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)

There are places to cut the defense budget that won't hurt as bad as others. We've all heard the stories of the military saying we don't need another 150 jets, but the congressmen from the district that builds the jets pushed it though anyway. 
I agree there is general fraud, waste and abuse in the military. You're going to get that in any government-run enterprise. Probably proportionally more cronyism and corruption in contracts in the military due to the size of the budget.

This has been around forever. How are you going to clean this up and what type of savings are you talking about?

 
Pelosi and Schummer out in front of this...apparently they met with Trump today.  Three weeks....clock's ticking.  They want his proposal in three weeks.  Found it interesting they are considering broadband too....that's a plus.  Solidifying the power grid...it's almost like they are actually taking this seriously.
Good one here. Lets transfers some of the military budget to hardening the power grid against EMP's It's a legitimate issue of nation security. 

 
show me how much the US Govt has brought in each year over the past ... 20 years lets say

then show me how much they've spent

taxation is NOT the problem .... the massive spending it the problem ............ nobody runs their finances like the US Govt does do they? you simply don't spend that much more than you'er bringing in without some point there being an accountability 

its coming - 
Another :bs:  talking point - "taxation is NOT the problem .... the massive spending it the problem" that is ignorant of reality and simply not a rebuttal for anything that you are replying to.    But I agree that there will be accountability soon enough when mandatory repaying our obligations, our promises (Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt) take up 100% of the tax receipts but you will still be arguing that tax cuts haven't been the problem.   

But again this is not a rebuttal to the foolish at best statement that "cross the board" spending cuts will hurt everyone "equally".    And I'm confident that whatever you say next will not be a rebuttal either.

Oh and since this is in the context of an infrastructure thread.   What are the multiplier effects for tax cuts for the rich and corporations versus infrastructure spending.  Which one will bring the accountability?

 
I agree there is general fraud, waste and abuse in the military. You're going to get that in any government-run enterprise. Probably proportionally more cronyism and corruption in contracts in the military due to the size of the budget.

This has been around forever. How are you going to clean this up and what type of savings are you talking about?
Like I said, with a fair and simplified tax code. Many IRS employees could begin an internal audit on government waist. Who knows how deep that hole could be.  

 
Generally speaking, though, just like now this is where the conversation breaks down.

People just want to raid the war-mongering military budget without any thought whatsoever to unintended consequences. Or specifics on how to do it or what they want to give up in return.

 
Another :bs:  talking point - "taxation is NOT the problem .... the massive spending it the problem" that is ignorant of reality and simply not a rebuttal for anything that you are replying to.    But I agree that there will be accountability soon enough when mandatory repaying our obligations, our promises (Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt) take up 100% of the tax receipts but you will still be arguing that tax cuts haven't been the problem.   

But again this is not a rebuttal to the foolish at best statement that "cross the board" spending cuts will hurt everyone "equally".    And I'm confident that whatever you say next will not be a rebuttal either.

Oh and since this is in the context of an infrastructure thread.   What are the multiplier effects for tax cuts for the rich and corporations versus infrastructure spending.  Which one will bring the accountability?
You're wasting your time.  He thinks things like social security, when cut come back to the general fund and not the social security trust fund.  Absurd approaches like "across the board" show just how little people understand the way this country works.

If that's not enough, it's also a guy who's reaction to Trump's tax cuts was basically "meh, whattaya gonna do?".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Taxation is not the problem" but tax cuts to the 1% was imperative.

"They spinning, they spinning"

/chrisrock

 
I'm of the opinion that we've experienced a degree of global stability over the past 35 years that has enabled unprecedented economic growth. Our foreign policy has had a lot to do with that. 

I'm open to change and reducing the military budget...reduced spending has to come from somewhere. You asked people to think about it. I did.

I just want to know more specifics from those who arbitrarily want to take an axe to the military...how they will do so while simultaneously maintaining equal or better a) national defense and b) global stability that keeps economic prosperity on the upswing.
I'm with you for the first 20 of the 35 years. Then came Iraq etc. where the military destabilized the world.

IIRC the military budget increased 10% from 2018 to 2019. 

Low hanging fruit?

 
show me how much the US Govt has brought in each year over the past ... 20 years lets say

then show me how much they've spent

taxation is NOT the problem .... the massive spending it the problem ............ nobody runs their finances like the US Govt does do they? you simply don't spend that much more than you'er bringing in without some point there being an accountability 

its coming
I agree. The whole thing is a house of cards that is close to falling. Once we get a recession or depression it’s over. Even less tax revenue will come in and it’s going to be too much debt to even make the interest payment at some point. Could end up being a global reset after USA defaults. We seriously have to somehow get it going in the right direction like it was for awhile under Clinton. 

 
You're wasting your time.  He thinks things like social security, when cut come back to the general fund and not the social security trust fund.  Absurd approaches like "across the board" show just how little people understand the way this country works.
But in a way he is correct.  If we cut social security and Medicare enough that the FICA taxes balances and/or return to running surpluses those funds would ensure that existing general fund IOUs won't need to be paid and those surpluses can continue to be given away as tax cuts.

In a BGP kind of "I'm voting for Obama as his presidency will kill liberalism forever" way I'd like to see more republicans be honest about this.  Lets propose cutting SS so that the 50% that pay income taxes never have to pay back the masses that have paid FICA since '83 or so (whatever year the FICA taxes were accelerated to generate the "off budget" surpluses)  and see where we end up politically.

 
I'm with you for the first 20 of the 35 years. Then came Iraq etc. where the military destabilized the world.

IIRC the military budget increased 10% from 2018 to 2019. 

Low hanging fruit?
Agreed. And a good starting point for figuring out ways to reduce it further in a responsible way.

 
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. 
There is literally no bar set lower than that set by Obama with ARRA in 2009.  All the talk about "shovel ready" was complete and utter BS.  It was largely designed to be monetary sustenance to political allies (unions).  I did a couple contracts stuffed into the ARRA envelope - their tracking of jobs saved, etc. and the justification that these things fell under that bill were ludicrous in practice.  Complete, utter waste of taxpayer monies.

Literally just about anything put forward now will be more effective than what was done previously.  

BTW, just so you know, any decent sized infrastructure plan by its nature will involve contracts with large companies like Fluor, Martin Marietta, etc.  I'm sure if this passes we'll get screaming when large companies win big programs.  I know they're evil and all but they tend to be big and successful for a reason.  

Yeah I’ve been making this argument for years. It always falls on deaf ears. 
For good reason - it's completely wrong.

And it's not on your approved news source list, so you yourself should disregard it.

 
Sand said:
There is literally no bar set lower than that set by Obama with ARRA in 2009.  All the talk about "shovel ready" was complete and utter BS.  It was largely designed to be monetary sustenance to political allies (unions).  I did a couple contracts stuffed into the ARRA envelope - their tracking of jobs saved, etc. and the justification that these things fell under that bill were ludicrous in practice.  Complete, utter waste of taxpayer monies.

Literally just about anything put forward now will be more effective than what was done previously.  

BTW, just so you know, any decent sized infrastructure plan by its nature will involve contracts with large companies like Fluor, Martin Marietta, etc.  I'm sure if this passes we'll get screaming when large companies win big programs.  I know they're evil and all but they tend to be big and successful for a reason.
I'm glad you qualified these statements the way you did.  With this "oh yeah?  hold my beer!" President and loyal GOP the bold is going to be STRENUOUSLY tested.  And this is coming from someone who doesn't disagree with the first paragraph at all.

 
I'm glad you qualified these statements the way you did.  With this "oh yeah?  hold my beer!" President and loyal GOP the bold is going to be STRENUOUSLY tested.  And this is coming from someone who doesn't disagree with the first paragraph at all.
Personally I'll be incredibly disappointed if (assuming this comes about) we don't address hardening ourselves against a second Carrington Event.  This is easily the most vulnerable component of our infrastructure right now.

Problem is it isn't a bridge you can point to, so it's a hard sell.

 
Sand said:
For good reason - it's completely wrong.

And it's not on your approved news source list, so you yourself should disregard it.
Hi Sand 

the argument that I’ve been making for years now is that undocumented immigrants are a net financial benefit to our economy. I don’t need any specific news source to make that argument, I’ve already read plenty of studies that agree with me on this. 

 
Hi Sand 

the argument that I’ve been making for years now is that undocumented immigrants are a net financial benefit to our economy. I don’t need any specific news source to make that argument, I’ve already read plenty of studies that agree with me on this. 
Over the long term I'd agree wholeheartedly...over the short term however immigration is a net drag on economy due to government outlays for social benefits (health care, education, lower income and therefore taxes).

Personally, I would gladly accept slower economic growth for awhile until the U.S. gets its balance sheet and social issues in order.

Not saying close the borders at all...but when we go year-over-year from roughly 30K to 90K undocumented immigrants a month like we did in March IMO that's not sustainable and presents a big absorption problem.

 
2nd meeting about infrastructure between Trump, Pelosi, and Schumer today. 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/22/politics/infrastructure-meeting-white-house-schumer-pelosi/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

Two big holdups: 

1. Trump now says that he wants Democrats to approve his new Mexico/Canada trade deal before he moves forward on infrastructure. But Democrats have a lot of problems with that deal so if Trump insists on this it’s an impasse. 

2. Republicans in the Senate continue to push for most private companies handling the load here. Democrats want it to be mostly public. They haven’t found a way to bridge this gap. 

 
2. Republicans in the Senate continue to push for most private companies handling the load here. Democrats want it to be mostly public. They haven’t found a way to bridge this gap. 
This is interesting, I guess this is how you get Republicans on board a public spending bill, make it not public. I also seriously question the infrastructure nature of some of this infrastructure.

 
What's frustrating to me is how our legislative branch won't function independently from the executive.  Pelosi and Schumer don't need to meet with Trump.  They should be meeting with McCarthy and McConnell.  If a deal can be reached, the Republican leaders should then sell it to Trump.

 
Kerry and Obama proposed 1 Trillion in 2004 & 2008. Hell yes Dems would take 2+ trillion, just show up for the meeting and drag some Republicans along. This had to be the easiest part of his presidency and easily the most popular.

Louisiana needs levees, bridges, streets, and wetlands protection. Plus Trump was just here promoting funding for LNG port facilities. Easy dude, come on.

 
What's frustrating to me is how our legislative branch won't function independently from the executive.  Pelosi and Schumer don't need to meet with Trump.  They should be meeting with McCarthy and McConnell.  If a deal can be reached, the Republican leaders should then sell it to Trump.
Yep agree, look at what happened in the shutdown. Even Pence & Mulvaney we’re there. Not good enough.

 
Kerry and Obama proposed 1 Trillion in 2004 & 2008. Hell yes Dems would take 2+ trillion, just show up for the meeting and drag some Republicans along. This had to be the easiest part of his presidency and easily the most popular.

Louisiana needs levees, bridges, streets, and wetlands protection. Plus Trump was just here promoting funding for LNG port facilities. Easy dude, come on.
Nancy hurt his feelings so he took his ball and went home

 
So you approve of the President's decision to shut everything down?
No.  I am not.  Are you OK with democrats focusing a large portion of their attention to continuing investigations that will ultimately lead no where?   You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.  My point is that either side could get infrastructure done if they really wanted to.  Always pointing the finger at the dumbest person in the room doesn't make you look any smarter. 

 
No.  I am not.  Are you OK with democrats focusing a large portion of their attention to continuing investigations that will ultimately lead no where?   You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.  My point is that either side could get infrastructure done if they really wanted to.  Always pointing the finger at the dumbest person in the room doesn't make you look any smarter. 
I prefer a president who isn't the dumbest person in the room.

 
"I think we're being played by the Democrats...what they want me to do is say, 'what we'll do is raise taxes'...& then they'll say, 'see, Trump wants to raise taxes'"

- Trump.

 
Great, vote him out.  Until then lets get something done.  Infrastructure should be a slam dunk.
The slam dunk should have been his two years of full GOP control, they couldn't get it done either. And Trump certainly could work to get it done if he'd only block out the investigations.  Clinton did.  Do your freaking job and let others do theirs.

