Obama's 'Fairness' Vision Would Bankrupt Nation

[BooRadley]

I can't take anyone seriously who believes that the EPA should just be abolished.
I mean, really? Clean water is just for pussies?

Being cowed and manipulated into allowing your water sources to be contaminated is "manly". Standing up to destructive economic industrial entities who want to poison your family to save a few bucks is what pussies do. Tough guys sheepishly back down and consent (probably because if they don't Rush will call them "liberals").

Something like that, at least.

[Freedom&Liberty]

You two are silly.

[kellyb]

Why are you convinced that anyone wants polluted water? Or that the feds are the only ones capable of keeping it from happening?

The whole reason a federal agency is needed to combat pollution is because states have a problem trying to both keep jobs around while also keeping pollutants from being dumped in the water supply. This is not a matter of dispute.

As a libertarian, aren't you just supposed to say "Screw you, buy your own clean water at market value"?

[Freedom&Liberty]

The states that can keep jobs AND maintain clean water will win because that's what we all want. A free market can put a company out of business, no government needed.

[Lulu]

I can't take anyone seriously who believes that the EPA should just be abolished.
I mean, really? Clean water is just for pussies?

Real men drink beer. Or whiskey.

[kellyb]

The states that can keep jobs AND maintain clean water will win because that's what we all want. A free market can put a company out of business, no government needed.

All over India and China the water is totally polluted. Clean water is SOLD over there. It's privatized.

Why don't you just admit what you want? You want clean water to be a product to be sold to the highest bidders, right?

[Chachma v'Oz]

So states can compete with each other for the most polluted water? Because the jobs go to the places where they can dump pollutants in rivers, lakes, etc most cheaply?

The feds are involved in clean water for the same reason they're involved in most everything: locals dropped the ball or kicked the problem over to the next country or over the state line. Some of you might be surprised how little federal government would have grown if local yokels had met their responsibilities.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Why are you convinced that anyone wants polluted water? Or that the feds are the only ones capable of keeping it from happening?

History. Ever hear of the Cuyahoga River, what the problem was, why, and who had to step in to correct it? That, and to many other messes we suffered by depending on locals to solve both local problems and those that extended beyond local boundaries, begat the EPA.

A small federal government is a nice ideological goal, but is totally unrealistic. Locals don't do what they should because it costs money, so it's done for them and then they're billed for it, at a cost far more than if they'd taken care of it themselves in a timely manner. This is a fundamental problem with conservative idealism.

[kellyb]

The feds are involved in clean water for the same reason they're involved in most everything: locals dropped the ball or kicked the problem over to the next country or over the state line. Some of you might be surprised how little federal government would have grown if local yokels had met their responsibilities.

I think it's slightly more complex.

I think local areas CAN'T both keep the companies around AND keep stuff like water clean. If you're a member of a city council, and a company tells you they'll move to the next state over if you try to tell them to stop dumping their toxic waste in the water supply, what can you say?

I think this is one of the few legit functions of a federal government. And I'm overall and usually opposed to federal, centralized government.

[Chachma v'Oz]

I think this is one of the few legit functions of a federal government. And I'm overall and usually opposed to federal, centralized government.

The founding fathers weren't. That's why they established one, to oversee and manage the disparate and conflicting interests of the states of the union.

The difference between a weak and an adequate central authority is the difference between a jungle and a well-tended farm. Nothing that grows, be it a sapling, a puppy, a child, a community, an economy or a country will reach its full potential left to its own devices. It takes guidance and discipline or it wallows in wasteful mediocrity.

[kellyb]

The founding fathers weren't. That's why they established one, to oversee and manage the disparate and conflicting interests of the states of the union.

The difference between a weak and an adequate central authority is the difference between a jungle and a well-tended farm. Nothing that grows, be it a sapling, a puppy, a child, a community, an economy or a country will reach its full potential left to its own devices. It takes guidance and discipline or it wallows in wasteful mediocrity.

I don't think the founding fathers were smarter than you or I. Most were slave-owners, so I don't think they were particularly moral, either.

I do think there is a role for a central government. I'm just very cautious about it. I guess the line between caution and paranoia is fine, tho, huh? lol.

[DamnYankee]

I take this back. The country is already bankrupt...just no one's noticed yet.

Which is why I prep. It's a slow process but I'm essentially prepared for the STHTF.

[Vader]

You need to take a long walk. There's a short pier right around the corner. If it's too far, you can take the short bus to get there.

You need to take a nice leap off a tall building.

[Freedom&Liberty]

All over India and China the water is totally polluted. Clean water is SOLD over there. It's privatized.

Why don't you just admit what you want? You want clean water to be a product to be sold to the highest bidders, right?

Local governments have a monopoly on water and it's certainly not governments job to provide water or guarantee it's quality. If we want local government monopoly water, then the citizens of each state have to demand that water standards be met, even if it keeps jobs out. I'd much rather have higher state taxes and some control over what happens than pay higher federal income tax for an agency we have no control over.

[Šñøü†ê®]

You need to take a nice leap off a tall building.

You sick zionist nutter. Stop thinking bad thoughts you retarded tard.

[hadit]

You need to take a nice leap off a tall building.

Why would I do that when I can leap over them in a single bound? I am beginning to think your character is based on Dark Helmet, not Darth Vader.

[soylentgreen]

That's because of the tax breaks business gets.

Facts don't support your point-of-view.

[soylentgreen]

Being cowed and manipulated into allowing your water sources to be contaminated is "manly".

Some reasonable regulation is necessary. It'd be nice if it was nationwide as well. I think there is a place for the EPA. However, I think they've overstepped their bounds on a few occassions...such as when they stop people from building on private property because of an endangered fly or some other such insignificant crap.

Also, CO2 is not a "pollutant".

[Chachma v'Oz]

Some reasonable regulation is necessary. It'd be nice if it was nationwide as well. I think there is a place for the EPA. However, I think they've overstepped their bounds on a few occassions...such as when they stop people from building on private property because of an endangered fly or some other such insignificant crap.

But that's the nature of property ownership. One doesn't buy just a patch of dirt; one buys a package of rights to use that dirt and those rights are strictly defined and limited by law. If you can't follow the law with your intended use for the property, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

A lot of complaints come from buyers who didn't exercise due diligence before purchasing.

[soylentgreen]

But that's the nature of property ownership. One doesn't buy just a patch of dirt; one buys a package of rights to use that dirt and those rights are strictly defined and limited by law. If you can't follow the law with your intended use for the property, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

A lot of complaints come from buyers who didn't exercise due diligence before purchasing.

Unfortunately, the laws often come into being after the property has been purchased.

I personally do not understand the mindset of you and others who think the powers of various government agencies should continually expand without limit. And, this exact point-of-view is why other people conclude that it's better to have no agency than to have one which will eventually exercise out-of-control powers.