Trump Official: We're Going To Cut The EPA In Half

[Winston]

Great, declare a moratorium on new regulations. No problems with me. Again, don't pretend that is what this is about. But don't cut enforcement. To be honest, it is a protection for the industries as much as the people. Look back at OSHA and the Reagan era. I believe it was about a fifty percent cut. Accidents went up, workers compensation went up, wrongful death claims went up. Who paid for that?

So what regulations did he cut that caused all this? What has the last two-term Democrat Presidents done about it?

Trump is cutting EPA by half. That doesn't mean less enforcement. It means less people sitting around a coffee pot discussing what bar they like the most and what more regulations and fines they can come up with to destroy more businesses.

The problem is the EPA doesn't have the budget to cut. It already has been cut. Staffing for enforcement are now at levels they were during, wait for it, Ronald Reagan. The Republican disconnect here is as bad as it is with immigration. Illegal immigration is at levels not seen in years, much lower than under Bush, and deportations are way up. The EPA budget is way down from what it was when Obama took office. In fact, in adjusted dollars, it has remained under 2006 levels his entire administration, outside the first year.

“Cuts to the EPA budget mean the agency’s ability to enforce existing public protection standards will diminish,” continued White. “EPA’s strategic plan for the next five years anticipates a 40 to 50 percent reduction in inspections and enforcement cases,

EPA Staff Cut to Smallest Number in 25 Years

That was BEFORE the Trump cuts.

Can you confirm those numbers with - oh, say --- a reference?

You not see the link?

It's not showing up here .... can you re-post?

EPA Staff Cut to Smallest Number in 25 Years

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cleveland hasn't been like that in many years, and even when it was, it was during very humid days which we do get here in the summer. Since the time of that picture, most of our steel industry (the background in the photo) closed up. Our population is about half of what it was back then as well. Cars burn much cleaner than the 70's and these new EPA regulations didn't start until the 90's I believe.

Actually, the Clean Air Act originated back in the 60's. But it was the creation of the enforcement mechanism, the EPA, along with increased standards implemented in 1970 that started delivering results.

And it is clean air act that has the right all riled up with the EPA. The Obama administration proposed standards for CO2 from power generating facilities and all hell broke loose. And it was only a proposed "goal", of CO2 produced per megawatt hour. States even had the ability to design their own plan to meet those goals.

And here is the scoop. They weren't that big a deal. Hell, the replacement of aging facilities with more modern and efficient ones would almost do the trick. Responsible members of the power generation community had fully anticipated the move and have been planning accordingly. It is all a smoke screen to get you guys to start railing against the EPA and accept draconian cuts to enforcement mechanisms.

With no enforcement companies can dump toxins into the water, spew poison into out atmosphere, and bury chemicals into our land. Those residues, and their impact on the environment, are the responsibility of those companies, but who pays? You and I pay, that is who pays. We pay when we can't get potable water, we pay when our children and grandchildren suffer asthma, we pay when we lose friends and family members to cancer from exposure.

Oh please, here we go with that leftist extremism again.

You people act like those of us on the right want all these dangers to take place. What do you think, that we on the right breathe different air and drink different water than you on the left do????

Like I said, the problem with leftist environmentalists is that there is no end to this; there is no stopping point. For those of us on the right, the stopping point happened several years back. The air is fine and the water is great. Enough is enough.

Right now we have more important things to worry about such as healthcare, borders, illegals and better paying jobs. No matter what we do or how much we spend, the air and water could always be better. The real question is at what cost and what we are willing to give up for it such as jobs and corporations.

Great, declare a moratorium on new regulations. No problems with me. Again, don't pretend that is what this is about. But don't cut enforcement. To be honest, it is a protection for the industries as much as the people. Look back at OSHA and the Reagan era. I believe it was about a fifty percent cut. Accidents went up, workers compensation went up, wrongful death claims went up. Who paid for that?

So what regulations did he cut that caused all this? What has the last two-term Democrat Presidents done about it?

Trump is cutting EPA by half. That doesn't mean less enforcement. It means less people sitting around a coffee pot discussing what bar they like the most and what more regulations and fines they can come up with to destroy more businesses.

The problem is the EPA doesn't have the budget to cut. It already has been cut. Staffing for enforcement are now at levels they were during, wait for it, Ronald Reagan. The Republican disconnect here is as bad as it is with immigration. Illegal immigration is at levels not seen in years, much lower than under Bush, and deportations are way up.

“Cuts to the EPA budget mean the agency’s ability to enforce existing public protection standards will diminish,” continued White. “EPA’s strategic plan for the next five years anticipates a 40 to 50 percent reduction in inspections and enforcement cases,

EPA Staff Cut to Smallest Number in 25 Years

That was BEFORE the Trump cuts.

High deportation figures are misleading

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/...in-last-five-years.html?ref=juliapreston&_r=1

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what regulations did he cut that caused all this? What has the last two-term Democrat Presidents done about it?

Trump is cutting EPA by half. That doesn't mean less enforcement. It means less people sitting around a coffee pot discussing what bar they like the most and what more regulations and fines they can come up with to destroy more businesses.

The problem is the EPA doesn't have the budget to cut. It already has been cut. Staffing for enforcement are now at levels they were during, wait for it, Ronald Reagan. The Republican disconnect here is as bad as it is with immigration. Illegal immigration is at levels not seen in years, much lower than under Bush, and deportations are way up. The EPA budget is way down from what it was when Obama took office. In fact, in adjusted dollars, it has remained under 2006 levels his entire administration, outside the first year.

“Cuts to the EPA budget mean the agency’s ability to enforce existing public protection standards will diminish,” continued White. “EPA’s strategic plan for the next five years anticipates a 40 to 50 percent reduction in inspections and enforcement cases,

EPA Staff Cut to Smallest Number in 25 Years

That was BEFORE the Trump cuts.

Can you confirm those numbers with - oh, say --- a reference?

You not see the link?

It's not showing up here .... can you re-post?

EPA Staff Cut to Smallest Number in 25 Years

Well if an extreme leftist like DumBama cut EPA, what does that tell you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You people blame the rich for everything. You don't want to look at the big picture. Trump has the right message: buy American. How can you have a society with good paying jobs and cheap products? You can't. You have to choose one or the other.

In recent years, we chose cheap products. The cheaper, the better. None of those Walmart shoppers give a rats ass if they are putting Americans out of work through their purchases.

Since the US consumers demand cheap products, American manufacturers have to provide. They do that by getting rid of humans and replacing us with automation, they do that by keeping wages as low as possible, they do that by moving out of a state where they are trapped by a union and go to another state or even another country.

. Consumers can't do anything or choose anything without the rich providing the platform, goods and services recieved. If the rich have created some kind of get filthy rich system that no one can escape, then how does the consumer get blamed for that ?? The whole dam system of things we all have been experiencing was by design. Think tanks created this bull crap, and then it was slowly and precisely implemented over the years. Have to have lived through when America was better, products was better, and then watched as it all went down.

Manufacturers don't call the shots--consumers do. It's not a plot by any stretch of the imagination.

If we consumers decided we wanted more expensive American made products, that's what Walmart and their suppliers will provide. But Walmart became number one because they did sell cheap imported products, and the consumers responded.

Why can't you find many American made products in stores today? Because very few if any shoppers will buy them. Americans don't look at where the product is made, Americans look at price.

You see two 50 foot stands of Christmas lights; one is $5.99 made in China, and the other is $15.99 made in the USA, which strands do you think will sell the most?

. I would buy the $15.99 dollar stand, and this was because I would be after the lights that last 20 years instead of 2 years, but the options are going away because historic American companies found themselves in a situation where they could no longer compete against cheap goods that the beat down low wage Americans could only afford. It was all by design these things have taken place Ray. Not sure how old you are, but I have lived long enough to have seen it all go down. I am a realist Ray, and I know what has happened over time.

So have I, and that's why I'm telling you (like always) it's a consumer controlled market.

If you are around my age, then certainly you remember full service gasoline stations. They guy came out, pumped your gas, checked your oil, checked the tire pressure, filled your windshield washer fluid, took your cash or credit card into the station, and brought back your change or receipt with green stamps.

So why have they disappeared? Well it started out slow. Gas station owners found it more profitable to keep their mechanics working on the cars instead of pumping gas. So they opened up one island that offered cheaper gasoline if you pumped it yourself. After a while, there were waiting lines at the self-serve pump so they opened up another, then another. Before you know it, all gas stations were self-serve because nobody used the full-service island any longer. Everybody wanted cheaper gas.

Self-service gasoline was not a conspiracy. It was totally consumer driven. It's the same reason discount stores are popping up all over the place. We will buy in bulk if it saves us money. Even today, internet sales are taking over brick and mortar stores and that is a threat. Why? Because of cheaper prices and convenience.

A couple of years ago I went to my KFC store only to find it padlocked. So I traveled to the next nearest one only to find the same thing. Suspicious, I went to the internet to find out what was going on. What I found was that my experience was not just local, it was happening all across the country. KFC's were closing down all over the place. Why? Because KFC never changed. They kept the same quality all these years, but that costs money. Customers were driven to places like Church''s or Popeye's because their chicken is cheaper. Nobody cared about the cheaper quality, only cheaper prices.

Just curious, are those KFC's now Long John Silvers by any chance?

No. KFC is doing great in China, so they made investments there. The funny thing is that they are not even selling chicken.

 

[depotoo]

Actually when Reagan started in '81 there were 12,667 employees with a budget of $3 billion. By the time he left in '89 there were 14,377 with a budget of over $5 billion. In the '90's under Clinton, the EPA size went absolutely bonkers. Today there are 15,376 employees with a budget of over $8 billion. The land mass has not grown and industry has shrunk.
EPA's Budget and Spending | Planning, Budget, and Results | US EPA

Cleveland hasn't been like that in many years, and even when it was, it was during very humid days which we do get here in the summer. Since the time of that picture, most of our steel industry (the background in the photo) closed up. Our population is about half of what it was back then as well. Cars burn much cleaner than the 70's and these new EPA regulations didn't start until the 90's I believe.

Actually, the Clean Air Act originated back in the 60's. But it was the creation of the enforcement mechanism, the EPA, along with increased standards implemented in 1970 that started delivering results.

And it is clean air act that has the right all riled up with the EPA. The Obama administration proposed standards for CO2 from power generating facilities and all hell broke loose. And it was only a proposed "goal", of CO2 produced per megawatt hour. States even had the ability to design their own plan to meet those goals.

And here is the scoop. They weren't that big a deal. Hell, the replacement of aging facilities with more modern and efficient ones would almost do the trick. Responsible members of the power generation community had fully anticipated the move and have been planning accordingly. It is all a smoke screen to get you guys to start railing against the EPA and accept draconian cuts to enforcement mechanisms.

With no enforcement companies can dump toxins into the water, spew poison into out atmosphere, and bury chemicals into our land. Those residues, and their impact on the environment, are the responsibility of those companies, but who pays? You and I pay, that is who pays. We pay when we can't get potable water, we pay when our children and grandchildren suffer asthma, we pay when we lose friends and family members to cancer from exposure.

Oh please, here we go with that leftist extremism again.

You people act like those of us on the right want all these dangers to take place. What do you think, that we on the right breathe different air and drink different water than you on the left do????

Like I said, the problem with leftist environmentalists is that there is no end to this; there is no stopping point. For those of us on the right, the stopping point happened several years back. The air is fine and the water is great. Enough is enough.

Right now we have more important things to worry about such as healthcare, borders, illegals and better paying jobs. No matter what we do or how much we spend, the air and water could always be better. The real question is at what cost and what we are willing to give up for it such as jobs and corporations.

Great, declare a moratorium on new regulations. No problems with me. Again, don't pretend that is what this is about. But don't cut enforcement. To be honest, it is a protection for the industries as much as the people. Look back at OSHA and the Reagan era. I believe it was about a fifty percent cut. Accidents went up, workers compensation went up, wrongful death claims went up. Who paid for that?

So what regulations did he cut that caused all this? What has the last two-term Democrat Presidents done about it?

Trump is cutting EPA by half. That doesn't mean less enforcement. It means less people sitting around a coffee pot discussing what bar they like the most and what more regulations and fines they can come up with to destroy more businesses.

The problem is the EPA doesn't have the budget to cut. It already has been cut. Staffing for enforcement are now at levels they were during, wait for it, Ronald Reagan. The Republican disconnect here is as bad as it is with immigration. Illegal immigration is at levels not seen in years, much lower than under Bush, and deportations are way up. The EPA budget is way down from what it was when Obama took office. In fact, in adjusted dollars, it has remained under 2006 levels his entire administration, outside the first year.

“Cuts to the EPA budget mean the agency’s ability to enforce existing public protection standards will diminish,” continued White. “EPA’s strategic plan for the next five years anticipates a 40 to 50 percent reduction in inspections and enforcement cases,

EPA Staff Cut to Smallest Number in 25 Years

That was BEFORE the Trump cuts.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm so thankful Trump is doing that. But really - we should get rid of the entire EPA. And the Department of Education. And the National Endowments for the Arts. None of them are constitutional. In fact, if we got rid of all of the federal agencies that were unconstitutional, we could cut taxes in half and still have an annual surplus.

Jesus, yeah, lets push that out as if it has any semblance to objective reality.

Guess you missed the presser, huh? The National Endowment for the Arts and NPR have already been targeted for defunding. Cutting the EPA in half will hurt no one -- it is so bloated it can't stand up.

Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.

Most definitely. They could all use a haircut...though the FBI desperately needs a new headquarters...the Hoover Building is falling apart and probably on the verge of being condemned.

The EPA is an unaccountable, autocratic, out-of-control bureaucracy and needs to be taken apart.

 

[beagle9]

About 15 years ago or so, the EPA said they didn't like our pollution levels here in Ohio. Okay, then stay the hell out of Ohio! Nope, they had to stick their nose in our business and force us to use E-Check in some of our counties.

Ten years and tens of millions of dollars later, the EPA tested our air again, and found no change in the pollution levels. So what did they make us do? Extend the program for another ten years.

THIS is one of the many reasons to eliminate bureaucracies like the EPA. Why should they give a damn about wasting money on something that doesn't work. It isn't their money!

Ohio is not forced to use E-check. They can ditch the program, they will just lose millions of dollars in highway funding. And it is only in seven counties who's air did not meet EPA quality standards. Those standards are LAWS passed by an elected legislature. Meet those standards, no more e-check.

Your solution is not to attempt to meet the standards. Not even to pass LAWS that change the standards. Your solution is to just do away with the enforcement mechanism behind the standards. From where I come from we call that being a CHICKEN SHIT.

Correct, they can only FORCE us to do the will of the feds by cutting off federal funding; something you on the left are currently complaining about when Trump plans to do the same with sanctuary cities.

Even if we met those standards, I would be willing to bet that they wouldn't allow us to stop the program anyway. But you know how we can stop it eventually? Get rid of the EPA.

Look. If you don't like it you can move to one of the counties that is not subject to E-check. OK, couldn't resist throwing out the old conservative "just move" meme.

But tell me. Is the problem the standards? From the brief little looking I did to get the details, well E-check is credited with removing over 72 tons of toxic materials from the air. But maybe you prefer this,

That was in Cleveland, 1973. And if that is what you prefer. Fine, then do away with the standards. But refusing to enforce them, that is the action of tyrants and despots, the action of cowards.

Cleveland hasn't been like that in many years, and even when it was, it was during very humid days which we do get here in the summer. Since the time of that picture, most of our steel industry (the background in the photo) closed up. Our population is about half of what it was back then as well. Cars burn much cleaner than the 70's and these new EPA regulations didn't start until the 90's I believe.

Actually, the Clean Air Act originated back in the 60's. But it was the creation of the enforcement mechanism, the EPA, along with increased standards implemented in 1970 that started delivering results.

And it is clean air act that has the right all riled up with the EPA. The Obama administration proposed standards for CO2 from power generating facilities and all hell broke loose. And it was only a proposed "goal", of CO2 produced per megawatt hour. States even had the ability to design their own plan to meet those goals.

And here is the scoop. They weren't that big a deal. Hell, the replacement of aging facilities with more modern and efficient ones would almost do the trick. Responsible members of the power generation community had fully anticipated the move and have been planning accordingly. It is all a smoke screen to get you guys to start railing against the EPA and accept draconian cuts to enforcement mechanisms.

With no enforcement companies can dump toxins into the water, spew poison into out atmosphere, and bury chemicals into our land. Those residues, and their impact on the environment, are the responsibility of those companies, but who pays? You and I pay, that is who pays. We pay when we can't get potable water, we pay when our children and grandchildren suffer asthma, we pay when we lose friends and family members to cancer from exposure.

. Such down playing.... Obama, Biden and crew said to the coal industry that if anyone invested in coal they would bankrupt them (a direct threat), but here you are trying to water down the vicious attacks that even dumb pandering Hillary engaged in, and that cost her the election among other things. Good grief you people are so obvious.

 

[beagle9]

Ohio is not forced to use E-check. They can ditch the program, they will just lose millions of dollars in highway funding. And it is only in seven counties who's air did not meet EPA quality standards. Those standards are LAWS passed by an elected legislature. Meet those standards, no more e-check.

