kelpdiver 2 #26 February 8, 2005 Quote 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. What sort of disaster would it take for WalMart to suddenly go under? Senior management caught hold gladiator games with minority employees? Even then it would retain the redneck business. Kmart still exists - that tells you everything. No way could Walmart fail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #27 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuote 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. What sort of disaster would it take for WalMart to suddenly go under? Senior management caught hold gladiator games with minority employees? Even then it would retain the redneck business. Kmart still exists - that tells you everything. No way could Walmart fail. And now Sears has the "Sears Grand" stores to compete with Walmart, and they just announced today their smaller, dedicated stores that will go into the spots where they purchased old WalMart and Kmart buildings. The big box store is here to stay._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #28 February 8, 2005 Quote Texas is the most polluted state in the nation....hmmmmm reply] I'm not denying it, but where did you get that information? Edit: cause I can't type today Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #29 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuote Texas is the most polluted state in the nation....hmmmmm reply] I'm denying it, but where did you get that information? Heard it on the local Dallas news radio station a few months back when I was in town._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #30 February 8, 2005 Quote>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" - .... eventually you realize that you're doing more reorganizations and 'fat trimming' than actual work. It's never a one time thing, it's towing the line constantly against the inertia that a governement agency has towards getting fat. I do agree about the reorg and cycling to just look busy - it's called 'fat'. Better solution is to eliminate as many departments as possible so that the effort to keep things efficient is managable. So let's start with simpler tax codes (like a flat tax with up front exemptions and eliminate most of the IRS. Let's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law and then cut those laws that are not explicitly supported by science. Let's get rid of homeland security and use the coast guard and border patrol and cops, etc as previously but with more defined purpose. Let's privatize education and soc sec as soon as possible and get rid of that. Eliminate welfare and put that on states and local and private charity. let the parks be owned by their states, not the nat gov., let's not subsidize any private business or foreign countries except on a case by case business (like natural disasters, one chunk of money but not a steady stream), eliminate the Nat End for the Arts completely, ...........etc. etc. etc. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #31 February 8, 2005 QuoteAnd 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. Uh, huh. And everytime Walmart tries to open another store, we hear the screams and outrage from the local community about how Walmart will put all the mom and pop businesses under. But whose cars are those in Walmarts parking lot once they are open? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #32 February 8, 2005 Speaking of gov'ts wasting money, do you remember hearing about Dallas spending 94,000$ on a study to find out how a Gorilla got out of his cage at the Zoo last year? If I remember correctly, they had video of it jumping up and climbing out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #33 February 8, 2005 QuoteUh, huh. And everytime Walmart tries to open another store, we hear the screams and outrage from the local community about how Walmart will put all the mom and pop businesses under. But whose cars are those in Walmarts parking lot once they are open? Haliburton and Government? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #34 February 8, 2005 QuoteHaliburton and Government? Sorry, I've been watching CNN. Isn't now called Halivernment? Or is is Governburton? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #35 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteHaliburton and Government? Sorry, I've been watching CNN. Isn't now called Halivernment? Or is is Governburton? I thought it was Halibushcheney. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #36 February 8, 2005 >So let's start with simpler tax codes (like a flat tax with up front > exemptions and eliminate most of the IRS. Sounds good. >Let's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law . . . I agree there. Get rid of the whole new-source-review nonsense too. Everyone follows the same rules, period. >and then cut those laws that are not explicitly supported by science. Big problem there! Science doesn't work like that. At best it can give probablilities and likely outcomes; it is up to people (i.e. politicians) to decide what to do with that data. After Donora (and after seeing what happened in London, Bhopal etc) we have decided that we don't want a lot of people dying from pollution and chemical spills, thus we have an EPA. We still have about 20,000 people a year dying from particulate pollution, mainly from coal fired power plants. It comes down to a tradeoff - how many people are we willing to let die to have cheaper power? At some point, power's going to be so expensive that people can't afford it, and they'll freeze or whatever, so that's too much restriction. At the other extreme we have Donora, and we have agreed we don't want that again. It takes some intelligence to decide where that line should be drawn - which is why you can't just pass laws that support the raw science. (BTW if you at least base the decisions you make on science, that means you have to fund the