Bernie Sanders calls Trump’s infrastructure plan "a scam"

[millefleur 5,046]

Bernie Sanders said he would work with Donald Trump. Then he saw Trump’s infrastructure plan. via Vox.com

At first, Sen. Bernie Sanders’s tone with Donald Trump was conciliatory: “To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him,” he said in a statement after Election Day.

Then he saw Trump’s infrastructure plan.

Sanders’s tone changed; he tweeted that the president-elect’s plan for infrastructure is a “scam,” proving just how difficult working with a Trump administration will be in practice:

Sanders went on to write:

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump correctly talked about rebuilding our country’s infrastructure. But the plan he offered is a scam that gives massive tax breaks to large companies and billionaires on Wall Street who are already doing phenomenally well. ... Unlike Trump’s plan, which creates new tax loopholes and is a corporate giveaway, my Rebuild America Act would be paid for by eliminating tax loopholes that allow hugely profitable multinational corporations to stash their profits in offshore tax havens around the world.

To many Democratic politicians, infrastructure was theoretically one of the few areas where working with President-elect Trump seemed feasible: “Surprisingly, on certain issues, candidate Trump voiced very progressive and populist opinions,” soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told NBC’s Chuck Todd Sunday. “For instance, getting rid of the carried interest loophole, changing our trade laws dramatically, a large infrastructure bill.”

Guys, I haven't lived in the US for many years. Is the infrastructure really that bad nowadays?

Edited November 22, 2016 by millefleur

[Rob L 3,811]

Guys, I haven't lived in the US for many years. Is the infrastructure really that bad nowadays?

Yes and No.

Yes in the sense the our highways are mature, funded by stares, and there are a number of roads a bridges that are dangerously past due for upgrades.

Yes in the sense that we have funds that come from fees on air tickets and gasoline and Congress is loathe to let the funds go. A plan to spend our way out in the last recession was shot down and would have been a great opportunity to reduce the backlog.

No we are not a third world nation in terms of infrastructure.

[Eric-Pris 1,606]

Sanders went on to write:

Quote

During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump correctly talked about rebuilding our country’s infrastructure. But the plan he offered is a scam that gives massive tax breaks to large companies and billionaires on Wall Street who are already doing phenomenally well. ... Unlike Trump’s plan, which creates new tax loopholes and is a corporate giveaway, my Rebuild America Act would be paid for by eliminating tax loopholes that allow hugely profitable multinational corporations to stash their profits in offshore tax havens around the world.

Bernie,

If you want to critique President Trump's proposed plans, do so. But no need to bring your "plan" anymore, nobody cares. Move on.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Eric-Pris

[OriZ 3,157]

I actually just wrote about this yesterday, here.

A quote:

While the markets appear convinced that substantial infrastructure spending is forthcoming, the US clearly lacks enough skilled labor in the heavy construction sector to actually implement large scale infrastructure spending projects on the scale being discussed, unless foreign firms were recruited to implement them. Not that a Republican led Congress that leans to the fiscally conservative side would be likely to approve massive new spending in any of the areas being talked about, but even if it did, the first dollar would not likely be spent until well into 2018. Keep that in mind as it will be important later on.

Meanwhile, though it’s widely suggested that repatriating corporate cash held abroad would lead to a huge expansion of new investment, this idea runs into two problems; First, major corporations already have ample access to funding for any project they could reasonably consider. Even if cash is held overseas, it’s rather easy for corporations to effect interest rate swap transactions that effectively make the funds available domestically.

Additionally, providing tax breaks to corporations to repatriate funds is nothing new. The US. did the same thing in 2004. Rather than creating jobs, the funds were used for corporate stock buybacks, acquisitions, dividends and bonuses, while the top corporate beneficiaries actually cut jobs and decreased research spending. So let’s encourage productive investment, particularly where those investments relieve binding economic constraints, expand capacity in useful and sustainable directions, carry spillover benefits for others in the economy, require those who use public funds to have their own capital also at risk, and are likely to produce substantial economic benefits per dollar spent. But let’s not squander a great opportunity for a pro-investment fiscal agenda by imagining that the economy will benefit from massive loosely-conceived infrastructure projects or tax breaks that rely on misleading economic and financial arguments for their public support.

[millefleur 5,046]

Sanders went on to write:

Quote

Bernie,

If you want to critique President Trump's proposed plans, do so. But no need to bring your "plan" anymore, nobody cares. Move on.

I agree, Sanders doesn't need to keep harping on about his plan. Criticism is welcome, but no reason to make it into a contest when the show is already over (for now at least).

[Rob L 3,811]

Sanders went on to write:

Quote

Bernie,

If you want to critique President Trump's proposed plans, do so. But no need to bring your "plan" anymore, nobody cares. Move on.

