15 bills the House passed, but Reid refuses to schedule for votes

[rightwinger]

you completed avoided my comments. why is that? Your talking points don't give you enough to go on?

Did you read the actual text of all 15 bills, in their entirety? Yes, or no?
Can you elaborate on the specifics in even 1 bill which you find objectionable? Yes, or no?

I have addressed your OP

The Republicans bills are laughable pieces of legislation which wrap up the GOP wish list of legislation as Jobs bills. Typical deceptive republican labeling. No, I have not read each bill and don't intend to. It is obvious from reading the synopsis what the true purpose of these bills are

These bills may very well have some components that have merit. If the Republicans were willing to accept part of Obamas jobs bill, they might even get some of their deregulation wish list passed

My main objection is that the bills are too sweeping. Throwing out all government oversight to clear some questionable regulations. I would prefer a panel of Government, Industry and environmental groups looking at individual regulations and throwing out the ones that no longer make sense

I do not approve of raping the environment to obtain some short term economic gain

I've twice now asked you for specifics, even from just a single bill. You've twice done nothing but spout Democratic talking points.

Have you read the text of even 1 bill? No, you admit you have not. Can you give specifics as to why it is objectionable? No, you cannot.

Just saying over and over 'too sweeping' isn't good enough. All you're doing is proving you've done no research on your own, have not read any of the bills, and prefer instead to use group think and regurgitate democratic talking points.

OK

Start with HR 910 and explain how it is anything other than a blatant attempt to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses. This has been a GOP sacred Cow for 15 years and has everything to do with GOP attempts to ignore climate change science and allow their oil buddies to dump whatever shit they want into the air without consequences.
Hey...look people
We are trying to save jobs

 

[Conservative]

I have addressed your OP

The Republicans bills are laughable pieces of legislation which wrap up the GOP wish list of legislation as Jobs bills. Typical deceptive republican labeling. No, I have not read each bill and don't intend to. It is obvious from reading the synopsis what the true purpose of these bills are

These bills may very well have some components that have merit. If the Republicans were willing to accept part of Obamas jobs bill, they might even get some of their deregulation wish list passed

My main objection is that the bills are too sweeping. Throwing out all government oversight to clear some questionable regulations. I would prefer a panel of Government, Industry and environmental groups looking at individual regulations and throwing out the ones that no longer make sense

I do not approve of raping the environment to obtain some short term economic gain

I've twice now asked you for specifics, even from just a single bill. You've twice done nothing but spout Democratic talking points.

Have you read the text of even 1 bill? No, you admit you have not. Can you give specifics as to why it is objectionable? No, you cannot.

Just saying over and over 'too sweeping' isn't good enough. All you're doing is proving you've done no research on your own, have not read any of the bills, and prefer instead to use group think and regurgitate democratic talking points.

OK

Start with HR 910 and explIn how it is anything other than a blatant attempt to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses. This has been a GOP sacred Cow for 15 years and has everything to do with GOP attempts to ignore climate change science and allow their oil buddies to dump whatever shit they want into the air without consequences.
Hey...look people
We are trying to save jobs

Why are you afraid to actually read the text of the bills? Are you so lacking in confidence that your democratic talking points are accurate, that you refuse to actually research on your own to verify them?

YOU start with HR 910. Find the bill. READ the text. SHOW me exactly why it is laughable... the specific text.

That is how debate is 'supposed' to work. someone starts a conversation... someone gives their opinion, said opinion is questioned, and proof is provided that bolsters said opinion.

Debate is not just regurgitating democratic talking points.

 

[rightwinger]

I've twice now asked you for specifics, even from just a single bill. You've twice done nothing but spout Democratic talking points.

Have you read the text of even 1 bill? No, you admit you have not. Can you give specifics as to why it is objectionable? No, you cannot.

Just saying over and over 'too sweeping' isn't good enough. All you're doing is proving you've done no research on your own, have not read any of the bills, and prefer instead to use group think and regurgitate democratic talking points.

