Getting Rid of the EPA

[Care4all]

Then it requires fixing, not scrapping.

You can't fix stupid.

But you can replace it with less stupid.

First thing, get it out of the AGW business, 2nd thing get it out of local enforcement and delegate that to the States. 3rd thing, get it out of the "sue and settle" business.

No! We have state EPA. If we keep the Fed EPA, the next leftist will do the same thing all over again. How are we going to convince business to expand, when the regulatory break they get leaves when Trump is defeated, or the Repubs lose the Whitehouse! We must be smarter than this, because if we aren't, Trump is going to fail and the Dems will get it all back rather quickly!

Your State EPA,

IS the Federal government's EPA, from my understanding of it???

 

[Timmy]

You can have minimum standards that are tailored enough for various environments.

Examples include wastewater treatment levels based on discharge locations, Bay, Ocean, River, river upstream of a drinking water source, etc.

States can make requirements more stringent, but not less.

Asking bureaucracies to have limitations on controlling the people is like telling an alcoholic they can only have one drink a night.

They've gotten too large and too powerful. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

There has to be some national level policy on pollution control, and I'm not talking about Greenhouse gases and saving river smelts. I'm talking about basic standards of treatment for wastewater, gas stacks, run-off, and other point and gross sources of pollution that can impact multiple states.

The agency has to be gutted, but not removed. If it is a hard task, well then that's what we elected Trump for.

Our Congress takes vacation half of the year. I think they have plenty of time to create necessary regulations while at the same time, not creating regulations that only harm businesses that won't do our environment any good.

Here in Ohio the EPA said they didn't like our air quality. Fine, then don't come to our city! Nope, they forced us into this E-check system. Now every other year, you have to take your car to this station, and they test it to see if your car meets the EPA standards.

After ten years of this expensive nonsense, they tested the air quality again. No difference than from ten years earlier. So what did they do? They extended the program.

We could have used all that money for better projects in our state. But we were forced to waste millions and millions of dollars to produce nothing. That's what's wrong with having an EPA.

Then it requires fixing, not scrapping.

Fix it how? It doesn't work. You can't fix something that doesn't work.

Even if they found a way to fix it, how many more millions would that cost us?

The problem with all this environmental crap is that it's an bottomless money pit. There isn't enough cash to fill that pit even if you took every dollar away from every American today. That's because no matter how many trillions you throw at it, there will always be room for more improvement.

Try this: ask any environmentalist what it would take before they would back down? How much money would they need and what would their satisfactory standards be? You'll be met with a blank stare.

We've been trying to improve the environment my entire life. And after the trillions of dollars we spent on the environment, the environmentalists are unhappier today than they were 40 years ago. It's what I call Ray from Cleveland's environmental rule: You can't make an environmentalist happy--it's just not possible.

It's worked by the fact it cleaned up a lot of shit over the past 40years. That's a fact .

Now does it need a overhaul . Sure . But to eliminate the whole thing ?

 

[NightFox]

The EPA is a gigantic, money sucking, corrupt, pay for play bureaucracy not a choir of angels, it needs to get got and damn quick before it does any more damage to the economy, the environment and the liberty of the citizenry.

rw hyperbole much

Deny reality much?

... on second thought; never mind I already know the answer to that question.

don't answer a question w/ a question Sugar Tits.

Please accept my sincerest apology for my thoughtless microaggression against you, it was certainly never my intention to trigger you and I am profoundly saddened at the prospect of your emotional distress.

Now go fuck yourself.

 

[imawhosure]

Then it requires fixing, not scrapping.

You can't fix stupid.

But you can replace it with less stupid.

First thing, get it out of the AGW business, 2nd thing get it out of local enforcement and delegate that to the States. 3rd thing, get it out of the "sue and settle" business.

No! We have state EPA. If we keep the Fed EPA, the next leftist will do the same thing all over again. How are we going to convince business to expand, when the regulatory break they get leaves when Trump is defeated, or the Repubs lose the Whitehouse! We must be smarter than this, because if we aren't, Trump is going to fail and the Dems will get it all back rather quickly!

Your State EPA,

IS the Federal government's EPA, from my understanding of it???

Who would have thunk it! I looked it up, and it appears you are correct. Well bowl me over with a box of Wheaties.

Well then, I guess the only thing to do is allow the states to control the EPA in their jurisdiction or region. While I am no fan of the EPA, we must have at least some, regulatory over site, not to pass new regs, but to insure the ones that remain are followed after the useless ones are tossed.

