With Republicans wary of more coronavirus spending, Trump urges infrastructure plan

[webfact]

With Republicans wary of more coronavirus spending, Trump urges infrastructure plan

By Susan Cornwell and David Shepardson

 

U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks during a news conference, following a Senate vote on the coronavirus relief bill on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., March 26, 2020. REUTERS/Tom Brenner

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Republican lawmakers signaled caution on Tuesday over Democratic plans to prepare another large spending bill to battle the coronavirus crisis, even as President Donald Trump called for $2 trillion (£1.61 trillion) in spending, this time on infrastructure.

 

Democratic House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress needs to take up a fourth coronavirus-related bill to focus on recovery in the aftermath of the outbreak. But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, urged a "wait-and-see" approach.

 

Trump took to Twitter to urge Congress to pass a massive $2 trillion plan to update the country's roads, bridges and other infrastructure, a cause he has often espoused but never accomplished.

 

"With interest rates for the United States being at ZERO, this is the time to do our decades long awaited Infrastructure Bill. It should be VERY BIG & BOLD, Two Trillion Dollars, and be focused solely on jobs and rebuilding the once great infrastructure of our Country! Phase 4," Trump wrote on Twitter.

 

Trump signed into law on Friday a $2.2 trillion package aimed at helping workers and businesses harmed by the coronavirus pandemic, the third bill that Congress has passed this month to address the outbreak.

 

U.S. coronavirus-related deaths reached 3,607 on Tuesday, exceeding the total number reported in China and reaching the third highest in the world behind Italy and Spain, according to a Reuters tally [nL1N2BN16Y].

 

House Democrats are developing a "phase four" measure including improvements in infrastructure, such as telecommunications, electricity and water systems. Pelosi has noted the generally bipartisan appeal of infrastructure spending.

 

WATER SYSTEMS, BROADBAND

Pelosi, on MSNBC, said a phase four bill would include provisions "specific to the coronavirus challenge and that would be to do infrastructure for water systems that are so essential, broadband because so many people are relying on telecommunication and social media and the rest."

 

Later on Tuesday, Pelosi said in a town hall hosted on Facebook that the fourth bill should include larger, direct payments to households, free coronavirus treatments and more funds to hospitals and state and local governments.

 

Pelosi also called for the District of Columbia to receive money in the fourth bill under the formula for states. It was treated as a territory in the earlier coronavirus bills and got $700 million less than it would have, Pelosi said.

 

Trump's fellow Republicans say Congress should see how the just-enacted "phase three" legislation works out before doing another bill. In any case, Congress is not due to return to Washington until at least April 20.

 

"The unemployment part of phase three, I'm very worried about. ... I'm very concerned that it may take six to eight weeks to get an unemployment check," Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News Tuesday.

 

McConnell warned that the U.S. Treasury is "wrestling" with tasks under phase three, including sending checks to individuals and providing loans to small businesses. He expressed skepticism about the House Democrats' new effort, saying he worried they would try to include unrelated policy items.

 

"Any kind of bill coming out of the House, I would look at like Reagan suggested we look at the Russians: Trust but verify," McConnell said on conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt's program. Both McConnell and Graham spoke before Trump's tweet on infrastructure spending.

 

Trump has long talked about repairing infrastructure, and Democrats have also been eager to do so. But Trump once walked out of an infrastructure meeting with Democrats, and efforts to do something have foundered so many times that "infrastructure week" has become a standing joke around Washington.

 

Before passing the $2.2 trillion package aimed at countering the economic free fall from the coronavirus, Congress approved an $8.3 billion package on testing and research, and a $100 billion bill addressing paid sick days, unemployment benefits and food aid.

 

Congress faces a Sept. 30 deadline to reauthorize the highway trust fund. The highway trust faces a projected $261 billion shortfall over 10 years.

 

(Reporting by Doina Chiacu, Susan Cornwell, Richard Cowan, Susan Heavey, David Morgan, David Shepardson, Patricia Zengerle and Makini Brice; editing by Louise Heavens, Jonathan Oatis and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-04-01

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[kevin612]

This is a good news to Americans, more money to the qualified individuals if news is real.

[stevenl]

Yes, this is the right time for projects like this.

For once I agree with Trump.

