Big Cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency

[Tiberius]

I understand Conservatives hate environmentalist and all, but this sure looks like a real sh it sandwich for the GOP after some oil spill or unsafe water pops up. Even with the EPA at current funding we have major industrial spills of toxic yuck in the rivers and streams. Now will anyone force the coal companies or anyone to clean it up?? https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/case-summary-duke-energy-agrees-3-million-cleanup-coal-ash-release-dan-river

[Magox]

I'm ok with it. Not because I want don't want clean air and water, just that many of the regulations are redundant and often times already have related laws and regulations set at the state level.

[Tiberius]

I'm ok with it. Not because I want don't want clean air and water, just that many of the regulations are redundant and often times already have related laws and regulations set at the state level.

Just seems like it will be counterproductive because even if a Republican politician spills a coke the environmentalist will be screaming little Susie is being poisoned by big business. I bet the EPA in a few years gets all its funding back and then some, Seems like overreach is all I'm getting at

[nkreed]

Truthfully, I don't think these organizations have enough teeth to do what they should. They inflict superficial wounds into large corporations, and the corporations turn around and continue to the same things. Now if the corporation's major bosses were held liable for the deaths and disabilities they cause, then you'd have more of an adherence to policies and laws.

 

I know I'm linking from a Huffpost offshoot, but how these corporations operate is important to understand.

 

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

 

We watched the tobacco industry cover up all of the negative information they knew about cigarettes, have the large lawsuits hit them, yet they are still out there, killing your lungs.

[grinreaper]

Truthfully, I don't think these organizations have enough teeth to do what they should. They inflict superficial wounds into large corporations, and the corporations turn around and continue to the same things. Now if the corporation's major bosses were held liable for the deaths and disabilities they cause, then you'd have more of an adherence to policies and laws.

 

I know I'm linking from a Huffpost offshoot, but how these corporations operate is important to understand.

 

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

 

We watched the tobacco industry cover up all of the negative information they knew about cigarettes, have the large lawsuits hit them, yet they are still out there, killing your lungs.

No, they are not killing your lungs. You are.

[nkreed]

Just seems like it will be counterproductive because even if a Republican politician spills a coke the environmentalist will be screaming little Susie is being poisoned by big business. I bet the EPA in a few years gets all its funding back and then some, Seems like overreach is all I'm getting at

 

Your example is ridiculous. When environmentalists are talking about pollution, they are talking about the pollution corporations are willfully doing. You know the ones who make their workers close of an RCV when the EPA walks through so they aren't violating the emissions standards, but then open it right back up when the EPA walks out.

This never happens, right? "Corporations have to follow the rules and regulations to stay in business." http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2014/03/20/costly-verdict-in-tonawanda-coke-case.html

No, they are not killing your lungs. You are.

 

I don't smoke, never have. But I do breathe the air that others smoke.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

[Tiberius]

 

Your example is ridiculous. When environmentalists are talking about pollution, they are talking about the pollution corporations are willfully doing. You know the ones who make their workers close of an RCV when the EPA walks through so they aren't violating the emissions standards, but then open it right back up when the EPA walks out.

This never happens, right? "Corporations have to follow the rules and regulations to stay in business." http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2014/03/20/costly-verdict-in-tonawanda-coke-case.html

 

I don't smoke, never have. But I do breathe the air that others smoke.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

I agree. Was just pointing out the political fall out it can cause, but your argument is absolutely right on. People will suffer from this

[richstadiumowner]

The EPA kills rivers.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-10/epa-admits-spilling-millions-gallons-toxic-waste-colorado-river-stunning-aerial-foot

 

Take a 2 stroke 40 inch bar chainsaw to government and the corruption, poverty, death and destruction it brings.

 

The Libtards and the establishment rent seekers are scared shitless at how great it's going to be when we realize just how much better we all are deciding for ourselves what to do with our money and reduce the giant parasite on our back.

 

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

Your example is ridiculous. When environmentalists are talking about pollution, they are talking about the pollution corporations are willfully doing. You know the ones who make their workers close of an RCV when the EPA walks through so they aren't violating the emissions standards, but then open it right back up when the EPA walks out.

