Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 2
Their platform: [crickets]
What is the Republican plan to protect the environment?
There doesnβt seem to be one. The Republican Party platform is silent on climate change. Project 2025, a potential blueprint for a second Trump presidency written by the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls for eliminating the Environmental Protection Agencyβs climate departments and slashing regulations that try to protect against deadly air pollution. Donald Trump has distanced himself from Project 2025, but he has said climate change is a hoax. Congressional Republicans have plans to βallow more pollution from diesel trucks, strip away protections for imperiled species and open up more federal lands to oil drilling,β reports The Postβs Maxine Joselow.
We have our Nero. Just wish he could at least fiddle.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Protect the environment from PRO FRACKING Kamala Harris and her HALLIBURTON Cheney friends.
And cheer on automakers shelving and putting off their "EV plans" in some cases -after pocketing your tax dollars :) HAHA
No. of Recommendations: 2
Republicans love the environment. Why? Because we go out and play in it.
Republicans are for things like responsible forest management, which allows for thinning and firewising to prevent massive forest fires. liberals are for things like not touching forests, allowing fuel to pile up and feed even more intensive fires whenever lightning strikes.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Republicans love the environment. Why? Because we go out and play in it.
Republicans are for things like responsible forest management, which allows for thinning and firewising to prevent massive forest fires. liberals are for things like not touching forests, allowing fuel to pile up and feed even more intensive fires whenever lightning strikes.
Dope, thinning and firewising was developed by Europeans. Europe badly cut down there forests in the 17-1800s and at that time, Euros thought leaving them alone to get full forest canopies was the best. It took a hundred years for the benefits of light forest thinning to gain full acceptance. The benefits of thinning on growth are data proven, and it was a reverence of nature vs what the data said that had to be gotten over in Europe.
The USA had the opposite problem. Our forests had been thinned and some of the underbrush cleared by the Indians when we got here. Disease wiped out 80-90% of the Indians and the forest regrew and rapidly enough that it's hypothesized this growth caused the Little Ice Age in Britain. The USA had tons of lumber.
We adopted much of the Europe view and then developed our own. We do thin and firewise forests, but we have a lot of forests and I suspect can't do everything. Couple that with drier forests and we have a problem.
No. of Recommendations: 2
We do thin and firewise forests, but we have a lot of forests and I suspect can't do everything.
Yes, we do.
And we can do everything, if we really want. Raise taxes, hire more people to do the work, and let them do it.
That can really be extended to everything. Hire more IRS auditors to catch tax cheats. Hire more food inspectors to ensure our food supply is safe. Etc. Just raise the taxes, and start hiring. Very simple solution, really.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Republicans love the environment.
Maybe, but they do little in the way of protecting the environment. The history is all out there. Ever since Nixon, who actually did some good things for the environment, the Republicans have done almost nothing.
Even now, against all the scientific evidence, they are still calling climate change a hoax.
Your statement is bullshit.
No. of Recommendations: 2
That can really be extended to everything. Hire more IRS auditors to catch tax cheats. Hire more food inspectors to ensure our food supply is safe. Etc. Just raise the taxes, and start hiring. Very simple solution, really.
-------------
Everything good and beneficial and virtuous can easily be paid for if only those billionaires and corporation would just pay their fair share, right? There are no limits.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Everything good and beneficial and virtuous can easily be paid for if only those billionaires and corporation would just pay their fair share, right?
Within reason, yes.
No. of Recommendations: 1
>>Everything good and beneficial and virtuous can easily be paid for if only those billionaires and corporation would just pay their fair share, right?<<
Within reason, yes. - 1pg
-----------
Hard to argue with that since there is no universally accepted definition of what "within reason" means.
I will put it this way, I think there are 100 different well-intentioned ideas to spend every available dollar no matter how much is extracted from tax payers. Saying "NO" is simply not in the vocabulary of politicians craving re-election.
The problem with confiscating wealth to pay for these very necessary programs is that once you confiscate the wealth, it is not available in future years to continue those programs. New wealth must be targeted to keep those programs going as well as fund all the new spending ideas that arise. Like Margaret Thatcher wisely said, "eventually you run out of other peoples money".
So you can believe that near infinite funding is available if you want, and I will humbly disagree.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hard to argue with that since there is no universally accepted definition of what "within reason" means.
Also hard to argue "infinite funding", which I never said.
I will note that wealth grows, so there is always new wealth to tax. We're worth more now than when we retired two years ago, and we've traveled a lot more in those two years than we previously did (i.e. a month in Asia, 6 weeks in northern Europe...just this year...not cheap).
Unfortunately, the tax code shields both new wealth, and very old wealth, from much taxation. It continues to grow, but is never taxed, as long as it is large enough. Like Warren Buffett vs his secretary. And the tax code is what it is, at least in part, because the really wealthy "fund" the campaigns of the politicians who create that code. (I put "fund" in quotes because they really are legalized bribes, which the congress never addresses because it would affect their "junkets" and other vacations on "my friend's yacht".)
I didn't even get into any fancy program on my previous post. I mentioned auditors, food inspectors, and such. I could also add border patrol, better -and more- labs so FDA can run their own studies instead of relying on companies with a vested interest in the outcome, more immigration judges, more asylum detention centers (and the associated staff), fixing bridges, etc. Pretty basic stuff that any government should be doing for its citizens. None of that is free. We have to pay for it, and that comes through taxes.
