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

[Timmy]

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.

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.

The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies .

We've had a Great economy along with protecting the environment. It's not a zero sum game . And in a lot of places the environment is the economy .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes your mom is entitled to a raise. Case closed. No way of refuting this.

. Thanks... When we see so much corruption and waste, and my mom told me that her raise was only two dollars on her social security my heart sunk. She worked all her life, and she is living in poverty at 80 years old. She ask for nothing, and refuses help from me because of her independent pride in life. Our senior citizens, and hard working Americans ready to retire are being forgotten about or they are being screwed in a set up for which hopes they die before getting the proper retirement and treatment that they deserve after serving their nation proud and without waver. There should also be a way for people who decide like Trump did on his pay as president, to then donate their retirement to a benefactor of their choosing.

The problem is that SS was a false retirement plan. Everybody thought that SS would be enough for their future and it's not. If you don't have anything else to go along with SS, you're screwed when you retire.

. That's because the dam politicians couldn't keep their hands off of it, and then you see all this waste Trump is going after, and you think to yourself how bad the dammed corrupt system is. I hope Trump really means in every way what he's talking about on the lingo "The Forgotten Man or Woman" is forgotten no more. This should include the elderly as well.

That's part of the problem, but the other part is funding.

Look.......if we want to have these programs, then we need to pay for them. Simple as that. I can't remember the last time we had an increase in employee payroll deductions for medicare, yet healthcare gets more expensive every year.

So what Medicare and Medicaid do is only pay about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. The hospitals and doctors need to recoup that money, so they increase their fees. Those fees are paid for by the private sector, and our insurance rates go out of this world.

So like I said, if we want these things, we simply have to pay for them. But the reason politicians never increase those deductions is because people would revolt; maybe even ask for the elimination of SS and Medicare.

We want our elderly to be taken care of, but we don't want to pay for it out of our own pocket. It just doesn't work that way, and it's been going on for many years now. That's why retirees don't see any increases in their SS checks.

Couple of corrections.

The Medicare "rate" has not changed since Ronald Reagan, who more than doubled the rate and began increasing the income subject to the tax. But there have been several increases in the tax. Most notably, the one attached to Obamacare. Furthermore, Medicare has been means tested since 2009, resulting in those with higher incomes paying higher premiums. Finally, anyone on Medicare will tell you the Medicare premium has increased substantially over the last twenty years.

Medicare pays about 80% of what private insurance pays, not two thirds. And doctors might grumble but they are more than willing to accept that lower rate because of VOLUME. Medicare patients utilize health care services at a much higher rate than the privately insured. Almost every hospital in the country gets at least half it's revenue from Medicare. Medicare paid more than 4,000 doctors over one million dollars in 2014.

That doesn't mean they aren't losing money. Nobody works for free. And my father had plenty of surgeries for me to know what Medicare does and dose not pay. Hospitals lose tens of thousands of dollars on every surgery they do for a government patient. This is why when you see health facilities close, it's usually in lower income areas where most of the clients are government patients. There are not enough private pay people to offset the losses, so they simply close down.

The Medicare payroll tax increase only applies to high income earners in this country and even then, the increase was only about .1%. It simply does not keep up with the increasing costs of medical services today. Yes, premiums have gone up for Medicare patents, but on average, they make out way more than they pay out, so it's not really a solution.

Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients

Why physicians are hesitant to take Medicaid patients

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

How are they unconstitutional ?

You rubes won't admit that since the birth of the Epa we have been able to turn back the pollution that we had. everywhere? You want to just throw the baby out with the bath water ?

They are unconstitutional because they create laws, taxes and fines. Only the US Congress has that constitutional authority.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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.

The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies .

We've had a Great economy along with protecting the environment. It's not a zero sum game . And in a lot of places the environment is the economy .

Sure, we had a great economy when the EPA first game out, but that was because they didn't have many regulations.

Today is a whole different story. I work for a small transportation company that has less than a dozen employees, the new regulations that came out over the last ten years costs my employer hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of communist scumbags

Way past time. You watch, as the EPA is brought in line with reality, jobs will increase, money will flow and the Environment won't be any worse off.

The EPA is less about the environment than it is about crushing Capitalism. That's just the way it is

Via Daily Caller:


The former leader of President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team said Thursday he expects the president to slash the agency’s budget and staff.

Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy at free market group Competitive Enterprise Institute, told reporters that Trump is considering reducing by magnitudes the agency’s workforce. It currently stands at 15,000 employees nationwide.

“Let’s aim for half and see how it works out, and then maybe we’ll want to go further,” Ebell said, referring to his wish to see the EPA slashed by at least half. He left Trump’s transition team last week, but was at one time on the president’s short list to head the agency.

Half of the EPA’s budget is transferred to state and local areas to update infrastructure projects and environmental cleanup efforts. Ebell, who is a long-time EPA critic and climate skeptic, said the cuts would likely fall on the remaining half of the agency’s budget, which supports a portion of federal employees.

“President Trump said during the campaign that he would like to abolish the EPA, or ‘leave a little bit,’” he said. “I think the administration is likely to start proposing cuts to the 15,000 staff, because the fact is that a huge amount of the work of the EPA is actually done by state agencies.”

Keep reading…

If environmental regulations are so bad, why is the unemployment rate just 4.7%?

I guess you want cancer because that is what is going to happen without environmental protections. More people are going to get slowly poisoned.

Nobody is going to get poisoned. The unemployment rate is heavily effected by people who are out of work and no longer looking. As far as the census is concerned, if you don't work and not looking for work, you are not considered unemployed.

 

[P@triot]

In fact, I bet you are all about spending money on the enforcement of the law.

Enforcing our laws?!? Gasp! Oh the humanity....

Except when it comes to the environment.

And therein lies the problem buttercup. You just nailed it without even knowing it. We have no legal/constitutional laws on the environment. Only Congress (you know - our representatives) can pass laws. But that's never happened with the environment. Instead, an unconstitutional "department", staffed with unelected bureaucrats created "regulations" and suddenly we're all forced to abide by them as if they were law.

That's crap - and it's just federal government stealing power from the people for themselves. The fact that you celebrate/support that is fuck'n tragic. If you want someone to control your life for you - move to Cuba. Here in America, we prefer liberty over a nifty little well inspected by someone interested in exerting power over us.

 

[hazlnut]

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of communist scumbags

Way past time. You watch, as the EPA is brought in line with reality, jobs will increase, money will flow and the Environment won't be any worse off.

The EPA is less about the environment than it is about crushing Capitalism. That's just the way it is

Via Daily Caller:

The former leader of President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team said Thursday he expects the president to slash the agency’s budget and staff.

Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy at free market group Competitive Enterprise Institute, told reporters that Trump is considering reducing by magnitudes the agency’s workforce. It currently stands at 15,000 employees nationwide.

“Let’s aim for half and see how it works out, and then maybe we’ll want to go further,” Ebell said, referring to his wish to see the EPA slashed by at least half. He left Trump’s transition team last week, but was at one time on the president’s short list to head the agency.

Half of the EPA’s budget is transferred to state and local areas to update infrastructure projects and environmental cleanup efforts. Ebell, who is a long-time EPA critic and climate skeptic, said the cuts would likely fall on the remaining half of the agency’s budget, which supports a portion of federal employees.

“President Trump said during the campaign that he would like to abolish the EPA, or ‘leave a little bit,’” he said. “I think the administration is likely to start proposing cuts to the 15,000 staff, because the fact is that a huge amount of the work of the EPA is actually done by state agencies.”

Keep reading…

Nothing like a environmental disaster in the midwest to take back the house.

 

[nat4900]

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of communist scumbags

Way past time. You watch, as the EPA is brought in line with reality, jobs will increase, money will flow and the Environment won't be any worse off.

The EPA is less about the environment than it is about crushing Capitalism. That's just the way it is

Via Daily Caller:

The former leader of President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team said Thursday he expects the president to slash the agency’s budget and staff.

Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy at free market group Competitive Enterprise Institute, told reporters that Trump is considering reducing by magnitudes the agency’s workforce. It currently stands at 15,000 employees nationwide.

“Let’s aim for half and see how it works out, and then maybe we’ll want to go further,” Ebell said, referring to his wish to see the EPA slashed by at least half. He left Trump’s transition team last week, but was at one time on the president’s short list to head the agency.

Half of the EPA’s budget is transferred to state and local areas to update infrastructure projects and environmental cleanup efforts. Ebell, who is a long-time EPA critic and climate skeptic, said the cuts would likely fall on the remaining half of the agency’s budget, which supports a portion of federal employees.

“President Trump said during the campaign that he would like to abolish the EPA, or ‘leave a little bit,’” he said. “I think the administration is likely to start proposing cuts to the 15,000 staff, because the fact is that a huge amount of the work of the EPA is actually done by state agencies.”

Keep reading…

Americans are hereby encouraged to breathe from just ONE of their two nostrils.....LOL

 

[P@triot]

The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies

No it doesn't. It explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and the environment is not one of them. Therefore, Jimmy Carter creating that "agency" in the executive branch is 100% unconstitutional.

Furthermore - the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that only Congress can create laws. It is highly illegal for an unconstitutional "agency" filled with unelected bureaucrats to create "regulations" and force them on us as law.

If you're going to cite the U.S. Constitution to support your position, you should really try reading it first.

 

[P@triot]

Americans are hereby encouraged to breathe from just ONE of their two nostrils.....LOL

Your brain functions at such a low level that it's almost as if you stopped breathing out of both of yours. Let me guess - the cord got wrapped around your neck during birth?

 

[P@triot]

If environmental regulations are so bad, why is the unemployment rate just 4.7%?

I guess you want cancer because that is what is going to happen without environmental protections. More people are going to get slowly poisoned.

Yeah....because nobody has cancer now.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

The con allows the creation of laws and that means creation of agencies .

We've had a Great economy along with protecting the environment. It's not a zero sum game . And in a lot of places the environment is the economy .

Sure, we had a great economy when the EPA first game out, but that was because they didn't have many regulations.

Today is a whole different story. I work for a small transportation company that has less than a dozen employees, the new regulations that came out over the last ten years costs my employer hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

So your company isn't entrepreneurish enough to survive, adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing environment without threatening the environment. Or they just see more of a bottom line profit margin in not having any regulations. You know, more like Wall Street. Does your employer provide helathcare plans to employees?

 

[P@triot]

If environmental regulations are so bad, why is the unemployment rate just 4.7%?

If the unemployment rate is only 4.7% - why do you progressives cry 24x7 about jobs going overseas where there are fewer regulations?

Any other lies you would like to try? I'll be here all week to expose them!

 

[P@triot]

So your company isn't entrepreneurish enough to survive, adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing environment without threatening the environment.

It's impossible to "thrive" when someone has power over you and gets to decide that you won't thrive no matter what. Pay attention snowflake.

 

[Nosmo King]

Which aspect of environmental regulations is least important? Soil contamination? Water pollution? Or clean breathable air?

Which part are you Conservatives most willing to sacrifice in order to get a few thousand minimum wage jobs?

 

[2aguy]

Winning

It was early in the morning, the heat burning off the fog, as I drove down a winding two lane road toward the river crossing. When I broke into the clearing before the bridge I noticed a majestic bald eagle gracefully catching the morning thermals as they rose off the rock banks of the river.

You know, when I was a kid I never saw a bald eagle. I lived where I could spend the afternoon walking along still remaining parts of Daniel Boone's path across the Blue Ridge mountains. The reason I mention that now is because one of the first actions of the EPA was the administration of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. It is that act, and that act alone, that is responsible for the saving of the Bald Eagle. Thanks to the EPA, my grandkids can grow up seeing Bald Eagles.

Maybe you have to pay attention. But in my younger days you could see the trees dying along the ridge line. It was not disease. It was not parasites. It was acid rain. Then Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, and emissions declined significantly. The forest have recovered, the streams are less acidic, and we all benefit.

I don't think people understand. The EPA works for US. It is the one safeguard we have against industries. Industries that very structure encourages them to "externalize" the cost of their activities. Weakening the EPA can't possibly be seen as a win for the American people.

Besides, that whole "Winning" meme didn't work out so well in the end the first time it made it's rounds. I don't think I would be recycling it now.

Like most left wing ideas....it starts out with good intentions, then becomes a tool of increasing state control.....the EPA has gone way past it's helpful point and is bloated with left wing, radical activists........it is time to trim it down......did poisoning that river meet your idea of being helpful? How about Flint....? When it becomes more concerned with activism and less with doing it's actual job...it ceases being helpful...like all bureaucracies.....they simply begin to exist for their own purposes.....

 

[nat4900]

Your brain functions at such a low level that it's almost as if you stopped breathing out of both of yours. Let me guess - the cord got wrapped around your neck during birth?

you're "correct", Patsy......clean air and water are way overrated. LOL

 

[2aguy]

Which aspect of environmental regulations is least important? Soil contamination? Water pollution? Or clean breathable air?

Which part are you Conservatives most willing to sacrifice in order to get a few thousand minimum wage jobs?

And the liar steps in...the country is filled with pipelines and industry and we have the cleanest environment you can find...all because we are a rich country and we like clean things........the countries with strong central governments, have the worst environments...

 

[nat4900]

Which aspect of environmental regulations is least important? Soil contamination? Water pollution? Or clean breathable air?

Which part are you Conservatives most willing to sacrifice in order to get a few thousand minimum wage jobs?

For right wingers, backing the orange clown is MUCH MORE important than survival of the species.

 

[2aguy]

Which aspect of environmental regulations is least important? Soil contamination? Water pollution? Or clean breathable air?

Which part are you Conservatives most willing to sacrifice in order to get a few thousand minimum wage jobs?

For right wingers, backing the orange clown is MUCH MORE important than survival of the species.

Trump is actually the one who believes in the survival of human beings...you fools all think there are too many people on the planet.......that is the heart of your environmentalism...and of course, you don't want to be the ones removed from the planet...you want to everyone else removed....