You are correct my friend.
Anyone who thinks Trump is going to pay down the debt with his ambitious spending agenda is as dumb as a post.
1 Like
lol, Jesus… You really never fail to amaze.
So would I. Gun to my head social liberal fiscal conservative is roughly where I’d say I fall. I feel like quite a few “liberals” would agree, but the main problem seems to be refusing to budge on social issues.
It’s hard to find old white guys that fit into both of those buckets at once.
1 Like
The only chance of closing the achievement gap would be to get rid of public schools and let free market solutions have at it.
Public Schools are nothing but continually failure
You know I was just being a douche, right?
1 Like
Lol, ya. Not sure why I quoted your post to be honest…
You’re aware that public schools produce millions of high achieving Americans every year right? I’m not sure how your justification works for “continually failure” but it’s obviously wrong.
1 Like
How would you know? You’ve been in our country all of 10 minutes and are clearly not hanging out with anyone with knowledge.
2 Likes
He is in this sub pretty regularly,
1 Like
Are public schools driven by business needs?
Do people leave school being able to think for themselves?
How do you know what goes on in the middle east without being there yourself?
Yes, that’s exactly right. So, when you see some concerned person put up a meme like this, "Now, Trump is letting coal mines dump in the local stream!!!,"be sure and set them straight. Say something like, “Calm yourself, Dummy. This does not take away all the previous legislation that was ALREADY regulating that.” Also, you can tell said person that lands that are adjacent to, or connect into a navigable waterway, or riparian area, have been regulated by the states and a smaller less muscular EPA, for decades before Obama passed this rule, so they should go back to finding another tree to hug.
LOL!!! Thanks for that. So funny, right? New improved government definition of STREAMLINED: Making some guy wait for a year to get federal approvals for a project in his backyard, because last time there was a big flood, his property happened to be in the floodplain.
NO. This was not the norm. The new “rule” expanded the land that fell under EPA control, DRAMATICALLY, and often in arbitrary ways, setting up a whole new requirement for federal approvals on private land that is not near a waterway or riparian area. In contrast to the riparian land (which has a nexus to a navigable waterway), the executive order/ rule added all of the land with a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway, such as, any land in 100 year flood plain or about 3/4 mile from a wet land, which in the Midwest could be almost any piece of land. Yes, the EPA and the states have already been regulating agricultural land run off, and can continue to do so under previous legislation.
Some of this is sort of a collectivist dream, in that it restricts private property rights. Imagine the idyllic progressive heaven where benevolent geniuses in federal bureaucratic departments, operating purely outside of politics, and with nothing but the common good in their hearts, busy themselves writing rules to make us all… wait for it… more free. If you disagree with their ruling on your project, you can exercise that freedom by lawyering up and spending several years fighting the feds. By the time you WIN, you’ll be too broke to actually do the project, or maybe you’ll be dead. I fought the law, and the law won.
Funny quip on one of the comments, in the WSJ article. “Maybe Trump can put all those EPA regulators to work patrolling the border.”
1 Like
Regarding the benevolence of government bureaucracies, and their cancer-like growth, nobody said it quite as well as Charles Dickens. Just classic, and still so true.
The Circumlocution Office.
Unfortunately, that’s not exactly right. The coal-waste dumping XO was a reversal of the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, a separate entity.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule
"But as NPR’s Greg Allen has reported, “overturning the rule isn’t something that can be done through executive order. The EPA would have to restart the lengthy rule-making process, according to Jon Devine, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
Private property rights often need to be restricted. A significant portion of the waters of the US belong to ‘the commons’–to all of us. Just because a stream runs across your property doesn’t give you the right to take a crap in it.
One of my favorites except that I confuse the author way too often. Its either Swift, or Snow, or one of those freakin guys.
And as far as “streamlining” the process by which a private land owner can be told what to do with their own property- Good riddance.
The removal of rights and abilities should not be streamlined.
Like, since there is too much debate over the cost and effectiveness of a myriad of medical treatments for the elderly, lets just cut off any medical benefits when they reach 70. Everything after that is pretty much throwing good money after bad.
Boom! Streamlined Obama Style!
2 Likes
Yes and Yes
Fine. BUT. My advice is still correct. We already have legislation that protects streams from coal dumping. Obama attempted to “strengthen” or make the standards more stringent, in an eleventh hour flurry of regs. There were already standards being met. So, you can still tell the concerned tree hugger, “No, Trump hasn’t suddenly made it legal to dump untreated pollutants from coal mines into the local water supply.” I can’t believe people are putting these memes up. Do they really imagine that Republicans want to drink polluted water?
Yep. AGREE!! And we’re already doing that. We’ve been regulating waterways for decades. I fully support the regulation of our public waterways, and our water supply. In fact, I work part-time for a nonprofit that preserves a local riparian habitat. I believe in that. BIGLY. It’s not an all or nothing deal. It’s a matter of degree. I can hate the “rule” and still REALLY care about the environment. Obama went too far, IMO. We have environmental groups who would really like to restrict all private land use. No joke. People who are removed from this, living in the burbs, or in an apartment in the city, often have no idea. It’s contributing to our partisan divide on these issues.
That may be right. I guess we’ll all see how difficult it will be to dismantle some of Obama’s “legacy.” I’m just happy that there’s some hope. Nice try killing my buzz, EyeDentist, but I’m feeling really happy about this so far.
I read quality publications with reliable and trustworthy reputations and information.
So, where did you get you information that public schools were continually failing?
No, they imagine that the people who own the conglomerate interests pushing these regulatory rollbacks don’t drink the water, eat the fish, live on property adjacent to, etc, the waters that will be affected by it. (And they don’t.)
Good to hear. But…(to be continued)
Reasonable people can disagree re whether the Clean Water Rule went too far, and I respect and accept that you think it did. But…given your commitment to clean water, I’m curious as to why you support Trump’s reversal of the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule.
And yet the economy is having the worst recovery we’ve seen.
Obviously public school has done its job in teaching you not to think.