Guys catch up.

The topic has changed. I know we are weary from the election, but moving on to the debate about infrastructure is moving on to the next thing. Trump has promised a revolution but he needs to work through Congress to implement that. Bernie and other Democrats have said they would work together on some topics and now Bernie is warning against bait and switch.

[millefleur 5,046]

Guys catch up.

The topic has changed. I know we are weary from the election, but moving on to the debate about infrastructure is moving on to the next thing. Trump has promised a revolution but he needs to work through Congress to implement that. Bernie and other Democrats have said they would work together on some topics and now Bernie is warning against bait and switch.

I personally don't see why the infrastructure issue needs to be a federal matter. I thought it was up to the states to handle it? Is it really so mismanaged that the feds need to get involved? And the greater question: if the feds get involved, will that make it better somehow?

Bernie's right about bait and switch. I think his warning is good food for thought for those who believe Trump implicitly.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Guys, I haven't lived in the US for many years. Is the infrastructure really that bad nowadays?

Our infrastructure repair is certainly lacking and there are many roads, bridges and buildings in dire need of repair. One thing I've noticed being married to a Canadian and making frequent trips there, is that Canada is head and shoulders above the US in infrastructure repair and upkeep. Canada's higher taxes yield some pretty good results in this regard, imo.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Teddy B

[Rob L 3,811]

I personally don't see why the infrastructure issue needs to be a federal matter. I thought it was up to the states to handle it? Is it really so mismanaged that the feds need to get involved? And the greater question: if the feds get involved, will that make it better somehow?

Bernie's right about bait and switch. I think his warning is good food for thought for those who believe Trump implicitly.

Trump adding Bannon to the inner circle has made the neo-Stalinist pipe dream a step closer to reality. I don't oppose federal funding but these guys are proposing to break the bank. Remember when Trump said he was the " king of debt" and that he would flirt with default to get T bill holders to cut their principal? Welcome to Taj Majal 2.0 baby!

[yuna628 9,673]

Guys, I haven't lived in the US for many years. Is the infrastructure really that bad nowadays?

UUuuhhmmm. Yep it is. Bridges, Dams, roads, railways, power plants. You name it and it's beyond it's shelf life and ready to fall down. Civil engineer watchdog groups continually tell us we are at a near failing grade. 1 in 10 bridges across America are graded as structurally deficient. Bridges that were once masterworks of engineering are now holding loads well over what was intended. It's crumbling. And this is just the big bridges, the little ones are bad too.

My town is surrounded by bridges. If you want to get anywhere, you need to use one. One of the small ones we have here that takes you from the main old town to civilization, and it crosses over the rail lines. It handles not only cars but had footpaths because the town does have a lot of foot traffic. It's one of those old quaint little things. One day, a car got stuck in the bridge. Yep. There was a hole that opened up. Oopsie. The state scrambled to get 'emergency repairs' which turned out to be some sort of metal plate. Inspectors came out and discovered the whole bridge was bad and should be redone. A year or two passed and a fight ensued between the railroad, the state, and the town who could not agree on who should cover the cost of repair. Eventually work started being done, and it caused a lot of problems, because it blocked foot traffic and caused heavy backups. A kid got run over as well as several homeless because there were no more walkways except for wooden boards you had to turn yourself sideways to move on. Eventually work just seemed to stop, and the bridge has sat there in a state of half construction ever since - for about three years now. Apparently the contractors ran off with the money and the state is still fighting to get the millions back.

I personally don't see why the infrastructure issue needs to be a federal matter. I thought it was up to the states to handle it? Is it really so mismanaged that the feds need to get involved? And the greater question: if the feds get involved, will that make it better somehow?

Bernie's right about bait and switch. I think his warning is good food for thought for those who believe Trump implicitly.

Every state has a budget, and some are worse than others. Some stuff is also maintained by counties rather than state. You'll find county stuff in even worse repair. Rural areas are terrible, but if you even go into big cities like Baltimore and DC, I could show you some infrastructure that you wouldn't feel safe to travel on. You want to know how dumb this state can be sometimes with regards to spending? One of the other big bridges out (over water.. there is not much barriers to keep someone from falling) came under lobbying by cycling groups who were angry that because of this one bridge standing in their way, they could not bike all the way from the top of the country down to the bottom (even though we provided bus services for them). So the state, which I guess got some $'s from the lobbyists, decided it would be a wonderful idea to have everyone share a one way in, one way out crumbling 50mph bridge with OPEN joints and no barriers. This is on top of paying a hefty toll to use it. Everyone complained - the town residents, the county residents, truckers, emergency services, the coast guard, the town itself... but nope the state said ''eh it'll be fine''. After a few million spent on studying, cyclists gave it a test run. They found it not very safe. The state said ''eh it'll be fine''. Within a month of it opening after numerous accidents caused by cyclists getting their wheels stuck in the joints and falling in front of motorists, we decided that was a terrible idea afterall.

