On the new ideology of the Republican Party

[Flopper]

Yes! You have ouitlined the problem exactly. The EPA lives in fear of environmental disasters. To make sure that never happens they will scotch a million decent projects if they even think there might be a suspicion of some environmental damage, no matter how minute.
We do not live in a risk free world. To pretend that gov't can solves problems in advance of their existence is absurd.
THe issue is not the EPA's guidelines. The issue is that the change and increase those guidelines without regard to consequences.

Only a fool would argue that it is better to deal with environmental disasters than to prevent them.

So your solution is to shut down all commerce because heaven forbid one act might--might--result is some environmental issue? Really?
Maybe we can prevent all car accidents by mandating a 35mph speed limit.

My solution is to let the EPA do their job which is supported by the majority of voters both Republican and Democrat.

 

[The Rabbi]

Only a fool would argue that it is better to deal with environmental disasters than to prevent them.

So your solution is to shut down all commerce because heaven forbid one act might--might--result is some environmental issue? Really?
Maybe we can prevent all car accidents by mandating a 35mph speed limit.

My solution is to let the EPA do their job which is supported by the majority of voters both Republican and Democrat.

Obviously that is not the case. What is the EPA's "job"? Regulating CO2? No, I dont think so. Imposing new restrictions on top of old ones that have worked for 20 years? No.
You have no solution.

 

[tinydancer]

Only a fool would argue that it is better to deal with environmental disasters than to prevent them.

So your solution is to shut down all commerce because heaven forbid one act might--might--result is some environmental issue? Really?
Maybe we can prevent all car accidents by mandating a 35mph speed limit.

My solution is to let the EPA do their job which is supported by the majority of voters both Republican and Democrat.

I don't believe for one minute that if the voting public took 2 seconds out to think about the legislation these unelected officials pass to regulate everyone in business out the yazoooo, they would see that these people are enviro nazis who are only in the business of keeping themselves in business and they have absolutely nothing, johnny nada, nothing to do with true conservationism.

But sadly the voting public includes the idiotic democrat "let's pass a stupid law so we can feel good" base.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So your solution is to shut down all commerce because heaven forbid one act might--might--result is some environmental issue? Really?
Maybe we can prevent all car accidents by mandating a 35mph speed limit.

My solution is to let the EPA do their job which is supported by the majority of voters both Republican and Democrat.

I don't believe for one minute that if the voting public took 2 seconds out to think about the legislation these unelected officials pass to regulate everyone in business out the yazoooo, they would see that these people are enviro nazis who are only in the business of keeping themselves in business and they have absolutely nothing, johnny nada, nothing to do with true conservationism.

But sadly the voting public includes the idiotic democrat "let's pass a stupid law so we can feel good" base.

If you've every taken two seconds to think about anything I'd be surprised.

Consider, "Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies. Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise.

"Therefore, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations by publishing them in the Federal Register. Eventually, after a period for public comment and revisions based on comments received, a final version is published in the Federal Register and the regulations are incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations."

The Executive Branch since 1980 has been under the control of the Republicans for 20 years, under Reagan, Bush I, Bush II; 11 years under control of Democrats, Clinton and Obama.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The current push to end government regulations by the Republican Party is both dangerous and myopic. It is wholly focused on increasing the profits of American Industry - both heavy and financial - at the expense of our environment and our children.

Consider these historical consequences of deregulation:

Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA

What is Acid Rain? | Acid Rain | US EPA

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642

The GOP worries about the debt and its effect on our children and grandchildren; so do I. I'd rather they pay taxes tomorrow then suffer the consequences of industrial pollution.

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

I do see compromise on permits and such as a viable and win - win possibility; I do not see it as long as the Eric Cantor's control the House of Representatives. The GOP has become radicalized, it is no longer a party of the people, and likely has not been so for decades. Yet, it once pretended to be a big tent; today the tent has room only for billionaires and their industrial lobbyists and Wall Street's Masters of the Universe.

How is your ideology of ever increasing government regulations either safe or far sighted? What do you personally think is a viable level of regulations? Why should we keep regulations that actually favor large corporations over small businesses? Since Republicans are coming out as the anti-regulation party, and since most regulations actually negatively impact startups by raising compliance costs to levels only large companies can meet would that make the Democrats the party that is in favor of big business? Why are you blind to the facts that prove that you are arguing for the wrong side?

