i know it's tyt, i'm not saying they're right, i wondering what your opinions are agree or disagree.
anyway i was listening to the state of the union, and it jumped out at me when he talked about a 10-year permit approval process but it doesn't take anywhere near that long for buildings to be approved. bridges can take a while because they cross waterways which tens of millions of people depend on for their drinking water so environmental studies have to be done as well as safety, but still even a couple years is long, certainly not 10. for a project approval to take 10 years it'd have to be a long project like an interstate highway or railroad, crossing multiple rivers and other sensitive areas. hang on wait wasn't he trying to push through keystone? when he says "infrastructure" does he really mean "pipelines"?
yep, it seems he means pipelines... i mean i know he's got a lot of special interests doing the paperwork on those for him so it's less for him to do, but still c'mon trump man at least do the roads and the bridges at the same time!
Real issues being discussed? WTF I thought this was 'Murica.
Was Stormy Daniels even consulted? Is the degrading infrastructure another Putin conspiracy?
Trump's 1st paycheck he received as President was donated to the National Park service.. but what do I know. This was all just a ruse, so he can destroy the national parks later. muahahahaha.
Are you joking? He gutted National Park budgets and then made a big show of donating his GIANT paycheck of like...$78,000? And then he drained MILLIONS from their budget. I'm assuming I just read your post incorrectly.
If they had millions that were not being used to restore or maintain the park then they don't need millions. Can you give me the source of how much he cuts and what it will effect? He did a lot with $78,000, not sure why the fuck a park, would need millions.
"The NPS FY 2018 discretionary budget request of $2.6 billion is $296.6 million below the FY 2017 Continuing Resolution. The NPS estimates that funding in FY 2018 would support a total of 18,268 full time equivalents (FTE), of which 14,511 would be funded from discretionary authority. The FY 2018 President’s budget request provides net programmatic decreases from the FY 2017 Continuing Resolution totaling -$322.2 million, plus $25.7 million in fixed cost increases. This is a -10.4 percent reduction from the FY 2017 Continuing Resolution."
The above quote can be found on page 8 of the National Park Service Green Book, which is their yearly budget financial documentation. Source for the quote above: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/FY-2018-NPS-Greenbook.pdf
Commentary upon the 2017 budget decrease by people who work in that field: https://medium.com/westwise/in-their-own-words-national-park-service-explains-impacts-of-crippling-cuts-in-trumps-budget-ea6d19f420fd
Commentary upon the loss of jobs and budget for the Deptartment of the Interior: https://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/trumps-budget-hits-public-lands-and-national-parks-hard-w483959/
Giving a direct example, the Trump administration is REDUCING protected wildlife and national park areas specifically to allow for more mining operations:
In case you hate the New York Times, here is National Geographic going into explicit detail of Trump's stated intention to reduce the size of Bears Ears National Park and Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/12/trump-shrinks-bears-ears-grand-staircase-escalante-national-monuments/
In case you think that BOTH the New York Times AND National Geographic are fake news liars, if you can stand sitting through one of his rambling speeches, here is Trump stating that he's doing this in his own words with the air in his lungs that exits through his mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alfBAqpm7aA
I don't mean to be rude, but you stating that Trump giving $78,000 to the National Park Service is some sort of pleasant boon while he's absolutely RAPING national parks is a bit embarrassing. I understand that you land on the side of Trump on some issues, but this is one where Trump is absolutely in the wrong. I can say this with absolutely no hyperbole: a billionaire capitalist is reducing national park sizes (that Americans paid for) to open them up for mining operations. Add on, "and a pixie and her reformed lumberjack friend must save the day..." and you have the plot for another FernGully movie. Did you really think Trump was a conservationist?
just to address your specific question "what does a park need millions for" it's mostly for the maintenance of roads and paths. small jobs are done by park staff, but often materials like gravel or asphalt are needed, and so is the equipment and expertise to repair or re-lay footpaths, and the parks service doesn't own their own machines so contractors have to be paid to do all that.
it is a lot of money but interestingly the benefit to the public is far more than the cost. having recreational spaces free means firstly american people can spend their money on other things, it increases tourism, the natural spaces provide free services such as water catchment and filtration (this is why mountain streams have such clean water, without the parks we'd need to build filtration plants to do it), and the free de-stress it provides people who use the parks also saves the economy many millions.
A month after our discussion where you ludicrously stated that Trump somehow "helped" the National Park Service, e-mails have come to light showing that he intentionally shrunk a national park monument specifically to allow drilling for oil upon lands paid for by the American people:
well probably more likely it was a cleverly designed ploy to make his later gutting of the parks more palatable, although the other possibility is he really did want to do well by the parks, but was then convinced by his goons that no the parks were standing in the way of what the american people need. trump's ideas are all very general, so this detailed plan really does sound like someone else thought it up and pitched it to him.
Trump doesn't do charity. It was a PR stunt for sure.