Posted on 08/15/2017 5:41:29 PM PDT by Innovative
Excellent!and flood dangers.
Speaking in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Trump said that the approval process for projects was “badly broken” and that the nation’s infrastructure was a “massive self-inflicted wound on our country.” Trump said that “no longer” would there be “one job-killing delay after another” for new projects. But he did not provide any proposal on how his much-promised infrastructure program would be financed or what it would include.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Go, President Trump. MAGA.
to hell with “climate change “bull shit.
More winning.
Heh heh heh. Go Prez
President Trump is a man after my own heart. I love his balance of candor and tact.
Can’t wait to hear the hysterical shrieks that we’re all gonna die!!!
“How it would be financed” The WaPo must think that its readers are really stupid. Fewer government regulations means fewer taxpaid folks filling out forms. There will be a savings with fewer regulations, not a cost, to both businesses and taxpayers.
Regardless of climate change (it WILL change, with or without us humans), I would think that insurance companies, either through high rates or refusal to insure at all, could “manage” the problem of building in flood prone areas.
Maybe the gov’t should gradually get out of the flood insurance business altogether.
WaPo is just as stupid as their readers.
RUSH hit it on the nose today. Who is to say what earth climate is normal? Today’s, Last years? 100 years ago? 10,000 years ago? Today’s climate is today’s climate. Is ice age normal for earth or jungle heat? We have enured both extremes.
There is always hope...Nothing quite went right after Eden...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFEoXtPHAzM
How do you determine if they "strongly consider risk-management standards?" Give them a lie detector test?
A program of such magnitude is going to cost a hell of a lot more than savings on regulations. We are talking huge appropriations here.
It’s quite simple — Have them provide massively expensive reports to unsatisfiable federal bureaucrats for years on end until the project becomes economically infeasible.
Indeed. Isn't that how they all but stop new construction projects in California, with the result that houses are prohibitively expensive?
In other words, the only way to prove that you “strongly consider risk-management standards” is to implement those standards, and even then “compliance” is an endless process?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.