OK

Start with HR 910 and explIn how it is anything other than a blatant attempt to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses. This has been a GOP sacred Cow for 15 years and has everything to do with GOP attempts to ignore climate change science and allow their oil buddies to dump whatever shit they want into the air without consequences.
Hey...look people
We are trying to save jobs

Why are you afraid to actually read the text of the bills? Are you so lacking in confidence that your democratic talking points are accurate, that you refuse to actually research on your own to verify them?

YOU start with HR 910. Find the bill. READ the text. SHOW me exactly why it is laughable... the specific text.

That is how debate is 'supposed' to work. someone starts a conversation... someone gives their opinion, said opinion is questioned, and proof is provided that bolsters said opinion.

Debate is not just regurgitating democratic talking points.

Its your pathetic attempt at a thread. You defend it

I gave you a chance to defend 910 and you whiffed. I am not going to do your work for you. You asked why these bills are not being put up for a vote and it has been explained to you

You want to pout about it.....go ahead

 

[Conservative]

OK

Start with HR 910 and explIn how it is anything other than a blatant attempt to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gasses. This has been a GOP sacred Cow for 15 years and has everything to do with GOP attempts to ignore climate change science and allow their oil buddies to dump whatever shit they want into the air without consequences.
Hey...look people
We are trying to save jobs

Why are you afraid to actually read the text of the bills? Are you so lacking in confidence that your democratic talking points are accurate, that you refuse to actually research on your own to verify them?

YOU start with HR 910. Find the bill. READ the text. SHOW me exactly why it is laughable... the specific text.

That is how debate is 'supposed' to work. someone starts a conversation... someone gives their opinion, said opinion is questioned, and proof is provided that bolsters said opinion.

Debate is not just regurgitating democratic talking points.

Its your pathetic attempt at a thread. You defend it

I gave you a chance to defend 910 and you whiffed. I am not going to do your work for you. You asked why these bills are not being put up for a vote and it has been explained to you

You want to pout about it.....go ahead

OK, so I am required by you to defend my position, but you are not required to defend yours?

Pathetic little Democratic partisan hack, You're worthless in a debate.

Does anyone have the balls to actually debate ANY of the 15 bills I listed in the OP?

Anyone?

Do ANY of the Democratic leaning posters in here have more intestinal fortitude than RightWinger, who apparently is so scared to think for himself he relies on democratic higher ups to tell him what to think?

Come on... there has to be at least 1 of you who has the courage of their convictions and is willing to step outside the talking points box and actually research at least 1 of these 'hideously evil' GOP bills.

 

[rightwinger]

Why are you afraid to actually read the text of the bills? Are you so lacking in confidence that your democratic talking points are accurate, that you refuse to actually research on your own to verify them?

YOU start with HR 910. Find the bill. READ the text. SHOW me exactly why it is laughable... the specific text.

That is how debate is 'supposed' to work. someone starts a conversation... someone gives their opinion, said opinion is questioned, and proof is provided that bolsters said opinion.

Debate is not just regurgitating democratic talking points.

Its your pathetic attempt at a thread. You defend it

I gave you a chance to defend 910 and you whiffed. I am not going to do your work for you. You asked why these bills are not being put up for a vote and it has been explained to you

You want to pout about it.....go ahead

OK, so I am required by you to defend my position, but you are not required to defend yours?

Pathetic little Democratic partisan hack, You're worthless in a debate.

Does anyone have the balls to actually debate ANY of the 15 bills I listed in the OP?

Anyone?

Do ANY of the Democratic leaning posters in here have more intestinal fortitude than RightWinger, who apparently is so scared to think for himself he relies on democratic higher ups to tell him what to think?

Come on... there has to be at least 1 of you who has the courage of their convictions and is willing to step outside the talking points box and actually research at least 1 of these 'hideously evil' GOP bills.

It's your thread.....try to save it

 

[Conservative]

Its your pathetic attempt at a thread. You defend it

I gave you a chance to defend 910 and you whiffed. I am not going to do your work for you. You asked why these bills are not being put up for a vote and it has been explained to you

You want to pout about it.....go ahead

OK, so I am required by you to defend my position, but you are not required to defend yours?

