Just a thought for Republicans that dislike Trump.

[eagle1462010]

What Is the Fair Tax Act Explained - Pros and Cons

How the Sales Tax Would Work
The proposed sales tax would amount to 23% of the total payment on just about all purchases. Sounds like you’d simply pay a 23% sales tax, right? Not quite. Basically, this works out to be a 30% sales tax rate, because you wouldn’t pay the tax at the register, like you do now.

For example, an item marked $100 would already include the sales tax within it – in this case, $23. This is called an inclusive tax. In other words, the cost of the item without the tax would be $77. But $23 paid on a $77 purchase is roughly 30%, the way we’re used to calculating it. While 30% is steep, you’d be working with a much larger paycheck, because no federal tax would have been withheld.


No dice............Not to mention how we are going to send out the MONTHLY PREBATE CHECKS...............For those in poverty..................

And it would still require the IRS to try to find those evading the taxes................

It would require the Treasury to send out Millions upon millions of checks............


I've been bitching about Cruz's plan................LOL...............It's a winner compared to this LAME IDEA.

 

[eagle1462010]

Just an example of the sales tax revenues by the Federal Government...........

Motor Fuel Tax Revenue

In 2008, when gas prices had exploded due to speculation......it generated......almost 39 Billion
In 2013, with prices down .......it generated..........almost 10 Billion


Even though Kaz has left the building.....................because she felt insulted.........oh well..................

This plan sucks hairy balls.................If I had to choose between this and the VAT.............ONLY CHOICES....................I'd choose the VAT..............because it is SELF REGULATING because business wouldn't allow themselves to not get the credit for taxes paid in earlier stages of production.................

It still is basically a SALES TAX..............while not officially being so............it would tax at a constant rate instead of really paying 30% in taxes versus 23% via the SALES PITCH...........

Not to mention the massive number of Prebate checks having to go out every month..............Which hmmmmm 7 days..................politician came up with this load of bull...........

 

[JimBowie1958]

You've fallen prey to one of the basic lies of the left. That when the price of say steel goes up, sure, companies pass it on to their customers. But when taxes go up, the Corporations eat them. They don't pass them on. The problem is you're harming US corporations the benefit of foreign companies. You're also perpetuating the lie of who is paying taxes and driving inefficiency

US corporations are doing quite fine, I dont think you need to worry about them. How about worrying about the rst of us who have seen our tax share sky rocket while the corporations pay less than half their share of federal taxes in 1950.

And I did not say that corporations always eat the tax increases. They look at what their competitors are going to do, what they can afford to do to reduce costs as well as possibly increasing their prices. IF their market is very competitive the likelihood of increasing their prices is less.

 

[BluesLegend]

These so called professional politicians are wrecking the country, corruption, $19 trillion in debt. You anti-trump people go ahead make your case for why your professional politician would be better than Trump, you can't.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Lol, the profit does not get passed to the consumer, doofus, but to the stock holders, at least in theory.

You know what else companies pass on to consumers? Their profit.

Damn I hate it when I don't word something properly.
Consumers pay for the profits within a companies goods or services. Along with the taxes and everything else.

The only way a consumer can avoid paying for these company costs and profits is to not purchase the companies goods or services.

Fixed it.

Thanks for correcting your post.

So you dont think that companies adjust their costs of production in response to increased costs in other areas of their business? They just kick up their prices automatically and dont even bother trying to remain competitive?

Say a company has $20 million in labor costs, $50 million in commodity costs, $20 million in transportation costs, $40 million in advertising costs and $20 in warehousing costs and then their taxes go up 2%. They sell their widgets for $150 each with $105 costs per unit and make a 30% profit per unit .

You dont think that they will try to reduce some of those costs, like find a cheaper trucking company who might move their goods tot he warehouse for $18, million, and find other commodity suppliers who might drop costs to $45 million, or press current suppliers to do that? You think their only option is to jack up the price of their widgets to $153?

Walmart gets its subcontractors to lower their supply costs all the time in reaction to various changes in costs, so a company like the once you describe is doomed to go out of business anyway because their management is stupid.

 

[kaz]

You've fallen prey to one of the basic lies of the left. That when the price of say steel goes up, sure, companies pass it on to their customers. But when taxes go up, the Corporations eat them. They don't pass them on. The problem is you're harming US corporations the benefit of foreign companies. You're also perpetuating the lie of who is paying taxes and driving inefficiency

US corporations are doing quite fine, I dont think you need to worry about them. How about worrying about the rst of us who have seen our tax share sky rocket while the corporations pay less than half their share of federal taxes in 1950.

And I did not say that corporations always eat the tax increases. They look at what their competitors are going to do, what they can afford to do to reduce costs as well as possibly increasing their prices. IF their market is very competitive the likelihood of increasing their prices is less.

You really need to take an econ 101 course

 

[Flopper]

I've been a stead fast supporter of Carson's tax plan for a reason. Because I've looked into the Flat Tax system over the years and believe it is the Fairest and most simplistic way to end the massive CFR's with the IRS. It honors the constitution on being uniform to all, and eliminates all the loop holes that everyone always bitches about. It would also stop the Inversion that limits investment capital horded overseas.

It is projected to lose revenues, but historically tax cuts have increased investments and created jobs which is exactly what this country needs. Our companies are hauling ass to over seas and if they keep going I believe the American Dream will go with it.

If his plan at 14.9% was incorporated with higher tariffs to countries like Mexico and China, by getting out of the Free Trade agreements, then it would pretty much not lead to less revenue coming into the Gov't. Or, as I studied this before, go to Flat rate of 18% and it would create growth in the economy and actually increase revenues as the tax code is now.

Details and Analysis of Dr. Ben Carson’s Tax Plan

This is Trumps plan, and it doesn't really end the problem with a massive tax code.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf

Cruz's tax plan is a VAT tax, and I've been against it from the get go. Especially when he dances on stage saying it's not a VAT. Well it is a VAT Tax Ted, by those looking at it.

Details and Analysis of Senator Ted Cruz’s Tax Plan

In grading their plans.........Carson's is the best plan of the Candidates. With a few percent more it would stop the supposed losses in revenues as the analysis's have shown. It would massively increase investment and bring back the Trillions being horded overseas...............

Sigh.............yet the people don't look at the issues.

I completely disagree with you in regard to stopping free trade, particularly with Mexico. The opposition to free trade is based on the belief that free trade cost us jobs. This misconception stems from the fact that while the greater benefits of free trade are often dispersed relatively evenly across an economy, losses tend to be concentrated in a few sectors or industries which attract huge media attention. Governments love protectionist tariffs because it produce huge amounts of revenue. The protected industry has less competition and can often increase revenue in spite of it's economic inefficiencies. The problem of course is that the other country will also apply protectionists tarries to their imports.

Once you start applying tarries they will spreads like wildfire in both countries. And both nations suffer. In the case of the US and Mexico, Mexican goods exported into the US increased by 39 billion after free tree. American goods exported to Mexico increased by 137 billion. Clearly the US is the beneficiary of free trade with Mexico.

I disagree. We have a large trade deficit with Mexico. We have company after company leaving the U.S. and rebuilding in Mexico. It has cost us jobs. Some say over a Million jobs. Depends on which source.

I believe in Fair Trade. Their wages are low, epa regs low, don't require retirement or medical insurance for employees...............no one can work like that here given our cost of living. It gives all the advantage for jobs to Mexico.........closes plants here................we lose............they win..........

We simply cannot let so many leave this country without destroying our own work force.

I agree we need to encourage businesses to not just stay in the US but come to the US. This is not done with tariffs and quotas but rather by reducing corporate taxes. We can't reinvent this government but we can change tax rates.

When you speak of business going overseas, keep in mind there are three entirely separate issues here..

One, is moving the corporate office overseas which means the government looses some tax revenues but that does not mean the company is moving all their operations overseas just their headquarters and possibly selected decisions. Most companies that do this are multinationals moving to get a tax break or possibly to be closer to their largest market or their largest facilities. Reducing corporate taxes would probably stop some of this.

Second, is companies that are packing up their entire operation in the US and heading oversea. These are usually smaller companies or single divisions of larger companies that have strong ties to some other country. Despite media attention, this is fairly rare. It is very difficult for most companies to just pack up and leave. Reduction in the corporate tax rate would certainly help.

