20% slash to federal workers. Great start.
- Thread starter EEResistable
- Start date
Why should the government overemploy people for the sake of jobs? That is no way to manage tax dollars.
That is my exact thought on govt. That is why I would prefer to cut a budget instead of cutting x amount of jobs. If a department manager can increase efficiency and not cut jobs saving the same amount of money than have at it.
Are you drunk? Go read some more of the fake news from one of the Russian outlets
That may be your experience, but it's a gross generalization that you really can't support.
Well this is just stupid
1 - it's a good idea, until you actually want or need something and then there's no support
2 - the retirement package has already been changed
3 - Its already at 62.........which is in-line with industry standards
4 - Why? How is the ACA the federal employee's fault? and if it is repealed then what?
Cannabalize EPA and Education to start off with, that will give you some extra ones that aren't doing anything productive.
Change it till 66, where most people still have to work till.
And I'd assume you are of the opinion Democrats are devoid of any such mental malady?
I dunno, having things like clean water to drink and clean air to breathe are kind of important to me...
Your anger is probably better directed at the people who make the laws...........
Gutting the EPA would have little effect on clean water or clean air. Those are the only 2 items that Congress has tasked the EPA. Cut the rest.
Who wants to drink dirty water or breathe dirty air? If we went to self monitors why would it be any worse? We pay huge water bills to our local water authority yet we can't drink that stuff they send us without using our own purification filters. We can't make water or make it disappear.
We also have no ability to make fresh air disappear...and as long as we're careful not to pollute needlessly, and make modest attempts to be as clean as we are technologically capable, the air will be fine. We don't need Leviathan orchestrating how much water our toilets flush, or when we can burn leaves outside.
Good grief.
The EPA has hurt this country tremendously over unneeded regulations. I would like to see congress pass a law that says from now on, all EPA regulations have to be approved by congress.
Tired old liberal correct speak, " I want clean water!" How about, I want an agency that realizes that people need jobs too.
I'd like to see a Law that says all EPA regulations have be proven to demonstrate how they will work, and then if that's proven, be followed by actual results before they are allowed to continue.
Incorrect. Clean air and water. Leave everything else to states. Have BLM return all the land the federal government has confiscated back to the states.
Pollution control costs money. Corporations are primarily interested in making money therefore the less they spend on pollution control the happier they are therefore environmental regulations are needed to insure compliance with environmental laws so that we can keep our air, water and land as pollution free as possible. If it makes you feel any better, most industrial companies for example collect their own samples (or use consultants) to be analyzed and reported to agencies. Of course you can make "fresh" air disappear by polluting it which is why we have environmental standards for air pollution as well. In areas where water resources are limited, water conservation practices must be observed so that there's enough water for all purposes. Tell the folks of Gatlinburg, TN that it's ok to burn outside any time you want.
Environmental regulations are usually created as a remedy to a pollution problem. They're well researched, not arbitrary.
There's no compromising with Federal agency. We need to make them accountable to the public and like the public has voted out the dems, they can get rid of the EPA through their Reps in Congress. FYI, I know you can't eliminate them, but they need to be stopped from hurting our economy to the extent they have.
So let's say we started out as a National industrial policy to do this? How would we make all air "disappear"? Doing what? How? When would it all vanish? How would we make more of it, or replace it or bring it back? what would we breathe as an alternative as we're causing the existing air to vanish? Where would that come from?
Educate us.
Where. What EPA regulation....let's make it easy...say just passed within Obama's term has been proven to have been needed and made a difference? How. Doing what? Why do we need to keep it? What difference did it make? Why does it need to be retained? What happens if it isn't?
Should be easy to answer, you just said it's being done now.
Explain.
You breathe polluted air every day though the pollutants and their concentrations vary. You could go anywhere on earth and find air pollution. The goal is to protect human health and the environment. Google can be very helpful in these matters, you can do this.
I asked you to show me how we can make air "disappear". OK, obviously you now realize that's impossible.
So let's stick with your assumption. How would we, could we, even "pollute" all of the air simultaneously?
No more fresh air to breathe. How would we do that? What happens to all of the air when we do that? How do we "replace" all of the bad air with the good air?
Illustrate.
I asked you to show me how we "make" water through our environmental policies? You linked me to an article that explains how it is created or formed in nature.
pull quote from article: "so far nobody has found a way to safely create water on Earth"
So continue your explanation to me of how our environmental policies "create" or "make" water?
I'm learning.
They don't but they prevent pollution from entering the surface or groundwater or help to reduce the pollution that's already in it.
I restate my original proposal after your valiant attempts to demonstrate our proficiency both eliminating breathable air, and creating water.
Environmental regulations first need to be proven to have a need for their establishment...ie: a demonstrated environmental hazard or danger that needs immediate remedial attention in order to avoid an environmental catastrophe (no 75 year "climate change" models based on 'projections')
Then, and only after such an environmental hazard is proven empirically to exist and such proposed immediate remedial regulations are demonstrated will make a difference ameliorating the defined obvious immediate hazard, after a short period given time for the proposal or regulation to work... a follow up study must be performed to examine the results or the performance of the proposed regulation to determine if it worked as proposed, or needs more time to finish its obvious remedial effectiveness.
If no such results are demonstrated, or the remedial effects of the proposed regulations have not been proven to be either effective or working, then they will either be adjusted if certain adjustments are needed in order to make them effective, or canceled if they either no longer are needed or proved to be ineffective.
I'd suggest we could get rid of 95% of existing gobbledygook EPA regulations if this were the SOP before passing them.
Last edited: