Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There are articles in news papers and than there are political hit pieces or propaganda.What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?
Umm all of them.
Notice how they scream prove it.
If they don't believe in evolution after all the decades of study and data and enormous amounts of evidence.
If they don't believe in climate change even though it's something you can look right at.
Why would they ever believe that pollution causes birth defects? As if a dirty country makes us more attractive to business.
The Republican presidential nominees keep going on about EPA regulations hurting business. About all the new Obama regulations. We know that Obama actually has 5% FEWER regulations than Bush did after three years. We also know that the majority of regulations either come from congress or are a result of "court orders".
Michelle Bachmann want's to get rid of the EPA altogether. Many Republicans share that view. I'm guessing they assume companies will protect the environment the same way BP did the Gulf.
They say that things won't get "that bad".
What I'm wondering is how many new cases of birth defects and lung cancer tdo Republicans find "acceptable"? Taking care of these people will create new jobs, we know that. Is that part of their plan?
5%
10%
1,000 new cases?
100,000?
How much do they find acceptable? And the people that do have children with birth defects. Should they be "paid"?
-----------------------------------------------
Appalachian residents who live near mountaintop removal mine sites face an increased risk of birth defects.
House Republicans scheduled last week's hearing on the heels of a vote by the full House to pass legislation pushed by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., to strip EPA of much of its authority to ensure state regulatory agencies properly enforce water pollution standards and permit limits. The bill is part of an effort by the GOP and by coal-state Democrats to block the Obama administration's crackdown on mountaintop removal.
EPA concerned about MTR link to birth defects* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -
That pesky EPA if it were not for the costs associated with keeping America unpolluted the corporations could make more money.
That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?
The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.
What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.
That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?
The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.
What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.
I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?
I'm thinking of 2 issues, 1. whether or not having less regulation will mean more health-damaging pollution, and 2. the money debate.
IMO, if industries were responsible and could guarantee us that they would be, and then are for a fact responsible, then we would not need any regulations. However, if the regulating organization, i.e., EPA, was done away with and there was no one to make sure industries lived up to their claims, there would be a state of anarchy and little to no accountability, meaning they will be faultless no matter who they hurt for not living up to their promises.
No one has mentioned the fact that a large percentage of people with birth defects, regardless of cause, end up receiving SSI benefits their entire lives, nor that many of these people are not able to work, nor that as the percentage of the population with birth defects goes up, the lower the percentage gets of people who are actually contributing to the economy rather than creating a need for greater tax revenue. Want your taxes to go up? If so, let industries be operating in a state of anarchy with no regulating body so that they can throw whatever they want into the environment, because among all that pollution, there will always be something that will damage someone's health to cause more expense to the tax payers. Oh wait, Dean made a point of that there would be more jobs available in the healthcare field... maybe at the welfare office too.
What regulation that Republicans want to repeal will increase cancer? Can you name even one?
Umm all of them.
Notice how they scream prove it.
If they don't believe in evolution after all the decades of study and data and enormous amounts of evidence.
If they don't believe in climate change even though it's something you can look right at.
Why would they ever believe that pollution causes birth defects? As if a dirty country makes us more attractive to business.
That pesky EPA if it were not for the costs associated with keeping America unpolluted the corporations could make more money.
What turds like you don't understand is that concept of trade-offs and the fact that cleaning up the last 0.00001% of a pollutant can cost 100 million times more than cleaning up the first 99%. Yet, you insist an 0.0% pollution.
Not really, lad.
You're a bunch of numskulls who will destroy this economy and have us all living like feudal serfs for the sake of your impossible schemes to save the planet.
There ARE definitely some self proclaimiing environmentalists who ARE like that.
Secretly, I suspect these people are misanthropes.
They have never EVER met an industrial project they didn't hate, and expansion they didn't want to stop, either.
But these people are NOT generally in charge of most environmental causes.
Oh I know you believe what you post but you believe this based on nothing other than your own faith, lad.
I am and have been a long time activist. Most of us are not nuts.
We just do not want to be poisoned by selfish industrialists (who inevitably do not live where their polluting industries are located)
That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?
The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.
What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.
I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?
As of yet, no one has proven that birth defects will increase. We certainly can't trust the EPA to give us the straight poop on such subjects.
That is a very good question.... But you need to turn it around. In order to reduce cancers and birth defects, what level of unemployment and what level of decay in your living standard are you willing to accept?
The assumption is that profits are increased or decreased by these regulations. That is not the case. Profit is determined by risk and the going rate of return on assets for any enterprise. You never increase or decrease rates of profit except by increasing or decreasing risk. The rate of profit will remain constant.
What you do change is wage income. What level or lower wages are you willing to accept a more pristine environment. Some occupations have totally vanished under environmental control. Lead used to be a major industry. No all the jobs associate with it have gone as no one uses it. Same with Asbestos. It used to be a major industry. Now it is totally banned. All those who worked in those industries are unemployed. But profits have not changed much except to rise a little, as risks of doing buisnes have increased some.
In the seventy years I have lived, I have seen my standard of living rise pretty much the whole time. At the same time, we have far more environmental regulations than we used to. So, obviously, increased regulation does not equal decreased wages and standard of living. What we have here is a false meme peddled by those that can make a quick buck poisoning the rest of us.
I asked first. Obviously, you are OK with increased birth defects. The question is how many is OK? Should we slip the parents a "few bucks"? Or should they just "buck up" and know they are doing something "good" for the country?
As of yet, no one has proven that birth defects will increase. We certainly can't trust the EPA to give us the straight poop on such subjects.
The people we cannot trust are the ones making the money off of products that damage the rest of us. And the assholes like you that think that is the way to go.
That pesky EPA if it were not for the costs associated with keeping America unpolluted the corporations could make more money.
Not really, lad.
You're a bunch of numskulls who will destroy this economy and have us all living like feudal serfs for the sake of your impossible schemes to save the planet.
There ARE definitely some self proclaimiing environmentalists who ARE like that.
Secretly, I suspect these people are misanthropes.
They have never EVER met an industrial project they didn't hate, and expansion they didn't want to stop, either.
But these people are NOT generally in charge of most environmental causes.
Oh I know you believe what you post but you believe this based on nothing other than your own faith, lad.
I am and have been a long time activist. Most of us are not nuts.
We just do not want to be poisoned by selfish industrialists (who inevitably do not live where their polluting industries are located)
I believe it based on the record of environmental groups and the record of the EPA.
