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.

 

Ron Paul supporters: A specific Question about the EPA

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





But every solution you provide is one that is already ineffective at the Federal level so I have a hard time believing it would be any more effective at the State level.


It is effective, because at State levels they can revamp the current Federal regulations to make the State levels even more strict...Read about RCRA, CERCLA, SARA when you have a chance. Those acts especially the "cradle to grave" RCRA are strictly followed here in the state of California which is why we have not had any major mishaps, like the BP spill or Love Canal if you really want to see how effective the federal level worked during those crisis...




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





But every solution you provide is one that is already ineffective at the Federal level so I have a hard time believing it would be any more effective at the State level.


It is effective, because at State levels they can revamp the current Federal regulations to make the State levels even more strict...Read about RCRA, CERCLA, SARA when you have a chance. Those acts especially the "cradle to grave" RCRA are strictly followed here in the state of California which is why we have not had any major mishaps, like the BP spill or Love Canal if you really want to see how effective the federal level worked during those crisis...


With the current system you can have more strict regulations if you like...you just can't have more lenient regulations than the federal regulations.

I honestly don't see the issue...the only reason anyone would want to give full control to the States is to allow States to lower their regulations if they want to. Same with any issue where Ron Paul says give it to the states...it's to remove regulations...not strengthen them.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





It can only work at the Federal level.


I think your wrong...Look up every disaster where the EPA was involved and see how ineffective and slow it was on a Federal level...If you have State you have quicker response such as HAZMAT clean up teams etc. Which I believe we have the best here on the West Coast...



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


Thanks, any links to that to aid in my research are welcomed.

Good day.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


Keep in mind this is all State

Cal-EPA

yosemite epa


Hope these are helpful...


Love Canal

^^Good job EPA at the Federal level for not making sure the chemicals weren't being properly disposed, and have sites where these chemicals can be rounded up...See a good example of an ineffective Federal level EPA
edit on 26-4-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





It can only work at the Federal level.


I think your wrong...Look up every disaster where the EPA was involved and see how ineffective and slow it was on a Federal level...If you have State you have quicker response such as HAZMAT clean up teams etc. Which I believe we have the best here on the West Coast...


Every State has their own response teams...but they can't handle large disasters. Ask yourself this...WHY did the EPA or FEMA or any other government agency have to get involved??? It's because the State couldn't handle it themselves. And the States will never be able to handle it themsevles...some things are just too big for them to handle.

Again, we have been through this before in our history and it makes more sense to have a federal agency. For example, a State can handle a small tornado...but they aren't going to be able to handle a tornado outbreak where they have 5-10 large tornados in a week.

Here is how I think of it...I can't afford to have all the fire fighting equipment I need in case my house starts on fire. Neither can my neighbors...but if we all pool together...we can...hence we have a city fire department. Some smaller towns near us can't even afford that...but if they agree to pitch in a little to our department...our fire department will cover their town as well. But what happens if we have a huge brush fire??? That isn't something our small fire department can handle...thankfully we have the State that will back us up with the larger equipment. Now what happens if the State has multiple areas with huge brush fires...yep...you guessed it....that is when the Federal government comes in to help...supported by all 50 states.


This is very very elementary and it has been a trial by error process...but the last thing you want to do is go back to the beginning and start from scratch so we can make all the same mistakes over again.



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





It's because the State couldn't handle it themselves. And the States will never be able to handle it themsevles...some things are just too big for them to handle.


I just seriously think you are for big government, and have no clue about the EPA, and the proper protocols on how to respond to certain situations...



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





It's because the State couldn't handle it themselves. And the States will never be able to handle it themsevles...some things are just too big for them to handle.


I just seriously think you are for big government, and have no clue about the EPA, and the proper protocols on how to respond to certain situations...


That's it?

That is your response?

You are just going to throw out the "you have no clue" and that's all?


I was at least expecting you to claim that in situations like I described that other States will come to their rescue out of the goodness of their hearts. You know...just like corporations will self regulate once all federal regulations are lifted from them (Ron Paul plan).



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Everything your saying I know about already. I worked for a company based out of Long Beach where they rounded up a small crew and shipped them to Louisiana to help run the round up sites...Just because I don't type it down when you expect me to doesn't mean I'm not aware it...

I'm just making the argument that California's EPA/OSHA is better because it is smaller, and if all states adopted something similar it then there would be no need for the Federal Government ran EPA because the States would be able to take care of themselves or get the help from a neighboring states...That is all I am saying.
edit on 26-4-2012 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 





Why? What would make you think a smaller court, with even less political strength than the Federal Government could regulate a major corporation if the EPA cant? Again, citing the agency's shortfallings in terms of enforcement is not an argument for abolishing them. Prove to me that BP wouldnt be able to do that to, say Louisiana costal waters under Pauls plan. And thanks all for your responses. These are honest questions of mine. Think of me as a guy in a bar you are trying to convince to vote for Ron Paul.


The corporation would NEVER be anywhere near as big and powerful with considerably smaller government. The Federal government does far more for the rich and powerful. Regulations never were or will be enforced against large corporations. The current system, and a large government, requires that elite forces rule. It can't work any other way. Deficit spending, required by big government, creates massive debt. Debt that taxing a handful of the rich or middle class could never cover. Thats where the banking system comes in. The corporations must OWN a large, centralized government in order for it to work in the first place.

The false pretense of "compassion" is used to create dependents out of the ordinary citizens. Not at any point in all of human history has a dependent ever had any power. And they never will. Dependent citizens give up all rights and powers in order to receive their entitlements.

Small, limited government would completely dismantle the corporate system. It is not a coincidence that big government and big business have had a directly proportionate rate of growth for the last 150 years or so. they are totally co-dependent.
The EPA, like the FDA, will ALWAYS favor the large corps but use harsh enforcement against their potential rivals, you know... the REAL capitalists.

If a quasi-socialist President's EPA is incapable of doing anything but supporting an environmentally abusive corporation, why would any president's EPA do any different?
At a state level, the judges and officials are directly answerable to the people, who live within driving distance from their home. It is easy to scre people over and blame it on legislators from other states, a douchey executive, or nebulous bureaucracies. If the people directly know who is answerable, it forces them to be accountable. Such government worked well in the past. Much better and more accountable than now certainly. An EPA working for the people is a very fanciful notion.

The Federal government is the greatest enemy of the poor and middle class and the greatest champion of the elite. That is why the corporate controlled media (allegedly "liberal") works so hard to convince the sheep that the opposite is true.
edit on 26-4-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 


And, again, though, that's really just vague libertarian theory which I am already familiar with, and don't necessarily disagree with. But it doesnt actually seem to address the specifics of how Paul would transition and how states (the people, not the government) would actually have any power against very powerful financial interests.

I understand the limitations and drawback of the federal system, and understand it benefits the larger players more than the small. But just wanting to get rid of that doesnt seem to address my main question about how states would actually deal with these kinds of problems.

Thanks for your reply, though.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Wow, that's it?

Only three or four people can even TRY to defend Paul's idea of totally dismantling the EPA?



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   
IT's funny to me that this website is full of ron paul fans, but only two or three can apparently even begin to explain his policies.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join