EPA up for the ax???

[Avatar4321]

Clean water Act 1972. Summary of the Clean Water Act | Laws and Regulations | US EPA

FAIL.

Yes, by linking to information about the clean water act you prove that the clean water act was a failure.

What the **** are you talking about?

No, idiot. YOU"RE the failure here. I wrote "in the last 20 years" and you throw a piece of legislation that is nearly 40 years old out.
You're on a role this morning. The role of the shmendrick who can't get his own name right.

Not to mention it was written pre EPA

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes, by linking to information about the clean water act you prove that the clean water act was a failure.

What the **** are you talking about?

No, idiot. YOU"RE the failure here. I wrote "in the last 20 years" and you throw a piece of legislation that is nearly 40 years old out.
You're on a role this morning. The role of the shmendrick who can't get his own name right.

My god, are you really this stupid? Just because the act was passed in 1972 doesn't mean it quit playing a role in cleaning the environment the next year. In fact, it plays a crucial role in cleanups throughout the country to this day.

...As does the Northeast forests cap and trade program in regards to its range.

So you can show what effects on the environment the EPA has had in the last 20 years, right? BEcause if you can't you're just wasting everyone's time.
And given your record today I'm not holding my breath.

 

[auditor0007]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[konradv]

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

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

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

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

The EPA is not interstate commerce. And the "general welfare" clause isnt a grant of power.

Wrong on both counts. What's the point of the general welfare clause, if it doesn't grant some kind of power. The EPA does regulate businesses engaged in interstate commerce. How would the states be able to do that? THAT would be unconstitutional.

 

[8537]

No, idiot. YOU"RE the failure here. I wrote "in the last 20 years" and you throw a piece of legislation that is nearly 40 years old out.
You're on a role this morning. The role of the shmendrick who can't get his own name right.

My god, are you really this stupid? Just because the act was passed in 1972 doesn't mean it quit playing a role in cleaning the environment the next year. In fact, it plays a crucial role in cleanups throughout the country to this day.

...As does the Northeast forests cap and trade program in regards to its range.

So you can show what effects on the environment the EPA has had in the last 20 years, right? BEcause if you can't you're just wasting everyone's time.
And given your record today I'm not holding my breath.

Sure. For one, the EPA has prevented the detrimental effects of acid rain across the Northern Forests, protecting tree and fish species from the Adirondacks to northern Maine. In doing so, they've also protected the largest industries in the region.

 

[The Rabbi]

My god, are you really this stupid? Just because the act was passed in 1972 doesn't mean it quit playing a role in cleaning the environment the next year. In fact, it plays a crucial role in cleanups throughout the country to this day.

...As does the Northeast forests cap and trade program in regards to its range.

So you can show what effects on the environment the EPA has had in the last 20 years, right? BEcause if you can't you're just wasting everyone's time.
And given your record today I'm not holding my breath.

Sure. For one, the EPA has prevented the detrimental effects of acid rain across the Northern Forests, protecting tree and fish species from the Adirondacks to northern Maine. In doing so, they've also protected the largest industries in the region.

So that's a No. I knew I shouldn't hold my breath. Don't post until you have something reasonable to add here.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

The EPA is not interstate commerce. And the "general welfare" clause isnt a grant of power.

Wrong on both counts. What's the point of the general welfare clause, if it doesn't grant some kind of power. The EPA does regulate businesses engaged in interstate commerce. How would the states be able to do that? THAT would be unconstitutional.

General welfare refers to the ability of Congress to enact legislation pursuant to the enumerated powers mentioned further on.
If it were simply a general power to do whatever, what would be the point of enumerating specific powers?

 

[8537]

So you can show what effects on the environment the EPA has had in the last 20 years, right? BEcause if you can't you're just wasting everyone's time.
And given your record today I'm not holding my breath.

Sure. For one, the EPA has prevented the detrimental effects of acid rain across the Northern Forests, protecting tree and fish species from the Adirondacks to northern Maine. In doing so, they've also protected the largest industries in the region.

So that's a No. I knew I shouldn't hold my breath. Don't post until you have something reasonable to add here.

I provide a concrete example, you crawl under your white sheet and deny it because you can't accept being wrong. Again.

I expect nothing better, but watching you deflect and dodge and scorn makes for good humor. Keep it up.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[The Rabbi]

Sure. For one, the EPA has prevented the detrimental effects of acid rain across the Northern Forests, protecting tree and fish species from the Adirondacks to northern Maine. In doing so, they've also protected the largest industries in the region.

So that's a No. I knew I shouldn't hold my breath. Don't post until you have something reasonable to add here.

I provide a concrete example, you crawl under your white sheet and deny it because you can't accept being wrong. Again.

I expect nothing better, but watching you deflect and dodge and scorn makes for good humor. Keep it up.

You provided an unsupported statement of opinion. That isn't a fact.
I'm not bothering with you any more on this thread. You've proven yourself totally inept.

 

[konradv]

The EPA is not interstate commerce. And the "general welfare" clause isnt a grant of power.

Wrong on both counts. What's the point of the general welfare clause, if it doesn't grant some kind of power. The EPA does regulate businesses engaged in interstate commerce. How would the states be able to do that? THAT would be unconstitutional.

General welfare refers to the ability of Congress to enact legislation pursuant to the enumerated powers mentioned further on.
If it were simply a general power to do whatever, what would be the point of enumerating specific powers?

Better take that up with the SC. If you're right, why haven't they said so? It's not like industry hasn't taken them on before. FAIL!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

Wrong on both counts. What's the point of the general welfare clause, if it doesn't grant some kind of power. The EPA does regulate businesses engaged in interstate commerce. How would the states be able to do that? THAT would be unconstitutional.

General welfare refers to the ability of Congress to enact legislation pursuant to the enumerated powers mentioned further on.
If it were simply a general power to do whatever, what would be the point of enumerating specific powers?

Better take that up with the SC. If you're right, why haven't they said so? It's not like industry hasn't taken them on before. FAIL!!!

Actually they did. See Lopez.
You fail.

 

[konradv]

General welfare refers to the ability of Congress to enact legislation pursuant to the enumerated powers mentioned further on.
If it were simply a general power to do whatever, what would be the point of enumerating specific powers?

Better take that up with the SC. If you're right, why haven't they said so? It's not like industry hasn't taken them on before. FAIL!!!

Actually they did. See Lopez.
You fail.

Does Lopez say the EPA is unconstitutional? As far as I know it still exists, therefore the FAIL is all yours.

 

[auditor0007]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

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

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

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

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

As much as people love to bash on the EPA, the reason it got so big in the first place is that private industry was out of control dumping shit wherever and whenever they felt like. Thirty years ago we had a major mess on our hands environmentally. That was the 80's, and your comment is not true. When it comes to money, it's been proven that businesses will not regulate themselves, so getting rid of or reducing the size of the EPA would almost certainly be a step backwards and lead us to more problems.

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

So you want to force our way of life on other people and countries.

They see us limping along, just trying to make ends, and you think they will copy us.

And there actually is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[GHook93]

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

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

The EPA doesn't deal with or address the air or water quality. The Clean Air Act does and auditors come in inspect the emission on industries and cars. The Clean Water Act address water quality, against auditors make sure companies are in compliance with that.

What the EPA does is stick their noses in everything else! Like saving a meaningless fish in CA and in the process!

ABC: Judge Cuts Water to California Farmers to Save Endangered Fish

 

[8537]

So that's a No. I knew I shouldn't hold my breath. Don't post until you have something reasonable to add here.

I provide a concrete example, you crawl under your white sheet and deny it because you can't accept being wrong. Again.

I expect nothing better, but watching you deflect and dodge and scorn makes for good humor. Keep it up.

You provided an unsupported statement of opinion. That isn't a fact.

Actually, it IS a fact. The Northern Forests and the lakes and streams they support were saved from acid rain by Bush's EPA and the cap and trade program they created.

 

[8537]

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

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

The EPA doesn't deal with or address the air or water quality. The Clean Air Act does and auditors come in inspect the emission on industries and cars. The Clean Water Act address water quality, against auditors make sure companies are in compliance with that.

What the EPA does is stick their noses in everything else! Like saving a meaningless fish in CA and in the process!

ABC: Judge Cuts Water to California Farmers to Save Endangered Fish

The EPA is currently the primary enforcement authority for the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

 

[auditor0007]

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

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

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

As much as people love to bash on the EPA, the reason it got so big in the first place is that private industry was out of control dumping shit wherever and whenever they felt like. Thirty years ago we had a major mess on our hands environmentally. That was the 80's, and your comment is not true. When it comes to money, it's been proven that businesses will not regulate themselves, so getting rid of or reducing the size of the EPA would almost certainly be a step backwards and lead us to more problems.

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

So you want to force our way of life on other people and countries.

They see us limping along, just trying to make ends, and you think they will copy us.

And there actually is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Persuade, not force. We can't force this on any country. If you think China is not about to pay a huge price for their disregard for the environmental impact of their new industries, you are dead wrong. They may already be in worse shape than we were 40 years ago.

 

[tonystewart1]

Why do we need an EPA when we have state depts of eviromental protection?

The EPA is a huge federal power that only wants more and more power. Congress needs to clip its wings.