Instead of Jobs Bill, House Explores Bill on NONEXISTENT EPA REGS

[Jarhead]

WHAT don't you understand? Yes, they discussed it. Yes they studied it. But NO, they never proposed it become law. There is a HUGE difference between considering, discussing and studying and PROPOSING. You are being suckered by the people who write headlines.

What don't you understand? You're basing your opinion on one article. I'm basing the fact that the EPA proposed changing the regulation on multiple news broadcasts as well as first hand knowledge. Now, let me ask you, do you always base your idiotic assumptions on one piece of information when there are multiple other sources that say otherwise? Or is it just this one instance that you're being a complete and utter fool?

I live in the middle of Minnesota farm land. My house sits on an old farmstead with fields surrounding it. I talk to farmers daily. I also get involved in rural issues. Whether or not you want to believe it, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And that means that I'm done discussing this with you because when you don't want to know the TRUTH and make assumptions based on ONE WORD IN ONE ARTICLE you're wasting my time.

So, if anyone else wants to discuss this based on FACTS and not falsehoods, I'm up for it, but this idiot doesn't get a further response on this subject.

Rick

I don't care if you live in a corn field, your accusation is a strawman. The articles I read came FROM YOU...

From your linked article...

Cathy Milbourn, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., told the Democrat-Herald: “It’s too early in the review process to know whether or not EPA will revise the coarse particulate standard...

let me ask you this...

If I owned a company that made widgets...

And the EPA was discussing an initiative that would result in an increase in my cost to produce widgets that would result it in being cheaper for my clients to import widgets..goiving me reason to consider slowing down productiin iut of fear of being stuck with inventory.....

And in the meantime they shelved the idea to discuss a few months down the raod..

SO congress decides to pass legislation so that the EPA can not move forward with that initiative so I can get back to making widgets without worrying about losing all my business...

Should congress have first waiuted for the EPA to pass the intitiative?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What don't you understand? You're basing your opinion on one article. I'm basing the fact that the EPA proposed changing the regulation on multiple news broadcasts as well as first hand knowledge. Now, let me ask you, do you always base your idiotic assumptions on one piece of information when there are multiple other sources that say otherwise? Or is it just this one instance that you're being a complete and utter fool?

I live in the middle of Minnesota farm land. My house sits on an old farmstead with fields surrounding it. I talk to farmers daily. I also get involved in rural issues. Whether or not you want to believe it, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And that means that I'm done discussing this with you because when you don't want to know the TRUTH and make assumptions based on ONE WORD IN ONE ARTICLE you're wasting my time.

So, if anyone else wants to discuss this based on FACTS and not falsehoods, I'm up for it, but this idiot doesn't get a further response on this subject.

Rick

I don't care if you live in a corn field, your accusation is a strawman. The articles I read came FROM YOU...

From your linked article...

Cathy Milbourn, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., told the Democrat-Herald: “It’s too early in the review process to know whether or not EPA will revise the coarse particulate standard...

let me ask you this...

If I owned a company that made widgets...

And the EPA was discussing an initiative that would result in an increase in my cost to produce widgets that would result it in being cheaper for my clients to import widgets..goiving me reason to consider slowing down productiin iut of fear of being stuck with inventory.....

And in the meantime they shelved the idea to discuss a few months down the raod..

SO congress decides to pass legislation so that the EPA can not move forward with that initiative so I can get back to making widgets without worrying about losing all my business...

Should congress have first waiuted for the EPA to pass the intitiative?

I see a lot of business sense in your reply.....good post.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

From the OP article:

GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain cited it in a debate as a reason to eliminate the EPA.

Bush Administration Approves Most Damaging Change To Clean Water Act In Decades

Allows Waste Dumps in Streams Nationwide

Washington, DC-- The Bush administration today finalized changes to Clean Water Act regulations that would for the first time in 25 years allow the US Army Corps of Engineers to permit waste to fill and destroy the nation's waters. In an attempt to appease the coal mining industry and in a rush to avoid additional Congressional and public scrutiny, EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman signed the rule change.

"It says something when an administration takes an action like this late on a Friday -- that they hope no one sees it," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice. "This is a 'Friday Night Massacre' for our nation's waters and it's the biggest threat to our nation's waters in decades, perhaps since the Clean Water Act passed 30 years ago. Allowing masses of industrial wastes to be dumped in streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands is contrary to the very purpose of the Clean Water Act and represents a major weakening of current clean water law."

