• 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!

Donald Trump Is Proposing Massive Funding Cuts for Toxic Waste Cleanup

RabidAlpaca said:
So if the underfunded EPA can't detect the source of all pollution and hold the perpetrators responsible, they should be defunded even further. Admit it, you just want to get rid of it all together, don't you?
Click to expand...

When I'm not so tired tomorrow, I'll get into this toxic waste debate. We all know it was ironically Nixon at his very best that brought the EPA on line, along with many of his other domestic achievements .
 
MaggieD said:
I didn't say Trump balanced the budget. But the only way to do that is to cut programs. and nobody wants THEIR os gored, do they?
Click to expand...

I don't mind cutting inefficient and/or wasteful programs at all ... pork programs like Trumps wall.

On the other hand, I much enjoy the cleaner air, the unpolluted waters, and the safer materials/resources we enjoy in our everyday lives.
 
mike2810 said:
What Trump wants to do with the toxic waste cleanup budget is just a proposal. Congress has much more say with the budget. Presidents budget rarely get passed by Congress without major changes.

"There are five key steps in the federal budget process:
The President submits a budget request to Congress
The House and Senate pass budget resolutions
House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees "markup" appropriations bills
The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences
The President signs each appropriations bill and the budget becomes law"
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/federal-budget-process/

"Historically, lawmakers don’t pass presidential budgets introduced to much fanfare — like President Donald Trump’s was Thursday — even if the president is of the same party that controls Congress."
Presidential budgets rarely get approved | The Seattle Times
Click to expand...

I agree that Congress is involved in the budget, and thus far, Trump has shown an inability to work through Congress. However, the appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA was ridiculous, and we will see more and more of this type of rhetoric. All Federal and State government has shifted the direction of the ALT Right, and the EPA is no different.
 
iguanaman said:
Talk about ambiguous....So Govt. should be responsible for ensuring the public good but not if it has to pay for it? Where do you get these things?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. What I said was quite different. I did not speak of "the public good", which you seem to confuse with "a public good".
But to an extent, it does have some truth about it, if one considers getting the property rights right to optimize the public good.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So if the underfunded EPA can't detect the source of all pollution and hold the perpetrators responsible, they should be defunded even further. Admit it, you just want to get rid of it all together, don't you?
Click to expand...


No, but if you knew the amount of waste that goes on within the EPA, you would agree with some of these cuts.

“Unfortunately, many of these sites have been listed as Superfund sites for decades, some for as many as 30 years,” Pruitt wrote in an announcement of a Superfund Task Force in May. “This is not acceptable. We can—and should—do better.”

This is a true statement. I see the crap that is being presented as "eligible costs" for reimbursement from the Superfund. And I continually shake my head at the waste. The Superfund serves a great purpose and has for years, but like everything else corruption and greed rears its ugly head.
 
cpwill said:
While I (and Milton Friedman) agree that fighting pollution is a legitimate function of government.....

1. OP takes the word of vested interests within the system as their evidence for the systems' efficacy. This is like asking KFC whether or not people should eat there; of course they are going to tell you "yes".

2. Why is this not a State function?
Click to expand...


In most cases it is the State that applies for grants from the Superfund. The oversight of those grants.....eh, not so great.
 
holbritter said:
No, but if you knew the amount of waste that goes on within the EPA, you would agree with some of these cuts.

“Unfortunately, many of these sites have been listed as Superfund sites for decades, some for as many as 30 years,” Pruitt wrote in an announcement of a Superfund Task Force in May. “This is not acceptable. We can—and should—do better.”

This is a true statement. I see the crap that is being presented as "eligible costs" for reimbursement from the Superfund. And I continually shake my head at the waste. The Superfund serves a great purpose and has for years, but like everything else corruption and greed rears its ugly head.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody has said the EPA is a streamlined organization with minimal waste, but simply blindly cutting their funding does not help the environment nor does it hold businesses accountable for their effects on the environment. It's a bit like the current healthcare debacle. Instead of just trying to fix what we have in place, the GOP wants to just tear it down and replace it with nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom