Bush Budget cuts EPA funding.....WHY?

[jumper03 0]

This is an agency charged with making sure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.


and you want to cut it's funding????
WHY???

Is your next breath not worth much to you Mr. President?

Jump

Scars remind us that the past is real

[billvon 3,120]

>and you want to cut it's funding????
>WHY???

Because the rest of the US is not enough like Texas for his liking!

Seriously, because he has to cut spending (which he really does have to do) and places a low priority on protecting the environment. Personally, I'd cut the tens of billions in Wal-Mart and oil company subsidies first, but that's just me.

[rehmwa 2]

cut the subsidies!!

And the first posting is assuming that the EPA is a lean organization. I suspect there's fat to be cut there too. Or are all EPA proposals super winners instead of just pandering?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Seriously, because he has to cut spending (which he really does have to do) and places a low priority on protecting the environment. Personally, I'd cut the tens of billions in Wal-Mart and oil company subsidies first, but that's just me.

Agreed. Why cut funding for big business that's already making hundreds of billions of dollars a year when you can cut funding to educational programs instead?

[jumper03 0]

Quote

cut the subsidies!!

And the first posting is assuming that the EPA is a lean organization. I suspect there's fat to be cut there too. Or are all EPA proposals super winners instead of just pandering?

no doubt it's plagued by the same disease at other government organizations. Too much money is wasted on beauracracy and not enough applied to solving the real world problems. I just find it hard to believe that when the budget axe starts flying around, the environment is almost always on the short end of the stick.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[rehmwa 2]

In an ideal world, then if environment is so important, then the budget cut should focus the efforts to be more efficient and targetted within the EPA (that means good solid statistical studies based on real data driving actions that actually have an effect, and not just short term data or the 'popular' environut of the day)

(that is, IF the beaurocracy at the EPA is sincere in improving the environment - or at least not causing serious harm - and not just pandering to popular fads to improve their individual political clout....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

This is an agency charged with making sure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.


and you want to cut it's funding????
WHY???

Because the oil sleazebags who funded his campaign want to make more money, and to do so they need to get the pesky environmental laws repealed.

They'll cause us to choke on smog and have birth defects in our children due to polluted water, but they're making money, so all is well.

Those who oppose other energies (nuke, hydro, solar) in favor of polluting ones are a cancer on this planet, who will sicken us while they buy their next yacht.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

This is an agency charged with making sure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.


and you want to cut it's funding????
WHY???

Is your next breath not worth much to you Mr. President?

Jump

Perhaps because the EPA doesn't "clean the environment". It only ensures businesses comply with the law. If compliance is increasing, then the need to enforce the law is not needed as much.

As an example. We have a road near my house that was a problem with speeding vehicles. After they set up radar traps, and then speed bumps, the compliance went up and there was less of a need for law enforcement.

[DrewGPM 0]

it all depends on what programs get cut. And is it really a cut, our did we just not increase spending on it? If most department grow at 6%, but the EPA only gets 2%, I've seen that charecterized as a cut.

A few years ago they listed some of the cuts Bush Sr made to the budget.

$100K+ that was spent on the Tea Commission. This a group of people who got together once a quarter(I think), stayed a expensive hotels and taste tested tea. all most people heard waas that $100K was being cut from the budget the agriculture department. They assume Bush was in favor of unsafe food prducts and was trying to make it easier for corporate farmers to squeeze out the little guys. They shut up when they found out about the Tea Commission...tough to argue that we need that.

$75k+ that was being spent of the Capitol Building Ice Program. When first built the building there was no such thing as a freezers. Buckets of ice had to be brought to each room every day. With the advent of freezers and automatic ice machine, we really didn't need that anymore. Sad that it took until the early 90's to kill that, but I'm glad it's gone.

i'm sure every department has programs like that. It has to easier to find these in a department as small as the EPA.

[livendive 8]

Quote

This is an agency charged with making sure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.


and you want to cut it's funding????
WHY???

Is your next breath not worth much to you Mr. President?

You're not suggesting you're actually surprized are you? It's been pretty obvious for quite some time that environmental protection isn't a concern the Shrub worries his little head about.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Personally, I'd cut the tens of billions in Wal-Mart and oil company subsidies first, but that's just me.

Which could result in serious job loss due to the companies needing to cut their losses.

Which is more important? The health and welfare of the economy or temperary cuts with the EPA?

Bill, look past those cuddily hugging trees and look at the big picture.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I'd cut the tens of billions in Wal-Mart and oil company subsidies first, but that's just me.

Which could result in serious job loss due to the companies needing to cut their losses.

Which is more important? The health and welfare of the economy or temperary cuts with the EPA?

Bill, look past those cuddily hugging trees and look at the big picture.

You don't think the EPA employs people or causes people to be employed? And at MUCH better wages than the average Wal-Mart clerk?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

You don't think the EPA employs people or causes people to be employed? And at MUCH better wages than the average Wal-Mart clerk?

Are you suggesting that the EPA employs MORE people then Wal-Mart? How about Wal-Mart, Haliburton and all the other oil companies?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

You don't think the EPA employs people or causes people to be employed? And at MUCH better wages than the average Wal-Mart clerk?

Are you suggesting that the EPA employs MORE people then Wal-Mart? How about Wal-Mart, Haliburton and all the other oil companies?

No, I'm suggesting that cutting jobs in the Wal-Mart sector will have less of a detrimental effect on the economy than cutting jobs in the environmental sector.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I'd cut the tens of billions in Wal-Mart and oil company subsidies first, but that's just me.

Which could result in serious job loss due to the companies needing to cut their losses.

