Schmidt Wrote: Tax cuts for the middle class and poor have more of a stimulative effect on the economy than tax cuts for the rich or corporations. Middle class workers are certainly more likely to spend their extra income, which translates into more dollars in circulation. The rich and corporations are less likely to spend the extra income on consumer goods and services. Those are no brainer concepts that have been pushed by Reich and others for a long time.Democrats and Obama have been pushing for a massive spending program on our declining infrastructure for a long time. It makes good sense with the cost of borrowing very low, a supply of skilled labor waiting to go back to work, and the deficits in good shape. CBO analyses also show that would have a stimulative effect on the economy.There is also bipartisan support in the Senate for raising the gasoline tax to pay for highway infrastructure improvements.Unfortunately though nothing will be passed in the House...nothing. They are so consumed by their hatred for Obama that anything that will help the economy and jobs that might make "Obama look good" is off the table. Republicans in the House especially would rather sink the economy to spite Obama rather than help ordinary folk. They might talk a good game, but watch what they do...NOTHING.So the Democrats tax proposal will never be considered. It might have mileage in the 2016 election, but that's all. My opinion.
johnnycee Wrote: I am so sick of the catchword "infrastructure", here in Pa. in just the last year we have had taxes raised for the infrastructure , turnpike tolls raised, proposed extraction taxes, a new proposal for raising gas taxes at the pump, for guess what "infrastructure". if not that then it's the schools, just where in hell does this money really go because the roads remain in disrepair, most bridges aren't fixed and don't get me started on the education system, where so many kids come out dumber than when they went in.. If they want this money to go to where it's intended then dedicate it for that purpose and that purpose only, no legal interpretation of what particular word(s) mean, hold bidders to their bids and if their costs rise so be it,let them eat the raising costs and not the over taxed citizens. Lets say for an example a million dollars is allocated for a certain road project but the end result is that out of the that million dollars only less than half gets spent on actual roadwork, the rest is spent on equipment, materials , labor costs , all of these should have been figured into the actual bid, many of which are not,hence the term "cost over runs" or better yet "unforeseen expenses". Sometimes I think the US Government thinks that the American taxpayer is nothing more than a cornucopia of a endless stream of money.
Schmidt Wrote: So lately it has become easier to just allocate funds a little at a time from the general fund to the Highway Trust Fund, but never enough. As a result our infrastructure keeps declining. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $3.6 trillion will need to be spent by 2020 to just catch up. Now Congress might happily find those those kind of funds for war, but infrastructure...hell no.