The work of the people is a struggle it seems. Gotta love (or hate) that man for his. . . consistency! (Laugh to keep from crying.) I don't know what this says about the public that keeps pulling for him and moving obstacles out of his way. It sure is not God doing it. . . it's Right-wing Christians, some conservatives (of all stripes), and Libertarians. They bought the bilge that 'buying and selling' progress in any shape, form, and fashion. . . and so now here we are and here we go. Seat-belts on, Everybody!
It's not awesome. When the cancer clusters start appearing around factories and oil refineries maybe then the people will have had enough. Because God knows they won't have the health insurance they need for treatments
I guess some people read this X post as if factories are going to start dumping raw waste into rivers and burn extra coal just to maximize their smoke stacks. I can't read the future any better than any of you can but I can read English so I'd like to point out something.
This X post doesn't say they're just going to give blanket approvals for whatever anyone wants to do. It says the process for approval will be expedited, not waived. Rather than taking years to get approvals and permits, it appears to be saying they aren't going to drag their feet the way they have increasingly been doing.
The second thing is that there are entities called "States", which has its own environmental protection agency, legislative and regulatory frameworks, and environmental policy acts. No matter what the feds do, states have their rules as well and I'd be willing to bet that no matter what fever dream some people are imagining the feds doing, we probably wouldn't even notice, especially in states like California, Oregon and Washinton.
Maybe we ought to see if the sky is really falling before freaking out.
If the approvals can be given faster without sacrificing the integrity of the system lets do it for everyone , not just large corporations.
I agree. Gotta start somewhere, though, and the biggies may provide more jobs faster.
You do have a lot of misplaced faith in Trumps good intentions.
It isn't a matter of faith or expectations. I prefer to wait and see what happens rather than spend all my time trying to figure out how to vilify every. Single. Thing Trump does or says before he's even in office. Seriously. It's like you guys have a department trying to figure out how the brand of socks he wears as a major driver of global warming because they aren't sustainable or something.
Most of what you guys are putting out is B.S. but that isn't really important to you anyway. The main idea is to put enough of it out there that it trains people to see everything he does as bad and evil, even though none of it has happened yet and, most likely, not much of it will. That doesn't matter, either. Just so long as everyone rejects everything he tries to do, good or bad.
Here is one obvious example that shows your claim to be wrong. Trump has already gratuitously hurt relations with Mexico, Canada, and China and he did it with rhetoric alone while president-elect.
The president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, immediately weighed in on Trump's gratuitous threat (prior to any private meeting) of a 25% across-the-board tariff.
Look at the current sentiment expressed by Premier of Ontario Doug Ford regarding the relationship with the US with Trump as its leader. They are, of course, preparing their counter-offensive ... tariff wars:
Trump's rhetoric is highly counterproductive. He should have met privately with our trading partners and negotiate a deal (if he is capable). The use or preemptory, insulting threats is brain-dead stupid.
Further, if Trump actually does impose across-the-board tariffs this will raise US consumer prices, will cause trade wars, will hinder future relations, etc.
So why do you have a problem with people engaging in critical analysis of Trump's rhetoric ... especially given his words (of course) have real consequences that are in play today.
Donald Trump is the most corrupt person ever to run for president in the modern history of the United States. He doesnt deserve any benefit of the doubt.
First of all, you need to recognize that trade deficits themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. That is, there is no need to ensure that our imports match our exports with each trade partner. There can be a gross imbalance, and if that occurs and is determined to be bad for the USA (even a gross imbalance could be good if it is providing good prices meeting a popular consumer demand), that is when civil, responsible trade negotiations take place. The other reason for tariffs is as a temporary measure when a domestic industry is in trouble. This is the motivation for the steel tariffs during Trump's term. Short-term and focused on addressing a domestic problem / weakness (if done right).
Trade is a complex matter. In a global economy we are all interdependent. There is no way that even the USA can just bully its way into a long-term positive situation. Indeed, that is a great way to fuck up what little trust exists. Much better to identify the key problems one sees with a trading partner, put forth a proposition, and negotiate. If the trading partner is unreasonable then that will call for tapping alternate sources and possibly tariffs.
Public bullying / humiliation of those we wish to influence is brain-dead stupid.
Drakk, if you were elected PotUS, would you as president-elect, before having any private meetings with your key trade partners, threaten them with across-the-board tariffs of 25% (and 10%) until they meet your demands? And especially if your demands were half-baked?
If you would not do that, then why is it that you cannot answer your own question?
had ought to be asking why we have to give $1Billion or more to have that privilege.
