Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 102
Thanks Tree83Thanks

Thread: Trumpís planned EPA cuts: Zero dollars for Bay Area program

  1. #21
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    36,058
    Thanks
    21387

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    Or sanctuary cities.
    He did say they fed govt would "cut them off."
    Thanks from labrea

  2. #22
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    25,612
    Thanks
    20437

    From
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Pretty much EVERY department of gubmint always wants more money. Always.

    Anyone who ever worked in, around, or with the gubmint knows that.

    Yes the pentagon wants more. Always.

    So do the welfare and food stamp programs. Always.

    And all the rest of them. Always.

    Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend...
    Borrow and spend is the republican way. It's how California ended up in a deep debt hole thanks to Grover norquist and his no new tax pledge.
    Thanks from BitterPill and Panzareta

  3. #23
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    25,612
    Thanks
    20437

    From
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    It almost looks like he is punishing states that didn't vote for him by denying funds.
    Thanks to the retaliatory defunding threats he's made, we do know that would be consistent with his thinking.
    Thanks from Panzareta

  4. #24
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    36,058
    Thanks
    21387

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Thanks to the retaliatory defunding threats he's made, we do know that would be consistent with his thinking.
    I had no doubt he would. He is vindictive. Expect worse to come down the road.
    Thanks from labrea

  5. #25
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    25,612
    Thanks
    20437

    From
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Peace through strength.

    The pentagons mission is to PREVENT war.

    To be ready to fight, to be strong enough that other countries will not want to fight us.
    That is actually Sweden's strategy, to be strong enough that invading isn't worth the effort, while maintaining neutrality. Ours seems to be more a control issue. The policy outlined in the "Project for a New American Century" document confirms that.

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    25,612
    Thanks
    20437

    From
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    The EPA has been weak for years for lack of funding. Environmentalists are far more important than the bureaucrats.

    Lawsuits filed in the courts are just as good if not better than EPA edicts. Environmental laws are on the books and companies and even the Federal government can be made to comply.

    Most if all states have their own versions of State EPAs and if a state is serious about the environment can do as much as the federal government to stop polluting on State land.

    Trump can slow but not stop the agency. The EPA will recover after Trump's short stint.
    Trump wants to roll back California's air quality standards too. His argument is the same the baby bush administration used, it's too hard for American auto makers to comply with. Back then it was observed that while American manufacturers were complaining that "it's too hard, the Japanese were doing it".

    Trumps proposals aren't going to make us great again, they're going trade our future for a bowl of porridge.

  7. #27
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    11,977
    Thanks
    8011

    From
    The greatest place on Earth California
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    That is actually Sweden's strategy, to be strong enough that invading isn't worth the effort, while maintaining neutrality. Ours seems to be more a control issue. The policy outlined in the "Project for a New American Century" document confirms that.
    Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American political neo-conservative think tank, based in Washington, DC co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The controversial group was established in early 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting American global leadership. The chairman is William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and a regular contributor to the Fox News Channel. The Executive Director and chief operating officer has been Gary J. Schmitt. The group is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project, a non-profit 501c3 organization that has been funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[1]

    Present and former members include prominent members of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis "Scooter'" Libby (who has ben indicted by a federal grand jury), Richard Perle, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Many of the organization's ideas, and its members, are associated with the neoconservative movement. PNAC has seven full-time staff members, in addition to its board of directors.

    Critics allege the controversial organization proposes military and economic space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish — or maintain — American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana). Some have argued the American-led invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 was the first step in furthering these plans. Others have accused PNAC of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in order to enable the government in progressing toward their goals.
    Statement of Policy
    June 3, 1997

    American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

    We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

    As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

    We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

    We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

    Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

    Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

    • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
    responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

    • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

    • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

    • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

    Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

    Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

    Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

    Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

    Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

    Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

    Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
    Thanks from labrea, BitterPill and Panzareta

  8. #28
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    11,977
    Thanks
    8011

    From
    The greatest place on Earth California
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Trump wants to roll back California's air quality standards too. His argument is the same the baby bush administration used, it's too hard for American auto makers to comply with. Back then it was observed that while American manufacturers were complaining that "it's too hard, the Japanese were doing it".

    Trumps proposals aren't going to make us great again, they're going trade our future for a bowl of porridge.
    The Japanese were killing us with their ability to smog qualify vehicles. The first big development was the CVCC head. Controlled Vortex Combustion Chamber used a dual throat carb that went to two different channels into the head. The throats of the carb had a very lean mix and a normal mix that went to the CVCC and the sparkplug to ignite and travel into the piston chamber and the lean mix.
    Thanks from labrea and Panzareta

  9. #29
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    5,196
    Thanks
    5080

    From
    Gotham
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    It almost looks like he is punishing states that didn't vote for him by denying funds.
    Almost?
    Thanks from April15

  10. #30
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    25,612
    Thanks
    20437

    From
    Behind the Redwood Curtain
    Quote Originally Posted by April15 View Post
    The Japanese were killing us with their ability to smog qualify vehicles. The first big development was the CVCC head. Controlled Vortex Combustion Chamber used a dual throat carb that went to two different channels into the head. The throats of the carb had a very lean mix and a normal mix that went to the CVCC and the sparkplug to ignite and travel into the piston chamber and the lean mix.
    I'm thanking you, even though I don't understand what you said beyond the Japanese developed the technology to do it.

    The old saw says "necessity is the mother of invention" - the republican wisdom seems to be "take the easy way out".
    Thanks from April15 and Panzareta

Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. kasich on his social security program cuts
    By PACE in forum Current Events
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 15th October 2015, 11:06 AM
  2. A reminder to Planned Parenthood on how tax dollars work.
    By meridian5455 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 15th September 2015, 03:37 AM
  3. Replies: 142
    Last Post: 3rd August 2015, 09:10 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 22nd February 2014, 06:45 AM
  5. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 13th November 2013, 03:07 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed