Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

Would you kill someone just because they're dying a natural death?  If not, why would you do that to an industry?

 

Trump can't bring the coal jobs back.  I think he knows it, though it's hard to tell what he actually believes when he either promises or denies something.  Heck, I think most of the people in Hazard, Kentucky where he made that announcement know that the glory days of the coal industry are behind it.  Even unregulated, it's a dinosaur industry.  That doesn't mean it deserves federal euthanasia.

 

If he turns around and starts pushing for direct subsidies to keep coal mines and coal plants alive, then I'll switch right back to opposing him on that.  But the Clean Power Plan (and all federal attempts to control carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, Mass. v. EPA notwithstanding) was a major regulatory overreach and for that reason alone, I'll be glad to see it gone.  The fact that it didn't even really accomplish all that much other than to establish the principle that statutory text is utterly irrelevant when there is progressive agenda-pushing to do was just extra salt in the wound.  Basically the only purpose of this plan was to pave the way for even greater overreaches later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump opposes the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, preventing US companies from foreign bribes. Definitely, no red flags there. No, sir. https://t.co/ZOMZt3tvWa

While I can sympathize with the principles behind the FCPA, it's dishonest to deny that it does a great deal of damage to the ability of US companies to do business overseas.  It should probably at least be modified.

 

I can also sympathize to a degree.  I get it, you can't compete when other foreign companies can bribe officials and you can't.  But in no way do I think that means we should set aside our countries shared ethical standards so that some multinational corporation can win a building project in Brazil.  Bribing is not part of US culture and never should be.  It's actually one of the things that gives this great country at least the illusion of fairness.

 

You want to bribe foreign officials to win a project?  Then partner with a local firm or setup a foreign subsidiary. 

 

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that doing that and knowing said partner/subsidiary is paying bribes is a violation of the Act.  Indeed a more provable one, if said subsidiary reports it.

 

It strikes me as a lot like the Russian grain embargo of 1980, I understand the "why", but it doesn't do much damage to the foreign government in question as it does to American business.  Besides, foreign export trade exports more constructive American values as well....

 

Hillary's corruption didn't bother me nearly as much as her statist policies and the same is true with Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This administration is a non-stop comedy show.

 

I'm not watching a video at work, but did he just pronounce it like one would in Spanish?

 

I do that too, I think anyone who knows any Spanish does almost instinctively.

 

A lot of top business executives who deal globally are multilingual and don't let on. 

 

As someone who speaks Spanish, this wasn't a typical pronunciation.  It was clearly exaggerated and, IMO, mocking.

 

Like, someone who's cultural immersion is based on taco bowls?  :wtf: :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you kill someone just because they're dying a natural death?  If not, why would you do that to an industry?

 

Trump can't bring the coal jobs back.  I think he knows it, though it's hard to tell what he actually believes when he either promises or denies something.  Heck, I think most of the people in Hazard, Kentucky where he made that announcement know that the glory days of the coal industry are behind it.  Even unregulated, it's a dinosaur industry.  That doesn't mean it deserves federal euthanasia.

 

If he turns around and starts pushing for direct subsidies to keep coal mines and coal plants alive, then I'll switch right back to opposing him on that.  But the Clean Power Plan (and all federal attempts to control carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, Mass. v. EPA notwithstanding) was a major regulatory overreach and for that reason alone, I'll be glad to see it gone.  The fact that it didn't even really accomplish all that much other than to establish the principle that statutory text is utterly irrelevant when there is progressive agenda-pushing to do was just extra salt in the wound.  Basically the only purpose of this plan was to pave the way for even greater overreaches later.

 

Your analogy only works if you poison all the other patients to save that one person with incurable, terminal cancer.  That's what is happening when the government allows a total free-for-all at the environment's expense (and ultimately, people's) to artificially prop up an industry that is going to die regardless of what happens.  That is completely illogical. 

 

"Overreach" has become the new go-to term to describe Obama-era legislation that conservatives hate because it won't allow them unlimited ways to make money at the expense of everyone and everything.  Drainin' that swamp!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s now documentary evidence that the purpose of Veselnitskaya’s Trump tower meeting was to repeal Magnitsky Act https://t.co/GUDABHAz53


"Most of us have been conditioned to regard military combat as exciting and glamorous -- an opportunity for men to prove their competence and courage. Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that that war is criminal or that accepting it is a criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed. War is neither glamorous nor attractive. It is monstrous. Its very nature is one of tragedy and suffering" --Dalai Lama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you kill someone just because they're dying a natural death?  If not, why would you do that to an industry?

 

 

If it's a mercy killing, then yes. If that person requested a DNR and did not want to be artificially sustained, then you stop artificially sustaining them. But a person isn't an inanimate industry. Not a very good comparison.

 

Would you continue to waste tax dollars on a dying industry or shift those resources to the industry replacing it?


"Most of us have been conditioned to regard military combat as exciting and glamorous -- an opportunity for men to prove their competence and courage. Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that that war is criminal or that accepting it is a criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed. War is neither glamorous nor attractive. It is monstrous. Its very nature is one of tragedy and suffering" --Dalai Lama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Most of us have been conditioned to regard military combat as exciting and glamorous -- an opportunity for men to prove their competence and courage. Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that that war is criminal or that accepting it is a criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed. War is neither glamorous nor attractive. It is monstrous. Its very nature is one of tragedy and suffering" --Dalai Lama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's your weekly reminder:

- No wall

- Obamacare still yet to be repealed

- DACA reinforced

- Embassy still in Tel Aviv

- No tax reform

- 62% of appointments have been made

- Special Counsel investigation continues.

- China has not been labeled a currency manipulator.

- Russia is still actively hacking our critical infrastructure.

 

SO. MUCH. WINNING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump supporters please tell me what you see in him. No legislative accomplishments. He's fighting with the NFL, Jemelle Hill and Bob Corker. He challenged his Secretary of State to an IQ test. He's constantly whining on Twitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put it in perspective. The President just challenged his Secretary of State to an IQ test and his ex-wife and current wife are currently feuding in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Still no mention of the dead Green Berets ambushed in Africa.  I'm old enough to remember when Americans getting killed in Africa was a scandal worthy of multiple hearings.  I am supposed to believe that POTUS is standing up for troops when he is demanding NFL players to stand but he doesn't actually care about troops at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put it in perspective. The President just challenged his Secretary of State to an IQ test and his ex-wife and current wife are currently feuding in public.

 

Corker was right - this is a reality show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are never going to get a truly rational or honest answer, because the truth on what they see and why would only confirm what we've all been saying about them all along.  These are not good people just worried about their economic status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/trump-attacks-nfls-massive-tax-breaks-twitter-130318649.html

 

Trump is so stupid.

 

Lashing out at "tax exempt" NFL when the league no longer holds that designation.  Troll better, Donnie.

 

Who said anything about exempt status (other than Yahoo News)? When I read Trump's tweet, I immediately assumed he meant the local and state handouts NFL teams have been getting for years. Maybe it's because I'm from Cincinnati, home to the worst stadium deal of all time, but I certainly support nixing the entire concept of taxpayer funded stadiums. I know I've heard at least half a dozen people on this forum complain about stadium taxes, as well. We should work to eliminate them at the local level, and encourage all cities to do the same. This is why Trump wrote "Change tax law" - he's encouraging grassroots efforts to eliminate massive NFL subsidies. I know I'd vote for such a law - public monies should, at most, be used for improvements around stadiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So he wants to use the power of government to control the speech of players.  I can see why conservatives support this  :?

 

At the same time he wants tax exempt churches to be able to get involved in politics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you kill someone just because they're dying a natural death?  If not, why would you do that to an industry?

 

Trump can't bring the coal jobs back.  I think he knows it, though it's hard to tell what he actually believes when he either promises or denies something.  Heck, I think most of the people in Hazard, Kentucky where he made that announcement know that the glory days of the coal industry are behind it.  Even unregulated, it's a dinosaur industry.  That doesn't mean it deserves federal euthanasia.

 

If he turns around and starts pushing for direct subsidies to keep coal mines and coal plants alive, then I'll switch right back to opposing him on that.  But the Clean Power Plan (and all federal attempts to control carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, Mass. v. EPA notwithstanding) was a major regulatory overreach and for that reason alone, I'll be glad to see it gone.  The fact that it didn't even really accomplish all that much other than to establish the principle that statutory text is utterly irrelevant when there is progressive agenda-pushing to do was just extra salt in the wound.  Basically the only purpose of this plan was to pave the way for even greater overreaches later.

 

Your analogy only works if you poison all the other patients to save that one person with incurable, terminal cancer.  That's what is happening when the government allows a total free-for-all at the environment's expense (and ultimately, people's) to artificially prop up an industry that is going to die regardless of what happens.  That is completely illogical.

 

Prop up?  Repealing the Clean Power Plan does not "prop up" the coal industry, it simply removes the most recent government garrote around its neck.  Propping up would be actual subsidies, e.g., the wind power tax credits that actually do exist.  Nor does it "poison all the other patients."  In fact, I'm fairly certain that repealing the Clean Power Plan doesn't even remove the steroids from the other patients, since the wind power tax credits are contained in actual legislation and therefore aren't subject to being eliminated by mere repeal of a previous executive order.

 

"Overreach" has become the new go-to term to describe Obama-era legislation that conservatives hate because it won't allow them unlimited ways to make money at the expense of everyone and everything.  Drainin' that swamp!

 

It was a very fair description of a great deal of Obama's unilateral executive actions.  As for Obama-era legislation, yes, there are still many of us who feel that the Supreme Court got it wrong on actual legislative overreaches, including Obamacare, but I was mostly referring to direct regulatory (executive) overreaches, not legislative ones.

 

Would you kill someone just because they're dying a natural death?  If not, why would you do that to an industry?

 

 

If it's a mercy killing, then yes. If that person requested a DNR and did not want to be artificially sustained, then you stop artificially sustaining them. But a person isn't an inanimate industry. Not a very good comparison.

 

Would you continue to waste tax dollars on a dying industry or shift those resources to the industry replacing it?

 

What tax dollars are being wasted on the coal industry by repealing the CPP?  Do you even know what the CPP is/was? 

 

If the answer to that is anything other than a null set, why is it the federal government's job to "shift resources" at all?

 

Repealing the CPP only means that slightly fewer taxpayer dollars will be spent (by the EPA) actively killing the coal industry and the part of the utility industry that uses it.  More accurately, actually, it will mean that the EPA will not prospectively invest even greater resources in killing those industries, given that the CPP never actually went into effect, since it's been stayed by court order almost since it was announced.  The CPP is not a subsidy scheme, it is a direct prohibition scheme--direct capping and ratcheting down of allowable carbon emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.

 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies

 

I think it's an interesting debate to have on subsidizing the fossil fuel industries vs renewable energy.  Something to consider though - a new hybrid/electric car is not cheap.  A high mileage used gasoline car is.  What does a working single mom need to get to her job?  Cheap transportation.  Who is hurt by higher gas taxes and phasing out of these subsidies?  The people who can afford it the least.  I don't that's part of the Trump agenda, or maybe it is, but removing these subsidies in favor of renewable energy is a real hurdle for lower income working people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would venture that most single moms do not own a car of any kind.  So if the goal of energy policy is to help the poor single moms then maybe we should provide bigger subsidies for public transportation and to TOD developments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/trump-attacks-nfls-massive-tax-breaks-twitter-130318649.html

 

Trump is so stupid.

 

Lashing out at "tax exempt" NFL when the league no longer holds that designation.  Troll better, Donnie.

 

Who said anything about exempt status (other than Yahoo News)? When I read Trump's tweet, I immediately assumed he meant the local and state handouts NFL teams have been getting for years. Maybe it's because I'm from Cincinnati, home to the worst stadium deal of all time, but I certainly support nixing the entire concept of taxpayer funded stadiums. I know I've heard at least half a dozen people on this forum complain about stadium taxes, as well. We should work to eliminate them at the local level, and encourage all cities to do the same. This is why Trump wrote "Change tax law" - he's encouraging grassroots efforts to eliminate massive NFL subsidies. I know I'd vote for such a law - public monies should, at most, be used for improvements around stadiums.

 

Up until 2015, the NFL league office was a tax exempt entity, as they were designated as a 'trade association'. I actually didn't realize that they elected to forgo that designation. Apparently, neither did Trump.

 

The teams were never considered not for profit. Just the front office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it- subsidizing fossil fuel consumption would be the one bit of financial help that conservatives would be happy to see the poor get!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you kill someone just because they're dying a natural death?  If not, why would you do that to an industry?

 

Trump can't bring the coal jobs back.  I think he knows it, though it's hard to tell what he actually believes when he either promises or denies something.  Heck, I think most of the people in Hazard, Kentucky where he made that announcement know that the glory days of the coal industry are behind it.  Even unregulated, it's a dinosaur industry.  That doesn't mean it deserves federal euthanasia.

 

If he turns around and starts pushing for direct subsidies to keep coal mines and coal plants alive, then I'll switch right back to opposing him on that.  But the Clean Power Plan (and all federal attempts to control carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, Mass. v. EPA notwithstanding) was a major regulatory overreach and for that reason alone, I'll be glad to see it gone.  The fact that it didn't even really accomplish all that much other than to establish the principle that statutory text is utterly irrelevant when there is progressive agenda-pushing to do was just extra salt in the wound.  Basically the only purpose of this plan was to pave the way for even greater overreaches later.

 

Your analogy only works if you poison all the other patients to save that one person with incurable, terminal cancer.  That's what is happening when the government allows a total free-for-all at the environment's expense (and ultimately, people's) to artificially prop up an industry that is going to die regardless of what happens.  That is completely illogical.

 

Prop up?  Repealing the Clean Power Plan does not "prop up" the coal industry, it simply removes the most recent government garrote around its neck.  Propping up would be actual subsidies, e.g., the wind power tax credits that actually do exist.  Nor does it "poison all the other patients."  In fact, I'm fairly certain that repealing the Clean Power Plan doesn't even remove the steroids from the other patients, since the wind power tax credits are contained in actual legislation and therefore aren't subject to being eliminated by mere repeal of a previous executive order.

 

"Overreach" has become the new go-to term to describe Obama-era legislation that conservatives hate because it won't allow them unlimited ways to make money at the expense of everyone and everything.  Drainin' that swamp!

 

It was a very fair description of a great deal of Obama's unilateral executive actions.  As for Obama-era legislation, yes, there are still many of us who feel that the Supreme Court got it wrong on actual legislative overreaches, including Obamacare, but I was mostly referring to direct regulatory (executive) overreaches, not legislative ones.

 

Would you kill someone just because they're dying a natural death?  If not, why would you do that to an industry?

 

 

If it's a mercy killing, then yes. If that person requested a DNR and did not want to be artificially sustained, then you stop artificially sustaining them. But a person isn't an inanimate industry. Not a very good comparison.

 

Would you continue to waste tax dollars on a dying industry or shift those resources to the industry replacing it?

 

What tax dollars are being wasted on the coal industry by repealing the CPP?  Do you even know what the CPP is/was? 

 

If the answer to that is anything other than a null set, why is it the federal government's job to "shift resources" at all?

 

Repealing the CPP only means that slightly fewer taxpayer dollars will be spent (by the EPA) actively killing the coal industry and the part of the utility industry that uses it.  More accurately, actually, it will mean that the EPA will not prospectively invest even greater resources in killing those industries, given that the CPP never actually went into effect, since it's been stayed by court order almost since it was announced.  The CPP is not a subsidy scheme, it is a direct prohibition scheme--direct capping and ratcheting down of allowable carbon emissions.

 

I don't think the argument in support of the CPP has anything to do with subsidies. Rather it had to do with reducing the pollutants that the coal fired plants emit. You can argue whether or not this was too onerous a requirement vs the overall public good. Personally, growing up in upstate NY and seeing the result of acid rain that was caused from said pollutants, I would say it is not. Much of the ecology of the Adirondacks was negatively impacted over the previous 3 or 4 decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very inspired by our return to coal as a major source of energy. May I suggest a return to communication via postage? Perhaps a return to using VCR's? Or maybe even going back to horse-drawn carriages, as automobiles have decimated the horse drawn carriage industry - these people are largely forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The direction is unavoidable for coal mining. There will likely be very few operating coal mines in WV in the next 5-10 years.  The coal-fired plants are shutting down all over and some turning to natural gas.  Most of the plants that still use coal will get it from the western coal mines. Utilities know this is a temporary reprieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.

 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies

 

I give that link at least credit for breaking down the components of the headline figure rather than simply throwing it out there to see how many people it can scare without context.  Note that most of the coal and utility "subsidies" there are not subsidies at all, in the sense that the government would not actually recover anything close to $557 billion by ending them and the firms do not realize anything close to $557 billion in additional revenue from them.  Where there really are direct income and balance sheet effects, it appears to most be through the use of tax breaks that are available to firms in any sector, including renewables ("dozens of companies, including fossil fuels, used tax breaks and various tax dodging methods to have a negative tax balance between 2008 and 2010, while making billions in profits. The utilities/electric industry were found to take in 14% of the federal subsidies, the second highest of any sector behind only finance: Utilities reported a $100 billion profit from 2008 to 2010, but the industry as a whole paid only a 3.7% tax rate").  That's something that I'd want to dig deeper into--of course in principle I'm quite in favor of a more simplified tax code, but if it were to turn out that all of these "tax breaks" were really using loss carry-forwards from prior years, I'd have problems with that, and I think most neutral tax policy experts would, too.  But SourceWatch didn't actually detail what particular strategies were used to generate those tax savings.  Note that eliminating such strategies would, again, eliminate them across the board for all firms, not merely utility, mining, finance, or other heavy users of them.

 

I am very inspired by our return to coal as a major source of energy. May I suggest a return to communication via postage? Perhaps a return to using VCR's? Or maybe even going back to horse-drawn carriages, as automobiles have decimated the horse drawn carriage industry - these people are largely forgotten.

 

Tongue-in-cheek, I know, but it remains to be seen whether axing the CPP will actually change any trend in the consumption of conventional energy sources.  The plan never actually entered into effect, so any changes in behavior it caused to date would have been ascribable only to the possibility that it could take effect later.  Meanwhile, the generous wind power tax credits still exist and natural gas is still the cheapest conventional energy source for new plants.  AFAIK, not a single new coal plant is under construction in the US.  From SourceWatch:

 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Proposed_coal_plants_in_the_United_States

 

None are listed as under construction.  There is one "permitted" one; everything else is either operating or cancelled.  Existing plants are being kept going, but that's it.  Many existing plants are very close to the end of their useful life (in accounting terms, not in enviro-speak, which would say that they long since passed that date).  Repealing regulations doesn't repeal the calendar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

author=Gramarye link=topic=30962.msg877689#msg877689 date=1507652411]

 

Prop up?  Repealing the Clean Power Plan does not "prop up" the coal industry, it simply removes the most recent government garrote around its neck.  Propping up would be actual subsidies, e.g., the wind power tax credits that actually do exist.  Nor does it "poison all the other patients."  In fact, I'm fairly certain that repealing the Clean Power Plan doesn't even remove the steroids from the other patients, since the wind power tax credits are contained in actual legislation and therefore aren't subject to being eliminated by mere repeal of a previous executive order.

 

You can spin it however you like.  Answer 2 simple questions honestly: Does it bring back coal jobs or save the industry from inevitable decline?  Does it water down or remove stronger environmental protections in order to do essentially nothing regarding the coal industry?  The CPP existed for a reason, and it wasn't to kill coal.  No legislation is required for that to happen. 

 

"Overreach" has become the new go-to term to describe Obama-era legislation that conservatives hate because it won't allow them unlimited ways to make money at the expense of everyone and everything.  Drainin' that swamp!

 

It was a very fair description of a great deal of Obama's unilateral executive actions.  As for Obama-era legislation, yes, there are still many of us who feel that the Supreme Court got it wrong on actual legislative overreaches, including Obamacare, but I was mostly referring to direct regulatory (executive) overreaches, not legislative ones.