True, we should be cutting regulations and red tape for everyone trying to innovate and create jobs, but the biggest projects are subject to the most institutional roadblocks
Maybe we had ought to be asking why we have to give $1Billion or more to have that privilege.
Perhaps if we did ask it might be something like we're the third largest country in the world by population, and fourth by land. How many projects are currently going through the process? How many people are there that process such work? Does the paperwork get bounced around from department to department?
I don't know. However, be it Trump or Biden, Dem or Rep, I would applaud anything that brought more good paying jobs and investment here at home. I think prioritizing businesses who are spending big money like that is not necessarily the knee-jerk bad thing you guys are trying to portray it as.
Is this all you are going to do now, Drakk? Play the same obtuse, petty games that others (who unlike you cannot formulate an argument) engage in?
My answer, in short, is that trade imbalance with a nation is not necessarily a bad thing.
But when it is bad, we should first fully understand why, formulate a proposal, and negotiate with our trade partner in good faith.
Imposing tariffs should be reserved for when negotiations fail and no other reasonable alternative (e.g. using a different trade partner) is possible.
To wit, there are times when tariffs (not across-the-board) are a smart move. What Trump did, however, was brain-dead stupid.
Now, do you think engaging in private, honest negotiation based on a full understanding of the problem and armed with good (win-win) proposals is the right way to handle this ... or do you have a better approach?
No one is crying fowl about a chicken little false alarm, it's damn obvious that about any and all of what Trump does, is not the accepted way that both parties had shared and approved of in the past. These bipartisan norms have been dropped since trump sought office. The determined and that which was deemed 'acceptable', behavior, with few exceptions was just non extreme behavior. And certainly not due to some sort of Trump exceptionalism, as his lack of morals and ethics, make him only exceptional in the down trodden ugly death mix, where asz Trump grabs the pussies, and the pussies of chicks, and he's not exactly checking if these are transgender chick trix attempting to fool dicks into becoming like they, as in, how do you say, soft on crime smacking them down hard on Prime Time for Pixies huffin and snortin the narrow line that Trump eviscerated with so many damn heavy pants and choices wrong, someone could almost write a song, about a beautiful young woman, that stole ones heart, cause when the day came and there was no other choice, as won was forced to basically discard her, because that is the way fate would dictate, the loss that could never be, a glossed over tossed out and about pivotal decision leaving quite the incision, that cut deeper than a grim reaper with a large sickle, and thus isn the abbreviated story of Trumps eldest and former Fox entertainytmeant to help peepawholes to coordinate and travel with a mate to play, never gonna know until you know, that you don't.
As usual, I was distracted by something or other that attached to my thumb,whilst driving, people crazy with some shiny new and young friends objective objectivity...
Is this all you are going to do now, Drakk? Play the same obtuse, petty games that others (who unlike you cannot formulate an argument) engage in?
I asked you what you would do. You assumed what I wouldn't (or would) do and then essentially intimated the answer to my question was self-evident, as if I see it as you do. If I knew what you would do, I wouldn't have asked the question.
I do not know what I would do. I don't know enough about tariffs and economics on that scale. I might have the same policy as Trump, although I would be more diplomatic. Then again, I might not have the same policy. I simply don't know.
Now, do you think engaging in private, honest negotiation based on a full understanding of the problem and armed with good (win-win) proposals is the right way to handle this ... or do you have a better approach?
As for your answer, that seems like more of the same old, same old, before Trump's first presidency. Negotiations up the ying yang and our deficit keeps increasing. Didn't seem effective to me.
This is not an article about tariffs, and as I said, I'm not qualified to have much more than impressions. This will be the last I have to say on the subject.
Oh, and for the record, I've never been fond of Trump's bombastic approach to these things. He could have the same policy without being an asshat about it.
I might have the same policy as Trump, although I would be more diplomatic.
Yeah, I think you would be substantially more diplomatic. First try private negotiations before public humiliation that will almost certainly result in face-saving backlash rather than the capitulation Trump has likely fantasized.
Surely ("more diplomatic") you recognize that making a gratuitous public threat without even having a private meeting with our key trade partners is an example of the wrong way to operate.
Negotiations up the ying yang and our deficit keeps increasing.
Again, a trade deficit with a trading partner is not necessarily bad.
One need not be an expert in international trade to recognize that it is far better to use the approach I outlined than what Trump did. I outlined basic negotiation:
Understand the problem.
Devise a proposal (with contingencies) that can be sold as a win-win. (That implies understanding the needs, desires, and weaknesses of the other side of the table.)
Negotiate to achieve a compromise solution that both sides can live with.
