House Republicans siding with polluters over healthy American lungs

[Tonington]

Apparently the Democrats will have to defend the EPA, the George HW Bush era amended Clean Air Act, and most importantly the health of Americans from polluter friendly House Republicans this session.

The GOP is framing it this way:

With Michigan and California both suffering from 12.4 percent unemployment – Fred is fighting to put folks back to work,” Mr. Bonyun wrote in an e-mail. “Jobs are disappearing at an alarming rate and will continue to flee overseas without the proper, sensible E.P.A. oversight that has been absent the last two years. In this new Congress, Fred will use every resource available to protect American workers and our economy by rolling back the job-killing G.H.G. regulations.

Apparently ignoring that the EPA has historically taken time to phase in environmental regulations, so as to minimize the disruptions to the economy.

They are also ignoring the benefits of such clean air regulations, while focusing solely on costs. In fact, in the last ten years, the EPA has introduced 30 major regulations, with estimated costs ranging between $43 and 55 billion, while the most conservative estimate of the benefits begins at $128 billion.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/reports/2010_Benefit_Cost_Report.pdf

 

[Avro]

Leave it to Can'tsevatives to pine for the old ways....

....too bad they're wrong.....again.

YouTube - Johnny Knoxville: Detroit Lives Part 1 of 3

It’s going to rebuild. The question is, will the rebuilders continue with the same mindset that brought the once-proud city to ruin, or can it be a laboratory to show the world what a sustainable, renewably powered industrial center can be like?
Signs of hope from an unlikely source, the Jackass himself, Johnny Knoxville.
No, wait a minute – give this one a chance. I promise you, if you haven’t seen this yet, it’ll give your weekend a hopeful jumpstart.

More to come next week.

 

[taxslave]

No surprise here. Short term gain for long term pain. I wonder what kind of spin YJ will put on this to make it Obamas fault?
The sad part is that it is possible to have a healthy economy without destroying the environment. But it might cost a few dollars.

 

[Avro]

No surprise here. Short term gain for long term pain. I wonder what kind of spin YJ will put on this to make it Obamas fault?
The sad part is that it is possible to have a healthy economy without destroying the environment. But it might cost a few dollars.

YJ has been given a wittle time out for his antics.

 

[ironsides]

It just hit me!!

My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day. She has her food prepared for her. She can eat whenever she wants, 24/7/365. Her meals are provided at no cost to her. She visits the Dr. once a year for her checkup, and again during the year if any medical needs arise. For this she pays nothing, and nothing is required of her. She lives in a nice neighborhood in a house that is much larger than she needs, but she is not required to do any upkeep. If she makes a mess, someone else cleans it up. She has her choice of luxurious places to sleep. She receives these accommodations absolutely free. She is living like a queen, and has absolutely no expenses whatsoever. All of her costs are picked up by others who go out and earn a living every day. I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head,



My dog is a Democrat!


The Republicans cannot overturn anything.

 

[Tonington]

If she makes a mess, someone else cleans it up.

That's what overturning EPA regulations would mean. These regulations make polluters responsible. So I think you have it backwards.

 

[ironsides]

There are going to be some tough choices coming up in the next few years, and for the people the immediate choice would be jobs. This 17% or so unemployment is mainly made up of people with a below college level education. Roughly 4% of that 15% are college educated. Those with high school educations or less must have jobs and have them now. So do we relax EPA regulations to allow more jobs to open up, or just keep the status quo and hope they don't revolt at some point in time. These are mainly the people who cannot wait the 4-5 years for the economy to turn around (if it does it that fast)

 

[Tonington]

This is a fallacy....you are assuming that to create jobs America has to give up clean air and clean water. That's just complete trash. The jobs were lost because of poor fiscal policy, and poor regulatory oversight of economic activities... so the answer to creating more jobs is to relax an unrelated factor?

Rubbish.

And by the way, where is that 17% unemployment for? Nationally, the rate has dropped to 9.4%.

 

[taxslave]

There are going to be some tough choices coming up in the next few years, and for the people the immediate choice would be jobs. This 17% or so unemployment is mainly made up of people with a below college level education. Roughly 4% of that 15% are college educated. Those with high school educations or less must have jobs and have them now. So do we relax EPA regulations to allow more jobs to open up, or just keep the status quo and hope they don't revolt at some point in time. These are mainly the people who cannot wait the 4-5 years for the economy to turn around (if it does it that fast)

Environmental regs are not the issue. It is the demand for high quarterly profits and at least in Canada the huge cost of taxes and compliance with an ever increasing and often conflicting collection of rules by various levels of government. Even high wages are not the major cause of job loss.

 

[captain morgan]

Environmental regs are not the issue. It is the demand for high quarterly profits and at least in Canada the huge cost of taxes and compliance with an ever increasing and often conflicting collection of rules by various levels of government. Even high wages are not the major cause of job loss.

The cost of the regs impact the capacity to generate revenues, let alone profits. No corp is willing to risk their cash and resources on a low profit or break-even deal... This is where the jobs will be lost.

On that note, the US feds butchered BP in the recent oil spill and almost bankrupt the company.... As it turns out, the federal body responsible for investigating the event have laid responsibility at the feet of many groups incl Transocean, Haliburton and the federal regulator... Only BP has paid the piper.

With this in mind, this is the potential cost faced by any corp that might provide any meaningful employment in the USA and in all likelihood, a motivating factor in why the policy decisions are being made.

 

[The Old Medic]

No, the Republicans are NOT promoting pollution.

They are however challenging the ability of Federal Agencies to create new laws. In the US System of Government, only Congress can pass laws.

 

[ironsides]

This is a fallacy....you are assuming that to create jobs America has to give up clean air and clean water. That's just complete trash. The jobs were lost because of poor fiscal policy, and poor regulatory oversight of economic activities... so the answer to creating more jobs is to relax an unrelated factor?

Rubbish.

And by the way, where is that 17% unemployment for? Nationally, the rate has dropped to 9.4%.

The 17% includes those who have used up their unemployment insurance and those who have just given up. That 9.4% is those collecting unemployment payments. Once it is over they disappear from government unemployment rolls.


Your right, it is rubbish, but the rubbish is that regulations cause higher prices short term. Dump the regulations and companies can afford to hire back people at a livable wage. Never said I agree with it, but we cannot live on Mexican wages.

 

[Tonington]

The 17% includes those who have used up their unemployment insurance and those who have just given up. That 9.4% is those collecting unemployment payments. Once it is over they disappear from government unemployment rolls.

Is there a source for that number?

Your right, it is rubbish, but the rubbish is that regulations cause higher prices short term.

Benefits outweigh the costs.

Dump the regulations and companies can afford to hire back people at a livable wage. Never said I agree with it, but we cannot live on Mexican wages.

Yeah, and then the people living downstream from factories can deal with illness, unsafe drinking water, and shortened life spans. There are better ways to stimulate economic activity.

 

[ironsides]

19% underemployed - These are people working part time just to make something for themselves and families. Was 17.2% in November.

Gallup Finds Unemployment at 9.6% in December

It turns out that the fallout from the Great Recession is far greater than a lingering employment crisis that has left 17 percent of the working population either unemployed or underemployed.


Report classifies 1 in 3 families as 'working poor'

 

[Tonington]

No, the Republicans are NOT promoting pollution.

Never said they were, they are working to prevent cleaner air and water.

They are however challenging the ability of Federal Agencies to create new laws. In the US System of Government, only Congress can pass laws.

The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are already laws passed by congress. The Supreme Court has interpreted the legislation, and the new rules proposed by the EPA are entirely consistent, and within the bounds set out by these existing laws.

 

[ironsides]

I do not think Congress is interested in changing EPA rules and regulations at this time anyway. Not a priority. You mentioned pollution heading down river, well it has. We shipped our manufacturing to places like Mexico and look at the water conditions they have. We solved nothing here except wipe out jobs. I am sure we can recycle water much better than anyone else. Were doing it now in places like Florida, Nevada, Texas, Arizona etc. Problem isn't not enough clean water, just to many people.

 

[Tonington]

We shipped our manufacturing to places like Mexico and look at the water conditions they have.

So, do you want to be accountable for Mexico's water, or is it probably better that they are responsible for their water cleanliness? The cost of labour is cheap in Mexico, maybe you should start paying Americans Mexican wages to get the jobs to come back.

 

[ironsides]

So, do you want to be accountable for Mexico's water, or is it probably better that they are responsible for their water cleanliness? The cost of labour is cheap in Mexico, maybe you should start paying Americans Mexican wages to get the jobs to come back.

You pay Canadians Mexican wages and maybe your employment will go up also. Seriously though prices and salaries are much to high keeping the cost of living to high for either of our countries to come out of this slump anytime soon. They can say all they want, but the lesser educated person will still have a problem 5-10 years down the road. We have to lockup our southern border and show that the government wants to start doing something about controlling immigration at least until employment for our poor gets under control. Do I want to be accountable for Mexico's water,heck no. It was horrible 50 years ago, I'm sure they haven't done much to improve it since then. Montezuma still lives in their water.

 

[Tonington]

You pay Canadians Mexican wages and maybe your employment will go up also.

Sure would. So how many underemployed would there be at $2 an hour? The point is, there are plenty of reason for unemployment, and to give up benefits like cleaner air and water for a few more jobs, that's just asinine when there are other means to the same end.

 

[taxslave]

I'm not convinced that it is an either/or situation. With the technology we have today we can have clean air/water and still have heavy industry that can pay good wages and make a fair profit. But there are both regulatory and tax problems that make it inviable. For example it took almost 2 years for me to get the necessary permits to salvage 50 year old logging debris from a lake, even the local indian band had to be consulted. And even then the MoF was going to restrict me to 10 horse outboard to tow logs with. I finally got them up to 50 horse. They claimed that a bigger engine would destroy the shoreline but a 200 horse ski boat apparently didn't. Go figure.