4 ms·

This is sort of a contentless post. Certainly the EPA performs a valid role, however that is not to say that any attempts to constrain its increasing creep of

by _red 9y ago

This is sort of a contentless post. Certainly the EPA performs a valid role, however that is not to say that any attempts to constrain its increasing creep of scope and overreach of power is automatically bad. Is it possible to find pictures from the late 60s showing pristine beautiful nature shots? Is it possible to find pictures from late 60s showing clean and tidy small town streets? Is it possible to find pictures from 2018 showing residents holding dirty water (ie. Flint, Michigan)? Is it possible to find pictures from 2018 of dirty filthy slums? Therefore, whats really the message? Let me guess....someone wants more money for their budget?

titzer 9y ago
How about the same money as last year (not a 25% cut): https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/51780/title/Proposed-Federal-Budget-Slashes-Funds-to-EPA--CDC/ https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/51780...
Tepix 9y ago
Are we on a sustainable path? Should the EPA get more money or less? Right now they are getting a 25% cut. The reduction in regulations will help big corporations, it may even create a few jobs, but it's not in the best interest of the general public, including future generations.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  > Are we on a sustainable path? Should the EPA get more money or less? Right now they are getting a 25% cut. From my perspective, everything in government should get less money. It's not so much a statement against the EPA as it is a statement that the federal government in particular is an order of magnitude too large and powerful. > it's not in the best interest of the general public, including future generations. I get where you're coming from, and sympathize with your position - but you've not supported this statement. How would cutting the EPA budget hurt us long-term? Can those effects be mitigated through other, less costly policies?

by _red 9y ago

titzer 9y ago

How about the same money as last year (not a 25% cut): https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/51780/title/Proposed-Federal-Budget-Slashes-Funds-to-EPA--CDC/ https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/51780...

Tepix 9y ago

Are we on a sustainable path? Should the EPA get more money or less? Right now they are getting a 25% cut. The reduction in regulations will help big corporations, it may even create a few jobs, but it's not in the best interest of the general public, including future generations.

LyndsySimon 9y ago
> Are we on a sustainable path? Should the EPA get more money or less? Right now they are getting a 25% cut. From my perspective, everything in government should get less money. It's not so much a statement against the EPA as it is a statement that the federal government in particular is an order of magnitude too large and powerful. > it's not in the best interest of the general public, including future generations. I get where you're coming from, and sympathize with your position - but you've not supported this statement. How would cutting the EPA budget hurt us long-term? Can those effects be mitigated through other, less costly policies?