Your solution is not to attempt to meet the standards. Not even to pass LAWS that change the standards. Your solution is to just do away with the enforcement mechanism behind the standards. From where I come from we call that being a CHICKEN SHIT.

Correct, they can only FORCE us to do the will of the feds by cutting off federal funding; something you on the left are currently complaining about when Trump plans to do the same with sanctuary cities.

Even if we met those standards, I would be willing to bet that they wouldn't allow us to stop the program anyway. But you know how we can stop it eventually? Get rid of the EPA.

Look. If you don't like it you can move to one of the counties that is not subject to E-check. OK, couldn't resist throwing out the old conservative "just move" meme.

But tell me. Is the problem the standards? From the brief little looking I did to get the details, well E-check is credited with removing over 72 tons of toxic materials from the air. But maybe you prefer this,

That was in Cleveland, 1973. And if that is what you prefer. Fine, then do away with the standards. But refusing to enforce them, that is the action of tyrants and despots, the action of cowards.

Cleveland hasn't been like that in many years, and even when it was, it was during very humid days which we do get here in the summer. Since the time of that picture, most of our steel industry (the background in the photo) closed up. Our population is about half of what it was back then as well. Cars burn much cleaner than the 70's and these new EPA regulations didn't start until the 90's I believe.

Actually, the Clean Air Act originated back in the 60's. But it was the creation of the enforcement mechanism, the EPA, along with increased standards implemented in 1970 that started delivering results.

And it is clean air act that has the right all riled up with the EPA. The Obama administration proposed standards for CO2 from power generating facilities and all hell broke loose. And it was only a proposed "goal", of CO2 produced per megawatt hour. States even had the ability to design their own plan to meet those goals.

And here is the scoop. They weren't that big a deal. Hell, the replacement of aging facilities with more modern and efficient ones would almost do the trick. Responsible members of the power generation community had fully anticipated the move and have been planning accordingly. It is all a smoke screen to get you guys to start railing against the EPA and accept draconian cuts to enforcement mechanisms.

With no enforcement companies can dump toxins into the water, spew poison into out atmosphere, and bury chemicals into our land. Those residues, and their impact on the environment, are the responsibility of those companies, but who pays? You and I pay, that is who pays. We pay when we can't get potable water, we pay when our children and grandchildren suffer asthma, we pay when we lose friends and family members to cancer from exposure.

Oh please, here we go with that leftist extremism again.

You people act like those of us on the right want all these dangers to take place. What do you think, that we on the right breathe different air and drink different water than you on the left do????

Like I said, the problem with leftist environmentalists is that there is no end to this; there is no stopping point. For those of us on the right, the stopping point happened several years back. The air is fine and the water is great. Enough is enough.

Right now we have more important things to worry about such as healthcare, borders, illegals and better paying jobs. No matter what we do or how much we spend, the air and water could always be better. The real question is at what cost and what we are willing to give up for it such as jobs and corporations.

. Don't forget about your def system in which they made you have to purchase to go on your trucks now, and how the trucking industry is having to deal with the costly repairs to that system now.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Jesus, yeah, lets push that out as if it has any semblance to objective reality.

Guess you missed the presser, huh? The National Endowment for the Arts and NPR have already been targeted for defunding. Cutting the EPA in half will hurt no one -- it is so bloated it can't stand up.

Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.

Nope, I doubt you would support those cuts. And I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of Trump's plans to expand the Border Patrol. In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.

Except when it comes to the environment. And that is a little bothersome. The FBI, the Border Patrol, local cops--they all protect us from criminals. From rapists, murderers, robbers, sexual predators--mostly punk ass individuals that, even on their best day, with the best gun and the highest capacity magazine--might be able to take out a couple dozen of us.

WTF. Ain't you guys got guns? Why you so damn skeered? Hell, I ban guns from my house, they all stay at the family armory, and I ain't skeered. It would take a damn fool to come down in this holler and stir up some shit. In twenty years I can count the times I saw a member of law enforcement down here on one hand.

But the EPA, well they are cops too. But they don't protect us from the little punk ass bitches and their guns, they protect us from the dudes in the suits that are more than willing to dump toxic waste into our water supply, spew nauseous chemicals into our atmosphere, and strip off the tops of our mountains in pursuit of profit. And when those waste ponds burst and flood the valley, when our childhood asthma rates soar, and when cancer clusters pop up around industrial facilities, people don't die by the dozens, they die by the thousands.

Now, the EPA comes down in this holler too. They check the industrial pond not too far over the hill. They check the water, make sure my well is safe. You can defund all the local law enforcement you want, I can handle it. The punk ass bitches know better. But that factory over the hill, owned by some company out of Florida, could give two shits about my well. If nobody is keeping them in line you force me to make sure they don't have the opportunity to go out of line.

Your analogy is flawed. The Constitution charges our representatives with the duty to protect citizens here and abroad. The FBI, CIA, Border Patrol don't create laws against us, they only enforce the ones we have set forth by our law makers.

It's a balancing act really. The cleaner the air and water, the more economic damage we suffer. The less damage we suffer economically, the worse for air and water. You can't have both a good economy and stringent environmental regulations.

I agree that it is a balancing act. But that is precisely why we both need the EPA, and we need to fund it adequately. We are balancing two sides. One, industry, which very structure encourages it to externalize costs whenever possible. The other, the environment. Industry has their leaders, their money, their power, to support their side. Who does the environment have?

And like my well. Don't really have to worry about the neighbor next door poisoning my well. He and his family have to live here. And perhaps my enemy down the road might think about it, but fears enforcement from the sheriff. But that factory, with the owners living far away, they don't give a shit. The only thing, and I mean the only think, keeping them from dumping their waste chemicals directly into the water table, is the EPA. When they no longer fear the EPA they sure as hell won't fear me.