[rudi49jr]

They could also scrap the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires, and I think it would be fair to increase taxes for the wealthy a little, that should yield quite a bit of money.

[Bluespunk]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, urged a "wait-and-see" approach.

The standard “do nothing” euphemism. 

[marko kok prong]

She is ageing badly since this blew up,mind having to deal with Trump would wear anyone down.

[bristolboy]

9 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, this is the right time for projects like this.

For once I agree with Trump.

Me, too. I'm still pinching myself to make sure I'm not dreaming.

I guess one way to get Trump to fulfill his campaign promises, or, rather overfulfill, is to have a pandemic.

Before this, his plan, such as it was, was to virtually give away the fee-generating portions of infrastructure to private interests.

[candide]

Trump is turning Keynesian now! Isn't it considered as leftist/liberal?

[metisdead]

A post containing a derogatory slang comment toward Trump supporters has been removed. 

[Crazy Alex]

17 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

They could also scrap the tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires, and I think it would be fair to increase taxes for the wealthy a little, that should yield quite a bit of money.

Pretty vague claims. How much more would you like some other guy to pay? And how much do you think it will change our revenue?

[Crazy Alex]

13 hours ago, candide said:

Trump is turning Keynesian now! Isn't it considered as leftist/liberal?

Yes. This was also the problem with George W. Bush. He and Trump are both big government liberals.

 

Signed,

A principled conservative

 

PS: I'll still take Trump a thousand times over someone like Biden, who's never been right about anything in his life.

[rudi49jr]

5 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Pretty vague claims. How much more would you like some other guy to pay? And how much do you think it will change our revenue?

Pretty lame post, if you ask me. Are you one of those millionaires/billionaires who’s afraid to pay their fair share of taxes, so you can’t buy another Ferrari and another Patek Philippe? If not, why are you criticizing me?
You don’t have to be a math wizard to figure out that even a minute increase in taxes for the wealthy would yield billions and billions. I always liked Elizabeth Warren’s plan for a wealth tax, which would yield 3,5 trillion dollars in 10 years. Is that specific enough for you?

Edited April 2, 2020 by rudi49jr

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Pretty vague claims. How much more would you like some other guy to pay? And how much do you think it will change our revenue?

Maybe go back to the levels of the 1960's when the gsp growth rate of the US averaged over 4 percent. And when workers' standard of living consistently improved.

[Crazy Alex]

On 4/2/2020 at 1:03 AM, rudi49jr said:

Pretty lame post, if you ask me. Are you one of those millionaires/billionaires who’s afraid to pay their fair share of taxes, so you can’t buy another Ferrari and another Patek Philippe? If not, why are you criticizing me?
You don’t have to be a math wizard to figure out that even a minute increase in taxes for the wealthy would yield billions and billions. I always liked Elizabeth Warren’s plan for a wealth tax, which would yield 3,5 trillion dollars in 10 years. Is that specific enough for you?

What exactly does "fair share" mean? And are the bottom 40%, who pay a collective ZERO towards the federal income tax burden paying their "fair share"?

[rudi49jr]

10 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

What exactly does "fair share" mean? And are the bottom 40%, who pay a collective ZERO towards the federal income tax burden paying their "fair share"?

I'm guessing there's a vast gap between your definition of fair share and mine. So let's just agree to disagree on that, okay?

 

And as for the bottom 40% you mentioned: most of them can barely survive on what they make and are living hand to mouth. But if incomes and wealth were distributed a little more fairly (there's that word again that you like so much), maybe they could start contributing more in that respect as well.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

I'm guessing there's a vast gap between your definition of fair share and mine. So let's just agree to disagree on that, okay?

 

And as for the bottom 40% you mentioned: most of them can barely survive on what they make and are living hand to mouth. But if incomes and wealth were distributed a little more fairly (there's that word again that you like so much), maybe they could start contributing more in that respect as well.

If there was universal health care and a decent minimum wage, that would go a long way towards solving the problem. 

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

I'm guessing there's a vast gap between your definition of fair share and mine. So let's just agree to disagree on that, okay?

 

And as for the bottom 40% you mentioned: most of them can barely survive on what they make and are living hand to mouth. But if incomes and wealth were distributed a little more fairly (there's that word again that you like so much), maybe they could start contributing more in that respect as well.

