What do you guys make of this?

What do you guys make of this?

Should we get rid of the EPA?

I can't see the red pill angle

congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text

Other urls found in this thread:

epa.gov/home/health-and-environmental-agencies-us-states-and-territories
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

There is no "redpill" there never was a "redpill". Trump trolled the fuck out of you guys and you all fell for it.

Why do we need so much government intervention?

Are you actually retarded?

yes

lets be a toxic chemical waste dump like china with 8 yo kids dying of lung cancer

FPWP

It depends how much individual property rights can manage negative externalities of doing business.

If I can sue for damages when a dumbfuck contaminates the ground water to save a bit of money, then do we need it?

It might be a case where it is better to have oversight preventing problems, than a web of lawsuits over diminished property values, and high costs of cleanup paid by the losers.

because without governance strong and wicked people quickly turn life into hell for everyone they can exploit

We need to discuss the fact that there's someone named "Mr. Loudermilk".

of course
China doesn't have to deal with the EPA and they have tons of healthy people
same with Mexico for that matter, the water is fine and perfectly drinkable btw, don't listen to the lies

I am not saying we should dismantle all of government.

>a "little" toxic harm is ok especially if i cant see or understand it

imbecile

How exactly did he troll us?

i raffed

Can't we keep these corporations on a chain without government, though?

Yeah everything is nice and healthy over there.

Kek

We already have 50 other EPAs, no need for a federal one too. Cut the bureaucracy.

just a little fog, its perfectly fine everyone

>they have tons of healthy people

People in some cities literally have to wear masks to protect from toxic smog.

The EPA needs to get a major cut but it shouldn't be abolished. They need to hire smarter people so they can inact better policies. So cut funding fire most staff and rehire less but sharper people.

Yup, nice and healthy. Bet these folks sure are glad the mean ol' government didn't interfere with their natural resources!

retard argument, good job mouth breather

if the chinks had an EPA like the one in the US it would still be a heavily polluted shit hole, same goes for mexico. the EPA is corrupt to its core and exploits the environment more than it does to protect and improve it. leave environmental protection to the states themselves, corruption is easier to discern and deal with than on a federal level

nobody here wants to walk outside and breathe in shit air, the more locals have power over their own environment the more our overall environment will improve

The EPA, with the help of the federal courts, has accrued *way* too much power. It is out of control.

The issue with getting rid of it would be how to enforce the federal laws on the books that *require* administration by the EPA. I don't understand how a bill simply terminating the EPA is consistent with existing laws that require the EPA for enforcement. It sort of analogous to having criminal laws but no police department to enforce the law.

>yfw this implies the existence of Mr Loudmilk and to a lesser extent their quiet counterparts

This. The principle of the EPA is sound, it's just mission creep has made it excessive.

> leave environmental protection to the states themselves

Environmental problems can be cross-state affairs. If one state pollutes drinking water that another state uses, who deals with it?

I think the EPA should remain, but should have its regulations looked at.

DoE needs to be gone, however.

Welcome to Peabody Energy. A company that has survived for 100 years.

Then Obongo took office, and destroyed the company through cult-communistic sick "environmental" regulations.

Coal is easily transported, cheap & efficient and has a large percentage in american energy.

The goal:
>Finance documentary about "muh global warming"
>"life is totally end in 5 years goys! or soon! Who knows, but soon! manhattan will be under water!"
>Pay brainwashed faggy women & liberal politician, feed them propaganda
>muh environment starts flooding everwhere, politics, education, media
>bankrupt all fossil fuel (soros & company buys it up for cheap)
>america tries only windmills & solar panels
>Biggest most disastrous energy crisis hit
>"oy vey goys! You cant afford energy, so government have to step in! Now energy is socialised!"
>"oy vey government, you must buy energy from Soros Inc"

GET THE PICTURE FAGGOTS ?!

i disagree, it's an inherently exploitable branch of government. they have too much power over all state's environments

Sure is great to have the waste in the water and not in the government! All they'd do is mess things up.

What other EPA-ish organizations?

I'm glad we can trust those factories and corporations to do the right thing. After all, a country's natural beauty should be preserved!

epa.gov/home/health-and-environmental-agencies-us-states-and-territories

Almost every part of the government is easily exploitable. Government attracts the corrupt. What makes the EPA more appetizing to people that want to exploit the system?

conflicts like this would require federal intervention or lawsuits resolved on a federal level for resolution

Maybe a commission made between those states when the issue arises?

Health concerns! Of course not. All these masks and filters are just for show. Those orientals are sure on the cutting edge of fashion trends!

he was joking

EPA fucked the american auto industry

This is the only relevant and accurate explanation of >muh environment

>excessive

to be fair
thats subjective

I get it dickhead.

The EPA has been chiefly responsible for stifling billions of dollars in domestic resource exploration and extraction. With more sensible regulation, the US could easily become the number 1 exporter of oil, coal, natural gas, you name it.

not a lot of people are going to voice out against a government agency called the "environmental protection agency". they can do whatever they want, no matter how shitty or stupid it really is, and get away with it because you're an environment hater if you say anything bad about them. also there's a lot of money in exploiting the environment, especially if the federal government doesn't give you the funding you ask them for. now all of a sudden people are paying 10 dollars to have access to local beaches to "protect" some wildlife. put 2 and 2 together

Wow, I'm so glad that brace leftist geniuses such as yourself, can really lay out their arguments so well.

You're a fucking moron.

the EPA is useless

>leave environmental protection to the states themselves,

ludicrous
naive
ignorant
cruel
ineffective
impotent method

chemistry is exactly the same no matter where on earth/in usa a toxin reaches the outdoors and harms a given organism

That's not at all what he said, you braindead communist piece of shit. I'm so glad that this hurts your feelings. You're in for 8 years of humiliation and impotent rage as you suffer under a Trump presidency. Honestly, you communists deserve to be physically tortured to death, but I'll take what I can get. I love it.

Don't worry, any health concerns about the environmental impact of big business can be easily countered by practicing tai chi!

No government interference needed!

Goddamnit, I hate virtue signaling. It ruins so many ideas.

ok?
i must be a leftist be im not for anarchy or chaos.
ok.

be serious

It all trickles down.....goyim

not an argument

nope.

Yes

Can you explain this more? I can't see the full picture of what you are trying to say.

Repeal and replace kind of thinking? The logic may be that the current construction of the EPA is inherently worthless. It may also be easier to get rid of all the people in it right now if they just terminate the agency.

*BEcause

Fuck no.

what is this argument? nobody is debating the objectivity of chemistry on different levels of government, dumbass

Lol at asshurt leftypol in this thread. I love seeing leftists suffer. They were so certain that hillary would win, and still can't get over the humiliation of their defeat.

>He thinks he's entitled to fresh air
>He thinks he's entitled to fresh water

Bah! Such sentiments only get in the way of business! It's not our fault these peons can't handle their own living environments!

Wow look at all of these proxies! Do they pay you extra to talk to yourself or does the bot just adjust to your schizophrenic multiple personalities based on tonal nuances?

Why can't states have their own environmental protection agencies? Aren't individual states going to have a better idea of how best to preserve the natural beauty unique to their region?

Should Iowa have to meet the same water rationing standards as California if dealing with agricultural runoff is a far bigger environmental issue in their state than drought? Should New Yorkers have to pay higher taxes so a federal agency can make factories in New Jersey more environmentally friendly?

>all the people in this thread thinking the EPA actually protects the environment

You guys do realize that getting rid of the EPA doesn't also get rid of Congress' ability to write laws? Allowing the executive branch to make their own regulations was the worst mistake we ever made in this country.

last sentence is everything

environmental protection is all physics

there is no change from state to state of how chemistry works, or also radioactive toxicity, how living things are harmed by what is most cheaply dumped/released by shrewd and or ignorant busineses

If only those retards knew by supporting the EPA they're really just giving companies like Monsanto all the regulatory capture they need to kill independent farms

>Allowing the executive branch to make their own regulations was the worst mistake we ever made in this country.
this is also a very good argument to make

well yes you/they are by saying "leave it to state" so regulation will necessarily vary when the issue is identical at the only level at which it matters

EPA gone will make America a better place.

Sure, but the argument was saying if the power was given to the states, then these chemicals, toxins, etc. would not be released, or at least less often.

Why, I remember a time before the EPA. A purer time.

When men were men and rivers would naturally catch on fire from perfectly natural causes.

No, but anti-frackers in California shouldn't be able to dictate law in Texas. Chemistry may be universal, but the values and trade-offs involved in environmental regulation are not.

>Aren't individual states going to have a better idea of how best to preserve the natural beauty unique to their region?

of course not
absolute sequestration of all toxins achieves the same thing EVERYWHERE

damn you're stupid. where the fuck did you draw that conclusion from my argument? you a paint huffer? i'm talking about ethics and corruptibility and how it makes them more accountable if legislating moved to a state level

>sacrifice a future for you so that you can enjoy the here and now
>meanwhile chinks still breed and manage to take over the US
>Chinese turn America in China because "muh nature is beautiful we should preserve it!"

People like you are the reason white people are not reproducing.

well they don't fund the thing to give it teeth anyway, just cut the expense and protect people and the environment with morality, it would probably work better

Agreed, I do see that independent farmers do not want bad envionments, because they aren't ammoral, tyrannical CEOs.

Not completely. They are essentially a worthless government program when it comes to hazardous waste in certain fields. Others however are needed greatly by the epa. I think a huge amount of tax money could be saved by shitcanning most of the program.

which is a huge waste of bureaucracy, a bloat, and leaves it open to arbitrary ignorance and handwavium, etc, and special interests

it doesnt matter where the source of the legislation is in the USA, so long as the root is individuals educated in hard physics

We would have to replace the EPA with a different system, whether that be on a state level or not. How would we go about it? Shit, I don't know.

>i'm talking about ethics and corruptibility

me as well

> more accountable if legislating moved to a state level

immaterial if you simply require that no toxins be released

Would you want it to be moved to the states level?

youre problem is you are letting diplomacy creep into a scientific issue

>immaterial if you simply require that no toxins be released
huh retard?? corrupt politicians can never make corrupt laws when it comes to scientific subjects?

>hey are essentially a worthless government program when it comes to hazardous waste in certain fields.

some hazardous waste (a specific mass) will harm some people but not others?

or it depends on WHERE they are exposed at to whether they will be harmed?

or what bureaucracy is in place determines the harm?

humans will always be humans

absolute oversight and openness and checks and balances do very well to keep such naughtiness in check

besides, "corruption" is a red herring here

>Ban the EPA
>Jew company owners decide "Fuck it, why should I care about children dying of cancer"
>Jew company owners dump toxic chemicals into rivers
>No EPA so they never get fined
Countries exist to benefit the people via creating a market where their production creates the greatest number of positive effects. Being able to get your smartphones 10% cheaper because there are no longer regulations on blasting walls of rare earth metals with hydrogen cyanide is not a net positive for society.

That said, creating 10 billion page regulatory books "FOR DUH CHILDRUN" does not create net positive outcomes for society either, since it slows production so much for stupid reasons that overall it just hurts people.

Ahh, the Great Lakes. There's nothing like taking a dip in the clear gree- I mean blue water of Lake Erie. I sure am glad those manufacturing firms didn't have to deal with any pesky regulations that could negatively affect the water in any way!

>absolute oversight and openness and checks and balances do very well to keep such naughtiness in check
>besides, "corruption" is a red herring here
i get the feeling youre a fake intellectual

there is no oversight and openness with the EPA, however there will fundamentally be more if it was brought down to a state level. federal checks and balances would still exist, they would just be utilized more which is a good thing

>corruption is a red herring here
what the fuck. corruption has nothing to do with the EPA? it's a red herring? you're a shill and wasting my time

Even with perfect understanding of the physics involved, different groups of people are going to feel differently about certain regulation. One state might be ok with spoiling their environment a little if it means their citizens can have better opportunity to earn a living, while another state in better economic straits may not be willing to make that trade off.

Much better to have piecemeal network of agencies that are better able to regulate according to their local population's wishes than to have a blanket, national agency that can only apply one-size-fits-all type policy.

(((Loudermilk)))

>if the federal government doesn't do it then it can't be done
weird

how many jobs is that?

He's making the Shapiro Abortion Point. If you're going to argue that regulations are bad because of corruption, than you have to concede that regulations are GOOD when corruption is NOT a factor. Otherwise, all you're trying to do is prove that regulation is bad for all X because Y is SOMETIMES a factor.

That's called a Red Herring because the point is in truth completely irrelevant to the argument you're actually trying to make.

You're absolutely right. Businesses have a wonderful track record of keeping our environments safe and healthy. We can absolutely trust them to do the right thing.

After all, what's best for the biggest corporations is best for everyone!

The environments will be managed by the states, as they rightfully should.

Does it still hurt so bad you have to come here to cry about it?
Fuck, you have to be the biggest nigger in this thread.

interesting, but that implies there's a corruption switch flipped to either on or off. it also doesn't address the implication corruption has on all current legislation. if the EPA went away along with all of their regulations, it would be easier to provide oversight on a state level to create transparent regulatory bodies for local environments to create new regulations. it is not a black and white "red herring" argument