Monitor compliance
Trump is a fool whose ego (and arrogance) has reached new heights by virtue of misguided voters putting him back in office.
Very good idea. Don't want to end up an overregulated,declining husk like Europe where basic functions like keeping the heat on for seniors is a struggle.
Progressives want America to look like california, that has wasted so many billions on the high speed rail line between LA and San Diego that doesn't exist it would have been cheaper to purchase a fleet of 747s and fly the entire population back and forth every day for years.
Reactionaries want America to look like mississippi, that has the highest poverty rate and the second lowest education rate in the country, because it's better to keep the population poor and uneducated so they're more easily manipulated by fascist propaganda.
that has the highest poverty rate and the second lowest ed
On a GDP per capita basis Mississippi (the poorest US state) would be tied for the 7th richest EU country (higher than France and Germany) and is also richer than England. It is about $300 less than Canada.
The problem is that US environmental laws are effective towards prevention of environmental catastrophes, but applied to every form of development at a microscale. I’ve seen reports of unlined landfills receiving train car loads of industrial chemicals by pumping it from the car directly into the landfill. That is horrific and needs to never happen. But governments put equal focus on new construction storm water quality initiatives that do little for the environment, cost a fortune, and result in heavy equipment burning through four times as much diesel than they should thus driving air pollution. The cost for that stuff just gets passed along to the end user, vastly raising land prices for everyone. I applaud any effort the loosen the bullshit regs while enforcing the important ones.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I thought this was a joke until I saw it on Trump's truth social
Kleptocracy
Pay to Play
The work of the people is a struggle it seems. Gotta love (or hate) that man for his. . . consistency! (Laugh to keep from crying.) I don't know what this says about the public that keeps pulling for him and moving obstacles out of his way. It sure is not God doing it. . . it's Right-wing Christians, some conservatives (of all stripes), and Libertarians. They bought the bilge that 'buying and selling' progress in any shape, form, and fashion. . . and so now here we are and here we go. Seat-belts on, Everybody!
Completly nuts
Next time around think I'll shoot first and never ask.
That's what his supporters want. That's why they voted for him.
It's not awesome. When the cancer clusters start appearing around factories and oil refineries maybe then the people will have had enough. Because God knows they won't have the health insurance they need for treatments
America voted for this.
And they will have themselves to blame when infection rates for E coli and giardiasis sky rockets
1/3 of America voted for this. 1/3 of America voted against and 1/3 couldn't be bothered to leave the house.
America voted to give itself a fascist dictatorship.
Be happy.
Again only 1/3 did.
I'll be happier if I get a lower bunk at the FEMA camp.
I'll fight you for it. My poor old back probably can't crawl to the top
Oh, will you stop worrying? Them's just poor folk that live near them... /s
I'm pretty sure without changes in the laws all these 'expedited approval' bullshit will get bogged down in the courts.
Trump owns the courts.
Oh so that's why several of his last picks have ruled against him... /s
Not quite yet.
I guess some people read this X post as if factories are going to start dumping raw waste into rivers and burn extra coal just to maximize their smoke stacks. I can't read the future any better than any of you can but I can read English so I'd like to point out something.
This X post doesn't say they're just going to give blanket approvals for whatever anyone wants to do. It says the process for approval will be expedited, not waived. Rather than taking years to get approvals and permits, it appears to be saying they aren't going to drag their feet the way they have increasingly been doing.
The second thing is that there are entities called "States", which has its own environmental protection agency, legislative and regulatory frameworks, and environmental policy acts. No matter what the feds do, states have their rules as well and I'd be willing to bet that no matter what fever dream some people are imagining the feds doing, we probably wouldn't even notice, especially in states like California, Oregon and Washinton.
Maybe we ought to see if the sky is really falling before freaking out.
LOL.
If the approvals can be given faster without sacrificing the integrity of the system lets do it for everyone , not just large corporations.
You do have a lot of misplaced faith in Trumps good intentions.
I agree. Gotta start somewhere, though, and the biggies may provide more jobs faster.
It isn't a matter of faith or expectations. I prefer to wait and see what happens rather than spend all my time trying to figure out how to vilify every. Single. Thing Trump does or says before he's even in office. Seriously. It's like you guys have a department trying to figure out how the brand of socks he wears as a major driver of global warming because they aren't sustainable or something.
Most of what you guys are putting out is B.S. but that isn't really important to you anyway. The main idea is to put enough of it out there that it trains people to see everything he does as bad and evil, even though none of it has happened yet and, most likely, not much of it will. That doesn't matter, either. Just so long as everyone rejects everything he tries to do, good or bad.
