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.
Thanks, you proved the point I was making, that the EPA is agenda driven. It matters not who is running the show, the EPA dances to that agenda, no true consistency when it comes to safety.
You don't seem to understand the difference between sound policy driven by real science vs corrupt policy driven by bribes from special interests. I want to eliminate the corrupt bribes but most certainly do not want to end policy based on sound science. If you don't understand the difference between the two then you're in a very sad place.
Carbon emissions need regulating due to the fact, yes FACT, that they're causing global climate change. This science is very well established and the threat is real so this would be an example of a GOOD regulation. To bad there is no such regulation in the US. What I'm looking for is regulations which are obviously corrupt and designed to stiffle competition. Another good example of such was how telephone long distance charges used to be regulated or how airline flights and fees used to be regulated. Deregulation worked well in those cases and can work well in the cases I listed above but removing needed environmental or human health regulations are not something I want to do.
The point is, when government increases, so does fraud.
Carbon emissions need regulating due to the fact, yes FACT, that they're causing global climate change. This science is very well established and the threat is real so this would be an example of a GOOD regulation. To bad there is no such regulation in the US. What I'm looking for is regulations which are obviously corrupt and designed to stiffle competition. Another good example of such was how telephone long distance charges used to be regulated or how airline flights and fees used to be regulated. Deregulation worked well in those cases and can work well in the cases I listed above but removing needed environmental or human health regulations are not something I want to do.
All regulations are good in someone's mind. Cap and tax does the same thing as your example in the OP. It creates higher costs which are passed on to the consumer, and in particular, greatly increases the cost of compliance. Compliance costs of any regulation are somewhat of a fixed cost. When I say that, I mean they are not linear with the product you sell. These costs form barriers to entry to new companies in the same business, while providing protection to those more entrenched, and larger.
You don't seem to understand the difference between sound policy driven by real science vs corrupt policy driven by bribes from special interests. I want to eliminate the corrupt bribes but most certainly do not want to end policy based on sound science. If you don't understand the difference between the two then you're in a very sad place.
Oh, I was right with you up to the personal attack. You seem to want to ignore the agenda based drive of the EPA and other federal agencies but I didn't attack you.
When there is an agenda to be accomplished and political favors to be made, corruption rules the agency. If you want to look at another one just look at the DOJ (Department of Social Justice) under Holder. Look at it under previous administrations too, will you still deny agenda as the driving force behind actions?
Get the lobbyists and their stinking money out of Washington and there will be more opportunities for small food producers.
That is one way to do it. No lobbiest allowed in DC. Let them travel to each Congressional member's home state office rather than in DC to do their lobbying. That would decentralize the power of lobbyists.
Get the lobbyists and their stinking money out of Washington and there will be more opportunities for small food producers.
Yep, that's the bottom line. The Citizens United ruling is the single most politically motivated and worst ruling since Dred Scott with the possible exception of Bush v Gore.
I think they recently got rid of that stupid 'milkfat-is-as-hazardous-as-an-oil-spill' provision but will have to track it down.
here it is. a change led by none other than *gasp* chuckie schumer
Quote:
The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to exempt dairy farmers from provisions of the Clean Water Act, U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday.
nice going, chuck. when you're right, you're right.
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.
