Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Abolish the EPA

lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 1:20:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We acknowledge that the EPA has ran it's course and is currently non-efficent. We the People believe after the EPA has fined people such as the man who bought land in Louisana and has been fined by the EPA, because he will not create pond like land for frogs that might not exist. Another is that earlier this week the EPA sent in a swat team to take a farmers cows, because of an endangered lizard might being living in that area. To where the head of the EPA said that there is no extent that he would go to protect the envirnment. Also the EPA is planning on forcing farmers to test run-offs from their farms. This will kill American agriculture and cause massive unemployment as it has already been seen that it has force companies to start moving overseas due to the EPA's over regulations.

Please discuss and/or sign. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov...
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 1:24:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you have sources -- other than Fox News or CATO -- for anything that you just said?

Abolishing the EPA is positively asinine. Yes, let's allow companies to pollute as much as they'd like. Climate change isn't a problem at all, right? It's all a hox by 97.1% of climatologists!

Your ignorance is honestly astounding.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 3:36:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 1:24:46 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Do you have sources -- other than Fox News or CATO -- for anything that you just said?

Abolishing the EPA is positively asinine. Yes, let's allow companies to pollute as much as they'd like. Climate change isn't a problem at all, right? It's all a hox by 97.1% of climatologists!

Your ignorance is honestly astounding.

I highly disagree. You see that the EPA is doing crazy things. And yes I have other sources. You see we can still protect the envirnment without going to crazy extremes of the EPA.

http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://townhall.com...
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 4:34:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 3:36:45 PM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 1:24:46 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Do you have sources -- other than Fox News or CATO -- for anything that you just said?

Abolishing the EPA is positively asinine. Yes, let's allow companies to pollute as much as they'd like. Climate change isn't a problem at all, right? It's all a hox by 97.1% of climatologists!

Your ignorance is honestly astounding.

I highly disagree. You see that the EPA is doing crazy things. And yes I have other sources. You see we can still protect the envirnment without going to crazy extremes of the EPA.

http://www.theblaze.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://townhall.com...

I'm going to need to read through those, but I hope you realize that two of those three sources have significant right-wing slants; townhall is a conservative publication, the Blaze is a crazy right-wing network owned by Glenn Beck of all people, so at the very least those aren't the least bit credible on this. As for Huffpo -- and, yes, I am suggesting that there is no equivalency between Huffo and Blaze -- I'll have to read it, but I highly doubt it bears out your outlandish claims.

Also, you should consider that many EPA appointees are beneficiaries of the revolving door -- that is, they gave giant donations to politicians while they worked in the industry, then were appointed to "regulate" that industry.

But how exactly would we regulate the environment or combat climate change without the EPA? Its budget has already been cut and we're paying for it. No, the "free market" is not a solution.
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 5:55:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 4:34:44 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

But how exactly would we regulate the environment or combat climate change without the EPA? Its budget has already been cut and we're paying for it. No, the "free market" is not a solution.

To be fair, the free market does a good job in responding to companies polluting the environment. Poor business reputation is bad and most companies, when pressed, will stay away from public outcry. Also, private conservation efforts do a fantastic job at cleaning up the environment. However, I do understand that this isn't enough.

I always liked the idea of making laws to prevent companies from endangering public health through pollution, and having the DOJ carry out stopping companies from hurting people. Most environmental justice efforts are already carried out through the DOJ. In fact, a lot of the EPA's budget, like State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds or environmental science research, is already dealt with by other government agencies.

My biggest problem with the EPA and how it currently functions is how much power it has. It has overstep its boundaries numerous times, and there is hardly or even close to enough check on it's power.

