Why does Ron Paul, Republicans, hate EPA?

The EPA is important to regulate those who disregard our environment, and lets face it, if we were all responsible citizens, we wouldn't need any oversight.
On the other hand, anything coming from DC more often than not turns into a train running amok. What was a useful and necessary agency in its origin, has now become a Gov strong arm, holding job growth and almost every aspect of our lives hostage for the sake of hysterical environmental groups, who seem to need as much oversight due to lack of integrity, responsibility and common sense as polluters themselves.
As most everyone else here, I love a clean environment, and wish to protect our planet for the sake of those who are yet to be born. We must therefor be good stewards of our planet, not slaves thereof.

 

I HATE that Obama has stashed leftist radicals in every bureaucratic position of Power in America and they are engaging in economic warfare against their ideological opponents. I think it's the most disgusting abuse of power I've ever seen.

But I'm not a libertarian minimalist. I believe, like most Conservatives I imagine, that there is a sustainable medium and we are not that far from it. All we need is for the American People to come together and agree on one large, expansive, expensive, no stones unturned reform of the United States Tax Code, and the establishment of permanent, enforceable budgetary restraints capping our debt to 60% of GDP or less, rather than a true balanced budget amendment.

If we are going to put in a Constituional Control Amendment it should'nt demand a strict balancing of the Budget. Alexander Hamilton would roll over in his Grave.. although Jefferson might smile to see 223 years of debt based economics come to an end.

 

Tom Paine would have been proud.

Standard right-wing exaggerations...

But you already admitted we will not be good stewards of our planet, hence oversight.

The reference to "slaves" is ridiculous. The way you use "slaves" is about the same as a jailed murderer complaining about his lack of freedom.

 

Institutionally regarding CO2 in the exact same way you would sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury and asbestos or any other number of REAL and immediately toxic substances is the classic definition of exceeding oversight authority.

Regulating CO2 in America is about nothing but ideological attacks on enemies. That is it. It's a bad faith issue.

 

Maybe, but this is not an argument against oversight. It is an argument for reforming oversight.

There will always be the problem of who watches the watchers. But arguing that there should thus be no watchers is an overreaction to say the least.

 

They hate the EPA because they enforce restrictions on business that force jobs over seas where such regulations dont exist, like China for instance...

If you dont want a job, then by all means support Obama and Pals...

 

"They hate the EPA because they enforce restrictions on business that force jobs over seas where such regulations dont exist, like China for instance...

If you dont want a job, then by all means support Obama and Pals..."

It's asinine to believe that some basic protections and limits on pollution are what kill jobs. The problem is in our ridiculous system where all that matters is growth leading to a boom-bust cycle rather than sustainability.

A USCS study found that 1% of America's population controls 43% of the financial wealth (even more if you include material holdings). They aren't creating jobs with this, they're sitting on it. Increases taxes on the rich so they control 42% of our nations wealth instead of 43% and guess what, we can have clean water and air AND the same number of jobs.

Regardless of this, pollution can't be limited to the state level because it doesn't take place on state wide regions. Hell, it doesn't even take place on country wide regions, those on our west coast deal with China's (*)(*)(*)(*)ty air. Believe it or not, air moves and takes pollutants with it. I don't want to be living on the border of a state that doesn't care about environmental protection because the water they're polluting flows over to my state. Clearly this is a country-wide issue not a state wide one.

This is sadly the one issue that would keep me from voting for Ron Paul. Strangely enough I value the Earth more than human greed.

 

Most Republicans think that EPA regulations are holding back the private sector and hurting the economy.

 

Ron Paul and all Libartarians don't necessarily hate an evironmental protection group. They hate the fact that the government is in control of it. Paul thinks that the EPA should be destroyed and left to the state or even more local governments to decide how to manage the environment.

 

The answer is in your quote... The EPA is ineffective. People's questions sometimes..

 

Republicans wouldn't be against the EPA if Obama hadn't filled it with a bunch of unethical tyrants who are using it to destroy the fossil fuel industry and leave us with nothing to replace it with but the most expensive energy sources on the planet.

I just got my utility bill. 6 cents a KwH, $75.00 for one month and that is without A/C on.

At Renewable energy prices.. 24 cents a KwH that bill would quadruple and become unaffordable and I wouldn't be able to have electricity at all.

It is THAT (*)(*)(*)(*)ING SIMPLE.

 

No, I would still be against it. It's been filled with unethical tyrants since it was created.

 

The problem with the EPA is OVER-REGULATION.
It's being used to control people and business. It's become a political tool of the Dem Party.

It's that simple.
You wanted an answer; you got it.

 

No, the Clean Air and Clean Water acts are excellent examples of why we need the EPA for monitoring our water and air quality and standards. They do good science, the problem is when the agency is abused for political gain. How do we get the benefits of the EPA without it being abused? That is the question that needs answered.

 

Well, not really. What the government does is essentially take from the productive and hand it to the unproductive. Then they subsidize anti-social behavior. The EPA is another of the horrid acts of government that does NOTHING but destroy American jobs by making it literally impossible to run a competitive business in America. Any of the big gobment agencies is much the same. Labor relations board -- good job liberals now we can't afford to hire Americans because they can cry to the gobment the first time they get a hangnail. The EPA makes it literally impossible for a factory to be built (or a pipeline for that matter) no matter what benefits it might bring because it *might* damage the habitat of some insect that no one cares about. The FDA has made it almost impossible to bring new medicines to market because by the time you spend all those billions of dollars to test the drug to gobment satisfaction you're going to have to charge more than anyone can pay. And then the gobment accuses you of excessive profits for charging too much and tries to reimport the drug from mexico because you're evil for wanting to recoup the costs of the medicine.

You're joking right? Where in the consitution does the fed get the power to set wages? Where in the constitution does the government get the right to take MY money and hand it to people too lazy to work? Where in the constitution does the government get the right to indoctrinate students? Where in the constitution does it give the government the right to regulate businesses? For that matter where in the constitution does it say the government has any power whatsoever to regulate the environment? So much for the USSC. The USSC basicly rubber stamps federal powergrabs and makes the constitution useless.

What has the EPA done to help you grow your business? NOTHING. They only play the political games of trying to make you pay because some bleeding heart liberal loser likes rare butterflies.

Better a rusting factory and AMERICAN JOBS than a nice new Chinese factory staffed by the Chinese. And most of these so called "dangerous toxins aren't all that dangerous anyway.

 

Hardly any of its rulings actually refer to anything in the constitution itself, at least not in the way that it was originally intended.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

Here's the constitution if you want to read up.

 

thats what I was getting ready to say.Paul hates them because they are another corrupt government institution.duh.

 

I don't think the EPA is necessary for clean air and water.

 

Because the EPA is a mammoth govt regularly agency that has run amuck. Do you know that it's one reason it's so difficult for us to enforce and secure our borders? The Republicans want to change that; the Dems fight it. They complain that some Governors--namely Perry--don't want a border fence. And yet-- they know full well that a radius of 100 mile area is protected from such fence building. Due to the EPA, Endangered Species Act and others--it couldn't be done without going around all of them. IMO those agencies are used by liberals to prevent what they do not want to get done.

 

And strangely enough, increased environmental degradation didn't happen during that time. Hmmm

 

Because it's unconsitutional and corrupt. It enables more pollution than it prevents

 

Because they care even less about the environment than they do the poor.

 

The EPA kills jobs. What's not to hate?

 

So what would you suggest?

 

we already have property rights. that is sufficient. if a business pollutes my house I have the right to redress.