• 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!

H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency

Velvet Elvis said:
The EPA has gone rogue long enough. They're a corrupt agency that's in the pocket of radical lobbyists.

On the basis of several hundred technical documents and testimony of 150 scientists, that DDT ought not to be banned...it's still banned.

In 1978, the EPA tried to suppress research showing the cost of proposed air pollution standards. If Pennsylvania’s two senators at the time (John Heinz and Richard Schweiker) hadn’t intervened, the EPA would have imposed standards stringent enough to effectively shut down the U.S. steel industry.

The EPA often tailors its science to justify what it wants to do and shields key research from peer review.

The EPA has ignored epidemiological evidence to foment false alarms about the dangers of ozone, radon, Alar (used in apple orchards), dioxins, and asbestos.

The EPA has used the Clean Water Act (which pertains explicitly to “navigable waters”) as a pretext to regulate lands where puddles form after heavy rains.

In 1993, Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) wrote to Browner expressing concern that EPA hadn’t submitted a report of cost-benefit studies it was required to submit to Congress under Section 812 of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Not only did Browner not even bother to reply, the agency still hadn’t completed a report.

Barack Obama’s recently departed EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, also distinguished herself by placing political agendas over sound science (and also, like Browner, breaking the laws governing the computer records of public officials—in her case, by trying to hide what she was doing through use of a bogus email identity).

The EPA sounds like a thug organization to me.
Click to expand...

While I'll agree with you that the EPA has overstepped it's charter, getting rid of it whole hock would be a huge mistake.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
It's not the 'obvious' things like clean air and water is the problem with the EPA. It's that they overreach their authority. The agency has become more of a hindrance than a help.


The lunacy is allowing an agency to go rogue and practically run like it's above the law.
Click to expand...

EPA was never rogue. Don't exaggerate. It's that kind of hyperbole that has got us where we are. Departments that overstep their authority get reformed, they shouldn't get scrapped. You know what's happening is wrong.
 
Deuce said:
Can we also read the facts about burning rivers and smog events that literally killed people? The health issues seen by coal workers a century ago?
Click to expand...

Ah, the inevitable burning river. I have always thought it was brilliant of propagandists to exploit that arresting image--nature put so out of kilter by people that water itself was burning. In a world gone so far off the rails, this lurid picture suggested, could the end be far off if we did not take drastic action to right things?

The facts were more mundane. As the Cuyahoga River ran through Cleveland, in certain places the currents, configuration of its channel, etc. cause whatever refuse and discharges commercial shipping generated to accumulate. Several times during the decades before this lurid image engaged the popular imagination circa 1970, these buildups of material had apparently decomposed and generated a sort of marsh gas that had caught fire when it reached the air at the river's surface. Not many people except the firemen in Cleveland had ever considered it too big a deal.

But like the much-depicted Indian who was shedding a tear at seeing his beloved lands damaged, the river-on-fire became an emotionally-charged symbol of what terrible shape OUR ENVIRONMENT supposedly had fallen into. The Love Canal affair was also exploited to support the notion that the federal government must do something, and now! And it did, as everyone in Congress seemed to rush to show how "green" he was--with lamentable results. CERCLA, the "EPA Superfund Act" the Love Canal brouhaha gave rise to, may be the sorriest mess of any of the major federal environmental laws. It is a God-awfully drafted, internally contradictory piece of fish wrap which has cost us a fortune and done little except to enrich many environmental lawyers.
 
matchlight said:
Ah, the inevitable burning river. I have always thought it was brilliant of propagandists to exploit that arresting image--nature put so out of kilter by people that water itself was burning. In a world gone so far off the rails, this lurid picture suggested, could the end be far off if we did not take drastic action to right things?

The facts were more mundane. As the Cuyahoga River ran through Cleveland, in certain places the currents, configuration of its channel, etc. cause whatever refuse and discharges commercial shipping generated to accumulate. Several times during the decades before this lurid image engaged the popular imagination circa 1970, these buildups of material had apparently decomposed and generated a sort of marsh gas that had caught fire when it reached the air at the river's surface. Not many people except the firemen in Cleveland had ever considered it too big a deal.

But like the much-depicted Indian who was shedding a tear at seeing his beloved lands damaged, the river-on-fire became an emotionally-charged symbol of what terrible shape OUR ENVIRONMENT supposedly had fallen into. The Love Canal affair was also exploited to support the notion that the federal government must do something, and now! And it did, as everyone in Congress seemed to rush to show how "green" he was--with lamentable results. CERCLA, the "EPA Superfund Act" the Love Canal brouhaha gave rise to, may be the sorriest mess of any of the major federal environmental laws. It is a God-awfully drafted, internally contradictory piece of fish wrap which has cost us a fortune and done little except to enrich many environmental lawyers.
Click to expand...

Enough **** was being dumped into a river to become combustible. And you're saying it's no big deal.

