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.
Do you support the gutting of environmental laws or against?
I support cleaning house (all current executives gone with the appointees) at the EPA and demoting it. I support a better mission/goal for the agency. For reasons like these (old C-D posts) four:
"The EPA gives millions to the environmental groups that sue it. “When the EPA settles or loses those suits, it then awards the groups millions more in attorneys’ fees,” notes legal commentator Walter Olson. “‘The EPA isn’t harmed by these suits,’ said Jeffrey Holmstead, who was an EPA official during the Bush administration. ‘Often the suits involve things the EPA wants to do anyway. By inviting a lawsuit and then signing a consent decree, the agency gets legal cover from political heat.’"
"The cap-and-trade bill is chock full of costly corporate welfare, and would have a “trivially small” effect on greenhouse gas emissions while imposing an enormous cost, according to a former Obama Advisor. It is supported by the same special-interests and corporate rent-seekers who supported the stimulus package’s green-jobs provisions, which used tax dollars to outsource American jobs, subsidizing foreign “green jobs” that replaced thousands of American jobs. Recent EPA rules will wipe out at least 800,000 jobs. Two economists say the stimulus destroyed 550,000 jobs.)"
"The allegations concern the Environmental Protection Agency, which is being accused of trying to charge conservative groups fees while largely exempting liberal groups. The fees applied to Freedom of Information Act requests -- allegedly, the EPA waived them for liberal groups far more often than it did for conservative ones...Research by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative Washington, D.C., think tank, claims that the political bias is routine when it comes to deciding which groups are charged fees. Christopher Horner, senior fellow at CEI, said liberal groups have their fees for documents waived about 90 percent of the time, in contrast with conservative groups that it claims are denied fee waivers about 90 percent of the time."
"The US Department of Energy expects coal plants with the output capacity to supply 30 million homes to shut down by 2020. That supply will be replaced by more expensive energy sources. DOE expects prices to increase 13 percent by 2020, and that doesn’t even take into account additional EPA regulations on the horizon. Does this look like progress towards a more energy-independent America?...And most of the country will see serious negative impacts on their cost of living from rising electricity prices. Electricity is an input cost in virtually every consumer product we buy—these policies will literally affect the price we pay for everything."
Above from The Laurel Outlook June 2014 (page is now gone).
"The Environmental Protection Agency paid $750,000 a year to a warehouse contractor in suburban Washington whose employees watched television and lifted weights while taxpayer-paid supplies decayed in moldy, rat-infested conditions, an internal investigation found. Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins‘ report about the “deplorable” conditions inside the 70,000 square foot facility in Landover, Md., stunned top EPA officials and prompted the immediate removal of the contractor. Elkins noted in his urgent “early warning report” dated May 31 that EPA had not visited the warehouse before he contacted the agency on May 16 and informed officials about what his invetsigators found at the warehouse operated by contractor Apex Logistics LLC of College Park, Md."
sorry treebeard but you are wrong. perhaps there are laws that insulate some industries, to a point. but that is part of the purpose of the courts. if a bad law is passed by a government, until it is challenged in the courts, it is still the law. but once challenged, if the plaintiffs have a proper case, the law can be overturned through the court system. it happens all the time.
I agree in part and disagree in part. The question is what constitutes a "bad law." Is a law limiting damages of an oil company (Exxon Valdez case, for instance) in the event of an oil spill good or bad law? Conservatives, moderates and liberals can fight over the merits of a law till the cows come home. Plaintiffs can overturn laws, but overturning laws or having them declared unconstitutional is not easy business and if anything court's are very reluctant to declare a law unconstitutional, which is why it makes news when a law is declared unconstitutional. I have not delved into the issue of the expense to appeal these cases.
States and federal district and appellate courts frequently have differing views on the constitutionality of a law. If a case makes it to the US Supreme Court, the question as to its constitutionality will rely on their conservative interpretation of the law. It is no secret that their interpretation will, most likely though not all the time, be pro-business and anti-environmental or consumer.
