Why would the GOP weaken the EPA?

1246

Comments

  • Jeanwah
    Jeanwah Posts: 6,363
    edited August 2011
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    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 Party wants 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.

    Back in the Bush years, he was manipulating the EPA to accommodate his agenda (anti-environment). So is that basically what you're acknowledging? That the EPA (and probably other agencies) are at the mercy of the sitting president's agenda? If the sitting party was the GOP, they actually would have the power to kill the agency altogether? I wouldn't think any sitting president would have that power... to actually dismiss an entire agency... Regardless of what the tea party and the GOP want. Regardless, the bureaucracy involved has got to go, and the EPA should do what it's supposed to do, regardless of who's in office.
    Post edited by Jeanwah on
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    Jason P wrote:
    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.
    ...
    This is one of the truest comments out here. The EPA exists only because business has proven that they cannot police themselves.
    What I feel needs to be done is this:
    A. Put sciencists in charge of the decisions and
    B. De-politicize those agencies that are in charge of regulations.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    Parachute wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    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 .... 8-)
    In related news, tomorrow I am buying some West Texas light, sweet crude and adding to my position of Caterpillar, you know, those big earth moving machines that burn diesel. They are having a fire sale if you didn't notice. No kidding. ;)
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    Parachute wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    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 ....
    8-)

    Though I have not done so for some time, but I'll cop to having used the term "Tea Bagger" in the past so will apologize for past offenses.

    I would also point out that others here have used the term "Gub'ment" (or however it's spelled) which is also derogatory. In the past, I have been a government employee. I have other hard working family members who have also worked in the government. It might be useful to remember that most government employees are just folks like you and I.

    I've also noticed some posts that come very close to trolling. Hey, I'm not playing forum police here, but baiting others who post their thoughts here just seems wrong. If any of you ever perceive me to do that, call me on it. I'll do my best to play fair here.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,826
    Anyone ever hear / read that the US Military is the world's largest polluter?

    How about the EPA goes after them? :D
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    Parachute wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    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 ....
    8-)
    i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...

    and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    "teabag obama before he teabags you"

    Too late
  • VINNY GOOMBA
    VINNY GOOMBA Posts: 1,826
    Jeanwah wrote:
    VINNY GOOMBA wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    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.

    I can't argue with the need for independence, Jean-- it's what I'm all about. Going off the grid though, is not such an easy task, especially where you and I live (NY). Move down south, and your chances of doing it increase tenfold. Give it 20 years though, and I think we'll have a lot more people who are energy independent. I've seen in my business that the ability to get away from fossil fuels has gotten much better in the past 7 years, and the costs are starting to come into line. The problem is the electric power requirement. I don't know very much about wind or hydro power, but I do know that solar power, especially when it comes to truly getting off the grid and using batteries instead of a back-up hook up to the local utility is still a long ways off in terms of cost, maintenance, and convenience. So for now, coal, nuclear, etc... is still necessary to produce enough energy in your home, if you desire any level of convenience at all. Now, if you want to live in a cabin with no running water, heat, etc... You're there! Still gotta pay those school and property taxes though, and it's kind of hard to hold a job when showering regularly isn't always in the equation :)
  • Parachute
    Parachute Posts: 409
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    "teabag obama before he teabags you"

    Too late



    Classic...
  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    brianlux wrote:
    I have other hard working family members who have also worked in the government.

    I call bullshit. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...

    and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
    NAACP

    Hindsight is 20 / 20 my friend.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...

    and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
    NAACP

    Hindsight is 20 / 20 my friend.
    i don't follow your post...

    :? :?
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    i did not run to a mod, so i don't know what you are referring to...

    and also, the tea party movement originally referred to themselves "tea baggers". so if it was not offensive then, why is it offensive now? remember the protest sign from the first few tea party rallies:"teabag obama before he teabags you"?
    NAACP

    Hindsight is 20 / 20 my friend.
    i don't follow your post...

    :? :?
    At one point, the "C" word was not offensive. Following your logic above, it would be acceptable to that term on this board and just reference the NAACP if anyone protested.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    cincybearcat wrote:
    brianlux wrote:
    I have other hard working family members who have also worked in the government.

    I call bullshit. ;)

    Like I've said elsewhere, I don't buy into being bated. You don't know me or my family. Just curious, is this post intended to be insulting? Sorry, not fazed. Please, try coming up with something more useful next time or troll elsewhere. :roll:
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    Jason P wrote:
    At one point, the "C" word was not offensive. Following your logic above, it would be acceptable to that term on this board and just reference the NAACP if anyone protested.
    the c word was not offensive to who??

    well if you want to call african americans "colored folks" like a southerner in the 1950s be my guest. but do it at the risk of sounding like a fool..
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    the c word was not offensive to who??
    Apparently, the founders of the NAACP.

    As for sounding like a fool, I apply that towards those that use derogatory names while debating. It's counterproductive to proving your point and just angers people.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    the c word was not offensive to who??
    Apparently, the founders of the NAACP.

    As for sounding like a fool, I apply that towards those that use derogatory names while debating. It's counterproductive to proving your point and just angers people.
    they called themselves teabaggers.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    they called themselves teabaggers.
    Do they still use that term today?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    they called themselves teabaggers.
    Do they still use that term today?

    I do...so what...?
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    inmytree wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    they called themselves teabaggers.
    Do they still use that term today?

    I do...so what...?
    You're a self-described teabagger?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!

Categories