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.
Two things, I believe Trump understands that we need to protect our environment. I also believe, based on his success in business, he understand resource needs. With that said, cut onerous regulations and the bodies that were needed to enforce them AS LONG AS we continue reasonable regulations that protect our environment.
He nominated a man to head the EPA who has repeatedly sued the EPA to allow for more pollution. Trump is looking out for his and his friends' wallets not our health.
If Trump doesn't gut the EPA, by 2020 it will have saved 4.2 million lives and $2 Trillion (reference my link above). Is more money for a billionaire or millionaire more important than that?
Those who celebrate the evisceration of the EPA are those who do not love their country and do not want to see it protected from both domestic and foreign multinational corporations who want to destroy it for its resources. Our beautiful country, for sale to the highest bidder. The true patriot will fight with everything he or she has to protect our land.
He nominated a man to head the EPA who has repeatedly sued the EPA to allow for more pollution. Trump is looking out for his and his friends' wallets not our health.
If Trump doesn't gut the EPA, by 2020 it will have saved 4.2 million lives and $2 Trillion (reference my link above). Is more money for a billionaire or millionaire more important than that?
How do you know lives will be lost with a skeleton EPA staff? Just 'cause?
Fair enough, not on this thread. There have been several threads about the federal workforce
being cut where posters said that all federal employees were overpaid know-nothings who
deserve to lose their jobs.
I admit I would be gleeful if everyone at the EPA was fired.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire600
Two things, I believe Trump understands that we need to protect our environment. I also believe, based on his success in business, he understand resource needs. With that said, cut onerous regulations and the bodies that were needed to enforce them AS LONG AS we continue reasonable regulations that protect our environment.
And when it's an "onerous regulation" that's protecting the environment, WHO gets to decide the winner?
Perhaps the deciders should be given government housing on the shores of a 'Love Canal' downwind of an odoriferous plant so they'll have a clear picture of what their decisions impact?
And the EPA was doing what when this was going on ?
The EPA needs more teeth not fewer.
"The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "battled Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality behind the scenes for at least six months over whether Flint needed to use chemical treatments to keep lead lines and plumbing connections from leaching into drinking water" and "did not publicize its concern that Flint residents' health was jeopardized by the state's insistence that such controls were not required by law".[90] In 2015, EPA water expert Miguel A. Del Toral "identified potential problems with Flint's drinking water in February, confirmed the suspicions in April and summarized the looming problem" in an internal memo[91] circulated on June 24, 2015.[90]
Despite these "dire warnings" from Del Toral,[92] the memo was not publicly released until November 2015, after a revision and vetting process.[90] In the interim, the EPA and the Michigan DEQ engaged in a dispute on how to interpret the Lead and Copper Rule. According to EPA Region 5 Administrator Susan Hedman, the EPA pushed to immediately implement corrosion controls in the interests of public health, while the Michigan DEQ sought to delay a decision on corrosion control until two six-month periods of sampling had been completed.[
There will be 250k to 500k more people looking for jobs in the next 18 months Trump said he would be the best job creating president ever So if he fired 500k people but only creates 250k jobs that is still a lose of 250k jobs
These positions are probably non essential, overlapping jobs that are wasting taxpayer money.
When Dem politicians are in charge, they tend to create unnecessary government jobs to manipulate national employment numbers.
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.
So if he fired 500k people but only creates 250k jobs that is still a lose of 250k jobs 
