EPA up for the ax???

[tonystewart1]

James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

 

[The Rabbi]

As much as people love to bash on the EPA, the reason it got so big in the first place is that private industry was out of control dumping shit wherever and whenever they felt like. Thirty years ago we had a major mess on our hands environmentally. When it comes to money, it's been proven that businesses will not regulate themselves, so getting rid of or reducing the size of the EPA would almost certainly be a step backwards and lead us to more problems.

If we look at China as an example, they have a bloody mess on their hands due to this same reason, and they are paying dearly. The cost of their cleanup is going to be astronomical and they are beginning to see this. I realize the cost to American business is great to live within certain environmental standards, but reducing our own is not the answer. The answer lies in pressuring these up and coming economies to be more environmentally conscious themselves as they develop. Forcing them to increase their costs a bit to make the right environmental decisions would help American business be more competitive.

Hpow much cleaner is the air and water now than what it was 20 years ago?
"Almost certainly" is code for "I have absolutely no proof but I think that's right."

When I was a kid, it wasn't safe to swim in Lake Erie due to all the dumping that had taken place. Today it is safe to swim. It also wasn't safe to eat fish out of Lake Erie, today it is. The problem with not regulating companies is that they will not willingly pay the extra costs to run a clean operation. Then they fuck up the environment, and when they are found liable, they go belly up. So guess who is left with the cost to clean up the mess? You and me, that's who.

So you have absolutely no proof.
When I was a kid you could not fish in the Hudson River. Twenty years ago you could fish in the Hudson River. You can still fish in the Hudson River.

 

[Urkie]

So you have absolutely no proof.
When I was a kid you could not fish in the Hudson River. Twenty years ago you could fish in the Hudson River. You can still fish in the Hudson River.

Bringing up the Hudson River is a good example of why the EPA is necessary. GE polluted that river so badly and then wanted to just leave without cleaning up the mess.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

Oh the drama.

 

[konradv]

When I was a kid you could not fish in the Hudson River. Twenty years ago you could fish in the Hudson River. You can still fish in the Hudson River.

So how is that not thanks to the EPA? Twenty years ago means the EPA had been at it for about 20 years. Seems they deserve a hand, NOT the boot.

 

[konradv]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

Oh the drama.

Guess you're not old enough to realize breathing WAS a problem for many in the past.

Attack of the L.A. Smog Archives | This Day In Tech | Wired.com

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

Tissue?

 

[Mr Natural]

Hpow much cleaner is the air and water now than what it was 20 years ago?
"Almost certainly" is code for "I have absolutely no proof but I think that's right."

When I was a kid, it wasn't safe to swim in Lake Erie due to all the dumping that had taken place. Today it is safe to swim. It also wasn't safe to eat fish out of Lake Erie, today it is. The problem with not regulating companies is that they will not willingly pay the extra costs to run a clean operation. Then they fuck up the environment, and when they are found liable, they go belly up. So guess who is left with the cost to clean up the mess? You and me, that's who.

So you have absolutely no proof.
When I was a kid you could not fish in the Hudson River. Twenty years ago you could fish in the Hudson River. You can still fish in the Hudson River.

So you're saying that the EPA can go away now because it did it's job and companies will now follow suit and clean up after themselves voluntarily?

 

[tonystewart1]

When I was a kid, it wasn't safe to swim in Lake Erie due to all the dumping that had taken place. Today it is safe to swim. It also wasn't safe to eat fish out of Lake Erie, today it is. The problem with not regulating companies is that they will not willingly pay the extra costs to run a clean operation. Then they fuck up the environment, and when they are found liable, they go belly up. So guess who is left with the cost to clean up the mess? You and me, that's who.

So you have absolutely no proof.
When I was a kid you could not fish in the Hudson River. Twenty years ago you could fish in the Hudson River. You can still fish in the Hudson River.

So you're saying that the EPA can go away now because it did it's job and companies will now follow suit and clean up after themselves voluntarily?

State depts of EP will be the watch dog of industry to minimize their enviromental impact on the planet.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I wrote "in the last 20 years" and you throw a piece of legislation that is nearly 40 years old out.

Here we go again. Hand picking time periods and ignoring reality. A piece of legislation from almost 40 years ago, which is still in place today, would obviously have affects 20 years ago. But yeah, just choose to ignore that.

Additionally, I'm curious about all these people whining about the words "EPA" not appearing in the Constitution. Neither do "Air Force", "paper money" or "political parties" yet none of you seem to have a problem with those.

The point is, the EPA is still needed. They not only help write legislation, but they also help police it. Getting rid of the EPA because the air is clean is like getting rid of the police because there was a drop in crime.

 

[kiwiman127]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

How much cleaner is the water and air in the last 20 years? How much of that was due to EPA regs?

I realize the Obamarrhoids think "hey screw the working man" but permanent unemployment isn't a solution for anyone.

Yes, the EPA has become essentially a rogue agency, passing what ought to be legislation simply by regulatory fiat. They are unelected and unaccountable. Cutting their budget by 75% would go a long way towards helping the economy.

As much as people love to bash on the EPA, the reason it got so big in the first place is that private industry was out of control dumping shit wherever and whenever they felt like. Thirty years ago we had a major mess on our hands environmentally. When it comes to money, it's been proven that businesses will not regulate themselves, so getting rid of or reducing the size of the EPA would almost certainly be a step backwards and lead us to more problems.

If we look at China as an example, they have a bloody mess on their hands due to this same reason, and they are paying dearly. The cost of their cleanup is going to be astronomical and they are beginning to see this. I realize the cost to American business is great to live within certain environmental standards, but reducing our own is not the answer. The answer lies in pressuring these up and coming economies to be more environmentally conscious themselves as they develop. Forcing them to increase their costs a bit to make the right environmental decisions would help American business be more competitive.

Absolutely!
As a matter of fact China is investing tons of money to clean up their main source of energy and that is coal and it's environmental effect on the environment.
Also, this anti-EPAism has the Koch brothers written all over it. They have been fined tens of millions of dollars for their violations of pollution laws including dumping oil into streams and were hit with a 97-count indictment for covering up the discharge of more than 15 times the legal limit of benzene, a carcinogen. The Koch brothers have funded all sorts of PACs and lobbyist to fight and repeal pollution laws. These are the people paying millions into the campaigns of political pawns so they can go on their merry way destroying this country's environment. It's also cheaper to buy of politicians than to pay fines for polluting.
The Koch brothers are a perfect example of polluters unable to regulate themselves. Even with regulators and regulations, they still regularly pollute our air and water. And they are going to regulate themselves?

 

[Mr Natural]

So you have absolutely no proof.
When I was a kid you could not fish in the Hudson River. Twenty years ago you could fish in the Hudson River. You can still fish in the Hudson River.

So you're saying that the EPA can go away now because it did it's job and companies will now follow suit and clean up after themselves voluntarily?

State depts of EP will be the watch dog of industry to minimize their enviromental impact on the planet.

There are states that will and there are states that won't.

 

[grunt11b]

Congresswoman Michele 'Hitman' Bachmann desires to see industry grow in the USA(so does everyone else!). On top of making the USA a low tax nation for industries to set up business in, the 'Hitman' wants to 'squelch' the EPA to make it easier for business to relocate in country. The EPA, never popular with the rank & file tax paying constituency in the 1st place would be an easy target in an era of tight budgets & high unemployment. I mean who cares about wetland zoning when one is living in the back seat of their vehicle???
My question is, considering the dismal financial situation in country... is the EPA an easy target to start with in eliminating the 'fat' in federal government? It's come down to managing wetlands or keeping a roof over ones head & food on the table. What's your opinion on this one???