 

[Katzndogz]

The EPA should have been shut down when it brought a lawsuit to shut off the water to the Central California farmers. If not then, it absolutely should have been shut down when it declared dust a pollutant.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The current push to end government regulations by the Republican Party is both dangerous and myopic. It is wholly focused on increasing the profits of American Industry - both heavy and financial - at the expense of our environment and our children.

Consider these historical consequences of deregulation:

Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA

What is Acid Rain? | Acid Rain | US EPA

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642

The GOP worries about the debt and its effect on our children and grandchildren; so do I. I'd rather they pay taxes tomorrow then suffer the consequences of industrial pollution.

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

I do see compromise on permits and such as a viable and win - win possibility; I do not see it as long as the Eric Cantor's control the House of Representatives. The GOP has become radicalized, it is no longer a party of the people, and likely has not been so for decades. Yet, it once pretended to be a big tent; today the tent has room only for billionaires and their industrial lobbyists and Wall Street's Masters of the Universe.

How is your ideology of ever increasing government regulations either safe or far sighted? What do you personally think is a viable level of regulations? Why should we keep regulations that actually favor large corporations over small businesses? Since Republicans are coming out as the anti-regulation party, and since most regulations actually negatively impact startups by raising compliance costs to levels only large companies can meet would that make the Democrats the party that is in favor of big business? Why are you blind to the facts that prove that you are arguing for the wrong side?

When have I written regulations need to be increased?

What do you think is a viable level of regulations?

In my mind a regulation should be a necessary and sufficient rule to correct a problem or prevent one. Before being promulgated is should be developed with input from all interested parties and in the public domain.

Many start-ups are negatively impacted by local regulations, fees, permits and inspections and must deal with a wide range of agencies - city, county, special districts and LAFCO.

One explanation for the local gridlock is the need of local government for revenue. As long as taxes cannot be raised, we can expect more and greater fees and as local government continues to lose employees the time to obtain permits and to have work inspected will continue to grow.

 

[The Rabbi]

You didnt spend 30 seconds thinking about his post, did you? Are you even capable of it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The current push to end government regulations by the Republican Party is both dangerous and myopic. It is wholly focused on increasing the profits of American Industry - both heavy and financial - at the expense of our environment and our children.

Consider these historical consequences of deregulation:

Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA

What is Acid Rain? | Acid Rain | US EPA

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642

The GOP worries about the debt and its effect on our children and grandchildren; so do I. I'd rather they pay taxes tomorrow then suffer the consequences of industrial pollution.

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

I do see compromise on permits and such as a viable and win - win possibility; I do not see it as long as the Eric Cantor's control the House of Representatives. The GOP has become radicalized, it is no longer a party of the people, and likely has not been so for decades. Yet, it once pretended to be a big tent; today the tent has room only for billionaires and their industrial lobbyists and Wall Street's Masters of the Universe.

How is your ideology of ever increasing government regulations either safe or far sighted? What do you personally think is a viable level of regulations? Why should we keep regulations that actually favor large corporations over small businesses? Since Republicans are coming out as the anti-regulation party, and since most regulations actually negatively impact startups by raising compliance costs to levels only large companies can meet would that make the Democrats the party that is in favor of big business? Why are you blind to the facts that prove that you are arguing for the wrong side?

I responded above, sadly a partisan hack posted an idiotgram after my response which might result in your missing my answer (and others moving on to other threads which he has not polluted).

 

[tinydancer]

The current push to end government regulations by the Republican Party is both dangerous and myopic. It is wholly focused on increasing the profits of American Industry - both heavy and financial - at the expense of our environment and our children.

Consider these historical consequences of deregulation:

Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA

What is Acid Rain? | Acid Rain | US EPA

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642

The GOP worries about the debt and its effect on our children and grandchildren; so do I. I'd rather they pay taxes tomorrow then suffer the consequences of industrial pollution.

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

I do see compromise on permits and such as a viable and win - win possibility; I do not see it as long as the Eric Cantor's control the House of Representatives. The GOP has become radicalized, it is no longer a party of the people, and likely has not been so for decades. Yet, it once pretended to be a big tent; today the tent has room only for billionaires and their industrial lobbyists and Wall Street's Masters of the Universe.

How is your ideology of ever increasing government regulations either safe or far sighted? What do you personally think is a viable level of regulations? Why should we keep regulations that actually favor large corporations over small businesses? Since Republicans are coming out as the anti-regulation party, and since most regulations actually negatively impact startups by raising compliance costs to levels only large companies can meet would that make the Democrats the party that is in favor of big business? Why are you blind to the facts that prove that you are arguing for the wrong side?

