Trump will slash Great Lakes funding by 97%- Here's why I laugh at the electoral college too.

That's it, I'm not voting for Trump.

Trump's master plan to keep Cleveland warm by lighting Lake Erie on fire again. Genius.

The_Dude wrote:That's it, I'm not voting for Trump.

seriously, how could you have possibly voted for this guy - assuming you live in Michigan. You honestly want to destroy the Great Lakes?

If the state of Michigan has to spend $$ on this then it's time to start charging for great lakes water not used by Michigan residents. Set up a permanent fund like Alaska does for oil.

Dwags I don't find this as funny.

Herbie Green wrote:

The_Dude wrote:That's it, I'm not voting for Trump.

seriously, how could you have possibly voted for this guy - assuming you live in Michigan. You honestly want to destroy the Great Lakes?

Yup. I want the Great Lakes gone, and I want to live in a Russian puppet state.

Two of the main reasons I voted for Comrade Trump!

The GOP will probably put the Great Lakes funding back into the actual budget, or at least that's what I'm guessing. The thing is that Trump can't submit a budget proposal that massively inflates the deficit, so to get it started he's gotta cut things like this. In the end the deficit will be massively inflated, but they can't present it like that.

That's not to say people shouldn't take issue with it and make sure their voices are heard. They should to make sure it gets put back in. It's important. Perhaps taking in a townhall if your rep has the guts to actually listen to your opinion (mine doesn't. He says that he can get what he needs to know of our opinion by watching cable news. But if yours is better than mine then maybe give it a shot.)

DWags wrote:
EPA?  What EPA?   Great Lakes pollution clean up goes from 300 Million to 10 Million and a "good luck with that" slap on the back.
Frankly, long term planning?  It will kill the tourist and fishing industry.   five years.  Guaranteed.

Hey Wags? Not that I favor this cut....but here's a question.

Would you say the water quality of the Great Lakes improved or deteriorated from 1965-2010?

Got an honest answer for me or an evasion?

^^^ now this is funny wags

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote: ^^^ now this is funny wags

I'd ask you but you have no point of reference to give a meaningful answer.

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:
EPA?  What EPA?   Great Lakes pollution clean up goes from 300 Million to 10 Million and a "good luck with that" slap on the back.
Frankly, long term planning?  It will kill the tourist and fishing industry.   five years.  Guaranteed.

Hey Wags? Not that I favor this cut....but here's a question.

Would you say the water quality of the Great Lakes improved or deteriorated from 1965-2010?

Got an honest answer for me or an evasion?

If it deteriorated, do you think it's a good idea to cut funding?

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Hey Wags?   Not that I favor this cut....but here's a question.  

Would you say the water quality of the Great Lakes improved or deteriorated from 1965-2010?

Got an honest answer for me or an evasion?

Evasion?  Changing subjects?  Only people who know they're wrong about something do that shit goose.   Know anybody like that?

Honest enough answer?

How about a simple yes or no?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:

Evasion?  Changing subjects?  Only people who know they're wrong about something do that shit goose.   Know anybody like that?

Honest enough answer?

How about a simple yes or no?

Are you in favor of cutting funding?

Yes or No?

Goose? Stop doing gymnastics.

Do you support the cut in funding?

Yes or No.

And Wags already knows there's a reason not to answer my question, so here it is.

The DEVASTATING cuts are to a program that's only existed since 2010.

So what happened before then? As anyone that's been around the Great Lakes long enough knows - the water quality has been improving since the mid to late 60s. The same is true on a lot of environmental issues. Those of us that pre-date the bottle law know how our roads looked then. It was damned awful - and was solved by the State, not the Feds. The trash on the roadsides back in the 60s and early 70s was terrible, again much improved by littering laws. How are those related? Well the laws started changing on the State and Federal levels regarding water at the same time. Most of the improvement in water quality happened from 1972-1982 in my opinion, there was noticeably cleaner water nearly everywhere. Do I support going back to polluting like prior to the 1970s? Nope...

And that's not the case here. Cutting funding that just started in 2010 doesn't devastate anything as long as the laws that we have now stay in place and I've not seen any proposal to change them. 2nd this was a proposal anyway, the support for this $$ is too broad and across too many states for it not to be reinstated. So again it's much to do over nothing. Thus I'll pass on joining your freakout. 3rd - I'd like to know how much Great Lakes related funding that started prior to 2010 is still out there?

The really nasty cut took place last week for the Great Lakes. Did any of you write your congressman or senator? None of you freaked out on here. Without searching can you tell me what I wrote to Stabenow, Peters and Bergman about? Or do you only pay attention when your approved media outlets tell you to?

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

How about a simple yes or no?

Not a simple answer Goose, for example:

The chemical health of the lakes has indeed in many ways improved dramatically since the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972. But that landmark piece of legislation never addressed contaminated ballast water discharges from overseas freighters, and the lakes' biological health has suffered greatly because of that.

"For example, the small, bottom-dwelling shrimplike organism, Diporeia, an important part of the food chain, was once abundant in cold, offshore regions of the Great Lakes but is now completely absent from large areas of Lakes Michigan, Huron, Ontario and Erie," states the Joint Commission release. "Also, from 1987 to 2006, 34 new non-native species became established in the Great Lakes, causing extensive and costly damage to the ecosystem."


So, chemically is it better? Yes, biologically is it better? I grew up 300 yards from Lake Michigan. I can tell you the biology of it has changed. Maybe I can take a drink without getting the runs or poisoned but fishing is different and it will get worse. No simple answer Goose. But I know cutting a budget by 97% won't help much.

Bullshit. You know damned well the water quality improved by a bunch in those years. I didn't ask if it were perfect. I asked if it improved.

Damn, Wags wrote a fucking small novel instead of a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Lol

Comrade Goose has spoken.
You will listen.

LooseGoose wrote:And Wags already knows there's a reason not to answer my question, so here it is.

The DEVASTATING cuts are to a program that's only existed since 2010.

So what happened before then? As anyone that's been around the Great Lakes long enough knows - the water quality has been improving since the mid to late 60s. The same is true on a lot of environmental issues. Those of us that pre-date the bottle law know how our roads looked then. It was damned awful - and was solved by the State, not the Feds. The trash on the roadsides back in the 60s and early 70s was terrible, again much improved by littering laws. How are those related? Well the laws started changing on the State and Federal levels regarding water at the same time. Most of the improvement in water quality happened from 1972-1982 in my opinion, there was noticeably cleaner water nearly everywhere. Do I support going back to polluting like prior to the 1970s? Nope...

And that's not the case here. Cutting funding that just started in 2010 doesn't devastate anything as long as the laws that we have now stay in place and I've not seen any proposal to change them. 2nd this was a proposal anyway, the support for this $$ is too broad and across too many states for it not to be reinstated. So again it's much to do over nothing. Thus I'll pass on joining your freakout. 3rd - I'd like to know how much Great Lakes related funding that started prior to 2010 is still out there?

The really nasty cut took place last week for the Great Lakes. Did any of you write your congressman or senator? None of you freaked out on here. Without searching can you tell me what I wrote to Stabenow, Peters and Bergman about? Or do you only pay attention when your approved media outlets tell you to?

Do you support the cut in funding?

Yes or No.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:And Wags already knows there's a reason not to answer my question, so here it is.

The DEVASTATING cuts are to a program that's only existed since 2010.

So what happened before then? As anyone that's been around the Great Lakes long enough knows - the water quality has been improving since the mid to late 60s. The same is true on a lot of environmental issues.

Bullshit.

How so? Have you looked at air quality from the 60s and early 70s and how different it was 10 years later?

What ever.

I came back to clarify that I made a mistake. My letters were earlier this week, not last week. Time flies.

The_Dude wrote:

Herbie Green wrote:

seriously, how could you have possibly voted for this guy - assuming you live in Michigan. You honestly want to destroy the Great Lakes?

Yup. I want the Great Lakes gone, and I want to live in a Russian puppet state.

Two of the main reasons I voted for Comrade Trump!

lol!!

how many pussies have you grabbed today? I'm at a bakerd dozen, slow day, i know

.....and i support th3 cuts. 300M sounds like a huge waste of money. fine the polluters instead

DWags wrote:The GLRI has tried to bring back species and wildlife that the great lakes were once known for. Unlimited net fishing for Indians have also devastated much of our great lakes. We will suffer greatly if we have less chemicals in the water, but also a bare wildlife oasis. Ask the people of lake Erie how the fishing is going.

good have the fisherman and eco dudes like you pay for it. not me

LooseGoose wrote:And Wags already knows there's a reason not to answer my question, so here it is.

The DEVASTATING cuts are to a program that's only existed since 2010.

So what happened before then? As anyone that's been around the Great Lakes long enough knows - the water quality has been improving since the mid to late 60s. The same is true on a lot of environmental issues. Those of us that pre-date the bottle law know how our roads looked then. It was damned awful - and was solved by the State, not the Feds. The trash on the roadsides back in the 60s and early 70s was terrible, again much improved by littering laws. How are those related? Well the laws started changing on the State and Federal levels regarding water at the same time. Most of the improvement in water quality happened from 1972-1982 in my opinion, there was noticeably cleaner water nearly everywhere. Do I support going back to polluting like prior to the 1970s? Nope...

And that's not the case here. Cutting funding that just started in 2010 doesn't devastate anything as long as the laws that we have now stay in place and I've not seen any proposal to change them. 2nd this was a proposal anyway, the support for this $$ is too broad and across too many states for it not to be reinstated. So again it's much to do over nothing. Thus I'll pass on joining your freakout. 3rd - I'd like to know how much Great Lakes related funding that started prior to 2010 is still out there?

The really nasty cut took place last week for the Great Lakes. Did any of you write your congressman or senator? None of you freaked out on here. Without searching can you tell me what I wrote to Stabenow, Peters and Bergman about? Or do you only pay attention when your approved media outlets tell you to?

Any reason you kept that to yourself? Any reason you're being petty about it now?

Maybe you could tell everyone about it, and you could get some people to support your stance. Just a thought.

Goose. Do you support this cut in funding, or no?

So are the great lakes going to be overrun by Asian carp now or what?

kingstonlake wrote:Goose. Do you support this cut in funding, or no?

I don't think he does.

So, not sure why he's arguing about it.

Must Protect Trump?

Since the Great Lakes will soon be too polluted to drink at least we won't be on the front lines of the eventual Water War.

More fake news.
Business and industry will do a better job of funding Great Lakes clean up than the government because government can't do anything right.
One way they will generate funds will be from the profits outfits like Nestle will make by selling us drinking water.
Around 70,000 people in 3 states made it possible to make a businessman President. This businessman has been myopic his whole career. Why should anyone expect him to change at 70.

Michigan to offer prize in fight against invasive Asian carp