Pathetic little Democratic partisan hack, You're worthless in a debate.

Does anyone have the balls to actually debate ANY of the 15 bills I listed in the OP?

Anyone?

Do ANY of the Democratic leaning posters in here have more intestinal fortitude than RightWinger, who apparently is so scared to think for himself he relies on democratic higher ups to tell him what to think?

Come on... there has to be at least 1 of you who has the courage of their convictions and is willing to step outside the talking points box and actually research at least 1 of these 'hideously evil' GOP bills.

It's your thread.....try to save it

it doesn't require saving. It requires someone who is willing to debate the bills after having read them, as I have. You, do not appear to have the courage to challenge democratic talking points. Your lack of courage in your convictions is astounding.

 

[Conservative]

15 Real Jobs Bills Stalled in the Senate | FreedomWorks

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act

The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state may not require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the application of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act would ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations that harm job growth.

HR 872 had 137 co sponsors, of which 30 were Democrats, including Barney Frank.
The vote was 292 Ayes, 130 Nays, 10 Present/Not Voting. (61 Democrats in favor).

By not requiring a permit in certain circumstances...

Read The Bill: H.R. 872 - GovTrack.us
...may not require a permit under such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide

...costs can be reduced for businesses, reducing overhead, and freeing capital for job creation.

It's not so hard to do this (points to above post) Dems. Just go to govtrack.us, type in the bill number, and you'll be provided with everything you need to defend your position.

Assuming you have more courage than hacks like rightwinger, that is.

 

[Seawytch]

The GnOP believes that lifting environmental regulations will somehow create jobs. Let's look at some real life examples shall we?

Forbes has listed the greenest and least green states. Here's the top 10 greenest:


1 Vermont 5.8%
2 Oregon 9.6%
3 Washington 9.1%
4 Hawaii 6.4%
5 Maryland 7.4%
6 Connecticut 8.9%
7 New Jersey 9.2%
8 Rhode Island 10.5%
9 New York 8.0%
10 Arizona 9.1%

The least green:

40 Alaska 7.6%
41 Missouri 8.7%
42 North Dakota 3.5%
43 Tennessee 9.8%
44 Arkansas 8.3%
45 Kentucky 9.7%
46 Mississippi 10.6%
47 Louisiana 6.9%
48 Alabama 9.8%
49 Indiana 8.9%
50 West Virginia 8.2%

I've helpfully put the unemployment rate for each of these states.

Not a big difference between greener and less green states when it comes to job creation is there?

Which companies are saying that they'll hire people just as soon as they can start polluting more?

Why companies aren’t hiring more workers

 

[Conservative]

The GnOP believes that lifting environmental regulations will somehow create jobs. Let's look at some real life examples shall we?

Forbes has listed the greenest and least green states. Here's the top 10 greenest:


1 Vermont 5.8%
2 Oregon 9.6%
3 Washington 9.1%
4 Hawaii 6.4%
5 Maryland 7.4%
6 Connecticut 8.9%
7 New Jersey 9.2%
8 Rhode Island 10.5%
9 New York 8.0%
10 Arizona 9.1%

The least green:

40 Alaska 7.6%
41 Missouri 8.7%
42 North Dakota 3.5%
43 Tennessee 9.8%
44 Arkansas 8.3%
45 Kentucky 9.7%
46 Mississippi 10.6%
47 Louisiana 6.9%
48 Alabama 9.8%
49 Indiana 8.9%
50 West Virginia 8.2%

I've helpfully put the unemployment rate for each of these states.

Not a big difference between greener and less green states when it comes to job creation is there?

Which companies are saying that they'll hire people just as soon as they can start polluting more?

Why companies aren’t hiring more workers

Is there ANY chance, even a slight one, that some lib will actually pick one of the 15 bills listed in the OP, read them, and debate on them?

ANY chance at all?

 

[Bfgrn]

As you see it...sure.

