Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am so proud to live in a state that cares about the environment. Trump and his supporters have made their environmental hate clear but blue states can and should move forward to support policies that say otherwise.
Trump supporters can and should move to other states if they are unhappy with this. We are an extremely divided country and half the country has a right to join the rest of the civilized world.
"The new coalition, called the United States Climate Alliance, will serve as a way for states interested in dealing with climate change to coordinate, according to a press release. The three states make up about a fifth of U.S. population and GDP."
This is much better than the Paris Accord....great job US and thanks to President Trump for providing the impetus and opportunity to these 3 states (including my own).
What will this new blue state alliance accomplish? How much of your money are you willing to spend? How much of your money would you like to see go to wealthy foreign leaders? What wil this accomplish again?
Shareholders have made it clear that this is what they want from many corporations. Voters have done the same. How they spend their money is not your concern.
'Exxon CEO Darren Woods wrote a personal letter to Trump earlier this month, urging him to stick to the deal. The U.S., he said, is "well positioned to compete" with the agreement in place and staying in means "a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field." '
' "By expanding markets for innovative clean technologies, the agreement generates jobs and economic growth," business leaders wrote in a recent ad published in major newspapers. "U.S. companies are well positioned to lead in these markets. Withdrawing from the agreement will limit our access to them and could expose us to retaliatory measures."'
Efficiency is irrelevant if there is no market for your product. Farming is a risky business because Mother Nature is out of your control. Prior to the subsidies during a good growing season they would be awash in product, this is a bad because the value of the product could be less than what it cost to produce. During a bad growing season the value of the product is high but there is very little to sell.
The less risky of these two is to keep the supply low but that leads to food shortages and extremely high prices during a bad growing season. The subsidies were introduced to insure over production so food shortages do not occur during bad growing seasons.
This is much better than the Paris Accord....great job US and thanks to President Trump for providing the impetus and opportunity to these 3 states (including my own).
You think that was his intent? It is the exact opposite of what he said. Nice spin job.
If it works out better, it will be an unintended consequence.
No, just a Republican that wants cities to send flyover country their money. Flyover country is always yelling but they are already overrepresented in Congress and love their tax subsidies. It's funny how much they "hate socialism" unless they are the beneficiary. Since Trump is all about not spending money on climate change, will he be ending farm subsidies? His budget already greatly cuts back on Disability, which should be fun to watch.
Contrary to US goals? Are the US goals to pollute more? Is Trump going to complain to blue state governors that they are not polluting enough?
Doesn't matter what te goals are, holding diplomatic discussions without federal approval is illegal. I believe a republican was threatened with prosecution a few months ago under Obama.
I would imagine because food is the second most important thing required to sustain life. I prefer subsidies be removed from everything however the food supply is an exception. Giving a farmer a subsidy to insure kids across this country have something to eat the next day is fine with me... see that I'd pulled the liberal kid card.
No, just a Republican that wants cities to send flyover country their money. Flyover country is always yelling but they are already overrepresented in Congress and love their tax subsidies. It's funny how much they "hate socialism" unless they are the beneficiary. Since Trump is all about not spending money on climate change, will he be ending farm subsidies? His budget already greatly cuts back on Disability, which should be fun to watch.
Yet the Feds demand taxes from the "fly over country"
Which is why they're conservative. They want a small federal government so they don't have to pay for city people's problems.
Doesn't matter what te goals are, holding diplomatic discussions without federal approval is illegal. I believe a republican was threatened with prosecution a few months ago under Obama.
Governors are allowed to meet with foreign countries, it happens all the time. Trump doesn't want to participate. That is his choice. Macron will still likely try to walk away from him so he's going to have to work on that fragile ego of his.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
