It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump budget to increase defense, slash EPA, other agencies

page: 5
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Ok, my husband's a military vet, SF at that. If ANYONE is entitled to a damned opinion on the military to have conveyed, it's him.

He says gut the military, we're not at war and don't need such a bloated force full of people not doing jack s# on our tax dime. Thin the EPA a little if we must, but leave it standing. As a vet who broke his back for this country (literally), he'd much rather see the environment here & now protected than the military propped up "on the future off-chance".

Stuff that in your pipes and fekking smoke it, vet's POV prerogative.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unneeded? According to you. The Marines lost something like 16 people last year to accidents that didn't need to happen, and only happened because of lack of funding for maintenance and flying time. So your idea is to keep pushing things and killing people?

To me. Military = war. If we are spending money on it, then we want to use it. I don't want to build up our military and would rather this spending went to that other thing that Trump promised. That thing that is being conveniently ignored now in favor of building up a tool of destruction. Infrastructure.

What evidence do you have that Infrastructure is being ignored?
Why would you make a statement like that?

Do you have any evidence that it is being catered to? You don't prove a negative, mate.


There is evidence in the form of one of the first EO's he signed.
Executive Order Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals For High Priority Infrastructure Projects

EO's mean dick. Where is the infrastructure spending allocation in his budget proposal?

Patience. It's coming. If you think EO's are meaningless, no crying about them in the future, deal?

I said they mean dick. I didn't say they can't be subject to judicial review. Don't put words into my mouth. Deal?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure, let's just go on killing our own soldiers while they take years cleaning up the waste spending. Let's just let things get even worse, and spend even more money on the repairs that would be needed then, instead of spending less now.

That's what Trump is about to do to the EPA, so you aren't exactly making me feel sympathetic here. By the way, I'm a veteran if you don't know.




Trump is going to kill soldiers by slashing the epa funding???

Trump will be killing FAR more than soldiers by slashing the EPA's funding.


How did you come to that conclusion?

Because the EPA exists for a reason and relaxing standards will only result in more cases like Flint, MI.


I was expecting some actual analysis and projections and stuff, and not a random statement. Because you provided none I assume your support for the EPA is purely political, until proven otherwise.+

Ok. Do you.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Military is the one thing the Federal Government actually should be spending money on. The vast majority of money spent by the Feds is a crock, it's mostly wasted, or given to cronies. If people actually cared about infrastructure, or education, they would demand that money be given back to the states and the taxpayer.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Zaphod58

Look. By no means am I saying that the EPA is perfect. It certainly isn't. It's a produce of government bureaucracy. But it certainly DOES function as a good check against rampant business oriented greed at the expense of the environment.

You are against the individual states having responsibility?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unneeded? According to you. The Marines lost something like 16 people last year to accidents that didn't need to happen, and only happened because of lack of funding for maintenance and flying time. So your idea is to keep pushing things and killing people?

To me. Military = war. If we are spending money on it, then we want to use it. I don't want to build up our military and would rather this spending went to that other thing that Trump promised. That thing that is being conveniently ignored now in favor of building up a tool of destruction. Infrastructure.

What evidence do you have that Infrastructure is being ignored?
Why would you make a statement like that?

Do you have any evidence that it is being catered to? You don't prove a negative, mate.


There is evidence in the form of one of the first EO's he signed.
Executive Order Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals For High Priority Infrastructure Projects

EO's mean dick. Where is the infrastructure spending allocation in his budget proposal?

Patience. It's coming. If you think EO's are meaningless, no crying about them in the future, deal?

I said they mean dick. I didn't say they can't be subject to judicial review. Don't put words into my mouth. Deal?


Wasn't the EPA itself formed by an EO signed by Nixon?
Explain yourself as to how 'EO's mean dick", I'm confused.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

THANK YOU! I'm not the only one who sees it as a waste to continue to fund a force we aren't looking to use. All increased military spending tells me is that we are prepping to go to war. As soon as it is prepped, the next thing the government will be looking to do is use it. Happens every time. I fell for it when I went to Iraq, and today's kids will fall for it again this time.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Zaphod58

Look. By no means am I saying that the EPA is perfect. It certainly isn't. It's a produce of government bureaucracy. But it certainly DOES function as a good check against rampant business oriented greed at the expense of the environment.

You are against the individual states having responsibility?