Laws are challenged, but at least in the environmental arena, law suits are no substitute for good regulations and rules and enforcement of those rules and regulations.
Last edited by TreeBeard; 11-10-2014 at 10:30 AM..
So you think that your interpretation of the article here is NOT characterizing the GOP as villains as PedroMartinez stated?
'Conservatives want to make America look like a developing country!!'
'They don't care if cancer and abortion inducing toxins are dumped into the environment as long as the big donors are repaid!!'
vil·lain noun \ˈvi-lən\
: a character in a story, movie, etc., who does bad things
You're paraphrasing me. However, as much as I dislike the environmental policy of the GOP, I would never use the term enemy or villain. Their environmental policies speak for themselves of which I vehemently disagree. If you ask me point blank do I think posters with whom I disagree are evil, villains or my enemy, my answer is a resounding hell no. That is why I refrain from those terms.
Gutting does not mean repealing. I do believe if left to there own devices many on the far right would do just that though. The Hill article also states the Senate willlook at defunding agencies that regulate emissions...I believe that would also constitute gutting.
In that respect, you are correct. Given the opportunity, we on the right would gut the EPA. We won't have the opportunity, though, and therein lies the lunacy of your post. Even when the Democrats had the majority and could accomplish nothing, they pretended that the Republicans were in charge and would not let them get anything done.
There are only going to be about 55 Republican senators. I wish there were 100, but that is not the case. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people are not informed so they will always vote Democrat, and 55 clear thinking, law abiding senators will not destroy the world.
You're paraphrasing me. However, as much as I dislike the environmental policy of the GOP, I would never use the term enemy or villain. Their environmental policies speak for themselves of which I vehemently disagree. If you ask me point blank do I think posters with whom I disagree are evil, villains or my enemy, my answer is a resounding hell no. That is why I refrain from those terms.
Uh yeah...
The definition of a villain is someone who does bad things or someone or something that is blamed for a particular problem or difficulty. Once again, how does that differ from how you characterized the GOP in your original post?
The GOP aren't doing bad things in regards to the environment?
The GOP aren't to be blamed for any problems or difficulties related to the environment?
You can't have it both ways, either stand by what you said or admit that you've just contradicted yourself.
I'll disagree and say that you will not practice what you preach because it's easier to call others villains.
I recognize and support sensible environmental laws.
Like what? Enlighten us. How much environmental regulation is appropriate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler
It's silly to suggest the GOP will gut environmental laws. I do expect them to be reasonable and try to approve things like the oil pipeline with rational environmental controls.
They have no reason to make use believe they will be rational.
In that respect, you are correct. Given the opportunity, we on the right would gut the EPA. We won't have the opportunity, though, and therein lies the lunacy of your post. Even when the Democrats had the majority and could accomplish nothing, they pretended that the Republicans were in charge and would not let them get anything done.
Why would you gut the EPA? Do you understand what the EPA does?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307
There are only going to be about 55 Republican senators. I wish there were 100, but that is not the case. As Mitt Romney said, 47% of the people are not informed so they will always vote Democrat, and 55 clear thinking, law abiding senators will not destroy the world.
LOL, those 55 clear thinking, law abiding Senators that don't accept climate change?
I support gutting the EPA. They are totally out of control and ruining people's lives.
Do you support ruining people's lives or against?
Ruining the environment = ruining peoples' lives, sir. Anything lost because of common-sense environmental regulation isn't worth keeping in the first place.
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money.”
Uh yeah...
The definition of a villain is someone who does bad things or someone or something that is blamed for a particular problem or difficulty. Once again, how does that differ from how you characterized the GOP in your original post?
The GOP aren't doing bad things in regards to the environment?
The GOP aren't to be blamed for any problems or difficulties related to the environment?
You can't have it both ways, either stand by what you said or admit that you've just contradicted yourself.
I see a nuance in words that for whatever reason seems to escape you. I will say that I can agree to the word "scoundrels" or "good-for-nothings".
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.
