Mitt's Right: Some of us feel entitled

[carlfense]

You ask for examples then you scuff at people when they provide some. What do you want, a list of 30 regulations?

I scoff when they are such comparatively trivial aspects of the economy.

 

Maybe come up with a few examples of your own that explain why regulation helps the economy.

Where did I say that regulation helps the economy? There are more things to consider than whether Company X has maximized their profits.

[strigori]

and before you ask..

 

http://coffman.house...s&Itemid=10

Which regulations in particular do you think are "bogus?" Your link isn't very specific.

 

Glenn Johnston, vice president of regulatory affairs for Gevo Inc., an advanced biofuels company located in Englewood, Colorado, said the EPA regulations in the Clean Air Act are blocking his company from providing a bio-based alternative to petroleum-based fuels.

 

“Gevo and the Advanced Biofuels industry in general believe that the EPA should review its regulatory regime and to the extent possible should assure that biofuels other than ethanol have equal and unfettered access to the market,” Johnston said.

 

Johnston says provisions in the Clean Air Act would prohibit the use of isobutanol, a fuel source made from renewable raw materials that could be used as an alternative to gasoline in combustion engines. Gevo is working to develop the fuel, which would lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

Coffman’s subcommittee also heard testimony from John Ward, chairman of Citizens for Recycling First in Broomfield, Colorado. Ward said that EPA, through the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, is hindering the ability to recycle coal ash, a byproduct of burning coal.

 

Currently, almost half of America’s energy is generated from coal and in 2009, 135 tons of coal ash was produced as a result. However, it is possible to recycle coal ash to make concrete and cement.

“In the Agency’s single-minded quest to gain more enforcement authority over the disposal of coal ash, EPA appears resolved to ignore the negative impacts of its actions on an entire recycling industry and the small businesses that comprise it,” Ward said. “If EPA succeeds in getting the regulations it wants, our nation will end up putting hundreds of millions of tons more material into landfills rather than safely recycling it – hardly a ‘green’ result.”

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple. There are reasons (smog and acid rain among them) why we have the Clean Air Act. Yeah, lets forget about being able to breathe the air and drink the water if rules protecting it are getting in the way of making money for a few people.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

This is just more of the same the right has gone on about and trying to create a reason for eliminating the EPA altogether. We have history showing us why we need something like the EPA, and the history is not even that old, stuff that people in their 50's should be able to remember.

[sd'sker]

and before you ask..

 

http://coffman.house...s&Itemid=10

Which regulations in particular do you think are "bogus?" Your link isn't very specific.

 

Glenn Johnston, vice president of regulatory affairs for Gevo Inc., an advanced biofuels company located in Englewood, Colorado, said the EPA regulations in the Clean Air Act are blocking his company from providing a bio-based alternative to petroleum-based fuels.

 

“Gevo and the Advanced Biofuels industry in general believe that the EPA should review its regulatory regime and to the extent possible should assure that biofuels other than ethanol have equal and unfettered access to the market,” Johnston said.

 

Johnston says provisions in the Clean Air Act would prohibit the use of isobutanol, a fuel source made from renewable raw materials that could be used as an alternative to gasoline in combustion engines. Gevo is working to develop the fuel, which would lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

Coffman’s subcommittee also heard testimony from John Ward, chairman of Citizens for Recycling First in Broomfield, Colorado. Ward said that EPA, through the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, is hindering the ability to recycle coal ash, a byproduct of burning coal.

 

Currently, almost half of America’s energy is generated from coal and in 2009, 135 tons of coal ash was produced as a result. However, it is possible to recycle coal ash to make concrete and cement.

“In the Agency’s single-minded quest to gain more enforcement authority over the disposal of coal ash, EPA appears resolved to ignore the negative impacts of its actions on an entire recycling industry and the small businesses that comprise it,” Ward said. “If EPA succeeds in getting the regulations it wants, our nation will end up putting hundreds of millions of tons more material into landfills rather than safely recycling it – hardly a ‘green’ result.”