When have I written regulations need to be increased?

What do you think is a viable level of regulations?

In my mind a regulation should be a necessary and sufficient rule to correct a problem or prevent one. Before being promulgated is should be developed with input from all interested parties and in the public domain.

Many start-ups are negatively impacted by local regulations, fees, permits and inspections and must deal with a wide range of agencies - city, county, special districts and LAFCO.

One explanation for the local gridlock is the need of local government for revenue. As long as taxes cannot be raised, we can expect more and greater fees and as local government continues to lose employees the time to obtain permits and to have work inspected will continue to grow.

Why does one need to raise taxes to become environmentally secured?

I witnessed the complete idiocy of the Governor of Michigan, dumb **** Democrat ***** from hell, who thought she was a ******* champ bringing down all the liberal garbage from Ontario into landfills into Michicgan.

What the **** is wrong with you people? Can't you ever do something without lying?

 

[The Rabbi]

No.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How is your ideology of ever increasing government regulations either safe or far sighted? What do you personally think is a viable level of regulations? Why should we keep regulations that actually favor large corporations over small businesses? Since Republicans are coming out as the anti-regulation party, and since most regulations actually negatively impact startups by raising compliance costs to levels only large companies can meet would that make the Democrats the party that is in favor of big business? Why are you blind to the facts that prove that you are arguing for the wrong side?

When have I written regulations need to be increased?

What do you think is a viable level of regulations?

In my mind a regulation should be a necessary and sufficient rule to correct a problem or prevent one. Before being promulgated is should be developed with input from all interested parties and in the public domain.

Many start-ups are negatively impacted by local regulations, fees, permits and inspections and must deal with a wide range of agencies - city, county, special districts and LAFCO.

One explanation for the local gridlock is the need of local government for revenue. As long as taxes cannot be raised, we can expect more and greater fees and as local government continues to lose employees the time to obtain permits and to have work inspected will continue to grow.

Why does one need to raise taxes to become environmentally secured?

I witnessed the complete idiocy of the Governor of Michigan, dumb **** Democrat ***** from hell, who thought she was a ******* champ bringing down all the liberal garbage from Ontario into landfills into Michicgan.

What the **** is wrong with you people? Can't you ever do something without lying?

I don't lie and I'm also able to make a point without being common and vulgar. Rather than wonder what is wrong with people you disagree with, maybe you ought to ask a professional what is wrong with you?

 

[daveman]

I responded above, sadly a partisan hack posted an idiotgram after my response which might result in your missing my answer (and others moving on to other threads which he has not polluted).

Idiotgram: Anything that doesn't immediately and unquestioningly agree with everything I say, because I'm smarter than everyone else.

/Wry Catcher

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The current push to end government regulations by the Republican Party is both dangerous and myopic. It is wholly focused on increasing the profits of American Industry - both heavy and financial - at the expense of our environment and our children.

Consider these historical consequences of deregulation:

Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA

What is Acid Rain? | Acid Rain | US EPA

Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central - A product of the Ohio Historical Society

The GOP worries about the debt and its effect on our children and grandchildren; so do I. I'd rather they pay taxes tomorrow then suffer the consequences of industrial pollution.

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

I do see compromise on permits and such as a viable and win - win possibility; I do not see it as long as the Eric Cantor's control the House of Representatives. The GOP has become radicalized, it is no longer a party of the people, and likely has not been so for decades. Yet, it once pretended to be a big tent; today the tent has room only for billionaires and their industrial lobbyists and Wall Street's Masters of the Universe.

How is your ideology of ever increasing government regulations either safe or far sighted? What do you personally think is a viable level of regulations? Why should we keep regulations that actually favor large corporations over small businesses? Since Republicans are coming out as the anti-regulation party, and since most regulations actually negatively impact startups by raising compliance costs to levels only large companies can meet would that make the Democrats the party that is in favor of big business? Why are you blind to the facts that prove that you are arguing for the wrong side?

I responded above, sadly a partisan hack posted an idiotgram after my response which might result in your missing my answer (and others moving on to other threads which he has not polluted).

I didn't miss your response, I was just waiting for you to actually put some thing into answering it.

 

[Londoner]

Jeez, there was a time when increasing the profits of American industry was a good thing. What a difference a socialist administration makes.

