Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Dept of Energy was formed to consolidate policy and work done by a half dozen different agencies. They do a report every year. This is a summary of 2010.What could be worse than closing down key agencies at critical points in our history?
At a time when our children are falling woefully behind other countries, Republicans want to kill the Dept of Education
At a time when Greenhouse gasses are affecting our climate.......Republicans want to close the Environmental Protection Agency
At a time when we are at the whim of an unstable middle east for oil imports......Republicans want to close the Dept of Energy
Hmmm.. If I recall correctly, wasn't the Dept. Of Energy established in the late 70's in order to deal with the fact that the United States was at the whim of an unstable middle east for oil imports? What exactly has the DoE accomplished in the last 35 years on that score? Enlighten us if you will.
Disbanding any dept. of government is not a simple matter. You don't just draw a line through their budget request because the laws still exist and the government is obligated to enforce those laws. This would be like doing away the IRS and having no one to enforce the tax laws.What could be worse than closing down key agencies at critical points in our history?
At a time when our children are falling woefully behind other countries, Republicans want to kill the Dept of Education
At a time when Greenhouse gasses are affecting our climate.......Republicans want to close the Environmental Protection Agency
At a time when we are at the whim of an unstable middle east for oil imports......Republicans want to close the Dept of Energy
We may need parts of these dept but the EPA is way out of control. They wont you develop anything on a piece of land because of a frog or a lizard that may or may not be endangered. They are bullies and use their powers to get their way...
I have no problems with challenging individual regulations or rulings. I have no problems with accessing our court system to challenge the EPA. But to totally disband a crucial agency that has done much to protect our country is irresponsible
Guess what Republicans? We really need the Dept of Education, EPA and Energy
Do you....ummm people.....honestly believe that if these agencies were abolished that the necessary functions they perform would not be transferred to other departments to handle? And the unnecessary functions could then be allowed a graceful demise?
It is not the NECESSARY functions of these agencies that anybody objects to. It is that the unnecessary functions far outweigh the necessary ones at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to the taxpayer year after year.
What is it about smaller, more efficient, more effective government that frightens you folks so?
The US isn't ranked that badly in education, worldwide. Around 14th place.
The interesting thing is that all of the other countries that are doing better than us have much stronger centralized education systems then we do.
The claim that "privatizing" or "de-regulating" education will somehow make it better is moronic.
The Results of our kids Test Scores have declined Constantly since the DOE was started in the late 20th Century.At a time when our children are falling woefully behind other countries, Republicans want to kill the Dept of Education
I personally don't think it needs to be closed, but there does need to be more balance between doing good for the Environment, and Damaging our Economy.
The Department of energy does not help us Provide our own Energy. In fact it hinders us. All it does is pass regulations making it harder to Drill for oil, Build Nuke Plants, get Natural Gas, etc.At a time when we are at the whim of an unstable middle east for oil imports......Republicans want to close the Dept of Energy
All three of these Federal Agencies are Relatively new, and we did just fine for nearly 200 Years with out them. All of them are Massive Bureaucracies that suck down money, and Do very little of any actual Benefit.
Why do you break all your posts up like that??? Its absolutely horrible. Any chance you have of getting a intelligent reply is immeadiatly tossed out the window because it just looks like a nightmare.
I couldnt possibly imagine what a conversation with you would be like.
What could be worse than closing down key agencies at critical points in our history?
At a time when our children are falling woefully behind other countries, Republicans want to kill the Dept of Education
At a time when Greenhouse gasses are affecting our climate.......Republicans want to close the Environmental Protection Agency
At a time when we are at the whim of an unstable middle east for oil imports......Republicans want to close the Dept of Energy
What could be worse than closing down key agencies at critical points in our history?
At a time when our children are falling woefully behind other countries, Republicans want to kill the Dept of Education
At a time when we are at the whim of an unstable middle east for oil imports......Republicans want to close the Dept of Energy
Republicans are against energy research, education, clean water, and clean air.
There is a special place in hell for Republicans.
And the Dept of Agriculture doesn't grow crops. In fact, before it was created we didn't have problems with illegal migrant farm workers. Correlation is not Cause and Effect.the dept of education doesnt educate anyone
in fact, when it was created, we led the pack, now, after 30+ years of dept of education guidance, we are not even in site of first place...
the dept of energy doesnt produce any energy.
in fact, when it was created, gas was WELL under a dollar. Now, after 30+ years of energy guidance, gas is stupidly high
if it doesnt work, SCRAP IT
liberalism is a mental disease
The Department of Energy, created during the Carter administration, protects U.S. nuclear weapons from accidents or terrorist attacks that could release dangerous radioactive material, killing thousands. Without the oversight that the Energy Department presently provides, it would be difficult to maintain a nuclear weapons program at all. The Energy Department also plays a key role in funding and promoting the civilian use of nuclear power
Reform may be difficult but it's not impossible. Scrapping it is. Environmental protection has strong support with the public. To scrap the agency, you have to repeal the laws and that's not going to happen.Do you have any specific examples, not generalities of unnecessary and costly regulations? There have been lots of posts concerning the new coal regulations, but nothing very specific.And having three close family members who are engineers or otherwise working in industries closely regulated and involving the EPA, I can testify that ALL are painfully aware of the UNNECESSARY and costly regulation imposed by the EPA that is costing us all hundreds, if not thousands of dollars every year.