EPA's press release states this will "enhance environmental protections" for waters. "Nothing could be further from the truth," said Mulhern. "Anyone who has ever seen what happens when a stream is buried under 900 feet of mining rubble would not conclude that this is a good thing for water quality. More than 1000 miles of streams already have been destroyed in Appalachia by the coal companies that have been flouting the Clean Water Act for years while the EPA and the Corps looked the other way."

"Now that citizens have taken state and federal agencies to court to ensure our environmental laws are enforced, coal companies have sought -and been granted - legal relief from the Bush administration. Their lavish contributions to the Bush-Cheney campaign have just been paid back," Mulhern added.

Dude seriously why do you have to be dishonest about cain....he didn't call for eliminating the EPA he called for defunding it and then REBUILDING IT not eliminating it all together.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUVgUVC8maI]Herman Cain says the EPA needs an "attitude adjustment" - YouTube[/ame]

DUDE...when you defund an entity, what happens to them? You are way beyond hope...DUDE.

ONce again.....he is calling for defunding THEN rebuilding it.....did you miss where I said "REBUILD IT" ?

 

[hboats]

Proof that some idiots don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Follow the links below for proof that the EPA proposed a change to the regulation on dust.

Basics of the Regulatory Process | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

The above link is to the EPA's web page and lays out their procedures. Please note this quote:

Step 1: EPA Proposes a Regulation

The Agency researches the issues and, if necessary, proposes a regulation, also known as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The proposal is listed in the Federal Register (FR) so that members of the public can consider it and send their comments to us. The proposed rule and supporting documents are also filed in EPA's official docket on Regulations.gov. (Learn more about commenting on EPA regulations and how you can get involved.)

Now, follow the following link to go to the EPA's Federal Register where the proposal being discussed in this thread is listed.

FR Doc 2010-16490

So, we have the EPA saying that a proposal is made and posted in their Federal Register (FR) for public review and comments. Then the EPA reviews the comments and goes on to Step 2.

So, in fact the EPA made a proposal to change the regulation on dust.

Any one else want to say they didn't propose this?

Rick

 

[Bfgrn]

What don't you understand? You're basing your opinion on one article. I'm basing the fact that the EPA proposed changing the regulation on multiple news broadcasts as well as first hand knowledge. Now, let me ask you, do you always base your idiotic assumptions on one piece of information when there are multiple other sources that say otherwise? Or is it just this one instance that you're being a complete and utter fool?

I live in the middle of Minnesota farm land. My house sits on an old farmstead with fields surrounding it. I talk to farmers daily. I also get involved in rural issues. Whether or not you want to believe it, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

And that means that I'm done discussing this with you because when you don't want to know the TRUTH and make assumptions based on ONE WORD IN ONE ARTICLE you're wasting my time.

So, if anyone else wants to discuss this based on FACTS and not falsehoods, I'm up for it, but this idiot doesn't get a further response on this subject.

Rick

I don't care if you live in a corn field, your accusation is a strawman. The articles I read came FROM YOU...

From your linked article...

Cathy Milbourn, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., told the Democrat-Herald: “It’s too early in the review process to know whether or not EPA will revise the coarse particulate standard...

which means that it was not yet a dead issue with the EPA.
So Congress opted to put it to rest....as they should have.

Isn't it amazing how much you right wingers LOVE it when government acts heavy handed, as long as it's by Republicans? THAT is not how the process is supposed to work Jarhead. What the House wants to dictate is what the EPA can even discuss or study. That my friend is not in the people's interest.

Why don't you read the EPA's studies and review. They are very thorough.

Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't care if you live in a corn field, your accusation is a strawman. The articles I read came FROM YOU...

From your linked article...

Cathy Milbourn, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., told the Democrat-Herald: “It’s too early in the review process to know whether or not EPA will revise the coarse particulate standard...

which means that it was not yet a dead issue with the EPA.
So Congress opted to put it to rest....as they should have.

Isn't it amazing how much you right wingers LOVE it when government acts heavy handed, as long as it's by Republicans? THAT is not how the process is supposed to work Jarhead. What the House wants to dictate is what the EPA can even discuss or study. That my friend is not in the people's interest.