They really don't notice the lack of objectively. They really believe he does all those things without their twisting of the actual facts
Here is one obvious example that shows your claim to be wrong. Trump has already gratuitously hurt relations with Mexico, Canada, and China and he did it with rhetoric alone while president-elect.
The president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, immediately weighed in on Trump's gratuitous threat (prior to any private meeting) of a 25% across-the-board tariff.
Look at the current sentiment expressed by Premier of Ontario Doug Ford regarding the relationship with the US with Trump as its leader. They are, of course, preparing their counter-offensive ... tariff wars:
Trump's rhetoric is highly counterproductive. He should have met privately with our trading partners and negotiate a deal (if he is capable). The use or preemptory, insulting threats is brain-dead stupid.
Further, if Trump actually does impose across-the-board tariffs this will raise US consumer prices, will cause trade wars, will hinder future relations, etc.
So why do you have a problem with people engaging in critical analysis of Trump's rhetoric ... especially given his words (of course) have real consequences that are in play today.
A convenient summary:
Donald Trump is the most corrupt person ever to run for president in the modern history of the United States. He doesnt deserve any benefit of the doubt.
What would you do to solve the trade deficits with Mexico, China, Canada?
Funny. I feel the same way about Biden.
First of all, you need to recognize that trade deficits themselves are not necessarily a bad thing. That is, there is no need to ensure that our imports match our exports with each trade partner. There can be a gross imbalance, and if that occurs and is determined to be bad for the USA (even a gross imbalance could be good if it is providing good prices meeting a popular consumer demand), that is when civil, responsible trade negotiations take place. The other reason for tariffs is as a temporary measure when a domestic industry is in trouble. This is the motivation for the steel tariffs during Trump's term. Short-term and focused on addressing a domestic problem / weakness (if done right).
Trade is a complex matter. In a global economy we are all interdependent. There is no way that even the USA can just bully its way into a long-term positive situation. Indeed, that is a great way to fuck up what little trust exists. Much better to identify the key problems one sees with a trading partner, put forth a proposition, and negotiate. If the trading partner is unreasonable then that will call for tapping alternate sources and possibly tariffs.
Public bullying / humiliation of those we wish to influence is brain-dead stupid.
Drakk, if you were elected PotUS, would you as president-elect, before having any private meetings with your key trade partners, threaten them with across-the-board tariffs of 25% (and 10%) until they meet your demands? And especially if your demands were half-baked?
If you would not do that, then why is it that you cannot answer your own question?
Maybe we had ought to be asking why we have to give $1Billion or more to have that privilege.
True, we should be cutting regulations and red tape for everyone trying to innovate and create jobs, but the biggest projects are subject to the most institutional roadblocks
Perhaps if we did ask it might be something like we're the third largest country in the world by population, and fourth by land. How many projects are currently going through the process? How many people are there that process such work? Does the paperwork get bounced around from department to department?
I don't know. However, be it Trump or Biden, Dem or Rep, I would applaud anything that brought more good paying jobs and investment here at home. I think prioritizing businesses who are spending big money like that is not necessarily the knee-jerk bad thing you guys are trying to portray it as.
“Public bullying / humiliation of those we wish to influence is brain-dead stupid.”
Indeed.
The building of walls is a concrete example that only plays to the base.
The building of animosity in today’s complex economic environment is only counterproductive to all of us.
So, you're saying I would know what you would do? Why would I know that?
Is this all you are going to do now, Drakk? Play the same obtuse, petty games that others (who unlike you cannot formulate an argument) engage in?
My answer, in short, is that trade imbalance with a nation is not necessarily a bad thing.
But when it is bad, we should first fully understand why, formulate a proposal, and negotiate with our trade partner in good faith.
Imposing tariffs should be reserved for when negotiations fail and no other reasonable alternative (e.g. using a different trade partner) is possible.
To wit, there are times when tariffs (not across-the-board) are a smart move. What Trump did, however, was brain-dead stupid.
Now, do you think engaging in private, honest negotiation based on a full understanding of the problem and armed with good (win-win) proposals is the right way to handle this ... or do you have a better approach?