Nobody is saying the government has no role in environmental protections and regulations, at least in those areas in which the various states share the air, water, oceans, etc. Nobody is saying the federal government cannot promote the general welfare by providing services for education, energy, and of course interstate and international commerce MUST be regulated by the federal government in order to promote free markets and secure all of our rights.
All we are saying is that the agencies that were chartered to deal with these things have become bloated and incompetent and inefficient and unnecessarily intrusive and authoritarian and far too expensive to the point they cause more harm than good. It is the nature of an unchecked government to grow itself, feed itself more and more, and seize more and more power until it exists for its own self instead of those whom it was intended to serve.
We aren't drilling in the tiny TINY portion of ANWR, an area that is literally an arctic desert bereft of human occupation, minimal wildlife occupation, and with no aesthetic beauty whatsoever because the EPA won't approve ANY process for going after the substantial oil reserves there.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have burned up when we lost California homes to wildfires because the EPA would not allow the homeowners to clear the brush away from their homes due to that MIGHT disturb the habitat of some protected rat. (I'm sure those fires didn't disturb that habitat though.)
We haven't built a major, large capacity refinery in this country since 1977, mostly because the EPA regulations make it far too difficult and expensive to do so. The few very small refineries and expansions that have finally met EPA specifications and have been built since then--the last in 2008 in Wyoming--have not handled more than a tiny fraction of the increase in demand since 1977.
We have millions of acres of prime cropland producing crops for ethanol, almost all at a cost to the taxpayer, because the government is making it more lucrative to use for that purpose than to grow food crops. And, in addition to that consuming large quantities of taxpayer monies as no ethanol plant has yet turned a profit, we are also seeing the higher costs of fruit and produce at the supermarket along with a much higher amount of imported produce coming in which has to be affecting trade balances.
We recently had a plastics manufacturer wanting to build a plant here in Albuquerque and he had bid on some property that suited his needs continent on him being able to get the necessary permits. After three years of waiting for EPA studies and approval to be given, he gave up and took his millions of dollars and 800 jobs to Texas. Shortly after that the EPA approved a chicken processing outfit--a much MUCH dirtier operation than the plastics manufacturing would have been--on that same land. As that expanded an existing operation, net new jobs, about 15. I suppose it was just coincidence--according to a local investigative reporter--that the chicken outfit had made a large donation to the Democratic Party??????
There are hundreds, probably thousands of examples like this that should be of concern to Americans of whatever political ideology. Reform doesn't seem possible. Just scrap the darn thing and start over with the small, efficient, effective agency that the EPA was when it first started out.
I doubt he would remember which dept. to cut.Rick Perry wants to scrap three government departments. What would that mean? | The Lookout - Yahoo! News
The Department of Commerce contains the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which runs our system of intellectual property. Without it, America would have no way to ensure that inventors could fully profit from their inventions, giving them little incentive to spend the time and money needed for breakthroughs. The pace of American innovation would likely take a huge hit.
Commerce also includes the Census Bureau. The accurate count of Americans that the department provides each decade lets leaders and policymakers know how to allocate resources--housing, roads, utilities--around the country. And Commerce also encompasses the National Weather Service (NWS), which issues crucial warnings about severe weather like hurricanes and floods. When state and local officials make decisions about how and when to evacuate, they're generally going off NWS information.
No our education system was not far superior prior to the DOE. The dropout rate in 1970 was 15%. Today it's 8%. Graduation Rates are about the same. There has been a vast improvement in programs for mentally and emotional troubled students and in Gifted programs. Graduation rates among blacks and college attendance have improved dramatically. There has been plenty of improvements in our schools since the DOE was created.1) Our education system was far superior prior to the creation of the Department of Education. In fact, almost all of human history has been without a department of education. And people educated themselves quite nicely without it. I would even go as far as to suggest that it could be specifically because of the Department of Education that our education system is in such bad shape.
2) global warming "science" is a fraud. Which you would know if you were honest about it.
3) The department of energy was created to make us self sufficient in energy production. It has failed in it's sole purpose for existence. Reasonable and sane people would realize that throwing money into the same failed programs is not going to change anything. So why do you want to keep the status quo when we are in desperate need for change?
Reform may be difficult but it's not impossible. Scrapping it is. Environmental protection has strong support with the public. To scrap the agency, you have to repeal the laws and that's not going to happen.Do you have any specific examples, not generalities of unnecessary and costly regulations? There have been lots of posts concerning the new coal regulations, but nothing very specific.
