Why not spend those trillions in tax cuts for the rich on infrastructure?

[deanrd]

We have 6.2 million jobs available and Republicans say we need more? Why?

Instead of tax cuts for billionaires why not take that money and use it on infrastructure which we know will create jobs and be good for the country?

It really is just that simple.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Look what's happening here in California. We are one of the most heavily-taxed states in the nation, and we have quite a bit that is being collected in taxes that are specifically designated to fund the building and maintenance of our roads and related infrastructure—much more than enough to fulfill this purpose. But instead, these funds are being lost to fraud and waste, and so Fairy Moonbeam Brown has just signed into law a new set of taxes to be used for this purpose, in place of the funds that are already being collected for this purpose and then squandered elsewhere.

How stupid does anyone need to be in order to believe that these new taxes won't be wasted just the same as the extant funds are being wasted?

 

[usmbguest5318]

We have 6.2 million jobs available and Republicans say we need more? Why?

Instead of tax cuts for billionaires why not take that money and use it on infrastructure which we know will create jobs and be good for the country? It really is just that simple.

Edit:

It's not just billionaires who'll reap very handsome savings. Even modestly wealthy people -- folks in around the $750/year income range -- will come out with about $130K in savings. Billionaires merely will get dramatically more than that.​

End of edit.

As someone who'll get a very nice savings if Trump's proposed cuts pass, I would have no problem with that. If I get the savings, I know how I'll spend them -- I'll apportion them to the funds I have already set aside to buy starter homes/condos for my three youngest kids. (My oldest is already living on his own resources, so no "bonus" for him.)

The thing is that tax cut or no tax cut, I am still going to do that for them. Among the folks with whom I've discussed the normative and positive aspects of the tax cut, the sentiments they've expressed are same as mine: they will have no trouble doing something with the money -- save/invest it, spend it -- but the savings won't inspire them to do something they weren't otherwise doing/planning.

In contrast, the money could be life altering for people such as those whom, as you suggest, get jobs as workers helping to rebuild, repair, and install new elements of infrastructure, particularly if they don't have a job (not terribly likely given the current unemployment rate) or if they have lower paying jobs, more dead-end thus less "career-like," or less stable jobs than those they might obtain as part of a national-level infrastructure refurbishment effort.

Why Trump, or anyone, would willfully put more money into the pockets of people who have plenty of money to begin with is beyond me. Sure, wealthy folks will take the money, and they do something with it, but to what end. A modest boost in the high-end consumer goods segment of the economy wherein many goods aren't even made by U.S. companies? More money invested in professional service and high-tech segments of the economy, segments that largely only employ highly skilled/trained workers and that, as goes manufacturing, is increasingly replacing labor with capital?

Recognizing those realities, I submit to an end that's not nearly as beneficial overall as that of doing something that directly and predominantly boosts the financial position of folks in moderate and low income groups, namely creating human-labor-intensive jobs that, because of the exigencies of geography, will necessarily be performed mainly by U.S. companies using U.S. workers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not spend those trillions in tax cuts for the rich on infrastructure?

Or just the $800 billion "stimulus"?

 

[deanrd]

Why not spend those trillions in tax cuts for the rich on infrastructure?

Or just the $800 billion "stimulus"?

Which brought us out of recession. Too bad half was tax cuts. But Republicans wouldn't support it otherwise. You know how they are. Wealthy billionaires over country. Come on. Don't deny it. You know it's true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not spend those trillions in tax cuts for the rich on infrastructure?

Or just the $800 billion "stimulus"?

Which brought us out of recession. Too bad half was tax cuts. But Republicans wouldn't support it otherwise. You know how they are. Wealthy billionaires over country. Come on. Don't deny it. You know it's true.

Which brought us out of recession.

The recession that ended in June 2009? How much was spent by June 2009?

Too bad half was tax cuts.

Obama said tax cuts would help the economy. Was Obama lying?

But Republicans wouldn't support it otherwise.

Why did Obama need Republican support? He got 58 Dem votes in the Senate.
He got 244 Dem votes in the House.

 

[deanrd]

Why not spend those trillions in tax cuts for the rich on infrastructure?

Or just the $800 billion "stimulus"?

Which brought us out of recession. Too bad half was tax cuts. But Republicans wouldn't support it otherwise. You know how they are. Wealthy billionaires over country. Come on. Don't deny it. You know it's true.

Which brought us out of recession.

The recession that ended in June 2009? How much was spent by June 2009?

Too bad half was tax cuts.

Obama said tax cuts would help the economy. Was Obama lying?

But Republicans wouldn't support it otherwise.

Why did Obama need Republican support? He got 58 Dem votes in the Senate.
He got 244 Dem votes in the House.

Why does you kind always do this alternate history.

What Debate? Economists Agree the Stimulus Lifted the Economy

We know you hate black people so just stop already.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not spend those trillions in tax cuts for the rich on infrastructure?

Or just the $800 billion "stimulus"?

Which brought us out of recession. Too bad half was tax cuts. But Republicans wouldn't support it otherwise. You know how they are. Wealthy billionaires over country. Come on. Don't deny it. You know it's true.

Which brought us out of recession.

The recession that ended in June 2009? How much was spent by June 2009?

Too bad half was tax cuts.

Obama said tax cuts would help the economy. Was Obama lying?

But Republicans wouldn't support it otherwise.

Why did Obama need Republican support? He got 58 Dem votes in the Senate.
He got 244 Dem votes in the House.

Why does you kind always do this alternate history.

What Debate? Economists Agree the Stimulus Lifted the Economy

We know you hate black people so just stop already.

Lifted the economy? That's awesome!
How much was spent before the recession ended in June 2009?

 

[hadit]

We have 6.2 million jobs available and Republicans say we need more? Why?

Instead of tax cuts for billionaires why not take that money and use it on infrastructure which we know will create jobs and be good for the country?

It really is just that simple.

W don't need to. We already gave Obama a lot of money for what he promised were shovel ready infrastructure jobs. Therefore, we no longer have infrastructure needs. He didn't lie just to get the money, did he?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

We have 6.2 million jobs available and Republicans say we need more? Why?

Instead of tax cuts for billionaires why not take that money and use it on infrastructure which we know will create jobs and be good for the country?

It really is just that simple.

building a road is not good for the country, inventing a new product in the private sector is . We didn't get from the stone age to here by govt building roads but rather by private inventions.