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: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Some agencies could use a good cut in funding. It might make them trim the fat and get serious about their purpose. The EPA for example. They serve a purpose, but sometimes they get so bogged down in stupidity and red tape that nothing of any real value results from their efforts. A great example is where I used to work. Because we have chemicals on site the guidelines and restrictions on us were very strict. I know on the surface that sounds like a good thing. But the ridiculous degree the restrictions were taken made it difficult to work and enforce. We could be fined by the EPA for letting water from our drinking fountain run into a storm sewer. Think about that. The water they say is ok for us to drink is unsafe to run in to a storm sewer and into a local waterway. The money they spend creating these useless restrictions and the money we spend trying to accommodate them is absurd.




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Maybe don't take someone using a curse word to describe a government action so seriously? After all that's what is always demanded of liberals whenever Trump speaks. We shouldn't take him so seriously or literally (I'm not sure which it is supposed to be).

I mean come on. If you thought an adjective like "dick" was going to get a nuanced approach to government actions then you set your expectations too high. All I'm saying is that EO's don't mean much and usually amount to more like general directions and mission statements.

Infrastructure, what this conversation started over until you deflected about my choice of adjective, requires Congressional spending. SO if Trump was actually pursuing a infrastructure improvement policy, he would have included it in his budget. Which there aren't any signs at the moment of existing. This makes his EO more seem like hollow words to me.
edit on 27-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


I think the onus is on you to support your claim.

You must have missed the DNC conference. Here's the video they showed at the DNC National Convention



Sounds like extreme propaganda of end times to me.... one could say canned and makes no sense. They even manage to sneak in a plane crash, lol. "Our children are at risk!"...


So, would we be dead already without the EPA?

edit on 27/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Maybe don't take someone using a curse word to describe a government action so seriously?

No worries, I don't take you seriously, doubt many others do either.
You asked me for proof because you can't prove a negative. I supplied proof in the form of an Executive Order, which you say means 'dick'.
You then went on to question another member, asking him to prove a negative...
Yes hard to take you seriously....
You are triggered, easy to see.
a reply to: Krazysh0t




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

edit on 27-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't care what the politicians say! Don't quote me a bunch of politicians and tell me that is my opinion. I care what the scientists say. And some of their projections may be world ending (probably not though), but mostly we are just looking at some epicly HARD times of our own making.

Think the butterfly effect for every little change that we inflict on our environment, not just from Global warming, but ALL the things we do to our surroundings. Many of these things we did without the foresight to see its impact. These repercussions will bite us in the ass. Will they destroy us? Probably not. But it will cause a lot of hardship that could be easily avoided.

Politicians distort these claims by scientists to try to get policy passed. So I don't care about their opinions. If you are going to try disprove science. Use science.
edit on 27-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Look. I don't see any follow through from Trump that he cares about infrastructure improvement. This is his chance to get in on it for the next fiscal year and he doesn't look like he is going to come to bat on it. Sure an EO exists, which you seem to think means something more than it really does (which is nothing really), but that doesn't mean he is sincere. Those are just words. Ahem. Words mean dick. Where is the action?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't care what the politicians say! Don't quote me a bunch of politicians and tell me that is my opinion. I care what the scientists say. And some of their projections may be world ending (probably not though), but mostly we are just looking at some epicly HARD times of our own making.

Think the butterfly effect for every little change that we inflict on our environment, not just from Global warming, but ALL the things we do to our surroundings. Many of these things we did without the foresight to see its impact. These repercussions will bite us in the ass. Will they destroy us? Probably not. But it will cause a lot of hardship that could be easily avoided.

Politicians distort these claims by scientists to try to get policy passed. So I don't care about their opinions. If you are going to try disprove science. Use science.


I didn't say it was what you said. I said it was propaganda from my liberal friends and from the DNC.
Some scientists see man made global warming as a big problem, others don't.
Regardless, I don't see what the EPA have done in return for the tens of thousands of regulations costing the economy hundreds of billions a year. They are a joke.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


Regardless, I don't see what the EPA have done in return for the tens of thousands of regulations costing the economy hundreds of billions a year. They are a joke.

Some day you'll realize that there are things more important than "cost to the economy". No wait. No you won't, because then you'll probably be asking, "What happened?" When you are up to your neck in water.

PS: If you need your liberal or the DNC to turn you off from Global Warming theory, then your intellectual follow through is severely lacking. Sounds more like you don't want to look to me.
edit on 27-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Obviously it will be paid for with tax cuts.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


EPA needed a big budget back in the day. Kick it down to the states right now is a good way to handle.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Xcalibur254

There is quite a bit that can be revamped, but at some point it comes down to just needing more money thrown at it. If they tried to fix it with the current budget, even if they cut a lot out, one of three things would happen. Either we'd have to drastically cut badly needed new procurement, such as the F-35 and KC-46, requiring our aircraft that are already older than their crews to go on a lot longer than planned.

Or, we would have to ground several types of aircraft and take the money out of their flying budget and put it into maintenance, cut ship deployments, and put that money towards maintenance, etc.

Or, option three, start retiring the oldest ships and planes, take the money from their budget and start buying new aircraft as fast as we can and hope we don't need them before they're ready.

Personally, I'm in favor of a smaller military equipped to do more, but to get there we need to fix what we have first to get to the point we can start reducing what we need to, and still be capable of using said military if we need to.


How much of this has to do with the military spending decades buying new equipment that they didn't necessarily need, just because they wanted the ability to invade two nations at once, or even invade one? At some point, buying new equipment also comes with the debt that you need to maintain experienced crews for that equipment as well as maintenance.

Basically, what I'm getting at is, would having had a leaner military in the 00's have prevented the problems we're currently facing?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth


Regardless, I don't see what the EPA have done in return for the tens of thousands of regulations costing the economy hundreds of billions a year. They are a joke.

Some day you'll realize that there are things more important than "cost to the economy". No wait. No you won't, because then you'll probably be asking, "What happened?" When you are up to your neck in water.

PS: If you need your liberal or the DNC to turn you off from Global Warming theory, then your intellectual follow through is severely lacking. Sounds more like you don't want to look to me.


It's not an either/or situation. Some day you will realise that a healthy economy is not a bad thing and does not mean the environment has to suffer. Perhaps you should think more deeply about it. You might realise that wasting hundreds of billions on meeting ineffective regulation has an opportunity cost attached to it.

As for global warming theory - I got turned off by the claims man is causing it by scientists who had to manipulate data to meet a political narrative. Much like other scientists have called it bunk.
edit on 27/2/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

No actually I believe that completely. That's why I want to get ahead of a problem before it becomes a HUGE mess to clean up.

PS: You are the one who presented the either/or option that the EPA was 100% not in tandum with the economy. Not me.


As for global warming theory - I got turned off by the claims man is causing it by scientists who had to manipulate data to meet a political narrative. Much like other scientists have called it bunk.

This actually didn't happen, but hey believe what you want. You are clearly only looking for excuses to disbelieve instead of actually doing the due diligence yourself.
edit on 27-2-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
I don't know that not increasing the deficit was something he campaigned on.


He campaigned on $20 trillion (over 10 years) in proposed new spending.
Deep tax cuts that would only break even according to the CBO if we can maintain 6% economic growth per year for a decade.
And a balanced budget.

All three of those happening simultaneously is impossible. Only the first of the three has any chance of actually happening. This spending increase is the first step in that direction.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Xcalibur254


EPA needed a big budget back in the day. Kick it down to the states right now is a good way to handle.



It can't be handled at the state level because the environment crosses state lines. The amount of water pumped out of the Colorado River upstream directly impacts how much water is available in Arizona. The same is true of water quality. If Pennsylvania wants to start dumping a bunch of coal ash into the Ohio River that affects everyone downstream who uses that river for drinking water. This doesn't even get into situations like the Ogallala Aquifer which crosses 8 different states, all of which can access it. All it takes is one state wanting more and every other state is powerless other than to accept their own environment being ruined.

It can only be solved on a national level.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Xcalibur254


EPA needed a big budget back in the day. Kick it down to the states right now is a good way to handle.



It can't be handled at the state level because the environment crosses state lines. All it takes is one state wanting more and every other state is powerless other than to accept their own environment being ruined.

It can only be solved on a national level.


This is a good argument for the Feds stepping in. It's the same reason we can't allow individual states to handle their own immigration policies. California heeds the Feds when it comes to the EPA, they should do the same when it comes to ICE.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Clearly emigration should be a federal issue but it really not nearly the same as EPA issues. Besides the Fed EPA isnt being removed. They can still step in if states are having issues.


edit on 27-2-2017 by Logarock because: n



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

No actually I believe that completely. That's why I want to get ahead of a problem before it becomes a HUGE mess to clean up.

PS: You are the one who presented the either/or option that the EPA was 100% not in tandum with the economy. Not me.


As for global warming theory - I got turned off by the claims man is causing it by scientists who had to manipulate data to meet a political narrative. Much like other scientists have called it bunk.

This actually didn't happen, but hey believe what you want. You are clearly only looking for excuses to disbelieve instead of actually doing the due diligence yourself.


I presented no such thing. I said the EPA is ineffective and costs the economy hundreds of billions a year.
The aim of protecting the environment (and I don't mean man made global warming) is a worthy pursuit and it should be dealt with far more effectively than the bureaucrats in Washington could ever hope to achieve. Push it to the state level and incentivise businesses to take appropriate action.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Push it to the state level and incentivise businesses to take appropriate action.

There is no way this will work. As a previous poster JUST pointed out a few posts above yours, there are natural resources that extend across state lines. A state with more lax regulations upends one resource and it can negatively effect all the others with little recourse by the other states.

This is just a huge problem waiting to happen, and the environment should be FAR more important to us than you are considering it. We happen to live in it.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Have to agree with Zaphod58. Given that debt is growing at twice the rate of growth a smaller more functional military is the only direction to go from here. But as long as senate is buying votes by approving the building of 10,000 tanks etc, it cannot be done. Trump will need force the issue from the presidency as a matter of urgency. Just throwing money at the madness isn't going to benefit anyone.

The other issue is military spending in US versus Russia/China spending. US is spending twice that of both China and Russia combined but a Russian SU27 costs 40M compared to US F35 at 148M so the cheaper labour forces of other countries gives them more bang for the buck (excuse the pun). So military spending cannot be reduced by a great amount unless US can build cheaper fighters.



new topics




 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join