And I see Obamas job bill as a joke.

See how a difference in ideology works?

Which part is a joke?

I used the term joke in the same context RW did.

Nothing is funny about any of the bills.

But I do not agree with the premise that if the government throws money into the economy, it will help the private sector create jobs...especially when the private sector is hampered by unecessary regulations.

That is my ideology....and I need to be honest with you RDD....I am not in the mood to have this debate again...it has been going on for decades and no one can prove the other wrong and themselves right.

Good environmental policy is always good economic policy...UNLESS...you believe We, the People should pay to clean up after polluters...AND...you believe the planet's environment should be part of a fire sale for short term profit...

Here is an excerpt from a great speech, I hope you will read it:

One of the things I've done over the past seven, eight years, since 1994, since this whole movement, the anti-environmental movement got a foothold, a beachhead in Congress, is to constantly go around and confront this argument that an investment in our environment is a diminishment of our nation's wealth. It doesn't diminish our wealth. It's an investment in infrastructure, the same as investing in telecommunications and road construction. It's an investment we have to make if we're going to ensure the economic vitality of our generation and the next generation.

I want to say this: There is no stronger advocate for free-market capitalism than myself. I believe that the free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter; I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

Corporations are externalizing machines. They're constantly figuring out ways to get somebody else to pay their costs of production. That's their nature. One of the best ways to do that, and the most common way for a polluter, is through pollution. When those coal-burning power plants put mercury into the atmosphere that comes down from the Ohio Valley to my state of New York, I buy a fishing license for $30 every year, but I can't go fishing and eat the fish anymore because they stole the fish from me. They liquidated a public asset, my asset.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others. But they've stolen that entire resource from the people of New York State. When they put the acid rain in the air, it destroys our forest, and it destroys the lakes that we use for recreation or outfitting or tourism or wealth generation. When they put the mercury in the air, the mercury poisons our children's brains, and that imposes a cost on us. The ozone in particular has caused a million asthma attacks a year, kills 18,000 people, causes hundreds of thousands of lost work days. All of those impacts impose costs on the rest of us that in a true free-market economy should be reflected in the price of that company's product when it makes it to the marketplace.

What those companies and all polluters do is use political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay their costs. All of the federal environmental laws, every one of the 28 major environmental laws, were designed to restore free-market capitalism in America by forcing actors in the marketplace to pay the true cost of bringing their product to market.

More

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

 

[rightwinger]

The GnOP believes that lifting environmental regulations will somehow create jobs. Let's look at some real life examples shall we?

Forbes has listed the greenest and least green states. Here's the top 10 greenest:


1 Vermont 5.8%
2 Oregon 9.6%
3 Washington 9.1%
4 Hawaii 6.4%
5 Maryland 7.4%
6 Connecticut 8.9%
7 New Jersey 9.2%
8 Rhode Island 10.5%
9 New York 8.0%
10 Arizona 9.1%

The least green:

40 Alaska 7.6%
41 Missouri 8.7%
42 North Dakota 3.5%
43 Tennessee 9.8%
44 Arkansas 8.3%
45 Kentucky 9.7%
46 Mississippi 10.6%
47 Louisiana 6.9%
48 Alabama 9.8%
49 Indiana 8.9%
50 West Virginia 8.2%

I've helpfully put the unemployment rate for each of these states.

Not a big difference between greener and less green states when it comes to job creation is there?

Which companies are saying that they'll hire people just as soon as they can start polluting more?

Why companies aren’t hiring more workers

Republicans will not let a crisis go to waste

Sell the typical GOP agenda as job creating measures

Shameless, absolutely shameless

 

[Conservative]

Republicans will not let a crisis go to waste

Sell the typical GOP agenda as job creating measures

Shameless, absolutely shameless

Democratic partisan hacks never answer a straight question without their trusty talking points

Sell their partisan hackery as fact

Shameless, absolutely shameless

 

[Oldstyle]

The GnOP believes that lifting environmental regulations will somehow create jobs. Let's look at some real life examples shall we?

Forbes has listed the greenest and least green states. Here's the top 10 greenest:


1 Vermont 5.8%
2 Oregon 9.6%
3 Washington 9.1%
4 Hawaii 6.4%
5 Maryland 7.4%
6 Connecticut 8.9%
7 New Jersey 9.2%
8 Rhode Island 10.5%
9 New York 8.0%
10 Arizona 9.1%

The least green:

40 Alaska 7.6%
41 Missouri 8.7%
42 North Dakota 3.5%
43 Tennessee 9.8%
44 Arkansas 8.3%
45 Kentucky 9.7%
46 Mississippi 10.6%
47 Louisiana 6.9%
48 Alabama 9.8%
49 Indiana 8.9%
50 West Virginia 8.2%

I've helpfully put the unemployment rate for each of these states.

Not a big difference between greener and less green states when it comes to job creation is there?

Which companies are saying that they'll hire people just as soon as they can start polluting more?

Why companies aren’t hiring more workers

Republicans will not let a crisis go to waste

Sell the typical GOP agenda as job creating measures

Shameless, absolutely shameless

What I find most amusing about this rant by you, Right...is that it was Barack Obama that just pulled back on implementing stringent EPA regulations. The reason he did so was that he was only too aware that imposing those regulations would in fact cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Perhaps you should explain to Barack how this is just a GOP "sell" job. He's actually figured out that regulatory actions have direct consequences and imposing them do cost jobs.

 

[Cuyo]

You mean the Republicans want to 'Create jobs' by giving industry more ability to pollute?

Well kiss my grits.

 

[pete]

Here are the 15 bills sitting on Harry Reid's desk because he can't bring himself to schedule them for a vote in the Senate. God forbid they should pass... that would put Obama in the untenable position of either signing REPUBLICAN legislation (can't have that, now can we?) or vetoing REPUBLICAN measures that could help to improve the jobs picture in this country. Either way, Obama would lose. The fact that these measures would help this country, well, who really gives a fuck, right?


15 Real Jobs Bills Stalled in the Senate | FreedomWorks

H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act

The bill would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to clarify that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a state may not require a permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the application of pesticides regulated under FIFRA. The Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act would ensure that pesticide users are not faced with unnecessary regulations that harm job growth.

H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act

The bill would strip the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its ability to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. Without this legislation, the agency will continue with its plan to implement burdensome new rules and regulations on American businesses that will have a significant negative impact on America’s economy while having virtually no positive impact on global temperatures.

H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011

The bill would eliminate needless permitting delays that have stalled important energy production opportunities off the coast of Alaska. Rather than having exploration air permits repeatedly approved and rescinded by the agency and its review board, the EPA will be required to take final action – granting or denying a permit – within six months. The Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 would speed up the permit process to help create jobs.

H.R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act

The bill would require the President to issue a final order granting or denying the Presidential Permit for Keystone XL 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement, but in no event later than November 1, 2011. A Canadian pipeline company, TransCanada, has long sought to increase the capacity of its Keystone pipeline system in order to bring more Canadian crude oil to American refineries. The North American-Made Energy Security Act would boost jobs and lower the price of gasoline for all Americans.

Between the left and their media thugs they push this under the rug so they can manipulate headlines and lie to the people about their true agenda!

 

[Inthemiddle]

15 Real Jobs Bills Stalled in the Senate | FreedomWorks

HR 872 had 137 co sponsors, of which 30 were Democrats, including Barney Frank.
The vote was 292 Ayes, 130 Nays, 10 Present/Not Voting. (61 Democrats in favor).

By not requiring a permit in certain circumstances...

Read The Bill: H.R. 872 - GovTrack.us
...may not require a permit under such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide

...costs can be reduced for businesses, reducing overhead, and freeing capital for job creation.

How is that a jobs bill?

 

[rightwinger]

The GnOP believes that lifting environmental regulations will somehow create jobs. Let's look at some real life examples shall we?

Forbes has listed the greenest and least green states. Here's the top 10 greenest:


1 Vermont 5.8%
2 Oregon 9.6%
3 Washington 9.1%
4 Hawaii 6.4%
5 Maryland 7.4%
6 Connecticut 8.9%
7 New Jersey 9.2%
8 Rhode Island 10.5%
9 New York 8.0%
10 Arizona 9.1%

The least green:

40 Alaska 7.6%
41 Missouri 8.7%
42 North Dakota 3.5%
43 Tennessee 9.8%
44 Arkansas 8.3%
45 Kentucky 9.7%
46 Mississippi 10.6%
47 Louisiana 6.9%
48 Alabama 9.8%
49 Indiana 8.9%
50 West Virginia 8.2%

I've helpfully put the unemployment rate for each of these states.

Not a big difference between greener and less green states when it comes to job creation is there?

Which companies are saying that they'll hire people just as soon as they can start polluting more?

Why companies aren’t hiring more workers

Republicans will not let a crisis go to waste

Sell the typical GOP agenda as job creating measures

Shameless, absolutely shameless

What I find most amusing about this rant by you, Right...is that it was Barack Obama that just pulled back on implementing stringent EPA regulations. The reason he did so was that he was only too aware that imposing those regulations would in fact cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Perhaps you should explain to Barack how this is just a GOP "sell" job. He's actually figured out that regulatory actions have direct consequences and imposing them do cost jobs.

Obama has no backbone, that is why the GOP walks all over him......what else is new?

Dumping on the environment so that future generations can clean up the mess is irresponsible. Especially for short term economic gain

 

[Oldstyle]

Republicans will not let a crisis go to waste

Sell the typical GOP agenda as job creating measures

Shameless, absolutely shameless

What I find most amusing about this rant by you, Right...is that it was Barack Obama that just pulled back on implementing stringent EPA regulations. The reason he did so was that he was only too aware that imposing those regulations would in fact cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Perhaps you should explain to Barack how this is just a GOP "sell" job. He's actually figured out that regulatory actions have direct consequences and imposing them do cost jobs.

Obama has no backbone, that is why the GOP walks all over him......what else is new?

Dumping on the environment so that future generations can clean up the mess is irresponsible. Especially for short term economic gain

Letting a bunch of environmental zealots burden American businesses already struggling to compete globally is the thing that's irresponsible. You make it sound like not passing these new regulations will have us all choking and gasping in the streets as our water and air becomes fouled. That's a crock and you know it.

 

[Conservative]

What I find most amusing about this rant by you, Right...is that it was Barack Obama that just pulled back on implementing stringent EPA regulations. The reason he did so was that he was only too aware that imposing those regulations would in fact cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Perhaps you should explain to Barack how this is just a GOP "sell" job. He's actually figured out that regulatory actions have direct consequences and imposing them do cost jobs.

Obama has no backbone, that is why the GOP walks all over him......what else is new?

Dumping on the environment so that future generations can clean up the mess is irresponsible. Especially for short term economic gain

Letting a bunch of environmental zealots burden American businesses already struggling to compete globally is the thing that's irresponsible. You make it sound like not passing these new regulations will have us all choking and gasping in the streets as our water and air becomes fouled. That's a crock and you know it.

No, actually, he doesn't know it. If it was not handed to him in a Democratic email listing the talking points of the moment, it doesn't exist for him.

 

[Conservative]

15 Real Jobs Bills Stalled in the Senate | FreedomWorks

HR 872 had 137 co sponsors, of which 30 were Democrats, including Barney Frank.
The vote was 292 Ayes, 130 Nays, 10 Present/Not Voting. (61 Democrats in favor).

By not requiring a permit in certain circumstances...

Read The Bill: H.R. 872 - GovTrack.us
...may not require a permit under such Act for a discharge from a point source into navigable waters of a pesticide authorized for sale, distribution, or use under this Act, or the residue of such a pesticide, resulting from the application of such pesticide

...costs can be reduced for businesses, reducing overhead, and freeing capital for job creation.

How is that a jobs bill?

already explained.