WHY would you put one state's environmental welfare at the mercy of another's system? That's just retarded. Imagine if Georgia and Florida have a tiff over water rights and Georgia says F you & your water standards, we can dump XYZ. That is a piss-poor system that should not exist, we need a national system of completely uniform standards. Do we need to shore up the EPA to make that happen? In some areas, yes, and we should. It's better for all 300+ million that way.
edit on 2/27/2017 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Zaphod58

Look. By no means am I saying that the EPA is perfect. It certainly isn't. It's a produce of government bureaucracy. But it certainly DOES function as a good check against rampant business oriented greed at the expense of the environment.

You are against the individual states having responsibility?

States tend to be more corrupt than the federal government. I'd rather something like the environment be handled by them where even corruption can get beaten by bureaucracy. We can only destroy our forests and nature preserves once. Contaminating them with run off and pollutants because we wanted to abide by State's rights, doesn't mean it will magically go away when it starts to become a problem. In fact, it'll probably be WAY more expensive to clean up.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Nyiah

THANK YOU! I'm not the only one who sees it as a waste to continue to fund a force we aren't looking to use. All increased military spending tells me is that we are prepping to go to war. As soon as it is prepped, the next thing the government will be looking to do is use it. Happens every time. I fell for it when I went to Iraq, and today's kids will fall for it again this time.

He's a massive supporter of enlistment freezes, and has fired off god knows how many letters over the years about that. If we are not in a declared, outright war, we do not need more people other than meeting the bare minimums to account for retirements and discharges. That was his dad's opinion that he adopted, and his dad did over 25 years before he retired. 2 generations of service can't be all that blind to the obvious.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unneeded? According to you. The Marines lost something like 16 people last year to accidents that didn't need to happen, and only happened because of lack of funding for maintenance and flying time. So your idea is to keep pushing things and killing people?

To me. Military = war. If we are spending money on it, then we want to use it. I don't want to build up our military and would rather this spending went to that other thing that Trump promised. That thing that is being conveniently ignored now in favor of building up a tool of destruction. Infrastructure.

What evidence do you have that Infrastructure is being ignored?
Why would you make a statement like that?

Do you have any evidence that it is being catered to? You don't prove a negative, mate.


There is evidence in the form of one of the first EO's he signed.
Executive Order Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals For High Priority Infrastructure Projects

EO's mean dick. Where is the infrastructure spending allocation in his budget proposal?

Patience. It's coming. If you think EO's are meaningless, no crying about them in the future, deal?

I said they mean dick. I didn't say they can't be subject to judicial review. Don't put words into my mouth. Deal?


Wasn't the EPA itself formed by an EO signed by Nixon?
Explain yourself as to how 'EO's mean dick", I'm confused.

It helps when your EO has been ratified by the House and Sensate



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol, I thanked you for your service and you are still whining?

Have a good day.


(post by Damiel removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Will cutting EPA spend and regulations result in more cases like Flint? Do you have any empirical evidence of that?

Can you assure me it won't? How will cutting costs help prevent situations like Flint, MI? Why wouldn't you want to err on the side of caution in this regard?


The EPA might only cost c$10bn a year but the cost to the economy runs into hundreds of billions. I wonder if those costs have really been a valid investment over the years. Last I heard, my liberal friends and the DNC were telling me we're on the brink of the end times because of pollution and it's getting worse - apparently. So either the huge economic cost of the EPA has saved all our lives by buying us a few more years on earth and we'd all have perished long ago without all their regulations, or what they are doing is worth squat. I go with the latter.

Even the Global Warming theory isn't saying we are end times. Yes, things are dire, but humans will muscle through it like we always have. Things will just be getting more difficult in ways that we could have easily prevented had we listened to the warnings. Your entire reasoning here is canned and makes no sense.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

That's what I'm saying, but I just got called a deserter for saying it.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol, I thanked you for your service and you are still whining?

Have a good day.

Oh I just take being accused of a VERY serious federal crime a bit seriously that's all.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Lol, I thanked you for your service and you are still whining?

Have a good day.

Oh I just take being accused of a VERY serious federal crime a bit seriously that's all.


Triggered much?
Still waiting for you to explain to me how EO's mean dick...



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

How about staying out of it?

And I already gave you a response to that post. Pay attention.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: D8Tee

How about staying out of it?

And I already gave you a response to that post. Pay attention.

Well I know one thing, you would do well to educate yourself as to what EO's are, you know little if you think they mean 'dick''.
edit on 27-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join