Hope I'm not being rude, I'm just putting in my two cents.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 6:07:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 1:20:50 PM, lannan13 wrote:
We acknowledge that the EPA has ran it's course and is currently non-efficent. We the People believe after the EPA has fined people such as the man who bought land in Louisana and has been fined by the EPA, because he will not create pond like land for frogs that might not exist. Another is that earlier this week the EPA sent in a swat team to take a farmers cows, because of an endangered lizard might being living in that area. To where the head of the EPA said that there is no extent that he would go to protect the envirnment. Also the EPA is planning on forcing farmers to test run-offs from their farms. This will kill American agriculture and cause massive unemployment as it has already been seen that it has force companies to start moving overseas due to the EPA's over regulations.

Please discuss and/or sign. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov...

The EPA needs to be reformed. Not abolished. The green party will throw a fit if this is passed.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 6:12:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
None of the examples that the topic creator gave were "overstepping" any boundaries, as far as I'm concerned.

There are more important things in life than our current production per capita.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 6:25:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 6:07:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 1:20:50 PM, lannan13 wrote:
We acknowledge that the EPA has ran it's course and is currently non-efficent. We the People believe after the EPA has fined people such as the man who bought land in Louisana and has been fined by the EPA, because he will not create pond like land for frogs that might not exist. Another is that earlier this week the EPA sent in a swat team to take a farmers cows, because of an endangered lizard might being living in that area. To where the head of the EPA said that there is no extent that he would go to protect the envirnment. Also the EPA is planning on forcing farmers to test run-offs from their farms. This will kill American agriculture and cause massive unemployment as it has already been seen that it has force companies to start moving overseas due to the EPA's over regulations.

Please discuss and/or sign. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov...

The EPA needs to be reformed. Not abolished. The green party will throw a fit if this is passed.

Given that we have elected some city council members and a dogcatcher, I really don't think that most politicians would worry about that aspect.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 7:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 5:55:56 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 4:34:44 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

But how exactly would we regulate the environment or combat climate change without the EPA? Its budget has already been cut and we're paying for it. No, the "free market" is not a solution.

To be fair, the free market does a good job in responding to companies polluting the environment. Poor business reputation is bad and most companies, when pressed, will stay away from public outcry. Also, private conservation efforts do a fantastic job at cleaning up the environment. However, I do understand that this isn't enough.

I disagree, actually, because if that were the case -- that is, if polluting let to a bad rep, which led to less polluting -- then wouldn't the problem already be solved? There are a number of problems: 1) the oil, gas and coal industries have a crapton of bargaining leverage, and regulating them will translate into higher prices, admittedly, which clearly people despise 2) people lack perfect information, so even if this were the case, there's no hope of an implicit marketing campaign 3) people are stupid and don't care. It's just the truth, unfortunately.

I always liked the idea of making laws to prevent companies from endangering public health through pollution, and having the DOJ carry out stopping companies from hurting people. Most environmental justice efforts are already carried out through the DOJ. In fact, a lot of the EPA's budget, like State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds or environmental science research, is already dealt with by other government agencies.

I haven't seen any of that, to be honest, but the EPA has been slashed significantly lately, which is why it hasn't been doing much as late.

My biggest problem with the EPA and how it currently functions is how much power it has. It has overstep its boundaries numerous times, and there is hardly or even close to enough check on it's power.

I disagree; I actually don't think it's doing nearly enough, and had it been, we wouldn't be worrying about carbon emissions at 400 ppm.

Hope I'm not being rude, I'm just putting in my two cents.

Not rude at all lol.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2014 9:20:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 7:41:58 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 5:55:56 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 4:34:44 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

But how exactly would we regulate the environment or combat climate change without the EPA? Its budget has already been cut and we're paying for it. No, the "free market" is not a solution.

To be fair, the free market does a good job in responding to companies polluting the environment. Poor business reputation is bad and most companies, when pressed, will stay away from public outcry. Also, private conservation efforts do a fantastic job at cleaning up the environment. However, I do understand that this isn't enough.

I disagree, actually, because if that were the case -- that is, if polluting let to a bad rep, which led to less polluting -- then wouldn't the problem already be solved? There are a number of problems: 1) the oil, gas and coal industries have a crapton of bargaining leverage, and regulating them will translate into higher prices, admittedly, which clearly people despise 2) people lack perfect information, so even if this were the case, there's no hope of an implicit marketing campaign 3) people are stupid and don't care. It's just the truth, unfortunately.

I agree.

Take oil fracking. Of all the things that give a middle finger to the environment, this is one of the biggies certainly.

The idea of "bad reputation" only applies to industries that sell products directly to consumers, and their products are marked clearly with the methodology by which the materials were acquired.

People may choose eggs from chickens that were free-pastured if they go to the supermarket and see it as an option, but that is really the extent of natural free market regulation of environmental and animal issues.

Oil, on the other hand, gets put into a group pool, formed of oil that was acquired by non-destructive means and oil that was acquired by destruction of natural land. Consumers can't choose to buy "environmentally safe" oil, so the free market is totally moot and doesn't apply to this scenario, among others.

If people want to stop oil fracking, they can't do it by the free market, because they have no choice between oil that was acquired by various means. How do they stop fracking? Legislative channels.

The EPA stops that kind of destructive behavior for them. It is insanely unreasonable to expect the people to make a legislative coalition and make organized social movement against every destructive thing that industry does. Having an agency to assert authority is the most logical solution.


I always liked the idea of making laws to prevent companies from endangering public health through pollution, and having the DOJ carry out stopping companies from hurting people. Most environmental justice efforts are already carried out through the DOJ. In fact, a lot of the EPA's budget, like State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funds or environmental science research, is already dealt with by other government agencies.

I haven't seen any of that, to be honest, but the EPA has been slashed significantly lately, which is why it hasn't been doing much as late.

My biggest problem with the EPA and how it currently functions is how much power it has. It has overstep its boundaries numerous times, and there is hardly or even close to enough check on it's power.

I disagree; I actually don't think it's doing nearly enough, and had it been, we wouldn't be worrying about carbon emissions at 400 ppm.

Hope I'm not being rude, I'm just putting in my two cents.

Not rude at all lol.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 5:02:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 6:12:08 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
None of the examples that the topic creator gave were "overstepping" any boundaries, as far as I'm concerned.

There are more important things in life than our current production per capita.

What are you talking about? All of those are examples of the EPA overstepping their bounderies.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2014 7:38:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 5:02:05 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:12:08 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
None of the examples that the topic creator gave were "overstepping" any boundaries, as far as I'm concerned.

There are more important things in life than our current production per capita.

What are you talking about? All of those are examples of the EPA overstepping their bounderies.

What are you talking about? None of those are examples of the EPA overstepping their boundaries.
lannan13
Posts: 23,017
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 7:13:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/10/2014 7:38:42 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:02:05 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:12:08 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
None of the examples that the topic creator gave were "overstepping" any boundaries, as far as I'm concerned.

There are more important things in life than our current production per capita.

What are you talking about? All of those are examples of the EPA overstepping their bounderies.

What are you talking about? None of those are examples of the EPA overstepping their boundaries.

Yes they are. It's obseen that the EPA would do something like that. The EPA needs to have it's power scaled back significantly.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 4:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/9/2014 1:24:46 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:

Abolishing the EPA is positively asinine.

I have to agree " I support government regulation and protection of the environment.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2014 6:41:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/11/2014 7:13:11 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 7:38:42 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 4/10/2014 5:02:05 AM, lannan13 wrote:
At 4/9/2014 6:12:08 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
None of the examples that the topic creator gave were "overstepping" any boundaries, as far as I'm concerned.

There are more important things in life than our current production per capita.

What are you talking about? All of those are examples of the EPA overstepping their bounderies.

What are you talking about? None of those are examples of the EPA overstepping their boundaries.

Yes they are. It's obseen that the EPA would do something like that. The EPA needs to have it's power scaled back significantly.

No they aren't. It's obscene that the EPA can't do more. The EPA needs to be allowed to do what needs to be done for the environment.

We can keep going like this. You have yet to explain why the examples you gave are an abuse of power or are "overstepping" any "boundaries".