This never happens, right? "Corporations have to follow the rules and regulations to stay in business." http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/news/2014/03/20/costly-verdict-in-tonawanda-coke-case.html

 

 

I don't smoke, never have. But I do breathe the air that others smoke.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

You believe the fakenews fakescience of second hand smoke?

 

The EPA needs both sharper and fewer teeth. Like all government agencies it will grow to leviathan left on its own. I have few issues with Trump's cuts. It's his stupid spending increases that irk me.

[TH3]

I'm ok with it. Not because I want don't want clean air and water, just that many of the regulations are redundant and often times already have related laws and regulations set at the state level.

 

The EPA kills rivers.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-10/epa-admits-spilling-millions-gallons-toxic-waste-colorado-river-stunning-aerial-foot

 

Take a 2 stroke 40 inch bar chainsaw to government and the corruption, poverty, death and destruction it brings.

 

The Libtards and the establishment rent seekers are scared shitless at how great it's going to be when we realize just how much better we all are deciding for ourselves what to do with our money and reduce the giant parasite on our back.

 

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master

 

Name one....ONE....EPA regulation that stifles the economy, that disrupts your daily life, that is not beneficial...

 

EVERY time we pollute - we have to go back and clean it up

EVERY time we clean it up it costs 100's of times more than prevention

in spite of that EVERY time we go back and clean something up it is worth it...

 

I

[nkreed]

The EPA kills rivers.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-10/epa-admits-spilling-millions-gallons-toxic-waste-colorado-river-stunning-aerial-foot

 

Take a 2 stroke 40 inch bar chainsaw to government and the corruption, poverty, death and destruction it brings.

 

The Libtards and the establishment rent seekers are scared shitless at how great it's going to be when we realize just how much better we all are deciding for ourselves what to do with our money and reduce the giant parasite on our back.

 

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence,—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master

That first sentence is quite a broad stroke. Who left the toxic waste in the mines to begin with? How long was it going to before it leaked from the storage into the environment? That doesn't downplay their perceived lack of empathy in this instance.

 

I'd like you to expand on the bold statement a little more.Is it the government that creates these four criteria? Are you saying that government needs to be dissolved? If so, I may begin to understand where you are coming from with your statements. I haven't been lurking around these boards for too long.

Edited March 16, 2017 by nkreed

[ExiledInIllinois]

One good thing is they are cutting the Great Lakes Restoration funding from $300 million to $30 million.

 

That... Was really getting high-jacked by gov't boondoggles like what was happening with the Asian carp thing.

 

The Asian carp thing is simply a Chicken-Little scare tactic, behind sketchy misguided, real-world eDNA application.

 

Finally, we can just leave the canals open and business flowing.

 

Even though I didn't vote for Trump, this issue would have been one of the reasons to vote for him in my own self-interest.

 

States like WI, PA, OH, and ESPECIALLY Michigan gotta be reeling that big shipping in States like Illinois/Indiana will win. NO WAY WAS Pence going to screw Indiana's $1.6 billion yearly shipping economy by closing the Illinois canals.

 

Again, the science was all scare tactics, political funding football.

 

A blind squirrel like Trump can find a nut from time to time.

[IDBillzFan]

Nothing funnier than watching liberals pissing their pants the moment someone says "We need to cut staff and reduce costs" about anything other than military.

 

"We don't need to secure the borders! We don't need to protect our country. But how 'bout them grocery bags? Are they a problem or what?!?!"

 

Dumbasses.

 

When he's done with the EPA I hope he guts the DOE next.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Nothing funnier than watching liberals pissing their pants the moment someone says "We need to cut staff and reduce costs" about anything other than military.

 

"We don't need to secure the borders! We don't need to protect our country. But how 'bout them grocery bags? Are they a problem or what?!?!"

 

Dumbasses.

 

When he's done with the EPA I hope he guts the DOE next.

I was about to ask you whether you meant Energy or Education.

 

Then I realized the answer was "yes".

[boyst]

Funny watching the new kids debate tibs

[grinreaper]

 

 

Name one....ONE....EPA regulation that stifles the economy, that disrupts your daily life, that is not beneficial...

 

EVERY time we pollute - we have to go back and clean it up

EVERY time we clean it up it costs 100's of times more than prevention

in spite of that EVERY time we go back and clean something up it is worth it...

