“They’re definitely rolling things back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era,”
This is a flat lie, given that the Obama rule wasn't even put in place until the last 18% of his administration (barely 14 months before Trump's election).
Because what they are rolling it back to is just the pre-August 2015 rule. In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.
In the comment I replied to, you plainly try to invalidate a policy goal based on it being rolled out near an election, a thing that is pretty much always true (nationally significant elections occur every 2 years...).
On the other hand the context of this discussion is
> back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era
The comment you objected to was, in my reading, mainly noting that this was reverting to the policy in place nearly 2 full presidencies after said era.
How many examples can you give from the Bush 43 administration? Or Bush 41? Or Reagan?
The practice of implementing major policy changes as a lame duck was pretty much nonexistent before 2000. It becomes an even bigger problem when rules are implemented that conflict with law, like the 2014 DACA expansion[0].
The claim wasn't at it's core about Obama caring, it was about the false media framing this as a return to the bush era (between 10-18 years ago), when really its a change that happened in the Obama era (2-10 years ago).
> In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.
I believe they use the Bush claim because Bush put in a provision in his act that no wetlands (acreage) would be lost. [I.e. Obama added to the protected wetlands but Trump is proposing to take some of those added by Obama back]
Bush's provision would disallow clawing back. But that is definitely not the same as taking regulation (or protected wetland or clean water) to the state before Bush I was in office.
So, the article begins with that Bush claim but then references Obama implementations thereafter, so it does seem a bit disingenuous by them, but then, if they told it like it is, it would get people less agitated about it given it keeps some of the major provisions and isn't undoing regulation and setting it back to the way it was prior to Bush 1.
Except that comment is likely referencing the regulatory environment, for which it is correct to state that the regulations are being rolled back to what they were before HW’s changes in this area.
It is truly amazing how well these shitheads prey on our understandable frustration with the government to gather support, and redirect that energy into just creating more corruption to pad someone else's pocket.
Even if downsizing pressure is applied evenly across the board, soft targets like the EPA take the damage while any reform that would actually cut into someone's bottom line remains unaffected.
And the worst part is there will be countless cheerleaders who rationalize this action because the "other team" is upset.
Yup I'm deep into the reducing government waste camp but of ALL the things to focus on that hurt business they focus on the one thing that's a compromise for something better, not just straight up wasteful interference in markets. There are a hundred better things to spend time on.
There is an endless legacy of old agency mandates and legislation that started with good intentions to 'help the little guy' or whatnot that are a completely net negative for everyone (except a few politically connected companies).
The EPA is not even a 'soft target', there are plenty of low hanging fruit. It's just a very public and obvious economic intervention, so it gets plenty of attention. Meanwhile the million other things the government has their hands in goes unnoticed.
I think their point was just that the legislation could be more explicit and leave less leeway in the hands of the executive branch...
Which of course is made difficult in a paralyzed, polarized legislative environment.
This is actually one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of cardinal voting systems such as approval voting. I believe that they'd elect a more diverse body of legislators, so that coalition building would become both necessary for political survival, and possible in the first place. Right now there's no true coalition building, just hyperpartisan compromise.
Vernal pools are an extremely important part of the ecosystem and also play a role in carbon sequestration.
The background of all of this begins with a farmer named Duarte who plowed a wetland on his property and ended up with a huge fine. It became a divisive issue; some cried government overreach, others said he should have listened to the army corps of engineers.
But there’s a reason we have an Environmental Protection Agency — people by-and-large aren’t going to go out of their way to protect these natural resources. There are exceptions, and I know conservation minded farmers — but if you look at the aggregate of farming in America, well, it’s pretty terrible for the environment.
Yes. There is a reason governments should be involved in this. Climate control, environment protection are classic game theory problem. Individual can profit from destroying a little bit of the environment but as a group we lose. Essentially governments do the group bargaining. Unless there is a group which represents all people government has to play that part.
It's as if Trump lives in an alternate universe. Is he really this stupid or careless? I really want to understand the mind of a person who doesn't give a shit what his grandchildren or their children will have to deal with in their lifetime. I had lost all hope in "people" (I use that as a collective term) a long time ago but I never thought the sheer stupidity that is humanity would make it to the POTUS office. Surely you have to have at minimum some common sense to become a president? Maybe not. Why is he still in office, or how?
I would say wealth insulates and delays effects, but it cannot stop them completely, i.e., a hypercane, desertification, 1000-year-drought, ESAS methane gun or reduced oxygenation.