People killed by smog. No big deal.

Black lung disease. No big deal.

How many instances of cancer and other health issues from lead exposure are you comfortable with?
 
matchlight said:
Ah, the inevitable burning river. I have always thought it was brilliant of propagandists to exploit that arresting image--nature put so out of kilter by people that water itself was burning. In a world gone so far off the rails, this lurid picture suggested, could the end be far off if we did not take drastic action to right things?

The facts were more mundane. As the Cuyahoga River ran through Cleveland, in certain places the currents, configuration of its channel, etc. cause whatever refuse and discharges commercial shipping generated to accumulate. Several times during the decades before this lurid image engaged the popular imagination circa 1970, these buildups of material had apparently decomposed and generated a sort of marsh gas that had caught fire when it reached the air at the river's surface. Not many people except the firemen in Cleveland had ever considered it too big a deal.

But like the much-depicted Indian who was shedding a tear at seeing his beloved lands damaged, the river-on-fire became an emotionally-charged symbol of what terrible shape OUR ENVIRONMENT supposedly had fallen into. The Love Canal affair was also exploited to support the notion that the federal government must do something, and now! And it did, as everyone in Congress seemed to rush to show how "green" he was--with lamentable results. CERCLA, the "EPA Superfund Act" the Love Canal brouhaha gave rise to, may be the sorriest mess of any of the major federal environmental laws. It is a God-awfully drafted, internally contradictory piece of fish wrap which has cost us a fortune and done little except to enrich many environmental lawyers.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Enough **** was being dumped into a river to become combustible. And you're saying it's no big deal.

People killed by smog. No big deal.

Black lung disease. No big deal.

How many instances of cancer and other health issues from lead exposure are you comfortable with?
Click to expand...

Me thinks Deuce has bitten off more than he can chew, but he continues to flop around on the deck like the proverbial "gut hooked" fish (thank you, quazimoto) causing more and more damage with each squirm. Carry on fellows, I am enjoying the spectacle.
 
Last edited:
Velvet Elvis said:
The EPA has ignored epidemiological evidence to foment false alarms about the dangers of ozone, radon, Alar (used in apple orchards), dioxins, and asbestos.
Click to expand...

False alarms about asbestos? Asbestosis was killing people 50 years before the EPA was founded.
 
Deuce said:
Enough **** was being dumped into a river to become combustible. And you're saying it's no big deal.

People killed by smog. No big deal.

Black lung disease. No big deal.

How many instances of cancer and other health issues from lead exposure are you comfortable with?
Click to expand...



How many black teenagers are you comfortable with being unable to find jobs because of the costs environmental regulations impose on businesses which otherwise might be able to hire them?
 
RenoCon said:
Me thinks Deuce has bitten off more than he can chew, but he continues to flop around on the deck like the proverbial "gut hooked" fish (thank you, quazimoto) causing more and more damage with each squirm. Carry on fellows, I am enjoying the spectacle.
Click to expand...

Stunning rebuttal.

Methinks you're unwilling to admit the free market, left to its own devices, doesn't give a **** about pollution and will create some horrifying conditions.
 
Northern Light said:
After spending time in China and India, I think anyone who is against a regulatory body that protects people from toxic land, water and air is a total idiot. It's not even as bad as poisoning products because at least people can make consumer choices to avoid those products; but when you poison the environment, there is no escape.

The lunacy is off the charts. If we completely destroy our ecological heritage, everyone will be at risk. The rich have this idea that they can just build bunkers and hold out, but there's nowhere they can hide. We all depend on the balance. That this fact still bears repeating in 2017 to the so-called "greatest nation on earth" and the morons running it is beyond me.
Click to expand...

No one is against such. All you powwow crying about dirty air and water .... you know this about political and regulatory overreach. Not because we on the right want flaming rivers or "dirty" air
 
matchlight said:
How many black teenagers are you comfortable with being unable to find jobs because of the costs environmental regulations impose on businesses which otherwise might be able to hire them?
Click to expand...

Elaborate on why you think black jobs matter more than white jobs.
 
Renae said:
No one is against such. All you powwow crying about dirty air and water .... you know this about political and regulatory overreach. Not because we on the right want flaming rivers or "dirty" air
Click to expand...

And yet, you're supporting an action which will create dirtier air. But you'll never admit that. You're even unwilling to admit dirty air is something that happens, you give that away by putting it in scare quotes.

I bet you're one of those people who will look at old smog photos and convince yourself that ohh that was just a foggy day. Dirty air is a myth!

Move next to an unfiltered coal plant if you think that's not an issue. I bet the land will be cheaper!
 
How many conservatives are willing to admit they believe every single EPA regulation is unwarranted?
 
Renae said:
No one is against such. All you powwow crying about dirty air and water .... you know this about political and regulatory overreach. Not because we on the right want flaming rivers or "dirty" air
Click to expand...

