myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Trump
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 884, 885, 886 ... 1351, 1352, 1353  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The grifter in chief and his crime family at work.

Quote:
By Damian Paletta April 6
Actions by federal regulators and Republicans in Congress over the past two years have paved the way for banks and other financial companies to issue more than $1 trillion in risky corporate loans, sparking fears that Washington and Wall Street are repeating the mistakes made before the financial crisis.

The moves undercut policies put in place by banking regulators six years ago that aimed to prevent high-risk lending from once again damaging the economy.

Now, regulators and even White House officials are struggling to comprehend the scope and potential dangers of the massive pool of credits, known as leveraged loans, they helped create.

Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and other financial companies have originated these loans to hundreds of cash-strapped companies, many of which could be unable to repay if the economy slows or interest rates rise.


Meanwhile, for you haters:

California accounts for nearly three out of every four nonfarm jobs created in the U.S. during February, according to data released Friday.

With 12% of the US population.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boggsy, Perhaps you can explain why you are enriching the grifter in chief and his crime family..........or not bother and just congratulate the National Champion Hoos!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9110
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Boggsy, Perhaps you can explain why you are enriching the grifter in chief and his crime family..........or not bother and just congratulate the National Champion Hoos!

It's a well earned victory....especially after what happened last year. Tony Bennett is a great defensive coach, teaches the kids how to play D the right way...Congrats!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9287

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

President Trump’s approval rating spikes to 53% less than one month after the Mueller probe concluded indicating there was no Russian collusion during the 2016 election.

The Rasmussen poll was released Tuesday indicating 53% of likely voters approve of President Trump and his agenda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
mrgybe wrote:
Boggsy, Perhaps you can explain why you are enriching the grifter in chief and his crime family..........or not bother and just congratulate the National Champion Hoos!

It's a well earned victory....especially after what happened last year. Tony Bennett is a great defensive coach, teaches the kids how to play D the right way...Congrats!!!


Bennett coached (brilliantly) at Washington State and his dad spent time at UW Stevens Point. Great defensive teams.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

boggsman1 wrote:
It's a well earned victory....especially after what happened last year. Tony Bennett is a great defensive coach, teaches the kids how to play D the right way...Congrats!!!

The Hoos showed as much poise under pressure as any team that I have seen. A lot of that is down to coaching. If only the Boat Race had gone the other way it would have been a perfect sporting week!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9110
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
It's a well earned victory....especially after what happened last year. Tony Bennett is a great defensive coach, teaches the kids how to play D the right way...Congrats!!!

The Hoos showed as much poise under pressure as any team that I have seen. A lot of that is down to coaching. If only the Boat Race had gone the other way it would have been a perfect sporting week!

True dat... When Guy was shooting free throws at the end, I grabbed by 14 yo, and made him watch.. Confident, relaxed, poised. Ty Jeromes drive/dish was spectacular...And the Tech defender left the best player on the floor wide open.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man, this guy impresses me more every day. Let's elaborate on his latest idea with more specificity.

1. Open one border crossing specifically for illegal aliens. No background checks, no vetting of any sort, no gates, no vehicle inspections, no border guards, no fake "asylum" claims, no kidnapped kids presented as "relatives"; just let 'em the hell in like most lefties want. "Open Borders" at its finest, with an endless stream of busses and semis jam-PACKED with the best and worst of all 194 nations on the planet. Hell, let 'em bring their own weapons, from switchblades to suitcase nukes. Seriously, as long as #2, below, is enforced.

2. Just one small constraint, applied en masse rather than to individuals, to save cost and time: They must stay on those busses and semis (with, of course, adequate water, toilets, and sustenance) until escorted to their ultimate, very fitting, destinations: every GD sanctuary city and state in the United States. Talk about a win/win/win scenario.



Win # 1: The illegal aliens are now legal aliens (and obligations) of that city or state, as long as they remain in that city or state until they become bona fide U.S. citizens in accordance with federal rules. They get all the free medical care, college, housing, cars, airplanes, clothing, and any other bling they want, complements of that city or state, with of course, not one cent of federal funding because F Y goes both ways. You want 'em, you got 'em. (It worked just fine for East Berlin for a quarter of a century.) Just one caveat: They will have full, free access to the wealthy, gated, nearly pure white enclaves presently occupied by evil, filthy rich people.

Win #2: The lovely, bleeding heart, insane, generous fools of those cities get their hearts filled to the gills with all the poor, downtrodden, misera'bles they can handle (times a thousand) plus a very significant bonus percentage of mad bombers, human traffickers, rapists, murderers, MS 13 machete-wielding animals, and the like. The libs are gonna LOVE this idea, especially the brilliant and motivated entrepreneurs who rise to the top of the influx. The sanctuary cities and states will be so flush with all the net cash generated by their new residents that they won't mind having to reimburse the sane cities and states for finding, apprehending, incarcerating, and extraditing escapees back to the sanctuary community from which they escaped.

Win #3: The border wall cost and humanitarian problems will evaporate, so the rest of the country and its politicians can get on with their other obligations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep. Should work like every other one of his grand schemes has. Like how the tax cuts will reduce deficits....that one was SO successful. How tariffs will reduce costs of consumer goods. Stuff like that...genius.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Working hard to increase profits by damaging public health.


Quote:

EPA Takes a Toxic Turn by Backing Away from Mercury Regulation
FEBRUARY 3, 2019 10:49:49 AM Janet McCabe
Edited by: Stephanie Sundier

JURIST Guest Columnist Janet McCabe, Professor of Practice at the Indiana University McKinney School of Law, discusses the EPA’s proposed revision of MATS and its consequences…
Mercury is one of the most toxic substances on earth. When inhaled or ingested by humans, mercury can cause severe neurological damage, cardiovascular harm, endocrine disruption, kidney damage and muscle coordination issues. When pregnant women are exposed, their babies can suffer IQ and motor skills impairments that will last their lifetime.

Through rain, snow or dry deposition, mercury can deposit either directly into waterbodies or indirectly into waterbodies via groundwater seepage through plants and soil. Mercury is emitted by sources around the world; some of it travels long distances around the globe, while other sources deposit relatively close to where it has been emitted. Once in water, mercury chemically transforms into methylmercury, which is readily taken up first by plant and then by animal life and moves up the food chain to ultimately be consumed by people. People are primarily exposed to mercury through the consumption of freshwater or marine fish, either self-caught or, more commonly, purchased at the grocery store or a restaurant.

There have been mercury poisoning events of devastating proportion, including in Minamata, Japan where in 1956 a chemical plant released massive amounts of wastes containing mercury into Minamata Bay, ultimately killing 900 people and injuring more than two thousand. Later, in 1971, seed grain treated with a methylmercury fungicide was mistakenly consumed by people in rural Iraq. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people died or were seriously sickened as a result. These were extreme events, but they highlight the point that a very small amount of mercury can cause significant contamination. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, “approximately one gram of mercury enters a 20-acre lake each year. Over time, just this small amount can contaminate the fish in that lake, making them unfit to eat on a regular basis.”

Anthropogenic sources of mercury include fossil-fuel burning, gold mining, municipal and medical waste incinerators, as well as cement and brick production. Until three years ago, when the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for power plants went into full compliance, the burning of coal and oil in power plants had been the most significant source of industrial mercury emissions in the United States because other US industrial sectors had already been subject to Clean Air Act rules that limited their emissions. MATS put in place similar reduction requirements for power plants. In December 2018, however, the EPA issued a proposal that could prove to be a first step in unraveling MATS.

MATS has deep regulatory roots, and the rule signed in 2011 was the result of significant development over time. In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, the aim of which was to protect Americans’ health and our environment from the adverse impacts of air pollution. Congress directed the EPA to identify pollutants that posed the most risk and to develop regulations to reduce that risk. The original risk- and exposure-based approach proved extremely difficult for the EPA to implement. In 1990, Congress changed the approach to one that required the EPA to set technology-based standards for the most significant sources of air toxics, based on what the best performers in the industry were achieving. With tight standards for sources and follow-up risk and technology reviews, the program would assure continued reductions of air toxics emissions. Because coal-fired power plants were already regulated through other Clean Air Act programs, such as the Acid Rain program, Congress gave the EPA the extra step of evaluating whether existing programs were sufficient to reduce mercury emissions or whether, in the parlance of the Act, it was still “appropriate and necessary” to develop an air toxics rule for these sources.

The path of mercury regulation at the EPA was a long and winding one. After making a positive Appropriate and Necessary (A&N) Finding in 2000, the EPA reversed that Finding in 2005, took coal-fired power plants off the list of sources to be regulated for mercury, and issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR), which switched to a cap and trade program. In 2008, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals overturned CAMR, so when the Obama Administration arrived in 2009, moving this issue forward was one of EPA Administrator Jackson’s highest priorities. Without CAMR, coal-fired power plants were the cheese standing alone, responsible for nearly half of US mercury emissions.

In 2011, Administrator Jackson signed the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The rule itself was accompanied by a new A&N Finding and an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule. Using the best information available at that time, the EPA projected that the rule would cost industry $9.8 billion annually, and generate $37-90 billion in benefits through improved public health. These are big numbers, but the control technologies the EPA expected utilities would use to control mercury —particularly scrubbers — would also reduce other harmful air pollutants, including fine particles, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. The health effects of these pollutants are well-studied and costly; reducing these pollutants has been demonstrated to save lives.

As with all modern EPA rules, the next stop was the courthouse. In the first level of review, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals fully upheld MATS. The US Supreme Court agreed, with one exception: it held that the EPA should have considered cost as part of the A&N Finding, and it directed the EPA to do so, leaving the rule in place in the meantime. The Court stated that the law did not require the EPA to conduct a “formal cost-benefit analysis in which each advantage and disadvantage is assigned a monetary value. It will be up to the Agency to decide (as always, within the limits of reasonable interpretation) how to account for cost.” The EPA moved quickly to propose and finalize a Supplemental A&N Finding, again concluding that MATS was appropriate and necessary, using several approaches to evaluate the costs and the impact those costs would have on the utility industry and consumers.

In the meantime, the industry went about the business of complying with the rule.

Plants had three, four, or in a very few cases five years to come into compliance. In a letter to the EPA on July 10, 2018, the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and several other organizations, advised that “all covered plants have implemented the regulation and that pollution controls—where needed—are installed and operating.”

Reconsidering MATS was high on the incoming Trump Administration’s to do list. Stakeholders were anticipating a proposal long before it arrived on December 28, 2018, and groups made their views known through meetings with Administration officials, letters, and other forms of advocacy. Notably, the electric utility industry reported to the EPA that it had spent $18 billion to comply with MATS, facilities were in compliance, and asked that the EPA “allow the industry to continue full implementation of MATS.”

So, after all the speculation, what has the EPA proposed and, if utilities are already in compliance, why does it matter? The proposal takes the A&N Finding head-on. The EPA has looked yet again at the information it considered in 2011 and then again in 2015, and now proposes to rescind the A&N Finding solely because, it asserts, the costs outweigh the benefits. The proposal does not propose to rescind the standards themselves, though it invites comment on that option. The proposal also takes on the Residual Risk and Technology review required under §112(f)(2), proposing to find that “residual risks due to emissions of air toxics from this source category are acceptable and that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health” and that “[n]o new developments in… emissions reductions were identified under the technology review,” thus concluding that no revisions to MATS are warranted.

There are several aspects of the proposal worth noting.

First, the EPA based its analysis on costs projected in the 2011 original rule, disregarding up-to-date information on how much utilities have actually spent. Moreover, although the latest science supports “the conclusion that the mercury-related benefits from MATS are orders of magnitude larger” than previously estimated in the MATS Regulatory Impact Analysis, the proposal relies on the 8-year-old Regulatory Impact Analysis for its benefits calculations. Thus, the EPA’s consideration of both costs and benefits in this proposal is out of date, inaccurate, and artificial.

Second, the EPA proposes to reverse itself on the strength of a single highly significant policy change: the agency now proposes to find that it is inappropriate to consider benefits associated with any pollution reductions other than mercury and other air toxics specifically targeted by MATS. This is really the crux of the proposal. The EPA proposes that the only correct way to follow the Court’s direction in Michigan is to “directly compare the cost of compliance with MATS with the benefits specifically associated with reducing emissions of HAP as the primary inquiry in this Finding, in order to satisfy our duty to consider cost in the context of CAA section 112(n)(1)(A).”

But this argument ignores the Court’s statement in Michigan that the consideration of cost is but one of multiple relevant factors, and it assumes that the value of health benefits associated with pollution other than the air toxics included in the analysis are not meaningful within the legal construct of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, it ignores Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget that agencies are to consider both direct and indirect benefits of rules. It also ignores cause-and-effect realities. If you quit smoking to reduce your chances of getting lung cancer, you will also necessarily reduce your risk (and the risk of others around you) of other significant health impacts. Is it really good policy to discount or even ignore those kinds of facts when considering how the costs of quitting smoking measure up to the benefits?

Third, the EPA has injected uncertainty into a regulatory landscape where certainty is prized by regulated industry. In this case, the regulated industry has already complied and is seeking to recover its costs through rate cases. If the EPA reverses the A&N Finding, it will kick the legal legs out from under the standards themselves, leaving them vulnerable to an administrative petition or lawsuit by a third-party seeking rescission or vacatur of the entire rule. If the requirements go away, utilities may not be able to recover the costs they have already expended, and may operate controls less, if at all, to save operating costs.

There is much more to say, and people will say it all during the public comment period, which will start once the proposal is published in the Federal Register. In the meantime, mercury emissions from US coal plants have gone down 85% between 2006 and 2016, and mercury levels in water and fish have also decreased. That sounds like a successful program to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 884, 885, 886 ... 1351, 1352, 1353  Next
Page 885 of 1353

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group