Another conundrum I guess, but one that the Trumpmeisters cabinet has to figure out, if they want business to feel comfortable about investing long term in America.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is nothing wrong with bureaucracies as long as they don't have the power to fine, tax, or create new law. They should only be able to suggest it and then send it to Congress to pass.

Exactly and I would argue that Congress creating an agency and giving them the power to pass law on their own is unconstitutional seeing as how only Congress has the power to make law under the Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is nothing wrong with bureaucracies as long as they don't have the power to fine, tax, or create new law. They should only be able to suggest it and then send it to Congress to pass.

Exactly and I would argue that Congress creating an agency and giving them the power to pass law on their own is unconstitutional seeing as how only Congress has the power to make law under the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has oversight on the constitutionality of laws.

 

[martybegan]

There has to be some national level policy on pollution control, and I'm not talking about Greenhouse gases and saving river smelts. I'm talking about basic standards of treatment for wastewater, gas stacks, run-off, and other point and gross sources of pollution that can impact multiple states.

The agency has to be gutted, but not removed. If it is a hard task, well then that's what we elected Trump for.

Our Congress takes vacation half of the year. I think they have plenty of time to create necessary regulations while at the same time, not creating regulations that only harm businesses that won't do our environment any good.

Here in Ohio the EPA said they didn't like our air quality. Fine, then don't come to our city! Nope, they forced us into this E-check system. Now every other year, you have to take your car to this station, and they test it to see if your car meets the EPA standards.

After ten years of this expensive nonsense, they tested the air quality again. No difference than from ten years earlier. So what did they do? They extended the program.

We could have used all that money for better projects in our state. But we were forced to waste millions and millions of dollars to produce nothing. That's what's wrong with having an EPA.

Then it requires fixing, not scrapping.

Fix it how? It doesn't work. You can't fix something that doesn't work.

Even if they found a way to fix it, how many more millions would that cost us?

The problem with all this environmental crap is that it's an bottomless money pit. There isn't enough cash to fill that pit even if you took every dollar away from every American today. That's because no matter how many trillions you throw at it, there will always be room for more improvement.

Try this: ask any environmentalist what it would take before they would back down? How much money would they need and what would their satisfactory standards be? You'll be met with a blank stare.

We've been trying to improve the environment my entire life. And after the trillions of dollars we spent on the environment, the environmentalists are unhappier today than they were 40 years ago. It's what I call Ray from Cleveland's environmental rule: You can't make an environmentalist happy--it's just not possible.

Then get the EPA out of the hands of the Environmentalists, and into the hands of Engineers, who you know, actually are trained to implement things like water, air and soil treatments.

If we get it out of the hands of the EPA, then what do we need an EPA for?

Let those engineers testify before Congress, and then Congress decides if new legislation is needed--not a bunch of bureaucrats.

You still need people to implement policy, the issue is the implementers have become the policy makers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then it requires fixing, not scrapping.

You can't fix stupid.

But you can replace it with less stupid.

First thing, get it out of the AGW business, 2nd thing get it out of local enforcement and delegate that to the States. 3rd thing, get it out of the "sue and settle" business.

No! We have state EPA. If we keep the Fed EPA, the next leftist will do the same thing all over again. How are we going to convince business to expand, when the regulatory break they get leaves when Trump is defeated, or the Repubs lose the Whitehouse! We must be smarter than this, because if we aren't, Trump is going to fail and the Dems will get it all back rather quickly!

Does air pollution in your state stop at the border?

Was that question harder than I thought it would be?

I don't see an answer. Is iamwhosure out checking the sky?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't have a problem with rhe general mission of the E

There is nothing wrong with bureaucracies as long as they don't have the power to fine, tax, or create new law. They should only be able to suggest it and then send it to Congress to pass.

Exactly and I would argue that Congress creating an agency and giving them the power to pass law on their own is unconstitutional seeing as how only Congress has the power to make law under the Constitution.

Exactly... it 's that which they don't get, or don't want to get. We're being governed by faceless, unelected bureaucrats with zero accountablity.

 

[martybegan]

But you can replace it with less stupid.

First thing, get it out of the AGW business, 2nd thing get it out of local enforcement and delegate that to the States. 3rd thing, get it out of the "sue and settle" business.

I don't normally disagree with you, but I do on this.

Get rid of it.