If somebody or some company does something to effect your property or health, get a lawyer and have the case heard in court.

The EPA doesn't balance anything. They are out there to keep their jobs. Sitting back and not creating regulations and fines means we don't need them any longer, so they create all kinds of economically harmful regulations that cost you and I money every single day.

Do this: ask an environmentalist when enough will be enough? What does it take to make them happy and keep their yaps shut? How much money are we really talking about here? I bet you'd be met with a blank stare.

The truth is we've been cleaning up our environment for nearly 50 years now, and the environmentalists are less happy today then before. They will never be happy because the environment is a bottomless money pit. You can take every last US dollar in this country today, and some environmentalists would still be complaining.

The problem with all this environment crap is that the costs of it are intrinsic. You don't even know you're paying them. If I were Trump, I'd take an idea Michelle came up with. She got her hold man to force all restaurants to put calorie count on every item they sell. While the stupid idea never made one fat kid skinny, I think it would be a great idea if we did the same with environmental costs.

When you buy a car, there should be an environmental cost on it telling you you're paying $6,500 for a greener car. If you buy a lawnmower, that has a $75.00 environmental cost. If you buy a jar of pickles at the grocery store, it should have an environmental cost of 20 cents printed right on the jar.

Maybe if people realized what all this environmental crap cost us personally, people would become very disinterested in a greener country.

Spot on. Offhand, the point of diminishing returns is far in the past on cars. I drove a Dodge Magnum for a while. When I had it smog tested, it went on the IM-240 roller test...and blew zero across the board, That's right, zero-no unburned fuel, no carbon monoxide, no nitrogen oxides. The guy testing it was so surprised he ran it again...same result. It was his second zero. (First was a Prius.) The car had 60,000 miles, and there are at least two levels of certification that are CLEANER than my Magnum's Tier II Ultra Low Emission Vehicle!

That was ten years ago...and things are getting TIGHTER? Ridiculous.

 

[beagle9]

Correct, they can only FORCE us to do the will of the feds by cutting off federal funding; something you on the left are currently complaining about when Trump plans to do the same with sanctuary cities.

Even if we met those standards, I would be willing to bet that they wouldn't allow us to stop the program anyway. But you know how we can stop it eventually? Get rid of the EPA.

Look. If you don't like it you can move to one of the counties that is not subject to E-check. OK, couldn't resist throwing out the old conservative "just move" meme.

But tell me. Is the problem the standards? From the brief little looking I did to get the details, well E-check is credited with removing over 72 tons of toxic materials from the air. But maybe you prefer this,

That was in Cleveland, 1973. And if that is what you prefer. Fine, then do away with the standards. But refusing to enforce them, that is the action of tyrants and despots, the action of cowards.

Cleveland hasn't been like that in many years, and even when it was, it was during very humid days which we do get here in the summer. Since the time of that picture, most of our steel industry (the background in the photo) closed up. Our population is about half of what it was back then as well. Cars burn much cleaner than the 70's and these new EPA regulations didn't start until the 90's I believe.

Actually, the Clean Air Act originated back in the 60's. But it was the creation of the enforcement mechanism, the EPA, along with increased standards implemented in 1970 that started delivering results.

And it is clean air act that has the right all riled up with the EPA. The Obama administration proposed standards for CO2 from power generating facilities and all hell broke loose. And it was only a proposed "goal", of CO2 produced per megawatt hour. States even had the ability to design their own plan to meet those goals.

And here is the scoop. They weren't that big a deal. Hell, the replacement of aging facilities with more modern and efficient ones would almost do the trick. Responsible members of the power generation community had fully anticipated the move and have been planning accordingly. It is all a smoke screen to get you guys to start railing against the EPA and accept draconian cuts to enforcement mechanisms.

With no enforcement companies can dump toxins into the water, spew poison into out atmosphere, and bury chemicals into our land. Those residues, and their impact on the environment, are the responsibility of those companies, but who pays? You and I pay, that is who pays. We pay when we can't get potable water, we pay when our children and grandchildren suffer asthma, we pay when we lose friends and family members to cancer from exposure.

Oh please, here we go with that leftist extremism again.

You people act like those of us on the right want all these dangers to take place. What do you think, that we on the right breathe different air and drink different water than you on the left do????

Like I said, the problem with leftist environmentalists is that there is no end to this; there is no stopping point. For those of us on the right, the stopping point happened several years back. The air is fine and the water is great. Enough is enough.

Right now we have more important things to worry about such as healthcare, borders, illegals and better paying jobs. No matter what we do or how much we spend, the air and water could always be better. The real question is at what cost and what we are willing to give up for it such as jobs and corporations.

Great, declare a moratorium on new regulations. No problems with me. Again, don't pretend that is what this is about. But don't cut enforcement. To be honest, it is a protection for the industries as much as the people. Look back at OSHA and the Reagan era. I believe it was about a fifty percent cut. Accidents went up, workers compensation went up, wrongful death claims went up. Who paid for that?

. Can you supply links to those stats that you just stated ?

 

[Jarlaxle]

We have a truck driving hauler company about 40 miles away. Always have adds in the paper looking for workers or drivers. They must be a very bad place to work as they can't find workers.

More likely, they have no trouble finding warm bodies. They just have trouble finding people willing to WORK! My company recently hired four drivers...and it took more than thirty interviews, and about fifteen people who left after anywhere from a few days to a month. That is in addition to the half dozen drivers failing road tests! (One of them-with a class A license and 6 years driving semis-could not drive a standard shift!)

 

[beagle9]

Wrong-
Rep. Morgan Griffith says EPA job growth outstips that of U.S. government
We wondered whether Griffith’s figures are correct. His spokeswoman, Andrea Pivarunas, sent us sources for the numbers.

The EPA had a staff of 8,358 in 1972 and it grew to 17,359 in 2011, according to data from the agency. That’s an increase of 107.7 percent -- matching what Griffith said.