 

I

http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/has-the-epa-hurt-the-economy/#sthash.oBKR8GCT.dpbs

 

And these are just a handful of recent EPA rules. To most readers, that might sound like the agency is not exactly helping the economy — in fact, that the agency is doing quite the opposite. But never mind all of that. Because, according to the agency, the fact that the United States has grown since the EPA’s inception must be evidence that the EPA has done nothing but promulgate commonsense regulations; certainly, it cannot be the case that the economy has grown in spite of them. If you read any of the EPA’s regulatory impact analyses, you’ll see that their regulatory benefits are often those of job creation by regulation (i.e. their rules impose costs on one industry by requiring that industry to spend money, thereby spurring growth in another industry) — hardly a solid growth principle. If government-mandated expenses and restrictions created jobs and economic growth, we’d have regulated ourselves into prosperity quite effortlessly over the last six years. McCarthy’s logic makes just as much sense as saying that you’ve eaten Oreos for lunch every day for the last week while maintaining a healthy weight — therefore, Oreos have clearly had no negative impact on your health. The fact that growth has occurred in the face of overreaching regulations is hardly evidence that those regulations haven’t hurt the economy. According to a study published in the Journal of Economic Growth last year, federal regulation from 1949 to 2005 has cost the American economy an average of 2 percentage points of growth. Altogether, by year-end 2011, regulations since 1949 had reduced American GDP by $38.8 trillion. - See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/has-the-epa-hurt-the-economy/#sthash.oBKR8GCT.dpuf

[ExiledInIllinois]

Nothing funnier than watching liberals pissing their pants the moment someone says "We need to cut staff and reduce costs" about anything other than military.

 

"We don't need to secure the borders! We don't need to protect our country. But how 'bout them grocery bags? Are they a problem or what?!?!"

 

Dumbasses.

 

When he's done with the EPA I hope he guts the DOE next.

I love it! So much waste!

 

And I am liberal too! Yet, I work in conjuctuon with industry, that makes me less sympathetic to all the enviro hooey!

 

One area where swamp needs to be drained!

[boyst]

http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/has-the-epa-hurt-the-economy/#sthash.oBKR8GCT.dpbs

 

And these are just a handful of recent EPA rules. To most readers, that might sound like the agency is not exactly helping the economy in fact, that the agency is doing quite the opposite. But never mind all of that. Because, according to the agency, the fact that the United States has grown since the EPAs inception must be evidence that the EPA has done nothing but promulgate commonsense regulations; certainly, it cannot be the case that the economy has grown in spite of them. If you read any of the EPAs regulatory impact analyses, youll see that their regulatory benefits are often those of job creation by regulation (i.e. their rules impose costs on one industry by requiring that industry to spend money, thereby spurring growth in another industry) hardly a solid growth principle. If government-mandated expenses and restrictions created jobs and economic growth, wed have regulated ourselves into prosperity quite effortlessly over the last six years. McCarthys logic makes just as much sense as saying that youve eaten Oreos for lunch every day for the last week while maintaining a healthy weight therefore, Oreos have clearly had no negative impact on your health. The fact that growth has occurred in the face of overreaching regulations is hardly evidence that those regulations havent hurt the economy. According to a study published in the Journal of Economic Growth last year, federal regulation from 1949 to 2005 has cost the American economy an average of 2 percentage points of growth. Altogether, by year-end 2011, regulations since 1949 had reduced American GDP by $38.8 trillion. - See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/has-the-epa-hurt-the-economy/#sthash.oBKR8GCT.dpuf

the wsus needs to go first. Everything else is gravy from there

[Dante]

Nothing funnier than watching liberals pissing their pants the moment someone says "We need to cut staff and reduce costs" about anything other than military.

 

"We don't need to secure the borders! We don't need to protect our country. But how 'bout them grocery bags? Are they a problem or what?!?!"

 

Dumbasses.

 

When he's done with the EPA I hope he guts the DOE next.

They are for anything that promotes total authoritarian control. Unelected bureaucracies, like the EPA, that can create and enforce laws without oversight are just perfect for that.

[FreddieJizzle22]

Trump still needs more wall money?