Enviromental Pollution Agency

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 07:01 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: I'm saying a non-government funded group could do it. 

Then who pays them to do it?

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 07:05 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: People have no choice there. 
We have choice. Do you see the ***** difference? 

We have choices, but how does that make private citizens capable of investigating the waste disposal of private companies?

[StLucieBengal]

(08-12-2015, 05:35 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I agree we've gotten off topic a bit.


So your position is that the EPA is not needed because you believe that businesses can and would regulate themselves?  Am I correct on what you are saying?

To a point I think they could. The EPA just needs dialed back. And sent to the states.

Companies would certainly wanna come out looking good. And they would market themselves as such. And there could be watchdog groups, all reasonable.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 07:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: To a point I think they could.   The EPA just needs dialed back.  And sent to the states.    

Companies would certainly wanna come out looking good.    And they would market themselves as such.    And there could be watchdog groups, all reasonable.

Recent history has proven that companies value profit over "looking good".  

And private watchdog groups would not have the authority to inspect companies to see iof they were polluting or not.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-13-2015, 08:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Recent history has proven that companies value profit over "looking good".  

And private watchdog groups would not have the authority to inspect companies to see iof they were polluting or not.

I think companies would be promoting anything that sets them apart.

[fredtoast]

(08-13-2015, 08:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I think companies would be promoting anything that sets them apart.

That is a fantasy.

Corporations value profit.  

[GMDino]

(08-13-2015, 07:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: To a point I think they could.   The EPA just needs dialed back.  And sent to the states.    

Companies would certainly wanna come out looking good.    And they would market themselves as such.    And there could be watchdog groups, all reasonable.

And, again, that would work...if air and water stayed in the state it was contaminated in. 

[StLucieBengal]

(08-13-2015, 08:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: And, again, that would work...if air and water stayed in the state it was contaminated in. 

there is no need to have all that control in Washington. We have serious beach erosion on a beach here but because of the EPA we can't treat it how it needs to be treated to save it .... It's almost gone.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-13-2015, 08:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a fantasy.

Corporations value profit.  

So your basically saying that consumers won't care.... Because I contest that consumers would choose the more responsible companies to patronage. Can't have profit if no one buys your stuff.

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 08:23 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So your basically saying that consumers won't care.... Because I contest that consumers would choose the more responsible companies to patronage.    Can't have profit if no one buys your stuff.

Consumers would have no idea which companies were more responsible.  Every company would claim to be eco-friendly.

[GMDino]

(08-14-2015, 08:23 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So your basically saying that consumers won't care.... Because I contest that consumers would choose the more responsible companies to patronage.    Can't have profit if no one buys your stuff.

Do customers know which mine their coal came from?  Are they out there demanding their power company only buy coal from the mine with the best safety and environmental record?

No.

[Rotobeast]

(08-13-2015, 07:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then who pays them to do it?

Nobody.
Hippies work for free !

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2015, 08:23 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So your basically saying that consumers won't care.... Because I contest that consumers would choose the more responsible companies to patronage.    Can't have profit if no one buys your stuff.

So you don't think U.S. consumers will buy anything manufactured in China?




Oh boy, that's a good one Lucy.  You really crack me up sometimes.

[jakefromstatefarm]

China is obviously not playing by the same rules that American companies play with. This holds true for labor costs as well as EPA regulations.

It's no wonder that businesses outsource jobs. You can criticize the companies for being greedy, I suppose...but businesses are in business for profit, so long as what they are doing is legal, in most cases.

What's the solution, if there is any?

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2015, 11:53 AM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: China is obviously not playing by the same rules that American companies play with.  This holds true for labor costs as well as EPA regulations.  

It's no wonder that businesses outsource jobs.  You can criticize the companies for being greedy, I suppose...but businesses are in business for profit, so long as what they are doing is legal, in most cases.  

What's the solution, if there is any?

The system forces corporations to take whatever steps necessary to maximize profits. Capitalism is a great system that promotes progress an efficiency.  But unregulated Capitalism is a bad thing that leads to exploitation of the lower and middle classes and destruction of the environment.  That is why we need strong government regulation.

When corporations make all-time record profits due to outsourcing then we need to make sure a portion of those profits benefit the people here who are the victims of outsourcing.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 12:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The system forces corporations to take whatever steps necessary to maximize profits. Capitalism is a great system that promotes progress an efficiency.  But unregulated Capitalism is a bad thing that leads to exploitation of the lower and middle classes and destruction of the environment.  That is why we need strong government regulation.

When corporations make all-time record profits due to outsourcing then we need to make sure a portion of those profits benefit the people here who are the victims of outsourcing.

Okay, so vague references to communism/socialism with no specifics.

This is what drives me insane about liberals.  They put policies in place that hurt companies profits (wages, benefits, taxes, EPA regulations) and then are somehow shocked that companies respond to those policies by either closing down factories, laying people off, cutting hours, or outsourcing jobs, and then claim that we need to do something else. 

WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!  That's the mantra of liberals.  Do something.  Doesn't matter what or what the consequences are. 

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2015, 12:14 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Okay, so vague references to communism/socialism with no specifics.

This is what drives me insane about liberals.  They put policies in place that hurt companies profits (wages, benefits, taxes, EPA regulations) and then are somehow shocked that companies respond to those policies by either closing down factories, laying people off, cutting hours, or outsourcing jobs, and then claim that we need to do something else. 

WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!  That's the mantra of liberals.  Do something.  Doesn't matter what or what the consequences are. 

Specifics would be to close loopholes in the corporate tax and use the increased revenue to provide services that benefit the poor (education, transportation, health care, etc)

What drives me insane about conservatives it that they ignore the fact that corporate america is making all time record profits and act like they will have to shut down if asked to pay their employees a livable wage.  The stockholders are amassing large amounts of wealth due to these record profits while taxpayers are paying benefits to their employees.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 12:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Specifics would be to close loopholes in the corporate tax and use the increased revenue to provide services that benefit the poor (education, transportation, health care, etc)

What drives me insane about conservatives it that they ignore the fact that corporate america is making all time record profits and act like they will have to shut down if asked to pay their employees a livable wage.  The stockholders are amassing large amounts of wealth due to these record profits while taxpayers are paying benefits to their employees.

The reason is confusingly called “tax expenditures,” a doublespeak term designed to legitimize special interest tax breaks and loopholes.

Those ‘expenditures’ will cost the U.S. government $628.6 billion over the next five years, according to a 2010 report from the Tax Foundation. With advice from the Urban Institute’s Eric Toder, one of the country’s foremost authorities on corporate tax policy, we assembled the 10 most costly corporate tax loopholes and who benefits from them.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-tax-breaks-2011-2#ixzz3itjwII5q

So you think that 628.6 billion over 5 years of increased revenue is going to make that big of an impact?  That's roughly 125 billion dollars per year.  Do you think that every state having an increase of 2.5 billion dollars to spend per year on social programs is going to make a dent in anything? 

By comparison, it costs nearly 500 billion per year to operate the IRS.  

[fredtoast]

(08-15-2015, 12:35 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: The reason is confusingly called “tax expenditures,” a doublespeak term designed to legitimize special interest tax breaks and loopholes.

Those ‘expenditures’ will cost the U.S. government $628.6 billion over the next five years, according to a 2010 report from the Tax Foundation. With advice from the Urban Institute’s Eric Toder, one of the country’s foremost authorities on corporate tax policy, we assembled the 10 most costly corporate tax loopholes and who benefits from them.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-tax-breaks-2011-2#ixzz3itjwII5q

So you think that 628.6 billion over 5 years of increased revenue is going to make that big of an impact?  That's roughly 125 billion dollars per year.  Do you think that every state having an increase of 2.5 billion dollars to spend per year on social programs is going to make a dent in anything? 

By comparison, it costs nearly 500 billion per year to operate the IRS.  

The ENTIRE cost of the food stamp program that you have been squealing about is $80 billion per year.

So you tell me.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-15-2015, 12:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The ENTIRE cost of the food stamp program that you have been squealing about is $80 billion per year.

So you tell me.

29 trillion on welfare spending since 1964.  Food stamps are part of the Department of Agriculture, and obviously the largest line on their budget. 

Food stamps are only one part of the entire social welfare spending platform.