GOP plans to slash funding to EPA and cut environmental rules.

[Platapus]

From an economics standpoint, cutting the EPA is like being on the Titanic after she struck an iceberg and deciding to fix a leaky faucet.


Focus needs to be on the Military Industrial Complex, Social Security Programs, and Medicare.

Anything else is small spuds.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Platapus

From an economics standpoint, cutting the EPA is like being on the Titanic after she struck an iceberg and deciding to fix a leaky faucet.


Focus needs to be on the Military Industrial Complex, Social Security Programs, and Medicare.

Anything else is small spuds.

while there is some truth to that... i think that there is also the whole "death by a million paper cuts" concept here too.

cutting a lot of things from the budget adds up too

EDIT:

i think it shows something interesting about our two parties when one wants to cut over $50B from the budget and the other about $5B

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

while there is some truth to that... i think that there is also the whole "death by a million paper cuts" concept here too.

cutting a lot of things from the budget adds up too

EDIT:

i think it shows something interesting about our two parties when one wants to cut over $50B from the budget and the other about $5B

I also think it is interesting that this $50 billion is but a drop in the bucket compared to the total budget, and that nearly all of those cuts are from the welfare and heath sectors. The 24% of the US budget that goes to defense spending remains largely untouched. This seems far more ideological, and far less practical. I think that Platapus' point stands.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

these little POS EPA Gas Cans that are not vented, and require you to tip the gas can with one hand, while pulling back and twisting the sheath on the pour spout with the other hand... they SUCK and are a horrible idea.

the reality of it is that 5 gallons of gas weighs about 30 lbs, they pour at a rate of about one gallon per 2-3 minutes and it requires considerable effort to operate such an awkward device for 10-12 minutes in such a twisted half assed manner as they recommend.

A typical committee decision -- take something simple and complicate it to the point of being insanely counter-intuitive. I give 'em an A+ for job effectiveness.

[Rockstar]

I hope this equates to reducing certain regulations.

I live on an island that is speedily washing away with the tides. About 3 acres a year and there isn't much left. They say environmental studies need to be done before a protective barrier may be constructed. Got to protect the greenery and ecosystem heaven forbid if we harm that! Farking environmental bureaucrats don't get it that in ten years there won't be any greenery or an Island. Homes will wash in trash sewage everything. All these idiots are concerned with are environmental impact studies about a seawall and and several acres of sandy bottom. Thanks to idiotic environmental regulations!

Look at Tangier, VA on Google Earth. Look on the north end of the island. In the 50's there was a village grocey store, movie theatre, church homes with about 500 people living there. But now all you see a small structure it WAS a hunting lodge. Scroll through the maps, start I think in 1997 and it goes up 2007. The last map shows it falling into the water. Today 2011 I can tell you it doesn't exist.

[flatsixes]

You on Tangier Island, Rockstar?
God bless you, man.
I mean it.

[Rockstar]

Yep. My wife and I are "come heres" arrived last year. Somehow we found ourselves running the Tangier History Museum and Interpretive Cultural Center. We are hoping to bring public attention to the situation here and get something done. We would like to buy a home here but if we can't get a seawall we might find ourselves living on the Eastern Shore.

May Yehovah Elohim Bless you too!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Funding for these sorts of projects are such a small piece of the pie. It's clear that this isn't about budget concerns - it's pure politics.

It seems we share some opinions. Just replace "funding" with "executives" and you pretty much have one of the points of my argument against regulating corporate salaries.


However, this EPA funding business is not just politics, though they indubitably play a large part. What GR was trying to say and that probably didn't come across clearly was that the EPA often grossly misuses the funds allocated to them and their regulations are often unnecessary and/or damaging to the economy. I can understand his obvious frustration; he is trying to run a business in a system where it seems like the government is out to control everything you do, charges you for doing so, and then penalizes you if you fail to follow rules so complicated that no human could possibly comprehend all of them. That's in addition to the normal penalties for profitability and creating employment opportunities, if you ever get that far.

Notwithstanding the fact that the EPA's budget for FY2011 is over 10 billion dollars in capital that could be used to do something productive but is instead largely wasted (I'll cover that in a moment), you're not taking into account the unintended consequences that accompany such regulation. As I said, the rules are so complicated that nobody understands them, including the EPA, which is why they sometimes have regulations that are mutually exclusive or otherwise conflict each other. I'll spare you the lengthy description of the three big ones in the railroad industry unless someone really wants to hear them. But think about it - even one incidence of conflicting regs in one industry is an obvious sign that the rules are overly complex. Now think about it from the perspective of a small business owner. You've put everything you have into your venture, and assumed a comparitively large amount of debt in doing so. Now you have to hire a specialist (read: expensive)just to avoid being fined out of existence or jailed outright, and even then you are not immune because the regs are changing or some agent decides to enforce some obscure one your specialist missed or misinterpreted.

