232 Protections House Republicans Think You Don't Deserve

[kitler53]

The article can be found here.  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/15/house-conservatives-want-trump-to-undo-regulations-on-fda-climate-uber/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_conservatives-640a-1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.539cf2f944cb

I'll post the article below but i'd really recommend skipping the summary article and directly really the list of protections they want trump to remove.  

the full list can be found here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/334225553/Meadows-rules-and-Regs#from_embed

------------------------------------

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the incoming chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, used a meeting with Donald Trump to deliver a list of 232 regulations that the incoming president could repeal immediately. "We felt like it was important to put together a real working document," Meadows told CNN.

The list, shared by Meadows's office, includes President George W. Bush's order restricting access to executive branch papers and Federal Aviation Administration regulations that limit overland supersonic flights. The rationale for repealing that last regulation, in its entirety: "Make Sonic Boom Again."

That's as frivolous as the document gets. The rest of it, in no particular order, recommends undoing as many of President Obama's initiatives as possible.

Climate. The Freedom Caucus suggests that Trump open up oil exploration on federally owned land, pull out of the Paris climate accords (which will produce "little, if any, environmental benefit"), kill the State Department's office on climate change and the special envoy for climate change, and basically scratch any office assigned to study it — even one at the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Energy. Republicans suggest scrapping a slew of environmental regulations opposed by the energy industry, as well as the Renewable Fuel Standard itself — "it is based on incredibly mistaken assumptions about domestic oil production, it gives EPA control over the fuels we use, and increases the cost of fuel."

Nutrition. The caucus advises Trump to undo Obama-era guidelines for school lunches ("burdensome and unworkable"; "industries can't comply with the standards") and supplements. For the latter, one reason is that the Obama rule "places regulations on the serving sizes of breath mints."

Net neutrality. The caucus recommends undoing the Federal Communications Commission's 2015 regulation, on the grounds that it did too much in a stroke. "At 400 pages and over 2,500 citations, the network neutrality regulations packs in a lot," the caucus writes. "The regulations reflect the lack of economic rigor."

Consumers. The caucus recommends amending the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 "to require that no deference be given to the interpretation of consumer financial law by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection."

Smokers. One recommendation would end funding for smoke-free public housing; another would remove tobacco products from the Food and Drug Administration's purview. "The worst fear of cigar manufacturers and smokers alike has been that the FDA will impose the same onerous premarket review requirements on cigars that it currently places on cigarettes," the Republicans write.

International development. In addition to nixing the Export-Import Bank — a conservative cause celebre — Republicans advise scrapping the 111-year-old Overseas Private Investment Corp., created during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. In both cases, the development organizations are characterized as too political.

Wages. Republicans advise several measures for allowing lower wages, including waiving the Davis-Bacon Act, ending the Obama administration's overtime rule (currently tied up in court), and ending tougher classification of contractors in part because it "disproportionately hurts independent contractors like Uber and Lyft." Republicans also suggest ending paid sick leave for federal contractors.

Read the list of 232 regulations

Trump has not commented on the regulations presented to him, but some — such as getting rid of climate change as a factor in international dealmaking — were part of his campaign.
-------
yes yes, click-bait title.  made you click it though....

[Cute Pikachu]

We are so iced

[kitler53]

We are so iced

i couple of those are probably okay to be removed..

...but some of those are just completely scary.  while i don't agree with the massive amount of environment deregulations i wasn't surprised.  i was much more surprised about things like allowing insurance companies to not cover preventative care and the wage protections.  the wage protections are basically a direct affront to the voters that swung the election to trump.

trump era feels like the corporate vandalism of america to me.

[Xevross]

What. The. fudge.

Oh my god.

Some of that stuff is just unbelievable. I don't understand how anyone could think they're good ideas.

RIP all the environment progress made over the last few years. This is very concerning especially when the survival of some coastal cities and coastal areas are at stake.

[kitler53]

What. The. fudge.

Oh my god.

Some of that stuff is just unbelievable. I don't understand how anyone could think they're good ideas.

RIP all the environment progress made over the last few years. This is very concerning especially when the survival of some coastal cities and coastal areas are at stake.

don't worry,.. just like in flint we'll save a few bucks today which will totally pay for the trillions of dollars of damage.  the important thing is that it is the next guys problem and if that next guy is a democrat we can totally blame democrats for it.

[Xevross]

don't worry,.. just like in flint we'll save a few bucks today which will totally pay for the trillions of dollars of damage.  the important thing is that it is the next guys problem and if that next guy is a democrat we can totally blame democrats for it.

The thing is with climate change is that we don't have this time to waste. We've already put way too much CO2 into the atmosphere and any more right now will cause significant damage. Even if its an increase in emissions for just 4 years it could be a disaster.

Not many people realise, and I didn't until I read a book about it, but the effect of adding greenhouse gases is actually only felt 40 years later. This means that even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, the global temperature rise will continue until 2056 and that rate of temperature increase will get faster and faster. The book I read was one by Michio Kaku; he and the scientists he spoke to estimate that even if we did stop emitting today there will still be disastrous global flooding in the mid-century. I think the country hit worst will be Bangladesh, which is estimated to lose approximately 2/3 of its land due (by lose land I mean the land becomes unfarmable and uninhabitable) to the rise in sea levels over the next half a century if we don't act now. Today.

