GOP obstruction strategy with exactly the outcome they sought, thus encouraging more obstruction next time there's a Dem in the White House. If they don't, obviously there's no new infrastructure funding plus the norm-breaking Trump will blame it all on them and the press will dutifully report his angry rants without the necessary context.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

NCCommish

Footballguy
Infrastructure discussion almost immediately becomes about an opportunity to gain politically.

Awesome.
Just pointing out the obvious ramifications of people like the Kochs using their political power to try to spike a deal. The political calculations start with them.

 

PhantomJB

Footballguy
The discussion's been ongoing for years. Obama spent a good bit of his campaign and first term pushing an "infrastructure bank," and eventually just started asking for increased spending, over and over. The lack of progress stems for Republicans in Congress rejecting those efforts because they didn't want the Obama administration and the Dems calling for increased spending to get any credit for it. Here's one of many examples, related to an Obama/Sanders proposal killed by the GOP Senate.

This bad faith obstruction during the Obama years- and voters' decision to reward that bad faith obstruction by electing Republicans in 2014 and 2016- puts the Dem in a bind now. If they work with Trump they not only boost his reelection efforts but also reward the GOP obstruction strategy with exactly the outcome they sought, thus encouraging more obstruction next time there's a Dem in the White House. If they don't, obviously there's no new infrastructure funding plus the norm-breaking Trump will blame it all on them and the press will dutifully report his angry rants without the necessary context.
I give the Dems a lot of credit for attempting to bury the hatchet with this plan...if a compromise is reached it is a first step toward rectifying partisan politics. Hopefully it creates a template for progress on other issues.

But if they don't continue to work with Trump and in fact this announcement once again amounts to nothing then the Dems will be equally guilty as GOP in obstructionist tactics. Spin it any way you want about context with Dem-colored glasses but that will be the objective reality.

 

TobiasFunke

Footballguy
I give the Dems a lot of credit for attempting to bury the hatchet with this plan...if a compromise is reached it is a first step toward rectifying partisan politics. Hopefully it creates a template for progress on other issues.

But if they don't continue to work with Trump and in fact this announcement once again amounts to nothing then the Dems will be equally guilty as GOP in obstructionist tactics. Spin it any way you want about context with Dem-colored glasses but that will be the objective reality.
It's not spin to say that the GOP made this a zero-sum issue from a political standpoint by blocking Obama's efforts.  That's a fact. You are welcome to apportion blame any way you want, and it's certainly valid to hope or expect one party to rise above the fray. But your opinion is not the same as objective reality. The reason this is a partisan issue that now puts the Dems between a rock and a hard place is that Boehner, Ryan and McConnell decided to make it one.

 

PhantomJB

Footballguy
It's not spin to say that the GOP made this a zero-sum issue from a political standpoint by blocking Obama's efforts.  That's a fact. You are welcome to apportion blame any way you want, and it's certainly valid to hope or expect one party to rise above the fray. But your opinion is not the same as objective reality. The reason this is a partisan issue that now puts the Dems between a rock and a hard place is that Boehner, Ryan and McConnell decided to make it one.
Fixating on apportioning blame has gotten us to where we are currently. Just move on.

 

The Commish

Footballguy
Let's make no mistake about it....it's the Dems responsibility to come up with legislation.  They will.  That's their job.  The GOP also has a responsibility to work through the proposed legislation.  Will they?  Time will tell.  History tells us they won't and future McConnell says they won't, but we'll see.

 

The Commish

Footballguy
I'm apportioning blame 50/50. Happy now?
:confused:   Doesn't change the fact you're telling others not to do something you yourself are doing.  Personally, I don't care what you do, but don't expect me to take the request seriously.  It's rather easy to point out the responsibility of the groups and that's what I plan to do as I have always done.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top