The GOP's plan to gut the EPA

[Chris]

In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.

So Newt Gingrich — who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 — and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."

The GOP's Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA - TIME

 

[KissMy]

Unless we start charging China & other countries an EPA import tariff then we have to relax our EPA standards. We all live on the same planet. Currently all of our jobs went to China to get around EPA regs so these companies can continue to pollute our planet. Worse pollution is happening because our EPA can't control Chinese manufacturing.

We must gut the EPA to compete & have some control over our remaining US manufacturing or absolutely all manufacturing & EPA control will be gone from the USA. An EPA pollution import tax is the only alternative. An import tax may touch off a trade war. That proved to be a disaster in the "Great Depression". So we are left with Gut the EPA.

 

[R.D.]

Good starting point.

 

[blastoff]

Okay, so we'll let the stooges each have a gerbil on the way out the door.

 

[peach174]

wants to help American businesses and the American people.
Wanting to keep higher prices down from unreasonable regulations is what they are doing.

Last year, Congress rejected a costly, burdensome cap-and-trade proposal that would have established strict new GHG emissions standards-and a whole new GHG bureaucracy. But now the EPA wants to impose similar restrictions-without Congressional approval. These new regulations would:

* Hurt American job growth and could send jobs overseas.
* Affect families, farmers, commuters, truckers-in fact any American that uses energy.
* Increase the price of energy to consumers.

The EPA has an important job to do, but its authority comes from Congress. Our energy and environmental policies must strike a balance that accounts for impacts on the economy, jobs, and energy security, as well as protecting the environment. The EPA is moving forward too fast without considering how its actions will hurt American businesses, households, and global competitiveness.

Wanting to put the rules and regulations back into congress like it should be, is not getting rid of EPA.
It is unconstitutional for the EPA to be making regulations on their own.

 

[Jarhead]

In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.

So Newt Gingrich — who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 — and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."

The GOP's Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA - TIME

not quite sure if you agree or disagree.

I mean....with the latest NASA finding that "earth is releasing more heat from the atmosphere than opriginally thought when concerns of global warming arose"...and the fact that other highly industrialized nations are running away woith manufacturing at the cost of American jobs and our GDP......seems to me that dismantling the EPA will prove to be good for America.

No wonder it is a GOP intiaitive.

 

[flacaltenn]

In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.

So Newt Gingrich — who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 — and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."

The GOP's Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA - TIME

Only a partisian would mistake an honest debate about allowing BUREAUCRATS to write CO2 legislation rather than CONGRESS as "gutting the EPA".. The bigger issue here is the total abdication of legislative responsibility on the part of Congress..

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. It needs further discussion of it's impact.. You simply want to shut down the debate.. If you want to see EPA abuse of legislative powers -- go see the Enviroment thread on building solid domes over all our municipal reservoirs. And the inflexibility of the EPA to accept rational arguments against that mandate in light of WHERE water purity and safety projects should be prioritized. REFORM of the process is sorely needed to actually focus on environmental priorities and progress. Stop demanding like a kindergartener and try to be part of the solution..

 

[flacaltenn]

wants to help American businesses and the American people.
Wanting to keep higher prices down from unreasonable regulations is what they are doing.

Last year, Congress rejected a costly, burdensome cap-and-trade proposal that would have established strict new GHG emissions standards-and a whole new GHG bureaucracy. But now the EPA wants to impose similar restrictions-without Congressional approval. These new regulations would:

* Hurt American job growth and could send jobs overseas.
* Affect families, farmers, commuters, truckers-in fact any American that uses energy.
* Increase the price of energy to consumers.

The EPA has an important job to do, but its authority comes from Congress. Our energy and environmental policies must strike a balance that accounts for impacts on the economy, jobs, and energy security, as well as protecting the environment. The EPA is moving forward too fast without considering how its actions will hurt American businesses, households, and global competitiveness.

Wanting to put the rules and regulations back into congress like it should be, is not getting rid of EPA.It is unconstitutional for the EPA to be making regulations on their own.

Kudos for the comments I bolded above.. This is part that Chris isn't discussing, because it's largely indefensible. But maybe that won't stop him from trying..

 

[ClosedCaption]

so the answer to compete with China is have a race to the bottom?

 

[Jarhead]

so the answer to compete with China is have a race to the bottom?

You opted to read it that way....but not sure why.

The answer to compete with China is to be on a level playing field.

 

[Flopper]

In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.

So Newt Gingrich — who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 — and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."

The GOP's Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA - TIME

not quite sure if you agree or disagree.

I mean....with the latest NASA finding that "earth is releasing more heat from the atmosphere than opriginally thought when concerns of global warming arose"...and the fact that other highly industrialized nations are running away woith manufacturing at the cost of American jobs and our GDP......seems to me that dismantling the EPA will prove to be good for America.

No wonder it is a GOP intiaitive.

The EPA is about a lot more than just global climate change, clean air, clean water, protection of wildlife and wetlands, land restoration, protecting our food sources, and recycling. Less than 10% of the EPA budget is devoted to climate change. Half the EPA budget is devoted to clean air and water.

 

[Mr Natural]

so the answer to compete with China is have a race to the bottom?

You opted to read it that way....but not sure why.

The answer to compete with China is to be on a level playing field.

No, the answer is not to compete with China at all.

Bring the jobs back, pay people a decent buck for their labor, and return America to the greatness it knew before the policies of Reaganomics decimated the middle class.

 

[KissMy]

so the answer to compete with China is have a race to the bottom?

You opted to read it that way....but not sure why.

The answer to compete with China is to be on a level playing field.

No, the answer is not to compete with China at all.

Bring the jobs back, pay people a decent buck for their labor, and return America to the greatness it knew before the policies of Reaganomics decimated the middle class.