Lastly, there is outsourcing jobs overseas. This has gone on for decades but the trend seems to be reversing. We're seeing in sourcing as labor rates have increased in a number of countries. There are many problems associating with outsourcing oversea, language and customs, time differences, employee training, coordination of activities, and dealing with different local, regional, national regulations and laws. It was certainly worth the cost and problems when the organization saved 75% of it's labor cost but as labor costs rose, regulations, taxes, and trade unions much of the allure of outsourcing overseas has been lost.

I agree with ending Inversion. Our Corporate rates are too high............Both parties think it's a problem, but argue on how to deal with it. Simplifying the code would do so, as would the Flat Tax proposals. Companies aren't hording money in 3rd world countries..............they are hording it in countries like Canada, the UK, and Scotland................Who's rate is 12 to 12.5% while ours is 36% I believe............they have no incentive to bring the money back here. Not when the gov't is going to punish them at those rates.

I agree with killing off the massive job killing regulations as well.

If we do this, then we'll see if business comes back or not. Hopefully it will, but if it doesn't then YES I would tariff products. Tariff's would counter some of the revenue lost via the simplified codes. It is a consumption tax that could actually keep jobs here. Ted Cruz is proposing a VAT, even though he tries to call it something different. A VAT at 16%, which would raise all of our prices across the board..........Why would some say that is acceptable over a tariff.

Finally, I don't like the WTO courts telling us to change our laws or else. This is our country and I see that as being ruled by a foreign entity.

Elimination of regulations is very difficult to accomplish. Here's the problem. Each and every regulation is based on law. The law says what is required and regulations provide the details.

For example, the Clean Water Act requires both industry and government to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nations waters, and to achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. The law authorities government agencies to create the regulations needed to enforce the law. Those regulations might specify the maximum level of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, penalties, and possibly reporting requirements.

So let's say the maximum level established by the EPA is causing major problems for the fertilizer plants so EPA relaxes the requirement and pollutants levels rise. Environmental and public health groups protest and possibly sue the agency for not enforcing the law.

When a politician promises to shut down the EPA, or other regulatory agencies, you should cry BULLSHIT. No president can shutdown a regulatory agency without congress first repealing the legislation that establishes that agency and charged it with enforcing the law. In the case of the EPA, there are about 38 pieces of legislation charging the EPA with enforcing and creating regulations for various environmental requirements.

 

[longknife]

Yes, government regulations are supposed to be based upon legislation and bureaucrats go to great lengths to make them conform to guidelines established by their superiors.

The Clean Water Act established GENERAL GUIDELINES. Unnamed and unaccountable bureaucrats then took those generalizations and turned them into very SPECIFIC rules that went way beyond the original INTENT of the legislation.

A president may rescind Executive Orders by their very nature. S/he can only require government agencies to review and rescind any rules or regulations enacted AT ANY TIME.

Before spouting off, take the time some day to read just ONE'S DAY of rules, regulations, and notifications included in THE FEDERAL REGISTER which is available online.

Then make your asinine comments.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Republicans have broken voter turnout records in every state so far. I'm pretty sure that is the result of the Trump phenomenon. I'm also pretty sure a lot of his supporters will disappear with him if he loses the nomination. I know how much a lot of you dislike Trump, but at this point he is probably the best bet for a Republican win.

you can bank on it

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, government regulations are supposed to be based upon legislation and bureaucrats go to great lengths to make them conform to guidelines established by their superiors.

The Clean Water Act established GENERAL GUIDELINES. Unnamed and unaccountable bureaucrats then took those generalizations and turned them into very SPECIFIC rules that went way beyond the original INTENT of the legislation.

A president may rescind Executive Orders by their very nature. S/he can only require government agencies to review and rescind any rules or regulations enacted AT ANY TIME.

Before spouting off, take the time some day to read just ONE'S DAY of rules, regulations, and notifications included in THE FEDERAL REGISTER which is available online.

Then make your asinine comments.

1. Consider, by example, Title 42 of the US Code: Laws dealing with public health and welfare. U.S. Code: Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE Today, this federal law is 1700 pages more than it was prior to the New Deal. The reason is the creation of more and more bureaus and agencies endowed with ever broader responsibilities and discretion in defining the rules that govern our activities and our lives. And these rules have the full force of law! Congress has increased the number of rules whose infractions are criminalized, waiving the common law requirement that one knows he is breaking the law. Today, one can be jailed for violating a regulation that one had no reason to know even existed![Ten Thousand Commandments The 2015 Federal Register topped 15,000 pages this week.

For extra info on major final rules and small business impacts, check theRegulation Overview. http://www.tenthousandcommandments.com/]

1. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.
2. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity,
3. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.
4. While not unconstitutional, regulation may be considered extra-constitutional. There may be some point where it is considered to be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to an agency or bureau. Under Obamacare, or Dodd-Frank Reform we see legislation where regulators have not yet determined what the regulation should be…how can Congress allow a law without knowing what the impact will be?
   James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” this from his speech.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, government regulations are supposed to be based upon legislation and bureaucrats go to great lengths to make them conform to guidelines established by their superiors.

The Clean Water Act established GENERAL GUIDELINES. Unnamed and unaccountable bureaucrats then took those generalizations and turned them into very SPECIFIC rules that went way beyond the original INTENT of the legislation.

A president may rescind Executive Orders by their very nature. S/he can only require government agencies to review and rescind any rules or regulations enacted AT ANY TIME.

Before spouting off, take the time some day to read just ONE'S DAY of rules, regulations, and notifications included in THE FEDERAL REGISTER which is available online.

Then make your asinine comments.

Legislation is general because congressmen can not see into the future to determine what actions should be taken to accomplish the goals and requirements of the law. Therefore, congress grants the authority to an agency to determine what is needed. Yes, the president can set aside any regulation as long as congress, the courts, and the public will permit it.

Unneeded, harmful regulations should be abolished which is exactly why we have a Congressional Oversight Committee. Congress has the power through both budget and legislation to force agencies to trim back such regulations as does the executive branch.

We often hear the cry to get rid of the EPA or the SEC, or other such agencies. However, the fact is businesses need these agencies to convert generalized legislative language into specific regulations. Otherwise the business will be open to subjective interpretation of the law. Without regulations, businesses would have to meet the requirements of the law without knowing exactly what the requirements are.

 

[HenryBHough]

No wonder liberals have trouble finding members of their opposite sex to marry.

Their love songs are all about their passion for taxes!

 

[Fang]

Republicans have broken voter turnout records in every state so far. I'm pretty sure that is the result of the Trump phenomenon. I'm also pretty sure a lot of his supporters will disappear with him if he loses the nomination. I know how much a lot of you dislike Trump, but at this point he is probably the best bet for a Republican win.

The best bet is Rubio or Kasich.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

 

[rcfieldz]

He is not a republican.

 

[HenryBHough]

He is not a republican.

In the sense of into that which The (mainstream) Republican Party has degenerated, yes.

And there's his charm.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Republicans have broken voter turnout records in every state so far. I'm pretty sure that is the result of the Trump phenomenon. I'm also pretty sure a lot of his supporters will disappear with him if he loses the nomination. I know how much a lot of you dislike Trump, but at this point he is probably the best bet for a Republican win.

The best bet is Rubio or Kasich.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

Guys, you have been had.

If we democrats had orchestrated the republican campaign, it could not have come out any better for us. The truth is that Hillary will beat Sanders, and then wipe up the floor with ANY of the republican contenders that are left. You can take it to the bank. It does not make any difference if Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Pee Wee Herman win the GOP nomination. It is all over but the excuses, which I am sure Trump is paying someone to write now, for when it is all over.

Next election, consider running Ted Nugent!

 

[Flopper]

Republicans have broken voter turnout records in every state so far. I'm pretty sure that is the result of the Trump phenomenon. I'm also pretty sure a lot of his supporters will disappear with him if he loses the nomination. I know how much a lot of you dislike Trump, but at this point he is probably the best bet for a Republican win.

The best bet is Rubio or Kasich.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

I agree. I think in a Trump vs. Clinton race, Clinton will increase her lead in the polls after the nominations because Trump will have to get votes from a lot of people that just don't like him. Trump's support by the republican establishment will always be begrudging and insincere. For a nominee to win the general election, he or she needs the enthusiastic support of a unified party and I don't see that happening with Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans have broken voter turnout records in every state so far. I'm pretty sure that is the result of the Trump phenomenon. I'm also pretty sure a lot of his supporters will disappear with him if he loses the nomination. I know how much a lot of you dislike Trump, but at this point he is probably the best bet for a Republican win.

