101–110 of 221 posts
And the Republican majority knows it owes a significant part of its current position to Trump -- and his acive base.
Nonetheless, if you don't want science and reason and at least a best-effort at environmental and resource management to go out the window, NOW is the time to communicate this to your representatives. Whatever your political affiliation as well as that of your representatives.
There are reasonable differences on how to manage as well as measure and report resources and the environment. Most rational people, regardless of their position, don't want to throw the science and scientific endeavors out the window.
And as for "conservative" and "business" value in this: I believe agri-business -- at whatever scale -- derives significant value from the likes of NOAA surveying, evaluating, and reporting on weather and climate.
Something I find annoying about these... "government-science-divestment" attitudes and agendas. These programs don't nor even primarily support "tree huggers". They've grown up, exist, and maintain support because the provide significant value to business and commerce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The military is 60 percent of the budget.
It's not. Defense comes in at 15% of federal spending. Social security and medicare combined come in at 4x that amount. Source: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate
If you want to have an argument about them that's fine but they have separate budgets and should be discussed separately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. Defense comes in at 15% of federal spending. Social security and medicare combined come in at 4x that amount. Source: http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate
Lumping social security in with taxes? You must be very good with numbers.
Minus SS, it's still less than 21% of total federal spending.
Hey, he's just following through on campaign promises. How can you fault him on that? In a decade or two, this will probably be laughable. But if he cuts back on foreign intervention, I'm happy to cut him lots of slack.
If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense. If you're hanging your hat on the idea that he'll be less interventionist, I'd ask you to consider the evidence mounting to the contrary.
http://weather.gov (run by NOAA and the national weather service) is my go to weather site. No ads, no hyperbole. I found out about it when some senator wanted to stop them from posting weather online because it competed with "private sector" weather companies. A couple times I've seen that tv news weather leaves the site up on their monitors during newscasts.
That was Rick Santorum pandering to his pals at Accuweather. My guess is that vendors with bigger pockets and a better track record of buying influence (IBM, Monsanto) wants to leverage its own weather property)
Hey, he's just following through on campaign promises. How can you fault him on that? In a decade or two, this will probably be laughable. But if he cuts back on foreign intervention, I'm happy to cut him lots of slack.
> he's just following through on campaign promises. How can you fault him on that? It's easy - his campaign promises were short-sighted and pandering to idiots.
And I suspect that it will get worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are non discretionary and funded by totally separate channels.
And? Mandatory spending is more than twice that of discretionary. Of discretionary, defense makes up less than 50%.
This[0] directly contradicts you:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-bud...
Makes sense when the powers that be think climate change is made up, in fact maybe they think the climate is made up. Why fund an agency that spends money on something that does not exist?
Certainly they believe that weather exists? Cuts to NOAA won't just affect climate change research but will affect weather forecasts, hurricane forecasts, severe weather forecasts, etc. Mr. Trump is a pathetic excuse for a president.
Exists? Sure. What it actually is? Not really.
"Trump also misrepresented what happened to the weather during his swearing in. He said he felt a few drops of rain as he started delivering his address, but then, “God looked down and, and he said we’re not going to let it rain on your speech.. . .The truth is it stopped immediately.”
Light rain continued to fall through the first few minutes of the speech — and VIP’s at the dais took out ponchos, including former president George W. Bush — and then quit. Trump said there was a downpour right after he finished, which did not occur." - https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-cia-visit-a...