H.R.861 - To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency.

[Thebobo]

..................This asshole

wants to eliminate the

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/

Introduced on the 3rd. Surprise the media didn't mention it.
(well they did but I am blind and never saw it)
I doubt this will go anywhere but still,


.

 

[First]

lol, it wouldn't get past the courts, utterly pointless.

 

[Fern]

That bill is going no where.

And lately the media doesn't mention much of anything if Trump didn't tweet it.

Fern

 

[Paratus]

That bill is going no where.

And lately the media doesn't mention much of anything if Trump didn't tweet it.

Fern

It's been reported.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-bill-aims-to-axe-epa-heres-why-it-wont-work/

http://gizmodo.com/florida-republican-proposes-bill-to-eliminate-the-epa-1792024005

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5890e638e4b02772c4e9c552

 

[imported_tajmahal]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/epa-bias-analysis-094533
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...epas-clean-power-plan/?utm_term=.ec6db82846fe
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/3-potent-arguments-against-epa-s-carbon-regulations
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/4-more-potent-arguments-against-epa-s-carbon-rule

Sounds good to me.

 

[First]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/epa-bias-analysis-094533
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...epas-clean-power-plan/?utm_term=.ec6db82846fe
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/3-potent-arguments-against-epa-s-carbon-regulations
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/4-more-potent-arguments-against-epa-s-carbon-rule

Sounds good to me.

Your first link:

Critics of the Obama administration have gotten a lot of mileage by claiming ideological bias at the Environmental Protection Agency. But a POLITICO analysis of the evidence shows holes in their case.

lol read your link, troll.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I've never said I agree with everything in my links, but the idea that everyone is in support of this bureaucracy is wrong. I'm providing examples that many people wouldn't look for on their own. and from that link "Liberal requesters received fee waivers 52 percent of the time, compared with a 39 percent rate for conservatives."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epas-air-pollution-target-flatulent-cows/

 

[Double Trouble]

That bill is obviously going nowhere. I don't want them to get rid of the EPA , but there sure as heck needs to be significant changes made to the EPA. Get rid of it? No. Fix it? Yes.

 

[Jaskalas]

Get rid of it? No. Fix it? Yes.

Agreed. China is not a country to emulate.

 

[Double Trouble]

Agreed. China is not a country to emulate.

You read "parts of it need to be fixed" and understood that to mean "we need to emulate China"? WTF?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

OK, i'm willing to compromise. First, let's get started on shutting it down and then maybe we can agree to limit it's scope and powers.

 

[theeedude]

Maybe some folks with pre-EPA cars can drive up to his neighborhood and peacefully leave their cars running on the street by his house for a few hours when he's home. I have a feeling he'll have a change of heart once he is reminded what city air smelled like pre-EPA.

 

[shortylickens]

lol, it wouldn't get past the courts, utterly pointless.

That is not even an acceptable excuse to try.
If nothing else its a huge fuckin waste of time for congress. And they got lots of junk to deal with already.

 

[Thebobo]

That is not even an acceptable excuse to try.
If nothing else its a huge fuckin waste of time for congress. And they got lots of junk to deal with already.

Yea thats not unlike the 50+ times they tried to repeal the ACA when there was zero chance of it succeeding. Wonder how much that cost taxpayers. Only thing I could find was this statement "Congressional researchers warned the calculation can't be made."

I am curious for those that want to cut the EPA what exactly would you want to cut? What are they doing that is excessive? A lot of folks just keep hearing oh that evil EPA over and over and finally they start to believe. A lot of folks probably don't really know what the EPA does.

 

[IronWing]

lol, it wouldn't get past the courts, utterly pointless.

The courts wouldn't get a say. Congress can get rid of EPA anytime. However, this isn't likely to go anywhere.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yea thats not unlike the 50+ times they tried to repeal the ACA when there was zero chance of it succeeding. Wonder how much that cost taxpayers. Only thing I could find was this statement "Congressional researchers warned the calculation can't be made."

I am curious for those that want to cut the EPA what exactly would you want to cut? What are they doing that is excessive? A lot of folks just keep hearing oh that evil EPA over and over and finally they start to believe. A lot of folks probably don't really know what the EPA does.