The best bet is Rubio or Kasich.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race

I agree. I think in a Trump vs. Clinton race, Clinton will increase her lead in the polls after the nominations because Trump will have to get votes from a lot of people that just don't like him. Trump's support by the republican establishment will always be begrudging and insincere. For a nominee to win the general election, he or she needs the enthusiastic support of a unified party and I don't see that happening with Trump.

And you do with Hillary????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, government regulations are supposed to be based upon legislation and bureaucrats go to great lengths to make them conform to guidelines established by their superiors.

The Clean Water Act established GENERAL GUIDELINES. Unnamed and unaccountable bureaucrats then took those generalizations and turned them into very SPECIFIC rules that went way beyond the original INTENT of the legislation.

A president may rescind Executive Orders by their very nature. S/he can only require government agencies to review and rescind any rules or regulations enacted AT ANY TIME.

Before spouting off, take the time some day to read just ONE'S DAY of rules, regulations, and notifications included in THE FEDERAL REGISTER which is available online.

Then make your asinine comments.

Legislation is general because congressmen can not see into the future to determine what actions should be taken to accomplish the goals and requirements of the law. Therefore, congress grants the authority to an agency to determine what is needed. Yes, the president can set aside any regulation as long as congress, the courts, and the public will permit it.

Unneeded, harmful regulations should be abolished which is exactly why we have a Congressional Oversight Committee. Congress has the power through both budget and legislation to force agencies to trim back such regulations as does the executive branch.

We often hear the cry to get rid of the EPA or the SEC, or other such agencies. However, the fact is businesses need these agencies to convert generalized legislative language into specific regulations. Otherwise the business will be open to subjective interpretation of the law. Without regulations, businesses would have to meet the requirements of the law without knowing exactly what the requirements are.

I believe and will always believe the two greatest threats to our freedom are bureaucracies and lifelong appointed judges. That's because neither is accountable for their actions.

 

[eagle1462010]

I've been a stead fast supporter of Carson's tax plan for a reason. Because I've looked into the Flat Tax system over the years and believe it is the Fairest and most simplistic way to end the massive CFR's with the IRS. It honors the constitution on being uniform to all, and eliminates all the loop holes that everyone always bitches about. It would also stop the Inversion that limits investment capital horded overseas.

It is projected to lose revenues, but historically tax cuts have increased investments and created jobs which is exactly what this country needs. Our companies are hauling ass to over seas and if they keep going I believe the American Dream will go with it.

If his plan at 14.9% was incorporated with higher tariffs to countries like Mexico and China, by getting out of the Free Trade agreements, then it would pretty much not lead to less revenue coming into the Gov't. Or, as I studied this before, go to Flat rate of 18% and it would create growth in the economy and actually increase revenues as the tax code is now.

Details and Analysis of Dr. Ben Carson’s Tax Plan

This is Trumps plan, and it doesn't really end the problem with a massive tax code.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf

Cruz's tax plan is a VAT tax, and I've been against it from the get go. Especially when he dances on stage saying it's not a VAT. Well it is a VAT Tax Ted, by those looking at it.

Details and Analysis of Senator Ted Cruz’s Tax Plan

In grading their plans.........Carson's is the best plan of the Candidates. With a few percent more it would stop the supposed losses in revenues as the analysis's have shown. It would massively increase investment and bring back the Trillions being horded overseas...............

Sigh.............yet the people don't look at the issues.

I completely disagree with you in regard to stopping free trade, particularly with Mexico. The opposition to free trade is based on the belief that free trade cost us jobs. This misconception stems from the fact that while the greater benefits of free trade are often dispersed relatively evenly across an economy, losses tend to be concentrated in a few sectors or industries which attract huge media attention. Governments love protectionist tariffs because it produce huge amounts of revenue. The protected industry has less competition and can often increase revenue in spite of it's economic inefficiencies. The problem of course is that the other country will also apply protectionists tarries to their imports.

Once you start applying tarries they will spreads like wildfire in both countries. And both nations suffer. In the case of the US and Mexico, Mexican goods exported into the US increased by 39 billion after free tree. American goods exported to Mexico increased by 137 billion. Clearly the US is the beneficiary of free trade with Mexico.

