• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

What? No... Not sure what you're saying here. What I am saying is that, for example, if I live next door to a factory that makes say some part for a jet engine, and that factor is dumping waste in the water table I use, I have no recourse without government involvement because I'm not their customer.
You are accurate here, but not for the reasons you state. There are very often laws against taking any action against that factory. You *should* be able to sue their ass for every {censored} thing they have because they caused harm. Right now, odds are very likely that they would hand out a few grand and tell whomever to STFU and the most anyone would get is a cameo on the evening news. I would argue that is not gov protecting her citizens. This "protection" might only work in our current system if the 'waste' was defined previously in our EPA system, and even then the factory would be fined and get a slap on the wrist.

In a free market world, companies would be much more careful because they have risk. With the EPA, that risk is on the gov and we can't sue the gov for being stupid or ignorant of what causes harm to persons.

Lets work off of an example. Come up with a federal regulation of a corporation that doesn't serve any legitimate national interest, it just causes one private party to benefit over another.
The entire department of education. I would argue that it does not serve in our national interest because as it has failed to enhance the education of our children. A few companies like test makers are making MILLIONS. I know you won't agree here because our definition of "national interest" is different.

What about the raw milk laws I mentioned earlier?
 
Last edited:
regardless of the entity you entrust to protect you – it still boils down to if that entity has your interests in heart

You will always be at the mercy of other individuals hoping that they do what is right, not what is profitable. Whether those individuals work for the government, or work outside of the government, they are just as susceptible to greed and corruption.

Again, governments are non-profit. Their interest is in getting my vote. That means that they have every incentive to do a good job stopping the factory from polluting the water table. They're the only entity in the game with that incentive.
 
Your thinking on all this is very muddled. For example, you claim that the Democrats are both pro-corporation and pro-union, but most corporations that have unions, their number one wish in the world is to be rid of the union.

All I'm saying is look at the evidence.

You know that the Obama bailed out corporations, right? You know that Corporations gave big bucks to Obama. You also know that Unions gave big money to Obama. You also know that the private investors with 401K's who invested in these automakers got shafted as well, right? The Unions and their leaders got larger shares than anyone.
That's like saying that Obama is too pro-Isreal one minute then that he is too pro-Palestine the next.

No, that's muddled thinking because you're drifting off into other areas.
Secondly, those bailouts were mostly loans that have already been paid back.

Is it the job of government to bail out private companies? No one can fail in America anymore? And everyone has not been paid back. Millions have been made on this scam, and it should all have been illegal, and probably was.

Third, Congress passed those bailouts, not Obama.

Are you saying Obama and the Democratic Congress (and Senate) didn't support this? It was Obama who was always talking it up, who spear-headed the whole thing, along with his friends.

Fourth, corporations hate regulations

No, they don't. All they want is fair regulations under the law and with the same rules for everyone. This didn't happen with those bailouts.
,and obviously the Democrats are more pro-regulation and the Republicans more anti-regulation.

It depends on the regulations. Some are crazy and some necessary.
Fifth, the bailouts of the banks happened under Bush, not Obama.
Obama contributed to the banking mess early in his working life, as did many others. By the time it got to Bush much of the damage was already iin place.
Sixth, unions aren't businesses. They're non-profit.

LOL!! Sure, tell that to the mob!
 
Again, governments are non-profit. Their interest is in getting my vote. That means that they have every incentive to do a good job stopping the factory from polluting the water table. They're the only entity in the game with that incentive.

I am confused. Congress created the EPA. EPA is an entity all in itself that answers to no one. They can create law on a whim for any reason.
What exact "do good" incentive do they have?
 
Again, taking them to court means turning the issue over to the government to resolve... Court isn't an alternative to government, it IS government.

And the government can run the courts according to the Constitution, legal precedence and the will of the people. That's fine. But it doesn't have to be involved in everything.

But, how could private industry do those things? Private industry can't require other corporations to comply with anything or let them test anything or force them to release any information or whatever.
Private industry can investigate and, if laws are being broken or regulations not being met , they can take this evidence to the courts in order that justice be done.
 
I am confused. Congress created the EPA. EPA is an entity all in itself that answers to no one. They can create law on a whim for any reason.
What exact "do good" incentive do they have?

No, EPA cannot create laws. What they can do is create regulations to implement laws. They are, of course, part of the executive branch, so they are answerable to the President who is answerable to the people.

The free market and legal system simply don't work very well when it comes to pollution. Say, for example, that you live in California and your air quality is being degraded by coal plants in the midwest. What are you going to do? Sue every utility in the midwest? How are you going to prove your case?
 
Again, governments are non-profit. Their interest is in getting my vote. That means that they have every incentive to do a good job stopping the factory from polluting the water table. They're the only entity in the game with that incentive.

they only need a majority of votes, not your vote.
 
You are accurate here, but not for the reasons you state. There are very often laws against taking any action against that factory. You *should* be able to sue their ass for every {censored} thing they have because they caused harm. Right now, odds are very likely that they would hand out a few grand and tell whomever to STFU and the most anyone would get is a cameo on the evening news. I would argue that is not gov protecting her citizens. This "protection" might only work in our current system if the 'waste' was defined previously in our EPA system, and even then the factory would be fined and get a slap on the wrist.

In a free market world, companies would be much more careful because they have risk. With the EPA, that risk is on the gov and we can't sue the gov for being stupid or ignorant of what causes harm to persons.

It is true that there are some circumstances where the government passes a law protecting a company from a lawsuit. They are very rare situations though. For example, there are laws protecting vacine manufacturers from liability. The reasons are pretty good though. Vacines are extremely expensive to research and you can't sell them for much at all because people still get the same benefit if their neighbors get vacinated but they don't, so nobody is willing to pay a lot for them. And, vacines are a calculated risk. We know that some percentage of the people that get vacinated will get sick, but overall that is way less serious of a risk than the diseases they prevent pose. Regardless though, they generate a ton of lawsuits. But they serve an enormous public interest. So, the government limited their exposure to liability for people who get sick as a result of a vacine. Otherwise nobody would make them.

That's the only example I can think of off the top of my head. Your EPA example is false. If a company is dumping waste in the water table and the EPA has categorized it as toxic or something, certainly you can use that as evidence to prove that the company was aware that they were behaving negligently, but it isn't like if the EPA hasn't classified it as toxic or whatever that you can't sue them. You still definitely could.

The entire department of education. I would argue that it does not serve in our national interest because as it has failed to enhance the education of our children. A few companies like test makers are making MILLIONS. I know you won't agree here because our definition of "national interest" is different.

I also oppose no child left behind. That's a Republican thing and most Democrats oppose it. But that doesn't mean it isn't designed to serve a legitimate national interest. Certainly education is a legitimate interest. The notion that policy that huge was created just to benefit test makers seems awfully far fetched.

What about the raw milk laws I mentioned earlier?

Pasteurization kills a bunch of bacteria that have caused major health problems in the US. E. Coli for example. The FDA did a series of studies and concluded that it was unsafe to sell milk without pasteurizing it first. Prior to the laws requiring pasteurization 25% of all food or water related sickness was caused by bad milk. After the laws, only 1%. So, you might disagree with the figures or whatever, which is totally fine, they certainly don't always get everything right, but the idea that the regulation isn't there to serve a legitimate national interest is completely false.
 
No, EPA cannot create laws. What they can do is create regulations to implement laws. They are, of course, part of the executive branch, so they are answerable to the President who is answerable to the people
Technically you're correct. The EPA does not create laws they create "Regulations", which can be found here:

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations (Annual Edition)



The free market and legal system simply don't work very well when it comes to pollution. Say, for example, that you live in California and your air quality is being degraded by coal plants in the midwest. What are you going to do? Sue every utility in the midwest? How are you going to prove your case?
I agree with corporate oversight, I just don't agree that the EPA is autonomous and can pass "regulations" which equate to legal rules without Congressional oversight.
 
Technically you're correct. The EPA does not create laws they create "Regulations", which can be found here:

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations (Annual Edition)

I agree with corporate oversight, I just don't agree that the EPA is autonomous and can pass "regulations" which equate to legal rules without Congressional oversight.

Well, that's how our government works. Not just EPA, but every agency. There is no way Congress could ever approve every agency regulation. What they can do, however, if there is a regulation they don't like, is pass a law nullifying it.
 
No, EPA cannot create laws. What they can do is create regulations to implement laws. They are, of course, part of the executive branch, so they are answerable to the President who is answerable to the people.
Thank you for that correction, but the President cannot willfully change the head of the EPA nor dictate what they do. Congress created their bylaws and when they create regulations as they go along, they are in effect legislating. They are a branch of the executive but to label them executive or legislative is not entirely accurate.