But he's totally exonerated, right?  So let the Dems fall flat on their face.  Should be an easy win for Trump.

 
The slam dunk should have been his two years of full GOP control, they couldn't get it done either. And Trump certainly could work to get it done if he'd only block out the investigations.  Clinton did.  Do your freaking job and let others do theirs.

But he's totally exonerated, right?  So let the Dems fall flat on their face.  Should be an easy win for Trump.
You missed my point about always pointing the finger at the dumbest person in the room doesn't make you look any smarter, apparently.  

 
No.  I am not.  Are you OK with democrats focusing a large portion of their attention to continuing investigations that will ultimately lead no where?   You don't need to answer, it's a rhetorical question.  My point is that either side could get infrastructure done if they really wanted to.  Always pointing the finger at the dumbest person in the room doesn't make you look any smarter. 
I have more time now, so I can answer this question again.

First off, yes I am OK with it. In fact, the House is obligated under the Constitution to continue their investigations. The Mueller report raised a number of questions that are unanswered; it is Congress' duty to find those answers. In the end there may not be anything there that is an impeachable offense (though I think there will be based on what I've already read.) It is not clear at all to me that it will "ultimately lead nowhere", but even if it does, It's their duty.

Which makes your larger point completely untrue. If an infrastructure deal does not get done, it is no responsibility of the Democrats. Trump asserted today that "you can't have two tracks", but in fact you can. Nearly every President in modern history has been the subject of lengthy Congressional investigations, and not a single one of them has refused to work with Congress before today.

 
I have more time now, so I can answer this question again.

First off, yes I am OK with it. In fact, the House is obligated under the Constitution to continue their investigations. The Mueller report raised a number of questions that are unanswered; it is Congress' duty to find those answers. In the end there may not be anything there that is an impeachable offense (though I think there will be based on what I've already read.) It is not clear at all to me that it will "ultimately lead nowhere", but even if it does, It's their duty.

Which makes your larger point completely untrue. If an infrastructure deal does not get done, it is no responsibility of the Democrats. Trump asserted today that "you can't have two tracks", but in fact you can. Nearly every President in modern history has been the subject of lengthy Congressional investigations, and not a single one of them has refused to work with Congress before today.
Where there is smoke there is fire....it proves out over and over again.  There is so much smoke around Trump it's a solid guess the entire town is burning down at this point...

 
Trump is essentially asking Dems for an immunity deal on completely unrelated issues before he will consider any legislation, even if it has bi-partisan support.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  We are living in an upside-down world, and every day it gets weirder.

 
Trump is essentially asking Dems for an immunity deal on completely unrelated issues before he will consider any legislation, even if it has bi-partisan support.  Yeah, that makes perfect sense.  We are living in an upside-down world, and every day it gets weirder.
and he has people, like some on this very page, who excuse Trump's actions because they say he's dumb and thus, Pelosi shouldn't be saying things about him.  Never seen anything like it before.  Its like if my 8 year old throws his dinner across the room and I blame my wife for trying to make him eat peas.  YOU KNOW HE DOESN'T LIKE PEAS!!!!!  

 
and he has people, like some on this very page, who excuse Trump's actions because they say he's dumb and thus, Pelosi shouldn't be saying things about him.  Never seen anything like it before.  Its like if my 8 year old throws his dinner across the room and I blame my wife for trying to make him eat peas.  YOU KNOW HE DOESN'T LIKE PEAS!!!!!  
Yes, we have reached the point where his followers are upset because Trump's too dumb and Nancy's being mean to him.

 
I always love how these conversations go. Have to attack the spending. What tax cuts? Everyone has to suffer except the people who have been making out.

Oh and for the last time Social Security has no effect on the national debt. If you think it does you shouldn't be in this conversation because you are seriously misinformed and your thoughts come from a base built on error.

What me to take your debt handwringing seriously? Start with talking about getting revenue back to something that makes sense then we can talk,  until then you aren't serious or even worth addressing really. 

 
BroadwayG said:
I just checked, there were zero bills passed for the entirety of the Benghazi investigation. You simply can't pass bills during an investigation.
that’s the fault of the elected. Not the system

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top