I disagree. We have a large trade deficit with Mexico. We have company after company leaving the U.S. and rebuilding in Mexico. It has cost us jobs. Some say over a Million jobs. Depends on which source.

I believe in Fair Trade. Their wages are low, epa regs low, don't require retirement or medical insurance for employees...............no one can work like that here given our cost of living. It gives all the advantage for jobs to Mexico.........closes plants here................we lose............they win..........

We simply cannot let so many leave this country without destroying our own work force.

I agree we need to encourage businesses to not just stay in the US but come to the US. This is not done with tariffs and quotas but rather by reducing corporate taxes. We can't reinvent this government but we can change tax rates.

When you speak of business going overseas, keep in mind there are three entirely separate issues here..

One, is moving the corporate office overseas which means the government looses some tax revenues but that does not mean the company is moving all their operations overseas just their headquarters and possibly selected decisions. Most companies that do this are multinationals moving to get a tax break or possibly to be closer to their largest market or their largest facilities. Reducing corporate taxes would probably stop some of this.

Second, is companies that are packing up their entire operation in the US and heading oversea. These are usually smaller companies or single divisions of larger companies that have strong ties to some other country. Despite media attention, this is fairly rare. It is very difficult for most companies to just pack up and leave. Reduction in the corporate tax rate would certainly help.

Lastly, there is outsourcing jobs overseas. This has gone on for decades but the trend seems to be reversing. We're seeing in sourcing as labor rates have increased in a number of countries. There are many problems associating with outsourcing oversea, language and customs, time differences, employee training, coordination of activities, and dealing with different local, regional, national regulations and laws. It was certainly worth the cost and problems when the organization saved 75% of it's labor cost but as labor costs rose, regulations, taxes, and trade unions much of the allure of outsourcing overseas has been lost.

I agree with ending Inversion. Our Corporate rates are too high............Both parties think it's a problem, but argue on how to deal with it. Simplifying the code would do so, as would the Flat Tax proposals. Companies aren't hording money in 3rd world countries..............they are hording it in countries like Canada, the UK, and Scotland................Who's rate is 12 to 12.5% while ours is 36% I believe............they have no incentive to bring the money back here. Not when the gov't is going to punish them at those rates.

I agree with killing off the massive job killing regulations as well.

If we do this, then we'll see if business comes back or not. Hopefully it will, but if it doesn't then YES I would tariff products. Tariff's would counter some of the revenue lost via the simplified codes. It is a consumption tax that could actually keep jobs here. Ted Cruz is proposing a VAT, even though he tries to call it something different. A VAT at 16%, which would raise all of our prices across the board..........Why would some say that is acceptable over a tariff.

Finally, I don't like the WTO courts telling us to change our laws or else. This is our country and I see that as being ruled by a foreign entity.

Elimination of regulations is very difficult to accomplish. Here's the problem. Each and every regulation is based on law. The law says what is required and regulations provide the details.

For example, the Clean Water Act requires both industry and government to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nations waters, and to achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable. The law authorities government agencies to create the regulations needed to enforce the law. Those regulations might specify the maximum level of pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, penalties, and possibly reporting requirements.

So let's say the maximum level established by the EPA is causing major problems for the fertilizer plants so EPA relaxes the requirement and pollutants levels rise. Environmental and public health groups protest and possibly sue the agency for not enforcing the law.

When a politician promises to shut down the EPA, or other regulatory agencies, you should cry BULLSHIT. No president can shutdown a regulatory agency without congress first repealing the legislation that establishes that agency and charged it with enforcing the law. In the case of the EPA, there are about 38 pieces of legislation charging the EPA with enforcing and creating regulations for various environmental requirements.

The EPA has been abusing it's powers and that is the major problem.................Yes they have basic functions and Obama has just signed an EO basically letting them call a Mud hole wet lands............They then can confiscate land and prevent use all over the place..............Obama is trying to redefine their role without so much as a by your leave from Congress and the Senate. Just like the Cap N Tax that failed and he uses old laws to go around Congress and just does a lot of it anyway..................

They have also used Judicial activism to justify their right to create new regulations when and where they choose..............new regulations should get approval from Congress and the Senate...............If it's worth it's salt it will pass................If not so be it..........We have mountains of regulations in this gov't. And we need to REGULATE THE REGULATORS......................

Ten Thousand Commandments
Ridiculous..............