Why would the GOP weaken the EPA?

1235

Comments

  • Parachute
    Parachute Posts: 409
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    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..


    Not everyone in the South called African-Americans "colored folks" in the 50's.

    Calling Southerners "fools" is a deragatory generalization about an entire region of people.

    I find this offensive. You would do well to read the posting guidelines before you post- lest you get banned.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    Parachute wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    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..


    Not everyone in the South called African-Americans "colored folks" in the 50's.

    Calling Southerners "fools" is a deragatory generalization about an entire region of people.

    I find this offensive. You would do well to read the posting guidelines before you post- lest you get banned.
    ok moderator...

    :roll:

    how about addressing the topic in the thread rather than having yet another go at me?
    "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."
  • Parachute
    Parachute Posts: 409
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    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.


    I'd like to see your source for this.

    Do you call African-Americans the "N-word"?

    African-Americans call eachother the "N" word, but that doesn't mean you or I should.

    Start showing respect for other groups of people, and you will be more respected.

    Make derogatory generalizations about Tea-party members or Southerners again, and I WILL REPORT YOU.
  • Parachute
    Parachute Posts: 409
    inmytree wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    they called themselves teabaggers.
    Do they still use that term today?

    I do...so what...?


    It's a derogatory and offensive generalization regarding an entire group of people. It's against the posting guidelines, and it is off topic.

    This thread is about the relevance of the EPA, not discriminating against millions of people because they have a different political view.
  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    edited August 2011
    i was reported to the mods for doing something similar...by someone who just did something similar.

    Now back on topic of excessive regulation. That is what the thread is about right? I don't throw my cigarette butts in the street. i love the environment and I self police.

    woot
    Post edited by usamamasan1 on
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    Parachute wrote:
    I'd like to see your source for this.

    Do you call African-Americans the "N-word"?

    African-Americans call eachother the "N" word, but that doesn't mean you or I should.

    Start showing respect for other groups of people, and you will be more respected.

    Make derogatory generalizations about Tea-party members or Southerners again, and I WILL REPORT YOU.
    i don't need a source for that. if you had been paying attention when the tea party first started having rallies you would remember that they called themselves teabaggers. do your own digging. the proof is out there on the internet...

    also, you can not compare the word teabagger to the n word. that is a very sad analogy and they are historically not even on the same level.

    did slaves call themselves the n word? no. did the slave owners call them that? yes. and so did white society in the south. one of the outcomes of the civil rights movement was that that word is not socially acceptable anymore.

    for you to compare the 3 year struggle of a few hundred thousand extremely right of center republicans that stapled lipton tea bags to their hats to that of 400 years african american persecution is not only laughable, but THAT is truely offensive..

    and like i have said before, i don't need or want your respect. i have enough friends on this board. carry on please...

    now back on topic...

    i think cutting the epa is a horrible idea.
    "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."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    interesting....

    things listed here that they are trying to limit is just craziness...


    GOP likely to impede EPA efforts
    House Republicans may limit funds to target environmental regulations

    http://www.congress.org/news/2011/01/03 ... pa_efforts

    Environmental regulations were a prime target of House Republican appropriators last year, and that is making advocates of the rules jittery about what will happen in the 112th Congress.

    With a single sentence in a spending bill, appropriators can starve a program or initiative of money, crippling it or even stopping it cold.

    And once Republicans are in control of the House and the Appropriations Committee, they will have no trouble writing so-called limitation amendments into fiscal 2012 spending bills stating that “none of the funds” provided to an agency can be used to carry out a specified task.

    During the July 22 markup of the House’s fiscal 2011 Interior-Environment spending bill, GOP appropriators offered eight amendments that sought to change or block EPA policies.

    That tops the five amendments that sought to amend, repeal or prohibit publicity for the health care overhaul (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) offered during the markup of the fiscal 2011 Labor-HHS-Education bill on July 15, and the one amendment directly addressing the financial regulatory overhaul (PL 111-203) offered during markup of the Financial Services bill on July 29.

    Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council calls limitation amendments and similar directives in appropriations bills “policy earmarks,” because they can block federal actions by shutting off funds.

    These may have “less legitimacy than the old-fashioned” earmarks, which merely direct a chunk of federal spending to a lawmaker’s favored projects, Matzner said. The ability to block funding for an entire program can affect people across the nation, he noted.

    “Appropriations bills have always been fertile territory for these kinds of mischievous policy sneak attacks,” said Matzner, climate legislative director for the council, a nonprofit environmental group.

    Democrats and Republicans alike have used this tactic for decades to block federal agencies from taking actions that they did not like. The “none of the funds” approach gets around a general prohibition against legislating policy changes in an appropriations bill, while still accomplishing a policy objective.

    In the 1980s, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, used the tactic to preserve hunters’ right to use lead shot, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., in recent years relied on it to prevent the shooting of deer in a park in Marin County, Calif.

    Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., barred the Agriculture Department for several years from using federal funds to clear imports of poultry from China, arguing that such poultry products posed a health risk to consumers. That action led China to launch a protest at the World Trade Organization and was long opposed by U.S. producers of beef and pork, who feared retaliation against their own products.

    Since at least 1995, appropriators have also blocked the financially strapped U.S. Postal Service from ending Saturday service, a direction tucked into spending bills written by both Democrats and Republicans. The Postal Service has estimated that it could see annual savings of about $3 billion from ending Saturday service.

    A former staff director of the House Appropriations Committee said that lawmakers need to weigh the risks of overusing their power to withhold funds to change policy.

    Lawmakers do get “very broad authority to restrict or redirect the activities of the executive branch” when House and Senate appropriators agree to deny funds to a program, said Scott Lilly, who served as both clerk and minority staff director of the House Appropriations Committee.

    “If Congress becomes too assertive in the use of such powers it is likely to face considerable public scrutiny,” Lilly said. “In other words, there are a lot of things that Congress may do under the Constitution that are better left undone if the ruling party wishes to remain in power.”

    With the Republican takeover of the House, the Natural Resources Defense Council is particularly worried about the likely renewal of an effort that appropriator Steven C. LaTourette, R-Ohio, made in July to block the EPA from putting in place regulations regarding smog.

    The EPA in January proposed tightening the air-quality standard for ground-level ozone to between 60 and 70 parts per billion, down from a 75-ppb standard established in 2008.

    Ozone, a form of oxygen, forms a protective layer against the sun’s rays in the outer atmosphere. Closer to the ground, it is a component of smog. Many groups, including the American Lung Association, have supported the EPA’s effort to tighten the standard.

    But the Chamber of Commerce has protested that it would have “potentially devastating consequences” on business and industry, and would be “the equivalent of hitting the ‘stop’ button on development in the midst of a recession.” It applauded the EPA’s early December decision to delay until July 2011 a final decision on the new ozone rule.

    The House Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee last year rejected LaTourette’s amendment to bar the EPA from using any of its fiscal 2011 funding to promulgate the tighter standard. The amendment failed 5-8 in a party-line vote.

    Republicans on the panel argued that LaTourette’s amendment would have continued environmental rules established just three years ago that have yet to be implemented or evaluated.

    Sometimes, appropriators do not need to go as far as blocking funds for specific programs. Instead, just by registering their displeasure with a program they can add to the pressure on an agency to change its rules.

    At a June markup, House appropriator JoAnn Emerson, R-Mo., proposed and then withdrew an amendment that would have blocked the Department of Agriculture from aiding EPA if the environmental agency went ahead with plans to make dairies comply with pending regulations intended to prevent oil spills.

    The fat content of milk had moved its storage containers wrongly into the scope of this rule, according to a trade group, the Dairy Farmers of America.

    In July, the House Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee adopted an amendment offered by Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, that sought to prompt EPA to exempt dairies from regulations intended to prevent oil spills.

    The EPA appears to have listened to these complaints and others made about its pending Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, according to Jackie Klippenstein, vice president of legislative and industry affairs for Dairy Farmers of America.

    “Staff at the EPA have indicated that they will soon be finalizing the proposed SPCC rule to exempt milk storage containers,” she said in a Dec. 29 e-mail. “This was the goal of many legislative efforts last year.”

    Democrats will remain in control of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and will fight House GOP efforts to deny funding for implementation of major environmental regulations, the health care overhaul and the financial regulatory overhaul. President Obama, with his veto pen, can backstop the Senate Democrats.

    But if House Republicans pepper limitation provisions throughout the appropriations bills, even as they make deep cuts in spending on domestic programs, they could prevail on some of the lesser ones as the White House bargains to protect its top priorities.
    "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."
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    Thank you all for getting back on topic.

    I can only see two reasons for wanting to gut the EPA:

    1. A total distrust of the governments ability to be effective. Almost everyone agrees there is inefficiancy in the government but only a very small minority truly want to disband the government and that is unlikely to happen. Rather than complain about government ineffiency it would make more sense to vote for people who will work for the people to make a positive difference. Or:

    2. Because those who want to disband the EPA do not want any impediments, government or otherwise, to making greater profits even if that means continued environmental degradation and human and animal suffering.

    Let's face it, for better or for worse as long as civiliaztion holds together (the collapse of civilization being an interesting subject worth pursuing elsewhere) there will be governments. The collapse of ecosystems will eventually lead to a larger die-off of species than the already accelerated rate that is now happening and there is no reason human being would not be included in that list. Being somewhat large mammals, that is actually a likelyhood if the oceans fail, the climate changes too dramatically or disease overcomes us. These are simple biological facts. So I'll re-state my original question:

    Why would the GOP-- or anybody else, for that matter, kill the EPA?