We should note that EPA dropped to 15,913 employees last year as many cashed in on an early retirement incentive offered to federal workers. So if Griffith had used the the most current data available, the increase since 1972 would have translated to 90.4 percent.

The total number of federal employees was 5.2 million in 1972 and 4.4 million in 2011, according to the federal Office of Personnel Management. That’s a decrease of 15.4 percent -- again, what Griffith said.

Actually, the Clean Air Act originated back in the 60's. But it was the creation of the enforcement mechanism, the EPA, along with increased standards implemented in 1970 that started delivering results.

And it is clean air act that has the right all riled up with the EPA. The Obama administration proposed standards for CO2 from power generating facilities and all hell broke loose. And it was only a proposed "goal", of CO2 produced per megawatt hour. States even had the ability to design their own plan to meet those goals.

And here is the scoop. They weren't that big a deal. Hell, the replacement of aging facilities with more modern and efficient ones would almost do the trick. Responsible members of the power generation community had fully anticipated the move and have been planning accordingly. It is all a smoke screen to get you guys to start railing against the EPA and accept draconian cuts to enforcement mechanisms.

With no enforcement companies can dump toxins into the water, spew poison into out atmosphere, and bury chemicals into our land. Those residues, and their impact on the environment, are the responsibility of those companies, but who pays? You and I pay, that is who pays. We pay when we can't get potable water, we pay when our children and grandchildren suffer asthma, we pay when we lose friends and family members to cancer from exposure.

Oh please, here we go with that leftist extremism again.

You people act like those of us on the right want all these dangers to take place. What do you think, that we on the right breathe different air and drink different water than you on the left do????

Like I said, the problem with leftist environmentalists is that there is no end to this; there is no stopping point. For those of us on the right, the stopping point happened several years back. The air is fine and the water is great. Enough is enough.

Right now we have more important things to worry about such as healthcare, borders, illegals and better paying jobs. No matter what we do or how much we spend, the air and water could always be better. The real question is at what cost and what we are willing to give up for it such as jobs and corporations.

Great, declare a moratorium on new regulations. No problems with me. Again, don't pretend that is what this is about. But don't cut enforcement. To be honest, it is a protection for the industries as much as the people. Look back at OSHA and the Reagan era. I believe it was about a fifty percent cut. Accidents went up, workers compensation went up, wrongful death claims went up. Who paid for that?

So what regulations did he cut that caused all this? What has the last two-term Democrat Presidents done about it?

Trump is cutting EPA by half. That doesn't mean less enforcement. It means less people sitting around a coffee pot discussing what bar they like the most and what more regulations and fines they can come up with to destroy more businesses.

The problem is the EPA doesn't have the budget to cut. It already has been cut. Staffing for enforcement are now at levels they were during, wait for it, Ronald Reagan. The Republican disconnect here is as bad as it is with immigration. Illegal immigration is at levels not seen in years, much lower than under Bush, and deportations are way up. The EPA budget is way down from what it was when Obama took office. In fact, in adjusted dollars, it has remained under 2006 levels his entire administration, outside the first year.

“Cuts to the EPA budget mean the agency’s ability to enforce existing public protection standards will diminish,” continued White. “EPA’s strategic plan for the next five years anticipates a 40 to 50 percent reduction in inspections and enforcement cases,

EPA Staff Cut to Smallest Number in 25 Years

That was BEFORE the Trump cuts.

. The problems with government growing itself so large, is that it creates a mindset, sort of a corruption if you will, where as you have people then thinking and creating ways to JUSTIFY their jobs. This is when you start getting overbearing results, and overbearing conflicts. It's also when you get people having way to dam much power in which they created to secure their jobs. Cutting an industry or government agency down to the correct size is a great thing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Having grown up around lakes and rivers too polluted to fish or swim in, I appreciate what the EPA has done in the past to clean up our environment. Nixon began the EPA after the Cuyahoga River caught fire....still hard to fathom but industry had always sent it's chemicals downstream for somebody else to deal with. DDT was banned after eagle chicks were born with beaks too deformed to eat. Acid rain from coal furnaces without scrubbers almost decimated New England's forests not to mention the paint jobs on cars up there. So a lot had to be done and they did it. But then they turned into something else and considered industry the enemy instead of a partner in cooperation. In the last 10 years they've operated like the IRS....to the point they now conduct armed raids. Nobody intended that to happen but leave an agency with no oversight and that's what can happen. One of their senior management said the other day they would "resist Trump". Really?

About 15 years ago or so, the EPA said they didn't like our pollution levels here in Ohio. Okay, then stay the hell out of Ohio! Nope, they had to stick their nose in our business and force us to use E-Check in some of our counties.

Ten years and tens of millions of dollars later, the EPA tested our air again, and found no change in the pollution levels. So what did they make us do? Extend the program for another ten years.

THIS is one of the many reasons to eliminate bureaucracies like the EPA. Why should they give a damn about wasting money on something that doesn't work. It isn't their money!

Ohio is not forced to use E-check. They can ditch the program, they will just lose millions of dollars in highway funding. And it is only in seven counties who's air did not meet EPA quality standards. Those standards are LAWS passed by an elected legislature. Meet those standards, no more e-check.

Your solution is not to attempt to meet the standards. Not even to pass LAWS that change the standards. Your solution is to just do away with the enforcement mechanism behind the standards. From where I come from we call that being a CHICKEN SHIT.

You are a SPECIAL kind of stupid, boy.

 

[Camp]

Attention, SMOG ALERT, and don't drink the water.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guess you missed the presser, huh? The National Endowment for the Arts and NPR have already been targeted for defunding. Cutting the EPA in half will hurt no one -- it is so bloated it can't stand up.

Would you support cutting the budget of the FBI? How about the Marshal Service? In fact, why don't we eliminate all federal funding for local law enforcement. No more grants to purchase military equipment to be used on the people. That would sure save some money.

Nope, I doubt you would support those cuts. And I am pretty sure you are a strong supporter of Trump's plans to expand the Border Patrol. In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.

Except when it comes to the environment. And that is a little bothersome. The FBI, the Border Patrol, local cops--they all protect us from criminals. From rapists, murderers, robbers, sexual predators--mostly punk ass individuals that, even on their best day, with the best gun and the highest capacity magazine--might be able to take out a couple dozen of us.

WTF. Ain't you guys got guns? Why you so damn skeered? Hell, I ban guns from my house, they all stay at the family armory, and I ain't skeered. It would take a damn fool to come down in this holler and stir up some shit. In twenty years I can count the times I saw a member of law enforcement down here on one hand.

But the EPA, well they are cops too. But they don't protect us from the little punk ass bitches and their guns, they protect us from the dudes in the suits that are more than willing to dump toxic waste into our water supply, spew nauseous chemicals into our atmosphere, and strip off the tops of our mountains in pursuit of profit. And when those waste ponds burst and flood the valley, when our childhood asthma rates soar, and when cancer clusters pop up around industrial facilities, people don't die by the dozens, they die by the thousands.

Now, the EPA comes down in this holler too. They check the industrial pond not too far over the hill. They check the water, make sure my well is safe. You can defund all the local law enforcement you want, I can handle it. The punk ass bitches know better. But that factory over the hill, owned by some company out of Florida, could give two shits about my well. If nobody is keeping them in line you force me to make sure they don't have the opportunity to go out of line.

Your analogy is flawed. The Constitution charges our representatives with the duty to protect citizens here and abroad. The FBI, CIA, Border Patrol don't create laws against us, they only enforce the ones we have set forth by our law makers.

It's a balancing act really. The cleaner the air and water, the more economic damage we suffer. The less damage we suffer economically, the worse for air and water. You can't have both a good economy and stringent environmental regulations.

I agree that it is a balancing act. But that is precisely why we both need the EPA, and we need to fund it adequately. We are balancing two sides. One, industry, which very structure encourages it to externalize costs whenever possible. The other, the environment. Industry has their leaders, their money, their power, to support their side. Who does the environment have?

And like my well. Don't really have to worry about the neighbor next door poisoning my well. He and his family have to live here. And perhaps my enemy down the road might think about it, but fears enforcement from the sheriff. But that factory, with the owners living far away, they don't give a shit. The only thing, and I mean the only think, keeping them from dumping their waste chemicals directly into the water table, is the EPA. When they no longer fear the EPA they sure as hell won't fear me.

If somebody or some company does something to effect your property or health, get a lawyer and have the case heard in court.

The EPA doesn't balance anything. They are out there to keep their jobs. Sitting back and not creating regulations and fines means we don't need them any longer, so they create all kinds of economically harmful regulations that cost you and I money every single day.

Do this: ask an environmentalist when enough will be enough? What does it take to make them happy and keep their yaps shut? How much money are we really talking about here? I bet you'd be met with a blank stare.

The truth is we've been cleaning up our environment for nearly 50 years now, and the environmentalists are less happy today then before. They will never be happy because the environment is a bottomless money pit. You can take every last US dollar in this country today, and some environmentalists would still be complaining.

The problem with all this environment crap is that the costs of it are intrinsic. You don't even know you're paying them. If I were Trump, I'd take an idea Michelle came up with. She got her hold man to force all restaurants to put calorie count on every item they sell. While the stupid idea never made one fat kid skinny, I think it would be a great idea if we did the same with environmental costs.

When you buy a car, there should be an environmental cost on it telling you you're paying $6,500 for a greener car. If you buy a lawnmower, that has a $75.00 environmental cost. If you buy a jar of pickles at the grocery store, it should have an environmental cost of 20 cents printed right on the jar.

Maybe if people realized what all this environmental crap cost us personally, people would become very disinterested in a greener country.

Spot on. Offhand, the point of diminishing returns is far in the past on cars. I drove a Dodge Magnum for a while. When I had it smog tested, it went on the IM-240 roller test...and blew zero across the board, That's right, zero-no unburned fuel, no carbon monoxide, no nitrogen oxides. The guy testing it was so surprised he ran it again...same result. It was his second zero. (First was a Prius.) The car had 60,000 miles, and there are at least two levels of certification that are CLEANER than my Magnum's Tier II Ultra Low Emission Vehicle!

That was ten years ago...and things are getting TIGHTER? Ridiculous.

They had too many problems using the roller, so now they just plug their tester into your computer to measure how good your car is (or is not) doing.

When they first started with the rollers, they were getting sued because of mishaps. One time the rollers locked and the car when right through the garage door. A couple of times the tester revved up the engine so high that they actually blew the engine in the car. Multiple complaints about the car not running properly after they left the testing station.

The thing is it's a huge waste of money. Even if you don't pass the emissions test, all you have to do is show that you put $250.00 into repairs towards the problem and they let it go at that. I've seen cars drive out of those testing stations smoking like it was on fire.

Then of course it led to multiple scams. People were registering their cars in a relatives name that lived in one of the counties that didn't require testing. There were a couple of places that were changing addresses on the title for the same reason. Garages that were making out phony repair bills for a small price.

So what did this all accomplish? Not a damn thing. Tens of millions of dollars that could have been spent (or saved) for a better use. These environmentalists will be the end of this country yet.

 

[beagle9]

We have a truck driving hauler company about 40 miles away. Always have adds in the paper looking for workers or drivers. They must be a very bad place to work as they can't find workers.

More likely, they have no trouble finding warm bodies. They just have trouble finding people willing to WORK! My company recently hired four drivers...and it took more than thirty interviews, and about fifteen people who left after anywhere from a few days to a month. That is in addition to the half dozen drivers failing road tests! (One of them-with a class A license and 6 years driving semis-could not drive a standard shift!)

