Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I believe in the power of markets as much as the next guy. But the internet you're using right now, which has created tremendous wealth , wouldn't exist without the public sector that devised it, designed it, and built it. Ditto for GPS, LED's, solar panels, bar code scanners, the interstate highway system, etc. etc.
An entity like the EPA does not create wealth, but it does help facilitate the wealth creation by the rest of society. The general rule is that it is far cheaper to prevent environmental problems than it is to try and bear the cost of a disaster, and attempting to fix it after it occurs.
I think a review of all the departments is in order. Our Fed is top heavy with redundancies and bureaucracy. Look not further than our overly complicated tax system. How many federal police agencies do we need? I think there is a lot of fat that can be cut out of the Fed without impacting performance. No private sector business could ever function and remain viable under such conditions.
Number of lives saved by U.S. Clean Air Act continues to grow: Opponents trying to repeal protections
The Clean Air Act alone is on track to generate $2 trillion in direct economic benefits. You know premature death and chronic health problems are a massive drain on the economy and many of them have been prevented by the EPA.
There would be no private sector if the government didn't create or provide currency, highways, public water works, firefighting to protect property, etc.
Is it your position the Clean Air Act will be gutted too? If so, then you don't have an argument.
He wants to gut the part of the EPA that carries out the clean air act (and clean water act and so forth). With no resources for enforcing it, it's just a piece of paper that provides no protection.
He wants to gut the part of the EPA that carries out the clean air act (and clean water act and so forth). With no resources for enforcing it, it's just a piece of paper that provides no protection.
That hasn't been said. Are you simply making assumption?
You are quoting an opinion from the largely discredited Time magazine. So in other words you don't have an argument.
Myron Ebell said that. Head of Trump's transition team. If you want to ignore plain obvious facts that's up to you. Attacking the source instead of proving the source wrong is a logical fallacy and discredits you. Everyone who reports information that is damaging to Trump is not "discredited."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
