Uh...too late

[Ray From Cleveland]

What other country has pumped more money into pollution cleanup than the United States? Did you read the past few posts on what Marion Morrison and I were talking about? Do you know how many billions of dollars that little diesel fuel stunt cost the transportation industry? And who do you think pays that in the end?

Today trucks cost so much they are almost unaffordable. Besides the diesel fuel, they installed thousands and thousands of dollars of pollution crap into each truck. Now we have to buy this stuff called Diesel Emission Fluid, or DEF for short. It's a separate container that squirts DEF into the exhaust pipe supposedly to make the exhaust cleaner. If you run out of DEF by accident, it ruins the engine. If fact, it won't even start if you run it to totally empty.

Always remember Ray from Cleveland's rule about the environment: You can't make an environmentalist happy, it just isn't possible. How do I know, because we've been trying nearly my entire life. In spite of the trillions we've dumped into pollution, the environmentalists are less happy today than they were forty years ago. It's a bottomless money pit. Also ask yourself how many bureaucrats and politicians invested their money in companies that made DEF when the regulation started?

Where exactly did those trillions of dollars go?

That's the question. Where did they go?

Every single item you purchase today has an environmental cost. It's intrinsic and not itemized, but it's there.

My employer (like all involved in the transportation industry) had to pass those environmental costs to us--the consumers.

Every peach you buy at the grocery store, every nail you buy at your hardware store, every computer, television set, cable box, mattress covers all have an intrinsic environmental cost to it. It doesn't matter if you buy your products at Sam's Club, Target, Amazon, Walmart--every single item.

So next time you go to the bathroom and pull off some toilet paper, you are paying for environmental costs.

Larger ticket times are much worse. Gasoline today would be 80 cents a gallon without all the environmental costs. Your $25,000 car would have cost you $18,000 without all the environmental costs associated with that vehicle. Lawnmowers, snowblowers, weed whackers, all the same thing. I won't even get into ethanol which are ruining engines by the millions in this country.

In our area, they forced us into E-check. It's been here well more than a decade. The annual cost to us is over 24 million dollars.

I was asking where the money went not how revenues were raised. So wethe consumers are paying more for goods and trillions get raised and spent for environmental efforts. Where do those trillions of dollars go?

Just like with our company, to pay for environmental regulations on products and services. Our money went to the increased costs of equipment. Our money went to maintain these vehicles that break down all the time; usually because some pollution gadget went haywire. Our money goes to supply our vehicles with the mandated DEF fluid.

The money went from our pockets to the producers of these products and goods because they passed the environmental costs to us.

You think that trillions of dollars went to companies that produce environmentally friendly goods? That’s alot of money which companies are we talking about? I’d love to dig into their financials.

Collectively, of course we are talking trillions of dollars. Start with gasoline and try to find how much we spend to make that cleaner to produce and use since the 60's. In the 60's, we had about seven or eight blends of gasoline for the country. I think it's something like over 80 blends today. Remember to include all the refining regulations to make that gasoline too. Then if you'd like, calculate all the costs it takes to make one car environmentally friendly. From there, utility companies and transportation companies.

When Bush was in office, he had his EPA regulate diesel fuel. It had to be low sulfur diesel fuel which sprung the price about a dollar a gallon more than gasoline. My tractor-trailer only gets (on average) 6.5 MPH. Our straight trucks get about 13 MPH. Prior to that, diesel was generally a dollar or so less than gasoline. Today the prices are more comparable, but diesel is still more expensive. I would be willing to bet that the transportation industry alone spent well over a trillion dollars in the last decade or so.

 

[gipper]

The left became extremely radicalized over the past 20 years. That’s why Republicans hold the White House, the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. Ole Dick Durbin here is a day late and a dollar short in his “warning”.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said in a radio interview on Sunday that Democrats can lose to President Donald Trump in 2020 if they "overdo it" by becoming too liberal.

Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate 55 year old cross-dressing male sexual deviants showering with their 14 year old daughters. Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate socialism. Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate their constitutional rights being stripped from them. Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate fascism. The left became “too liberal” a long time ago.

Senate Minority Whip Cautions Dems About 'Overdoing It' by Being Too Liberal

We all know the radical left is anything but reasonable and rational.

 

[Slade3200]

Where exactly did those trillions of dollars go?

That's the question. Where did they go?

Every single item you purchase today has an environmental cost. It's intrinsic and not itemized, but it's there.

My employer (like all involved in the transportation industry) had to pass those environmental costs to us--the consumers.

Every peach you buy at the grocery store, every nail you buy at your hardware store, every computer, television set, cable box, mattress covers all have an intrinsic environmental cost to it. It doesn't matter if you buy your products at Sam's Club, Target, Amazon, Walmart--every single item.

So next time you go to the bathroom and pull off some toilet paper, you are paying for environmental costs.

Larger ticket times are much worse. Gasoline today would be 80 cents a gallon without all the environmental costs. Your $25,000 car would have cost you $18,000 without all the environmental costs associated with that vehicle. Lawnmowers, snowblowers, weed whackers, all the same thing. I won't even get into ethanol which are ruining engines by the millions in this country.

In our area, they forced us into E-check. It's been here well more than a decade. The annual cost to us is over 24 million dollars.

I was asking where the money went not how revenues were raised. So wethe consumers are paying more for goods and trillions get raised and spent for environmental efforts. Where do those trillions of dollars go?

Just like with our company, to pay for environmental regulations on products and services. Our money went to the increased costs of equipment. Our money went to maintain these vehicles that break down all the time; usually because some pollution gadget went haywire. Our money goes to supply our vehicles with the mandated DEF fluid.

The money went from our pockets to the producers of these products and goods because they passed the environmental costs to us.

You think that trillions of dollars went to companies that produce environmentally friendly goods? That’s alot of money which companies are we talking about? I’d love to dig into their financials.

Collectively, of course we are talking trillions of dollars. Start with gasoline and try to find how much we spend to make that cleaner to produce and use since the 60's. In the 60's, we had about seven or eight blends of gasoline for the country. I think it's something like over 80 blends today. Remember to include all the refining regulations to make that gasoline too. Then if you'd like, calculate all the costs it takes to make one car environmentally friendly. From there, utility companies and transportation companies.

When Bush was in office, he had his EPA regulate diesel fuel. It had to be low sulfur diesel fuel which sprung the price about a dollar a gallon more than gasoline. My tractor-trailer only gets (on average) 6.5 MPH. Our straight trucks get about 13 MPH. Prior to that, diesel was generally a dollar or so less than gasoline. Today the prices are more comparable, but diesel is still more expensive. I would be willing to bet that the transportation industry alone spent well over a trillion dollars in the last decade or so.

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point. Go a layer deeper. When you say a trillion was spent on transportation, you are talking about many blue collar jobs. Oil rig workers, automobile engineers, parts manufacturers, etc etc. it is all part of a living economy, when Money is spent it is going to people that support families and put food on the table. The regulations create demand for businesses to supply alternative energy sources, parts, and systems that all keep our environment cleaner.

Of course there needs to be a balance and we need to let free enterprise work and not let government dominate the market too much... but let’s be honest when we are talking about the economics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's the question. Where did they go?

Every single item you purchase today has an environmental cost. It's intrinsic and not itemized, but it's there.

My employer (like all involved in the transportation industry) had to pass those environmental costs to us--the consumers.

Every peach you buy at the grocery store, every nail you buy at your hardware store, every computer, television set, cable box, mattress covers all have an intrinsic environmental cost to it. It doesn't matter if you buy your products at Sam's Club, Target, Amazon, Walmart--every single item.

So next time you go to the bathroom and pull off some toilet paper, you are paying for environmental costs.

Larger ticket times are much worse. Gasoline today would be 80 cents a gallon without all the environmental costs. Your $25,000 car would have cost you $18,000 without all the environmental costs associated with that vehicle. Lawnmowers, snowblowers, weed whackers, all the same thing. I won't even get into ethanol which are ruining engines by the millions in this country.

In our area, they forced us into E-check. It's been here well more than a decade. The annual cost to us is over 24 million dollars.

I was asking where the money went not how revenues were raised. So wethe consumers are paying more for goods and trillions get raised and spent for environmental efforts. Where do those trillions of dollars go?

Just like with our company, to pay for environmental regulations on products and services. Our money went to the increased costs of equipment. Our money went to maintain these vehicles that break down all the time; usually because some pollution gadget went haywire. Our money goes to supply our vehicles with the mandated DEF fluid.

The money went from our pockets to the producers of these products and goods because they passed the environmental costs to us.

You think that trillions of dollars went to companies that produce environmentally friendly goods? That’s alot of money which companies are we talking about? I’d love to dig into their financials.

Collectively, of course we are talking trillions of dollars. Start with gasoline and try to find how much we spend to make that cleaner to produce and use since the 60's. In the 60's, we had about seven or eight blends of gasoline for the country. I think it's something like over 80 blends today. Remember to include all the refining regulations to make that gasoline too. Then if you'd like, calculate all the costs it takes to make one car environmentally friendly. From there, utility companies and transportation companies.

When Bush was in office, he had his EPA regulate diesel fuel. It had to be low sulfur diesel fuel which sprung the price about a dollar a gallon more than gasoline. My tractor-trailer only gets (on average) 6.5 MPH. Our straight trucks get about 13 MPH. Prior to that, diesel was generally a dollar or so less than gasoline. Today the prices are more comparable, but diesel is still more expensive. I would be willing to bet that the transportation industry alone spent well over a trillion dollars in the last decade or so.

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point. Go a layer deeper. When you say a trillion was spent on transportation, you are talking about many blue collar jobs. Oil rig workers, automobile engineers, parts manufacturers, etc etc. it is all part of a living economy, when Money is spent it is going to people that support families and put food on the table. The regulations create demand for businesses to supply alternative energy sources, parts, and systems that all keep our environment cleaner.

Of course there needs to be a balance and we need to let free enterprise work and not let government dominate the market too much... but let’s be honest when we are talking about the economics.

While they may create work, you don't get much in return for the money you spent.

Let's say you buy a circular saw. You got your moneys worth from the material it was made from, the production of the saw itself, and even the packaging. What you didn't get your moneys worth is from the environmental regulations that governed the production of your saw.

In other words without ridiculous environmental regulations, your saw would have cost you $80.00 instead of $90.00. Just like your automobile may have cost you $20,000 instead of $25,000.

Where I live the feds forced us into e-check. Every other year, you have to drive down to the testing station and have your car checked for "too much" pollution. They started this because the feds insisted our pollution levels were too high.

So ten years later after this idiotic e-check started, they tested the air again, and found no improvement. So what did the do? They extended the e-check program.

Did e-check create jobs? Yes it did; jobs that were not needed. Is there any value of e-check to the motorist? No there isn't. We never wanted it in the first place. Did it solve any problems? No it didn't. We didn't get anything from the tens or hundreds of millions we've spent since the start of e-check.

 

[Slade3200]

I was asking where the money went not how revenues were raised. So wethe consumers are paying more for goods and trillions get raised and spent for environmental efforts. Where do those trillions of dollars go?

Just like with our company, to pay for environmental regulations on products and services. Our money went to the increased costs of equipment. Our money went to maintain these vehicles that break down all the time; usually because some pollution gadget went haywire. Our money goes to supply our vehicles with the mandated DEF fluid.

The money went from our pockets to the producers of these products and goods because they passed the environmental costs to us.

You think that trillions of dollars went to companies that produce environmentally friendly goods? That’s alot of money which companies are we talking about? I’d love to dig into their financials.

Collectively, of course we are talking trillions of dollars. Start with gasoline and try to find how much we spend to make that cleaner to produce and use since the 60's. In the 60's, we had about seven or eight blends of gasoline for the country. I think it's something like over 80 blends today. Remember to include all the refining regulations to make that gasoline too. Then if you'd like, calculate all the costs it takes to make one car environmentally friendly. From there, utility companies and transportation companies.