Though most of this post is intended to address everyone, I want the people who are quick to assume that the state is inherently good or moral or at least better than big business to consider the above and what I am about to say carefully. In a system that is so complex that specialists are needed to navigate it and failure to comply results in hefty penalties, who do you think is going to consistently come out on top, or even endure? I'll give you a hint: It's not the small businesses we all love because it's politically "A-OK". They're practically DOA, even if they arrive to begin with. Many more prospective small businesspeople just say "to hell with it" and don't even bother trying. Don't believe me? Try filing an environmental impact statement sometime if you can come up with the capital. Call me back in a few years when you get the results and let me know how it worked out.

I doubt anyone here needs the point to be spelled out for them but I'll do it anyway for the sake of completeness. Those greedy big businesses you love to hate and the rich investors that back them - you eliminated a major part of their problems, namely competition from small business. And should you decide to change the regulations to reign them in, they'll simply lobby to have the regulations changed to exclude more prospective competitors, or they'll go somewhere else. Pretty much everything the left has to complain about when it comes to big business is their own damn fault for thinking that the government was an effective agency for implementing their desired results.

Alright, that part I asked some to carefully consider is now over, but it segues nicely into my next point, which is the effectiveness of the EPA itself. The only parts of the moniker "Environmental Protection Agency" that are true is that it is indeed and agency and it has something to do with the environment.

I can understand why people would think that they need some kind of protection from the ravages of brutal corporate exploitation of the environment. I, too, was raised on a public school diet with a healthy serving of environmental awareness. For years I thought that the EPA and the active efforts of young people like myself were necessary to combat the grevious harms inflicted on our planet by soulless corporations that cared only about profit. Ironically, I discovered that it is the fact that corporations care only about profit that makes them good for the environment. Sure, they'll try to cut corners where they can, but they also have to sell a product. If they cause some major disaster or are caught engaging in practices that are actively destructive, they have a PR nightmare on their hands, not to mention the catastrophic results their activities have on sales and investment. In a world where quarterly results can mean the difference between employment and unemployment, you can be damn sure that corporations are keeping a close eye on anything that might negatively affect their image. Yes, from time to time they screw up, but they pay for it when they do, and are forced to adopt new practices. Sometimes, they pay for it so heavily that they cease to exist. Problem solved.

The EPA, on the other hand, does not pay for its mistakes. On the contrary, it requests more funding to prevent such incidents from occuring in the future. I can't make the point that the EPA hasn't ever actually prevented a disaster because we'd never know about it if they did, (though given their record I'm sure they would trumpet it in the media) but I can certainly make the point that they have allowed entirely too many environmental disasters to occur for the price we are paying. I could also make the point that the environmental impact of industries capable of making an impact has simply shifted elsewhere, but why bother when we can boil it down further?

The EPA is a reactive entity, as is any government agency. It only exists because people got pissed off enough about the environment to make the issue political, and even then, it took years to effect. It is not driven by profit and it is not accountable for its failures because the political motivation to keep it around remains. It lives and dies on the effectiveness of its cause, not results. Business, on the other hand, has to be proactive if it is to survive, save where it gets the opportunity to co-opt the state to mandate its existence, directly or indirectly.

If you really look at what the EPA is, and the system it is built upon, the mountains of regulations and non-corresponding number of environmental accidents that were not prevented should be telling. To be fair, EPA initiatives have probably helped increase environmental awareness to the point where the private sector must acknowledge that they are going to have to deal with it if they want to sell products and avoid negative attention. Credit where credit is due. But do we really need to spend ten billion dollars per year on an agency whose primary goal has largely been accomplished? Not unless they can convince you that they still have an essential role to play.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I also think it is interesting that this $50 billion is but a drop in the bucket compared to the total budget, and that nearly all of those cuts are from the welfare and heath sectors. The 24% of the US budget that goes to defense spending remains largely untouched. This seems far more ideological, and far less practical. I think that Platapus' point stands.

Im not disagreeing with Platapus.

Im only stating the fact that both parties are releasing these insanely small budget cut figures.

What we are basically illustrating right here in this very thread is that Americans in general really want to cut the budget, trim the fat and try to "right the ship" economically speaking

BUT...

nobody wants to be the one to cinch that belt up. Nobody wants their little baby pet project to be the one getting cut or getting the axe altogether. They want everyone else to be the ones to suffer.

the left and the right both have their different ideas of what to cut and none of it is enough. and even if it were the right number they cannot agree on ANYTHING.

and Joe American is reading the morning news saying to himself "WOW!!! they can really cut $50B from the budget? thats great news!!" but only because they are too stupid to realize that $50B is CHUMP CHANGE... with the numbers we are talking about that is "walkin' around money."

