i don't want the EPA regulating the the US economy in the name of global warming any more than to regulate cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts…
or light bulbs.
And I want clean rivers and shit as much as the next guy.
i don't want the EPA regulating the the US economy in the name of global warming any more than to regulate cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts…
or light bulbs.
And I want clean rivers and shit as much as the next guy.
...
You like clean rivers and clean air... but, think cars and other motorized machines should be able to pollute as much as their makers want?
How does that figure?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Short answer: Republicans don't like regulation.
...
We should let everyone regulate themselves... you know, like the way the Wall Streeters and banks regulated themselves. Because, everyone is honest and looks out for what best for all of us, not just THEIR best interests... right?
There is no more glaring example of how "the Regulators" actually PERMIT more fraud and theft for the people they are regulating than the Wall Street example. You need look no further than how the Federal Reserve System works (and who it was created by), as well as fractional reserve banking. Once that is understood, every other "regulation" and "safeguard" to protect investors set in place by other agencies like the SEC and even Congress are practically worthless, and just become back and forth partisan talking points distracting from the real issue: This is a permanent bailout mechanism combined with a legalized counterfeitting operation, that actually charges the people of this country for their own money, creating debt, and effectively enslaving us all to that debt. And that guy Hank Paulson, who was he before he presided over the Treasury, before the bailouts? The former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The current Treasury Secretary? Geithner was both head of the NY Fed, as well as a big shot in the IMF.
If this isn't Wall Street REALLY regulating itself-- what is?
Cosmo, I like my Yukon. Prius ain't gonna cut it.
I also enjoy cruising on a big fat boat that at cruise speed burns over a gallon of diesel per mile.
And when it comes to snowmobiling in the winter, like Palin said at a motorcycle rally, I love the smell of exhaust!
Woot
Short answer: Republicans don't like regulation.
...
We should let everyone regulate themselves... you know, like the way the Wall Streeters and banks regulated themselves. Because, everyone is honest and looks out for what best for all of us, not just THEIR best interests... right?
Cosmo, you are correct, as is everyone else in saying that not everyone is honest and in it for the best interests of everyone else. But what power do dishonest people / corporations actually have if their products and services aren't forced on other people, and there isn't a huge forceful entity constantly tipping the scales and bending the rules in their favor? There will always be pricks and thieves. I simply prefer for them to not have this type of authority over me that I mention here above. The only way to do that, is to not give that authority to anyone.
I'm not saying abolish government. I am saying to completely revamp it in such a way that the rules are simple, specific, and leave room for the greatest amount of freedom and innovation to take place, while favoring no one group / religion / company any more than anyone else.
No one has a right to pollute anyone else's land, air, or water. No one has a right to destroy public land. I recognize the intent behind every alphabet agency there is, but I do not agree with how they can be given so much power to make laws / regulations. Again, who takes advantage of this power but people who seek power?
yes, but people DO do those things. and without the epa and what it has done it would be continued and most likely worse.
and to answer your questions about why the epa exists instead of having these things controlled by laws passed in congress...congress can't even agree if the sky is blue. how are they going to agree on things based on science, like what is an acceptable level of lead or does it harm the environment if we dump sewage into the ocean? especially when one half does not believe in science, but, rather, that jesus is coming back in their lifetime to begin the rapture, so why save the world for their grandkids?
You just raised a great question, which raises a serious number of other questions that are worth answering by everyone on the train here, and in the country. If Congress can't agree on anything, why don't we just have a president, and a boatload of agencies do the governing? Is it worth having individual state governments? Should everything be more unified and centralized to a small group of trustworthy people?
In some ways, do we already have this system? Is it working better than it is failing?
Maybe, if government agencies are the way to go, why don't the people directly elect them as well, instead of choosing representatives and senators?
Personally, I prefer governance as locally as possible, with the shortest possible terms. But, I also agree on how horrible Congress is, but I don't think many of our presidents have been any better. Them checking each other is the best thing they actually have going, when they actually choose to do it instead of simply giving away their power to each other.