Our next terrible idea? Our largest bridge, the Bay Bridge is old. It's a great feat of engineering and a lot of people are terrified to drive on it. It's handling way more traffic then it was ever meant to, and it causes massive gridlock even on a good day. We've decided to spend $5 million on just a study to see if we should build another bridge. I can't even imagine how much building another one would cost, but $5 million to even study it sounds excessive to me. And we also are thinking of building a Maglev from B'more to DC. It sounds great, but umm knowing how things are in the city, the expense it will cost... I'd wish our officials could actually fix the things that need fixing before they attempt the BIG stuff (something like $10 billion). The Acela can currently get me to DC within an hour if that train doesn't kill me first on the poor railways. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-maglev-japan-agreement-20160824-story.html

That question is particularly pertinent in the context of Mr. Hogan's decision last year to abandon a decade of planning, millions of dollars in studies and all-but-certain federal funding for the Red Line light rail in Baltimore, an extension of what he said was his administration's policy of avoiding "wasteful boondoggles." That project was expected to cost $2.9 billion, and would have connected some of Baltimore's most economically distressed neighborhoods to some of the region's biggest employment centers. A third Bay Bridge span, which would make life easier for Eastern Shore commuters and Western Shore vacationers, could cost at least twice that much, and even if it absorbed the entire 22,000-car increase in daily traffic expected across the bay by 2040, it would pale next to the 57,000 daily riders the Federal Transit Administration projected for the Red Line.

The Hogan administration pointed to a planned tunnel under Baltimore as the fatal flaw of the Red Line, saying it presented untold engineering and cost risks. But another Bay Bridge span presents a whole host of issues of its own, as outlined in a task force report from the Ehrlich administration. That group studied four options for new crossings — one between Baltimore and Kent counties, one at the current location, one father south between Anne Arundel or Calvert counties and Talbot County, and one between Calvert and Dorchester counties — and found problems with all of them. All would require major upgrades to the surface road network connecting to the new bridge on both sides of the bay; present environmental issues related to wetlands and other sensitive areas and entail significant purchases of private property.

States routinely spend money to do stupid stuff instead of fixing the things that are falling down. And I do feel that the federal government does have a responsibility to handle big infrastructure like big bridges, roadworks, and dams especially. But I don't think the states bother with doing their part at all. They cherry pick pet projects instead of fixing critical stuff. And it's that sort of thing that has actually led to deaths and major destruction. We're still using stuff from the 1800s. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/when-crumbling-infrastructure-actually-crumbles We also have problems with our national parks system and historical sites, that really need help too.

[millefleur 5,046]

Wow, that sounds pretty bad, Yuna. I hope the situation gets better, but Trumps will probably just deflect the money elsewhere. I remember roadworks and construction jobs taking forever in hometown back when I was young. I can see how the idea of the states being in charge sounds good on paper, but probably fall short where accountability is lacking.

Teddy, I also noticed that Canada has really nice roads. That and the smaller cars made it apparent that I wasn't in the states anymore, lol.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Wow, that sounds pretty bad, Yuna. I hope the situation gets better, but Trumps will probably just deflect the money elsewhere. I remember roadworks and construction jobs taking forever in hometown back when I was young. I can see how the idea of the states being in charge sounds good on paper, but probably fall short where accountability is lacking.

Teddy, I also noticed that Canada has really nice roads. That and the smaller cars made it apparent that I wasn't in the states anymore, lol.

Canada's roads and buildings are in much better shape, and I've noticed Canada to be cleaner overall than the US.

[OriZ 3,157]

Wow, that sounds pretty bad, Yuna. I hope the situation gets better, but Trumps will probably just deflect the money elsewhere. I remember roadworks and construction jobs taking forever in hometown back when I was young. I can see how the idea of the states being in charge sounds good on paper, but probably fall short where accountability is lacking.

Teddy, I also noticed that Canada has really nice roads. That and the smaller cars made it apparent that I wasn't in the states anymore, lol.

I think the speed limit signs is what makes it apparent to me...I haven't seen KM since I was in Israel.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Sanders went on to write:

Quote

Bernie,

If you want to critique President Trump's proposed plans, do so. But no need to bring your "plan" anymore, nobody cares. Move on.

He is not a Republican, so naturally believes in providing an alternative plan, rather than just whining.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Guys catch up.

The topic has changed. I know we are weary from the election, but moving on to the debate about infrastructure is moving on to the next thing. Trump has promised a revolution but he needs to work through Congress to implement that. Bernie and other Democrats have said they would work together on some topics and now Bernie is warning against bait and switch.

I know you did not just indicate its time to move SMH