When Bush was in office, he had his EPA regulate diesel fuel. It had to be low sulfur diesel fuel which sprung the price about a dollar a gallon more than gasoline. My tractor-trailer only gets (on average) 6.5 MPH. Our straight trucks get about 13 MPH. Prior to that, diesel was generally a dollar or so less than gasoline. Today the prices are more comparable, but diesel is still more expensive. I would be willing to bet that the transportation industry alone spent well over a trillion dollars in the last decade or so.

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point. Go a layer deeper. When you say a trillion was spent on transportation, you are talking about many blue collar jobs. Oil rig workers, automobile engineers, parts manufacturers, etc etc. it is all part of a living economy, when Money is spent it is going to people that support families and put food on the table. The regulations create demand for businesses to supply alternative energy sources, parts, and systems that all keep our environment cleaner.

Of course there needs to be a balance and we need to let free enterprise work and not let government dominate the market too much... but let’s be honest when we are talking about the economics.

While they may create work, you don't get much in return for the money you spent.

Let's say you buy a circular saw. You got your moneys worth from the material it was made from, the production of the saw itself, and even the packaging. What you didn't get your moneys worth is from the environmental regulations that governed the production of your saw.

In other words without ridiculous environmental regulations, your saw would have cost you $80.00 instead of $90.00. Just like your automobile may have cost you $20,000 instead of $25,000.

Where I live the feds forced us into e-check. Every other year, you have to drive down to the testing station and have your car checked for "too much" pollution. They started this because the feds insisted our pollution levels were too high.

So ten years later after this idiotic e-check started, they tested the air again, and found no improvement. So what did the do? They extended the e-check program.

Did e-check create jobs? Yes it did; jobs that were not needed. Is there any value of e-check to the motorist? No there isn't. We never wanted it in the first place. Did it solve any problems? No it didn't. We didn't get anything from the tens or hundreds of millions we've spent since the start of e-check.

Again I hear what you are saying and can agree that any programs that seem to over regulate or be ineffective should be reviewed and modified or eliminated. But can you also recognize the flip side of the coin? That they guy making catalytic converters and the guy doing smog checks and they women working in the solar plant all have jobs because of environmental efforts?

Cities like San Francisco and Los Angles used to be covered with smog and thanks to technology and environmental efforts we have seen huge improvements... On top of that many jobs and careers have been created in alternative energy, parts manufacturing, and safety systems. I understand the frustration with over regulation, especially from extreme environmentalists and agree that it often goes overboard.

But we can't shit on all the efforts and many have done great things for our economy and our world.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The left became extremely radicalized over the past 20 years. That’s why Republicans hold the White House, the House, the Senate, and 33 of the 50 states. Ole Dick Durbin here is a day late and a dollar short in his “warning”.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) said in a radio interview on Sunday that Democrats can lose to President Donald Trump in 2020 if they "overdo it" by becoming too liberal.

Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate 55 year old cross-dressing male sexual deviants showering with their 14 year old daughters. Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate socialism. Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate their constitutional rights being stripped from them. Reasonable, rational people do not tolerate fascism. The left became “too liberal” a long time ago.

Senate Minority Whip Cautions Dems About 'Overdoing It' by Being Too Liberal

They are all in on their divide and conquer theme.

And it's working, the left is so divided among itself it's seeing kkk, Nazis, etc, everywhere they look.

the middle knows just how evil and intolerant the left has become. But they have been going down the hate trail for so long, there's no turning back.

The middle is deserting Republicans. trump and Republicans are underwater among independents. Voters see Trump as the divider. Independents do not support Republicans on Obamacare, DACA and immigration to name a few issues.

so you don't like seeing a divisive Pres, that you didn't vote for.

sucks doesn't it

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Senate Minority Whip Cautions Dems About 'Overdoing It' by Being Too Liberal

Yeah, possible. From Politico: Are Democrats Headed for a McGovern Redux?

The Democrats have been taken over by the Regressives just as the GOP has been taken over by the Trumpsters.

The rest of us - the majority - have failed to marginalize the crazies, and this insane division/decay is the predictable result.
.

I'm all about the middle sticking a boot into the asses of the crazies.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm all about the middle sticking a boot into the asses of the crazies.

I recently had a winger tell me that a bird flies because of its wings.

Yes, I said, but the bird's heart and the brains are in the middle.


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just like with our company, to pay for environmental regulations on products and services. Our money went to the increased costs of equipment. Our money went to maintain these vehicles that break down all the time; usually because some pollution gadget went haywire. Our money goes to supply our vehicles with the mandated DEF fluid.

The money went from our pockets to the producers of these products and goods because they passed the environmental costs to us.

You think that trillions of dollars went to companies that produce environmentally friendly goods? That’s alot of money which companies are we talking about? I’d love to dig into their financials.

Collectively, of course we are talking trillions of dollars. Start with gasoline and try to find how much we spend to make that cleaner to produce and use since the 60's. In the 60's, we had about seven or eight blends of gasoline for the country. I think it's something like over 80 blends today. Remember to include all the refining regulations to make that gasoline too. Then if you'd like, calculate all the costs it takes to make one car environmentally friendly. From there, utility companies and transportation companies.

When Bush was in office, he had his EPA regulate diesel fuel. It had to be low sulfur diesel fuel which sprung the price about a dollar a gallon more than gasoline. My tractor-trailer only gets (on average) 6.5 MPH. Our straight trucks get about 13 MPH. Prior to that, diesel was generally a dollar or so less than gasoline. Today the prices are more comparable, but diesel is still more expensive. I would be willing to bet that the transportation industry alone spent well over a trillion dollars in the last decade or so.

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point. Go a layer deeper. When you say a trillion was spent on transportation, you are talking about many blue collar jobs. Oil rig workers, automobile engineers, parts manufacturers, etc etc. it is all part of a living economy, when Money is spent it is going to people that support families and put food on the table. The regulations create demand for businesses to supply alternative energy sources, parts, and systems that all keep our environment cleaner.

Of course there needs to be a balance and we need to let free enterprise work and not let government dominate the market too much... but let’s be honest when we are talking about the economics.

While they may create work, you don't get much in return for the money you spent.

Let's say you buy a circular saw. You got your moneys worth from the material it was made from, the production of the saw itself, and even the packaging. What you didn't get your moneys worth is from the environmental regulations that governed the production of your saw.

In other words without ridiculous environmental regulations, your saw would have cost you $80.00 instead of $90.00. Just like your automobile may have cost you $20,000 instead of $25,000.

Where I live the feds forced us into e-check. Every other year, you have to drive down to the testing station and have your car checked for "too much" pollution. They started this because the feds insisted our pollution levels were too high.

So ten years later after this idiotic e-check started, they tested the air again, and found no improvement. So what did the do? They extended the e-check program.

Did e-check create jobs? Yes it did; jobs that were not needed. Is there any value of e-check to the motorist? No there isn't. We never wanted it in the first place. Did it solve any problems? No it didn't. We didn't get anything from the tens or hundreds of millions we've spent since the start of e-check.

Again I hear what you are saying and can agree that any programs that seem to over regulate or be ineffective should be reviewed and modified or eliminated. But can you also recognize the flip side of the coin? That they guy making catalytic converters and the guy doing smog checks and they women working in the solar plant all have jobs because of environmental efforts?

Cities like San Francisco and Los Angles used to be covered with smog and thanks to technology and environmental efforts we have seen huge improvements... On top of that many jobs and careers have been created in alternative energy, parts manufacturing, and safety systems. I understand the frustration with over regulation, especially from extreme environmentalists and agree that it often goes overboard.

But we can't shit on all the efforts and many have done great things for our economy and our world.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no end to it.

Environmental causes are an endless money pit. There isn't enough cash in the US to fill it. No matter what we've done, how much we've spent, how much good or bad it's done, there are always more and new regulations coming out.

Try this: Ask any environmentalist when will we done improving our air and water? You'll get a blank stare. Ask them what the goals are, what numbers we need to use, and how much will it cost us to reach those goals?

Environmental causes are perpetual. There is no end. And when there is no end, there is no end to us paying more and more down the road.

If I were President Trump, I would take a tip from Mooochele Obama. She conned her husband into forcing restaurants to post calorie count on every item they sell. I say we do the same thing only with environmental costs. Every product should have listed on the package what the environmental costs were to produce that product.

When you buy gasoline, right on the pump it should say you are paying 70 cents per gallon for environmental costs. When you buy a lawn tractor, $50.00 of what you are paying is for environmental costs. When you buy a car, $6,000 of what you are paying goes to environmental costs. If you buy a pack of gum, two cents went into environmental costs..........

When you ask people if they would like to have cleaner air and water, they say "YEAH I WOULD without realizing it would mean higher priced products for them. Maybe if we told people what they are actually paying for all this green, there would be a huge change in attitude about more costly regulations down the road.

 

[Slade3200]

You think that trillions of dollars went to companies that produce environmentally friendly goods? That’s alot of money which companies are we talking about? I’d love to dig into their financials.

Collectively, of course we are talking trillions of dollars. Start with gasoline and try to find how much we spend to make that cleaner to produce and use since the 60's. In the 60's, we had about seven or eight blends of gasoline for the country. I think it's something like over 80 blends today. Remember to include all the refining regulations to make that gasoline too. Then if you'd like, calculate all the costs it takes to make one car environmentally friendly. From there, utility companies and transportation companies.

When Bush was in office, he had his EPA regulate diesel fuel. It had to be low sulfur diesel fuel which sprung the price about a dollar a gallon more than gasoline. My tractor-trailer only gets (on average) 6.5 MPH. Our straight trucks get about 13 MPH. Prior to that, diesel was generally a dollar or so less than gasoline. Today the prices are more comparable, but diesel is still more expensive. I would be willing to bet that the transportation industry alone spent well over a trillion dollars in the last decade or so.

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point. Go a layer deeper. When you say a trillion was spent on transportation, you are talking about many blue collar jobs. Oil rig workers, automobile engineers, parts manufacturers, etc etc. it is all part of a living economy, when Money is spent it is going to people that support families and put food on the table. The regulations create demand for businesses to supply alternative energy sources, parts, and systems that all keep our environment cleaner.

Of course there needs to be a balance and we need to let free enterprise work and not let government dominate the market too much... but let’s be honest when we are talking about the economics.

While they may create work, you don't get much in return for the money you spent.

Let's say you buy a circular saw. You got your moneys worth from the material it was made from, the production of the saw itself, and even the packaging. What you didn't get your moneys worth is from the environmental regulations that governed the production of your saw.

In other words without ridiculous environmental regulations, your saw would have cost you $80.00 instead of $90.00. Just like your automobile may have cost you $20,000 instead of $25,000.

Where I live the feds forced us into e-check. Every other year, you have to drive down to the testing station and have your car checked for "too much" pollution. They started this because the feds insisted our pollution levels were too high.

So ten years later after this idiotic e-check started, they tested the air again, and found no improvement. So what did the do? They extended the e-check program.

Did e-check create jobs? Yes it did; jobs that were not needed. Is there any value of e-check to the motorist? No there isn't. We never wanted it in the first place. Did it solve any problems? No it didn't. We didn't get anything from the tens or hundreds of millions we've spent since the start of e-check.

Again I hear what you are saying and can agree that any programs that seem to over regulate or be ineffective should be reviewed and modified or eliminated. But can you also recognize the flip side of the coin? That they guy making catalytic converters and the guy doing smog checks and they women working in the solar plant all have jobs because of environmental efforts?

Cities like San Francisco and Los Angles used to be covered with smog and thanks to technology and environmental efforts we have seen huge improvements... On top of that many jobs and careers have been created in alternative energy, parts manufacturing, and safety systems. I understand the frustration with over regulation, especially from extreme environmentalists and agree that it often goes overboard.

But we can't shit on all the efforts and many have done great things for our economy and our world.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no end to it.

Environmental causes are an endless money pit. There isn't enough cash in the US to fill it. No matter what we've done, how much we've spent, how much good or bad it's done, there are always more and new regulations coming out.

Try this: Ask any environmentalist when will we done improving our air and water? You'll get a blank stare. Ask them what the goals are, what numbers we need to use, and how much will it cost us to reach those goals?

Environmental causes are perpetual. There is no end. And when there is no end, there is no end to us paying more and more down the road.

If I were President Trump, I would take a tip from Mooochele Obama. She conned her husband into forcing restaurants to post calorie count on every item they sell. I say we do the same thing only with environmental costs. Every product should have listed on the package what the environmental costs were to produce that product.

When you buy gasoline, right on the pump it should say you are paying 70 cents per gallon for environmental costs. When you buy a lawn tractor, $50.00 of what you are paying is for environmental costs. When you buy a car, $6,000 of what you are paying goes to environmental costs. If you buy a pack of gum, two cents went into environmental costs..........

When you ask people if they would like to have cleaner air and water, they say "YEAH I WOULD without realizing it would mean higher priced products for them. Maybe if we told people what they are actually paying for all this green, there would be a huge change in attitude about more costly regulations down the road.

Come on Ray, of course there are always going to be people pushing for more, just like there will always be people pushing for less. Thats how societies work. If we can get back to reality now, it is pointless to say that "they" will never be happy. How about we just deal with each problem at face value. Eliminate taxes or regulations that prove to be ineffective and pass others that might make a difference. If both sides are constantly fighting an all or nothing game then we are destined to go nowhere. Fortunately this country operates from moderate fair minded people who are capable of compromise. Unfortunately, that group in the middle is getting divided and pushed to the wings so our progress is slowing to a halt. Can you not see that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Collectively, of course we are talking trillions of dollars. Start with gasoline and try to find how much we spend to make that cleaner to produce and use since the 60's. In the 60's, we had about seven or eight blends of gasoline for the country. I think it's something like over 80 blends today. Remember to include all the refining regulations to make that gasoline too. Then if you'd like, calculate all the costs it takes to make one car environmentally friendly. From there, utility companies and transportation companies.

When Bush was in office, he had his EPA regulate diesel fuel. It had to be low sulfur diesel fuel which sprung the price about a dollar a gallon more than gasoline. My tractor-trailer only gets (on average) 6.5 MPH. Our straight trucks get about 13 MPH. Prior to that, diesel was generally a dollar or so less than gasoline. Today the prices are more comparable, but diesel is still more expensive. I would be willing to bet that the transportation industry alone spent well over a trillion dollars in the last decade or so.

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point. Go a layer deeper. When you say a trillion was spent on transportation, you are talking about many blue collar jobs. Oil rig workers, automobile engineers, parts manufacturers, etc etc. it is all part of a living economy, when Money is spent it is going to people that support families and put food on the table. The regulations create demand for businesses to supply alternative energy sources, parts, and systems that all keep our environment cleaner.

Of course there needs to be a balance and we need to let free enterprise work and not let government dominate the market too much... but let’s be honest when we are talking about the economics.

While they may create work, you don't get much in return for the money you spent.

Let's say you buy a circular saw. You got your moneys worth from the material it was made from, the production of the saw itself, and even the packaging. What you didn't get your moneys worth is from the environmental regulations that governed the production of your saw.

In other words without ridiculous environmental regulations, your saw would have cost you $80.00 instead of $90.00. Just like your automobile may have cost you $20,000 instead of $25,000.

Where I live the feds forced us into e-check. Every other year, you have to drive down to the testing station and have your car checked for "too much" pollution. They started this because the feds insisted our pollution levels were too high.

So ten years later after this idiotic e-check started, they tested the air again, and found no improvement. So what did the do? They extended the e-check program.

Did e-check create jobs? Yes it did; jobs that were not needed. Is there any value of e-check to the motorist? No there isn't. We never wanted it in the first place. Did it solve any problems? No it didn't. We didn't get anything from the tens or hundreds of millions we've spent since the start of e-check.

Again I hear what you are saying and can agree that any programs that seem to over regulate or be ineffective should be reviewed and modified or eliminated. But can you also recognize the flip side of the coin? That they guy making catalytic converters and the guy doing smog checks and they women working in the solar plant all have jobs because of environmental efforts?

Cities like San Francisco and Los Angles used to be covered with smog and thanks to technology and environmental efforts we have seen huge improvements... On top of that many jobs and careers have been created in alternative energy, parts manufacturing, and safety systems. I understand the frustration with over regulation, especially from extreme environmentalists and agree that it often goes overboard.

But we can't shit on all the efforts and many have done great things for our economy and our world.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no end to it.

Environmental causes are an endless money pit. There isn't enough cash in the US to fill it. No matter what we've done, how much we've spent, how much good or bad it's done, there are always more and new regulations coming out.

Try this: Ask any environmentalist when will we done improving our air and water? You'll get a blank stare. Ask them what the goals are, what numbers we need to use, and how much will it cost us to reach those goals?

Environmental causes are perpetual. There is no end. And when there is no end, there is no end to us paying more and more down the road.

If I were President Trump, I would take a tip from Mooochele Obama. She conned her husband into forcing restaurants to post calorie count on every item they sell. I say we do the same thing only with environmental costs. Every product should have listed on the package what the environmental costs were to produce that product.

When you buy gasoline, right on the pump it should say you are paying 70 cents per gallon for environmental costs. When you buy a lawn tractor, $50.00 of what you are paying is for environmental costs. When you buy a car, $6,000 of what you are paying goes to environmental costs. If you buy a pack of gum, two cents went into environmental costs..........

When you ask people if they would like to have cleaner air and water, they say "YEAH I WOULD without realizing it would mean higher priced products for them. Maybe if we told people what they are actually paying for all this green, there would be a huge change in attitude about more costly regulations down the road.

Come on Ray, of course there are always going to be people pushing for more, just like there will always be people pushing for less. Thats how societies work. If we can get back to reality now, it is pointless to say that "they" will never be happy. How about we just deal with each problem at face value. Eliminate taxes or regulations that prove to be ineffective and pass others that might make a difference. If both sides are constantly fighting an all or nothing game then we are destined to go nowhere. Fortunately this country operates from moderate fair minded people who are capable of compromise. Unfortunately, that group in the middle is getting divided and pushed to the wings so our progress is slowing to a halt. Can you not see that?

Moderates are what slows progress.

When Democrats or RINO's get in charge, out comes more environmental regulations that cost Americans more money. There is no end to it.

 

[Slade3200]

I get what you are saying but you are missing my point. Go a layer deeper. When you say a trillion was spent on transportation, you are talking about many blue collar jobs. Oil rig workers, automobile engineers, parts manufacturers, etc etc. it is all part of a living economy, when Money is spent it is going to people that support families and put food on the table. The regulations create demand for businesses to supply alternative energy sources, parts, and systems that all keep our environment cleaner.

Of course there needs to be a balance and we need to let free enterprise work and not let government dominate the market too much... but let’s be honest when we are talking about the economics.

While they may create work, you don't get much in return for the money you spent.

Let's say you buy a circular saw. You got your moneys worth from the material it was made from, the production of the saw itself, and even the packaging. What you didn't get your moneys worth is from the environmental regulations that governed the production of your saw.

In other words without ridiculous environmental regulations, your saw would have cost you $80.00 instead of $90.00. Just like your automobile may have cost you $20,000 instead of $25,000.

Where I live the feds forced us into e-check. Every other year, you have to drive down to the testing station and have your car checked for "too much" pollution. They started this because the feds insisted our pollution levels were too high.

So ten years later after this idiotic e-check started, they tested the air again, and found no improvement. So what did the do? They extended the e-check program.

Did e-check create jobs? Yes it did; jobs that were not needed. Is there any value of e-check to the motorist? No there isn't. We never wanted it in the first place. Did it solve any problems? No it didn't. We didn't get anything from the tens or hundreds of millions we've spent since the start of e-check.

Again I hear what you are saying and can agree that any programs that seem to over regulate or be ineffective should be reviewed and modified or eliminated. But can you also recognize the flip side of the coin? That they guy making catalytic converters and the guy doing smog checks and they women working in the solar plant all have jobs because of environmental efforts?

Cities like San Francisco and Los Angles used to be covered with smog and thanks to technology and environmental efforts we have seen huge improvements... On top of that many jobs and careers have been created in alternative energy, parts manufacturing, and safety systems. I understand the frustration with over regulation, especially from extreme environmentalists and agree that it often goes overboard.

But we can't shit on all the efforts and many have done great things for our economy and our world.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no end to it.

Environmental causes are an endless money pit. There isn't enough cash in the US to fill it. No matter what we've done, how much we've spent, how much good or bad it's done, there are always more and new regulations coming out.

Try this: Ask any environmentalist when will we done improving our air and water? You'll get a blank stare. Ask them what the goals are, what numbers we need to use, and how much will it cost us to reach those goals?

Environmental causes are perpetual. There is no end. And when there is no end, there is no end to us paying more and more down the road.

If I were President Trump, I would take a tip from Mooochele Obama. She conned her husband into forcing restaurants to post calorie count on every item they sell. I say we do the same thing only with environmental costs. Every product should have listed on the package what the environmental costs were to produce that product.

When you buy gasoline, right on the pump it should say you are paying 70 cents per gallon for environmental costs. When you buy a lawn tractor, $50.00 of what you are paying is for environmental costs. When you buy a car, $6,000 of what you are paying goes to environmental costs. If you buy a pack of gum, two cents went into environmental costs..........

When you ask people if they would like to have cleaner air and water, they say "YEAH I WOULD without realizing it would mean higher priced products for them. Maybe if we told people what they are actually paying for all this green, there would be a huge change in attitude about more costly regulations down the road.

Come on Ray, of course there are always going to be people pushing for more, just like there will always be people pushing for less. Thats how societies work. If we can get back to reality now, it is pointless to say that "they" will never be happy. How about we just deal with each problem at face value. Eliminate taxes or regulations that prove to be ineffective and pass others that might make a difference. If both sides are constantly fighting an all or nothing game then we are destined to go nowhere. Fortunately this country operates from moderate fair minded people who are capable of compromise. Unfortunately, that group in the middle is getting divided and pushed to the wings so our progress is slowing to a halt. Can you not see that?

Moderates are what slows progress.

When Democrats or RINO's get in charge, out comes more environmental regulations that cost Americans more money. There is no end to it.

You're hopeless. [/conversation]

 

[P@triot]

The middle is deserting Republicans. trump and Republicans are underwater among independents. Voters see Trump as the divider. Independents do not support Republicans on Obamacare, DACA and immigration to name a few issues.

so you don't like seeing a divisive Pres, that you didn't vote for. sucks doesn't it

 

[P@triot]

The middle is deserting Republicans. trump and Republicans are underwater among independents. Voters see Trump as the divider. Independents do not support Republicans on Obamacare, DACA and immigration to name a few issues.

That’s why the Dumbocrats have lost every election since President Trump was sworn in, uh snowflake? Independents have never been more committed to the Republicans.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

While they may create work, you don't get much in return for the money you spent.

Let's say you buy a circular saw. You got your moneys worth from the material it was made from, the production of the saw itself, and even the packaging. What you didn't get your moneys worth is from the environmental regulations that governed the production of your saw.

In other words without ridiculous environmental regulations, your saw would have cost you $80.00 instead of $90.00. Just like your automobile may have cost you $20,000 instead of $25,000.

Where I live the feds forced us into e-check. Every other year, you have to drive down to the testing station and have your car checked for "too much" pollution. They started this because the feds insisted our pollution levels were too high.

So ten years later after this idiotic e-check started, they tested the air again, and found no improvement. So what did the do? They extended the e-check program.

Did e-check create jobs? Yes it did; jobs that were not needed. Is there any value of e-check to the motorist? No there isn't. We never wanted it in the first place. Did it solve any problems? No it didn't. We didn't get anything from the tens or hundreds of millions we've spent since the start of e-check.

Again I hear what you are saying and can agree that any programs that seem to over regulate or be ineffective should be reviewed and modified or eliminated. But can you also recognize the flip side of the coin? That they guy making catalytic converters and the guy doing smog checks and they women working in the solar plant all have jobs because of environmental efforts?

Cities like San Francisco and Los Angles used to be covered with smog and thanks to technology and environmental efforts we have seen huge improvements... On top of that many jobs and careers have been created in alternative energy, parts manufacturing, and safety systems. I understand the frustration with over regulation, especially from extreme environmentalists and agree that it often goes overboard.

But we can't shit on all the efforts and many have done great things for our economy and our world.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no end to it.

Environmental causes are an endless money pit. There isn't enough cash in the US to fill it. No matter what we've done, how much we've spent, how much good or bad it's done, there are always more and new regulations coming out.

Try this: Ask any environmentalist when will we done improving our air and water? You'll get a blank stare. Ask them what the goals are, what numbers we need to use, and how much will it cost us to reach those goals?

Environmental causes are perpetual. There is no end. And when there is no end, there is no end to us paying more and more down the road.

If I were President Trump, I would take a tip from Mooochele Obama. She conned her husband into forcing restaurants to post calorie count on every item they sell. I say we do the same thing only with environmental costs. Every product should have listed on the package what the environmental costs were to produce that product.

When you buy gasoline, right on the pump it should say you are paying 70 cents per gallon for environmental costs. When you buy a lawn tractor, $50.00 of what you are paying is for environmental costs. When you buy a car, $6,000 of what you are paying goes to environmental costs. If you buy a pack of gum, two cents went into environmental costs..........

When you ask people if they would like to have cleaner air and water, they say "YEAH I WOULD without realizing it would mean higher priced products for them. Maybe if we told people what they are actually paying for all this green, there would be a huge change in attitude about more costly regulations down the road.

Come on Ray, of course there are always going to be people pushing for more, just like there will always be people pushing for less. Thats how societies work. If we can get back to reality now, it is pointless to say that "they" will never be happy. How about we just deal with each problem at face value. Eliminate taxes or regulations that prove to be ineffective and pass others that might make a difference. If both sides are constantly fighting an all or nothing game then we are destined to go nowhere. Fortunately this country operates from moderate fair minded people who are capable of compromise. Unfortunately, that group in the middle is getting divided and pushed to the wings so our progress is slowing to a halt. Can you not see that?

Moderates are what slows progress.

When Democrats or RINO's get in charge, out comes more environmental regulations that cost Americans more money. There is no end to it.

You're hopeless. [/conversation]

Sure I am. Then name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict us with more environmental costs.

 

[Slade3200]

Again I hear what you are saying and can agree that any programs that seem to over regulate or be ineffective should be reviewed and modified or eliminated. But can you also recognize the flip side of the coin? That they guy making catalytic converters and the guy doing smog checks and they women working in the solar plant all have jobs because of environmental efforts?

Cities like San Francisco and Los Angles used to be covered with smog and thanks to technology and environmental efforts we have seen huge improvements... On top of that many jobs and careers have been created in alternative energy, parts manufacturing, and safety systems. I understand the frustration with over regulation, especially from extreme environmentalists and agree that it often goes overboard.

But we can't shit on all the efforts and many have done great things for our economy and our world.

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no end to it.

Environmental causes are an endless money pit. There isn't enough cash in the US to fill it. No matter what we've done, how much we've spent, how much good or bad it's done, there are always more and new regulations coming out.

Try this: Ask any environmentalist when will we done improving our air and water? You'll get a blank stare. Ask them what the goals are, what numbers we need to use, and how much will it cost us to reach those goals?

Environmental causes are perpetual. There is no end. And when there is no end, there is no end to us paying more and more down the road.

If I were President Trump, I would take a tip from Mooochele Obama. She conned her husband into forcing restaurants to post calorie count on every item they sell. I say we do the same thing only with environmental costs. Every product should have listed on the package what the environmental costs were to produce that product.

When you buy gasoline, right on the pump it should say you are paying 70 cents per gallon for environmental costs. When you buy a lawn tractor, $50.00 of what you are paying is for environmental costs. When you buy a car, $6,000 of what you are paying goes to environmental costs. If you buy a pack of gum, two cents went into environmental costs..........

When you ask people if they would like to have cleaner air and water, they say "YEAH I WOULD without realizing it would mean higher priced products for them. Maybe if we told people what they are actually paying for all this green, there would be a huge change in attitude about more costly regulations down the road.

Come on Ray, of course there are always going to be people pushing for more, just like there will always be people pushing for less. Thats how societies work. If we can get back to reality now, it is pointless to say that "they" will never be happy. How about we just deal with each problem at face value. Eliminate taxes or regulations that prove to be ineffective and pass others that might make a difference. If both sides are constantly fighting an all or nothing game then we are destined to go nowhere. Fortunately this country operates from moderate fair minded people who are capable of compromise. Unfortunately, that group in the middle is getting divided and pushed to the wings so our progress is slowing to a halt. Can you not see that?

Moderates are what slows progress.

When Democrats or RINO's get in charge, out comes more environmental regulations that cost Americans more money. There is no end to it.

You're hopeless. [/conversation]

Sure I am. Then name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict us with more environmental costs.

I don't need to name the last administration that cut environmental funding, that isn't my point. Whats the last administration thats cut defense funding? Both are dumb questions as both areas are a big part of our society and economy. We've built an incredible military and defense network for our country and we've led some great efforts to clean up our environment. Nothing wrong with continuing to progress and improve on both fronts. You make it sound like we've done enough so it's time to stop... Thats just not reality.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no end to it.

Environmental causes are an endless money pit. There isn't enough cash in the US to fill it. No matter what we've done, how much we've spent, how much good or bad it's done, there are always more and new regulations coming out.

Try this: Ask any environmentalist when will we done improving our air and water? You'll get a blank stare. Ask them what the goals are, what numbers we need to use, and how much will it cost us to reach those goals?

Environmental causes are perpetual. There is no end. And when there is no end, there is no end to us paying more and more down the road.

If I were President Trump, I would take a tip from Mooochele Obama. She conned her husband into forcing restaurants to post calorie count on every item they sell. I say we do the same thing only with environmental costs. Every product should have listed on the package what the environmental costs were to produce that product.

When you buy gasoline, right on the pump it should say you are paying 70 cents per gallon for environmental costs. When you buy a lawn tractor, $50.00 of what you are paying is for environmental costs. When you buy a car, $6,000 of what you are paying goes to environmental costs. If you buy a pack of gum, two cents went into environmental costs..........