We aren't drilling in the tiny TINY portion of ANWR, an area that is literally an arctic desert bereft of human occupation, minimal wildlife occupation, and with no aesthetic beauty whatsoever because the EPA won't approve ANY process for going after the substantial oil reserves there.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have burned up when we lost California homes to wildfires because the EPA would not allow the homeowners to clear the brush away from their homes due to that MIGHT disturb the habitat of some protected rat. (I'm sure those fires didn't disturb that habitat though.)
We haven't built a major, large capacity refinery in this country since 1977, mostly because the EPA regulations make it far too difficult and expensive to do so. The few very small refineries and expansions that have finally met EPA specifications and have been built since then--the last in 2008 in Wyoming--have not handled more than a tiny fraction of the increase in demand since 1977.
We have millions of acres of prime cropland producing crops for ethanol, almost all at a cost to the taxpayer, because the government is making it more lucrative to use for that purpose than to grow food crops. And, in addition to that consuming large quantities of taxpayer monies as no ethanol plant has yet turned a profit, we are also seeing the higher costs of fruit and produce at the supermarket along with a much higher amount of imported produce coming in which has to be affecting trade balances.
We recently had a plastics manufacturer wanting to build a plant here in Albuquerque and he had bid on some property that suited his needs continent on him being able to get the necessary permits. After three years of waiting for EPA studies and approval to be given, he gave up and took his millions of dollars and 800 jobs to Texas. Shortly after that the EPA approved a chicken processing outfit--a much MUCH dirtier operation than the plastics manufacturing would have been--on that same land. As that expanded an existing operation, net new jobs, about 15. I suppose it was just coincidence--according to a local investigative reporter--that the chicken outfit had made a large donation to the Democratic Party??????
There are hundreds, probably thousands of examples like this that should be of concern to Americans of whatever political ideology. Reform doesn't seem possible. Just scrap the darn thing and start over with the small, efficient, effective agency that the EPA was when it first started out.
The size of the Dept. would have little effect on the headline grabbers you listed. ANWR is protected by laws and international treaties. The EPA would move to stop drilling regardless of their size. If the EPA was seriously reduced in size, the super funds used to cleanup toxic waste would most probably be cut serious as would services to businesses such as education and and certification.
Reform may be difficult but it's not impossible. Scrapping it is. Environmental protection has strong support with the public. To scrap the agency, you have to repeal the laws and that's not going to happen.We aren't drilling in the tiny TINY portion of ANWR, an area that is literally an arctic desert bereft of human occupation, minimal wildlife occupation, and with no aesthetic beauty whatsoever because the EPA won't approve ANY process for going after the substantial oil reserves there.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have burned up when we lost California homes to wildfires because the EPA would not allow the homeowners to clear the brush away from their homes due to that MIGHT disturb the habitat of some protected rat. (I'm sure those fires didn't disturb that habitat though.)
We haven't built a major, large capacity refinery in this country since 1977, mostly because the EPA regulations make it far too difficult and expensive to do so. The few very small refineries and expansions that have finally met EPA specifications and have been built since then--the last in 2008 in Wyoming--have not handled more than a tiny fraction of the increase in demand since 1977.
We have millions of acres of prime cropland producing crops for ethanol, almost all at a cost to the taxpayer, because the government is making it more lucrative to use for that purpose than to grow food crops. And, in addition to that consuming large quantities of taxpayer monies as no ethanol plant has yet turned a profit, we are also seeing the higher costs of fruit and produce at the supermarket along with a much higher amount of imported produce coming in which has to be affecting trade balances.
We recently had a plastics manufacturer wanting to build a plant here in Albuquerque and he had bid on some property that suited his needs continent on him being able to get the necessary permits. After three years of waiting for EPA studies and approval to be given, he gave up and took his millions of dollars and 800 jobs to Texas. Shortly after that the EPA approved a chicken processing outfit--a much MUCH dirtier operation than the plastics manufacturing would have been--on that same land. As that expanded an existing operation, net new jobs, about 15. I suppose it was just coincidence--according to a local investigative reporter--that the chicken outfit had made a large donation to the Democratic Party??????
There are hundreds, probably thousands of examples like this that should be of concern to Americans of whatever political ideology. Reform doesn't seem possible. Just scrap the darn thing and start over with the small, efficient, effective agency that the EPA was when it first started out.
The size of the Dept. would have little effect on the headline grabbers you listed. ANWR is protected by laws and international treaties. The EPA would move to stop drilling regardless of their size. If the EPA was seriously reduced in size, the super funds used to cleanup toxic waste would most probably be cut serious as would services to businesses such as education and and certification.
I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. When an agency becomes so big that it exists only for itself, it is time to dismantle it and start over. All they have to do is pass legislation that assigns the necessary functions of the EPA to other agencies, then defund and dismantle it. There is nothing, not even Supreme Court decisions, that cannot be undone if we have the will and competence to do it when necessary.
