Can fiscal republicans please explain to me how infrastructure + Wall + tax cuts makes sense

January 28, 2018, 7:16 am

Agree8 Disagree3

73%
27%

The debate "Can fiscal republicans please explain to me how infrastructure + Wall + tax cuts makes sense" was started by Nemiroff on January 28, 2018, 7:16 am. 8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side. People are starting to choose their side. It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.

Nemiroff posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.

Nemiroff, Against_eu and 6 visitors agree.
historybuff and 2 visitors disagree.

Nemiroff
replied to...

but the federal gov doesn't build your local roads. it only builds the large interstate roads that cross state lines....

1 year, 9 months ago
lachlan
replied to...

I wouldn't because state and local governments are not private companies. the California government is not a corporation.

I would decentralize infastructure for more knowledge of the local area and relation. the federal government has no idea about my local roads.

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

why would you leave the massive expanses of infrastructure to private companies*

skipped a couple of words there lol

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

I don't understand your logic. why would you leave the massive expanses of infrastructure like roads that connect our nation on the biggest level, but totally support government projects on local levels? wouldn't the reverse be more logical? What exactly is your reasoning.

1 year, 9 months ago
lachlan
replied to...

I don't believe in completely privatized roads! If you can't make a tell a difference between federally run roads and state and locally run roads you can't reason and tell a differnece between A and B.

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

you wore your ideology on your sleeve. it was a pretty easy read :)

municipal roads are the ones that would be most compatible with privatization. large interstate roads are the lifelines of our economy and the largest most expensive spans of infrastructure. demanding they be privatized is far more illogical then municipal or even state roads.

I was using federal and government interchangeably, but making the largest scale private instead of the small local scale makes no sense to me, I would prefer the reverse.

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

it is, and it's glorious. I have no idea why people would prefer a patchwork private system full of tolls.

1 year, 9 months ago
lachlan
replied to...

Did you read what I wrote? I believe in infastructure at a state abd local level.

Do you even read what you are saying? If I don't believe in federal control of a
particular thing, then I believe in complete privatization of that thing? what kind of reasoning is that?

I am, I just jumped on your preemtive conclusion since you were explaining to me what I believe in.

1 year, 9 months ago

forgive me, I'm not American. in Canada we have federally run highways that connect the country together. most other roads are run by the province or municipality.

is that not how it works in the US?

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

if you don't believe in federal infrastructure and roads are infrastructure, then you believe in complete privatization of roads.

that part of your belief is pure liberitarianism.

your position on voluntary socialism means your likely against taxes (also a liberitarian position), which means exactly how is the government supposed to fund anything... meaning privatized everything.

please, tell me definitively that you are not a liberitarian, and what is the difference between your position and liberitarianism if your so certain I am wrong.

1 year, 9 months ago
lachlan
replied to...

I never said I was a libertarian and I never said I believed in complete privatization of roads lol. You're proving my point! I said Federal infastructure! and anytime anyone says something is not a federal issue Leftists are like OMG you want to privatize everything!!

Who are you to tell me what I believe in? The only one that described me as a libertarian on this app is you :)

I think infastructure would work better as a state and local government role, considering efficiency and the fact that the constitution dosen't allow it. I think some private toll roads could work.

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

liberitarianism has no issue with private infrastructure. Your splitting hairs. my point stands.

so you support a system of endless tolls and forgotten towns to poor to provide a private incentive to invest? the federal highway system connected every town and allowed these towns to prosper because of the profit free investment. Your ideology will turn our nation into a 3rd rate economy.

1 year, 9 months ago
lachlan
replied to...

an issue with infastructure? If I don't believe in federal infastructure I don't believe in any infastructure? Sounds like you can't distinguish government and society.

I guess you're right that modern conservatism is not for small government anymore.

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

Your issue with infrastructure in general has nothin to do with fiscal conservatism. that's just plain old liberitarianism. the fiscal question is how all of this spending can happen following tax cuts.

and don't give me the "it'll grow the economy" tale because even if true that will take years to show returns and infrastructure in a 2018 issue. also the growth theory has about as much support by expert economists as climate change denial has scientific support. 0.

1 year, 9 months ago
lachlan
replied to...

so are you a keynsian "fiscal conservative"?

1 year, 9 months ago

because it is vital tool for the nation's well being. why don't we privatize our military too? think if the billions we could save?

look what happened when they privatized prisons. they cut so many costs that they were down to treating wounds with sugar. just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it is in the best interests of the people.

1 year, 9 months ago

They don't nake sense, that's why real fiscal conservatives don't like Trump. Why have Democrats believed infastructire is a federal responsibility for years when it makes so fiscal sense?