 

Trump has issued quite a few "unilateral executive actions".  I can assume you support the next president reversing each and every one of them as they represent significant "overreach", right?  Or is this just more hypocrisy of the Right where you pick and choose what you like and ignore everything else?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In June 2010, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said $557 billion was spent to subsidize fossil fuels globally in 2008, compared to $43 billion in support of renewable energy.

 

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies

 

I think it's an interesting debate to have on subsidizing the fossil fuel industries vs renewable energy.  Something to consider though - a new hybrid/electric car is not cheap.  A high mileage used gasoline car is.  What does a working single mom need to get to her job?  Cheap transportation.  Who is hurt by higher gas taxes and phasing out of these subsidies?  The people who can afford it the least.  I don't that's part of the Trump agenda, or maybe it is, but removing these subsidies in favor of renewable energy is a real hurdle for lower income working people.

 

All technology starts out expensive and then becomes cheaper with greater development.  The same is and will be true of hybrid and electric cars.  Or do you still pay $1000 for a VCR?

 

And no, I don't believe this is all being done to save a single mom money.  Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a very fair description of a great deal of Obama's unilateral executive actions.  As for Obama-era legislation, yes, there are still many of us who feel that the Supreme Court got it wrong on actual legislative overreaches, including Obamacare, but I was mostly referring to direct regulatory (executive) overreaches, not legislative ones.

 

Trump has issued quite a few "unilateral executive actions".  I can assume you support the next president reversing each and every one of them as they represent significant "overreach", right?  Or is this just more hypocrisy of the Right where you pick and choose what you like and ignore everything else?

 

I will pick and choose the ones that are actual overreaches when I call them overreaches (and that will apply to Trump as well).  I don't know how else to say it.  It's the right word for a great deal of what Obama did with the regulatory state.

 

The Clean Air Act was not about regulating carbon dioxide, full stop.  Parts of it need to be actively ignored to make regulation of CO2 mathemetically possible.

 

Not all of Obama's unilateral executive actions were overreaches.  Regulating ISPs under Title II of the Telecommunications Act was not an overreach because the actual text of the Act (in particular, the definitions of "telecommunications services" and "information services") leave the executive a reasonable amount of latitude and the interpretation that ISPs are in fact telecommunications services is a rational reading of that statute that doesn't require actively ignoring any other part of it.  And of course telecommunications is pretty clearly interstate commerce, so there is no Constitutional issue, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a very fair description of a great deal of Obama's unilateral executive actions.  As for Obama-era legislation, yes, there are still many of us who feel that the Supreme Court got it wrong on actual legislative overreaches, including Obamacare, but I was mostly referring to direct regulatory (executive) overreaches, not legislative ones.

 

Trump has issued quite a few "unilateral executive actions".  I can assume you support the next president reversing each and every one of them as they represent significant "overreach", right?  Or is this just more hypocrisy of the Right where you pick and choose what you like and ignore everything else?

 

I will pick and choose the ones that are actual overreaches when I call them overreaches (and that will apply to Trump as well).  I don't know how else to say it.  It's the right word for a great deal of what Obama did with the regulatory state.

 

The Clean Air Act was not about regulating carbon dioxide, full stop.  Parts of it need to be actively ignored to make regulation of CO2 mathemetically possible.

 

Not all of Obama's unilateral executive actions were overreaches.  Regulating ISPs under Title II of the Telecommunications Act was not an overreach because the actual text of the Act (in particular, the definitions of "telecommunications services" and "information services") leave the executive a reasonable amount of latitude and the interpretation that ISPs are in fact telecommunications services is a rational reading of that statute that doesn't require actively ignoring any other part of it.  And of course telecommunications is pretty clearly interstate commerce, so there is no Constitutional issue, either.

 

Congress could (and probably should) pass a law stating that all Executive Orders not confirmed by actual legislation automatically expire 90 days after a new President is inaugurated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very inspired by our return to coal as a major source of energy. May I suggest a return to communication via postage? Perhaps a return to using VCR's? Or maybe even going back to horse-drawn carriages, as automobiles have decimated the horse drawn carriage industry - these people are largely forgotten.

 

You are totally missing the point on coal & oil & gas subsidies.  We are now a major exporter of all three.  Just because they are still mining/drilling here for fossil fuels, doesn't mean they are being burned here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...