Rising profits were great during the postwar years because there were all these after-market mechanisms that ensured the middle class participated in economic growth made off their labor. This lead to a very powerful mass consumption economy. Then, we spent 30 years removing the mechanisms in order to lower the tax burden on capital. Now, profits narrowly collect in one place - and the middle class does not participate in economic growth. In fact, their household debt has risen to unsustainable levels in order to deal with lower wages, slashed benefits, and monopolized health care. We need an economic system where the staggering, unprecedented profits on top trickle down into places besides the pockets of politicians . . . who rig the system on behalf of their donors.

 

[BOBO]

...in their budget...

BREAKING: House bill unveiled late Friday cuts EPA budget by $3 billion, blocks funding for all current and pending EPA climate regulations for stationary CO2 source | Watts Up With That?

Ron Paul has 5 more agency's up for total liquidation plus a sell off of all 5 agency's assets...

Ron Paul economic plan would eliminate five agencies, thousands of jobs - The Hill's Video

The day of big government is coming to an end. Big government had it's chance & failed miserably. The individual states all have their own environmental agencies so the EPA will not be missed. The problem with big government is that it attracts the pup phukers & under achievers. Humans ALWAYS work together best when government is at it's extreme smallest in size. Government is a 'captive system' & humans cannot flourish in a captive society. Nazi Germany & the USSR more than illustrated this example.

The current push to end government regulations by the Republican Party is both dangerous and myopic. It is wholly focused on increasing the profits of American Industry - both heavy and financial - at the expense of our environment and our children.

Consider these historical consequences of deregulation:

Superfund Sites Where You Live | Superfund | US EPA

What is Acid Rain? | Acid Rain | US EPA

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1642

The GOP worries about the debt and its effect on our children and grandchildren; so do I. I'd rather they pay taxes tomorrow then suffer the consequences of industrial pollution.

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

I do see compromise on permits and such as a viable and win - win possibility; I do not see it as long as the Eric Cantor's control the House of Representatives. The GOP has become radicalized, it is no longer a party of the people, and likely has not been so for decades. Yet, it once pretended to be a big tent; today the tent has room only for billionaires and their industrial lobbyists and Wall Street's Masters of the Universe.

 

[Brutus]

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

Their self-interest would be in the cleanest environment possible if consumers would not buy from polluters.

The liberal IQ is so low that he cant imagine a solution other than more and more big magical liberal government. Why not move to Cuba?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

Their self-interest would be in the cleanest environment possible if consumers would not buy from polluters.

The liberal IQ is so low that he cant imagine a solution other than more and more big magical liberal government. Why not move to Cuba?

I don't speak Spanish; I dislike humidity or hurricanes; my family lives here and my roots go back five generations.

 

[daveman]

The debate is all about ideology, the Republican ideology is to allow industry - heavy and financial - the freedom to act in their own self interest, using a rational that these industries will be good citizens. History suggests otherwise.

Their self-interest would be in the cleanest environment possible if consumers would not buy from polluters.

The liberal IQ is so low that he cant imagine a solution other than more and more big magical liberal government. Why not move to Cuba?

I don't speak Spanish; I dislike humidity or hurricanes; my family lives here and my roots go back five generations.

So, then you've adopted the obvious solution:

Support policies designed to make the US more like Cuba.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Their self-interest would be in the cleanest environment possible if consumers would not buy from polluters.

The liberal IQ is so low that he cant imagine a solution other than more and more big magical liberal government. Why not move to Cuba?

I don't speak Spanish; I dislike humidity or hurricanes; my family lives here and my roots go back five generations.

So, then you've adopted the obvious solution:

Support policies designed to make the US more like Cuba.

Normally I ignore you, as you're possibly aware. But when challenged I sometimes feel it is important to respond to fools like you and CrusaderFrank and the other uninformed and ignorant people who like to pretend to be conservative. Much like the court jesters of old wanted to be seen as members of the court and not the fools other saw them to be.

Unlike you, I'm not an extremist. I look at each issue with an eye focused on a win-win and a pragmatic solution. Your side of the aisle chooses to apply a litmus test to every issue and those ideas which conflict with the accepted dogma are dismissed without debate, usually with a sarcastic comment, a one-line idiotgram or with name calling.

That you and others like you are bereft of ideas is sad; that you cannot form an argument to defend the truths you hold immutable is sad too; to devolve to pejoratives and those behaviors described above is a sign of poor character.