But this is the problem, you completely ignore the actual implications of what you believe, that they're abstract and won't affect anyone and everything will be hunky dory.

What we've seen from American businesses is when they can, they will **** over Americans where regulations either don't exist or permit them to do so.
 
Deuce said:
Stunning rebuttal.

Methinks you're unwilling to admit the free market, left to its own devices, doesn't give a **** about pollution and will create some horrifying conditions.
Click to expand...

I provided no rebuttal, that would be piling on. Matchlight is doing a fine job and I prefer to just sit back and watch the debate unfold, and provide occasional play-by-play. To continue the analogy: Matchlight has you gut hooked and were I to provide actual substance (rebuttal) I would just be kicking the fish that is flopping around on the deck. That would ruin the meat, and it would not be nearly as tasty when it is finally consumed.
 
Renae said:
No one is against such. All you powwow crying about dirty air and water .... you know this about political and regulatory overreach. Not because we on the right want flaming rivers or "dirty" air
Click to expand...

Can you please learn to read before you decide to start foaming at the mouth?

When a branch of government doesn't work properly, you reform it, you don't fire everyone and gut the major policies of the past decades.

The fact that you self-align with the "right" in a mundane topic of discussion is pathetically sectarian. I don't align with anything so that must really fry your circuits.
 
spud_meister said:
False alarms about asbestos? Asbestosis was killing people 50 years before the EPA was founded.
Click to expand...

You should have also called out radon. Radon is pretty much harmless in small amounts, but in large quantities it can be very damaging to health. Radon has occured from radioactive decay and even certain types of rocks including granite. In california they had houses abandoned when it was realized the redon gas levels were practically lethal, and some of these houses were pretty old.

It would be a shocker to buy a 115 year old house, to find out how radioactive it is, or that it was built upon uranium deposits.
 
China leads world in pollution. US lags too far behind. Bad! We can do better. Make America Stinky Again.
 
I demand the right to be slowly poisoned by entities that will not be held accountable, or if they are, 20 years after my death!

^
Sarcasm






Honestly, the saddest thing about the cheerleaders for these kinds of measures is that they honestly believe that corporations will behave properly out of the kindness of their hearts and any who don't will be sacked by the magical market; anarchy with an overly/overtly Kumbayah bent.
 
RenoCon said:
I provided no rebuttal, that would be piling on. Matchlight is doing a fine job and I prefer to just sit back and watch the debate unfold, and provide occasional play-by-play. To continue the analogy: Matchlight has you gut hooked and were I to provide actual substance (rebuttal) I would just be kicking the fish that is flopping around on the deck. That would ruin the meat, and it would not be nearly as tasty when it is finally consumed.
Click to expand...

Is he? Is he really doing a good job providing an argument for eliminating every single environmental regulation? Is that what you think he's doing?
 
Northern Light said:
Can you please learn to read before you decide to start foaming at the mouth?

When a branch of government doesn't work properly, you reform it, you don't fire everyone and gut the major policies of the past decades.

The fact that you self-align with the "right" in a mundane topic of discussion is pathetically sectarian. I don't align with anything so that must really fry your circuits.
Click to expand...

What branch of government are you referring to? The Constitution established only three branches. The EPA is one administrative agency which forms one small part of the Executive Branch. Congress created it by law, and Congress should dissolve it. It is abusing its power, and it is not doing nearly enough good to justify the enormous costs it imposes, both on the people it habitually bullies and on our national economy.

Each of the several states is capable of regulating the physical environment within its own territory. Where an environmental problem truly involves more than one state--e.g. pollution of a river that forms a boundary between states--Congress can make laws to address that problem. States can also enter into agreements to regulate an environmental problem they share.
 
That bill will not go anywhere. Just political showmanship.
 
Northern Light said:
After spending time in China and India, I think anyone who is against a regulatory body that protects people from toxic land, water and air is a total idiot. It's not even as bad as poisoning products because at least people can make consumer choices to avoid those products; but when you poison the environment, there is no escape.

The lunacy is off the charts. If we completely destroy our ecological heritage, everyone will be at risk. The rich have this idea that they can just build bunkers and hold out, but there's nowhere they can hide. We all depend on the balance. That this fact still bears repeating in 2017 to the so-called "greatest nation on earth" and the morons running it is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Where exactly did you get the idea that the rich think they can build bunkers and hide out. I am sorry but I highly doubt there are actually any real number of rich people that think that. It sounds like you believe in some cartoon version of what a rich person is onstead of dealing with reality.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Trump? Would either of you mind showing me where Trump has anything to do with this bill? Looking at the names of the people who introduced it and I don't see Trumps name in there. Both of you should be ashamed of the partisan hackery that you are displaying here.
Click to expand...

OK, I jumped the gun here. My reaction is the opposite of Katzgar's otherwise...If it reaches Trump's desk he'll sign it and I'm glad. And I'm happy he'll do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom