T1B

Left Seater wrote:We have a tax reform bill that lowers both my corporate rate and my personal rate. That is a huge win.

That right there makes the vote for Trump completely worth it, despite his many errors and dumbassery.

Left Seater wrote:You are borderline completely unhinged, softball bat.

First off the tax cuts are a huge win for me and my company. That alone was a validation of my vote. Her wouldn’t have cut taxes.

As for spending that is a Congressional issue. Tell me you knew. Members of both parties have a spending problem. This isn’t anything new.

As for talking out of both sides of your mouth pot meet kettle. I get you prolly want Don out of your dome, but he is so ingrained there I doubt you will ever be able to evict him.

Moving Sale wrote:EPA budget 8bil
Pentagon 700bil

There are no real buget cuts without lopping a few hundred billion from those (mostly) worthless a-holes in the military.

Softball Bat wrote:


Any of you R's want to comment?

Left Seater wrote:Next cut the EPA. Yes there needs to be some regulation of pollution, and it can be done as part of other agencies. However the EPA has grown and become something far too overreaching. Non elected employees have taken the power away from elected officials and the courts.

Then cut the TSA. Airport screening should go back to private contractors.

Moving Sale wrote:EPA budget 8bil
Pentagon 700bil

There are no real buget cuts without lopping a few hundred billion from those (mostly) worthless a-holes in the military.

Left Seater wrote:Diego, I bet your special needs friend working security @ SAN did a better job than the current TSA hacks. They fail at a rate over 90% of the time.

Moving Sale wrote:EPA budget 8bil
Pentagon 700bil

There are no real buget cuts without lopping a few hundred billion from those (mostly) worthless a-holes in the military.

Moving Sale wrote:Yeah it's 140bil. I think of a "few" as being more than 1.4 of something. I guess you don't. I was talking more like 3-4.

Left Seater wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Yeah it's 140bil. I think of a "few" as being more than 1.4 of something. I guess you don't. I was talking more like 3-4.

You are pathetic. You use the number 700 Billion. Then when discussing cuts you want to talk in hundreds of billions to make it look like it is somehow less. 20% is still 20% no matter how you try to hide it.

Nancy Pelosi would be proud of you though so you have that going for you.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Next cut the EPA. Yes there needs to be some regulation of pollution, and it can be done as part of other agencies. However the EPA has grown and become something far too overreaching. Non elected employees have taken the power away from elected officials and the courts.

Damn that overreaching EPA....

Then cut the TSA. Airport screening should go back to private contractors.

Yes, we'd be better off w/ mentally retarded citizens doing the screening (I knew such a person doing that job @ SAN)....

smackaholic wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Next cut the EPA. Yes there needs to be some regulation of pollution, and it can be done as part of other agencies. However the EPA has grown and become something far too overreaching. Non elected employees have taken the power away from elected officials and the courts.

Damn that overreaching EPA....

Then cut the TSA. Airport screening should go back to private contractors.

Yes, we'd be better off w/ mentally retarded citizens doing the screening (I knew such a person doing that job @ SAN)....

I assume that is a pic of LA. A few things. Cali. took it on itself to handle its pollution regs. They have been more stringent than the rest of the countries for 50 years. This was not the EPA doing it. Also, you could cherry pic photos from '68 and '18 and probably have the '68 pic look better. Not saying that they didn't have a problem which, to their credit, they addressed on their own.

SFO is one of the few major airports that does not use TSA and to no one's surprise they get better traveler ratings than do others. A large chunk of my job is as a contractor to the TSA, so I see the rampant dumbfukkery up close.

Derron wrote:

Softball Bat wrote:


Any of you R's want to comment?

Sure. You are a complete fucking moron.

Diego in Seattle wrote:So what in those pictures tells you we can lower federal standards when they weren't the ones that got the job done in CA?

When Congress began drafting the 1970 Clean Air Act, the state fought to maintain its ongoing regulatory scheme. It argued that its program should be left alone, since it was successful, and that its air problems were naturally worse than other states’.

