Log in

View Full Version : Republicans want to get rid of EPA


caliboy1994
12-20-2011, 10:51 PM
The Republican plan to abolish the EPA, ending the four-decade bipartisan consensus to ensure healthy air and water for our kids | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/17/207553/the-republican-plan-to-abolish-epa-ending-the-four-decade-bipartisan-consensus-to-ensure-health-air-and-water-for-our-kids/)

Sounds like a joke to me. Tell us what you think.

Yug
12-21-2011, 12:37 AM
It may well have begun with good intentions, but it has become a veritable tyrant in many respects, and has made some decrees and declarations that have not been well thought out. Also, they can be bought off with enough money and influence.

Richard
12-21-2011, 01:02 AM
Andreas, I think you are about to discover that although we are all devoted to the love of growing bananas, we also have very different and deeply entrenched political beliefs. Further, not everyone here is able to discuss their beliefs without engaging in personal attacks so these political threads can become nauseating.

:lurk:

caliboy1994
12-21-2011, 02:46 AM
You're probably right. My mom says that they maybe should be replaced with something that's more efficient and better, and I agree. But don't downregulate for good. I live in the San Fernando Valley, and the smog and haze here is so bad sometimes that I can't see the mountains which are only a few miles away. I can only imagine how much worse it would be without air quality regulations.

Jack Daw
12-21-2011, 03:35 AM
Guys, don't worry about these things. :D
Individuals don't have any impact on the society. :D


Also, they can be bought off with enough money and influence.
In capitalism, everybody can be bought for the capital. If there are such individuals that can't be bought and they stand in the way, they are eliminated...

But sorry for not remembering who's quote it is. 20th century.


although we are all devoted to the love of growing bananas, we also have very different and deeply entrenched political beliefs.
Beliefs have always been dividing people,... ideal society will have eliminated the political beliefs. It is dangerous (global-wise) to even start mixing the politics with the word "belief" (in any form of its meaning). Politics is the "showbusiness for ugly people" with far more devastating effects. It's the means of getting some form of power and is rarely given to those, who deserve it, it is usually given to those, who offer to take it and delude the best.

Yug
12-21-2011, 12:21 PM
...
Beliefs have always been dividing people,... ideal society will have eliminated the political beliefs. It is dangerous (global-wise) to even start mixing the politics with the word "belief" (in any form of its meaning). Politics is the "showbusiness for ugly people" with far more devastating effects. It's the means of getting some form of power and is rarely given to those, who deserve it, it is usually given to those, who offer to take it and delude the best.
If people had truly honorable intentions, and maintain a healthy degree of respect for others and their opinions, even though they may disagree; they ought to be able to engage in a civil discussion of an issue, and this should result in somewhat of a resonable compromise where differences exist. The problems occur when some folks that are downright fanatics, with little in the way of facts to support their arguments, try to force their will on others. Many of the 'enviro wackos' fall into this category. They are totally unresonable, and uncompromising with their 'my way or the highway' else 'we are going to destroy the Earth' mentality. They are the ones that have NO respect for the opinions of others, and therefore can not be compromised with. The other end of the spectrum would be an overbearing agency that declares your 2 acres to be a 'wetland' because it gets flooded every 100 years when a nearby river overflows its banks, yet the other 99 years, it is totally dry. Then when you wish to build a garage or do some other project on your own land, you are fined and barred from doing anything since, by the agency's unresonable definition you are now destroying a 'wetland'. This, again, is disrespectful of the land owner's rights, and is also an unresonable stance totally unsupported by facts. The land is merely an occasional flood plain, and not a wetland. I think some people that run those agencies actually become psychologically obsessed with and enjoy exercising power and influence over others' lives and property to the degree that all reason and sensibility is tossed out the window. That is why I believe the EPA (among other agencies) should be revamped, and also have some checks to becoming an overbearing dictatorial bureaucracy with no manner of grievance redress for an individual that has been unfairly and unreasonably put-upon.

I hope that clears it up. Notice the lack of personal attacks?

caliboy1994
12-21-2011, 03:45 PM
Sure, some of the EPA's regulation is too much, but I think that getting rid of them would do more harm then good. I remember I heard that one time in the 1970s before the EPA regulated pollution, a river literally caught on fire because there were so many chemicals in it. And the smog where I live was much worse then than it is today. Without regulation of some sort, I'm sure we would all be paying billions upon billions more in healthcare costs because of all the pollution.

Yug
12-21-2011, 03:50 PM
Sure, some of the EPA's regulation is too much, but I think that getting rid of them would do more harm then good. I remember I heard that one time in the 1970s before the EPA regulated pollution, a river literally caught on fire because there were so many chemicals in it. And the smog where I live was much worse then than it is today. Without regulation of some sort, I'm sure we would all be paying billions upon billions more in healthcare costs because of all the pollution.
That was the Cuyahoga river in Ohio. That was due to certain corrupt practices that I mentioned above.

There is a clean source of energy/power, but the energy sellers have prevented it from being widely used, with the collusion of the Dept of Energy, because it generates less profit, and therefore also generates less taxes.

caliboy1994
12-21-2011, 03:51 PM
If people had truly honorable intentions, and maintain a healthy degree of respect for others and their opinions, even though they may disagree; they ought to be able to engage in a civil discussion of an issue, and this should result in somewhat of a resonable compromise where differences exist. The problems occur when some folks that are downright fanatics, with little in the way of facts to support their arguments, try to force their will on others. Many of the 'enviro wackos' fall into this category. They are totally unresonable, and uncompromising with their 'my way or the highway' else 'we are going to destroy the Earth' mentality. They are the ones that have NO respect for the opinions of others, and therefore can not be compromised with. The other end of the spectrum would be an overbearing agency that declares your 2 acres to be a 'wetland' because it gets flooded every 100 years when a nearby river overflows its banks, yet the other 99 years, it is totally dry. Then when you wish to build a garage or do some other project on your own land, you are fined and barred from doing anything since, by the agency's unresonable definition you are now destroying a 'wetland'. This, again, is disrespectful of the land owner's rights, and is also an unresonable stance totally unsupported by facts. The land is merely an occasional flood plain, and not a wetland. I think some people that run those agencies actually become psychologically obsessed with and enjoy exercising power and influence over others' lives and property to the degree that all reason and sensibility is tossed out the window. That is why I believe the EPA (among other agencies) should be revamped, and also have some checks to becoming an overbearing dictatorial bureaucracy with no manner of grievance redress for an individual that has been unfairly and unreasonably put-upon.

I hope that clears it up. Notice the lack of personal attacks?

I totally agree that the EPA should be revamped. It obviously could do its job better. But I think that a total removal like what some Republicans are proposing is a bad idea. We don't want our air to become nearly unbreathable and our water to become almost undrinkable, do we? And I also think important ecosystems such as wetlands (i.e. ones like Upper Newport Bay, not flood plains that flood once every 100 years) and forests should be preserved. And on the issue of timber harvesting, I think that forests should be sustainably harvested for wood instead of clear-cut, which completely destroys the valuable ecosystems there. I think that our biggest challenge of the 21st century is learning to live in harmony with nature instead of beating it to death like we are now.

From an environmental perspective, the US is doing a great job compared to other countries such as Brazil and Indonesia. I think that other countries should become more environmentally aware too. Why not preserve ecosystems that play such a vital role in the health of our planet? I'm not saying completely stop what we are doing. I say instead do what we do in a more sustainable way so that our grandchildren won't come to hate us.

kentiopsis
12-21-2011, 05:26 PM
This topic is inappropriate for our forum. Such a discussion will lead only to bad feelings. Let's focus on what we all love, bananas.

caliboy1994
12-21-2011, 06:08 PM
Maybe an admin should lock this thread then?

Yug
12-21-2011, 06:20 PM
Maybe an admin should lock this thread then?
It seems pretty calm, I think that might be kinda extreme at present :lurk:

Richard
12-21-2011, 07:38 PM
It is my belief that the systemic trouble with the EPA and many other government agencies is the nature of civil service employment. By offering a non-competitive wage and the prospect of tenured employment, it encourages a sprawling growth of incompetence. Attempts to revamp civil service programs at state levels have failed in part because the proposed changes were very heavy-handed. In contrast, "Employment At Will" is a now a best practice at technical corporations. The companies run efficiently and abusers usually end up in jail. Congress would do well to borrow a page from some of these firms.

Jack Daw
12-21-2011, 08:26 PM
If
We were always taught at our English lessons:
"If" starts a sentence that is more unlikely to happen than a sentence started by "when". :D :08:

scottu
12-21-2011, 10:11 PM
If you ask me, and you did, I would say that pretty much all gov agencies (because of they have no reason to care about cost, or any detrimental effects they cause as long as it fits a model they aspire) are inefficient, and are prone to problems of oversight. With only political powers having any real persuasion over their direction they can only be for who is in control at the time. They are destined to become what most gov agencies in this country have become, fat, overbearing, wasteful entities with a major disconnect with the original purpose of their mission!
However and more importantly I love Bananas and don't care about their politics!

laserlight
12-23-2011, 06:14 PM
We had this discussion at another forum and one of my friends said they will save the economy even if they have to destroy the whole planet to do it. There was a epic news link about a politician who used tax money for parties too. I said that the real news would be if they found somebody who wasnt corrupt, lol.

I think the EPA = fail. they didnt stop the pollution in California. they didnt stop the gulf of Mexico oil disaster or even get it fixed very well. they didnt stop the ice from melting and now polar bears wont have anywhere to live and now the permafrost is melting and putting tons of carbon dioxide in the air.

I think the EPA needs to be replaced with something that works. it needs to protect the enviroment and help the economy both. btw, land that doesnt even get flooded for years is not a wetland imo.