science too.) >Let's privatize education and soc sec as soon as possible and get rid of that. Privatizing education would destroy this country. There is nothing more critical to the future economic survival of this country than education, and effectively making it optional (indeed, making it economically wise to not send your kids to school) would be a disaster. >Eliminate welfare and put that on states and local and private charity. As long as you set that up beforehand - that's OK. I don't believe we're the sort of country that would be OK with tens of thousands of our citizens dying every year because we refuse to help them. But moving it to the state level is fine by me. >let the parks be owned by their states, not the nat gov. . . . I think I'd have to go with Teddy Roosevelt on that one. There are some places too valuable to us as a nation to develop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #37 February 8, 2005 QuoteYou'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. Well that'll hit fast food restaurants like McDonald's whose principal reason for scheduling part-time hours is that's all their employees (high school students) can spare. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #38 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteLet's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law . . . I agree there. Get rid of the whole new-source-review nonsense too. Everyone follows the same rules, period. Why and how? I think the whole "major modification" and "new point source" provisions were good ideas for gradually improving control technologies and overall air quality, rather than simply requiring full compliance with maximally stringent requirements for everyone. That would have closed a LOT of doors, some entire industries, and placed an awful lot of people out of work. Also, as regards everyone complying with the same rules, don't you think it's reasonable to place additional restrictions on emission sources immediately adjacent to pristine environments? Would you like to see coal-fired utilities and smelters running day and night right next to Yosemite? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #39 February 8, 2005 >I think the whole "major modification" and "new point source" > provisions were good ideas for gradually improving control > technologies and overall air quality, rather than simply requiring full > compliance with maximally stringent requirements for everyone. Agreed. That was the intent. It has since been warped into a loophole that allows utilities to run dirty plants forever without upgrading them. The new-source-review loophole essentially provides an economic incentive to not upgrade plants. The Salem and Brayton plants in Massachusetts are perfect examples - they've been operating for decades, and are singlehandedly responsible for hundreds of deaths a year. They'll never upgrade because they don't want to trigger the NSR and have to pay for better emissions controls. >Also, as regards everyone complying with the same rules, don't > you think it's reasonable to place additional restrictions on emission > sources immediately adjacent to pristine environments? Would you > like to see coal-fired utilities and smelters running day and night > right next to Yosemite? Would downtown LA be better? I have no problem with a power plant operating near yosemite _provided_ it meets all emissions requirements - and provided those are the emissions limits you can get with best available technology. If you're not willing to run it near a wilderness, it sure as shit shouldn't be running near people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #40 February 8, 2005 QuoteThis 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???? 5% overall. No big deal. Arm yourself with some facts: CNN News The Budget: EPA Do you give him any credit for increasing by $47 million the funding to clean up 600 toxic "brownfield" sites and adding $28 million to remove toxic sediments from the Great Lakes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites randomdude 0 #41 February 10, 2005 I can think of a supposedly "not for profit" .gov contractor that needs an enema, what with the majority of employees grossing $5.50/hr and the co. president grossing $630,000 before bennies and bonuses..... And while you're cutting fat, take a long hard look at BATF. Talk about an entity that has grown far too big for its britches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumper03 0 #42 February 10, 2005 Mr. Rich, I am armed with the facts. I did read those before hand and I do give Bush credit for what little good he has done. Quote5% overall. No big deal. So I assume you are prepared to accept a 5% decrease in the quality of air your family breathes? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase the amount of pollutants in the water your family drinks? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase in the contaminants in the soil that grows the crops you and your family consumes? I'm not. 5% isn't that big of a deal? I disagree.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #43 February 10, 2005 And how, exactly, do you equate all of your assertions with a 5% cut in EPA funding? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #44 February 10, 2005 QuoteSo I assume you are prepared to accept a 5% decrease in the quality of air your family breathes? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase the amount of pollutants in the water your family drinks? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase in the contaminants in the soil that grows the crops you and your family consumes? I'm not. 5% isn't that big of a deal? I disagree. A 5% budget cut does not equal a 5% increase in pollutants. That is an emotional argument that does not stand any test of logic. It means the EPA has to control spending...ALL companies are doing that now, why should the Government be different?