Vinny i respect your position on this issue just like on all of the others, but i am going to have to disagree with you on having municipalities or cities or states having different standards for what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for levels of pollutants or whatever sort of damaging things are out there. it has to be a federally mandated standard, otherwise you might have massachesetts wanting the cleanest air possible and the most strict standards under their law, but them yo umight have a place like iowa or oklahoma or whatever state to the west having more lax standards. sooner or later the emissions from iowa or oklahoma will get into the air and into the jetstream and that polluted air is going to fly over massachusetts and cause all kinds of pollution and potentially things like acid rain, thus making moot massachusetts' standards. remember the acid rain hitting our west coast several years ago coming from china? it is not the government being all big and powerful trying to be dicks about it, it is trying to establish a safe level of pollutants in the atmosphere for the whole country and whatever is to the east of us. same as if iowa puts a bunch of shit in the mississippi river, everything further downstream is going to be soiled by it. it is common sense, because we have proven that left to our own devices and no oversight, americans will soil our own land for profit..
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Cosmo, I like my Yukon. Prius ain't gonna cut it.
I also enjoy cruising on a big fat boat that at cruise speed burns over a gallon of diesel per mile.
And when it comes to snowmobiling in the winter, like Palin said at a motorcycle rally, I love the smell of exhaust!
Woot
...
Yet... you want clean water and air... right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Okay. So you get my point, right? You want you and your kids to breathe clean air and drink clean water... but, you don't want regulations on G.M. regarding emmisions controls. Meaning, during the manufacture of your Yukon, G.M. should be able to dump the waste water from cadmium plating into the the river and remove all of the emmission controls to save money... because those things have been restricted by... regulations.
How does that work?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Vinny i respect your position on this issue just like on all of the others, but i am going to have to disagree with you on having municipalities or cities or states having different standards for what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for levels of pollutants or whatever sort of damaging things are out there. it has to be a federally mandated standard, otherwise you might have massachesetts wanting the cleanest air possible and the most strict standards under their law, but them yo umight have a place like iowa or oklahoma or whatever state to the west having more lax standards. sooner or later the emissions from iowa or oklahoma will get into the air and into the jetstream and that polluted air is going to fly over massachusetts and cause all kinds of pollution and potentially things like acid rain, thus making moot massachusetts' standards. remember the acid rain hitting our west coast several years ago coming from china? it is not the government being all big and powerful trying to be dicks about it, it is trying to establish a safe level of pollutants in the atmosphere for the whole country and whatever is to the east of us. same as if iowa puts a bunch of shit in the mississippi river, everything further downstream is going to be soiled by it. it is common sense, because we have proven that left to our own devices and no oversight, americans will soil our own land for profit..
The libertarian perspective has the potential to be very strict when it comes to environmental issues, especially when private property is difficult to define in a 3D setting (not just lines on a map). Someone burning leaves in the house next door to me shouldn't be permitted to allow their smoke on my property, technically if I don't want them to. That is handled locally. Had similar action been taken at the invention of coal burning plants and factories years ago, with respect to private property, maybe cleaner forms of energy would have been a few years later, but have been the mainstay at the sake of industrial progress. It may have been argued that factories were necessary "for the common good," which would have trumped the private property rights of those around these facilities. In some cases, maybe eminent domain or subsidies may have been used to allow the largest of polluters to plunder the rest of us. Because, let's face it, Joe Schmoe up the street being an asshole with his property polluting your air and water isn't the problem. He can be handled by local police or lawsuit easily. It's the big boys that have led to the want of a creation of an agency like the EPA. The question is, how did they become so big to be able to trump others? Without citing specific companies and instances in history, I do not know, but I know how the Robber Barons did it-- they definitely didn't play fair. It definitely doesn't do us any more good now to continually force money into the coffers of industries which are known for their pollution. And it also doesn't do much good from this point on to talk about "what might have been," had people chosen to respect private property laws better at the turn of the last century.
I will concede that if it were my decision of which agencies to cut, the EPA might be one of the last to cut. But there certainly would have to be some changes, and some restrictions lifted. It would focus more on bringing industry into line, rather than people's choices of what to do with their own individual private lives.
I definitely wouldn't micromanage it to the point of light bulbs. Aren't these new lightbulbs supposed to be carcniogenic anyway, and have strict requirements for disposal because of it?
Meaning, during the manufacture of your Yukon, G.M. should be able to dump the waste water from cadmium plating into the the river and remove all of the emmission controls to save money... because those things have been restricted by... regulations.
How does that work?
If GM did that, I don't think I would buy the vehicle. Vote with your dollars. Would it make you feel better if I told you my wife's Tahoe can burn either gas or ethanol? And that I took out the extra row of chairs when not in use so we don't carry around an extra 150lbs when not needed too.