When you ask people if they would like to have cleaner air and water, they say "YEAH I WOULD without realizing it would mean higher priced products for them. Maybe if we told people what they are actually paying for all this green, there would be a huge change in attitude about more costly regulations down the road.

Come on Ray, of course there are always going to be people pushing for more, just like there will always be people pushing for less. Thats how societies work. If we can get back to reality now, it is pointless to say that "they" will never be happy. How about we just deal with each problem at face value. Eliminate taxes or regulations that prove to be ineffective and pass others that might make a difference. If both sides are constantly fighting an all or nothing game then we are destined to go nowhere. Fortunately this country operates from moderate fair minded people who are capable of compromise. Unfortunately, that group in the middle is getting divided and pushed to the wings so our progress is slowing to a halt. Can you not see that?

Moderates are what slows progress.

When Democrats or RINO's get in charge, out comes more environmental regulations that cost Americans more money. There is no end to it.

You're hopeless. [/conversation]

Sure I am. Then name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict us with more environmental costs.

I don't need to name the last administration that cut environmental funding, that isn't my point. Whats the last administration thats cut defense funding? Both are dumb questions as both areas are a big part of our society and economy. We've built an incredible military and defense network for our country and we've led some great efforts to clean up our environment. Nothing wrong with continuing to progress and improve on both fronts. You make it sound like we've done enough so it's time to stop... Thats just not reality.

I said nothing about "cuts" I said name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict our citizens with more environmental regulations and costs. The point I'm trying to make is that every administration does it.

 

[Slade3200]

Come on Ray, of course there are always going to be people pushing for more, just like there will always be people pushing for less. Thats how societies work. If we can get back to reality now, it is pointless to say that "they" will never be happy. How about we just deal with each problem at face value. Eliminate taxes or regulations that prove to be ineffective and pass others that might make a difference. If both sides are constantly fighting an all or nothing game then we are destined to go nowhere. Fortunately this country operates from moderate fair minded people who are capable of compromise. Unfortunately, that group in the middle is getting divided and pushed to the wings so our progress is slowing to a halt. Can you not see that?

Moderates are what slows progress.

When Democrats or RINO's get in charge, out comes more environmental regulations that cost Americans more money. There is no end to it.

You're hopeless. [/conversation]

Sure I am. Then name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict us with more environmental costs.

I don't need to name the last administration that cut environmental funding, that isn't my point. Whats the last administration thats cut defense funding? Both are dumb questions as both areas are a big part of our society and economy. We've built an incredible military and defense network for our country and we've led some great efforts to clean up our environment. Nothing wrong with continuing to progress and improve on both fronts. You make it sound like we've done enough so it's time to stop... Thats just not reality.

I said nothing about "cuts" I said name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict our citizens with more environmental regulations and costs. The point I'm trying to make is that every administration does it.

Yes and I just explained why... it’s not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. It has benefits and disadvantages to our economy and nation depending on the effort

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Moderates are what slows progress.

When Democrats or RINO's get in charge, out comes more environmental regulations that cost Americans more money. There is no end to it.

You're hopeless. [/conversation]

Sure I am. Then name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict us with more environmental costs.

I don't need to name the last administration that cut environmental funding, that isn't my point. Whats the last administration thats cut defense funding? Both are dumb questions as both areas are a big part of our society and economy. We've built an incredible military and defense network for our country and we've led some great efforts to clean up our environment. Nothing wrong with continuing to progress and improve on both fronts. You make it sound like we've done enough so it's time to stop... Thats just not reality.

I said nothing about "cuts" I said name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict our citizens with more environmental regulations and costs. The point I'm trying to make is that every administration does it.

Yes and I just explained why... it’s not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. It has benefits and disadvantages to our economy and nation depending on the effort

As a truck driver, I happen to think it is a big deal.

You wrote of jobs created by these idiotic regulations, but failed to acknowledge jobs lost at the same time. After all these pollution regulations, many drivers had to sell their trucks and get into another line of work. Companies that employed hundreds of people closed up. Transportation costs that get passed down to customers who have to consider those costs when considering outsourcing and buying products overseas.

I haven't had a raise in quite some time. My employer dropped our healthcare coverage when Commie Care began. When I inquired to other jobs, I found that many in the transportation industry did the same. These costly regulations has employers and companies cutting costs down to the bone. I'm sure my industry is not the only one suffering from costly environmental regulations.

 

[Slade3200]

You're hopeless. [/conversation]

Sure I am. Then name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict us with more environmental costs.

I don't need to name the last administration that cut environmental funding, that isn't my point. Whats the last administration thats cut defense funding? Both are dumb questions as both areas are a big part of our society and economy. We've built an incredible military and defense network for our country and we've led some great efforts to clean up our environment. Nothing wrong with continuing to progress and improve on both fronts. You make it sound like we've done enough so it's time to stop... Thats just not reality.

I said nothing about "cuts" I said name me the last presidential administration that didn't inflict our citizens with more environmental regulations and costs. The point I'm trying to make is that every administration does it.

Yes and I just explained why... it’s not as big of a deal as you make it out to be. It has benefits and disadvantages to our economy and nation depending on the effort

As a truck driver, I happen to think it is a big deal.

You wrote of jobs created by these idiotic regulations, but failed to acknowledge jobs lost at the same time. After all these pollution regulations, many drivers had to sell their trucks and get into another line of work. Companies that employed hundreds of people closed up. Transportation costs that get passed down to customers who have to consider those costs when considering outsourcing and buying products overseas.

I haven't had a raise in quite some time. My employer dropped our healthcare coverage when Commie Care began. When I inquired to other jobs, I found that many in the transportation industry did the same. These costly regulations has employers and companies cutting costs down to the bone. I'm sure my industry is not the only one suffering from costly environmental regulations.

I fear the worst is about to come of your industry, not because of government healthcare and environmentalist but from capitalist... autonomous vehicles, robots, and drones are going to take over the distribution and transportation industry. It’s not going to be pretty for the blue collar workers and laborers