No one is crying fowl about a chicken little false alarm, it's damn obvious that about any and all of what Trump does, is not the accepted way that both parties had shared and approved of in the past. These bipartisan norms have been dropped since trump sought office. The determined and that which was deemed 'acceptable', behavior, with few exceptions was just non extreme behavior. And certainly not due to some sort of Trump exceptionalism, as his lack of morals and ethics, make him only exceptional in the down trodden ugly death mix, where asz Trump grabs the pussies, and the pussies of chicks, and he's not exactly checking if these are transgender chick trix attempting to fool dicks into becoming like they, as in, how do you say, soft on crime smacking them down hard on Prime Time for Pixies huffin and snortin the narrow line that Trump eviscerated with so many damn heavy pants and choices wrong, someone could almost write a song, about a beautiful young woman, that stole ones heart, cause when the day came and there was no other choice, as won was forced to basically discard her, because that is the way fate would dictate, the loss that could never be, a glossed over tossed out and about pivotal decision leaving quite the incision, that cut deeper than a grim reaper with a large sickle, and thus isn the abbreviated story of Trumps eldest and former Fox entertainytmeant to help peepawholes to coordinate and travel with a mate to play, never gonna know until you know, that you don't.
As usual, I was distracted by something or other that attached to my thumb,whilst driving, people crazy with some shiny new and young friends objective objectivity...
I asked you what you would do. You assumed what I wouldn't (or would) do and then essentially intimated the answer to my question was self-evident, as if I see it as you do. If I knew what you would do, I wouldn't have asked the question.
I do not know what I would do. I don't know enough about tariffs and economics on that scale. I might have the same policy as Trump, although I would be more diplomatic. Then again, I might not have the same policy. I simply don't know.
As for your answer, that seems like more of the same old, same old, before Trump's first presidency. Negotiations up the ying yang and our deficit keeps increasing. Didn't seem effective to me.
This is not an article about tariffs, and as I said, I'm not qualified to have much more than impressions. This will be the last I have to say on the subject.
Oh, and for the record, I've never been fond of Trump's bombastic approach to these things. He could have the same policy without being an asshat about it.
Yeah, I think you would be substantially more diplomatic. First try private negotiations before public humiliation that will almost certainly result in face-saving backlash rather than the capitulation Trump has likely fantasized.
Surely ("more diplomatic") you recognize that making a gratuitous public threat without even having a private meeting with our key trade partners is an example of the wrong way to operate.
Again, a trade deficit with a trading partner is not necessarily bad.
One need not be an expert in international trade to recognize that it is far better to use the approach I outlined than what Trump did. I outlined basic negotiation:
Trump is a fool whose ego (and arrogance) has reached new heights by virtue of misguided voters putting him back in office.
Trump plans major reshaping of U.S. policies within hours of taking office
"America voted for this."
1/3 of America voted for this. 1/3 voted against this and 1/3 didn't vote at all.
curious how you came up with !/3 ? as wouldn't it be one quarter of US residents, or was it eligible voters that determined the proportion ?
As of this afternoon
The numbers are from the AP.
Very good idea. Don't want to end up an overregulated,declining husk like Europe where basic functions like keeping the heat on for seniors is a struggle.
Progressives want America to look like california, that has wasted so many billions on the high speed rail line between LA and San Diego that doesn't exist it would have been cheaper to purchase a fleet of 747s and fly the entire population back and forth every day for years.
Better to accept every corrupt thing that Trump does like good little brainwashed toadies. Meet Elon Musk your new lord and master America.
Reactionaries want America to look like mississippi, that has the highest poverty rate and the second lowest education rate in the country, because it's better to keep the population poor and uneducated so they're more easily manipulated by fascist propaganda.
And you can force them to work for low wages and perpetuate the cycle of poverty because their kids are forced to go to badly run public schools.
I don't want any guff about public funds used for private schools. You will be ignored and I won't answer you
On a GDP per capita basis Mississippi (the poorest US state) would be tied for the 7th richest EU country (higher than France and Germany) and is also richer than England. It is about $300 less than Canada.
Europe should be so lucky as to be Mississippi.
Thanks for proving my point.
“…higher than France…”
Tough call…Paris, France or Jackson, Mississippi…maybe not so tough after all…any Michael references aside.
Thanks for proving mine.
Your comment had no pertinent point.
Then you got it right by accident. Lucky you.
The problem is that US environmental laws are effective towards prevention of environmental catastrophes, but applied to every form of development at a microscale. I’ve seen reports of unlined landfills receiving train car loads of industrial chemicals by pumping it from the car directly into the landfill. That is horrific and needs to never happen. But governments put equal focus on new construction storm water quality initiatives that do little for the environment, cost a fortune, and result in heavy equipment burning through four times as much diesel than they should thus driving air pollution. The cost for that stuff just gets passed along to the end user, vastly raising land prices for everyone. I applaud any effort the loosen the bullshit regs while enforcing the important ones.