It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: underwerks
"Private sector"

The private sector is the part of the economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled by the State (areas of the economy controlled by the state being referred to as the public sector)

Where in there does it say corporate control?
If you work for a private business(and I know you do) then you ARE the private sector.
Why do you not have faith in yourself or your peers ability to do the right thing?
Why must there be a government entity in control?
I doubt a bunch of politicians know whats best for the people and wildlife in say like central Montana. I however have absolute faith that the (private sector)caretakers who rely on the land for their lively-hood and survival will take better care of it than someone who prefers to fly over that part of the nation.

I have more faith my peers will do the right thing than my government will do the right thing. I guess that's where you modern liberals and us classical liberals will always differ.

No, I don't have faith in my peers to do the right thing. Nor any company. When profit is the motivation, that will be the choice the majority of the time.

If business isn't required by law to care about the environment, the majority won't when profits are on the line.

And who controls these businesses that show up in place of the EPA? Do you really believe its a good idea for the E in EPA to stand for Exxon?




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Yes we did a research here in ATS many years ago about how the EPA went from being all for the people and pander to big interest, then they just didn't care anymore.

It was something about cutting funds, when the EPA found themselves without funds to function properly they sold themselves to private interest and became corrupted.

Pity.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I say it's a good start.

Yes, state regulators can be bought, I've seen it happen. However, it's a lot easier to catch them at it if it is on a state level and instead of traveling to DC, I can travel to my state capital and look them in the eye. I know this from my experience as a conservationist.

Corporation already get permits to pollute the air and ground waters. When people in our area were fighting the Mega Hog Corporations, we had minions of the EPA come in and tell us we couldn't legislate county rules to keep out the polluters. Fortunately for us, we'd already gotten Home Rule Statutes passed so we could tell them to go jump in a hog "lagoon." The corporations were the very ones who got EPA established---for the simple reason that they could control them. I was in that fight. Sorry you don't know your history but if you'd been around and active in the conservation movement you'd know these things.

Let's take the money spent annually by the EPA and apply it to rebuilding our roads and bridges, locks and dams. It is a states rights issue and the natural resources should be the responsibility of the states. Nobody in DC knows the state like the residents. It was a crazy idea from the start.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




It is a states rights issue and the natural resources should be the responsibility of the states.

So, upstream States can do what they want to do with the water?

Something tells me the representatives of downstream States might have some concerns about this bill. Depending on what it actually says, of course.

edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SaturnFX

It's not about incompetency.

The EPA is rotten to the core.

And states are pure as the driven snow.

So says a bunch of corporations that want to dump and destroy anyhow. They can even point out a few examples of crappy regulations and few people no doubt.

You dont have kids I take it...who cares about the environment. I getcha


You are missing the entire point.

The current EPA does more harm than good. They aren't doing their job.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus




The current EPA does more harm than good

Questionable.

Of course, the harm does tend to stick in people's minds.
edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: JAY1980
a reply to: underwerks
"Private sector"

The private sector is the part of the economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run by private individuals or groups, usually as a means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled by the State (areas of the economy controlled by the state being referred to as the public sector)

Where in there does it say corporate control?
If you work for a private business(and I know you do) then you ARE the private sector.
Why do you not have faith in yourself or your peers ability to do the right thing?
Why must there be a government entity in control?
I doubt a bunch of politicians know whats best for the people and wildlife in say like central Montana. I however have absolute faith that the (private sector)caretakers who rely on the land for their lively-hood and survival will take better care of it than someone who prefers to fly over that part of the nation.

I have more faith my peers will do the right thing than my government will do the right thing. I guess that's where you modern liberals and us classical liberals will always differ.

No, I don't have faith in my peers to do the right thing. Nor any company. When profit is the motivation, that will be the choice the majority of the time.

If business isn't required by law to care about the environment, the majority won't when profits are on the line.

And who controls these businesses that show up in place of the EPA? Do you really believe its a good idea for the E in EPA to stand for Exxon?


Your quote right there. THAT is why you're a liberal.

You have no faith in your peers to do the right thing. Nor any company (which, by the way, is a legal entity comprised of your peers.)

No, what you need is an over-reaching Federal government to take care of you and all the problems of everyone and everything. Forever.

Now how about try this... state elected representatives are more beholden to their constituents then Federal politicians are.

Keep things at closer to a local level and you will have better representation.

And for the record, Exxon pays a whole lot more in taxes than the EPA does.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale




And for the record, Exxon pays a whole lot more in taxes than the EPA does.


What an odd thing to say.
If they paid $1 it would be more than the EPA pays. Government agencies don't pay taxes.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Here is a classic example of the government problem. The EPA, is Environmental Protection Agency. The agency is fine will all humans dying, they are only interested in what they consider the environment, or their purview.

So, we have a agency that by the very title has no interest in humans at all. So when they come calling to protect the Delta Smelt fish, they are concerned with that and only that, should millions of humans suffer or die to save the fish is just fine.

The agency should be HUMAN and Environment protection agency and it should NOT be at odds, war, with any other agency included in the government.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The people in the states have to be active---upstream or downsteam doesn't matter.
As I said, it's a lot easier to fight them locally (in state) than having to waste time, energy and cause more pollution by traveling all the way to DC and watching the corporate lobbyists get admitted to Congress critters' offices while the citizens sit and cool their heels for days.
It is even easier to go to your local county government, give them the facts and because they have to see you at the local diner, the PTA meetings and council meetings, they must listen if they want to retain their office. It is hard work.

