EPA Destroys Water Quality Records, Deceives Archivist

[Dill]

(08-10-2020, 01:00 PM)bengaloo Wrote: Actually those articles are buried by Google and much harder to find by using them. They are top results for other search engines. As are many other topics that dont fit the narrative. Dont get me wrong I was raised a democrat by life long democrats, but what is going on with news suppression is undeniable. I just cant see how anyone cant see that. Its as plain as the sun rising.

That is a small sample size. There are articles dated back to the early 80's if you really go down the rabbit hole. But for me, what I see with my own eyes is enough. Ive dealt with them, or tried to. They are just as money and power hungry as the worst of them. Most gov agencies somehow become like that though. You asked for examples and you got it. A little ny times article about orange man bad isnt changing anything for me. The NY Times has had to retract a lot of fake stories in the last handful of years. They used to be one of my fav. They should change their name to the DNC Press Club nowadays. Partisanship is killing the nation and diving people.

Thanks again for the response and the links. I'm not challenging the corruption charges. I am just asking why the response should be to abolish an agency whose mission is to insure clean air and water, rather than fix it. It is not a private entity like the Trump Foundation or Trump University, set up to scan the public for individual profit, but an integral part of environmental monitoring and regulation enforcement for the nation, important to "the people's business." They also clean up pollution from chemical dumps and the like. Who would do that if they were gone?

The links you sent me include groups who expose corruption because they want the EPA to work for the common good, and groups who don't want the EPA to work for the common good, because they profit from its dysfunction and impotence. One way the latter do this is by creating the dysfunction/corruption they decry in government, in part by reducing government oversight. Then as the dysfunction intensifies, they use that as an argument for still more reduction. "Government is the problem."

The "orange man bad" article doesn't appear to make any "retractable" allegations, so this is not about the NYT's credibility.Trump IS reducing environmental regulations and opening previously closed public lands to oil exploration, right? Surely that reduction will have a greater negative affect on the EPA's ability to monitor and enforce environmental regulations than Obama's attempts to enforce regulation--assuming clean air and water is the goal. It seems to me he is doing to the EPA what he did to the CDC. In addition to massively cutting personal, he has also eliminated funding for climate research. We'll see the results down the road.

(08-10-2020, 01:00 PM)bengaloo Wrote: I supported Obama. But I'm willing to admit when someone I liked was a total fraud and failure, and willing to admit someone I didnt like is doing better than I expected. I dont tote any party line, and am largely non partisan after Obama especially. My mind is open to all of them now. I would honestly like to see Trump defund the EPA entirely. It would be a lot of money savings for a country with a lot of struggling people. Not just the EPA but the corruption within most gov agencies is so bad, without it, we could have healthcare for all and wipe everyones student loans out to boot. But sadly, too many people want to prop these agencies up and ask for MORE of it. More? More government corruption? The more power we give them, the more they take. It needs to be stopped from top to bottom and on all sides of the political aisle.

This puzzles me a bit too. You introduce "fraud" as a standard which disqualifies support for a president, but see Obama as the "total" embodiment of that, while embracing the "stable genius" Trump, the deal maker who was going to make Mexico pay for a wall, denuclearize NK, and give us healthcare package much better than Obamacare.

As far as shifting the EPA's relatively meagre (8-9 billion) budget towards healthcare gains or student loan relief, I'm thinking that the same folks who want all that EPA regulation and enforcement rolled back, the same folks who have done their best to repeal or neutralize Obamacare, would convert any money saved by abolishing the EPA into tax cuts.