Which is more important? The health and welfare of the economy or temperary cuts with the EPA?

Bill, look past those cuddily hugging trees and look at the big picture.

Cut their losses?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I heard anything about them, they weren't losing any money.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

they weren't losing any money.

Not now, but they could with Bill's suggestion...LOTS of money.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

they weren't losing any money.

Not now, but they could with Bill's suggestion...LOTS of money.

So why is it the government's job to keep multi-billion dollar companies from losing money?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

So why is it the government's job to keep multi-billion dollar companies from losing money?

In a perfect world, it wouldn't be and shouldn't be. In the real world, think about the serious hit the economy would take if all of a sudden, Wal-Mart went under.

Think beyond the thousands and thousands of Wal-Mart employees. Think beyond the train and trucking industry used to support Wal-Mart, think beyond the construction, electrical and all the other contractors needed to build and maintain each one of the Wal-Mart stores, storehouses and offices. Think beyond the the thousands of workers making and building items to be sold in those stores.

Think about their children going hungry!


(how was that for a "liberal" answer?)



Ok, joking aside, I assume my point about the influence a mega-corporation like this has on the health of the economy has been made. The economy is just now turning around from the serious hit from 9/11. Think about the health of the economy and the importance of the health of the economy for the survival of the country.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Which could result in serious job loss due to the companies needing to cut their losses.
Which is more important? The health and welfare of the economy or temperary cuts with the EPA?

...although i heard a report this morning, stating that some Wal-Mart employees were meaking so little, they were eligible for welfare. If that's the case, why is someone employed AND collecting welfare legally? And, again if true, why would the same company that pays so little be receiving subsidies?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[jumper03 0]

Quote

Quote

Personally, I'd cut the tens of billions in Wal-Mart and oil company subsidies first, but that's just me.

Which could result in serious job loss due to the companies needing to cut their losses.

Which is more important? The health and welfare of the economy or temperary cuts with the EPA?

Bill, look past those cuddily hugging trees and look at the big picture.

You're defending subsidies to Wal-Mart because they employ people? You need to read up on the state senator in Montana that is proposing a special tax on stores like wal-mart. They pay their employees the minimum amount they can and spread the work so they reduce the number of full time employees. You end up with many Wal-mart employees seeking food stamps and help from medicaid to cover the short fall. So wal-mart employees DO get health insurance - but at the governments expense. He's proposing a tax on profit over $20 Million on stores that have less than 75% full time employees and pay minimum wages to make up the shortfalls that we as taxpayers have to assume.

Scars remind us that the past is real

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Which could result in serious job loss due to the companies needing to cut their losses.

WalMart is the worlds largest retailer and in no need of subsidies to stay profitable. If there is an oil company losing money at this point in time, the issues are bigger than something a subsidy can solve.

Maybe with some companies I can see subsidies being needed, WalMart and oil companies certainly aren't part of them.

[billvon 3,120]

>I suspect there's fat to be cut there too.

Why is it that every politician figures that they are the first ones to realize that there is fat to be cut? Every politician since the 1800's has campaigned on 'cutting the fat" - as if all governmental agencies are these bloated things waiting for a strong leader to come along and make them lean and efficient machines. After, say, 50 reorgs so they are "leaner," eventually you realize that you're doing more reorganizations and 'fat trimming' than actual work.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

So why is it the government's job to keep multi-billion dollar companies from losing money?

In a perfect world, it wouldn't be and shouldn't be. In the real world, think about the serious hit the economy would take if all of a sudden, Wal-Mart went under.

Think beyond the thousands and thousands of Wal-Mart employees. Think beyond the train and trucking industry used to support Wal-Mart, think beyond the construction, electrical and all the other contractors needed to build and maintain each one of the Wal-Mart stores, storehouses and offices. Think beyond the the thousands of workers making and building items to be sold in those stores.

Think about their children going hungry!


(how was that for a "liberal" answer?)



Ok, joking aside, I assume my point about the influence a mega-corporation like this has on the health of the economy has been made. The economy is just now turning around from the serious hit from 9/11. Think about the health of the economy and the importance of the health of the economy for the survival of the country.

And if Wal-Mart went under, what about all the jobs that would be created by their competitors ? If they are receiving free money from the gov't, what motivation do they have to increase profits by improving efficiency like alot of other companies have done?

It just pisses me off when my tax money ends up in the pocket of some millionaire CEO.

[billvon 3,120]

>Which could result in serious job loss due to the companies needing to
>cut their losses.

Exactly. The chinese would lose jobs. I care more about americans than about the chinese.

The first effect of Wal-Mart doing poorly is that the amount of US manufactured goods sold in the US would go up, since Wal-Mart imports more than 70% of its goods from China. A second effect would be that benefits, on average, would go up, since wal-mart does such an abysmal job taking care of their workers.

>Which is more important? The health and welfare of the economy or
>temperary cuts with the EPA?

The health and welfare of americans is more important than the health and welfare of the chinese (or of wal-mart.)

>Bill, look past those cuddily hugging trees and look at the big picture.

And get that faded US flag sticker off your bumper and realize that "buying american" means supporting american manufacturing - not shopping at wal-mart. If you look past the window dressing, you'll realize that wal-mart is the one of the best things that ever happened to the chinese economy, but one of the worst things that's happened to US workers.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

This is an agency charged with making sure we have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.


and you want to cut it's funding????
WHY???

Is your next breath not worth much to you Mr. President?

Jump

Texas is the most polluted state in the nation....hmmmmm

There may be fat there that can be trimmed (esp when it can buy more bombs), but remember how Bush promised in his debates how he was going to help the environment???

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....