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple. There are reasons (smog and acid rain among them) why we have the Clean Air Act. Yeah, lets forget about being able to breathe the air and drink the water if rules protecting it are getting in the way of making money for a few people.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

This is just more of the same the right has gone on about and trying to create a reason for eliminating the EPA altogether. We have history showing us why we need something like the EPA, and the history is not even that old, stuff that people in their 50's should be able to remember.

not to mention, protecting the environment now saves us billions in the future. what happens when we have no clean water to drink? and like you said, this is not old. nixon started the epa because we had rivers that were on fire from industrial waste.

 

there are externalities, which are costs that companies shift to the public. it might appear to help the economy, but it only helps the companies and we get stuck footing the bill. conservatives should be against this, what with personal responsibility and limiting gov't spending and all.

[huskerXman]

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple. There are reasons (smog and acid rain among them) why we have the Clean Air Act. Yeah, lets forget about being able to breathe the air and drink the water if rules protecting it are getting in the way of making money for a few people.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

This is just more of the same the right has gone on about and trying to create a reason for eliminating the EPA altogether. We have history showing us why we need something like the EPA, and the history is not even that old, stuff that people in their 50's should be able to remember.

 

chuckle, no strawmen here

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

how do you know there then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

[Ziggy]

and before you ask..

 

http://coffman.house...s&Itemid=10

Which regulations in particular do you think are "bogus?" Your link isn't very specific.

 

Glenn Johnston, vice president of regulatory affairs for Gevo Inc., an advanced biofuels company located in Englewood, Colorado, said the EPA regulations in the Clean Air Act are blocking his company from providing a bio-based alternative to petroleum-based fuels.

 

“Gevo and the Advanced Biofuels industry in general believe that the EPA should review its regulatory regime and to the extent possible should assure that biofuels other than ethanol have equal and unfettered access to the market,” Johnston said.

 

Johnston says provisions in the Clean Air Act would prohibit the use of isobutanol, a fuel source made from renewable raw materials that could be used as an alternative to gasoline in combustion engines. Gevo is working to develop the fuel, which would lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

Coffman’s subcommittee also heard testimony from John Ward, chairman of Citizens for Recycling First in Broomfield, Colorado. Ward said that EPA, through the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, is hindering the ability to recycle coal ash, a byproduct of burning coal.

 

Currently, almost half of America’s energy is generated from coal and in 2009, 135 tons of coal ash was produced as a result. However, it is possible to recycle coal ash to make concrete and cement.

“In the Agency’s single-minded quest to gain more enforcement authority over the disposal of coal ash, EPA appears resolved to ignore the negative impacts of its actions on an entire recycling industry and the small businesses that comprise it,” Ward said. “If EPA succeeds in getting the regulations it wants, our nation will end up putting hundreds of millions of tons more material into landfills rather than safely recycling it – hardly a ‘green’ result.”

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple. There are reasons (smog and acid rain among them) why we have the Clean Air Act. Yeah, lets forget about being able to breathe the air and drink the water if rules protecting it are getting in the way of making money for a few people.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

This is just more of the same the right has gone on about and trying to create a reason for eliminating the EPA altogether. We have history showing us why we need something like the EPA, and the history is not even that old, stuff that people in their 50's should be able to remember.

 

Lets see some evidence backing that assertion up.

[carlfense]

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple. There are reasons (smog and acid rain among them) why we have the Clean Air Act. Yeah, lets forget about being able to breathe the air and drink the water if rules protecting it are getting in the way of making money for a few people.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

This is just more of the same the right has gone on about and trying to create a reason for eliminating the EPA altogether. We have history showing us why we need something like the EPA, and the history is not even that old, stuff that people in their 50's should be able to remember.

 

Lets see some evidence backing that assertion up.

Which assertion?

