Bridgegate
- Thread starter myp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bridgegate
I don't see what purpose they serve.
I could just go back to 1969 in the united states. They had no purpose prior to that. Now they tell people to recycle plastic. Why recycling plants just truck it to a bump. The EPA may feel good about their pointless efforts, but they aren't anything but pointless. It's just an extortion racket to take more money from corporations. They don't stop pollution they just fine corporations for making it. Utterly useless.
And no one is against cutting wasteful/unnecessary spending at the right time. The issue is whether we should risk cuts during a recovery as well as what is and is not wasteful.
Thing is everyone isn't going to agree that it is frivolous nonsense. Personally, I strongly disagree on the EPA. DEA possibly too.
By Tea Party I was referring to the Tea Party politicians.
A lot of people aren't. That's the point. The Tea Party might think something is frivolous, but everyone does not agree.
Well whatever you want to call people like Palin, Bachmann, etc. and then the other brand of Paul.
So why did you say that they just want to cut everything? It seems they are very particular on what they wish to cut spending on. They simply disagree with you on what is frivolous.
Do you believe everything the government spends money on is necessary and everything they cut is frivolous? If not how are you any different than the tea party?
What I want to call them is irrelevant. They are in the republican party. I am unfamiliar with any such tea party outside of a republican protest group.
Hyperbole.
I wouldn't call even most stuff I want to cut frivolous. Just not good policy. I'm different because I understand austerity could make things a lot worse during a recovery and even if that is not the case (but it probably is), the risk at least is still there.
You are taking the term and applying it to the populist movement too literally. It can apply to a lot of things. "Tea Party sentiment" is certainly something of a force in Congress today.
On your part yes.
Bad policy is frivolous. How would you help reduce the burden without cutting sending.
I think funding the DEA Is bad policy, finding the EPA is also bad policy. Explain how it isn't?
They are called republicans, there is nothing new about them. Republicans have always preferred smaller government. And lower taxes.
All the tea party is, is republicans. What had changed?
Bad policy does not necessarily mean it is frivolous. You can have purposeful policy that is just bad.
Because they lead to better outcomes at a lower cost than the benefit?
The Tea Party is a movement that has resonated with parts of the GOP. I don't think all GOP members are pro-Tea Party or vice-versa though. There is a distinction.
That's an overly simplistic view and one which I disagree with. Data on impacts of many EPA policies is against you. The DEA does plenty that local police doesn't- I am in the healthcare field and have to deal with them (for better or for worse).
It enforces laws and public policy stances (for better or for worse). But it certainly does things local law enforcement can't do too.
Um... United States Environmental Protection Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The opinion you promote is extremely inaccurate.....the great lakes, superfunds, and the entire city of Los Angeles dispute it.
Not sure why the great lakes need a superfund, the didn't need it for the thousands of years they existed prior to the EPA.
I was unaware that the entire city of LA was a consciousness. But based on the people that live there it's likely they would disagree with my political positions on many things.
This proves nothing except a city of liberal people disagree with the political ideas of conservatives in a conservative part of the united states. News flash it's irrelevant.
I am sorry I see no benefit that the EPA provides. It is simply a weapon to extort fines from people.
Your arguments are very broad and unsupported by evidence- possibly purely ideological in root. Not really sure how to respond. I for one am glad the EPA is there though, especially when I look at the effects of their policies as a whole or compare our environment to those of countries with worse to no regulation like China (or even our past for that matter).
I don't see any effects aside from larger government intrusion. And extortion.
I tend to value liberty above some weapon of the government to crush business and extort money from the populace.
If they did something more than just absorb funds and extort businesses I would support them.
Protecting the environment, working to ensure we have clean drinking water, keeping pollution in check, regulating negative externalities, working to reduce climate change risk, etc. are not "something more" to you?
Similar threads