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

the numbers as counted were 40% or more for airport crosses specifically, but with undocumented people I'm sure the numbers will be disputed by everyone (since there's no documentation)

however a key number I found while searching for that 42/58% figure was:

80% decline in border arrests SINCE 2000 (well before trump and during several border security boosts)... so what exactly is the purpose of the wall if land crossings are becoming irrelevant and net migration is currently heading back towards mexico?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2017/12/05/wheres-the-immigration-crisis-u-s-border-patrol-reports-illegal-border-crossings-at-record-low/

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

being as they are without papers and the US government doesn't even know who they are or how many there are, how exactly are they mailing out these welfare checks?

illegals do not get social security, welfare, section 8, or even obama care subsidies. as far as I know they get no federal assistance at all. they do get hospital care, but let me ask you, the inhumanity of tossing people out of hospitals aside, would you want hospital staff to run your immigration status before providing care?

already your math will need a ton of adjusting, but as for our side.... no one said "sales tax", that's all you. many illegals pay income tax, whether openly as they are given official stays from deportstion, or with fake papers blessing the republicans for cutting the irs enforcement budget. they also contribute to the economy by their demand of goods (they are alive and need to buy food and goods). and my greatest point is that if they were documented, they would be able to contribute even more.

so here's my offer. clean bill for legal status for anyone who's a minor or has been here for over 5 years with no federal safety net (which they never had anyway) and no citizenship ever for them (their kids will be eligible). but they do get the securing of knowing they wont vanish dropping their kids off at school, worker protections (which will also keep them from "undercutting" American workers).

1 year, 9 months ago

I would actually like to see some information on a comparison of their value to the economy compared to these costs you mentioned. since they are non citizens, my understanding is they wouldn't qualify for most of the benefits but are still required to pay most of the costs.

where did you get that 58% number. all the stats I've seen say that isn't true. the numbers I've seen say the vast majority come through ports, airports or border checkpoints. are you including the people who go through the checkpoints? because I hate to break it to you but a wall won't stop them.

1 year, 9 months ago
Slymcfly
replied to...

Nemiroff, I just said that 58% of illegal immigrants cross the border illegally by LAND. Which, as far as I'm concerned, 58% constitutes as the majority. I'm not sure where you got your information about the majority of them come via airplane, but my source is actually NBC. They say themselves that only 42% come here by airplane and end up overstaying their Visas.

1 year, 9 months ago
Slymcfly
replied to...

You guys are joking, right?? Illegal immigrants and immigrants cost us nothing because they pay sales tax?? That is the most insane logic I've ever heard before.

So you're saying that them using the public schools, hospital services(A LOT), welfare, section 8, the prison/jail systems, and child welfare aid??? Because they pay sales tax? You told me on another post that I had little understanding of Socialism, but I'm sorry, it doesn't seem like you have any sort of understanding when it comes to very basic, elementary subject regarding the economy. Anyone who says that illegal immigrants and immigrants don't cost America A LOT more than they contribute, I would LOVE to put my numbers up against yours. I literally have BOOKS upon BOOKS of this literature. I know it inside out, back and forth, cover to cover. You CANNOT sit there and tell me that illegal immigration is good for this country AT ALL. The ONLY people it helps is RICH people getting RICHER off of CHEAP LABOR, because illegal immigrants are willing to do jobs for cheaper, which also UNDERCUTS the wages of the lower and middle class. Which AGAIN, does NOT help our economy.

I can probably spell this out to you DOZENS of ways, but you still would not budge on your view, because that is the BS that the mainstream media has already indoctrinated into you. It is really sad that so many people are so far gone.

1 year, 9 months ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

"If we were to get rid of the 58% of illegal Immigration that occurs on the ground (not on a plane), that alone would save us more over a 10 year span"

how would the act of stopping crossings save us more then 25 billion?

the only savings I can imagine is decreased on enforcement, but that won't add up to anything significant unless you plan on eliminating all security. but even that is silly since smugglers will just build tunnels. look at Israel struggling with tunnels, and our border is more than a bit larger than new jersey.

you also stated this will only solve land border crossings, and with airport crossing being the source of majority of illegals... what exactly are you stopping?

aside from these points, I think a fundamental disagreement we have is whether immigration costs our society or benefits it. and especially in a time of very low unemployment, I can't understand the anti immigration stance.

1 year, 9 months ago

that makes no sense. immigrants create demand, they create wealth which is taxed. illegal immigrants create more revenue. they don't cost the government anything.

you're saying that spending billions in a futile (since the wall doesn't actually accomplish anything) attempt to keep out hard working people who will create more wealth will somehow save you money. how would the wall pay for anything? it is a useless waste of money.

1 year, 9 months ago

I can. If we were to get rid of the 58% of illegal Immigration that occurs on the ground (not on a plane), that alone would save us more over a 10 year span, and the wall would end up paying for itself ten-fold, and it will end up ultimately helping our economy.

1 year, 9 months ago
Discuss "Can fiscal republicans please explain to me how infrastructure + Wall + tax cuts makes sense" finance politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.