PDA

View Full Version : Trump considers breaking up big banks, raising gas tax



Peter1469
05-01-2017, 05:41 PM
Trump considers breaking up big banks, raising gas tax (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-01/trump-says-he-s-considering-moves-to-break-up-wall-street-banks)

Trump is considering a 21st Century Glass-Stengel Act. That would break up big banks and separate saving institutions from investment institutions.

And any gas tax would allegedly go into federal infrastructure programs.


President Donald Trump said he’s actively considering a breakup of giant Wall Street banks, giving a push to efforts to revive a Depression-era law separating consumer and investment banking.

“I’m looking at that right now,” Trump said of breaking up banks in a 30-minute Oval Office interview with Bloomberg News. “There’s some people that want to go back to the old system, right? So we’re going to look at that.”

Trump also said he’s open to increasing the U.S. gas tax to fund infrastructure development, in a further sign that policies unpopular with the Republican establishment are under consideration in the White House. He described higher gas taxes as acceptable to truckers -- “I have one friend who’s a big trucker,” he said -- as long as the proceeds are dedicated to improving U.S. highways.

Read the rest at the link.

Green Arrow
05-01-2017, 05:57 PM
Depending on how he goes about both issues, I can support them both. He'll get a "well done" from me (conditional on how he goes about it of course) if he actually follows through.

decedent
05-01-2017, 06:03 PM
Considering that Republicans eliminated Glass-Steagel, I'd be surprised if Congress would pass such a bill. Trump would have to do an execute an executive order, which won't go over well with Congress.


But if Trump carries out this order, I'd support it.

Peter1469
05-01-2017, 06:06 PM
Considering that Republicans eliminated Glass-Steagel Act, I'd be surprised if Congress would pass such a bill. Trump would have to do an execute an executive order, which won't go over well with Congress.


But if Trump carries out this order, I'd support it.



Clinton repealed Glass Steagel.

Trump can't use an EO to revive it. That will take legislation.

I definitely support the first plan.

The gas tax, I want to hear more about and see what the effect would be on our trucking industry. Taxes on deiseal fuel is already a great burden for them.

Tahuyaman
05-01-2017, 07:13 PM
Considering that Republicans eliminated Glass-Steagel, I'd be surprised if Congress would pass such a bill. Trump would have to do an execute an executive order, which won't go over well with Congress.


But if Trump carries out this order, I'd support it.




That can't be accomplished through executive order.

Crepitus
05-01-2017, 07:15 PM
I could easily get behind the first notion, provided it's handled properly. Not so sure we need more gas tax.

Common
05-01-2017, 08:38 PM
Id be all for breaking up the banks. Hell bring back the savings and loans and let the old folks have fun again going from bank to bank to get free toasters an stuff :) Gotta be old to remember that

I am dead set against more gas taxs, that hurts everyone across the board

Green Arrow
05-01-2017, 08:46 PM
Id be all for breaking up the banks. Hell bring back the savings and loans and let the old folks have fun again going from bank to bank to get free toasters an stuff :) Gotta be old to remember that

I am dead set against more gas taxs, that hurts everyone across the board

So does broken bridges and aging highways.

Newpublius
05-01-2017, 09:06 PM
So does broken bridges and aging highways.

The issue of course is one of degree. Infrastructure should be funded in accordance with necessity.

So looking at the historical record, we can see how much we have spent as a society on infrastructure.

https://api.keenai.com/3/files/2221818112/thumbnails/8e3475636018312c75fdbb60d7289cfc5d278c05/s2048/image.jpg?v=4

After 2007 we go into the recession, we increase spending quite drastically on infrastructure as part of the stimulus and then spending goes back to the historical norm.

As a rule of thumb, since the construction of the interstates themselves where there was a spike to just over 3% of GDP, an off the cuff figure for infrastructure spending is 2.5% of GDP.

This number has remained approximately the same even though our nation has gotten much wealthier than in the 1950s.

The true question isn't whether we need infrastructure spending, the better question is why 2.5% of GDP isn't sufficient anymore.

And some conservatives, obviously not trillion dollar infrastructure plan himself, have an explanation.

Its because the government is ripping us off and not getting the job done.

Living in NJ we have an excellent example:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/04/overtime_pay_at_port_authority_is_over_the_top_edi .html

"This scam has been going on since time immemorial at our bi-state money pit, we were reminded Tuesday by NJ Advance Media (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/port_authority_overtime_2016.html), which introduced us to 25 PA cops who racked up at least $125,000 in overtime - each. One veteran tripled his $90,000 base salary with $200,233 in OT."

Their base salaries aren't low to begin with and the toll to cross the George Washington Bridge and other Hudson River crossings (Holland and Lincoln Tunnel) is $15

So, I have an idea, how about we give 2.5% of our incomes for infrastructure and the governments actually get the job done.

This year from the State of NJ I have been treated to toll increases and a gas tax increase and just as an aside, each car costs $71 to register.

Green Arrow
05-01-2017, 09:12 PM
The issue of course is one of degree. Infrastructure should be funded in accordance with necessity.

So looking at the historical record, we can see how much we have spent as a society on infrastructure.

https://api.keenai.com/3/files/2221818112/thumbnails/8e3475636018312c75fdbb60d7289cfc5d278c05/s2048/image.jpg?v=4

After 2007 we go into the recession, we increase spending quite drastically on infrastructure as part of the stimulus and then spending goes back to the historical norm.

As a rule of thumb, since the construction of the interstates themselves where there was a spike to just over 3% of GDP, an off the cuff figure for infrastructure spending is 2.5% of GDP.

This number has remained approximately the same even though our nation has gotten much wealthier than in the 1950s.

The true question isn't whether we need infrastructure spending, the better question is why 2.5% of GDP isn't sufficient anymore.

And some conservatives, obviously not trillion dollar infrastructure plan himself, have an explanation.

Its because the government is ripping us off and not getting the job done.

Living in NJ we have an excellent example:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/04/overtime_pay_at_port_authority_is_over_the_top_edi .html

"This scam has been going on since time immemorial at our bi-state money pit, we were reminded Tuesday by NJ Advance Media (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/port_authority_overtime_2016.html), which introduced us to 25 PA cops who racked up at least $125,000 in overtime - each. One veteran tripled his $90,000 base salary with $200,233 in OT."

Their base salaries aren't low to begin with and the toll to cross the George Washington Bridge and other Hudson River crossings (Holland and Lincoln Tunnel) is $15

So, I have an idea, how about we give 2.5% of our incomes for infrastructure and the governments actually get the job done.

This year from the State of NJ I have been treated to toll increases and a gas tax increase and just as an aside, each car costs $71 to register.

I don't disagree.

Bethere
05-01-2017, 09:50 PM
Depending on how he goes about both issues, I can support them both. He'll get a "well done" from me (conditional on how he goes about it of course) if he actually follows through.

Me, too.

Bethere
05-01-2017, 09:51 PM
So does broken bridges and aging highways.

Trucking companies actually appear to support said gas tax provided it goes directly to infrastructure maintenance.

Dr. Who
05-01-2017, 10:13 PM
The issue of course is one of degree. Infrastructure should be funded in accordance with necessity.

So looking at the historical record, we can see how much we have spent as a society on infrastructure.

https://api.keenai.com/3/files/2221818112/thumbnails/8e3475636018312c75fdbb60d7289cfc5d278c05/s2048/image.jpg?v=4

After 2007 we go into the recession, we increase spending quite drastically on infrastructure as part of the stimulus and then spending goes back to the historical norm.

As a rule of thumb, since the construction of the interstates themselves where there was a spike to just over 3% of GDP, an off the cuff figure for infrastructure spending is 2.5% of GDP.

This number has remained approximately the same even though our nation has gotten much wealthier than in the 1950s.

The true question isn't whether we need infrastructure spending, the better question is why 2.5% of GDP isn't sufficient anymore.

And some conservatives, obviously not trillion dollar infrastructure plan himself, have an explanation.

Its because the government is ripping us off and not getting the job done.

Living in NJ we have an excellent example:

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/04/overtime_pay_at_port_authority_is_over_the_top_edi .html

"This scam has been going on since time immemorial at our bi-state money pit, we were reminded Tuesday by NJ Advance Media (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2017/04/port_authority_overtime_2016.html), which introduced us to 25 PA cops who racked up at least $125,000 in overtime - each. One veteran tripled his $90,000 base salary with $200,233 in OT."

Their base salaries aren't low to begin with and the toll to cross the George Washington Bridge and other Hudson River crossings (Holland and Lincoln Tunnel) is $15

So, I have an idea, how about we give 2.5% of our incomes for infrastructure and the governments actually get the job done.

This year from the State of NJ I have been treated to toll increases and a gas tax increase and just as an aside, each car costs $71 to register.

The problem with taxation for infrastructure spending both on the federal and state level is that it goes into the general funds. It isn't set aside in an inviolable pot dedicated only to infrastructure. It's just part of a slush fund that is invariably redirected to more politically sexy spending. So through sleight of hand, the public is taxed more and more for infrastructure, but nothing really gets done. Governments play a shell game and hope the people won't notice.

Peter1469
05-02-2017, 04:35 AM
Trucking companies actually appear to support said gas tax provided it goes directly to infrastructure maintenance.
Yes, the big trucking companies do. However the taxes are killing the independent truckers. Just another example of large companies lobbying congress for laws to kill off the competition.

Common
05-02-2017, 06:04 AM
Yes, the big trucking companies do. However the taxes are killing the independent truckers. Just another example of large companies lobbying congress for laws to kill off the competition.

Its all small business, like landscapers that use fuel for their trucks and equiptment all day long and raise prices accordingly. So prices go up for the consumer other than just them paying more gas tax.

Im not steadfast agains it but when you raise taxs on a must have and must use commodity it has ripple affects. Like all service providers that have fleets of trucks

donttread
05-02-2017, 08:32 AM
Trump considers breaking up big banks, raising gas tax (https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-05-01/trump-says-he-s-considering-moves-to-break-up-wall-street-banks)

Trump is considering a 21st Century Glass-Stengel Act. That would break up big banks and separate saving institutions from investment institutions.

And any gas tax would allegedly go into federal infrastructure programs.



Read the rest at the link.


1) I'm for some action against the mega banks but I question Trump as the guy to do it. However, if he would instsitute a decent prudent reserve again that would be great. As would reminding DA's that the corporate veil doesn't apply to criminal actions.
2) There is a long sad history of taxes and lotteries ( tax on people who are bad at math) being unofficially earmarked for education, tobacco control or Medicaid and winding up in the bottomless pit that is the general fund. Similar things have happend with FICA where our money earmarked for retirment was used as welfare. The only way we should allow such a tax is to have it legally committed to the stated purpose. Florida has done so with their tobacco Master Settlement Money . It took a Constitutional ammendment but they did it. This proves it can be done.
The American people should NEVER accept an unoffical earmark again. They ALWAYS turn out to be lies.
While I'm for states handling infrastructure that's not going to happen anytime soon do Trump's idea, if legally committed to it's stated purpose would be acceptible to me. Also , public transportation should be taxed the same percentage , otherwise the gas tax is an unfair burden on those of us who live in rural areas.

donttread
05-02-2017, 08:35 AM
Also exemting freight trains would be a good option to encourage a more efficent system for moving goods around and seeing far less wear and tear on the highways.

Green Arrow
05-02-2017, 08:37 AM
Also exemting freight trains would be a good option to encourage a more efficent system for moving goods around and seeing far less wear and tear on the highways.

Trains are not more efficient than trucks.

donttread
05-02-2017, 09:03 AM
Trains are not more efficient than trucks.

Who told you that hogwash? I mean think about it. You still use the trucks for short runs out of the main hubs. In a quick Google search I got long haul trains coming in three times as effeicent to trucks to one claim that "state of the art trucks" ( the ones that must travel when I'm not on the road) were closer to train efficency.
I really didn't think anybody out there didn't know this?
Remember I'm talking long haul only here. You also have to add the fact that the highways get far less beat up and traffic patterns ease up as well as less accidents into the equation.