Trump Infrastructure

>>1852606
>American voters
why does this matter

change to what republicans want

>>1852611
Latest CNN ORC poll puts Republican support above Democrat support at 87% to 72% respectively, with 79% independent support (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/03/08/rel4d.-.budget.pdf).

If he pursues flat out spending, I don't think Congress will bite, but I think that the House and Senate would be willing to consider an infrastructure tax credit plan like the one Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro described in that link I noted.

>>1852611
In case you don't wanna scroll through that CNN link to find the actual numbers, here's a quick summary with citations: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/03/08/wow-two-new-polls-show-massive-majorities-favor-new-infrastructure-spending/

The tax credit idea doesn't make sense.
What exactly would private equity be "investing" in? Repairing a bridge doesn't generate revenue unless you slap a toll on it. That's a political non-starter, and most routes don't have enough traffic to even pay for upkeep of a toll system.

>>1852732
I'm not agreeing with the actual plan itself, I'm just wondering about its political feasibility and how to invest if it actually gets passed.

Are you saying that if the infrastructure tax credit idea gets passed, companies won't use it? To counter your point, couldn't they just afford to take a loss to write off other parts of their tax burdens?

>>1852786
It's not just taking a loss, it's literally giving the money away. You could reap an identical benefit by donating the money to any charity.

A significant percentage of large investors don't have a tax burden to begin with. Pension funds are exempt, and there are plenty of existing credits to game-- GE hasn't paid taxes in years.

For the next four (maybe 8) years I will be putting a large amount of money in defense. General Dynamics, and Lockheed Martin mainly.

>>1852822
Does this apply to all forms of infrastructure, or just things like roads and bridges? Trump spent a large amount of time talking about airports during the election cycle- do these have a higher profitability than roads? The same with trains/public transit.

>>1852856
I bought most of the major defense contractors to profit off of different aspects of the defense budget. I'd recommend picking up Huntington Ingalls sometime, they're the only major publicly traded shipbuilder and if Trump's navy budget gets passed and we built like 300 or so ships he proposed, their share price will go through the roof.

>>1852936
Hmm good idea I'll get on that. Look at those stocks the day after the election it's hilarious to see.

>>1852936
>Does this apply to all forms of infrastructure, or just things like roads and bridges? Trump spent a large amount of time talking about airports during the election cycle- do these have a higher profitability than roads? The same with trains/public transit.
There's been no clarification on what kind of "infrastructure" will be covered. One interpretation of Navarro and Ross' plan is that it could give tax exempt status to any large project like, say, a natural gas pipeline or coal mine.
But, sure, if you made modernizing an airport a tax-deductible activity, that would encourage investing in airports. Most entities aren't sitting around with millions to invest in airports if they know nothing about the business, but somebody would take advantage.

>>1853010
By applying I meant did your point about road/bridge infrastructure being unprofitable also apply to other forms of infrastructure, like airports.

That's true, but Softbank seems to be a good start: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/06/trump-says-softbank-will-invest-50-billion-in-the-us-aiming-to-create-50000-jobs.html

Would there be any way to profit off of renovated airports? Like would construction companies benefit significantly from this investment, or are they more concentrated on hard infrastructure like roads and bridges.

>>1853010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ghU81qC54

Seems like there's been some clarification on the issue. Would you buy her justification?

>>1852606
>>1852616
>>1852619
This means absolutely nothing. Every president, every governor, every mayor etc, says they want to improve infrastructure and it never happens because turns out it costs money and to nobody's surprise there's no reason for a private entity to start paying for local roads. It may actually get done this time since Trump has a stranglehold on congress unseen before, but we don't know yet for sure.

>>1852936
>>1853199
Airports are profitable and are entirely owned by the government in the U.S. The thing is though, because airports are profitable directly (landing fees, shop rentals, terminal maintenance fees) and indirectly (making the town more competitive, bringing more tourists/travelers) most cities/counties have no problem pouring money into their airports. Most airports that aren't up to date are either in the middle of nowhere where they have to go as far as subsidizing flights, or they have a shitty operator who waste all their profits on garbage (note that in almost every case the operators are other government agencies operating on a contract (if there's one at all) given without a bid, thus making it not privatized). And yes, companies that work on other forms of transport generally work on airports.

>>1853199
SoftBank is investing in american technology companies, something they've been doing for a while. They made a big song and dance of this round of funding because it's a good opportunity for a photo op with Trump. And there's nothing having to do with infrastructure.

>>1853934
She just said the same thing over again. Hannity had essentially the same question I did, and the secretary just nodded along and repeated her talking point .

>>1853934
Wow, what a garbage explanation, especially considering how often public-private partnerships are used in the government, let alone transport. The only thing that makes this different is that now it's being done on a federal level vs just state and local. It's 95% of the time used on major highways (company who partially pays for it gets to have a toll, which for some reason nobody has a problem with, but when the government does it it's the end of the world), bridges (same thing), airports (airlines contribute a large share to their terminal because it makes their flights look more attractive) or public transport (most agencies have a shit-ton of prime real estate but can't do anything with it because that's communism, so they give a company some land in exchange for funding). Although since apparently things like pipelines and internet are going to be counted towards the $1T (which they should since they need improvement too, it's just misleading because that's not what most people think of) I can assure you at least $700B is going to go to that since that generates direct profit. I'm sure a good amount will go into privatizing utilities too. The latter ones are your best bets. Utilities always make money, and if they don't they are subsidized, and pretty much the same thing is going to happen with internet. I wouldn't be able to tell you which companies are going to go after those (although I have a suspicion for internet it's just going to be the big guys expanding) so just be on the look out for companies that are interested in getting some utilities (which can be any really, they're pretty popular). I'd also look into some cell tower companies, especially smaller ones, since they'll be quick to pounce on an opportunity to expand their size.

On a completely unrelated note, she looks pretty good for her age, I have no idea how Mitch McConnell managed to score her. Also she has this weird 70s vibe going on that I admittedly like.

>>1852606
>5%+ gains since around January
>5%
Stay poor

>>1852606
It's very like. Infrastructure has bipartisan support, it's the few things both parties agree on.

Profit is bullshit. Unless they contract it to a specific company and you have a special case thesis on which company and what industry, you can't. You can however try profiting off the macroeconomic effects. General economic theory says increased government spending leads to inflation because it's more spending and the government has to issue higher interest rate loans to raise the money.

>>1852606
are these the same (((polls))) that said Clinton would be president??

Think about it, anon.

The liberal media fixes the polls so that it LOOKS like the american people oppose defense spending. Why? because defense spending leads to a bigger military which means more republican voters with conservative values - a liberals worst nightmare.