The free market and legal system simply don't work very well when it comes to pollution. Say, for example, that you live in California and your air quality is being degraded by coal plants in the midwest. What are you going to do? Sue every utility in the midwest? How are you going to prove your case?
I disagree. My position is that you should be able to sue every damned one of them, but you are right - the burden of proof is on you.
 
All I'm saying is look at the evidence.

You know that the Obama bailed out corporations, right? You know that Corporations gave big bucks to Obama. You also know that Unions gave big money to Obama. You also know that the private investors with 401K's who invested in these automakers got shafted as well, right? The Unions and their leaders got larger shares than anyone.

No, Congress bailed out the corporations under both Bush and Obama.

When you say "the unions got larger shares" you realize that what you mean is that the retirement funds which the workers had been promises their entire careers and upon which they relied were reduced by less than the investors would have liked. I can't see how anybody could possibly pay off an investor anything at all before the company has at the very least fulfilled it's commitments for the retirement plans of its employees.

Is it the job of government to bail out private companies? No one can fail in America anymore? And everyone has not been paid back. Millions have been made on this scam, and it should all have been illegal, and probably was.

No. Generally I oppose bailouts. But the bailouts are like 100th on the list of the top concerns of corporations. Slots #1 through #99 are occupied by wanting to eliminate regulations of various things. AKA not holding them accountable for what they do.

Are you saying Obama and the Democratic Congress (and Senate) didn't support this? It was Obama who was always talking it up, who spear-headed the whole thing, along with his friends.

Obama spear-headed the whole thing? Bush and the Republicans pushed the banking bailouts through, largely over the opposition of the Democrats, before Obama even took office.

Obama contributed to the banking mess early in his working life, as did many others. By the time it got to Bush much of the damage was already iin place.

Huh? You were mad about the bailout. Bush, not Obama, signed that into law. Not sure what you're talking about with Obama contributing to "the mess" early in his working life....

LOL!! Sure, tell that to the mob!

What are you talking about? Are you alleging that unions have shareholders that collect dividends or something? Or what do you mean?
 
I am confused. Congress created the EPA. EPA is an entity all in itself that answers to no one. They can create law on a whim for any reason.
What exact "do good" incentive do they have?

The EPA isn't answerable to no one. It's an executive agency subject to congressional oversight.
 
And the government can run the courts according to the Constitution, legal precedence and the will of the people. That's fine. But it doesn't have to be involved in everything.

Private industry can investigate and, if laws are being broken or regulations not being met , they can take this evidence to the courts in order that justice be done.

Yes the courts are one option for how the government can protect people from corporations. But, again, that isn't a good approach for all situations. If you need the ability to gain access to the site or whatever for inspections, that needs to be a government agency with some kind of investigatory power. If you want to prevent, rather than compensate for, behavior, then you need government regulations. Etc.
 
Well, that's how our government works.

I agree... that IS the way it works. That's why I view things the way I do, and why our government needs to be reduced in size and scope.
 
Thank you for that correction, but the President cannot willfully change the head of the EPA nor dictate what they do.

That is incorrect. The President can fire the head of EPA whenever he chooses and appoint a new director to replace him or her. The appointment has to be approved by Congress.

Congress created their bylaws and when they create regulations as they go along, they are in effect legislating.

Again, this is incorrect. As a matter of law no egency can legislate.

They are a branch of the executive but to label them executive or legislative is not entirely accurate.

It is entirely accurate.

My position is that you should be able to sue every damned one of them, but you are right - the burden of proof is on you.

You can sue them, but as a practical matter it's quite impossible unless you can put together a large class action. Many laws administered by EPA, e.g. the Clean Water Act, specifically provide for citizen suits that allow private citizens to sue for damages.
 
The EPA isn't answerable to no one. It's an executive agency subject to congressional oversight.

Congress did not pass nor review, nor provide oversight to the 2011 (or any other version for that matter) Code of Federal Regulations. Can you give an example of Congressional oversight on the EPA because my limited search on the subject matter identifies that the Congress does NOT have oversight responsibilities of the EPA. The Congress did reduce the amount of regulations the EPA can write 30+ years ago but does not have the ability to overturn regulations they do write. In fact, many of the articles I reviewed identify farmers and western states who are having water disputes want Congress to exert oversight of the EPA. Rand Paul recently had this little nugget to say about it:

 
Congress did not pass nor review, nor provide oversight to the 2011 (or any other version for that matter) Code of Federal Regulations. Can you give an example of Congressional oversight on the EPA because my limited search on the subject matter identifies that the Congress does NOT have oversight responsibilities of the EPA. The Congress did reduce the amount of regulations the EPA can write 30+ years ago but does not have the ability to overturn regulations they do write. In fact, many of the articles I reviewed identify farmers and western states who are having water disputes want Congress to exert oversight of the EPA. Rand Paul recently had this little nugget to say about it:



Congress cannot participate directly in the administrative law process. What they can do, if they want to, is sue the EPA, alleging that a regulation exceeds the granted legislative authority, or they can pass another law specifically taking away legislative authority.
 
Congress did not pass nor review, nor provide oversight to the 2011 (or any other version for that matter) Code of Federal Regulations. Can you give an example of Congressional oversight on the EPA because my limited search on the subject matter identifies that the Congress does NOT have oversight responsibilities of the EPA. The Congress did reduce the amount of regulations the EPA can write 30+ years ago but does not have the ability to overturn regulations they do write. In fact, many of the articles I reviewed identify farmers and western states who are having water disputes want Congress to exert oversight of the EPA. Rand Paul recently had this little nugget to say about it:

Yeah, thats what oversight is. They can remove power from the EPA or change any given regulation at any time by passing a law. The president can change the way the EPA conducts itself within those parameters any time he wants by hiring and firing anybody he likes from the agency. So, if the EPA does something you don't like, really you can blame both Congress and the president. If you research the individual issue a bit you could figure out which one it makes more sense to blame for that particular thing. For example, if it is a broad regulation that the EPA established a long time ago, Congress would be the one to blame, but if it is something like underenforcement in a particular case, then the president would be the one to blame.
 
Yeah, thats what oversight is. They can remove power from the EPA or change any given regulation at any time by passing a law. The president can change the way the EPA conducts itself within those parameters any time he wants by hiring and firing anybody he likes from the agency. So, if the EPA does something you don't like, really you can blame both Congress and the president. If you research the individual issue a bit you could figure out which one it makes more sense to blame for that particular thing. For example, if it is a broad regulation that the EPA established a long time ago, Congress would be the one to blame, but if it is something like underenforcement in a particular case, then the president would be the one to blame.

Restricting the EPA's scope of regulation is not oversight. It was punitive action. Oversight is also not a one time ocurrance but is constant. I don't want to blame anyone, I would rather see the problem fixed - two problems fixed actually:

1.) Put the EPA under Congressional oversight
2.) Put the Treasury under Congressional oversight


Isn't it about time these bums in Washington earn their keep and do some work instead of compalining and bitching about each other on camera then turning around and making backroom deals off camera? Perhaps if we kept them busier they'd have less opportunity to think up new and inventive ways to screw the American people.
 
Congress cannot participate directly in the administrative law process.

Explain what this means and where in the Constitution it states it?
 
Restricting the EPA's scope of regulation is not oversight. It was punitive action. Oversight is also not a one time ocurrance but is constant. I don't want to blame anyone, I would rather see the problem fixed - two problems fixed actually:

1.) Put the EPA under Congressional oversight
2.) Put the Treasury under Congressional oversight

Isn't it about time these bums in Washington earn their keep and do some work instead of compalining and bitching about each other on camera then turning around and making backroom deals off camera? Perhaps if we kept them busier they'd have less opportunity to think up new and inventive ways to screw the American people.

You want congresspeople like figuring out the details of environmental regulations? That would be a total disaster... What do they know about it? They aren't even scientists....

No, the role of Congress is to set general goals and make adjustments when something is going out of whack, not to micromanage everything.
 
Again, taking them to court means turning the issue over to the government to resolve... Court isn't an alternative to government, it IS government.

But, how could private industry do those things? Private industry can't require other corporations to comply with anything or let them test anything or force them to release any information or whatever....

I don't think anyone is denying that their are roles government can fulfill but we must give careful thought before we ever commit responsibilities to government.

Was government ever intended to run banks? Auto companies? There are thousands of ways governments get involved in people lives where they have no business. Less government means a freer and more responsible people. No government can be just as dangerous.
 
Less government means a freer and more responsible people.

I guess I just fundamentally disagree with that. In my experience, less government means less free and less responsible people. The most essential functions of government in my view are to stop corporations from oppressing people and to force corporations to take responsibility for damage they cause. That means fighting for freedom and responsibility.
 
Explain what this means and where in the Constitution it states it?

It means that Congress passes laws and the executive branch passes regulations to implement those laws.

"Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

"Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
 
Back
Top Bottom