Possible 25 Cents A Gallon Gas Tax To Help Pay For Trump's Infastructure Plan?

a reply to: MOMof3

You know the national debt doubled in the last 8 years right?
I wouldn't be bragging up the left as penny pinchers.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: pavil

Every State is in similar problems.

That is not so.
www.forbes.com...

That same session also, with the approval of the state's voters, tapped the Rainy Day Fund for $2.25 billion to fund much-needed road improvement projects all over Texas.

they might all go to hell, and I would go to Texas.
David Crockett

Look at Texas's pension obligations......

Link

Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio collectively face $22.6 billion worth of pension fund shortfalls, according to a new report from credit rating and financial analysis firm Moody’s

Not hearing much in the way of solutions from people here. Most States and Municipalities won't be able to raise the needed monies without someone paying for it.

Everyone wants their cake but doesn't want to pay for it.

Somebody tell me where the funds will come from. Here in Michigan we have voted down increases in gas tax as the Legislature pissed away the last gas tax that was supposed to repair roads. People rightfully shouldn't trust the Govt to do a cost effective job of this. They have proven incompetent in the past.

It's not just roads as well, there is decades of projects that have been ignored for far too long.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The left never campaigned and harangued the people about the deficit for 8 years. If the republicans weren’t such crooks and liars, infrastructure could have started years ago.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Bluntone22

The left never campaigned and harangued the people about the deficit for 8 years. If the republicans weren’t such crooks and liars, infrastructure could have started years ago.

Facts are often difficult to accept, but the fact is that Trump's first fiscal year deficit was $600 Billion while Obama's first year in the White House saw him oversee a $1.5 Trillion deficit. Fact become even more difficult to accept when you realize that Trump is also working with twice the debt servicing payments as Obama had to deal with in his first year, thanks to the overall debt doubling over Obama's 8 years. Another difficult fact, the Fed raised rates 3 times during Trump's first year while Obama enjoyed record low rates for federal borrowing during his tenure.

I've no issue with the GOP spending money, largely because they generally cut it from places where the money is simply pissed away and spend it on areas that are actually the fed's responsibility. They're doing a good job, but they really do need to tackle this country's wasteful infatuation with entitlement spending to properly complete the job.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Obama’s first year was the Great Recession. His budget followed after that great republican spender, George Bush. The deficit started downward after that. It was 590 billion in 2016. It has started an upward trend since 2017. Now that sequester caps have been done away with, and all the extra spending, it’s predicted The deficit will be up in trillions again.
Of course deficits don’t matter now. A fact we all know about republicans.

originally posted by: MOMof3
it’s predicted The deficit will be up in trillions again.

A lot of things get predicted that don't ultimately take place... it was predicted that the ACA would reduce the cost of healthcare for almost all Americans, how'd that prediction pan out? How about the prediction that Japan would soon surpass the US' economy that experts made in the very late 1970s? That one looks pretty bad now, ya? Oh hey, wasn't China supposed to have passed the US by sometime in the past year or so, too? You can't base leadership decisions on predictions, you base them on facts and analytics.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

The deficit isn’t that hard to predict. Receipts minus bills. The Republicans didn’t offset the cuts to tax revenue.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The deficit isn’t that hard to predict. Receipts minus bills. The Republicans didn’t offset the cuts to tax revenue.

From today...
www.vox.com...

According to the centrist, pro-balanced budget group the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (which, regardless of its political leanings, is a reliable source of rigorous budget analysis), the president’s budget has a total of $3.1 trillion in budget savings relative to current law. It includes $1.75 trillion in new spending and tax cuts, $3.7 trillion in deficit reduction that’s overwhelmingly the result of spending cuts, $800 billion in reduced spending on wars and disaster recovery, and $300 billion in savings due to lower interest payments on less debt.

They're working on it.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is where I have serious issues.

If government spent our money wisely then there wouldn't be an issue, but they don't.

I'm more concerned about the "alternative funds" and the suggestion that they involve commercial partnerships. Businesses seldom give away a lot of money for free... what it's likely to mean is more toll roads.

That will hurt a lot of folks and will start putting pressure on roads through residential areas (where they can't put toll roads.)

a reply to: MOMof3

Deficits were projected to grow under the Obama Budgets submitted to Congress in the years following his term.

He made his numbers look as good as he could, when it was forecasted that the deficit would grow in the 2020's .

But look what Trump is doing:

President Donald Trump on Monday unveiled a $4 trillion fiscal year 2018 budget that will add more than $6 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, lifting spending limits on national security and discretionary domestic spending.