I would start with:

1) Department of Education
Education is a states issue, not a federal one.
2) EPA
Also should be left to the states, not big brother.
3) Department of Energy
Signed into law by Carter to ween us off of foreign oil back in the 70's when we imported roughly 30% of our oil from the middle east, today we import around 70%, it's a failing department that needs to go also.
4) Department of Agriculture
Really?...we really need this department, I mean, I work for the Gubment and my check is issued to me by the department of agriculture. I work for the DOJ what the fuck is the DOA issuing my check for? Dont they have farm shit to deal with? It needs to go.

There is alot of shit that can be cut, but you'll never see a politician on either side cut shit, because they are all in on this thing together. Vote Tea Party if you want real change and your freedoms back.

 

[grunt11b]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Nothing that humans have done in our history has ever hurt the earth, it has been proven that millions of years ago the carbon in the air was 30% higher then it is now, earth heals itself. Did you know that you are made of carbon? everything is carbon based, and if the progressives have their way you will be paying for carbon that already existed millions of years before man did, now doesn't that sound stupid?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

I would amuse them by telling them that there is nothing wrong with the air, and I would even give them scientific fact to back it up with.

 

[grunt11b]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

How much cleaner is the water and air in the last 20 years? How much of that was due to EPA regs?

I realize the Obamarrhoids think "hey screw the working man" but permanent unemployment isn't a solution for anyone.

Yes, the EPA has become essentially a rogue agency, passing what ought to be legislation simply by regulatory fiat. They are unelected and unaccountable. Cutting their budget by 75% would go a long way towards helping the economy.

According to pelosi, unemployment and food stamps boost the economy. Silly leftist, you'll be out on your ass here real soon nancy, enjoy it while it lasts.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbqW4qYmYG8]YouTube - ‪Pelosi Says Food Stamps & Unemployment Insurance Helps Economy‬‏[/ame]

 

[tonystewart1]

So you're saying that the EPA can go away now because it did it's job and companies will now follow suit and clean up after themselves voluntarily?

State depts of EP will be the watch dog of industry to minimize their enviromental impact on the planet.

There are states that will and there are states that won't.

All states have a DEP but the fedeal EPA takes almost all their authority away. If we give it back to them then they will do their jobs as the people of the state see fit.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

Typical dimwit fearmongering lies. The EPA is nothing more than a tool for the socialists.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I would start with:

If you want to rant about other departments you think should be cut, start a new thread. This is about Bachman and the EPA.

According to pelosi, unemployment and food stamps boost the economy.

They do. I don't know of a single economist who disagrees with her.

 

[8537]

Yeah, screw the air we breathe and the water we drink in the long run as long as we create some coal mining jobs in the short term, right?

Nothing that humans have done in our history has ever hurt the earth, it has been proven that millions of years ago the carbon in the air was 30% higher then it is now, earth heals itself. Did you know that you are made of carbon? everything is carbon based, and if the progressives have their way you will be paying for carbon that already existed millions of years before man did, now doesn't that sound stupid?

Just think how you can amuse the kids (as they are struggling to breathe due to the pollution in the air) by lighting the water in the sink on fire. YAY!

I would amuse them by telling them that there is nothing wrong with the air, and I would even give them scientific fact to back it up with.

So all that acid rain in the northeast didn't happen? The Northern Forests were collapsing naturally?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Let's see, the Constitution doesn't authorize the Federal government to regulate the environment, thus the EPA is completely unconstitutional and the power to regulate the environment is only in the scope of the State's power.

Maybe you guys should stop relying on emotional arguments and actually end the corruption in our government when the wrong politicians try to steal power from the correct agencies. You've lost your freedom because of your corruption.

You're wrong about that. The EPA is easily covered by the General Welfare AND Interstate Commerce clauses.

If you're worried about corruption, don't look to the agencies that are trying to keep us safe and healthy, but to how we finance elections. If we went to public financing, our representitives wouldn't have to spend so much time drumming up campaign contributrions and selling their vote to whomever can bundle the highest amount.

Too many soacialist lefties misuse the general welfare clause to support their commie views.