If Trump goes back on the Paris agreement and restarts a lot of the US's fossil fuel industry I genuinely fear for the world in 50 years time.

[kitler53]

The thing is with climate change is that we don't have this time to waste. We've already put way too much CO2 into the atmosphere and any more right now will cause significant damage. Even if its an increase in emissions for just 4 years it could be a disaster.

Not many people realise, and I didn't until I read a book about it, but the effect of adding greenhouse gases is actually only felt 40 years later. This means that even if we stopped emitting CO2 today, the global temperature rise will continue until 2056 and that rate of temperature increase will get faster and faster. The book I read was one by Michio Kaku; he and the scientists he spoke to estimate that even if we did stop emitting today there will still be disastrous global flooding in the mid-century. I think the country hit worst will be Bangladesh, which is estimated to lose approximately 2/3 of its land due (by lose land I mean the land becomes unfarmable and uninhabitable) to the rise in sea levels over the next half a century if we don't act now. Today.

If Trump goes back on the Paris agreement and restarts a lot of the US's fossil fuel industry I genuinely fear for the world in 50 years time.

i'm sorry,.. next... time... i'll... use...... more.. elipsies... to.. better express... my,...   <<wa.t for .t>>   sarcasm..


i'm scared no nuggets about climate change:  http://vizioneck.com/forum/index.php?topic=4210.msg182595#msg182595

[Xevross]

i'm sorry,.. next... time... i'll... use...... more.. elipsies... to.. better express... my,...   <<wa.t for .t>>   sarcasm..


i'm scared no nuggets about climate change:  http://vizioneck.com/forum/index.php?topic=4210.msg182595#msg182595

That's good

I thought you were being sarcastic but I wasn't sure. I just wrote that because I'm also scared no nuggets about climate change and spread the message as much as I can

[the-pi-guy]

This is why I argue with people on facebook, even though I really shouldn't...  

We need someone in Congress to call people morons.

[Aura7541]

Ocean acidification is a very sneaky problem. The oceans are the #1 carbon sinks and the reason why the average global temperature don't just rise suddenly. The lowering of pH of seawater can cause havoc to animals who depend on bicarbonate and bleaching in coral reefs. This can lead to problems in the fishing industry because food webs will be disrupted. Coral reefs also act as natural barriers and damaging them will put islands/coasts in greater flood risk.

[Aura7541]

One of the main problems, I think, is the way people try to convince climate change deniers that it isn't a myth. I remember John Oliver's video a few years back and back then, I thought it was a good video. However, looking back, saying 97% of climate scientists believe anthropogenic climate change is real isn't a good argument. It's an Appeal to Authority fallacy even though climate scientists are the most qualified at assessing climate change.

Potholer54's approach is the best way to convince deniers because you show empirical data and evidence. It's because of him that I learned that climate change is deeper subject than what I imagined. And yeah, it takes a whole lot of work to do the proper research and reading, but it's well worth it and more convincing than John Oliver's video.

[kitler53]

One of the main problems, I think, is the way people try to convince climate change deniers that it isn't a myth. I remember John Oliver's video a few years back and back then, I thought it was a good video. However, looking back, saying 97% of climate scientists believe anthropogenic climate change is real isn't a good argument. It's an Appeal to Authority fallacy even though climate scientists are the most qualified at assessing climate change.

Potholer54's approach is the best way to convince deniers because you show empirical data and evidence. It's because of him that I learned that climate change is deeper subject than what I imagined. And yeah, it takes a whole lot of work to do the proper research and reading, but it's well worth it and more convincing than John Oliver's video.

i think you're wrong.  

not to rail on my dad some more....  i've shown him empirical data and evidence and his response is that the data has been faked.  the data cannot be trusted because the people who collect the data are paid to collect the data and therefore have made up climate change in order to keep defrauding hard working american tax payers.  he thinks the entire thing is a conspiracy and i just don't think it is possible to argue with someone like that until the global effects are obviously damaging.  no matter what i say he always falls back on the same argument,.. "it is arrogant of man to believe they can change what god created".

i don't even know how to respond to that.  he's been in a plane before....
  

[Cute Pikachu]

Why does half the country have to be so ignorant at times... i mean Climate Change is gonna mess us up

[the-pi-guy]

Good article explanation: The Greenhouse Effect | UCAR Center for Science Education

[Aura7541]

i think you're wrong.  

not to rail on my dad some more....  i've shown him empirical data and evidence and his response is that the data has been faked.  the data cannot be trusted because the people who collect the data are paid to collect the data and therefore have made up climate change in order to keep defrauding hard working american tax payers.  he thinks the entire thing is a conspiracy and i just don't think it is possible to argue with someone like that until the global effects are obviously damaging.  no matter what i say he always falls back on the same argument,.. "it is arrogant of man to believe they can change what god created".

i don't even know how to respond to that.  he's been in a plane before....
 

Well, I wasn't arguing that it is the panacea to climate change denial. There will always be those people who will refuse to acknowledge the evidence, but there are deniers/skeptics who are open-minded enough to change their stances. For those kind of people, the best way to approach their denial/skepticism is to show them the empirical data and break it down bit-by-bit rather than saying the vast majority of scientists say climate change is real.