FIRE EVERYONE. Destroy the goddamned building with everything inside and incinerate the rubble before stuffing it into the Yucca Mountain cave.

It is a malignancy, it can not be redeemed. The concept behind it was an effort by marxists to undermine US industry.

Go ahead and replace it, but sow salt into the earth so that nothing ever grows there again.

The issue is the "burn it down and maybe rebuild it" plays right into the hands of the progressives, who will get their new "Republicans destroying the environment" talking points.

Better to gut it from the inside. That is far more technical and would not get the same attention as a mass destruction.

and for the record, i don't mind if people disagree with me, it's usually the how that pisses me off.

To progressives out there, this is how you disagree in a civil manner.

 

[martybegan]

Then it requires fixing, not scrapping.

You can't fix stupid.

But you can replace it with less stupid.

First thing, get it out of the AGW business, 2nd thing get it out of local enforcement and delegate that to the States. 3rd thing, get it out of the "sue and settle" business.

No! We have state EPA. If we keep the Fed EPA, the next leftist will do the same thing all over again. How are we going to convince business to expand, when the regulatory break they get leaves when Trump is defeated, or the Repubs lose the Whitehouse! We must be smarter than this, because if we aren't, Trump is going to fail and the Dems will get it all back rather quickly!

Some environmental issues are at the national level, and it helps to have minimum national standards for things like water quality and air quality.

 

[martybegan]

Gee, why would we need the government to protect the environment?

New round of Flint indictments could test Michigan's emergency manager law

EPA actually dropped the ball on this as well. Too bad they were too busy fighting over carbon credits, runoff down a sidewalk, and some river smelt to care about actual issues.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, why would we need the government to protect the environment?

New round of Flint indictments could test Michigan's emergency manager law

EPA actually dropped the ball on this as well. Too bad they were too busy fighting over carbon credits, runoff down a sidewalk, and some river smelt to care about actual issues.

Whether that's true or not, getting rid of the EPA wouldn't make it more efficient. That's insane.

 

[martybegan]

Gee, why would we need the government to protect the environment?

New round of Flint indictments could test Michigan's emergency manager law

EPA actually dropped the ball on this as well. Too bad they were too busy fighting over carbon credits, runoff down a sidewalk, and some river smelt to care about actual issues.

Whether that's true or not, getting rid of the EPA wouldn't make it more efficient. That's insane.[/QUOTE

.

Slimming it down into a state/state arbiter and base level regulation creator would

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since pollution - using that word as shorthand - is a NATIONAL concern - the FEDERAL government has every right to deal with it AS a national concern.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, why would we need the government to protect the environment?

New round of Flint indictments could test Michigan's emergency manager law

EPA actually dropped the ball on this as well. Too bad they were too busy fighting over carbon credits, runoff down a sidewalk, and some river smelt to care about actual issues.

Whether that's true or not, getting rid of the EPA wouldn't make it more efficient. That's insane.[/QUOTE

.

Slimming it down into a state/state arbiter and base level regulation creator would

So if a state that is heavy in industries that produce air pollution and that state doesn't want to regulate those industries, for that state's own self-interest,

the other states downwind are just fucked with no recourse?

 

[martybegan]

Gee, why would we need the government to protect the environment?

New round of Flint indictments could test Michigan's emergency manager law

EPA actually dropped the ball on this as well. Too bad they were too busy fighting over carbon credits, runoff down a sidewalk, and some river smelt to care about actual issues.

Whether that's true or not, getting rid of the EPA wouldn't make it more efficient. That's insane.[/QUOTE

.

Slimming it down into a state/state arbiter and base level regulation creator would

So if a state that is heavy in industries that produce air pollution and that state doesn't want to regulate those industries, for that state's own self-interest,

the other states downwind are just fucked with no recourse?

That's why the EPA sets the minimum standards, and adjudicates between States with these issues.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

But you can replace it with less stupid.

First thing, get it out of the AGW business, 2nd thing get it out of local enforcement and delegate that to the States. 3rd thing, get it out of the "sue and settle" business.

In federal bureaucracy, less stupid ALWAYS becomes more stupid.

Go ahead and name something that the feds are involved with that has become less costly, burdensome and stupid. Just one.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

That's why the EPA sets the minimum standards, and adjudicates between States with these issues.

This is why we have a justice system. The EPA is useless.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

A thread full of statist freaks making Hoppe's case for physical removal.