This is the kind of shit that pisses me off. There's very few positions in our government that can affect actual change to improve things, and one of those slots is taken up by an assbag that will spend his entire tenure wasting time, doing things that don't help a thing except for a few select people who think it's the best idea since sliced bread. There's been more than a few people that do this stuff, like those who attempted to repeal the ACA for like 6 damn years in a row.

 

[Homerboy]

You read "parts of it need to be fixed" and understood that to mean "we need to emulate China"? WTF?

No -- he's saying that if you eliminated it, then you'd be emulating China

 

[Homerboy]

<snip>

I am curious for those that want to cut the EPA what exactly would you want to cut? What are they doing that is excessive? A lot of folks just keep hearing oh that evil EPA over and over and finally they start to believe. A lot of folks probably don't really know what the EPA does.

Probably the parts that make it hard to get to that sweet sweet crude oil.

 

[IronWing]

Probably the parts that make it hard to get to that sweet sweet crude oil.

Which is just about nothing. WRT oil, EPA has very little authority to regulate anything upstream of the refinery. CERCLA and RCRA don't apply. EPA's methane rule, under the Clean Air Act is so hated because it is EPA's first attempt to regulate the production side of the oil industry. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to do so but EPA has always approached oil with trepidation and timidity.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Which is just about nothing. WRT oil, EPA has very little authority to regulate anything upstream of the refinery. CERCLA and RCRA don't apply. EPA's methane rule, under the Clean Air Act is so hated because it is EPA's first attempt to regulate the production side of the oil industry. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to do so but EPA has always approached oil with trepidation and timidity.

And yet I cannot help but feel that any attempt to reduce regulation inherently has a financial motivation behind it.

Maybe it's about methane, or something a little more subtle (inbound regulations that someone's trying to gut before it makes landfall?)

 

[Homerboy]

Which is just about nothing. WRT oil, EPA has very little authority to regulate anything upstream of the refinery. CERCLA and RCRA don't apply. EPA's methane rule, under the Clean Air Act is so hated because it is EPA's first attempt to regulate the production side of the oil industry. The Clean Air Act gives EPA the authority to do so but EPA has always approached oil with trepidation and timidity.

I'm aware of this. I was just making the point (subtly and apparently not so clearly) that the motivation is "it's hard for us to make MAXIMUM PROFITS with all these rules and junk!" I mean when you're making $1B in profits per year, shouldn't it you be allowed the easiest path to $1.1B in profits regardless of the danger and destruction?

 

[First]

The courts wouldn't get a say. Congress can get rid of EPA anytime. However, this isn't likely to go anywhere.

The courts would get a say, plenty of standing to sue the govt over pollution concerns, etc.

 

[Humpy]

OK, i'm willing to compromise.

If only you were not so insignificant.

 

[Jaskalas]

You read "parts of it need to be fixed" and understood that to mean "we need to emulate China"? WTF?

That is an... unexpected way to read that. I'll shorten your quote and speak more precisely.

Get rid of it? No.

I agree with you, to oppose demolishing the EPA. Such an act would cause us to emulate China, and we both do not want that. I doubt anyone ever wants that, to live in those filthy smog filled cities. The green / yellow / orange / red/ brown rivers of sludge. The debris and litter scattered everywhere. The media observed from China is not flattering, and I have always supported a defense against such wanton destruction.

Per this topic, any member of Congress wanting to "terminate" the EPA is our opponent, and should be laughed out of office.

 

[bshole]

I've never said I agree with everything in my links, but the idea that everyone is in support of this bureaucracy is wrong. I'm providing examples that many people wouldn't look for on their own. and from that link "Liberal requesters received fee waivers 52 percent of the time, compared with a 39 percent rate for conservatives."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/epas-air-pollution-target-flatulent-cows/

Apparently you and a few other like minded Americans prefer this:

You do realize that you don't have to suffer with clean air and clear water? There is plenty of filthy water and air all over the world that you can bask in. The vast majority of Americans prefer clean water/air though and they aren't going to be happy with your sides efforts to pollute them.