Richard
12-23-2011, 07:09 PM
... I think the EPA needs to be replaced with something that works. it needs to protect the enviroment and help the economy both. btw, land that doesnt even get flooded for years is not a wetland imo.

No matter what the EPA (or any other Federal Agency) is replaced with, if it is staffed through the present civil service system it is going to suffer from dysfunction within a few years.

caliboy1994
12-23-2011, 07:15 PM
We had this discussion at another forum and one of my friends said they will save the economy even if they have to destroy the whole planet to do it. There was a epic news link about a politician who used tax money for parties too. I said that the real news would be if they found somebody who wasnt corrupt, lol.

I think the EPA = fail. they didnt stop the pollution in California. they didnt stop the gulf of Mexico oil disaster or even get it fixed very well. they didnt stop the ice from melting and now polar bears wont have anywhere to live and now the permafrost is melting and putting tons of carbon dioxide in the air.

I think the EPA needs to be replaced with something that works. it needs to protect the enviroment and help the economy both. btw, land that doesnt even get flooded for years is not a wetland imo.

The EPA has made a few things better though. The Clean Air Act of 1990 was a runaway success. Without that, there would probably be twice as much air pollution in my area right now. But I still think they need to be replaced or improved.

Yug
12-23-2011, 09:10 PM
We had this discussion at another forum and one of my friends said they will save the economy even if they have to destroy the whole planet to do it.
...

That sounds like the folks that pushed through obama-care (in spite of a majority of Americans polled repeatedly that did not want it). You are going to get govt health care (unless you are one of the favored ones that is allowed an exemption - like govt staffers and unions) even if we have to ruin the nation financially to give it to you.

All I want to know is this: if we trash the industries in the U.S. to regulate to the extreme so that 'we do our part to save the world' and Russia, India, & China do nothing of the sort, continue to trash THEIR environment (and indirectly ours) they then gain the edge economically, and later militarily. Eventually the U.S. can't compete economically and then militarily. We become obsolete, and won't even be able to protect ourselves let alone pressure any other nation to stop polluting. Eventually we become a mere shadow of what we used to be, and become totally irrelevant on the world stage, but hey, at least we can feel smugly superior to everyone else, can't we?

Sometimes I wonder if any of the enviro nut-jobs have carried their thoughts through to completion. The only reason they keep lobbying and preaching is because WE are probably the only nation that even gives them the time of day; anywhere else they'd likely be shot, or just disappear. Personally, I care about the environment, but I also don't want to be eventually conquered by a wealthier, militarily-stronger nation that just doesn't give a rat's patootie about their environment, because we allowed the enviro-wackos to dictate enviro-policy in the U.S., but no where else in the world. Hell, based on their one-sided (anti-U.S.) stance, they would be great tools to be used by our nation's enemies, if they are not already.

Jack Daw
12-23-2011, 09:19 PM
That sounds like the folks that pushed through obama-care (in spite of a majority of Americans polled repeatedly that did not want it). You are going to get govt health care (unless you are one of the favored ones that is allowed an exemption - like govt staffers and unions) even if we have to ruin the nation financially to give it to you.
I don't know anything specific about Obama care, but FREE studying and FREE health care is the best policy and the sole reason why I don't hate it here so much. IF it's done properly, it's at least as effective as any other form of health care, what is more - its sole purpose is not in generating profit, therefore it is structured in a different manner than private or commercial health-care. :)
Problem is, when the private sector starts sucking off the state health care. That's where the debt will come.

laserlight
12-24-2011, 12:29 AM
That sounds like the folks that pushed through obama-care (in spite of a majority of Americans polled repeatedly that did not want it). Hell, based on their one-sided (anti-U.S.) stance, they would be great tools to be used by our nation's enemies, if they are not already.

They didnt push obama-care because we cant vote yet. the guy who said that is 12 and i think it was a joke. we all lolled and he did too. =D
when he said we will save the economy we were talking about all the countries. if our country stopped polluting it wouldnt help. that would only work if all the countries did it together.
i know almost zero about obama-care so i cant discuss that yet. i will talk about that when i learn more about it. =)

Richard
12-24-2011, 12:58 AM
That sounds like the folks that pushed through obama-care (in spite of a majority of Americans polled repeatedly that did not want it). ...

That's true, but it is also true that over half the people who didn't like the Congressional version felt that it didn't go far enough!

California was the first to fully implement the legislation and it is working well.

Like most insured Americans, I do not want any part of my health insurance premiums or taxes paying for someone's unhealthy lifestyle. From this viewpoint, a person who is required to have health care but lives a lifestyle their doctor advises is unhealthy will end up being solely liable for health care costs related to their lifestyle. This is at the core of both the Romney and Obama health care proposals.

I do not want government provided healthcare, nor does Obama-care or the enacted legislation require it. I just want to be free from people who live irresponsibly at the expense of the public.