American presidents have 4 year terms, trump was elected in 2016 so hes in office till 2020. Maybe if he resigned it wouldn't be in anymore but I don't see why he would at this point.
Why would he be impeached? Because he paid off a porn star? Because he owns a few hotels? He said he likes wikileaks? Tweets about Cohen?
The OP had his own set of reasons but they aren't even crimes, unlike the ones i had just listed, at least those can be constructed into the form of a crime. Being the president while a department you run changes policy seems like a stretch to say that is deserving of a criminal punishment that should lead to impeachment.
Because he committed multiple crimes. Aside from impeachment there is the 25th Amendment, Trump is very obviously not fit to hold the office on mental health grounds, he can't even remember the first names of his staffers.
You're getting way ahead of anything I claimed. All I meant was that when mrhappyunhappy said "why is he still in office," he was clearly not asking a question about term lengths, so your reply wasn't helpful.
If newspapers did more than just write stories and gave us their sources and citations that backed up their story, without the rhetoric, I'd be more apt to take them seriously.
But their constant grandstanding and hyperbolizing is asinine. The language is deliberately biased and I'm wondering if they have any dignity left in them.
44 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 118 ms ] thread> back to the pre-George H.W. Bush era
The comment you objected to was, in my reading, mainly noting that this was reverting to the policy in place nearly 2 full presidencies after said era.
The practice of implementing major policy changes as a lame duck was pretty much nonexistent before 2000. It becomes an even bigger problem when rules are implemented that conflict with law, like the 2014 DACA expansion[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_...
Just because they didn’t pass the law for a few years doesn’t mean they didn’t care. There’s only so much any body of people can do at once.
> In other words, the Obama administration was fine with the existing rule until most of the way through his second term, apparently doing it for just political chits for the 2016 election cycle.
So, the article begins with that Bush claim but then references Obama implementations thereafter, so it does seem a bit disingenuous by them, but then, if they told it like it is, it would get people less agitated about it given it keeps some of the major provisions and isn't undoing regulation and setting it back to the way it was prior to Bush 1.
The Obama rule is "farms near those wetlands cannot do bad thing to the wetlands"
By repealing the Obama rule, they are inherently repealing the Bush one.
Note that the Times never criticized the existing rule until after Obama changed it late in his tenure, giving him political cover.
Even if downsizing pressure is applied evenly across the board, soft targets like the EPA take the damage while any reform that would actually cut into someone's bottom line remains unaffected.
And the worst part is there will be countless cheerleaders who rationalize this action because the "other team" is upset.
There is an endless legacy of old agency mandates and legislation that started with good intentions to 'help the little guy' or whatnot that are a completely net negative for everyone (except a few politically connected companies).
The EPA is not even a 'soft target', there are plenty of low hanging fruit. It's just a very public and obvious economic intervention, so it gets plenty of attention. Meanwhile the million other things the government has their hands in goes unnoticed.
Politics is cancerous.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/06/29/2015-13...
I thought that was obvious but I guess not.
Which of course is made difficult in a paralyzed, polarized legislative environment.
This is actually one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of cardinal voting systems such as approval voting. I believe that they'd elect a more diverse body of legislators, so that coalition building would become both necessary for political survival, and possible in the first place. Right now there's no true coalition building, just hyperpartisan compromise.
The background of all of this begins with a farmer named Duarte who plowed a wetland on his property and ended up with a huge fine. It became a divisive issue; some cried government overreach, others said he should have listened to the army corps of engineers.
But there’s a reason we have an Environmental Protection Agency — people by-and-large aren’t going to go out of their way to protect these natural resources. There are exceptions, and I know conservation minded farmers — but if you look at the aggregate of farming in America, well, it’s pretty terrible for the environment.
Eg. If storms make Florida bad for golfing then he simply flies to Texas for his weekend golf trips.
American presidents have 4 year terms, trump was elected in 2016 so hes in office till 2020. Maybe if he resigned it wouldn't be in anymore but I don't see why he would at this point.
The OP had his own set of reasons but they aren't even crimes, unlike the ones i had just listed, at least those can be constructed into the form of a crime. Being the president while a department you run changes policy seems like a stretch to say that is deserving of a criminal punishment that should lead to impeachment.
But their constant grandstanding and hyperbolizing is asinine. The language is deliberately biased and I'm wondering if they have any dignity left in them.