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #45 February 10, 2005 QuoteThis 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 Bush 43's non-defense budget increases beyond inflation exceed Carter's, Reagan's, Bush 41's, and Clintons. The economy is currently sub-optimal. Mix that with the "war on terror" and we have a big budget problem. EPA programs fall into the non-defense discretionary category which are easier to cut. But this doesn't do anything significant. EVERYTHING in that category is just 18% of the budget. You could knock all $430,000,000,000 out of the budget and still have a twelve digit deficit including smoke and mirrors which make it look smaller than it really is (military excursions not in the budget, social security "surpluses" that gets borrowed, etc). Currently the environmental cuts are just single digit billions for 2005. With the big picture that's financially insignificant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumper03 0 #46 February 10, 2005 QuoteAnd how, exactly, do you equate all of your assertions with a 5% cut in EPA funding? Well, John said 5% was no big deal. I was just seeing if 5% really is a big deal or not.... A 5% budget cut could very well mean a 30% decrease in air quality or NO change in air quality. The question here is "is 5% a big deal?" I think yes it is, especially since you're messing with MY air.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #47 February 10, 2005 And you have no metric with which to estabilish your point, therefore no valid basis for making it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumper03 0 #48 February 10, 2005 QuoteAnd you have no metric with which to estabilish your point, therefore no valid basis for making it. Again I disagree and it all goes back to the first question that NO ONE has ever given my an answer to - so I pose it you o learned one.... How much is your next breath worth? When you have a number for me, lets add that to our equation and see if 5% is a big deal.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #49 February 10, 2005 No less than the one that preceded it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #50 February 10, 2005 QuoteA 5% budget cut could very well mean a 30% decrease in air quality or NO change in air quality. The question here is "is 5% a big deal?" I think yes it is, especially since you're messing with MY air. What Ron said: a 5% budget cut does not correlate to 5% more pollution. If you had a 5% cut in your paycheck, would that mean you would have to make 5% fewer skydives? Probably not. It just means you would cut some fat somewhere, to preserve your skydiving money. Maybe you would take a sandwich to work, instead of eating lunch out at a restaurant every day. The EPA will cut some fat somewhere, and I trust that they will do it in a way that doesn't affect air and water quality. No big deal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
ChasingBlueSky 0 #29 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuote Texas is the most polluted state in the nation....hmmmmm reply] I'm denying it, but where did you get that information? Heard it on the local Dallas news radio station a few months back when I was in town._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #30 February 8, 2005 Quote>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" - .... eventually you realize that you're doing more reorganizations and 'fat trimming' than actual work. It's never a one time thing, it's towing the line constantly against the inertia that a governement agency has towards getting fat. I do agree about the reorg and cycling to just look busy - it's called 'fat'. Better solution is to eliminate as many departments as possible so that the effort to keep things efficient is managable. So let's start with simpler tax codes (like a flat tax with up front exemptions and eliminate most of the IRS. Let's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law and then cut those laws that are not explicitly supported by science. Let's get rid of homeland security and use the coast guard and border patrol and cops, etc as previously but with more defined purpose. Let's privatize education and soc sec as soon as possible and get rid of that. Eliminate welfare and put that on states and local and private charity. let the parks be owned by their states, not the nat gov., let's not subsidize any private business or foreign countries except on a case by case business (like natural disasters, one chunk of money but not a steady stream), eliminate the Nat End for the Arts completely, ...........etc. etc. etc. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #31 February 8, 2005 QuoteAnd 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. Uh, huh. And everytime Walmart tries to open another store, we hear the screams and outrage from the local community about how Walmart will put all the mom and pop businesses under. But whose cars are those in Walmarts parking lot once they are open? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites justinb138 0 #32 February 8, 2005 Speaking of gov'ts wasting money, do you remember hearing about Dallas spending 94,000$ on a study to find out how a Gorilla got out of his cage at the Zoo last year? If I remember correctly, they had video of it jumping up and climbing out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #33 February 8, 2005 QuoteUh, huh. And everytime Walmart tries to open another store, we hear the screams and outrage from the local community about how Walmart will put all the mom and pop businesses under. But whose cars are those in Walmarts parking lot once they are open? Haliburton and Government? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #34 February 8, 2005 QuoteHaliburton and Government? Sorry, I've been watching CNN. Isn't now called Halivernment? Or is is Governburton? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #35 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteHaliburton and Government? Sorry, I've been watching CNN. Isn't now called Halivernment? Or is is Governburton? I thought it was Halibushcheney. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #36 February 8, 2005 >So let's start with simpler tax codes (like a flat tax with up front > exemptions and eliminate most of the IRS. Sounds good. >Let's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law . . . I agree there. Get rid of the whole new-source-review nonsense too. Everyone follows the same rules, period. >and then cut those laws that are not explicitly supported by science. Big problem there! Science doesn't work like that. At best it can give probablilities and likely outcomes; it is up to people (i.e. politicians) to decide what to do with that data. After Donora (and after seeing what happened in London, Bhopal etc) we have decided that we don't want a lot of people dying from pollution and chemical spills, thus we have an EPA. We still have about 20,000 people a year dying from particulate pollution, mainly from coal fired power plants. It comes down to a tradeoff - how many people are we willing to let die to have cheaper power? At some point, power's going to be so expensive that people can't afford it, and they'll freeze or whatever, so that's too much restriction. At the other extreme we have Donora, and we have agreed we don't want that again. It takes some intelligence to decide where that line should be drawn - which is why you can't just pass laws that support the raw science. (BTW if you at least base the decisions you make on science, that means you have to fund the science too.) >Let's privatize education and soc sec as soon as possible and get rid of that. Privatizing education would destroy this country. There is nothing more critical to the future economic survival of this country than education, and effectively making it optional (indeed, making it economically wise to not send your kids to school) would be a disaster. >Eliminate welfare and put that on states and local and private charity. As long as you set that up beforehand - that's OK. I don't believe we're the sort of country that would be OK with tens of thousands of our citizens dying every year because we refuse to help them. But moving it to the state level is fine by me. >let the parks be owned by their states, not the nat gov. . . . I think I'd have to go with Teddy Roosevelt on that one. There are some places too valuable to us as a nation to develop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #37 February 8, 2005 QuoteYou'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. Well that'll hit fast food restaurants like McDonald's whose principal reason for scheduling part-time hours is that's all their employees (high school students) can spare. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #38 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteLet's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law . . . I agree there. Get rid of the whole new-source-review nonsense too. Everyone follows the same rules, period. Why and how? I think the whole "major modification" and "new point source" provisions were good ideas for gradually improving control technologies and overall air quality, rather than simply requiring full compliance with maximally stringent requirements for everyone. That would have closed a LOT of doors, some entire industries, and placed an awful lot of people out of work. Also, as regards everyone complying with the same rules, don't you think it's reasonable to place additional restrictions on emission sources immediately adjacent to pristine environments? Would you like to see coal-fired utilities and smelters running day and night right next to Yosemite? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,118 #39 February 8, 2005 >I think the whole "major modification" and "new point source" > provisions were good ideas for gradually improving control > technologies and overall air quality, rather than simply requiring full > compliance with maximally stringent requirements for everyone. Agreed. That was the intent. It has since been warped into a loophole that allows utilities to run dirty plants forever without upgrading them. The new-source-review loophole essentially provides an economic incentive to not upgrade plants. The Salem and Brayton plants in Massachusetts are perfect examples - they've been operating for decades, and are singlehandedly responsible for hundreds of deaths a year. They'll never upgrade because they don't want to trigger the NSR and have to pay for better emissions controls. >Also, as regards everyone complying with the same rules, don't > you think it's reasonable to place additional restrictions on emission > sources immediately adjacent to pristine environments? Would you > like to see coal-fired utilities and smelters running day and night > right next to Yosemite? Would downtown LA be better? I have no problem with a power plant operating near yosemite _provided_ it meets all emissions requirements - and provided those are the emissions limits you can get with best available technology. If you're not willing to run it near a wilderness, it sure as shit shouldn't be running near people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #40 February 8, 2005 QuoteThis 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???? 5% overall. No big deal. Arm yourself with some facts: CNN News The Budget: EPA Do you give him any credit for increasing by $47 million the funding to clean up 600 toxic "brownfield" sites and adding $28 million to remove toxic sediments from the Great Lakes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites randomdude 0 #41 February 10, 2005 I can think of a supposedly "not for profit" .gov contractor that needs an enema, what with the majority of employees grossing $5.50/hr and the co. president grossing $630,000 before bennies and bonuses..... And while you're cutting fat, take a long hard look at BATF. Talk about an entity that has grown far too big for its britches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumper03 0 #42 February 10, 2005 Mr. Rich, I am armed with the facts. I did read those before hand and I do give Bush credit for what little good he has done. Quote5% overall. No big deal. So I assume you are prepared to accept a 5% decrease in the quality of air your family breathes? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase the amount of pollutants in the water your family drinks? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase in the contaminants in the soil that grows the crops you and your family consumes? I'm not. 5% isn't that big of a deal? I disagree.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #43 February 10, 2005 And how, exactly, do you equate all of your assertions with a 5% cut in EPA funding? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #44 February 10, 2005 QuoteSo I assume you are prepared to accept a 5% decrease in the quality of air your family breathes? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase the amount of pollutants in the water your family drinks? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase in the contaminants in the soil that grows the crops you and your family consumes? I'm not. 5% isn't that big of a deal? I disagree. A 5% budget cut does not equal a 5% increase in pollutants. That is an emotional argument that does not stand any test of logic. It means the EPA has to control spending...ALL companies are doing that now, why should the Government be different?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #45 February 10, 2005 QuoteThis 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 Bush 43's non-defense budget increases beyond inflation exceed Carter's, Reagan's, Bush 41's, and Clintons. The economy is currently sub-optimal. Mix that with the "war on terror" and we have a big budget problem. EPA programs fall into the non-defense discretionary category which are easier to cut. But this doesn't do anything significant. EVERYTHING in that category is just 18% of the budget. You could knock all $430,000,000,000 out of the budget and still have a twelve digit deficit including smoke and mirrors which make it look smaller than it really is (military excursions not in the budget, social security "surpluses" that gets borrowed, etc). Currently the environmental cuts are just single digit billions for 2005. With the big picture that's financially insignificant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumper03 0 #46 February 10, 2005 QuoteAnd how, exactly, do you equate all of your assertions with a 5% cut in EPA funding? Well, John said 5% was no big deal. I was just seeing if 5% really is a big deal or not.... A 5% budget cut could very well mean a 30% decrease in air quality or NO change in air quality. The question here is "is 5% a big deal?" I think yes it is, especially since you're messing with MY air.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #47 February 10, 2005 And you have no metric with which to estabilish your point, therefore no valid basis for making it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jumper03 0 #48 February 10, 2005 QuoteAnd you have no metric with which to estabilish your point, therefore no valid basis for making it. Again I disagree and it all goes back to the first question that NO ONE has ever given my an answer to - so I pose it you o learned one.... How much is your next breath worth? When you have a number for me, lets add that to our equation and see if 5% is a big deal.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TheAnvil 0 #49 February 10, 2005 No less than the one that preceded it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #50 February 10, 2005 QuoteA 5% budget cut could very well mean a 30% decrease in air quality or NO change in air quality. The question here is "is 5% a big deal?" I think yes it is, especially since you're messing with MY air. What Ron said: a 5% budget cut does not correlate to 5% more pollution. If you had a 5% cut in your paycheck, would that mean you would have to make 5% fewer skydives? Probably not. It just means you would cut some fat somewhere, to preserve your skydiving money. Maybe you would take a sandwich to work, instead of eating lunch out at a restaurant every day. The EPA will cut some fat somewhere, and I trust that they will do it in a way that doesn't affect air and water quality. No big deal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page 2 of 5 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #30 February 8, 2005 Quote>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" - .... eventually you realize that you're doing more reorganizations and 'fat trimming' than actual work. It's never a one time thing, it's towing the line constantly against the inertia that a governement agency has towards getting fat. I do agree about the reorg and cycling to just look busy - it's called 'fat'. Better solution is to eliminate as many departments as possible so that the effort to keep things efficient is managable. So let's start with simpler tax codes (like a flat tax with up front exemptions and eliminate most of the IRS. Let's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law and then cut those laws that are not explicitly supported by science. Let's get rid of homeland security and use the coast guard and border patrol and cops, etc as previously but with more defined purpose. Let's privatize education and soc sec as soon as possible and get rid of that. Eliminate welfare and put that on states and local and private charity. let the parks be owned by their states, not the nat gov., let's not subsidize any private business or foreign countries except on a case by case business (like natural disasters, one chunk of money but not a steady stream), eliminate the Nat End for the Arts completely, ...........etc. etc. etc. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 February 8, 2005 QuoteAnd 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. Uh, huh. And everytime Walmart tries to open another store, we hear the screams and outrage from the local community about how Walmart will put all the mom and pop businesses under. But whose cars are those in Walmarts parking lot once they are open? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #32 February 8, 2005 Speaking of gov'ts wasting money, do you remember hearing about Dallas spending 94,000$ on a study to find out how a Gorilla got out of his cage at the Zoo last year? If I remember correctly, they had video of it jumping up and climbing out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #33 February 8, 2005 QuoteUh, huh. And everytime Walmart tries to open another store, we hear the screams and outrage from the local community about how Walmart will put all the mom and pop businesses under. But whose cars are those in Walmarts parking lot once they are open? Haliburton and Government? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #34 February 8, 2005 QuoteHaliburton and Government? Sorry, I've been watching CNN. Isn't now called Halivernment? Or is is Governburton? ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #35 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteHaliburton and Government? Sorry, I've been watching CNN. Isn't now called Halivernment? Or is is Governburton? I thought it was Halibushcheney. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #36 February 8, 2005 >So let's start with simpler tax codes (like a flat tax with up front > exemptions and eliminate most of the IRS. Sounds good. >Let's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law . . . I agree there. Get rid of the whole new-source-review nonsense too. Everyone follows the same rules, period. >and then cut those laws that are not explicitly supported by science. Big problem there! Science doesn't work like that. At best it can give probablilities and likely outcomes; it is up to people (i.e. politicians) to decide what to do with that data. After Donora (and after seeing what happened in London, Bhopal etc) we have decided that we don't want a lot of people dying from pollution and chemical spills, thus we have an EPA. We still have about 20,000 people a year dying from particulate pollution, mainly from coal fired power plants. It comes down to a tradeoff - how many people are we willing to let die to have cheaper power? At some point, power's going to be so expensive that people can't afford it, and they'll freeze or whatever, so that's too much restriction. At the other extreme we have Donora, and we have agreed we don't want that again. It takes some intelligence to decide where that line should be drawn - which is why you can't just pass laws that support the raw science. (BTW if you at least base the decisions you make on science, that means you have to fund the science too.) >Let's privatize education and soc sec as soon as possible and get rid of that. Privatizing education would destroy this country. There is nothing more critical to the future economic survival of this country than education, and effectively making it optional (indeed, making it economically wise to not send your kids to school) would be a disaster. >Eliminate welfare and put that on states and local and private charity. As long as you set that up beforehand - that's OK. I don't believe we're the sort of country that would be OK with tens of thousands of our citizens dying every year because we refuse to help them. But moving it to the state level is fine by me. >let the parks be owned by their states, not the nat gov. . . . I think I'd have to go with Teddy Roosevelt on that one. There are some places too valuable to us as a nation to develop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #37 February 8, 2005 QuoteYou'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. Well that'll hit fast food restaurants like McDonald's whose principal reason for scheduling part-time hours is that's all their employees (high school students) can spare. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #38 February 8, 2005 QuoteQuoteLet's cut the EPA's charter to just enforcing enviro-law . . . I agree there. Get rid of the whole new-source-review nonsense too. Everyone follows the same rules, period. Why and how? I think the whole "major modification" and "new point source" provisions were good ideas for gradually improving control technologies and overall air quality, rather than simply requiring full compliance with maximally stringent requirements for everyone. That would have closed a LOT of doors, some entire industries, and placed an awful lot of people out of work. Also, as regards everyone complying with the same rules, don't you think it's reasonable to place additional restrictions on emission sources immediately adjacent to pristine environments? Would you like to see coal-fired utilities and smelters running day and night right next to Yosemite? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #39 February 8, 2005 >I think the whole "major modification" and "new point source" > provisions were good ideas for gradually improving control > technologies and overall air quality, rather than simply requiring full > compliance with maximally stringent requirements for everyone. Agreed. That was the intent. It has since been warped into a loophole that allows utilities to run dirty plants forever without upgrading them. The new-source-review loophole essentially provides an economic incentive to not upgrade plants. The Salem and Brayton plants in Massachusetts are perfect examples - they've been operating for decades, and are singlehandedly responsible for hundreds of deaths a year. They'll never upgrade because they don't want to trigger the NSR and have to pay for better emissions controls. >Also, as regards everyone complying with the same rules, don't > you think it's reasonable to place additional restrictions on emission > sources immediately adjacent to pristine environments? Would you > like to see coal-fired utilities and smelters running day and night > right next to Yosemite? Would downtown LA be better? I have no problem with a power plant operating near yosemite _provided_ it meets all emissions requirements - and provided those are the emissions limits you can get with best available technology. If you're not willing to run it near a wilderness, it sure as shit shouldn't be running near people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #40 February 8, 2005 QuoteThis 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???? 