WE are our own worst enemy. None of us can agree on ANYTHING and in the meantime the ship continues to sink.

and next on the congressional agenda? this useless waste of space... This pile of stinking trash that is our United States Congress... whats next for them? ---- to pass whatever budget bill they can to avoid a shut down of the government* no matter how crappy or nonsensical the budget might be they will pass it in there at the last second just for the sake of passing something - On saint Patricks day - while you're not looking!. and this is the process that is going to break the back of this country.

Bicker

Argue

fuss

complain

reach the deadline and pass something because something is theoretically better than nothing.

rinse, wash, repeat - the same cycle next year... until the federal deficit becomes a number so large that it has to be expressed in scientific notation

The reason there are so many disagreements on fundamental policy issues is that the Government has too many irons in the fire... they have their hands on SO MANY private issues that it cant be kept up with. the budget is stretched so thin to so many different directions and there are so many special interests tied up in this whole mess that these politicians are trying to make everyone happy and THEY CANT!

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Our lives are overly regulated by these EPA a-holes

They shut down a local construction site for a whole day because they had the wrong style of gas cans for christs sake.

The gas can the EPA recommends is a pure POS and has resulted in me accidentally dumping at least a half gallon per fill up into the local lake.

In most cases- I think the morons at the EPA cause more harm than good.

And face it... Virtually every aspect of your life is regulated by these turds. These sub-human pieces of trash mandate everything from the type of light bulbs you buy to the type of gas cans you can store fuel in within your own GD garage.

If we don't strike back they WILL regulate us right into extinction.

The problem is proper regulation. Running a paint contracting business, I'm set up as a small quanity generator of haz. waste. The cost, paperwork, visits and fines for writing a label wrong is amazing. I refused to dump 1000's of gallons of chemical on the ground, so guess who the EPA only checks on...guys like me that signed up to do it right. Meanwhile, 100's of illegal mexicans dump tons of chemicals on the ground, backyards, dumpsters, sinks, etc....never bother them.

With government it's either too much or too little.

Read a story not long ago in Alaska where the water cleaning plant is, they applied for federal funds like all. They needed to reline or something. The problem was their water wasn't dirty enough by standards. In order to get the funds they were required to lessen standards to make the water dirty.
They did and were approved.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I can understand why people would think that they need some kind of protection from the ravages of brutal corporate exploitation of the environment. I, too, was raised on a public school diet with a healthy serving of environmental awareness. For years I thought that the EPA and the active efforts of young people like myself were necessary to combat the grevious harms inflicted on our planet by soulless corporations that cared only about profit. Ironically, I discovered that it is the fact that corporations care only about profit that makes them good for the environment. Sure, they'll try to cut corners where they can, but they also have to sell a product. If they cause some major disaster or are caught engaging in practices that are actively destructive, they have a PR nightmare on their hands, not to mention the catastrophic results their activities have on sales and investment. In a world where quarterly results can mean the difference between employment and unemployment, you can be damn sure that corporations are keeping a close eye on anything that might negatively affect their image. Yes, from time to time they screw up, but they pay for it when they do, and are forced to adopt new practices. Sometimes, they pay for it so heavily that they cease to exist. Problem solved.

I believe that this is where theoretical libertarianism fails in the face of the real world. How can your market based solution act in the face of untracable pollution? How do consumers know what percentage of smog is due to which oil refinery or petrochemical plant?

Let's take a look at some scenes from China, where environmental regulations are lax to non-existant:

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

nobody wants to be the one to cinch that belt up. Nobody wants their little baby pet project to be the one getting cut or getting the axe altogether. They want everyone else to be the ones to suffer.

the left and the right both have their different ideas of what to cut and none of it is enough. and even if it were the right number they cannot agree on ANYTHING.

I can't argue with that.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I believe that this is where theoretical libertarianism fails in the face of the real world. How can your market based solution act in the face of untracable pollution? How do consumers know what percentage of smog is due to which oil refinery or petrochemical plant?

Let's take a look at some scenes from China, where environmental regulations are lax to non-existant:

Point made, sure the GOP would lax some standards, but were not talking this. Course it's places like this our corporations go to to make big money.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Course it's places like this our corporations go to to make big money.

Proving that if given the chance, they'll put profits above all else. Their shareholders demand nothing less.

I don't want to hold the EPA up as a model bureaucracy, because a lot of what they do is red tape and BS, but to say that means that the goal of imposing regulations to protect our environment is foolish is wrong.

[GoldenRivet]

i dont think anyone would say regulating the care for our environment is foolish.

i would think that a fair amount of the regulation is "trivial" though

edit:

what i mean by trivial and by my previous comments is simple:

obviously you dont want a construction company storing gasoline in one of these


but im talking about shutting down the construction of a school for an entire day because they had these


instead of these







trivial