Maybe the government can use all my tax dollars to buy carbon offsets instead of social welfare programs. Oh wait, they don't have enough money to do all that...
something got to give.
Short answer: Republicans don't like regulation.
...
We should let everyone regulate themselves... you know, like the way the Wall Streeters and banks regulated themselves. Because, everyone is honest and looks out for what best for all of us, not just THEIR best interests... right?
Cosmo, you are correct, as is everyone else in saying that not everyone is honest and in it for the best interests of everyone else. But what power do dishonest people / corporations actually have if their products and services aren't forced on other people, and there isn't a huge forceful entity constantly tipping the scales and bending the rules in their favor? There will always be pricks and thieves. I simply prefer for them to not have this type of authority over me that I mention here above. The only way to do that, is to not give that authority to anyone.
I'm not saying abolish government. I am saying to completely revamp it in such a way that the rules are simple, specific, and leave room for the greatest amount of freedom and innovation to take place, while favoring no one group / religion / company any more than anyone else.
But that's not going to happen, realistically, Vinny. See, I think the easiest way to not rely on services forced upon us (via energy, anyway) is to live off the grid. Sure that means creating your own power for your home and car, but personally, if I had the tools and strength, I would not hesitate to create my own power. Waiting around for things to change is waiting on a dream.
Meaning, during the manufacture of your Yukon, G.M. should be able to dump the waste water from cadmium plating into the the river and remove all of the emmission controls to save money... because those things have been restricted by... regulations.
How does that work?
If GM did that, I don't think I would buy the vehicle. Vote with your dollars. Would it make you feel better if I told you my wife's Tahoe can burn either gas or ethanol? And that I took out the extra row of chairs when not in use so we don't carry around an extra 150lbs when not needed too.
Maybe the government can use all my tax dollars to buy carbon offsets instead of social welfare programs. Oh wait, they don't have enough money to do all that...
something got to give.
...
This isn't about what I think... it is trying to figure out the logic you employ.
What car would you buy if all car companies dumped manufacturing waste in your water source? What car would you drive if all cars had no emission controls? I just used autos as an example... because we can all relate to cars, being we all own cars.
It was because of regulations placed on auto manufacturers that got them to stop dumping waste into rivers and to come up with ways to produce cleaner, more efficient engines. Auto manfacturers fought these regulations because they did not want to incur the increased costs. Hell... they fought mandatory seat belts, airbags, minimum MPG requirements, etc...
My point is that in many cases... regulations are necessary because if left to the industries to decide, they would not do it on their own.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
certain laws and regualtions are cool and all, but only to a certain extent. I sure as hell don't want all of our manufacturing plants to have to re-tool because some tree hugger (I love trees too) at the EPA says so. shit has to be balanced. Too much regulation and business will just go somewhere else to operate cheaper with liitle or no regulation.
woot
you are reaching for far out examples of toxic green rivers. I am just trying to be real and suggest that certain laws and regualtions are cool and all, but only to a certain extent. I sure as hell don't want all of our manufacturing plants to have to re-tool because some tree hugger (I love trees too) at the EPA says so. shit has to be balanced. Too much regulation and business will just go somewhere else to operate cheaper with liitle or no regulation.
woot
...
Back to the EPA.
The examples I used were real world regulations in response to real actions being done by manufacturers. Are you saying no more restrictions should be placed on manufacturers? The bottom line being profit.
The point I am making is this... the reason why you are able to drive a more fuel efficient car and have cleaner drinking water is because regulations that were placed on reluctant manufacturers, who predicted doom and gloom and the demise of their industry. GM, Ford and Chrysler are still here... those regulations in the 70s didn't put them out of business or make them flee to Korea... as many people threatened would happen... and many consumers believed to be true.
How much regulation is too much... how much is not enough? Isn't it is cheaper to dump waste than to pay to have it disposed of properly? The savings become profits and if left to make their own rules and regulations to follow... you would trust them? The only reason WHY the EPA exists is because business is about money, not environment.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Will somebody please explain to me why the GOP wants to gut the EPA? Yeah, ok, it may not be a perfect branch of our not-perfect government, but the EPA is one way to keep the gross polluters at least somewhat at bay and right now this ailing planet can use all the help it can get. Read the troublesome news here:
:(
So we should let our freedom to choose light bulbs trump our kids and grandkids freedom to live in a clean, safe, flourishing world? :?
if you are depending on Gubmint to ensure your kids freedom, then you've already lost it.
"Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither."[/quote]
Parachute, you rock.[/quote]
Just for the record, usamamsan1, I don't see issues like this as me versus you or me versus Parachute. It's not about "scoring points for our side". It's about trying to do something good and useful.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
So we should let our freedom to choose light bulbs trump our kids and grandkids freedom to live in a clean, safe, flourishing world? :?
if you are depending on Gubmint to ensure your kids freedom, then you've already lost it.
"Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither."
Parachute, you rock.[/quote]
Just for the record, usamamsan1, I don't see issues like this as me versus you or me versus Parachute. It's not about "scoring points for our side". It's about trying to do something good and useful.[/quote]
Agreed.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
The EPA is a necessary evil (maybe not the right word). The tough part is finding the right balance of policing and outright bureaucracy. I think our political affections steer us towards thinking they are 100% good or 100% bad.
They are necessary because without them we would be just like China. It's human nature to be only concerned with the finished product and if we could dump waste into the sky and water, most would. But they do exist and they do have a very large impact.
Government agencies tend not to consider the impact of new regulations and if they are practical. The EPA operates in a black-and-white world. There is no consideration for logic or reasoning when dealing with a federal agency. Sure, you can make an appeal, but this involves a lengthy process and legal services .... and even if your appeal is logical, you still have a low chance of the EPA agreeing with you. This impacts business and especially small businesses who do not have the financial resources to make adapt on the fly to new regulations.
For those that lean left, the EPA is full-front and in center of Industry. Corporations are not just dumping toxic waste into streams. Every once in a while there is a spill or case where a corporation does dump waste and then the threads start up and everyone starts talking smack on big business. Working first hand with the EPA, and can say that is not the case. The EPA is dug in like an Alabama tick.
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
My thought is to keep their power at the current level. Do not expand or shrink.
the EPA is like the police ... a necessary bureaucracy because without enforcement of laws people/corporations have shown time and time again that they will seek to break them for self-gain ... the problem is that there is a huge difference between the EPA in theory and the EPA in existence ...
the EPA has been corrupted by industry - it no longer has any real authority ... its sort of like back in prohibition days when cops were all on the mafia payroll ...
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
no, the gop's push, actually the teabag push, is to get rid of it all together. let's not mince words or sugarcoat it, shall we?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
the EPA is like the police ... a necessary bureaucracy because without enforcement of laws people/corporations have shown time and time again that they will seek to break them for self-gain ... the problem is that there is a huge difference between the EPA in theory and the EPA in existence ...
the EPA has been corrupted by industry - it no longer has any real authority ... its sort of like back in prohibition days when cops were all on the mafia payroll ...
Please let me know who to contact so I can start making some payoffs. I've worked jobs for big pharmacy, microelectronic fabrication, government jobs, and petroleum plants and when the EPA says jump, I say "how high" and "yes sir, may I have another". Were talking billions of dollars worth of construction for some of the biggest corporations in the world, and never once did corporate cronies appear and somehow make the EPA magically disappear.
The ironic thing is, I have the EPA to thank for keeping me employed a few years ago. When the housing and construction markets tanked, the only projects going on in my area where done because of EPA mandates.
Meaning, during the manufacture of your Yukon, G.M. should be able to dump the waste water from cadmium plating into the the river and remove all of the emmission controls to save money... because those things have been restricted by... regulations.
How does that work?
If GM did that, I don't think I would buy the vehicle. Vote with your dollars. Would it make you feel better if I told you my wife's Tahoe can burn either gas or ethanol? And that I took out the extra row of chairs when not in use so we don't carry around an extra 150lbs when not needed too.
Maybe the government can use all my tax dollars to buy carbon offsets instead of social welfare programs. Oh wait, they don't have enough money to do all that...
something got to give.
I almost can't imagine what will happen to our automobiles in the next 14 years. Will Yukons make it? or maybe they'll run on hydrogen by then.. :idea:
"President Obama plans to announce an agreement tomorrow on a new round of fuel economy standards for cars and trucks that would require mileage gains through the year 2025.
The proposal is expected to call for all passenger vehicles sold in 2025, combined, to average 54.5 miles per gallon, or nearly double the current figure. They'd ramp up to that level over seven years, starting in 2017 when current rules end."
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
no, the gop's push, actually the teabag push, is to get rid of it all together. let's not mince words or sugarcoat it, shall we?
Tea Partywants to kill the EPA. Obama has expanded the EPA.
One is a wish, the other is reality.
I worry about reality more then wishes. Reality is, expansion of the EPA is an expansion of federal government and small business will suffer as result. My opinions are based on my observations while doing construction for big business and small business.
It was lost in the endless drama of the debt-ceiling negotiations, but last week, the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives launched an unprecedented attack on the U.S.'s environmental protections. GOP Representatives added rider after rider to the 2012 spending bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, tacking on amendments that would essentially prevent those agencies - charged with protecting America's air, water and wildlife - from doing their jobs.
Last week's riderfest wasn't unusual for the 112th U.S. Congress. Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey - two senior Democrats with solid green credentials - recently charted all the votes taken so far this year and calculated that the Republican-led House has voted to "stop," "block" or "undermine" efforts to protect the environment 110 times since January. As Natural Resources Defense Council president Frances Beinecke wrote recently, this body of lawmakers stands an excellent chance of becoming "the most anti-environment House of Representatives" in U.S. history. (Read about the battle brewing over the EPA's emissions regulations.)
To which you might react: Well, duh. In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.
So Newt Gingrich - who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 - and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."
But it hasn't always been this way. The surprising truth is that the extreme political polarization of environmental and energy issues is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. There have long been prominent conservatives who proudly called themselves conservationists back in the days when Republicans for Environmental Protection - an actual political group, founded in 1995 - wasn't an oxymoron. Theodore Roosevelt - who has a strong claim as the greenest President in U.S. history - helped create major national parks and launched the U.S. Forest Service. Richard Nixon created the EPA and signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. George H.W. Bush signed the landmark 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act and supported a cap-and-trade program that successfully fought acid rain. Even George W. Bush, a product of the Texas oil patch, created the world's largest marine protected area when he established the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument off Hawaii. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)
Of course, the hard-core Republican Party of today doesn't resemble Roosevelt's or the elder Bush's. Among the 40 riders the knee-jerk antienvironmentalists of the House GOP produced last week:
• A rider that would prevent the EPA from issuing any regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions over the next year - despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled the agency has the responsibility to regulate those emissions as a public-health threat under the Clean Air Act.
• A rider that would stop the EPA from carrying out tough new automobile-fuel-efficiency standards that were announced last week - standards that have the support of all the major automakers.
• A rider that would prevent the EPA from labeling the toxic ash left over from coal combustion as hazardous waste - something that would no doubt alarm the people of Kingston, Tenn., buried by a coal-ash spill in 2008.
The good news for environmentalists is that with the Democrats still in charge of the Senate, those riders are unlikely to remain in the final EPA-Interior spending bill. Indeed, these demands were less about actual policy than about making a political point. (See inside the Republican war on the EPA.)
And that's exactly the problem. According to Markey and Waxman's rundown of 110 antienvironment votes made by the House so far this year, on average, 97% of Republican members voted for the antigreen positions, while 84% of Democrats supported the progreen position. As long as that massive chasm exists - and as long as Republicans view anything green as an ideological threat - we have no chance of crafting meaningful political action on long-term challenges like climate change or energy.
I don't expect Republicans to suddenly embrace the EPA in all its wonderfulness - especially with a Democrat in the White House. If you're a conservative, it's natural that you might be concerned first about the effect that environmental regulations would have on business or personal freedom. But that doesn't mean the market always has to trump nature.
That's the message that former Utah governor and current Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman stressed when he recently addressed the Republicans for Environmental Protection. (Yeah, those guys.) "We will be judged by how well we were stewards of those [natural] resources," Huntsman said. "Conservation is conservative. I'm not ashamed to be a conservationist."
Unfortunately, Huntsman's current poll numbers are so small, they need to be read with a magnifying glass, though that probably has more to do with his low public profile than his moderate environmental views. But Huntsman is almost right. Conservation used to be conservative - and it must be again.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i don't want the EPA regulating the the US economy in the name of global warming any more than to regulate cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, planes, trains, ships, boats, tractors, mining equipment, RVs, lawn mowers, fork lifts…
or light bulbs.
And I want clean rivers and shit as much as the next guy.
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
no, the gop's push, actually the teabag push, is to get rid of it all together. let's not mince words or sugarcoat it, shall we?
TEABAG is a deragatory term- and I take offense. Good thing I don't run to the mods like some people ....
Comments
or light bulbs.
And I want clean rivers and shit as much as the next guy.
You like clean rivers and clean air... but, think cars and other motorized machines should be able to pollute as much as their makers want?
How does that figure?
Hail, Hail!!!
Yeah you do.
There is no more glaring example of how "the Regulators" actually PERMIT more fraud and theft for the people they are regulating than the Wall Street example. You need look no further than how the Federal Reserve System works (and who it was created by), as well as fractional reserve banking. Once that is understood, every other "regulation" and "safeguard" to protect investors set in place by other agencies like the SEC and even Congress are practically worthless, and just become back and forth partisan talking points distracting from the real issue: This is a permanent bailout mechanism combined with a legalized counterfeitting operation, that actually charges the people of this country for their own money, creating debt, and effectively enslaving us all to that debt. And that guy Hank Paulson, who was he before he presided over the Treasury, before the bailouts? The former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The current Treasury Secretary? Geithner was both head of the NY Fed, as well as a big shot in the IMF.
If this isn't Wall Street REALLY regulating itself-- what is?
I also enjoy cruising on a big fat boat that at cruise speed burns over a gallon of diesel per mile.
And when it comes to snowmobiling in the winter, like Palin said at a motorcycle rally, I love the smell of exhaust!
Woot
Cosmo, you are correct, as is everyone else in saying that not everyone is honest and in it for the best interests of everyone else. But what power do dishonest people / corporations actually have if their products and services aren't forced on other people, and there isn't a huge forceful entity constantly tipping the scales and bending the rules in their favor? There will always be pricks and thieves. I simply prefer for them to not have this type of authority over me that I mention here above. The only way to do that, is to not give that authority to anyone.
I'm not saying abolish government. I am saying to completely revamp it in such a way that the rules are simple, specific, and leave room for the greatest amount of freedom and innovation to take place, while favoring no one group / religion / company any more than anyone else.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yet... you want clean water and air... right?
Hail, Hail!!!
Okay. So you get my point, right? You want you and your kids to breathe clean air and drink clean water... but, you don't want regulations on G.M. regarding emmisions controls. Meaning, during the manufacture of your Yukon, G.M. should be able to dump the waste water from cadmium plating into the the river and remove all of the emmission controls to save money... because those things have been restricted by... regulations.
How does that work?
Hail, Hail!!!
The libertarian perspective has the potential to be very strict when it comes to environmental issues, especially when private property is difficult to define in a 3D setting (not just lines on a map). Someone burning leaves in the house next door to me shouldn't be permitted to allow their smoke on my property, technically if I don't want them to. That is handled locally. Had similar action been taken at the invention of coal burning plants and factories years ago, with respect to private property, maybe cleaner forms of energy would have been a few years later, but have been the mainstay at the sake of industrial progress. It may have been argued that factories were necessary "for the common good," which would have trumped the private property rights of those around these facilities. In some cases, maybe eminent domain or subsidies may have been used to allow the largest of polluters to plunder the rest of us. Because, let's face it, Joe Schmoe up the street being an asshole with his property polluting your air and water isn't the problem. He can be handled by local police or lawsuit easily. It's the big boys that have led to the want of a creation of an agency like the EPA. The question is, how did they become so big to be able to trump others? Without citing specific companies and instances in history, I do not know, but I know how the Robber Barons did it-- they definitely didn't play fair. It definitely doesn't do us any more good now to continually force money into the coffers of industries which are known for their pollution. And it also doesn't do much good from this point on to talk about "what might have been," had people chosen to respect private property laws better at the turn of the last century.
I will concede that if it were my decision of which agencies to cut, the EPA might be one of the last to cut. But there certainly would have to be some changes, and some restrictions lifted. It would focus more on bringing industry into line, rather than people's choices of what to do with their own individual private lives.
I definitely wouldn't micromanage it to the point of light bulbs. Aren't these new lightbulbs supposed to be carcniogenic anyway, and have strict requirements for disposal because of it?
Maybe the government can use all my tax dollars to buy carbon offsets instead of social welfare programs. Oh wait, they don't have enough money to do all that...
something got to give.
But that's not going to happen, realistically, Vinny. See, I think the easiest way to not rely on services forced upon us (via energy, anyway) is to live off the grid. Sure that means creating your own power for your home and car, but personally, if I had the tools and strength, I would not hesitate to create my own power. Waiting around for things to change is waiting on a dream.