5% overall. No big deal. Arm yourself with some facts: CNN News The Budget: EPA Do you give him any credit for increasing by $47 million the funding to clean up 600 toxic "brownfield" sites and adding $28 million to remove toxic sediments from the Great Lakes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
randomdude 0 #41 February 10, 2005 I can think of a supposedly "not for profit" .gov contractor that needs an enema, what with the majority of employees grossing $5.50/hr and the co. president grossing $630,000 before bennies and bonuses..... And while you're cutting fat, take a long hard look at BATF. Talk about an entity that has grown far too big for its britches. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #42 February 10, 2005 Mr. Rich, I am armed with the facts. I did read those before hand and I do give Bush credit for what little good he has done. Quote5% overall. No big deal. So I assume you are prepared to accept a 5% decrease in the quality of air your family breathes? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase the amount of pollutants in the water your family drinks? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase in the contaminants in the soil that grows the crops you and your family consumes? I'm not. 5% isn't that big of a deal? I disagree.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #43 February 10, 2005 And how, exactly, do you equate all of your assertions with a 5% cut in EPA funding? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #44 February 10, 2005 QuoteSo I assume you are prepared to accept a 5% decrease in the quality of air your family breathes? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase the amount of pollutants in the water your family drinks? You are prepared to accept a 5% increase in the contaminants in the soil that grows the crops you and your family consumes? I'm not. 5% isn't that big of a deal? I disagree. A 5% budget cut does not equal a 5% increase in pollutants. That is an emotional argument that does not stand any test of logic. It means the EPA has to control spending...ALL companies are doing that now, why should the Government be different?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #45 February 10, 2005 QuoteThis 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 Bush 43's non-defense budget increases beyond inflation exceed Carter's, Reagan's, Bush 41's, and Clintons. The economy is currently sub-optimal. Mix that with the "war on terror" and we have a big budget problem. EPA programs fall into the non-defense discretionary category which are easier to cut. But this doesn't do anything significant. EVERYTHING in that category is just 18% of the budget. You could knock all $430,000,000,000 out of the budget and still have a twelve digit deficit including smoke and mirrors which make it look smaller than it really is (military excursions not in the budget, social security "surpluses" that gets borrowed, etc). Currently the environmental cuts are just single digit billions for 2005. With the big picture that's financially insignificant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #46 February 10, 2005 QuoteAnd how, exactly, do you equate all of your assertions with a 5% cut in EPA funding? Well, John said 5% was no big deal. I was just seeing if 5% really is a big deal or not.... A 5% budget cut could very well mean a 30% decrease in air quality or NO change in air quality. The question here is "is 5% a big deal?" I think yes it is, especially since you're messing with MY air.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #47 February 10, 2005 And you have no metric with which to estabilish your point, therefore no valid basis for making it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumper03 0 #48 February 10, 2005 QuoteAnd you have no metric with which to estabilish your point, therefore no valid basis for making it. Again I disagree and it all goes back to the first question that NO ONE has ever given my an answer to - so I pose it you o learned one.... How much is your next breath worth? When you have a number for me, lets add that to our equation and see if 5% is a big deal.Scars remind us that the past is real Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #49 February 10, 2005 No less than the one that preceded it. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #50 February 10, 2005 QuoteA 5% budget cut could very well mean a 30% decrease in air quality or NO change in air quality. The question here is "is 5% a big deal?" I think yes it is, especially since you're messing with MY air. What Ron said: a 5% budget cut does not correlate to 5% more pollution. If you had a 5% cut in your paycheck, would that mean you would have to make 5% fewer skydives? Probably not. It just means you would cut some fat somewhere, to preserve your skydiving money. Maybe you would take a sandwich to work, instead of eating lunch out at a restaurant every day. The EPA will cut some fat somewhere, and I trust that they will do it in a way that doesn't affect air and water quality. No big deal! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