Sounds horrible huh?

Only one problem for Democrats.......it's actually President Obama's 2016 Budget.

Look and see the actual quote.

Both Party's love to spend money they don't have.

If Trump can deliver 4% GDP, we have a shot to tackle all of this. An infrastructure deal goes a long ways to creating that 4.0.

y one estimate, an increase in investment by 1 percentage point of GDP in some advanced countries, with large infrastructure gaps or needs, like the U.S., can raise GDP by 0.4 to 1.5 percent in the following four years. But such growth would also depend on doing several things differently.

Link

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The deficit isn’t that hard to predict. Receipts minus bills. The Republicans didn’t offset the cuts to tax revenue.

From today...
www.vox.com...

According to the centrist, pro-balanced budget group the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (which, regardless of its political leanings, is a reliable source of rigorous budget analysis), the president’s budget has a total of $3.1 trillion in budget savings relative to current law. It includes $1.75 trillion in new spending and tax cuts, $3.7 trillion in deficit reduction that’s overwhelmingly the result of spending cuts, $800 billion in reduced spending on wars and disaster recovery, and $300 billion in savings due to lower interest payments on less debt.

They're working on it.

I don't like the "reduced spending on disaster recovery." Not one little bit. We need infrastructure in order for progress and a healthy economy. If you don't invest in disaster recovery, the areas hit by hurricanes and tornadoes and so forth will lose a lot of productivity or worse - look at how badly Puerto Rico is still suffering. Now imagine that happening in your state.

a reply to: Byrd
Public Private Partnerships have been the "next big thing" for a few years now. You're right, toll roads are what usually come out of them and they're setup specifically so the private side doesn't lose their shirt. That said, I'm not sure how this country's infrastructure deficiencies will be corrected without either some serious road taxes levied or more toll roads. Toll/Hot lanes have worked in some larger metro areas, so we'll likely see them more often.

I will say that you're position on toll roads increasing residential road demand isn't something to worry about. Before FHWA approves any toll roads, they mandate a series of traffic studies which include an origination and destination survey, alternate routes, potential controlled access designations for facilities, and stress tests for connecting local collector roads. Toll roads are almost always used in areas without direct alternate routes and with facilities that have restricted access and reduced interchange density... Also, most municipalities that operate toll facilities offer special packages for low income users and for every day users who qualify for toll reductions. These reductions are usually covered under the PPP contract and come out of the private side's earnings.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The deficit isn’t that hard to predict. Receipts minus bills. The Republicans didn’t offset the cuts to tax revenue.

From today...
www.vox.com...

According to the centrist, pro-balanced budget group the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (which, regardless of its political leanings, is a reliable source of rigorous budget analysis), the president’s budget has a total of $3.1 trillion in budget savings relative to current law. It includes $1.75 trillion in new spending and tax cuts, $3.7 trillion in deficit reduction that’s overwhelmingly the result of spending cuts, $800 billion in reduced spending on wars and disaster recovery, and $300 billion in savings due to lower interest payments on less debt.

They're working on it.

I don't like the "reduced spending on disaster recovery." Not one little bit. We need infrastructure in order for progress and a healthy economy. If you don't invest in disaster recovery, the areas hit by hurricanes and tornadoes and so forth will lose a lot of productivity or worse - look at how badly Puerto Rico is still suffering. Now imagine that happening in your state.

Congress is quick to release additional disaster funds when needed. Equally accurate is that the government excels at spending every cent they're allocated, whether it needs to go to good use or waste, each department uses 100% of their annual allocation. Given that, I don't see any downside in making the agencies have to go before Congress once their fund is dry.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

It's about leveraging public dollars to get the most done with them. It's not great but if you can get 5 times the amount of projects done doing it that way, you have to seriously consider it.

It's not like we have a money tree to harvest for all the infrastructure that needs to be done. We have to find a way.

a reply to: pavil

That’s horrible! The poor will get a lot poorer.
I gotta post this to FB.

a reply to: shawmanfromny


$1.5 Trillion?? How much will be left AFTER the politicians™ take their cut of the slush fund??? I'd bet at least $1 BILLION is wasted before 1 contract is "sold".

Best of luck....

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: pavil

That’s horrible! The poor will get a lot poorer.
I gotta post this to FB.

???

Not following. Does posting it to FB somehow justify things?

Well I guess when they implement it, it is going to affect far more than just driving. It will ripple to affect the prices on various items that are consumed and bought every day.

A buzzard with a bottomless stomach sh!tting bombs.