This isn't about what I think... it is trying to figure out the logic you employ.
What car would you buy if all car companies dumped manufacturing waste in your water source? What car would you drive if all cars had no emission controls? I just used autos as an example... because we can all relate to cars, being we all own cars.
It was because of regulations placed on auto manufacturers that got them to stop dumping waste into rivers and to come up with ways to produce cleaner, more efficient engines. Auto manfacturers fought these regulations because they did not want to incur the increased costs. Hell... they fought mandatory seat belts, airbags, minimum MPG requirements, etc...
My point is that in many cases... regulations are necessary because if left to the industries to decide, they would not do it on their own.
Hail, Hail!!!
certain laws and regualtions are cool and all, but only to a certain extent. I sure as hell don't want all of our manufacturing plants to have to re-tool because some tree hugger (I love trees too) at the EPA says so. shit has to be balanced. Too much regulation and business will just go somewhere else to operate cheaper with liitle or no regulation.
woot
Back to the EPA.
The examples I used were real world regulations in response to real actions being done by manufacturers. Are you saying no more restrictions should be placed on manufacturers? The bottom line being profit.
The point I am making is this... the reason why you are able to drive a more fuel efficient car and have cleaner drinking water is because regulations that were placed on reluctant manufacturers, who predicted doom and gloom and the demise of their industry. GM, Ford and Chrysler are still here... those regulations in the 70s didn't put them out of business or make them flee to Korea... as many people threatened would happen... and many consumers believed to be true.
How much regulation is too much... how much is not enough? Isn't it is cheaper to dump waste than to pay to have it disposed of properly? The savings become profits and if left to make their own rules and regulations to follow... you would trust them? The only reason WHY the EPA exists is because business is about money, not environment.
Hail, Hail!!!
Because it causes additional business expenses for their campaign contributors.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
C'mon, Parachute- this shows a distinct lack of clearly reading my posts. Also, I don't buy into being taunted.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
if you are depending on Gubmint to ensure your kids freedom, then you've already lost it.
"Those who would trade Liberty for Security deserve neither."[/quote]
Parachute, you rock.[/quote]
Just for the record, usamamsan1, I don't see issues like this as me versus you or me versus Parachute. It's not about "scoring points for our side". It's about trying to do something good and useful.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Parachute, you rock.[/quote]
Just for the record, usamamsan1, I don't see issues like this as me versus you or me versus Parachute. It's not about "scoring points for our side". It's about trying to do something good and useful.[/quote]
Agreed.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
They are necessary because without them we would be just like China. It's human nature to be only concerned with the finished product and if we could dump waste into the sky and water, most would. But they do exist and they do have a very large impact.
Government agencies tend not to consider the impact of new regulations and if they are practical. The EPA operates in a black-and-white world. There is no consideration for logic or reasoning when dealing with a federal agency. Sure, you can make an appeal, but this involves a lengthy process and legal services .... and even if your appeal is logical, you still have a low chance of the EPA agreeing with you. This impacts business and especially small businesses who do not have the financial resources to make adapt on the fly to new regulations.
For those that lean left, the EPA is full-front and in center of Industry. Corporations are not just dumping toxic waste into streams. Every once in a while there is a spill or case where a corporation does dump waste and then the threads start up and everyone starts talking smack on big business. Working first hand with the EPA, and can say that is not the case. The EPA is dug in like an Alabama tick.
The democratic push right now is to expand the EPA's power. The GOP's push is to decrease it. Both parties are trying to appeal to their base. Unfortunately, that is not the right approach.
My thought is to keep their power at the current level. Do not expand or shrink.
the EPA has been corrupted by industry - it no longer has any real authority ... its sort of like back in prohibition days when cops were all on the mafia payroll ...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
The ironic thing is, I have the EPA to thank for keeping me employed a few years ago. When the housing and construction markets tanked, the only projects going on in my area where done because of EPA mandates.
So thank you, big government.
I almost can't imagine what will happen to our automobiles in the next 14 years. Will Yukons make it? or maybe they'll run on hydrogen by then.. :idea:
"President Obama plans to announce an agreement tomorrow on a new round of fuel economy standards for cars and trucks that would require mileage gains through the year 2025.
The proposal is expected to call for all passenger vehicles sold in 2025, combined, to average 54.5 miles per gallon, or nearly double the current figure. They'd ramp up to that level over seven years, starting in 2017 when current rules end."
http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/28/autos/f ... ?hpt=hp_t2
One is a wish, the other is reality.
I worry about reality more then wishes. Reality is, expansion of the EPA is an expansion of federal government and small business will suffer as result. My opinions are based on my observations while doing construction for big business and small business.
The GOP's hidden debt-deal agenda: Gut the EPA
http://news.yahoo.com/gops-hidden-debt- ... 00435.html
It was lost in the endless drama of the debt-ceiling negotiations, but last week, the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives launched an unprecedented attack on the U.S.'s environmental protections. GOP Representatives added rider after rider to the 2012 spending bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department, tacking on amendments that would essentially prevent those agencies - charged with protecting America's air, water and wildlife - from doing their jobs.
Last week's riderfest wasn't unusual for the 112th U.S. Congress. Representatives Henry Waxman and Edward Markey - two senior Democrats with solid green credentials - recently charted all the votes taken so far this year and calculated that the Republican-led House has voted to "stop," "block" or "undermine" efforts to protect the environment 110 times since January. As Natural Resources Defense Council president Frances Beinecke wrote recently, this body of lawmakers stands an excellent chance of becoming "the most anti-environment House of Representatives" in U.S. history. (Read about the battle brewing over the EPA's emissions regulations.)
To which you might react: Well, duh. In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.
So Newt Gingrich - who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 - and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."
But it hasn't always been this way. The surprising truth is that the extreme political polarization of environmental and energy issues is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. There have long been prominent conservatives who proudly called themselves conservationists back in the days when Republicans for Environmental Protection - an actual political group, founded in 1995 - wasn't an oxymoron. Theodore Roosevelt - who has a strong claim as the greenest President in U.S. history - helped create major national parks and launched the U.S. Forest Service. Richard Nixon created the EPA and signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. George H.W. Bush signed the landmark 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act and supported a cap-and-trade program that successfully fought acid rain. Even George W. Bush, a product of the Texas oil patch, created the world's largest marine protected area when he established the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument off Hawaii. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)
Of course, the hard-core Republican Party of today doesn't resemble Roosevelt's or the elder Bush's. Among the 40 riders the knee-jerk antienvironmentalists of the House GOP produced last week:
• A rider that would prevent the EPA from issuing any regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions over the next year - despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled the agency has the responsibility to regulate those emissions as a public-health threat under the Clean Air Act.
• A rider that would stop the EPA from carrying out tough new automobile-fuel-efficiency standards that were announced last week - standards that have the support of all the major automakers.
• A rider that would prevent the EPA from labeling the toxic ash left over from coal combustion as hazardous waste - something that would no doubt alarm the people of Kingston, Tenn., buried by a coal-ash spill in 2008.
The good news for environmentalists is that with the Democrats still in charge of the Senate, those riders are unlikely to remain in the final EPA-Interior spending bill. Indeed, these demands were less about actual policy than about making a political point. (See inside the Republican war on the EPA.)
And that's exactly the problem. According to Markey and Waxman's rundown of 110 antienvironment votes made by the House so far this year, on average, 97% of Republican members voted for the antigreen positions, while 84% of Democrats supported the progreen position. As long as that massive chasm exists - and as long as Republicans view anything green as an ideological threat - we have no chance of crafting meaningful political action on long-term challenges like climate change or energy.
I don't expect Republicans to suddenly embrace the EPA in all its wonderfulness - especially with a Democrat in the White House. If you're a conservative, it's natural that you might be concerned first about the effect that environmental regulations would have on business or personal freedom. But that doesn't mean the market always has to trump nature.
That's the message that former Utah governor and current Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman stressed when he recently addressed the Republicans for Environmental Protection. (Yeah, those guys.) "We will be judged by how well we were stewards of those [natural] resources," Huntsman said. "Conservation is conservative. I'm not ashamed to be a conservationist."
Unfortunately, Huntsman's current poll numbers are so small, they need to be read with a magnifying glass, though that probably has more to do with his low public profile than his moderate environmental views. But Huntsman is almost right. Conservation used to be conservative - and it must be again.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No, YOU rock usamamasan!!
Brianlux- You tried to make this a choice between me choosing a lightbulb, and the "freedom of my children and grandchildren".
It actually shows how clearly I read your post. And if quoting Ben Franklin is taunting.... then I want you to know how sincerely sorry I am....
TEABAG is a deragatory term- and I take offense. Good thing I don't run to the mods like some people ....