On principle, I believe EVERYBODY should pitch in and pay at least a few thousand dollars in federal income tax. Like a brilliant Democrat politician once said, everyone needs to "have skin in the game."

 

Now, being poor is mostly a matter of how one handles their finances and their life in general. That's no reason to give them a pass. The poor need to pay up like the rest of us. THAT is what I call "fair".

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

On principle, I believe EVERYBODY should pitch in and pay at least a few thousand dollars in federal income tax. Like a brilliant Democrat politician once said, everyone needs to "have skin in the game."

 

Now, being poor is mostly a matter of how one handles their finances and their life in general. That's no reason to give them a pass. The poor need to pay up like the rest of us. THAT is what I call "fair".

Uh-huh.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

[bristolboy]

17 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

On principle, I believe EVERYBODY should pitch in and pay at least a few thousand dollars in federal income tax. Like a brilliant Democrat politician once said, everyone needs to "have skin in the game."

 

Now, being poor is mostly a matter of how one handles their finances and their life in general. That's no reason to give them a pass. The poor need to pay up like the rest of us. THAT is what I call "fair".

And then there's this: Owen Cass, a prominent conservative economist measured how many weeks it would take an average male worker in 1979 to earn enough to meet a family of 4's basic needs versus  what it would take in 2018. It turns out it would take about 30 weeks in 1979 and 53 weeks in 2018.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-cost-of-thriving

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Uh-huh.

https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

Yep. Everyone should pitch in. Why do you think your graphs proves otherwise?

[Crazy Alex]

Just now, bristolboy said:

And then there's this: Owen Cass, a prominent conservative economist measured how many weeks it would take an average male worker in 1979 to earn enough to meet a family of 4's basic needs versus  what it would take in 2018. It turns out it would take about 30 weeks in 1979 and 53 weeks in 2018.

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/the-cost-of-thriving

Bummer. Why do you think that means people should get a free ride PLUS vote to make other people pay more?

[bristolboy]

Just now, Crazy Alex said:

Yep. Everyone should pitch in. Why do you think your graphs proves otherwise?

Here's a better version without the pop-up blocking it.

As you'll not until the late 70's workers' pay increases kept pace with productivity. And then it just stopped. In fact in the 80's until well into the 90s real wages actually declined.

So that leads to the question, if workers aren't getting the benefit of it, who is?

[Crazy Alex]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's a better version without the pop-up blocking it.

As you'll not until the late 70's workers' pay increases kept pace with productivity. And then it just stopped. In fact in the 80's until well into the 90s real wages actually declined.

So that leads to the question, if workers aren't getting the benefit of it, who is?

Well yes, productivity is a good thing. But let's consider a hypothetical example. See if you agree with the logic. Let's say a company manufactures light bulbs. They employ 100 people. The owner buys a new light bulb manufacturing machine that increases output by 50%. Let's assume the new equipment constituted a significant capital expenditure. Your logic appears to indicate the employees should get a raise. Why should they, assuming their overall work environment has remained the same?

 

But let's also take an element from this example. Let's say the shipping department has to ship 50% more light bulbs with the same staff. Of course they should get a raise.

 

But they fact remains, there have been many advancements in productivity based on new equipment, management and philosophies.

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Bummer. Why do you think that means people should get a free ride PLUS vote to make other people pay more?

What are you on about? What has this got to do with a free ride? Workers used to be compensated in accordance with how productive they were. all through the 50's and 60's and into the 70's/ That's not the case anymore. What is there about that that you don't understand?

Edited April 4, 2020 by bristolboy

[Crazy Alex]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What are you on about? What has this got to do with a free ride? Workers used to be compensated in accordance with how productive they were. all through the 50's and 60's and into the 70's/ That's not the case anymore. What is there about that that you don't understand?

We'll have to agree to disagree. I maintain that working at a factory that produces twice the widgets it did before does not necessarily mean the employee's pay should be doubled.

[Tug]

Imo it’s just a distraction 2 years back everyone (bi partisan)was on bord when it came time to get serious trump dropped it I think it’s a dangle and will disappear with an attempt to blame the democrats for its failure plus it will be used in an attempt to gut the unions that’s just my opinion tempered with trumps usual mo