Just because you Obamacrats chant bring the jobs back does not make it happen. These are dirty NIMBY hot & sweaty hard labor jobs that most Americans won't do or live next to.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.

So Newt Gingrich — who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 — and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."

The GOP's Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA - TIME

I'd like to see most of these government "make-work" agencies thrown on the rubbish heap where they belong.

 

[Jarhead]

so the answer to compete with China is have a race to the bottom?

You opted to read it that way....but not sure why.

The answer to compete with China is to be on a level playing field.

No, the answer is not to compete with China at all.

Bring the jobs back, pay people a decent buck for their labor, and return America to the greatness it knew before the policies of Reaganomics decimated the middle class.

You left something out.

Shut down the borders and discontinuing the importing of similar goods at drastically lower prices.

Oh yeah...and then we will need to find jobs for all of those Americans that work for international firms with plants on US soil that will most certainly react by pulling out.

You see? It is very easy to criticize and offer simple solutions.

The problem is...if those solutions were so simple, we would have done it already

 

[Warrior102]

In recent years the Republican Party has defined itself as staunchly anti-EPA and generally anti–environmental protection. Whether that means opposing legislation to curb climate change or new rules to promote energy-efficient lightbulbs, if it can be considered green, then the majority of the GOP is almost always against it. That antigreen ideology has only been stiffened by the rise of the Tea Party, and Republican presidential candidates on the campaign trail are fighting to see who can come across as more hostile to environmental regulations.

So Newt Gingrich — who once wrote a book called A Contract with the Earth, all the way back in 2007 — and Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann have both called for abolishing the EPA, while Mitt Romney has come under intense criticism from the likes of Rush Limbaugh for daring to admit that man-made climate change might just actually exist. Sarah Palin summed up the prevailing GOP attitude when she had this to say while attending a motorcycle rally at the start of her recent cross-country bus tour: "I love the smell of emissions."

The GOP's Hidden Debt-Deal Agenda: Gut the EPA - TIME

So?

 

[Old Rocks]

so the answer to compete with China is have a race to the bottom?

You opted to read it that way....but not sure why.

The answer to compete with China is to be on a level playing field.

No, the answer is not to compete with China at all.

Bring the jobs back, pay people a decent buck for their labor, and return America to the greatness it knew before the policies of Reaganomics decimated the middle class.

Oh my, socialism. Pay workers a living wage? Pure Marxism.

 

[Jarhead]

You opted to read it that way....but not sure why.

The answer to compete with China is to be on a level playing field.

No, the answer is not to compete with China at all.

Bring the jobs back, pay people a decent buck for their labor, and return America to the greatness it knew before the policies of Reaganomics decimated the middle class.

Oh my, socialism. Pay workers a living wage? Pure Marxism.

A teenage worker at McDonalds must implement customer service skills.....be able to understand and speak english. Be able to understand what a non english speaking customer wants. Be able to use a cash register. Be able to count out change correctly.

A worker on an assembly line needs to know whcih way to turn a wrench as he tightens the same bolt over and over again.

Exactly why should that assembly line worker get more than the teen working at McDonalds?

 

[Old Rocks]

You opted to read it that way....but not sure why.

The answer to compete with China is to be on a level playing field.

No, the answer is not to compete with China at all.

Bring the jobs back, pay people a decent buck for their labor, and return America to the greatness it knew before the policies of Reaganomics decimated the middle class.

Just because you Obamacrats chant bring the jobs back does not make it happen. These are dirty NIMBY hot & sweaty hard labor jobs that most Americans won't do or live next to.

Really! I work at one of those jobs. Millwright in a steel mill. 60K to 100K a year. Excellant benefits. We have continually been upgrading our environmental controls, and I live within three blocks of work. The only affects from that mill at present at that distance is noise. Less than the railroad that services the plant.

Your yap-yap is just a coverup for the fact that the corperations move out to get the benefit of no environmental controls and very low wages.

Imports from nations with very low environmental controls should face a very stiff import tax. The corperation should pay extra to import if they moved a factory out of the US.

Now there are many foreign corperations that move here for the benefit of the work ethic of American workers, or buy out American corperations. I know, I work for one, and they increased the benefits, and are absolute fanatics about having a safe work place. They are a multi-national, and if anyone is hurt at any plant, within twenty four hours, we all know about it, and as many details as they have at the time. They also pay a profit sharing quarterly. In the past, that has been as high as 70%.

What does this have to do with your post? You continually dis the American worker, yet make excuses for the asshole CEO's that move jobs out of the US. I think the problem you see has more to do with your own work ethic.

Oh yes, the company I work for is Russian. So why is a Russian corperation treating American workers better than most American corperations? Why are they telling us how much they appreciate our efforts while the American corperations seem intent on denigrating the efforts of their employees? Your statements are so typical and so erronious.

 

[Old Rocks]

No, the answer is not to compete with China at all.

Bring the jobs back, pay people a decent buck for their labor, and return America to the greatness it knew before the policies of Reaganomics decimated the middle class.

Oh my, socialism. Pay workers a living wage? Pure Marxism.

A teenage worker at McDonalds must implement customer service skills.....be able to understand and speak english. Be able to understand what a non english speaking customer wants. Be able to use a cash register. Be able to count out change correctly.

A worker on an assembly line needs to know whcih way to turn a wrench as he tightens the same bolt over and over again.

Exactly why should that assembly line worker get more than the teen working at McDonalds?

What a fuckup dummy you are. Did you ever do anything other than clean the latrines.

If it is a bolt that is turned in the same place repeatedly, a machine does it. Apparently you have never worked in a real manufacturing environment in a modern plant.