Why don't you read the EPA's studies and review. They are very thorough.

Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

So what you are saying is that it is a good thing for congress to regulate (stick their nose where it doesn't belong) businesses but that they shouldn't bother with regulating Government agencies..........

 

[Bfgrn]

Proof that some idiots don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Follow the links below for proof that the EPA proposed a change to the regulation on dust.

Basics of the Regulatory Process | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

The above link is to the EPA's web page and lays out their procedures. Please note this quote:

Step 1: EPA Proposes a Regulation

The Agency researches the issues and, if necessary, proposes a regulation, also known as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The proposal is listed in the Federal Register (FR) so that members of the public can consider it and send their comments to us. The proposed rule and supporting documents are also filed in EPA's official docket on Regulations.gov. (Learn more about commenting on EPA regulations and how you can get involved.)

Now, follow the following link to go to the EPA's Federal Register where the proposal being discussed in this thread is listed.

FR Doc 2010-16490

So, we have the EPA saying that a proposal is made and posted in their Federal Register (FR) for public review and comments. Then the EPA reviews the comments and goes on to Step 2.

So, in fact the EPA made a proposal to change the regulation on dust.

Any one else want to say they didn't propose this?

Rick

NO AGAIN Rick!

READ the first paragraph in the notice YOU POSTED!

SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

 

[Jarhead]

I don't care if you live in a corn field, your accusation is a strawman. The articles I read came FROM YOU...

From your linked article...

Cathy Milbourn, a spokeswoman for the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C., told the Democrat-Herald: “It’s too early in the review process to know whether or not EPA will revise the coarse particulate standard...

which means that it was not yet a dead issue with the EPA.
So Congress opted to put it to rest....as they should have.

Isn't it amazing how much you right wingers LOVE it when government acts heavy handed, as long as it's by Republicans? THAT is not how the process is supposed to work Jarhead. What the House wants to dictate is what the EPA can even discuss or study. That my friend is not in the people's interest.

Why don't you read the EPA's studies and review. They are very thorough.

Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Thanks for the link, I will read it.

And I am not a right winger as the term is used on this board.

 

[hboats]

Proof that some idiots don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Follow the links below for proof that the EPA proposed a change to the regulation on dust.

Basics of the Regulatory Process | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

The above link is to the EPA's web page and lays out their procedures. Please note this quote:

Step 1: EPA Proposes a Regulation

The Agency researches the issues and, if necessary, proposes a regulation, also known as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The proposal is listed in the Federal Register (FR) so that members of the public can consider it and send their comments to us. The proposed rule and supporting documents are also filed in EPA's official docket on Regulations.gov. (Learn more about commenting on EPA regulations and how you can get involved.)

Now, follow the following link to go to the EPA's Federal Register where the proposal being discussed in this thread is listed.

FR Doc 2010-16490

So, we have the EPA saying that a proposal is made and posted in their Federal Register (FR) for public review and comments. Then the EPA reviews the comments and goes on to Step 2.

So, in fact the EPA made a proposal to change the regulation on dust.

Any one else want to say they didn't propose this?

Rick

NO AGAIN Rick!

READ the first paragraph in the notice YOU POSTED!

SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

Ok, I know I said I wasn't going to respond to you again in this thread, but you're just so boneheaded that I can't help myself.

I just posted proof that the EPA proposed a change to this regulation and you're still to much of a moron to admit you're absolutely wrong? Keep digging that hole. It's just funny to watch.

Try re-reading the post you quoted above. It proves beyond any doubt that the EPA proposed a change to the regulation on dust particles. Just because you don't understand what you're talking about doesn't make you correct. It really just makes you a fool.

Oh, and I am finished with you as far as this thread is concerned, now that you have substantiated proof that you're incorrect and you refuse to admit it you have lost all credibility in this discussion.

Rick

 

[hboats]

Letter to EPA head Lisa Jackson on the road & farm dust in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) second draft Policy Assessment.

More proof for idiots to ignore.

Rick

 

[Bfgrn]

Proof that some idiots don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Follow the links below for proof that the EPA proposed a change to the regulation on dust.

Basics of the Regulatory Process | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

The above link is to the EPA's web page and lays out their procedures. Please note this quote:



Now, follow the following link to go to the EPA's Federal Register where the proposal being discussed in this thread is listed.