[carlfense]

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple. There are reasons (smog and acid rain among them) why we have the Clean Air Act. Yeah, lets forget about being able to breathe the air and drink the water if rules protecting it are getting in the way of making money for a few people.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

This is just more of the same the right has gone on about and trying to create a reason for eliminating the EPA altogether. We have history showing us why we need something like the EPA, and the history is not even that old, stuff that people in their 50's should be able to remember.

chuckle, no strawmen here

Could you be more specific? Which parts do you think are strawmen?

[huskerXman]

If the EPA and "Clean Air Act" are standing in his way, he is talking about pumping chemicals into the air. Plain and simple. There are reasons (smog and acid rain among them) why we have the Clean Air Act. Yeah, lets forget about being able to breathe the air and drink the water if rules protecting it are getting in the way of making money for a few people.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

This is just more of the same the right has gone on about and trying to create a reason for eliminating the EPA altogether. We have history showing us why we need something like the EPA, and the history is not even that old, stuff that people in their 50's should be able to remember.

chuckle, no strawmen here

Could you be more specific? Which parts do you think are strawmen?

 

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

 

I am waiting for a response on this.

 

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

[carlfense]

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

What do you think that the Clean Air Act does? I'm not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just curious as to your knowledge of industrial pollution and the legislation that has been passed to protect the environment.

 

It's not a load of BS . . . it's history and science.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

"How do you know there are then?" I have no idea what you are saying. Could you try rephrasing your question?

 

I can't read strigori's mind but I do know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

[huskerXman]

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

What do you think that the Clean Air Act does? I'm not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just curious as to your knowledge of industrial pollution and the legislation that has been passed to protect the environment.

 

It's not a load of BS . . . it's history and science.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

"How do you know there are then?" I have no idea what you are saying. Could you try rephrasing your question?

 

I can't read strigori's mind but I do know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

 

 

 

Oh, you are a man made global warming person? show me the science behind it and I will show you numerous other scientist that say otherwise.

 

how about just reading what has been said.. here.

 

he said this

I know there are a handful of details in the laws that could be tweeked, ones that most people are not even familiar with, but those are not the ones this guy is talking about.

 

I asked this..

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

 

in reference to the hidden details and how he knows what this person knows or doesn't know.

[huskerXman]

try the very first paragraph.. talk about a load of BS.

What do you think that the Clean Air Act does? I'm not trying to be difficult . . . I'm just curious as to your knowledge of industrial pollution and the legislation that has been passed to protect the environment.

 

It's not a load of BS . . . it's history and science.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

"How do you know there are then?" I have no idea what you are saying. Could you try rephrasing your question?

 

I can't read strigori's mind but I do know a bit about the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

 

 

Since you said you know a bit about it tell us your background.

[zoogs]

Oh, you are a man made global warming person? show me the science behind it and I will show you numerous other scientist that say otherwise.

 

Oh, man, it chafes me so bad whenever I see public awareness of scientific consensus polluted and politicized in this way.

[carlfense]

Oh, you are a man made global warming person? show me the science behind it and I will show you numerous other scientist that say otherwise.

What? Do you believe that the Clean Air Act is designed primarily to combat global warming? If so . . . well . . . you're wrong.

 

how do you know there are then, and how do you know what this guy knows or doesn't know?

in reference to the hidden details and how he knows what this person knows or doesn't know.

I don't think that you're making things more clear.

[carlfense]

Since you said you know a bit about it tell us your background.

What background?

 

Are you trolling or do you actually believe this stuff? Why would my background be relevant to knowledge of the Clean Air Act? Aren't you the guy citing a webpage from a fake attorney about why certain constitutional amendments aren't valid? Or is your requirement of credentials conditional on whether you agree with the viewpoint?

[carlfense]

Oh, you are a man made global warming person? show me the science behind it and I will show you numerous other scientist that say otherwise.

 

Oh, man, it chafes me so bad whenever I see public awareness of scientific consensus polluted and politicized in this way.

Oh . . . you've got 98 scientists that say one thing? And you believe them?!

 

I'll show you . . . I've got 2 scientists that say that your scientists are wrong!