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

Here is some great news about the push to end the Government sponsored terror organization that is the EPA. These anti-science thugs do the bidding of their corporate masters and not that which benefits the people. I have linked the Bill and information of the damage and terror that the EPA promotes.

Hopefully we can replace the EPA with something that actually serves the people and the environment.

Link 1

Link 2

a reply to: Metallicus

I have no problem with terminating the EPA, and I don't think we should replace it with another federal agency. Let the private sector step up and fill the void.

Next should come the DEA and FDA in that order.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I agree with no Federal imposition of another bureaucracy once its disbanded. However I dont think the private sector should gain the reigns. In my opinion all "National Parks and resources" should fall under the auspices of state government as they are far more accountable to the will of their people. The private sector in my book allows for too much international interests to effect citizens right by virtue of buying access.

I like the Fish and wildlife service. I hope they do not get rid of that. The forestry service is a decent organization also, without them the loggers would cut down all the forests.

The EPA is out there to get money from everyone to support their own. Their fines pay their people's wages. There are some good people working for the EPA though, if there wouldn't be the corruption in it, it would be a good thing. Up here the EPA does look after us and keep the mines from trashing everything. I think the core of engineers is a pretty good organization too.

We just need to fix the EPA, we do need to keep an eye on our environment. People will trash everything if nobody is watching them.

(Natural News) The EPA was originally founded on principles of solid science and a commitment to protecting the environment. For many years, it actually did a lot of good by clamping down on corporate polluters and reducing the contamination of rivers and streams. But today, the EPA is better known as the “Environmental POLLUTION Agency” that spouts totally fabricated quack science while destroying the careers of honest scientists inside the agency who attempt to blow the whistle.

www.naturalnews.com...

Something needs done.

Especially after Animas River.

What happened to middle ground and why can't EPA be adjusted and trimmed in stead of banished. Do we really trust corps to put welfare of land and people before profits... enough? I agree with regulations over reaching at times but the clean water and air acts serve to ensure and well being of people and habitat and I'd hate to see them dismantled. I don't know, I just don't see this as 'either or' but rather a revisit to what is necessary and not, to be determined by common sense and not partisan leveraging. All politics is not bad neither is all environmentalism, and a balance(checks and balances) should remain part of the process. Question is, who do we trust? It can't be an entire entity. That's like saying all dems or all repubs are bad so get rid of one or the other. I understand the frustration and animosity but these idea of terminating all/most gov programs seems out of balance. reform yes, abolishment , no.

we will save 8.1 billion annually by getting rid of the EPA, we can buy a lot of bricks for the wall with 8.1 billion annually.

add to that the 148 million annually we will save by the halt to financing of the national endowment for the arts and humanity and we will be able to build a really nice wall.

maybe we could paint it with chrome colored paint so on sunny days the crew of the ISS will be able to see it from space?

And replace it with?....


I think the best line was the idea that the private sector will step up. lol..yeah, starbucks will certainly clamp down on megacorps dumping of toxins in the water supply for sure.

a reply to: BlueJacket

Maybe non-profit organizations would be a good idea. I just don't like the idea of government control, be it federal or state, but states would have the right to implement their own plan.

a reply to: SaturnFX

It doesn't have to be replaced.

The STATES can handle it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SaturnFX

It doesn't have to be replaced.

The STATES can handle it.

Im sure they will handle it real nicely. plenty of corrupt politicians will gladly get some hands greased for allowing dumping all over their states without issue.

real win for the Muricans..-cough-

originally posted by: Tardacus
we will save 8.1 billion annually by getting rid of the EPA, we can buy a lot of bricks for the wall with 8.1 billion annually.

add to that the 148 million annually we will save by the halt to financing of the national endowment for the arts and humanity and we will be able to build a really nice wall.

maybe we could paint it with chrome colored paint so on sunny days the crew of the ISS will be able to see it from space?

So give large corporations the ability to pollute at will and at the same time build a wall trapping us all in with it.

Great idea

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SaturnFX

It doesn't have to be replaced.

The STATES can handle it.

Im sure they will handle it real nicely. plenty of corrupt politicians will gladly get some hands greased for allowing dumping all over their states without issue.

real win for the Muricans..-cough-

As opposed to them corrupt government employees at the EPA that are dumping crap in rivers with the full faith and credit of the state behind them?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: SaturnFX

It doesn't have to be replaced.

The STATES can handle it.

Im sure they will handle it real nicely. plenty of corrupt politicians will gladly get some hands greased for allowing dumping all over their states without issue.

real win for the Muricans..-cough-

As opposed to them corrupt government employees at the EPA that are dumping crap in rivers with the full faith and credit of the state behind them?

Incompetence in a critical job means replacing the incompetent people and identifying specific rules that cause more harm than help, not destroying the job
The source you linked btw is by a author who is basically a hyper-conservative blogger. his views are irrelevant and highly skewed. When you use terms like "snowflake" in the title of your articles, you aren't a serious journalist..you are a clickbait opinion monkey.

Why not spend a bit of time reading what the EPA actually does instead of find corporate owned sewer rats telling you why it needs to end.

a reply to: SaturnFX

It's not about incompetency.

The EPA is rotten to the core.

a reply to: rickymouse

Aren't "Divisions of Fish and wildlife" and "Department of natural resources" and other similar names all state level departments?
correct me if I am wrong.

It will be interesting to see the text of the bill.
More so if it makes it out of committee.

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

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.

a reply to: JAY1980

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.

Do you have the same faith in those in an upstream State (hypothetically speaking) who want you use your river as a waste dump?

It will be interesting to see the text. And if it makes it out of committee.