FR Doc 2010-16490

So, we have the EPA saying that a proposal is made and posted in their Federal Register (FR) for public review and comments. Then the EPA reviews the comments and goes on to Step 2.

So, in fact the EPA made a proposal to change the regulation on dust.

Any one else want to say they didn't propose this?

Rick

NO AGAIN Rick!

READ the first paragraph in the notice YOU POSTED!

SUMMARY: On or about June 30, 2010, the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public comment a
draft document: Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second External Review
Draft. This draft document will serve to ``bridge the gap'' between the
scientific information and the judgments required of the Administrator
in determining whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the
standards as part of the review of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM).

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before August 16, 2010.

Ok, I know I said I wasn't going to respond to you again in this thread, but you're just so boneheaded that I can't help myself.

I just posted proof that the EPA proposed a change to this regulation and you're still to much of a moron to admit you're absolutely wrong? Keep digging that hole. It's just funny to watch.

Try re-reading the post you quoted above. It proves beyond any doubt that the EPA proposed a change to the regulation on dust particles. Just because you don't understand what you're talking about doesn't make you correct. It really just makes you a fool.

Oh, and I am finished with you as far as this thread is concerned, now that you have substantiated proof that you're incorrect and you refuse to admit it you have lost all credibility in this discussion.

Rick

Yea, cut & run Ricky...

You can threaten, scream, stomp your feet and cry...you are still wrong.

Here is more from what YOU POSTED.

EPA establishes primary (health-based) and secondary
(welfare-based) NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are
issued. Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review and, if
appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The revised air
quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge on the
effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA is also
required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if appropriate,
based on the revised criteria.

The EPA is merely following the provisions of the Clean Air Act, to periodically review regulations. To see if any new science has been advanced, any results have been gathered in relation to existing statutes effectiveness...

These are adult activities...beyond your understanding it appears...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Dude seriously why do you have to be dishonest about cain....he didn't call for eliminating the EPA he called for defunding it and then REBUILDING IT not eliminating it all together.

Herman Cain says the EPA needs an "attitude adjustment" - YouTube

DUDE...when you defund an entity, what happens to them? You are way beyond hope...DUDE.

ONce again.....he is calling for defunding THEN rebuilding it.....did you miss where I said "REBUILD IT" ?

You do realize your mistake now right Bfgrn?

 

[The T]

Dude seriously why do you have to be dishonest about cain....he didn't call for eliminating the EPA he called for defunding it and then REBUILDING IT not eliminating it all together.

Herman Cain says the EPA needs an "attitude adjustment" - YouTube

DUDE...when you defund an entity, what happens to them? You are way beyond hope...DUDE.

ONce again.....he is calling for defunding THEN rebuilding it.....did you miss where I said "REBUILD IT" ?

Yes you and he did. Here's the deal...the point...the EPA has become a tool to manipulate behaviour for politics/economic sake only.

I like the attitude of 'Attitude adjustment'...there are many agencies that could use the same doctrine.

If it were me? I'd just get RID of them.

 

[Meister]

Ok, seriously Jughead, are there multiple people using your account?? You have been saying some wicked stupid shit lately.

You think the Dems didnt play the Iraq War for political benefit? You really are dumber than fuck-all.
Democratic leaders reject tax hike to fund war - politics - msnbc.com

Notice that the Democratic leadership did not raise taxes to pay for the war. I guess there's another lie by the Left exposed, that Bush got us into this mess by not paying for the war.

I'm not dumb you are!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZEGot-xU4]Harry Reid: "The Iraq War is lost." - YouTube[/ame]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=EXaoavV1d4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=3kqPzUhNPiA


Yeah....nothing political about it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You think the Dems didnt play the Iraq War for political benefit? You really are dumber than fuck-all.
Democratic leaders reject tax hike to fund war - politics - msnbc.com

Notice that the Democratic leadership did not raise taxes to pay for the war. I guess there's another lie by the Left exposed, that Bush got us into this mess by not paying for the war.

I'm not dumb you are!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZEGot-xU4]Harry Reid: "The Iraq War is lost." - YouTube[/ame]
John Kerry calls American troops terrorists - YouTube
Pelosi Deems Iraq Total Failure - YouTube


Yeah....nothing political about it.

Well said, good way to back up your point!