“[California argued] that there is this geographically unfortunate set of factors that traps smog into the Los Angeles basin,” says Carlson. “That has turned out to be completely true.”

California succeeded—and dramatically so. California is written into the Clean Air Act by name: At any time, it can ask the EPA administrator for a waiver to restrict tailpipe pollution more stringently than the federal government. If its proposed rules are “at least as protective of public health and welfare” as the EPA’s, then the administrator must grant the waiver.

This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. (In all of federal law, this might be the only time that a specific state is given special authority under such a major statute.)

Under the same provision, any other state can choose to adopt California’s more stringent standards. Fifteen states currently opt for the tougher rules, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and the entire New York metro area. This means that California’s rules actually cover 135 million people, more than 40 percent of the U.S. population.

Mikey wrote:California is only able to set their own regs because of a waiver from the Clean Air Act, which was instituted in 1970. California's requirements were already more stringent at the time. The waiver applies only to tailpipe emissions, and other states can adopt California's standard, or stick to the federal standard.

Pruitt would probably love to cancel that waiver, though it appears to be safe for now. After all, if the air's so much cleaner now the regulations have accomplished their goal and we don't need them any more.

When Congress began drafting the 1970 Clean Air Act, the state fought to maintain its ongoing regulatory scheme. It argued that its program should be left alone, since it was successful, and that its air problems were naturally worse than other states’.

“[California argued] that there is this geographically unfortunate set of factors that traps smog into the Los Angeles basin,” says Carlson. “That has turned out to be completely true.”

California succeeded—and dramatically so. California is written into the Clean Air Act by name: At any time, it can ask the EPA administrator for a waiver to restrict tailpipe pollution more stringently than the federal government. If its proposed rules are “at least as protective of public health and welfare” as the EPA’s, then the administrator must grant the waiver.

This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. (In all of federal law, this might be the only time that a specific state is given special authority under such a major statute.)

Under the same provision, any other state can choose to adopt California’s more stringent standards. Fifteen states currently opt for the tougher rules, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and the entire New York metro area. This means that California’s rules actually cover 135 million people, more than 40 percent of the U.S. population.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ge/518649/

smackaholic wrote:

Mikey wrote:California is only able to set their own regs because of a waiver from the Clean Air Act, which was instituted in 1970. California's requirements were already more stringent at the time. The waiver applies only to tailpipe emissions, and other states can adopt California's standard, or stick to the federal standard.

Pruitt would probably love to cancel that waiver, though it appears to be safe for now. After all, if the air's so much cleaner now the regulations have accomplished their goal and we don't need them any more.

When Congress began drafting the 1970 Clean Air Act, the state fought to maintain its ongoing regulatory scheme. It argued that its program should be left alone, since it was successful, and that its air problems were naturally worse than other states’.

“[California argued] that there is this geographically unfortunate set of factors that traps smog into the Los Angeles basin,” says Carlson. “That has turned out to be completely true.”

California succeeded—and dramatically so. California is written into the Clean Air Act by name: At any time, it can ask the EPA administrator for a waiver to restrict tailpipe pollution more stringently than the federal government. If its proposed rules are “at least as protective of public health and welfare” as the EPA’s, then the administrator must grant the waiver.

This power is reserved alone for California, and it only covers pollution from cars. No other state can ask for a waiver. (In all of federal law, this might be the only time that a specific state is given special authority under such a major statute.)

Under the same provision, any other state can choose to adopt California’s more stringent standards. Fifteen states currently opt for the tougher rules, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and the entire New York metro area. This means that California’s rules actually cover 135 million people, more than 40 percent of the U.S. population.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ge/518649/

Sounds like yet another reason to clip the EPA's wings. They want to tell states that they can't exceed federal standards? That makes no sense. But they waived this for cali? Makes about as much sense as the TSA's war on bottled water.

Moving Sale wrote:CA buys so much stuff, if we make safety or environmental standards, companies just make shit to our standards instead of making two or more of everything.