    I'll add that making sincere efforts to make a positive difference seems much more useful to me than talking about the "rapture" or saying something like, "Well, we're screwed anyway so let's just have fun and not worry about future generations"-- and I say that as someone who has had a fairly long and full life-- maybe even my fair share so yes, I'm thinking about our kids and future generations.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,327
    brianlux wrote:
    Why would the GOP-- or anybody else, for that matter, kill the EPA?
    "Kill" is a sensationalized use of a word for this article. For that word to hold true, the article needs to suggest that the GOP intends to abolish the EPA. From what I gathered in the article, they were going after 6 provisions that are not on magnitude that the Dems will dig in and fight for.

    This is a bunch of hooey and applesauce in my opinion.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    Jason P wrote:
    brianlux wrote:
    Why would the GOP-- or anybody else, for that matter, kill the EPA?
    "Kill" is a sensationalized use of a word for this article. For that word to hold true, the article needs to suggest that the GOP intends to abolish the EPA. From what I gathered in the article, they were going after 6 provisions that are not on magnitude that the Dems will dig in and fight for.

    This is a bunch of hooey and applesauce in my opinion.


    Excellent call, Jason P. My choice of the word "kill" was poor- very poor. The article uses the word "gut". Let's call that too extreme as well, just for arguments sake. Instead, let's use an accurate word: "Weaken". And I'll re-phrase my question and add another:

    Why would the GOP or anybody else, for that matter, want to weaken the EPA?

    and:

    Why is this and so many other environmental issues so often partisan issues-- don't we all want to live in a safe and healthy world?

    Thank you, Jason P and I hope this issue is no longer hooey and applesauce-- maybe closer now to honey and organic apples.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    Parachute wrote:
    So that I can buy whichever light bulb I want to.
    Why would you buy a bulb that isn't efficient? Even from a value point of view, it just doesn't make sense.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    keeponrockin wrote:
    Parachute wrote:
    So that I can buy whichever light bulb I want to.
    Why would you buy a bulb that isn't efficient? Even from a value point of view, it just doesn't make sense.

    Not to characterize anyone in particular here, but I think there are some people who would buy a less efficient bulb because they think somehow being able to do so represents "freedom". "Freedom without responsibility" comes to mind.

    P.S. I've changed the word "kill" in the heading of this thread to "weaken" in order to be more accurate. Everything else I've said remains the same.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • usamamasan1
    usamamasan1 Posts: 4,695
    I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....

    I will stick with my heavy.
  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....

    I will stick with my heavy.
    Can I see stats to back this statement up?
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    keeponrockin wrote:
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....

    I will stick with my heavy.
    Can I see stats to back this statement up?
    i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?

    fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.

    my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...
    "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."
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....

    I will stick with my heavy.
    Can I see stats to back this statement up?
    i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?

    fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.

    my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...

    YES!

    YES!

    and YES!

    P.S. Excellent profile photo and great looking Les Paul!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,674
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....

    I will stick with my heavy.

    Extinct species don't drive anything.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • cincybearcat
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,880
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    keeponrockin wrote:
    usamamasan1 wrote:
    I heard a couple thousand people die annually from driving around these lightweight "fuel efficient" cars....

    I will stick with my heavy.
    Can I see stats to back this statement up?
    i wonder if that might possibly be because it is people in hummers and semis and massive suvs that crash into them and kill them?

    fact is you can get killed in any vehicle.

    my gripe about the fuel efficiency standards is that it does nothing to address the real problem of trying to get us off of oil, which should be a main focus of the epa...

    Ok, let's not dismiss the obvious facts just because it counters what you believe people should do.

    Have you seen a smart car? It is obvious that it is more likely that someone would die in a crash in a smart car versus a big, hefty vehicle like a hummer. Does that mean we abandon the idea? No way. We should just improve the safety of the Smart car. Heck, a bicycle is way better for the environment, but it certainly protects less from a collision with a car.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    brianlux wrote:
    YES!

    YES!

    and YES!

    P.S. Excellent profile photo and great looking Les Paul!
    thanks man, that is a 2004 les paul custom. alpine white, though finally starting to yellow some due to sweat and bar smoke... that pic was taken 2 nights ago..
    "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."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,415
    cincybearcat wrote:
    Have you seen a smart car? It is obvious that it is more likely that someone would die in a crash in a smart car versus a big, hefty vehicle like a hummer. Does that mean we abandon the idea? No way. We should just improve the safety of the Smart car. Heck, a bicycle is way better for the environment, but it certainly protects less from a collision with a car.
    i have actually driven a smart car. the owner of my former boxing gym had one. it has some safety features but i was not comfortable driving that on the road at all.
    "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."

Categories