The article title speaks volumes - “Trump And Democrats Agree On $2 Trillion For Infrastructure, But Not On How To Pay”
There’s big broad, if relatively weak, bipartisan support for upping infrastructure spending for quite a while now. Addressing inadequate spending for already built but aging infrastructure has gotten the highest priority but it’s not the only area. It’s never gotten anywhere because of the issue of how to pay for it.
Paying for it has been the major hurdle. It continues to be the big hurdle. A tentative agreement that ignore the hardest part of getting something done isn’t much of an agreement.
Even without changing the power generation, and even aside from vulnerability to deliberate attack, our electrical grid could use a lot of improvements (some of which would incidentally also make it easier to change the form of generation and help protect against attacks, but which would also have other benefits).
I don’t want high speed rail to nowhere and we don’t need a Fairbanks to Barrow high speed rail. But, we do need high speed rail in the USA for the short to medium haul routes that would ordinarily be covered by car or Southwest Airlines.
How about train-to-somewhere projects? The Northeast Corridor (Washington-New York City-Boston) is heavily used and operates at a profit. There’s a lot that could be done to improve the routes and make the service even more attractive to passengers.
Does Trump know that when the government hires people to build things that it typically does pay them?
I don’t think Trump even has the faintest idea what an infrastructure plan would look like. I suspect that Mitch will tell Trump that there’s not enough GOP support and he will claim that he was conned by Chuck and Nancy and then back out of it.
I expect money to go towards nuclear missile silos and other military projects, even though the Pentagon already has a healthy budget. I can see the Wall going in there too, but if it is a line in a $2T infrastructure package of which at least half goes towards what in common understanding are public infrastructure projects, funded by taxes which fall 89% on the 1%, over 20+ years, maybe we should take the path that has something for everybody instead of nothing at all?
No. No racist walls, no concentration camps for kids, no looking away from rape, murder, and criminal behavior against people because the GOP doesn’t like their religion, race, politics, or gender. There are lines we should not cross, and until Trump and the GOP come back from the other side of that line, we should not make deals like that.
But since Trump hasn’t actually managed to make one of these “deals” and actually follow through on it, it doesn’t really matter what he’s proposing, anyway.
Well, the Dems need the Approval from Trump, but the Details have to be negotiated with McConnell. One one hand, McConnell is more likely to relinquish the wall. OTOH, he will hardly look at Dems, let alone make a tax-hiking deal with them. Never know if pressure from the Trumpers could be put to bear for a good purpose though.
“There was some confusion when talking about infrastructure. According to the aide, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) asked Trump to remember the Great Lakes when addressing the needs of ports. Trump asked “ What’s happening with the fish?”, prompting some confusion.
Hahahahahahaha. Freaking senile dotard. I hope that’s his new answer to every question.
That would be an improvement over burning billions of dollars in that money pit known as California.
I’m not even convinced that that’s true, but “operates at a profit” is obviously written to downplay the fact that it doesn’t cover its capital costs, so it’s really a moot point anyways.
That’s probably true, but there’s plenty that could be done to improve highways and air travel with more money too. Why are trains special?
Trains along the Northeast Corridor on dedicated long-range routes could actually be faster than air travel or automobile, while allowing for a significant reduction of the CO2 footprint of the entire region, while also providing a reason to upgrade all kinds of adjacent things. It could potentially rejuvenate the region and modernize it to a degree that is “Beyond China”. Let’s face it: the megalopolis is not going anywhere. Maybe utilizing AI to optimize the planning process could lead to a project that actually benefits the region, and by knock on effect the country and the world, rather than descending into one of an infinite number of possible boondoggles a corrupt and imperfect system can create.
Re: the fishies: I think Trump was referring to the invasive species problems in the Great Lakes. For him that’s a blue-ribbon comment. It’s actually relevant.
I think Trump’s comment meant that all he saw the Great lakes for is that lakes have fish.
I also think that he does the opposite of caring about the invasive species issue. Here in my neck of the woods are rivers which allow asian carp access to lake michigan. For years the govt. has funded efforts to eliminate the carp movement here at the river level, before they make it to the lake. Guess what has happened to that funding since Trump won the electoral college?
They’re not. You said you didn’t want any more “failed high-speed-train-to-nowhere projects”, so I offered a counter-example of a train project that provides a useful service to many people.
In certain places that aren’t the sticks, rail is better than those options. It’s faster, less costly to the consumer, and reduces traffic. The downside is the major up-front investment. It’s sort of like how some people gripe about the need for more nuclear power plants, even though it’s probably the smart thing to do – yet people more generally have a hard time justifying the initial cost.
There are a great many relevant and intelligent questions that could have followed up “what’s happening with the fish?” - I just can’t picture Donald Trump asking any of them, though I’m open to the possibility if given the full context.