. I know a young man who is under educated as far as book sense goes, but he could drive with the best of the truck driving crowd. He can drive tractor trailer with flat beds, containers, bulk tankers, straight body trucks, quads, cement mixers etc. Due to strict regulations that added all sorts of paperwork to the job, they had to let him go because he couldn't do the paperwork. This is a great example of government causing the industry to suffer greatly, because this cat could drive anything, and he could drive it safely. He drove for 10 years that I know of, and they had to let him go due to regulations/paperwork becoming to much for him. As hard as it is to come by drivers, you would think that there would have been a remedy for this.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We have a truck driving hauler company about 40 miles away. Always have adds in the paper looking for workers or drivers. They must be a very bad place to work as they can't find workers.

More likely, they have no trouble finding warm bodies. They just have trouble finding people willing to WORK! My company recently hired four drivers...and it took more than thirty interviews, and about fifteen people who left after anywhere from a few days to a month. That is in addition to the half dozen drivers failing road tests! (One of them-with a class A license and 6 years driving semis-could not drive a standard shift!)

It is hard finding qualified drivers. That's why my company is promoting from within.

During the recession I used to read all these liberals complaining how there were no jobs. I told them about truck driving. Their response? "But I don't want to drive a truck!" Well you think I do? I have to keep a roof over my head. I have bills to pay. I don't have the time or money to be sitting on the computer day in and day out complaining that there is no work when there actually is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

. I know a young man who is under educated as far as book sense goes, but he could drive with the best of the truck driving crowd. He can drive tractor trailer with flat beds, containers, bulk tankers, straight body trucks, quads, cement mixers etc. Due to strict regulations that added all sorts of paperwork to the job, they had to let him go because he couldn't do the paperwork. This is a great example of government causing the industry to suffer greatly, because this cat could drive anything, and he could drive it safely. He drove for 10 years that I know of, and they had to let him go due to regulations/paperwork becoming to much for him.

Government is trying to put me out of a job as well because of medical issues. I almost gave up this year and said F-it. I'll go on disability if that's what they want me to do. I have a perfect driving record. No points and no CSA-2010 points either. CSA-2010 is a new point system that only applies to CDL drivers.

I know I can work, my employer knows I can work, my doctor knows I can work. But government is making it more and more difficult all the time for me to continue.

 

[beagle9]

We have a truck driving hauler company about 40 miles away. Always have adds in the paper looking for workers or drivers. They must be a very bad place to work as they can't find workers.

More likely, they have no trouble finding warm bodies. They just have trouble finding people willing to WORK! My company recently hired four drivers...and it took more than thirty interviews, and about fifteen people who left after anywhere from a few days to a month. That is in addition to the half dozen drivers failing road tests! (One of them-with a class A license and 6 years driving semis-could not drive a standard shift!)

. The liberal up bringing in the single parent homes and public education is what has ruined these industries chances of finding young people tough enough to take on these extreme jobs that demand so much from the human being. It is also why I fear our overall readiness for the possibility of a large scale war or even an invasion. Who the hell do we have that could stop us from being crushed ? Think about that one.

 

[Winston]

Having grown up around lakes and rivers too polluted to fish or swim in, I appreciate what the EPA has done in the past to clean up our environment. Nixon began the EPA after the Cuyahoga River caught fire....still hard to fathom but industry had always sent it's chemicals downstream for somebody else to deal with. DDT was banned after eagle chicks were born with beaks too deformed to eat. Acid rain from coal furnaces without scrubbers almost decimated New England's forests not to mention the paint jobs on cars up there. So a lot had to be done and they did it. But then they turned into something else and considered industry the enemy instead of a partner in cooperation. In the last 10 years they've operated like the IRS....to the point they now conduct armed raids. Nobody intended that to happen but leave an agency with no oversight and that's what can happen. One of their senior management said the other day they would "resist Trump". Really?

About 15 years ago or so, the EPA said they didn't like our pollution levels here in Ohio. Okay, then stay the hell out of Ohio! Nope, they had to stick their nose in our business and force us to use E-Check in some of our counties.

Ten years and tens of millions of dollars later, the EPA tested our air again, and found no change in the pollution levels. So what did they make us do? Extend the program for another ten years.

THIS is one of the many reasons to eliminate bureaucracies like the EPA. Why should they give a damn about wasting money on something that doesn't work. It isn't their money!

Ohio is not forced to use E-check. They can ditch the program, they will just lose millions of dollars in highway funding. And it is only in seven counties who's air did not meet EPA quality standards. Those standards are LAWS passed by an elected legislature. Meet those standards, no more e-check.

Your solution is not to attempt to meet the standards. Not even to pass LAWS that change the standards. Your solution is to just do away with the enforcement mechanism behind the standards. From where I come from we call that being a CHICKEN SHIT.

You are a SPECIAL kind of stupid, boy.

Wow. Obviously I can see why you want to eliminate enforcement instead of change regulations. You are a real coward, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't call me a boy to my face.

You guys are stupid as hell. Obama didn't kill coal jobs, natural gas did. The EPA has PROPOSED new guidelines. I mean you guys do know what propose means, right?

Fact-checking Obama's rules on carbon and coal plants

So, the Chamber of commerce misinterprets the data, posts job loss predictions based on that misinterpretation, later retracts those predictions, and yet those numbers are posted everyday by internet dumbasses.

Read the study, the problem is coal is not as cost effective as natural gas and in some areas solar and wind. Coal accounted for half of all electricity produced from 2000 to 2008. Now coal is not even the predominant means of generating electricity, natural gas is.

Why the U.S. Coal Industry and Its Jobs Are Not Coming Back

Look, I am pretty sure the buggy whip industry got a little upset when the car came along. Should the government have propped up the buggy whip industry?