It is much easier to cry for some higher power to do it. Who is easier to contact and get out of office---a locally elected official who has gone bad, or an unelected federal bureaucrat who has gone bad?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


The people in the states have to be active---upstream or downsteam doesn't matter.

It's good for my economy to just dump crap in the river. It's expensive to clean it up. I don't care what it does to you downstreamers' drinking water and fishing. It's keeping us employed.

One State cannot tell another State what to do, nor can its citizens vote for their officials.


edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GreyScale




And for the record, Exxon pays a whole lot more in taxes than the EPA does.


What an odd thing to say.
If they paid $1 it would be more than the EPA pays. Government agencies don't pay taxes.


I'm aware of that which is why I said it.

Exxon pays into the government billions of dollars.

The EPA takes away from the government billions of dollars.

Pretty simple concept, really.

Now, if we're, say, 20 trillion in debt with no end in sight then maybe we could focus on getting rid of debt and working with our income.

I understand why some don't understand the concept though.




posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale




Exxon pays into the government billions of dollars.


Which government?

Exxon doled out more than $15 billion in income tax payments to foreign countries last year. U.S. tax codes allow companies to take massive deductions in light of those international charges, which knocked Exxon's federal income-tax bill down into negative territory.That said, Uncle Sam gets his money in other ways. Including sales taxes and duties, Exxon recorded $7.7 billion in U.S. tax costs last year, and paid even more overseas.

money.cnn.com...
edit on 2/6/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GreyScale

Dude, I'm a Libertarian, we're REAL BIG on minimal regs in a perfect f#ing universe, but we don't live in one. Underwerks is right -- you cannot trust people and companies to do the right thing for all when it's a choice between saving money by being dirty, or spending extra to stay cleaner. The natural course of action for capitalists is the former, and it's this short-sighted short-term gain that blinds them into repetition when you allow them to do so.

Do we really need to leave the door wide open & unattended for crap like the Cuyahoga (Ohio) River being on fire again?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

As I said, it's a lot easier to fight them locally (in state) than having to waste time, energy and cause more pollution by traveling all the way to DC and watching the corporate lobbyists get admitted to Congress critters' offices while the citizens sit and cool their heels for days.
It is even easier to go to your local county government, give them the facts and because they have to see you at the local diner, the PTA meetings and council meetings, they must listen if they want to retain their office. It is hard work.

It is much easier to cry for some higher power to do it. Who is easier to contact and get out of office---a locally elected official who has gone bad, or an unelected federal bureaucrat who has gone bad?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This is pure insanity. Enact some reforms sure, like limiting some of the fines they can hit people with, but getting rid of it entirely is insane and extremely corrupt and we will all suffer for it.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt

Who is easier to contact and get out of office---a locally elected official who has gone bad, or an unelected federal bureaucrat who has gone bad?
An elected official who is supporting his economy by allowing crap to be dumped into the river has "gone" bad?

Don't environmentalists destroy industry by making them clean up their act?



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

The door isn't open. The states all have pollution regs. If the corporate-owned EPA is abolished, they can pass even stricter regulations if the people act. This past election proves that concept. At present we're paying for the state regulations and federal regulations---duplication of services.
Local and state regs are much easier to come by than federal. One size does not fit all.
Keeping the corporate polluters at bay will be much easier on a state and local level. Been there, done that. It takes a lot of hard work. Most people don't want to work hard, they'd rather someone else did it. But a small group of people armed with the facts can make a difference. A small group of people in our county made it impossible for the Mega-Corporate-Hog companies to set up shop and ruin our soil and water. The feds were more than happy to issue them permits they had bought from the EPA.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Phage, for once I actually agree with you. The EPA has become bloated, corrupt, intrusive, and unresponsive. It needs to be taken down several notches, limited drastically in its scope, and limited in its ability to create regulations unilaterally. But, at its core, it serves a needed function.

I admit I won't shed a tear if it is removed. But I will call for a replacement.

I'm looking forward to reading the text as well.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Phage

As I said, it's a lot easier to fight them locally (in state) than having to waste time, energy and cause more pollution by traveling all the way to DC and watching the corporate lobbyists get admitted to Congress critters' offices while the citizens sit and cool their heels for days.
It is even easier to go to your local county government, give them the facts and because they have to see you at the local diner, the PTA meetings and council meetings, they must listen if they want to retain their office. It is hard work.

It is much easier to cry for some higher power to do it. Who is easier to contact and get out of office---a locally elected official who has gone bad, or an unelected federal bureaucrat who has gone bad?


You're completely missing the point here though. You can't fight the laws enacted by a neighboring state or a state 500 miles north of you that borders the same river your state does. Goes where you have to go if your state decides to sue another state? It's not you're local town hall.

When the neighboring state upstream from you decided it's cool to dump carcinogens into that river because it will carry everything downstream away from them, how are ou going to vote them out of office? Who are you going to contact? What recourse do you believe you have in this scenario?

If you want to know what having almost no environmental regulations looks like, Google "Beijing Smog pictures".




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join